I
I
i
I
i
i
i
i
i
i
I
Agency
     I Protection
Office of          January 1987
Ground-Water Protection (WH-550G)
Washington DC 20460    • ^.
       '  '  '"
Workshop on Guidance
for the Wellhead Protection
and Sole Source Aquifer
Demonstration Programs:

Hydrogeologic Criteria
     EPA
     813/
     1987.2

-------
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
i
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1

-------
  t'v*
  • oi."-

    vvEPA
United Stales
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of       '     January 1987
Ground Water Protection (WH-550G)
Washington DC 20460
Workshop  on Guidance
for the Wellhead Protection
and  Sole Source Aquifer
Demonstration Programs:

Hydrogeologic Criteria
                         U.S. EPA Headquarters Library
                             Mail code 3201
                         1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
                           Washington DC 20460
I
       ENVIRONMENTS PROTECTION AGENCY
       WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

-------
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
i
i
i

-------
I
I
             UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                           WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460


                              January 7,  1987
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
i
i
i
I
                                                          OFFICE OF
                                                           WATER
Dear Participants:

     Welcome, and thank you for participating in this workshop to
develop guidance for implementing the Safe Drinking Water Act
Amendments of 1986.  Enactment of these amendments instituted two
new programs to protect the ground-water resource:  the Wellhead
Protection Program (WHP) and the Sole Source Aquifer Demonstration
Program {SSA).  The Office of Ground-Water Protection at EPA
Headquarters, together with EPA regional offices, is responsible
for implementing and administering the programs.

     Among its implementation responsibilities, EPA must, by
June 1987, develop and issue to the States technical guidance
which they may use in determining the boundaries of a wellhead
protection area and guidance and rule requirements for the receipt
of Federal grant support under both the WHP and SSA programs.

     This workshop is intended to obtain a wide range of opinion
which will assist EPA in developing this guidance.  You and the
other participants of this workshop were selected to represent
the groups involved in, or otherwise affected by, ground-water
protection efforts.  Among those represented are state and local
governments, environmental groups, business and industry, other
federal agencies, and academic experts.

     The goal of this workshop is to provide a forum for these
individuals and organizations to express their opinions and
viewpoints.  I can assure you that the input you provide to EPA
as a participant of this workshop is vital to the implementation
of these programs.  EPA will use and build upon your ideas and
comments as it develops guidance.

     Again, welcome, Best wishes for a productive and interesting
workshop.

                                Very truly yours,
La
                                    rry
                                Larry Jensen
                                Assistant Administrate:
                                  for water

-------
I
1
I
I
i
I
I

-------
1
1

i

I






i

i
^p


i




i



i

I
i
t
i
i


WORKSHOP BOOK
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TOPICS
Letter to Participants
Agenda
List of Participants
I. Introduction to the Workshop

II. Background Information on the Wellhead Protection
Program and the Sole Source Aquifer Demonstration
Program
III. Criteria for Delineation of Wellhead Protection
Areas
A. Introduction
B. Definition of Criteria
C. Matrix of WHPA Criteria/Evaluation Factors
D. Guide for Team Discussion Session
IV. Methods for Delineating WHPAs
A. Introduction
B. Description of WHPA Methods
C. Matrix of WHPA Methods/Evaluation Factors
D. Guide for Team Discussion Session
V. Guide for Cross Cutting Issues Session
Appendix A: Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1986

Appendix B: SSA Congressional Conference Report
Appendix C: List of State WHPA Methods References
Appendix D: Glossary of Hydrogeologic Terminology









PAGE
ii
iii
vii
1-1



II-l

III-l
III-l
III-2
III-6
111-10
IV-l
IV-1
IV- 4
IV-8
IV- 11
V-l











-------
I
I
i
I
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
t
i
i
i
i

-------
1
i

J WORKSHOP ON
m DATE


AGENDA •
HYDROGEOLOGIC CRITERIA AND GUIDELINES I

j| Wednesday. January 21 1
6:30-8:00 p.m.
Reception •
W Thursday. January 22 I
8:30-9:00
| 9:00-9:45


9:45-10:30

I
10:30-10:45
810:45-11:30

I
11:30-11:45
|
* 11:45-1:00
V 1:00-2:30
ง2:30-4:00

1
4:00-4:15
1
4:15-5:30


1
1
Welcome to Participants 1
Background on SDWA 1
Amendments and EPA I
Implementation Efforts 1
An Overview of Methods I
and Criteria Used in the 1
U.S. for WHPA Delineation 1
BREAK 1
Presentation on Western 1
European WHPA Experiences 1
FIRST ISSUE 1
Prepare Work Groups for 1
First Issue 1
LUNCH 1
Work Groups Separate to 1
Discuss First Issue (Criteria) 1
Work Groups Convene to Make 1
Individual Presentation on 1
First Issue (Criteria) 1
SECOND ISSUE 1
Prepare Work Groups for 1
Second Issue 1
Work Groups separate to 1
Discuss Second Issue (Methods) 1

i i i 1


-------
DATE


Friday. January 23
8:30-8:45




8:45-10:00



10:00-10:15




10:15-10:45



10:45-12:15



12:15-1:15

1:15-2:45



2:45-3:15
Welcome


SECOND ISSUE (cont'd)


Presentation by Work Groups
on Second Issue (Methods)

BREAK


THIRD ISSUE


Introduce Groups to
Third Issue


Work Groups Separate to
Discuss Third Issue  (Cross-Cutting)

LUNCH


Presentation by Work Groups
on Third Issue (Cross-Cutting)

Workshop Wrap-Up; General
Discussion
                                                  I
                                                  i
                                                  i
                         IV
i
i
I
1
i
f
i
i
i
i
i
I
i
i
i

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
i
i
i
I
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
                TENATIVE LIST OF PARTICIPANTS
                    HYDROGEOLOGY WORKSHOP
Mr. Bevin Beaudet
(American Water Works Association)
Palm Beach County Water
P. 0. Box 16097
West Palm Beach, FL 33416

Mr. Richard Boardman
Associate Deputy Secretary
Office of Environmental Management
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
  Resources
P.O. Box 2063
Harrisburg, P^  17120

Dr. Steven Born
Department of Urban and
  Regional Planning
Old Music Hall
University of Wisconsin
Madison, WI  53706

Ms. Francoise Brasier
Office of Drinking Water
WH-550A
US EPA
401 fl Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460

Mr. Gary Broetzman
Director, Water Quality Control Division
Colorado Department of Health
4210 East llth Avenue
Room 320
Denver, CO 80220

Dr. Keros Cartwright
Illinois State Geological Survey
Matural Resource Building
615 East Peabody Drive
Champaign, IL 61820

Mr. Phillip J. Cherry
Delaware Dept of Natural "Resources
Division oฃ Water Resources
Ground Water Section
Supervisor, Water Supply Branch
P.O. Box 1401, 39 Kings Highway
Dover, DE 19903

-------
Dr. Rodney S. DeHan
Assistant Bureau Chief
Department of Environmental Regulation
2600 Blairstone Road
Tallahassee, FL 3230L

Mr. Jack Donohue
Division of Water Supply
Massachusetts Department of
  Environmental Quality Engineering
1 Winter Street
Boston, MA 02108

Mr. Michael Donohue
New Hampshire Department of
  Environmental Services
Water Supply and Pollution
  Control Division
P.O. Box 95
Hazen Drive
Concord, NH 03301

Ms. Jerri-Anne Garl
Chief, Office of Ground Water
Water Management Division
US EPA, Region V
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, It, 61604

Ms. Maxine Goad
New Mexico Environmental
  Improvement Division
Ground Water/Hazardous Waste Bureau
P.O. Box 968
Santa Fe, NM  87504-0963

Ms. Wendy Gordon
Natural Resources Defense Council
122 East 42nd Street
Mew York, NY 10021

Mr. Mario Hegewald
Special Assistant to
  Assistant Administrator
Office of Water
WH-556
US EPA
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20460

Mr. Bob Hilton
Assistant to Deputy CoTvnis.s ioner
Indiana Department of Environmental
  Management
105 S. Meridian Street
Indianapolis, IN 46225
I
1
I
1
1
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
i
i
ft
i

-------
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
1
i
i
i
i
i
Ms. Maurine Hlake I
National Audubon Society
645 Pennsylvania Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20003

Mr. Steven Hirsch
Office of General Counsel
LE-132S
US EPA
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460

Mr. Russell Jones
(National Agricultural Chemical Association)
Union Carbide
Agricultural Products Company
P. O. Box 12014
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709

Mr. Kevin Ksssler
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
101 South Webster
Madison, WI  53702

Mr. Bill Klemt
(National Drinking Water Advisory Council)
Texas Water Commission
P.O. Box 13087
Capital Station
Austin, TX  78711

Dr. Charles Kreitler
Texas Bureau of Economic Geology
University of Texas
University Station
Austin, TX 78712

Mr. Bruce Leavitt
(American Mining Congress)
Consolidation Coal Company
1800 Washington Road
Pittsburgh, PA 15241

Dr. Jay Lehr
National Water Well Association
500 West Wilson Bridge Road
Worthington, OH 43085

Mr. Matt Lorber
Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances
T3-769C
US EPA
401 :\ Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460

-------
Mr. Stewart McKenzie
(National Association of Counties)
Montgomery County Council
  Office Building
100 Maryland Avenue
Rockville, MD  20850

Mr. Charles Maddox
Division of Hygiene
Texas Department of Health
1100 West 49th Street
Austin, TX  78753
                 Ground Water
                 Division
Mr. John Mai leek
Chief, Office of
Water Management
US EPA Region II
Room 805
26 Federal Plaza
New York, MY  10273

Mr, Robert E. Malpass
(Association of State and Territorial
  Solid Waste Management Officials)
Chief of the Bureau of Water Supply
  and Special Programs
Department of Health and Environmental Control
2600 Bull Street
Columbia, SC 29201

Mr. George Matthess
Institute of Geology and Paleontology
University of Kiel
Olshausenstrasse 40/60
2300 Kiel, West Germany

Mr. Bob Mendoza
Director, Office of Ground Water
Water Management Division
US EPA Region I
Room 2113
JFK Federal Building
Boston, MA  02203

Mr. Tom Merski
Chief, Office of Ground Water
Water Management Division
US EPA Region III
841 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia, P^ 19107

Mr. Louis Mirando
(National Association of Water Companies)
Water Technical Committee Chairman
Long Island Water Corporation
Lynbrook, NY 111563
I
1
I
I
1
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
f
i
i
I
l
i
l

-------
I
*
f
^


I

I

1

I

I

I

I

1

I

I

I

I

I

I
Mr. Larry Mize
Utah Bureau of Drinking Water
P.O. Box 16690
Salt Lake City, UT 84116-0690

Mr. Erik Olson
National Wildlife Federation
1325 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20005

Mr. Bill Parrish
Division of Water Supply
Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene
Office of Environmental Programs
201 West Preston street, 2nd Floor-
Bait iniore, MD 21201

Mr. Gene Patten
Unitad States Geological Service
Office of Ground Water
411 National Center
12201 Sunrise Valley Drive
Reston, VA  22092

Mr. Robert Paul
West Virginia Health Department
1800 Washington Street, East
Charleston, wy  25305

Ms. Hope Pillsbury
Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation
PM-220
US SPA
401 M Street SW
Washington, DC 20460

Mr. Toe Power
Chief, Water Supply Branch
Alabama Department of Environmental Management
1751 Federal Drive
Montgomery, AL 36130

Ms. Janet Rosati
Environmental Protection Specialist
Office of Ground Water (W-l-1)
US EPA Region IX
215 Fremont Street
San Francisco, CA 94105

Mr. Charles Rossoll
Division of Health and Engineering
State House Station 10
Augusta, MR  04333

-------
Mr. Geary Schlndel
Kentucky Division of Water
Ground Water Section
18 Re illy Road
Frankfort, KY 40601

Mr, Gene Schmidt
(American Petroleum Institute)
Amoco Corporation
P.O. Box 591
Tulsa, OK 74102

Mr. Harold Seifert
Division of Engineering
Arkansas Department of Health
4315 West Markham
Little Rock, AR 72205-3367

Mayor Frank Sheerill
National league of Cities
P.O. Box 565
Social Circle, GA 32079

Mr. Rhey Soloman
Hydrogeologic Research Program Manager
Watershed and Air Division
Forest Service
Room 1210 RT-E
P.O. Box 96090
Washington, DC  20013-6093

Dr. Wa11 Spofford
Resources for the Future
1616 P Street, NW
Washington, DC 20036

Mr. James Tripp
Environmental Defense Fund
122 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10010

Mr. Fred van Alstyne, Chief
Geotechnical Services Section
New York Department of Environmental Conservation
50 Wolf Road
Albany, NY 12233-3500

Mr. Hubert G. van Waegeningh
National Institute of Public Health
   and Environmental Hygiene
?. 0. Box 150
Le idschenda-n
2260 AD The Netherlands
I
f
I
I
1
t
I
I
1
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I

-------
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Mr. Jerry Vineyard
Public Drinking Water Program
Missouri Department of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 176
Jefferson City, MO 65102

Mr. John Voytek
Ohio Department of Natural Resources
Fountain Square
Columbus, OH  43224

Mr. Mike Weber
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Mail Stop 623SS
Washington, DC  20555

Mr. Bill Wiley
Arizona Department oE Health Services
2005 North Central
Phoenix, AZ 85004

-------
I
1
1
I
I
I
I
I
I

-------
1
I
i
i
l
i
i
I
l
i
i
l
l
i
i
i
                           This document was compiled by:
•                      U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                          Office of Ground-Water Protection
—                              Marian Mlay, Director
                                with assistance from:

                                    DAMES & MOORE

                                         and

I
                            Booz-Allen and Hamilton, Inc.
                            under contract no. 68-03-3304

-------
1
I
i
i
l
i
i
l
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i

-------
I
I
I
c
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
             I,
INTRODUCTION TO THE WORKSHOP

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
                            CHAPTER I
                I.  INTRODUCTION TO THE WORKSHOP

     Ground-water protection has received increasing emphasis
over the past decade as an important environmental responsibility
for the states and the federal government.  Some states and
regions have been active in ground-water protection for years.
In all areas of the country, however, the decade has brought a
heightened awareness of the vulnerability of ground-water to
threats from a myriad of sources.

     In 1984, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) took
two significant steps to improve and coordinate programs at the
federal level that affect ground water and to assist the states
in their efforts.  First, EPA established the Office of Ground-
Water Protection (OGWP) as the focus of ground-water policy
coordination and planning for the Agency.  OGWP is responsible
for working with the states to develop and implement ground-water
protection strategies, for coordinating EPA ground-water policies
and guidelines, enhancing ground-water data management systems .
and capabilities, and initiating and conducting special studies
of ground-water contamination, among other tasks.

     Also in 1984, after several years of development, EPA
adopted a formal "Ground-Water Protection Strategy" which set
forth goals and objectives for the Agency and described the
Agency's management approach to this field.  The strategy
recognized the need to enhance protection of ground-water quality
through improved programs at the Federal and State levels, and
acknowledges the States'  principal role in resource protection in
contrast to EPA's statutory authorities related to specific
sources of contamination and contaminants.  It called for:  (a)
an EPA policy of differential protection based on use, value and
vulnerability of the resource; (b) greater policy consistency and
coordination among ground-water related programs; (c) greater
attention to sources of contamination of national concern; and
(d) support to states in ground-water strategy development and
implementation.

     Nearly every State has underway or is completing a state
ground-water protection strategy, in part with the support of EPA
grants (CWA/106).  About half of the States have or are
establishing their own ground-water classification systems or
other approaches to providing protection.


     Last summer, the President signed the Safe Drinking Water
Act Amendments of 1986 (SDWAA) into law.  The Amendments include
two new ground-water provisions:  the Wellhead Protection (WHP)
Program and the Sole Source Aquifer (SSA) Demonstration Program.
Both are- designed to support development of state and local
efforts to protect ground-water resources.  Included, as

-------
                              1-2
Appendix I, is a copy of the statutory language creating these
new programs.  In addition, that portion of the Congressional
conference report which describes the programs is included as
Appendix II.
I
I
I
     A new Section 1427 of the Act establishes a demonstration
program to protect critical aquifer protection areas (CAPA)            •
within designated sole source aquifers.  The goal of the               •
demonstration programs, which can be developed by any state or
local political subdivision that identifies a CAPA within its
jurisdiction, is to demonstrate innovative technologies and            •
control mechanisms that can be used to ensure the maintenance of       •
ground-water quality for the protection of human health,
environment, and ground water.                                         •

     The second new program, Section 1428 of the Act, is designed
to protect the wellhead areas of all public water systems from         —
contaminants that may have adverse human health effects.               •
Wellhead protection areas are defined as any surface or                ™
subsurface areas adjacent to public water supply wellheads
through which containments may move and reach the wellfield.           ft

      These two programs represent major new responsibilities for
OGWP.  In its continuing efforts to assist States in developing a      ป
comprehensive strategic approach to ground-water protection, EPA       •
will, to the extent possible, support state efforts to                 *
incorporate these new ground-water programs into their
approaches.                                                            •

     Both programs are similar in some respects--they are
voluntary programs for which some federal support may be               m
available, and both are designed to help keep ground water free        •
from contamination and to protect human health.  However,
differences exist in both the goals and expected implementation
of each program.  Each program is discussed in more detail in          I
Chapter 2.                                                             9

The Workshop                                                           •

     Since passage of the Amendments last June, OGWP has been
actively working with a number of experts both within and outside      —
of EPA to help implement the new law.  In soliciting this              •
assistance, EPA recognizes and endorses the primary role of the        ™
states in ground-water protection.  Pour technical committees
have been established to assist OGWP in this effort: a SSA             ft
designation committee; a hydrological criteria committee; a            V
management protection plan committee; and a grant guidelines
committee.                                                             M

     As noted above, ground-water protection is primarily a state      *
prerogative.  Accordingly, EPA intends to ensure that the
guidances developed will provide states and localities maximum
flexibility in developing the programs while ensuring that the
goals and objectives of the law are met.

-------
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
                              1-3

     As part of its information gathering process, OGWP  is
conducting two workshops during January  1987.  The goal  of the
workshops is to assist OGWP in developing guidances, which EPA
intends to publish for the WHP program by June 1987.  The
guidances will be used by states and municipalities to develop
their programs and to apply for .federal grants.

     The primary focus of the workshops is directed at the WHP
program, rather than the SSA program.  Clearly the two are
related and much of the information gathered at the workshops
will be applicable to the development of guidelines and  material
for each.  Still, EPA is interested in focusing the attention of
these workshops on the wellhead protection program.

     The first workshop will focus on the guidance that  should be
provided to the states in their efforts to delineate wellhead
protection areas around various wellfields.  As described in
Subsection 1428(e) of the statute, EPA may consider
several factors such as the radius of influence around a
wellfield, the depth of drawdown of the water table by the
wellfield at any given point, the time and rate of travel as well
as the distance from the wellfield of potential contaminants, or
other factors affecting the likelihood of contaminants reaching
the well and wellfield.

     The second workshop will focus on those elements of the
state program that are enumerated in the statute to ensure the
contamination of public water supply wells is avoided.   The
workshop is designed to help EPA decide, as required by  the
statute, how to judge whether a state program adequately meets
the goals of the law.  The workshop will deal with four  areas:
the definition of an "adequate state program" as defined in the
statute; identification and assessment of potential contaminants
and their sources; the management and control of such
contaminants; and the need to coordinate the roles of state and
local agencies in the design and implementation of the program.

Overview

     In developing an "adequate" state program that will be
eligible for receipt of federal funds, states will have  to go
through a number of steps as shown diagramatically in Figure
1-1.  Key elements of these stages will be discussed and
evaluated in the two workshops.

     Both workshops will consider the overall question of what
makes an adequate program and the relative roles and
responsibilities of state and local governments in developing and
implementing a plan.

     The first workshop will also deal with the technical
questions concerning the designation of the wellhead protection
area (WHPA)  around public water supply wells.  The second
workshop will address more programmatic concerns including the

-------
                               1-4


 definition of contaminants and their sources, an inventory  of  the
 sources,  an assessment of the potential threat posed by  the
 sources,  and any necessary controls or other management
 approaches that have to be imposed to ensure protection  of  the
 WHPA.

                               FIGURE I - 1
                        Major Stages in Developing and
                      Implementing a State WHP Program
            PROGRAM
              DESIGN-
                       Definition
                     of an'Aaeouate'
                       Program
Oesigna
WHP

lion of
*res



Define
Contaminants



Define I
Sources |
i
!


Inventory
:ne Sources


Assessment of
Potential
Threat


Management
and
Control
                      Institutional
                     Considerations
Workbook Outline
     Chapter  2  provides background information on the  two
programs and  a  review of current state activities in wellhead
              The  remaining chapters address the major  issues  for
              Each issue is summarized and several options  are
protection
discussion.
presented along  with some advantages and disadvantages  of  each.



Workshop Structure

     The workshop will contain four key elements, as  follows:

1 .   Full-Group  Discussion—Review of the Working Papers

     Full-group,  or  plenary, discussions will take place  in  the
main meeting  room at several points during the workshop.   The
purpose of  these discussions will be to identify and  discuss the
principal issues presented in this workbook as well as  other
issues raised  by the workshop participants in preparation  for
more detailed  discussions that occur among individual teams.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
                              1-5
2.  Team Discussions
     At several points during the workshop, the participants will
break into smaller teams.  Each team will be expected to
independently evaluate options and develop a preliminary position
on the topic assigned.  In so doing participants will be asked to
discuss'and review a number of options that SPA could use in
developing its guidance.  Moreover, participants will be
encouraged to develop new options on their own.

3.   Brief Team Progress Reports

     At the conclusion of each of these team working sessions,
each team will present to the full working group approximately a
five-minute report of its discussion and conclusions.  The
purpose of these reports will be to provide an indication to the
full group of each team's direction and, to the extent achieved,
any recommendations to the EPA.
4.
Final Discussion
     After the team presentations, the participants will discuss
the issues raised and the team recommendations made.  The
workshop will not attempt to reach a consensus on individual
issues.  Its focus will be on obtaining a full discussion of
issues and options for EPA's subsequent use in developing the
guidance.

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I

-------
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
I
I
                       II.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON THE WELLHEAD PROTECTION
       PROGRAM AND THE SOLE SOURCE AQUIFER
              DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM

-------


-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
                             CHAPTER II
      I.  BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON THE WELLHEAD PROTECTION
    PROGRAM AND THE SOLE SOORCE AQUIFER DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM

     On June 19, 1986, President Reagan signed into law the Safe
Drinking Water Act Amendments (SDWAA) of 1986.  Included in this
legislation were two programs that call for a new role for the
federal government in ground-water protection.

     While ground-water protection is traditionally the
responsibility of state and local governments, in recent years
the Congress has shown increased interest in helping to address
the problem from the national level.  Both new programs are
designed to strengthen state and local efforts to address present
ground-water problems and to help eliminate future ones.

     During consideration of these, and other, amendments to the
Safe Drinking Water Act, the Administration expressed concerns
about the potential Federal intrusion into highly localized
decisions such as those involving land use policy.  The final
committee conference report (See Appendix II) addressed some of
these concerns and spelled out the Congress1  view on the range
and scope of the new programs.  The report states, inter alia,
that:

     •  A state's existing authority to manage, regulate, protect
        or identify ground-water resources not be limited,  e.g.,
        a State may identify significant recharge areas not
        contiguous to a well(s)  in defining WHPAs.

     •  The program be structured to afford States maximum
        flexibility in formulating a protection strategy, e.g.,
        not required to adopt a regulatory program.

     •  States can be expected to take a wide variety of
        approaches to wellhead protection and each could develop
        a different approach for the whole state and within
        different protection areas.

     •  EPA should use its disapproval power  judiciously.  The
        only penalty for State failure to submit a plan is  not
        receiving grants.

     As part of its efforts to implement the  new law,  EPA intends
to produce four documents  by June,  1987.

     •  A technical guidance,  as required by  the statute, for
        states to use in determining the extent of an appropriate
        wellhead protection area

     •  A grants guidance  for  states to use in developing state
        wellhead protection programs and in applying for grants
        under the Act

-------
                             II - 2
STATE PROGRAMS TO ESTABLISH
WELLHEAD PROTECTION AREAS (WHPAs)
          Siting considerations for all new wells

          Procedures for public participation
                                                                       I
                                                                       I
     •  A rule required by statute that will establish criteria        I
        for identifying critical aquifer protection areas              •
        (CAPA's) eligible for funding consideration under the
        sole source aquifer demonstration program, and                 •

     •  A guidance that states and localities can use to develop
        sole source aquifer demonstration programs and to apply        _
        for a grant under provisions of the law                        I
                                                                       I
     Under Section 1428 of the new Amendments, States shall
develop programs to protect the wellhead areas of all public           ซ
water systems within their jurisdiction from contaminants that         •
may have any adverse effects on the health of humans.                  *
WHP Grant Guidance                                                     fl

     In order to obtain a WHP grant, a state must submit a
program to EPA that is "adequate" to protect the WHP's from            m
contamination.  The Act specifies that the following elements be       •
incorporated into state programs.

       •  Duties of State and local agencies and public water          •
          supply systems in implementing the program                   •

       •  Delineation of wellhead protection areas for each
          public well

       •  Identification of all potential anthropogenic sources        _
          within the protection area                                   •

       •  A program that contains, as appropriate: technical
          assistance; financial assistance; implementation of          JB
          control measures; education; training; and                   •}
          demonstration projects to protect the wellhead areas
          from contaminants                                            M

       •  Contingency plans for alternative water supplies in          *
          case of contamination
                                                                       I
                                                                       I

                                                                       I
     This program must be submitted to the Administrator of EPA
within three years after enactment.  The State is expected to          ^
implement this program within two years after it has been              •
approved by the Administrator.  The only impact on a State for         ™
failing to participate in the Wellhead Protection Program,
however, is the loss of related funds.                                 •
                                                                       I

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
                             II - 3

     The statute is structured to allow States maximum
flexibility in formulating their programs.  The Administrator
will disapprove a program only if it is not adequate to protect
public water wells from contamination.  Any disapproval must be
made within nine months of submittal and should a program be
disapproved the State must modify the program and resubmit its
plan within six months.

     The Administrator shall make 50-90 percent matching grants
to the State for costs for the development and implementation of
the state program.  The Congress has authorized $20 million for
each of FY 1987 and 1988 and $35 million for each FY 1989 through
1991 for these purposes.

     Each State which receives funds under this section must
submit a biennial State report describing its progress in
implementing the program and any amendments to the program
resulting from new wells.  The Act further specifies that all
Federal programs are subject to and will comply with the
provisions of a state program.  However, the President may exempt
any potential sources of pollution from the law if he determines
that the exemption serves the paramont interest of the United
States.

WHP Technical Guidance

     One of the requirements of an adequate state program is that
it contains a determination of wellhead protection areas for each
public water supply.  The term "wellhead protection area" is
defined in the SDWA as "the surface and subsurface area
surrounding a water well or wellfield, supplying a public water
system, through which contaminants are reasonably likely to move
toward and reach such water well or wellfield."  The precise
delineation of the area is not specified in the law, but is left
to be determined by the individual State.

     EPA is required to issue technical guidance by June 1987
which States may use in determining the extent of the WHP area.
According to the statute, the guidance may consider factors such
as radius of influence around a well or wellfield, the depth of
drawdown of the water table by such well or wellfield at any
given point, the time and rate of travel of various contaminants
in various hydrologic conditions, and distance from the well or
wellfield.

     The terminology used to describe wellhead protection areas
is exhibited in Figure II-1 on the following page.  In general, a
wellhead protection area represents a portion of an aquifer which
includes all or part of the area of influence around a pumping
well and sometimes portions of upgradient recharge areas or
portions of the surrounding aquifer as well.  The "area of
influence" is the area surrounding a pumping or recharging well

-------
                               II - 4


within  which the potentiometric surface has  been  changed.  The
"recharge area" is that  permeable layer through which
precipitation and surface  water may percolate  to  the aquifer and
eventually reach the well.   It is important  to remember that the
Amendments allow considerable flexibility  to the  States in
defining  which portion of  this theoretical model  would apply in
specific  cases.

     Some governments have  defined wellhead  protection areas to
be only hundreds or a few  thousand feet from the  well.  Other
governments have defined them to be a mile or  several miles from
the well.   Wellhead protection areas are fairly common in Western
European  countries such  as  Germany, Switzerland,  and the
Netherlands and are being  used in parts of the United States such
as Dade County/ Florida  and Cape Cod, Massachusetts.
                       FIGURE II - 1
      DRAWDOWN CONTOURS
                           Area of Contribute
                         p I 10 Wellhead
ESP] Area of Influence

|  j Additional Recnarge Arซj

[  ] Remaining Ponto" 0< Aquifer

   General/red Ground-water Flow Directions
                 TERMINOLOGY FOR WELLHEAD
                 PROTECTION AREA DELINEATION
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
                             II - 5

SOLE SOURCE AQUIFER  (S5A) DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM

     This new Section, 1427 of the Act, builds upon the existing
Sole Source Aquifer program, Sec. 1427(e) of the SDWA.  it is a
demonstration program establishing critical aquifer protection
areas (CAPA) within designated sole source aquifers to ensure the
maintenance of ground-water quality for the protection of human
health, environment and ground-water.  The purpose of any
demonstration is to assess the impact of programs on ground-water
quality and to identify protection measures that are found to be
effective in protecting ground-water resources.  EPA must develop
by June 1987 a rule including hydrogeological, social, and
economic criteria that will be used to identify critical aquifer
protection areas.  Finally, using information obtained by the
states on their programs, EPA must provide to Congress by
September 30, 1990, a report assessing the accomplishments of the
demonstration program.

     Any State or local government,  municipality or other
political subdivision which identifies a CAPA over which it has
jurisdiction may apply to the EPA Administrator to have that area
selected for the demonstration program.  The Governor must be a
co-applicant. An area can be defined as a CAPA if it is a
designated sole source aquifer or is part of a sole source
aquifer for which an application and designation has been
received and approved within twenty-four months of enactment and
meets CAPA criteria.  Designated SSAs with an approved area-wide
ground-water quality plan under section 208 of the Clean Water
Act as of the date of enactment are  defined as CAPAs under the
statute.

     An applicant for a demonstration program approval must
prepare or complete several activities including the development
of a comprehensive management plan for the proposed critical
aquifer protection area (CAPA).  This plan must contain the
following:

     •  A map detailing the boundary of the critical aquifer
        protection area

     •  Existing and potential  point and non-point sources of
        ground-water contamination

     •  An assessment of the relationship between activities on
        the land surface and ground-water quality

     •  Proposed actions and management practices to prevent
        adverse ground-water quality impacts

     •  Identification of the authority adequate to implement the
        plan,  estimates of costs,  and sources of matching funds

-------
                             II - 6
I
I
     An applicant can include optional components in the               •
management plan including an assessment of the quality of              P
existing ground-water recharged through the area and a
comprehensive statement of land use management.  If an applicant       •
has an approved ground-water quality management plan at the time       •
of enactment under Section 208 of the CWA this can be submitted        *
in place of the comprehensive management plans.  During the
development of the plan the applicant is required to hold public       B
hearings and consult with all affected governmental entities.          m

     The Administrator must approve any application received           •
within 120 days based on a determination that the application          |
meets the definition of a critical aquifer protection area and
meets the objectives of the sections.  Should the application be
rejected it may be modified and resubmitted.                           •

     If the demonstration program application is approved the
Administrator may enter into a cooperative agreement with the          •
applicant to establish a demonstration program.  The applicant         |
may receive 50 percent matching grants for both the development
and implementation of the program.  However, the total amount of       ซ
the grant cannot exceed $4 million per year per aquifer.  The          •
program has been authorized $10 million for FY 1987, $15 million       •
for FY 1988, and $17.5 million for each of the three fiscal years
1989 through 1991.                                                     •

     The State must prepare a report assessing the impact the
program on ground-water quality and identify those measures found      g|
to be effective in protecting ground water.  A report is due from      •
the State to EPA by December 31, 1989.  EPA must submit a com-         m
bined report to the Congress by September 30, 1990.
                                                                       I

                                                                       I

                                                                       I

                                                                       I

                                                                       I

                                                                       I

                                                                       I

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
                                II - 7

           CURRENT STATE ACTIVITIES IN WELLHEAD PROTECTION

     Within the past five years most states have initiated ground
water protection programs.  The structure and scope of these
programs is variable and reflects differing demographic, political and
hydrogeological conditions.

     A handful of states and municipalities have developed
wellhead protection programs as part of an overall ground-water
protection program.  The main focus of these programs is the
delineation of wellhead or recharge protection areas within which land
use controls are often imposed to protect water supply wells.

     Numerous methods have been developed to delineate these
protection areas.  Six of the most common techniques used in the
U.S. and in Western Europe in these delineations are listed in
Figure II-2.

                FIGURE I1-2 WHPA DELINEATION METHODOLOGY
                 CRITERIA, AND USE RELATIONSHIPS
            METHOD

1 .  Arbitrary Fixed Radius -
    A circle of standardized
    dimensions having little to
    no hydrogeologic basis.

2.  Calculated Fixed Radius -
    A circle of standardized
    dimensions determined
    mathematically with
    hydrogeologic basis.

3.  Simplified Variable Shapes -
    Standardized recharge areas
    derived from analytical
    calculations.

4.  Analytical Flow Model -
    A mathematical determination
    of the area in which ground-
    water contributes to a
    pumping well.

5.  Geologic/Geomorphic - An area
    defined by flow boundaries
    detected through geologic
    field study and observation.
    Numerical Flow/Transport Model
    A computerized approximation
    to the solution of
    differential equations (e.g.,
    ground-water flow and/or
    solute transport).

   or being considered
CRITERIA
RELIED ON

Distance
Distance
Time of Travel
SELECTED
LOCATIONS
WHERE USED*

Nebraska
Florida
Edgartown, MA
Duxbury, MA

Florida
Time of Travel
Drawdown
Drawdown
Physical Features
Physical Features
Time of Travel
Drawdown
England
Cape Cod, MA
Duxbury, MA
Edgartown, MA
West Germany
Holland

Vermont
Midstate Reg.
Planning Agen.,
 CT
Duxbury, MA

Dade Co., FL
Broward Co.,FL
Palm Beach, FL

-------
                             II - 8

     The methods range in sophistication from those which can be
State of Florida
I
I
applied simply by non-technicians (e.g., Fixed Arbitrary Radius)        •
to very complex methods which require a highly trained, technical
specialist (e.g., Numerical Flow/Transport Model).  Each has
inherent strengths and limitations which must be considered in         •
method selection and program implementation.  The less                 •
sophisticated forms can be easily applied and are relatively
simple to administer.  They are, however, less likely to               •
reproduce actual conditions.  They may therefore provide               p
"inadequate" or "excessive" protection in different settings.
More sophisticated methods more closely reproduce actual               —
conditions, however, they are more expensive to implement and          •
more complex to administer.  Thus, certain tradeoffs or method         •
combinations may be required when designing WHPA programs in
order to adequately define the area to be protected.                   •

     A brief review of wellhead protection activities in selected
states follows.  While not exhaustive, this survey will give           .
workshop participants an indication of what is already being done      •
at the state and local level in wellhead protection.                   —
I
     Florida's state and county governments have some of the most
sophisticated ground-water protection program in the nation.  The      m
state has also proposed amendments to Chapter 17-3 of the Florida      |
Administrative Code that would establish a wellhead protection
program for highly vulnerable aquifers.  The program would
require protection zones around wellheads in which land use            •
controls would be used to restrict activities that could               •
potentially contaminate the ground-water supply.

     The proposed law establishes two protection zones around          |
major public community drinking water supplies  (with an average
daily withdrawal of at least 100,000 gallons of ground-water).         —
The zones are defined as two concentric areas around the major         •
public water supply well(s) or wellfield(s) of 200 feet and five       "
years ground-water travel time respectively.

     Discharges into the ground-water from storm water                 B
facilities, underground storage facilities, underground
transportation pipes and other sources are subject to varying          M
degrees of control depending on their proximity to the wellhead.       •

     The proposed law, for example, prohibits new discharges and
new installations within the 200 foot zone of protection.  Within      •
the five year zone of protection, new discharges from several          •
types of facilities are subject to varying levels of control and
monitoring requirements.  New discharge of industrial waste that       tt
contains hazardous constituents is prohibited and new discharge        |
of treated domestic waste effluent is allowed provided a number
of conditions are met.                                                 _
                                                                       I

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
                             II - 9
Dade County, Florida
     Dade County has developed a comprehensive wellhead
protection program.  The County's program consists of five
elements:  water management, water and wastewater treatment, land
use policy, environmental regulation and enforcement, and public
awareness and involvement.  The program consists of an array of
prohibitions, restrictions, permit requirements, land use tools
and management controls designed to protect all of Dade County's
public water supply wells from contamination~"B"y* the approximately
900 substances the county has identified as hazardous.  Features
of the county's program include:

        •  Delineation of recharge areas around wellfields, using
           computer modeling

        •  An array of restrictions applied within designated
           wellfield protection zones. Examples include

              No new activities involving hazardous materials

              Annual permitting and inspection of all
              non-residential uses

           -  Density restrictions within protection zones

              Expedited sewering of unsewered protection areas

              Expedited clean-up of known areas of contamination

        •  Information programs to educate the public concerning
           the importance and methods of protecting drinking
           water

        •  Treatment programs to adequately purify drinking water
           (including air stripping of volatile organics) and for
           safe disposal of wastewater and other wastes.
           Clean-ups of known sources of contamination are
           included

        •  A water management program, including canal
           construction, to protect wellfield recharge areas from
           existing contamination, and a monitoring program to
           verify the results

        •  A regulatory program including extensive permitting
           and inspection of all non-residential activities in
           wellfield areas plus extensive design criteria for
           development

        •  A land use control program prohibiting or limiting
           certain land uses in proximity to wellfields as a
           function of hydraulic travel time.

-------
                             II - 10

Furthermore,' Dade County maintains a computerized inventory of
contaminant sources and issues approximately 10,000 operating
permits per year to recognized, non-residential, users within the
delineated wellfield protection zones.

Massachusetts

     Massachusetts implements its wellhead protection program
through the Aquifer Land Aquisition Program (ALA).  The goals of
the program are to help local officials define the primary water
recharge areas around public water supply wells, to work with
local officials to properly address land uses within the recharge
areas of these wells, and to reimburse eligible applicants for
land aquired in the recharge area for water supply protection
purposes.  The program encourages a mix of strategic land
aquisition and effective land use controls to achieve water well
protection.

     As part of the program the Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Quality Engineering (DEQE) has defined 3 zones of
contribution that compose the total recharge areas to a public
well.  Theoretically these 3 zones constitute the geographic area
in which land uses may impact the drinking water supply well.

        •  Zone 1, the 400' radius or other designated area
           surrounding a water supply well, must be in compliance
           with DEQE Drinking Water Regulation (310 CMR 22.00)

        •  Zone II is that area of an aquifer which contributes
           water to a well under the most severe recharge and
           pumping conditions that can be realistically
           anticipated.  It is bounded by the ground-water
           divides which result from pumping the well and by the
           edge of the aquifer with less permeable materials such
           as till and bedrock.  At some locations, streams and
           lakes may form recharge boundaries.

        •  Zone III is that land area beyond the area of Zone II
           from which surface water and ground water drain into
           Zone II.  The surface drainage area as determined by
           topography is commonly coincident with the
           ground-water drainage area and will be used to
           delineate Zone III.  In some locations, where surface
           and ground-water drainage are not coincident, Zone III
           shall consist of both the surface drainage and the
           ground-water drainage areas.

     The delineation and management of these 3 zones forms the
basis of a competitive ALA grant program through which local
governments compete to obtain funds from the state to purchase
land for water well protection purposes.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
                             11-11

     The Commonwealth has restricted the reimbursement for land
purchases to Zone II.  The rationale for this decision was that
Zone II areas consist of relatively permeable surficial deposits
and represent the area of the municipality in which land uses
have the greatest potential for adversely impacting the local
water well(s).  Zone I was eliminated from the reimbursement
scheme because under Massachusetts law the water supplier is
already required to control land use within the 400 foot radius
surrounding the well.

     The program requires applicants to supply four major
categories of information:  aquifer/water supply information,
land use information, resource protection plans, and land
aquisition information.  Under the first category, Zones I, II
and III must be delineated and mapped.  Any pump tests or
modelling used to delineate zones must be documented.

     Some level of land use information must be supplied for all
three zones.  All major land use activities such as commercial,
residential, agricultural, and industrial uses in Zone II must be
mapped and public transportation and corridors identified.  For
areas in Zone III, only those land use activities that pose
significant threats to ground water such as hazardous waste
sites, surface impoundments, landfills, auto junkyards,
underground storage tanks, salt storage sheds, and sand and
gravel operations that occur in the zone, need be documented.

     A water resource protection strategy that identifies
existing and/or proposed land use controls designed to protect
the supplies must be included in the package on the suggested
land and/or easement purchase.  The state uses this information
to determine whether there is a sound basis for the locality
aquiring the land and whether the town will indeed be able to
complete the land aquisition should an award be granted.

     All applications are ranked and prioritized based on two
major criteria: the value and use of the resource and the degree
of resource protection that can be expected from the proposed
water protection strategy.

Vermont

     The state is in the process of developing a state wide
wellhead protection program.  As part of this program, the Agency
for Environmental Conservation is developing regulations that
will be used to map the cone of influence, the primary recharge
areas and the secondary recharge areas of water wells in Vermont.
These maps will be used by AEC and other regulatory agencies in
their permitting activities.

-------
                             II - 12

     One tool currently available" to state regulatory agencies in
making management decisions are the existing maps of recharge
areas or Aquifer Protection Areas that were delineated in the
Vermont Aquifer Protection Area (APA) Project in the 1970's.  The
APA project resulted in 209 individual APA's located in 104 of
Vermont's towns.  These APAs are defined as the land surface area
that encompasses the recharge/ collection, transmission, and
storage zones for a town's well or spring.

     Eight categories of APAs were delineated based on
hydrogeological factors:

        •  Wells in unconfined and leaky unconsolidated aquifers
           with available engineering pump tests.

        •  Wells in unconfined and leaky unconsolidated aquifers
           without engineering pump tests.

        •  Wells in confined unconsolidated aquifers.

        •  Bedrock wells, using an infiltration model

        •  Bedrock wells, using a leakage model

        •  Springs in unconsolidated material and at the
           interface between unconsolidated material and bedrock,
           with high relief in the upgradient direction

        •  Springs in unconsolidated material and at the
           interface between unconsolidated material and bedrock,
           with low relief in the ungradient direction

        •  Springs emanating from bedrock

There are no regulations associated with mapped APAs but existing
state regulatory programs use APAs to flag areas needing special
consideration during the review process on development
applications.

Suropean/Experience

     At least eleven European countries have developed some form
of wellhead protection concept, with West Germany and the
Netherland having the most extensive experience in this area.

     In both countries, the first protective zone lies
immediately around the wellhead, with a secondary zone
representing the distance that ground-water will travel in 50
(West Germany) or 60 (Netherlands) days.  This second zone is
designed to protect the well from microorganisms.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
                             II - 13

     Each country then has a "water protection" area, comparable
to the WHPA boundaries seen in the United States.  In West
Germany this zone extends to 2 kilometers from the well (until
aquifer boundaries are reached) while in the Netherlands, the
"protection zone" extends to 10 and 25 year travel times.  These
correspond approximately to distances of 800 meters and 1200
meters from the wells.  Finally, an outermost zone is drawn,
in each country, to the recharge area boundary.  Within these
zones, restrictions are imposed on a number of activities
including, but no limited to, waste disposal sites, the transport
and storage of hazardous chemicals, wastewater disposal, and the
application or leachable pesticides.  The degree of restriction
decreases as the distance from the wellhead increases.

-------

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
E
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
        CHAPTER III

CRITERIA FOR DELINEATION OP
 WELIHEAD PROTECTION AREAS

-------
1
I
I
I

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
s
i
i
i
                           CHAPTER III

             CRITERIA REQUIRED IN DELINEATING WHPA's

A.   introduction
     Many conditions exist which control the manner, rate and
volume of ground-water movement in the earth.  These conditions
greatly influence the amount of water that can be pumped from a
well, the impact a pumping well may have on local water
resources, the characteristics of recharge to a wellhead, or the
extent to which a contaminant might be carried by a ground-water
flow system.  It is necessary to identify the interrelated
criteria on which these conditions are based.  This must be done
before we can develop methodology to determine "adeguate"
protective distances around producing wells.  Thusf in developing
a WHPA programs, an initial step is to evaluate the various
criteria that will ultimately be used to provide the basis for
boundary determinations.  It will be necessary to consider which
types of criteria might be specified, should minimum thresholds
be set for the criteria and then, what methods should be used to
translate the criteria to "on-the-ground" WHPA boundaries.

     The Agency's guidance on delineation approaches must, by
statute, recognize a wide range of hydrogeologic settings.  A
comprehensive wellhead protection program would include the
delineation of some geographical area across which monitoring,
source identification, and control strategies would be applied.
While the States need not use the guidance in designing or
implementing their programs, the Agency must still decide if the
States' approach meets the overall "standard" in the Amendments.
     This chapter is divided into three remaining sections.
first two provide background information on WHPA criteria,
The
 i
 i
                                         III-l

-------
whereas, the final section will be used to focus team
discussions.
B.
Definition of Criteria
     For simplicity, "criteria" in this workshop identify those
hvdrocfeoloqic factors which must be considered in establishing a
boundary line of protection around a well or wellfield.  These
criteria are usually related to an overall program goal, examples
of which are depicted in Figure III-3.

     The most common criteria available or presently used in the
United States and in Western Europe to delineate WHPAs involve
combinations of:  1) Distance; 2) Drawdown; 3) Time-of-Travel
(TOT); 4) Physical Boundaries; and 5) Assimilative Capacity.  The
following paragraphs discuss these hydrogeologic factors.

1.   Distance - Measured length away from a pumping well to the
point of concern.

     Discussion - The point of concern may be based on either
administrative (e.g. fixed radius) or hydrogeologic criteria. For
the first example, an administrator may determine that some set
distance is preferable over no such set distance, and therefore,
select an arbitrary set distance for the WHPA criterion.  From a
hydrogeologic perspective, the point of concern might be
calculated based on state-wide average conditions, or where
drawdown effects are considered negligible under average pumping
scenarios.  One number might be chosen to represent such
conditions, and that number be universally applied.

     Example - Nebraska has designated a WHPA as a ring having a
1,000 foot radius around a well.  Florida has a Zone I area of
protection which has a 200 foot radius.  West Germany has 2 km
(6,560 feet) for Zone III-A.
                              III-2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
fl
                                                                 I
                                                                1
                                                                 1
                                                                      I
                                                                      9

-------
I
I
I
I
I
E
I
I
1
I
1
I
I
1
1
I
I
I
2.   Drawdown - Relative change in the position of the static
water level in an aquifer because of ground-water withdrawal.

     Discussion - The pumping of a well induces drawdown in the
surrounding aquifer.  Basing the criteria on drawdown implies
that all or a part of the "area of influence" of the well will be
included in the WHPA.  Areas of zero drawdown are outside the
area of influence per se, but may be upgradient and thus still
"recharge11 the well.  Drawdown is directly proportional to the
rate of withdrawal and the length of time that the withdrawal has
been occurring.  It is inversely proportional to the aquifer's
hydraulic conductivity, saturated thickness, storativity, and
distance between the well and the point at which the drawdown is
being observed.  Given the asymptotic slope of the drawdown
curve, minor changes in the threshold could lead to major changes
in the area encompassed by the WHPA.

     Example - Massachusetts uses the 0.1 foot drawdown contour
while Bade County, FL uses the 0.25 foot drawdown contour and
Palm Beach and Broward Counties, FL use 1.0 foot drawdown
contour.

3.   Time-of-Travel - Time it takes for a molecule of water, or a
contaminant flowing at an equivalent rate (i.e., advective flow),
to reach a well.

     Discussion - Time-of-travel could be independent of drawdown
and distance. Commonly however, the Time-of-Travel is directly
proportional to the length of the flow path and the effective
porosity of the aquifer.  The Time-of-Travel is inversely
proportional to the aquifer's hydraulic conductivity and the
hydraulic gradient.
                              III-3

-------
     t = nx
         ki
Where:  t = Time-of-Travel
        n = porosity
        x = distance
        k = Hydraulic Conductivity
        i = Hydraulic Gradient
     Example - West Germany uses a 50-day travel-time.  Palm
Beach uses a 30-day travel time for Zone I, a 210-day travel time
for Zone II and the greater of a 500-day travel time or a one
foot drawdown contour for its Zone III.  Broward and Dade
Counties use travel times of 10 days, 30 days and 210 days (or
1.0 foot drawdown if larger) to designate their zones.  The State
of Florida uses five years for their Zone II and the Netherlands
use 10-25 years for their Zone Ilia.  A conceptual sketch of TOT
is shown in Figure III-l.

4.   Physical Boundaries - The physical boundaries of the local
or subregional ground-water flow system act as no-flow barriers
(or assumed no-flow barriers in the case of surface-water
divides).

     Discussion - Barriers exist which make it nearly impossible
for ground water to move from a location towards a pumping well.
Examples of conditions which might provide isolation include
regional ground-water divides that separate adjoining basins,
perennially gaining canals and rivers, or confining units which
may separate deeper units from shallower ones.  The degree of
isolation that exists may be critical in determining the extent
to which a potential pollution source could contaminate a well.

     Example - Edgartown and  Duxbury, Mass, use or are
considering methods that include the delineation of upgradient
and downgradient divides.  The State of Vermont in its prototype
also defined a secondary area of protection based on the
upgradient recharge area by using, the surface water divide as a
close approximation for the ground-water divide.

                              III-4
I
I
I
I
1
1
8
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
1
I

-------
I
I
i
I
1
1
i
I
I
I
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
< o
Q. —i
x "-
5si

iฐ
U uf
LU LU
^ S!
ฐ <
Sx
o
in
I
X
LU
    LU
    cc
    D
    O
    u.
     I
     2
     u
     cc
     c
     o
     c
     111
     Q.
     V
     Q
     o
     U
     UJ
     O
     cc

     o
     to

-------
     Assimilative Capacity - An area (of protection) where
natural attenuation processes are capable of reducing
contaminant's concentration to a target level.

     Discussion - Attenuation processes such as filtration,
biodegradation, dilution, sorption, and volatilization decrease
the concentration of contaminants as they pass through the soil,
bedrock and ground water.  The ability of natural systems to
restore ground waters to their original or "acceptable" state
varies widely.  The nature and volume of the contaminant, the
quality of the attenuating materials and the amount of dilution,
diffusion and dispersion which can occur are examples of factors
which influence assimilation.

     Example - No known examples can be cited where assimilation
capacity or retardation factors are included in the delineation
of WHPA boundaries.  However, some ground-water protection
efforts have been targeted to reduce nitrate loadings (e.g., Long
Island) which might be conceptually utilized.  The Amendments
imply that such an approach might be valid for WHPA delineation.
'C.   Matrix of WHPA Criteria/Evaluation Factors

     A matrix has been prepared  (Figure III-2) to rank the
criteria against a number of evaluation factors that could
influence the selection and/or application of WHPA criteria.
Workshop participants will be asked to comment on this matrix in
terms of its overall structure,  as well as the tentative
assessments within the matrix itself.

     The evaluation factors used in the matrix are defined as
follows:
                              III-6
I
I
I
f
I
1
I
I
I
I
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i

-------
WHPA CRITERIA/EVALUATION FACTORS

SUITABILITY
FOR
GEOLOGIC
SETTINGS
L.M.H
CRITERIA
DEVELOPMENT
COST
L/M/H
P-
ฐz ซ

32 i j ซ
<*ซ-•ซ
K uj *
50 *ซ
ซO ' '
5ui s g -•
^ ac < ฐ
FIELD
VERIFICATION
L/M/H
VARIABILITY
UNDER
ACTUAL
CONDITIONS
L/M/H
*
2 P 1 5
USER
SOPHISTI-
CATION
L/M/H
tSh"
i|ij-
^DEVALUATION
^NF ACTORS
CRITERIA\.
*
--J
-J
-J
s:
-j
^j
4-J
X
-
-
-
X
-
T.
a:
DISTANCE
^L
i
X
j
JjJl
X
in
ฑx
2TX
31
Jjฃ
5
z:
s
1
2:
-1
I
DRAWDOWN
X
1
X
1
z
I"
u:
_ i
ฑx
r
— i
-j
X
i
X
X
2:
X
1
t:
-!j
TIME OF
TRAVEL
I!
1
r:
x
1
r
Si
~J
X
—J
_f
~_I
—1
5
i
-
-
X
i
2:
s:
s:
PHYSICAL
BOUNDARIES
^
X
3-
_J
-J
-J
_J
-J
-J
^
-
^^^1
i^^^l
r
-J
5
ASSIMILATIVE
CAPACITY

1- ARBITRARY FIXED RADIUS L-LOW
2 - CALCULATED FIXED RADIUS M-MEDIUM
3 - SIMPLIFIED VARIABLE SHAPES H-HIGH
4 - ANALYTICAL MODELS T-TECHNICAL
6 - GEOLOGIC/GEOMORPHIC MAPPING N-NON TECHNICAL
• - NUMERICAL MODELS
7 - MISCELLANEOUS METHODS-TRACING
FIGURE HI-2

-------
1-   Ability toUnderstand Criteria - Degree to which the            ซ
principles underlying a criterion can be readily comprehended and    m
used by hydrogeologists/non-technical people.
                                                                     w
     Comment - How easily a criterion can be understood relates
to its application.  Only ground-water specialists may be able to    j|
apply complex, highly technical approaches to criterion               -
development while others, such as distance, may easily be            ||
utilized by policy or program specialists.                           •

2.   User Sophistication - Technical abilities of user necessary     ฃ
to understand the basis of criteria, the application of their
input data requirements and how their results can be evaluated.      I
     Comment - Compatibility between user knowledge and criterion
use is necessary before valid results can be developed and relied
on.  Thus, the more technologically demanding criteria requires
                                                                      I


3.   Ease of Quantification - Ability to place a numerical value      I
or threshold on a criterion.
                                                                      i
     Comment - Certain criteria are expressed in numerical terms      "
such as TOT.  Others such as those based on geologic or               ^
hydrogeologic boundaries are more difficult to describe in such       ^
terms in a regulation, etc.  Consequently, the clarity of
communicating or legally defining criterion values varies widely.     g

4.   Variability Under Actual Conditions - Extent to which an         tf
area resulting from a criterion will vary with time due to
changes in hydrologic conditions.                                     jjj

     Comment - Criteria, such as Time-of-Travel or drawdown           ^
dimensions are influenced by variables which can change if the        p
                              III-8
                                                                      I
                                                                      I

-------
I
t
I
I
I
i
i
i
f
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
I
I
i
external conditions on which they are based, e.g., recharge
rates, also change.  In contrast, an arbitrarily established
distance dimension will remain constant regardless of what site
specific changes might occur.

5.   Field Verification - Ability to confirm values placed on a
criterion through actual on-site testing or inspection.

     Comment - It is often very difficult to accurately reproduce
calculated values in the field, time-of-travel values for
example.  Others can be reasonably confirmed through inspection
such as field checking the surface divide of a basin whose
boundaries were originally determined on a topographic map.
{Proving the ground-water extrapolation of this boundary is more
difficult.)

6.   Ability to Reflect Ambient Ground-Water Standards - Degree
to which a criterion can be used to define the meeting of a
particular ground-water quality standard, either at the well or
at some location in the surrounding WHPA.

     Comment - One consideration for selecting a WHPA criterion
is the potential for relating it to some overall water quality
standard (in the well or in ground water).  Criteria, such as
assimilative capacity, may provide values which can be used to
closely approximate the concentration of contaminants and their
relation to acceptable limits.  Others, however, such as an
arbitrary distance, will not  (unless very extensive).

7.   Suitability for Delineation Methods - Extent to which a
criterion can be specified on the ground through application of
particular methodologies (discussed in Section IV).

     Comment - The viability of a method is dependent on the
specific set of criteria which form its basis.  Arbitrary,
                              III-9

-------
                                                                     I

analytical, calculated or geologic/geomorphic methods of WHPA        ™
delineation inherently incorporate criteria in their application.     ^
8.   Criterion Development Cost - Expenses related to developing
criteria values.                                                     •
                                                                      i
     Comment - The cost of developing a criterion may inhibit or      •
encourage its use.  Generally, criteria which are highly              *
technical, rely on a complex data base, or are labor intensive
will be expensive to produce.  This may deter their application
and acceptance even though their validity may be great.

9-   Suitability for Geologic Settings - The ability to apply a
criterion under a wide range of hydrogeologic conditions.             •
     Comment - Hydrogeologic controls over ground water under
natural conditions vary widely.  The extent of confinement,
consolidation, fracturing and solution channel development are
some of the major physical controls which may influence the
appropriateness and ease of criterion development.
                                                                      1
                                                                      I
                                                                      I
D.  Guide for Team Discussion Session

     Introduction

                                                                      i
                                                                      i
     The previous sections of this chapter discussed the program
goals and issues that are related to consideration of criteria
selection and use.  Before the methods of WHPA delineation can be     m
addressed, the work group teams will focus their attention on the
types of criteria that exist, their appropriateness, how they         If
relate to the previously identified goals and issues and any          7
other points the team may wish to discuss.                            ฃ

     Two separate items follow which should be individually
evaluated.  The first is a list of six guestions.  The second is      •
                              111-10
                                                                      I
                                                                      I

-------
I
I
I
i
i
i
i
i
I
i
i
I
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
an issue question with four options.  They are being provided to

you in order to facilitate team recommendations.  EPA is very

interested in the opinions of participants on these issues;

therefore, it is hoped that you might provide your thoughts on

the options and as many of the questions as you can.  The team

group is not restricted to only these materials and is free to

approach the subject in any manner it feels appropriate.

Remember, however, that the final summary should assess the

relevant issues in a manner that will facilitate EPA's efforts to

develop WHPA delineation criteria.
                              111-11

-------
ITEM 1 - SIGNIFICANT QUESTIONS ON WHPA CRITERIA


A.   ARE THE CRITERIA IDENTIFIED IN THE MATRIX VALID?


B.   ARE THERE ADDITIONAL CRITERIA WHICH SHOULD BE LISTED?


C.   ARE THERE OTHER EXAMPLES OF STATES OR LOCALITIES THAT
     SELECT OR UTILIZE ADDITIONAL THRESHOLDS FOR CRITERIA?
                                                                 I
                                                                 1
                                                                 I
                                                                 i
                                                                 i
                                                                 i
D.   HOW ADEQUATE ARE THE THRESHOLDS USED BY THE STATES AND
     OTHERS?


E.   ARE SOME CRITERIA MORE VALID FOR CERTAIN GEOLOGIC
     SETTINGS?  WHAT ARE THOSE SETTINGS?                         f
                                                                 I
F.   WHAT ARE THE INHERENT ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES TO
     EACH OF THE SPECIFIC CRITERIA?


G.   WHAT ARE "REASONABLE" SAFE DISTANCES, TOT VALUES AND        |
     OTHER CRITERIA THRESHOLDS?
                         111-12
                                                                 I
                                                                 I
                                                                 I
                                                                 I
                                                                 i
                                                                 i
                                                                 i
                                                                 i

-------
I
I
I
I
i
i
i
i
i
i
I
I
i
i
i
i
i
i
ITEM 2 - ISSUE;  HOW SHOULD EPA ESTABLISH THE PRINCIPAL
CRITERIA FOR ADEQUATE DELINEATION OF WELLHEAD PROTECTION
AREA?

     An examination of the wellhead programs in Western
Europe and the few localities using or debating such
techniques in the United States, points to at least four
major program goals (Figure III-3).  Each of these goals is
approached through the establishment of various technical
criteria which delimit the area of protection.  The
underlying question that considerations should be related
to, is the extent to which EPA should establish national
goals and criteria for delineation.  Six questions and four
general options will be evaluated in the team discussion
sessions.  The options range from the least restrictive
approach to the States, to ones where EPA plays a more
active role in selecting the actual criteria used in
defining the goal.

Option 1 - All or nearly all goals and criteria for
delineation are adequate given different circumstances.  The
States must defend the appropriateness of their choice, and
the specific criteria selected.

     Advantages/Disadvantages
     o  Provides maximum flexibility required by the
        Amendments;

     o  Recognizes that our knowledge in this field is
        limited and provides a forum for improving basic
        approaches;

     o  Greater chance of "overprotection"/"underprotection"
        given State conditions.

                         111-13

-------
       V)

       u

       a

       z
       o

    < s
    •~ (J
    0> Ed
    U f-
    i- a
    — cc
n  ae a.
 i   u


—  z u
    < z
U]     J
K  
33
81

D>ซ O
>ง
0 >
< =
a — •
c?
EU
i







ง
u













o

a.










^
^H

Eal
ฃซ
I.H
0ฃ
U

U

Q.
5
x
u^












en

•SC
ง












ซJ
B
a

4)
41 u
— 1 Li CO
jp (4
a OH o

D O
co B a
0 O ซ-
(U ->
Li 4-> 4J
a c
C Li 41
o u e
TJ 4>
T3 — * (30
41 ป a
31 C C
533
GQ CJ •
1
a o
41 Li W
J3 >> co
O ปH 41 41
CO o 0 -t
a a a
ซ e o a
L, O U -H
c 4-1 u a
o a — >
o bo a
•a -~ o

ซ a o w
10 a D ซ
to a eป-o
1 s
ซ- C
4) Q
> -^
OB 4->
2 — • y
•- 4i
O 2 CO 4-ป
4-> B 41 O
O 4-1 L, M
T3 — (O a L.
CO 4J W p 41
41 u in L, ^

•J 41 -a o
>> o a c
O Li O 3 C
X a co = -i
IIJ
B B
o :ป i o
-4 ,a t. -.
4-1 1 O *•*
-> -a o u a
S 41 L, C O
— t. a —
OH 3 a LI
41 —• a S 41
•a -i to j:
03 CO CJ 4-1
w w a o
41 V CO 11 41
^ J2 41 4-1 4-i
(o *•• a a
o c a — L,
<- (S 4J t. O
m u c/i a. a
Li
3
O
C
O
u

E "a" (-
3 -o o
0 •ซ E-
T3 Li
20 L,
a —4 a
L, a. 41
•a :ป —
4]
4-1 - in a
O O (MO
o u • -
OH 33
4} — Ixj
m -3 -v.
CM a a •
• Q X *
O ~- CM —*
,
CU B
bo o
a —
B w
a LI
• O
a
•a

"& a
-4 -^ a
OH a co
— B L,
-H B

2 •-ซ 4)
tx
a s LI
41 a
41 - ฃ
T3 !S O
•-ป 4)
> 4J Ll
ฃ c *.
Q. E 'o

OH
O ป

tj - -J u
c ซ e ซt
— ป *i ,"o a
•9 o a B
e i. --4 -4
938
*. o a -
CO 0ป -J OJ
Ll C U
U C 0 -i
T3 O U 4J -
E -ซ <" ป
3 W . -4 — i
BO a LI o
CO C 3 41 I.
>,-. O -^ 4J
B a •-> o c
— • to w a o
a 4-> ss L, o
ta c o a
•~ O O ฃ OH
n o -H o o
_;
I-H a 41 cu
ปj j; MX
C ป•> Li
cu 41 a 4^
-<ป>*• B
0 O —
— i .e a> 4J 0i
OH 0) B U B
ปH ซ ซ O
a a 4J B -.
41 o a
ซ 2 4-1 Li
•M bl a 4J
CO 3 --4 JS c
> o at cu
— < LI 41 a u
(S O S O E
C JS 0 C 0
< 4-> N 4) u

I I
ru •!> B ffl u
— . u a  en — >
,2 "H 4^ (^ La 4iJ
fl Oป ^ B S) 4t 4) 41
— CCjOCQ*J^Li ^^
>--^3UB4l4Hacj
co a o • c B — '
>1 -H O ซ >> *J
— L. M ffl L, 0) ซ a
w o s — i •- ซ ue
COH4iJ37ja .ซซ4)
41 — i O 4J • C -H
t. -4 O U 0 => -WO
U O A 8 *"* ^ "^^ O A


a <

OH C
— i OH en
O 3
;•ป ซ E
— a co -.
^ ifl w -O
U C B =
w v) 
O* (9
3!

CU 3
$ {9
X L>
fi
O
41 -<
B 4J
o a
N a
c
B 41 -H
O 4J -H
-• 4J 41
was

ป 4-1 a
a s 4-<
E a
41 B a
U -4 J)
ฃ CJ
a a L,
W 3
41 a o
•cow
-ซ o
> s
O L, O
tt <ฃ i
CO
bo cu
JS B u
bi — • LI -a
— ' C Li 3 E
J3 -H O O - O
~H 4J — 41 41
— -. C 4-i L, J3
a 3 o c ซ3
• a 41
<** a ^** u v t
4) • C —
CJ •ซ --H 4)
C 4J • S
41 L,
•Q tl_ 41 Q
-< O -w —
OH 41 OH
E ;ป -a ป•
o u u
o a -< cu •
LI 41 a ซ
j= 3 > in a
'-H CJ Li w Li
as a w a a



CO **
 3 >
a. o ~ซ co 4i
a o 4-> a -4
U 3 U 41 41
ป 41 • L.
m -^ •- n
01 > U B -H ซl
— 4H O O -H U
— 1 — . U -^ O U
*H j3 3 a a 91
.fc
iฃ Ll ^
4J 41 4-1
-4 E O — ' J= CO
3 bt c t-> c 4j •
SB 3 ~. a
>v -< • 4> • 3 Li
- C -H • M
4-1 41 <0 J3 O - O
u <-> a u u LI
eu s c -a — ' a
L, 1) — B -O J
•a ^ ซ *j w w c
w t 4-1
1 !f>
in —
^
e
S ง
—4 — H
4-> •
cj a
a -< 4J
— s
—• 41 Q
1C 3 0

•a *> •a
41 (j 41
• 41 4J
41 4-ป CJ
L O 41
L, a
to a x
41 ซ
U O B 41
•a 4j 3 so

S> Q) E 01
O C O — <
L, O U 41
O. M O-i L.



-i E CU
a o bfi
O 4J Id
w a js
e u
"O — SI
B • Li
cu a

x a -i
41 O JS
U 4-*
CA ^H 3g

O — ' CO
L. 4-1 01
** B O •
c o LI a
O 4^ 3 41
U O O L,
ฃ a co a
a

-. 01 B •
3 •a cu to
OH C 4-4 O
3 O — '
ta ai-
so a
O 41 T3 C
JS L. 6 1>
co a a u
CO
co cu bo
-n bO E bB
CO Li -4 C
>, a *j -4
— js co a
to o — i a
E CU X 3
< L, cu a



 4^ CO
-4 Ll
tJ 4i Q>
CJ w OH
41 (0 -H
4H L, 3
O 41 P

a o
Li • ซ
41 01
> t- L,
o o  1 ~-i CU
w — o c.
4J 4H &• ^H - |Q
t, o a -H .3
a cu a o M tr
b ซJ 10 E -SO
41 3 !B 11
4J Li > — O
E dซ 3 CM
4-1 fl Li O
41 9) — 41 il ซ — .
J3 O U 4J qn 9)
• 41 a — C 41
B a -• 3 a —
a m co L, trjs —
o a cu o. ซ 4-- e
Li
41
0-<
3
C7
(0 CU
bo
OH Id
O B
w4
en a
4-1 Ll OH -•*
••* "O 3 CO

•- * U CO 4-1
— . (J w 41
a t- co
—• OH ป 3
fl Li S, JS
•J 3 CJ
— in cu a
a s •ซ
>i -O 3 eo
H C ป CB
CU 1C ^-* X
a
CU 1
L, 0)
a cu
ifl
u cu
bl L.
L. O
2 OH

CJ ^
41 B
b O CO
B
CU 4J o
L, C —
ป- 41 ซJ
4-1 L, ~ .
E L, -O
01 3 C
CJ O
4) u
at L.
S cu cu
C *O *-ซ
to c ja
x 3 a
t
I
I
 I
 i
 i
 i
 i
 I
 i
i
 i
 i
 i
 i
 i
 t
 i
 i

-------
I
Option 2 - All or nearly all goals are adequate, but EPA
establishes "minimum adequate" criteria (e.g.. 1.000 foot
radius or 5-year T01M .

     Advantages/Disadvantages

     o  Provides a base level of protection which provides
        a significant improvement over current levels;

     o  Provides some level of national consistency;

     o  Will be underprotective in certain settings, and
        may present a difficult precedent for States who
        wish to take a more protective approach;

     o  May not meet the full intent of the "standard."

Option 3 - All or nearly all goals are adequate, but EPA
establishes or recommends significantly more protective
criteria (e.g.. 2 mile radius or 25 to 50 year TOT).

     Advantages/Disadvantages

     o  Provides a moderate to high degree of protection
        given current knowledge;

     o  More closely meets intent of "standard";

     o  Will be opposed by States considering more limited
        criteria; public/private sector concerns of
        "overregulation."
                                         111-15

-------
                                                           I
                                                           I
                                                           1
                                                           I
                                                           I
                                                           I
o  Could range in protectiveness depending on goal/
   criteria chosen;                                        ฃ
o  Least response to Amendment's emphasis on               M
   flexibility; States may not pick up WHPA program;
                                                           I
Option 4 - Only one goal and set of criteria for delineation

are adequate (e.g..  provide 10yearTOTmanagement area).


     Advantages/Disadvantages


     o  Establishes most consistency among States;


     o  Provides easiest administrative test to approve

        "adequacy;"
o  Greatest effort for EPA to determine appropriate

   goal/criteria for entire nation.
                    111-16
                                                            i
                                                            i
                                                            i
                                                            i
                                                            i
                                                            I
                                                            i
                                                            I

-------
IV.  METHODS FOR DELINEATING WHPAs

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
r
i
i
i
r
r
r
r

-------
I
I
1
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
                            CHAPTER IV
                I.  METHODS FOR DELINEATING WHPAS

Introduction

     This chapter describes some of the methods that can be used
to apply a technical criterion in delineating a WHPA boundary.
In the development of its hydrogeologic guidance, the Agency
plans to analyze the strengths and limitations of each method
before recommendations can be developed as to where each one may
be most appropriate.  Parallel efforts under the direction of
OGWP are presently addressing particularly management programs
within the zones of protection.

     As previously discussed in Figure II-2, information has been
collected to determine how various water resource programs in the
United States and Western Europe implement their WHPA boundary
designation.  The delineation methodologies obtained have been
categorized into seven general groups: Arbitrary Fixed Radii,
Calculated Fixed Radii,  Simplified Variable Shapes, Analytical
Models, Geologic/Geomorphic Mapping, Numerical Flow/Transport
Models and Miscellaneous.

     Figure IV-1 shows that more than one approach can be
utilized in the application of a single method.  It also relates
the different approaches used to existing or proposed programs.

     The various delineation methods essentially form a continuum
with three end points (Figure IV-2).  The three points vary in
sophistication from the selection of arbitrary values, e.g., a
simple fixed radius with no scientific basis; the utilization of
complex highly quantified approaches, e.g., analytical, numerical
models based on extensive site specific data; and more
descriptive approach of studying the physical features of an area
to determine the geologic or geomorphic controls on ground-water
                               IV-1

-------
1

-------
                                                                                      ro
                                                                                      CO
Cl
c
3J
n
si

P O
> S *' c
* <
3
If
i!

3
1
?
P
s f
C 1

??! j

j?=.
MH




































*jnf3'
!*!?!*!
-f?.!r'
slr|si
g ซ i?"
ฐS; 3 J
JJ 3 2 o fi

Df
'1
f|ซ
-si
.[S:,f,f
' _f --* l"l

ฐsgฐ||
i?s||i
fsfiii
!?llis



?
i
fs!


























































>
2 >
P =!
r*



C!
s S m
5 2 o





H Z
s 2 ^ S
8^?^
J- O S B






O O rn
o c 7


                                                                                                     -o
                                                                                                     O
                                                                                                     O
                                                                                      Ln

-------

-------
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
       INTERRELATIONSHIPS  OF WHPA METHODS
                    QUANTITATIVE
                   ANALYTICAL, NUMERICAL

                         MODEL
         CALCULATED
             FIXED
           RADIUS
   FIXED
  RADIUS
                  MODELED
                  REGIONAL
                   FLOW
ARBITRARY
  FIXED RADIUS
WITH EXTENSION TO
REGIONAL DIVIDES
                           GEOLOGIC/
                           GEOMORPH1C
PHYSICAL
FEATURES
                                                 FIGURE IV-2

-------
     Arbitrar^Fixed Radii
                               IV-4
                                                                      I
flow.  Intermediate methods are formed when combinations of           ™
endpoints are made.  WHPAs delineated by a calculated radius          ซ
based on generalized regional would be a combination of the           V
Arbitrary and Quantitative methods.  Regional flow models can be
developed by combining the Quantitative and Physical Features         I
methods.  An approach which starts with a fixed radius and then
extends the area to a basin divide would combine the Arbitrary        B
and Physical Features methods.  Numerous permutations can be
developed by combining two or three of the endpoints.                 m

Description of WHPA Methods

     A brief description of each method presented in Figure IV-1
is provided below:                                                    I
                                                                      •
     General Description:  This method is based on an "arbitrary"     _
selection of a circular area around a well to delineate a WHPA.       0
Although, at times, it may appear that the selection of the area
is not based on scientific principles, the area may have been         I
selected based on very generalized hydrogeologic considerations
and/or professional judgement.  The threshold selected is             •
typically applied to all wells uniformly across a county, state,
or region.
                                                                      m
     Example:  The state of Nebraska is delineating WHPA's by a
circle of 1,000 ft radius.  Florida is proposing to use a 200 ft.     g
radius for its Zone I; Duxbury, MA., uses a 400 ft. radius for
its Zone I; and Edgartown, MA., used a 2,500 ft. radius for its       •
preliminary zone  (until a more detailed analytic method is
available) .                                                           •
                                                                      I
                                                                      I
                                                                      I

-------
I
I
I
1
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
 I
 I
I
 I
2-   Calculated Fixed Radii


     General Description;  This method is based on the use of an

equation to compute a fixed radius for a circular area of

protection around a well or wellfield.


     Example;   Zone II of Florida's proposed two zone system is

defined as a circle of a radius calculated using a volumetric

equation that incorporates a time of 5-years, the well pumping

rate, and aquifer porosity and saturated thickness.


3.   Simplified Variable Shapes


     General Description:  Any method which attempts to

incorporate site specific characteristics will result in an

infinity of sizes and/or shapes.  This method attempts to

simplify the condition by selecting a small number of

representative areal forms from the large array of potential

possibilities.  These standardized forms are then applied where

ranges of conditions fit into appropriate categories, e.g., a

form of predesignated shape and size is used for a specified

range of well yield.


     Example;  This method of delineating WHPAs is most popular

in Europe.  For example, a water authority in Southern England

uses methods which are based on uniform flow and time of travel

equations in determining WHPAs.  In these instances, the shapes

of the "standardized" forms are developed by applying the

analytical ground-water  flow equations to sets of representative

hydrogeologic parameters, e.g., generalized aquifer properties,

directions of ground-water flow, hydraulic gradients and well

yields.
                               IV-5

-------
4.   Analytical Models
5.    Geoloqic/Geomorphic Mapping1 (Combined with Analytical Flow
     Models. Fixed Radii. Aquifer Yield)
          Todd, O.K., 1980, Groundwater Hydrology. John Wiley &
          Sons, Inc.
                               IV-6
                                                                      I
                                                                      I
     General Description;  This method is based on the use of         |
equation(s) to define ground-water flow or contaminant transport.
For example, a general approach often-used defines the area of        •
contribution to a pumping well in a sloping water table, i.e.,
the uniform flow equations (Todd, 1980).1                             •
                                                                      1
     Example;  Edgartown, MA, calculates the downgradient
stagnation point and the envelope of the area of contribution
using the uniform flow equations.  The upgradient limit is set as
the upgradient regional ground-water divide.  Duxbury, MA             I
delineates its Zone II using the uniform flow model to calculate
distance to the downgradient stagnation point and the envelope of     tt
the area of contribution.  The upgradient limit of Zone II is
drawn as the geologic contact between the unconsolidated aquifer      •
and bedrock having low permeability.                                  ™

     Cape Cod, MA uses a mass-balance approach in conjunction         g
with pumping test data and analytical equations to determine the
WHPA.                                                                 •
                                                                      I
     General Description:  Geologic/geomorphic mapping is used to     f|
delineate the possible physical boundaries of the hydrogeologic
system.  Boundaries of WHPAs are in some cases divided into           I
primary and secondary protection areas.  Primary areas are
delineated by known or inferred radii of influence based on           •
simple formulae for various hydrogeologic settings. The
applicable method used to outline the primary area depends upon
                                                                      I

-------
aquifer type and the availability of site specific data.  When
data on aquifer parameters and/or information on ground-water
recharge are available, simple analytical equations are used.
When the data are not available, the primary area is drawn using
circles of arbitrary distance around the well and/or geologists'
experience. Secondary areas extend from the primary areas
upslope, primarily based on surficial topography and the location
of surface water divides.

     Example:  Vermont utilizes a method in which
geologic/geomorphic mapping is combined with simplified fixed-r
ring calculations that are then modified by regional flow
information.  The Midstate Regional Planning Agency in
Connecticut mapped its WHPAs using aquifer yield information and
surface water basin morphology.  Duxbury, MA also utilizes basin
morphology to define the upgradient recharge area for its Zone
III.

6.   Numerical Flow/Transport Models

     General Description;  Numerical flow/transport models are
used to delineate well field protection areas.  This is done
where boundary conditions are such that analytical models may not
provide accurate results or in areas where the importance of the
delineation warrants the most sophisticated or costly tools.  The
use of numerical models to delineate WHPAs is usually
accomplished in two steps.  First a hydraulic head field
distribution is generated with a numerical flow model under a
prescribed set of hydrologic conditions.  The travel-distance
zones are delineated using a solute transport model based in part
on the hydraulic head field generated in the first step as input.
     Example;  The Florida counties of Broward, Dade and Palm
Beach utilize a time of travel criterion to delineate their zones
of protection. Palm Beach uses a 30 day travel time for Zone I, a
                               IV-7

-------
                                                                      I

210 day travel time for Zone II and the greater of a 500 day          ™
travel time or a one foot drawdown contour for its Zone III.          •
Broward and Dade Counties use travel times of 10 days, 30 days        •
and 210 days (or 1 foot drawdown if larger)  to designate their
zones (NW wellfield in Dade County is based on 1/4'  drawdown          •
contour and/or an approximate 25-40 year TOT.)

7.   Miscellaneous Methods

     General Description;  All of the WHPA delineation methods        •
reviewed which are in current use or being proposed can be
grouped in one of the previous six methodology categories.            p
Consequently, only methods which are not normally associated with
WHPA designation but which may have potential use are mentioned       I
here.
                                                                      I
     Two methods may warrant future consideration, tracing (e.g.,     m
Matrix of WHPA Methods/Evaluation Factors
                               IV-8
                                                                      I
Isotope Study) and analytical fate and transport modeling. Each
has been used in research or specific problem solving usually
related to activities such as Karst ground-water flow analysis
and characterization of pollution dispersion.  The agency would       •
be interested in knowing the suitability and application of these
or other miscellaneous methods.                                       •
                                                                      m
     A matrix (Figure IV-3) has been developed to compare
delineation methods against a number of evaluation factors that       p
could influence the selection and/or application of a WHPA
method.  The blocks have been completed with proposed values for      •
consideration by workshop participants.  The factors used to
evaluate the methods are defined as follows:
                                                                      •
     1.   Ability to Understand the Method - Degree to                —
          which the principles underlying the method                  ฃ
          can be readily understood by hydrogeologist and non-
          technical people.                                           •
                                                                      I

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CO
LU
oc







I/)
tf
0
u
LL.
Z
0
pz
^
3
LU
D
O
h-
in
S
A
^L
I








O ui -J ut
I- X < uj O
ui i- y *2m z x
op2|g 1
o$ป- z
K X
H
^U ^^ "^ ^C
__

ill
iighifi
5z ffฃ x2 z ~i
<- 5 ป8
k_ ^^
J1™* ••& ^LJ
^y ^J L^ ^m ^^*
S|22 5
Z (A I
xg i
K WO X
CD f_i ^^
^j
>2 o i
^ ^ x ซ
ซ- EC H 2
-1 LU LU ^



O
0
X
UJ





X

^

-J


-J
-J


J
X
1

J




ฃ

o
LU
X
LL
RBITRARY
ADIUS

n



^

*:

c


s
X
5T

^

X
X
2:
2:
1 1
"~J
_
i


1/5
NALYTICA
LOW MODE
4 u.
*'


2^
Jj

r
X
r


X
s:
X
s:

I

r
n:
21
21
•
•— j

i


o
EOLOGIC/
EOMORPHI
APPING
O U S
to


•^T
^J

1

X


3:
i
3:
^_

i
2:
_j
"•N-NM*
X

"ll"'


2:
3
> LU
sง
UMERICAL
RANSPORT
Z K

-------
     used by regulatory agencies or in the process
     of being adopted.
                                                                 I
                                                                 I
2.   User Sophistication - Technical abilities of
     user necessary to understand the basis of the               ^
     method and the input data requirements,  to                  ฃ
     apply the method, and to evaluate method
     results.                                                    •

3.   Extent of Use - Identifies how commonly the                 ft
     method is used, e.g., whether it is presently               *
I
4.   Extent of Input Data Required - Amount and                  j
     type of data required for method application;
     data may be site-specific (i.e., developed                  •
     specifically for method application)  or
     regional (i.e., approximate and already                     •
     available).                                                 ™

5.   Ability to Incorporate Different                            ฃ
     Hydrogeologic Conditions - Capabilities of
     the method to be applied to varied                          I
     hydrogeologic conditions, such as "sources"
     and "sinks," boundary conditions, or variable               •
     aquifer parameters.

6.   Accuracy - Degree to which the results from                 ซ
     method application can be expected to compare
     with actual field conditions.                               ฃ

7.   Time to Implement Method - Time required to                 •
     adequately apply the method and evaluate
     results, in accordance with the qualitative,                •
     analytical, or numerical characteristics of                 w
     the method.                                                 ^
                                                                 I
                                                                 I
                         IV-10

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
     8.   Cost - Relative cost incurred in applying the method to

          one wellhead, well field, or main fields in a state, in

          terms of data acquisition, professional labor, computer

          time, graphics, reporting, etc.


     9.   Degree to Which Technical Basis can be

          Challenged - Degree to which the principles,

          accuracy and applicability of the method can

          be questioned by hydrogeologists and other

          technical people.


Team Discussion Session


Introduction


     During this discussion session, team participants will be

asked to focus on the merits of the different methods, the

conditions under which they might be suitable, and decision

making options that relate to methodology selection.  The

participant should review the matrix carefully, since many

questions will be focused on this item.


     A list of eight significant questions follows to help guide

team discussions.  Participant input is desired on as many of

them as possible in the time available.  Input and experience of

the participants on other method-related information would also

be valuable.
                              IV-11

-------
SIGNIFICANT QUESTIONS ON WHPA METHODS



A.   HAVE ANY METHODS BEEN MISSED THAT YOU KNOW ARE BEING

     USED SOMEWHERE?  BY WHOM?



B.   IS THIS EVALUATION OF METHODS CORRECT IN YOUR

     EXPERIENCE AND WHAT CHANGES WOULD YOU MAKE IN THE

     MATRIX?



C.   ARE THERE OTHER FACTORS WHICH WE SHOULD USE TO EVALUATE

     THE METHODS  (FIGURE IV-3)?



D.   WHAT ARE THE MAJOR WEAKNESSES AND STRENGTHS OF THE

     DIFFERENT DELINEATION METHODS?



E.   WHAT ROLE SHOULD EPA PLAY IN THE SELECTION OF

     APPROPRIATE DELINEATION METHODS?
H.   SHOULD DELINEATION METHOD REQUIREMENTS BE RELATED TO

     DIFFERENT WELL SIZES OR NUMBERS OF USERS DEPENDENT ON A

     WELLHEAD?  WHAT ELEMENTS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AND HOW

     SHOULD SUCH METHODS BE STRUCTURED?
                                                                 I
                                                                 I
                                                                 I
                                                                 I
                                                                 I
                                                                 I
                                                                 I
                                                                 I
                                                                 I
                                                                 I
F.   SHOULD A PHASED APPROACH TO METHOD SELECTION  (E.G., AN

     ARBITRARY FIXED RADIUS REPLACED BY A CALCULATED ZONE AS

     MORE SITE SPECIFIC INFORMATION BECOMES AVAILABLE) BE        jj

     UTILIZED?  HOW WOULD IT BE STRUCTURED AND IMPLEMENTED?



G.   WHAT METHOD PROVIDES THE MOST PROTECTION?  THE LEAST?
                                                                 I
                         IV-12
                                                                 I
                                                                 I
                                                                 I
                                                                 I
                                                                 I

-------
CROSS-CUTTING ISSUES

-------

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
                            CHAPTER V
                        CROSS-COTTING ISSUES


      The previous chapters dealt specifically with questions
 concerning the guidance  that EPA should develop to assist states
 in the delineation  of  WHP  areas.  The determination of the WHPA
 represents only one of the activities a state must undertake  in
 developing a state  WHP program that will be eligible for federal
 funding, as can be  seen  in Figure V-I below.


      In another workshop to be held next week, participants will
 focus on the other  five  activities that make up a state's efforts
 in designing a WHP  program.
                            FIGURE V
                   Major Stages in Developing and
                  Implementing 3 State WHP Program
        PROGRAM
          DESIGN:
       ACTIVITIES:
  Definition
of an"Adequate'
  Program
Designation of
WHP Area


Define
Contaminants


Define
Sources
Inventory
the Sources


Assessment of
Potential
Tnreat


Management
arc
Control
       ROLES AND
    RELATIONSHIPS:
 institutional
Consloeratlons
     In addition to specific technical considerations,  the EPA
would like  each workshop to address what  it  refers  to as
cross-cutting  issues.   These additional issues, which are
highlighted  in  Figure  V-I above, are the  definition  of  an
adequate state  WHP program and a review of institutional
considerations,  specifically the relationship among  federal,
state and local governments, that must be addressed  in  designing
and implementing a WHP program.


     Consideration of  these questions is  important to
participants in both workshops if they are to adequately advise
EPA on the development of guidances for both the hydrogeologic
criteria and management protection plans.

-------
                              V - 2

DEFINITION OF AN "ADEQUATE" STATE WHP PROGRAM
I
I
I
     This chapter first addresses the orientation of an "adequate"
program to protect wellhead areas.  According to Webster,               _
"adequate" is defined as sufficient for a specific requirement, or      •
as barely sufficient.  EPA is not, then, charged with approving and     ™
providing funds for the best possible program, but for a
satisfactory one.  The guidance will, by necessity, allow for a         •
great deal of flexibility on the part of various states to develope     |
programs that adequately meet the goals of the Act; those that do
are eligible to receive funds.                                          ซ

     In this part of the session, participants will address two
questions.  The first is the key issue in determining whether or not
the Administrator will approve a state-submitted program:               B

     1.  Which general programmatic approaches should EPA view as
         adequate?                                                      m

The second considers the timing of actions taken in a state
program;
     2.  On what basis may an adequate state program phase-in its
         delineation of wellheads and identification of sources?
                                                                        I

                                                                        I

                                                                        I

                                                                        I

                                                                        I

                                                                        I

                                                                        I

                                                                        I

                                                                        I

                                                                        I

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ISSUE
                              V - 3

          WHICH PROGRAMMATIC APPROACHES SHOULD EPA VIEW AS
ADEQUATE?

     According to the statute, the EPA Administrator must
disapprove a State program, or any portion of it, which is not
adequate to protect public water systems from contaminants which
may have any adverse effect on human health.  In addition to this
rather explicit statutory directive, the Congress has also directed
EPA, in the conference report that accompanied passage of the law,
to give states a great deal of flexibility in defining wellhead
protection areas (WHPAs) and attendant protection programs.  In the
guidance, EPA must determine what overall standard it will use to
determine whether a state program is "adequate" to meet the goals
of the Act.

     This general view of "adequacy" will have implications for
the options discussed in later sessions on questions such as which
potential contaminants and sources should be identified and what
control measures should be applied.

     Unlike later issues, where one or a few options may clearly be
best for a particular issue, the question of what makes an adequate
program has no single answer.  There are many forms that an
adequate program could take: it could be linked to a specific
standard of ground-water quality, or it could be based on applying
certain management practices to various potential pollutants.

     In order to help OGWP develop its guidance on this matter,
workshop participants will address the following question — should
EPA view the following programmatic approaches as adequate?  If
yes, are there certain conditions or circumstances under which a
particular approach may not be adequate?

     Given the breadth of this first issue, participants may
conclude that all of the following options are acceptable; on the
other hand, some may not fit in.  Participants are encouraged to
develop additional options as well.  In reviewing any options,
participants should consider the feasibility of implementing
various options, and the statutory language.

Option 1 - One which provides for no degradation of ground-water
quality"
     Advantages

     •  Would theoretically provide the highest level of protection
        to the ground-water resource and drinking water supply

     •  A number of states currently use this standard for the
        entire state or for highly sensitive areas

-------
                             V - 4

     Disadvantages

     •  Implementation may well be infeasible in urban settings and
        beyond the financial and technical capacity of states and
        local entities

     •  States would have to develop elaborate models to show the
        program was working

Option 2 - One which provides wellhead protection by achieving
drinking water standards for raw water entering the wellhead

     Advantages

     •  Allows flexibility for source control measures as long as
        standards are met at the wellhead

     •  Extends requirements of the Act for finished water to raw
        water at the wellhead

     Pi sadvantages

     •  Protects drinking water, but not necessarily the
        ground-water resource as a whole

     •  Does not address contaminants for which drinking water
        standards have not been issued

     •  States would have to develop models to apply this approach

     •  May be infeasible in urban and other areas

Option 3 - One which improves raw water quality to the extent that
drinking water standards maybe met using existing drinking water
treatment technology
     Advantages

     •  Easy to implement

     •  Would ensure that drinking water at the tap meets standards

     Disadvantages

     •  May be inconsistent with the goals of the Act

     •  May discourage innovative source controls and encourage
        treatment of raw water

     •  Does not address contaminants for which there are no
        drinking water standards

     •  Inconsistent with most Federal and State ground-water
        programs which do not permit degradation of current
        drinking water supplies below drinking water standards
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
                                 V - 5

     •  Nearly all small systems drawing from ground water lack the
        ability to finance or maintain the sophisticated level of.
        treatment needed to remove man-made chemicals

Option 4 - One which applies best management practices (BMP)/best
engineering judgment (BEJ) to all sources of contamination within
the WHPA

     Advantages

     •  Focuses on attainment of technically and economically
        feasible quality standards in a given location

     •  Is similar to approach used in other EPA programs such as
        the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act

     Disadvantages

     •  BMP/BEJ may not lead to adequate levels of contaminants in
        ground water

     •  Requires definition of BMP/BEJ for a variety of sources

Option 5 - One thatthe State demonstrates is comparable with the
approach of an adequate program as defined by the Technical
Committee

     Options 5 and 6 differ from the first four since adequacy is
measured more subjectively.  The first four options link adequacy
to measurable indicators of water quality or to application of
technology standards.  Option 5 presumes development, by EPA's
management protection plan committee, of a program scenario
composed of elements selected from review of the options presented
in both workshops.  The State must then demonstrate how its program
elements will produce effects similar to the EPA scenario.

     Advantages

     •  The State is not limited to an overall goal that is
        infeasible or impractical in some cases

     Disadvantages

     •  States must demonstrate how the effects of their approach
        compare with the effects of an acceptable program

     •  The program must describe the actions to be taken and their
        implementation; states could expand considerable effort in
        program development and rationalization

-------
                           V - 6
                                                                        I
                                                                        I
Option 6 - One that the State certifies has an objective that meets     •
the statute's goal and its six specific elements                        ฃ
     Like Option 5, Option 6 proposes a more subjective measure of      _
adequacy.  The State does not follow specific EPA guidelines, but       •
instead certifies that its program will achieve the goal of the Act     ™
and includes the six elements listed in Section 1428(a).
                                                                        I
                                                                        I
Advantages
•  Most flexible for the state
Disadvantages
•  EPA would have difficulty ascertaining the effectiveness of     B
   the program                                                     •
•  States would lack a basis on which to judge EPA's action on
   their applications
                                                                        I
                                                                        I
                                                                        I
                                                                        I
                                                                        I
                                                                        I
                                                                        I
                                                                        I
                                                                        I
                                                                        I
                                                                        I
                                                                        I

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
                               V - 7

ISSUE 2;  ON WHAT BASIS MAY AN ADEQUATE STATE PROGRAM PHASE IN ITS
DELINEATION OF WELLHEADS AND IDENTIFICATION OF SOURCES?

     Section 1428(a) states that:

     "The Governor or Governor's designee of each State shall,
     within 3 years of the date of enactment of the Safe
     Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1986, adopt and submit to
     the Administrator a State program to protect wellhead ares
     within their jurisdiction from contaminants which may have
     any adverse effect on the health of persons."

     Subsection 1428(d) further states that:

     "After the date 3 years after the enactment of this
     section, no State shall receive funds authorized to be
     appropriated under this section except for the purpose of
     implementing the program...."

     The statute provides that after June 1989 States may receive
funds only to implement'their EPA-approved WHP programs that meet
each of the program elements described in subsection 1428(a).
States, therefore, will be ineligible for development funding after
year three.  In order to qualify for implementation funding, States
will be required to submit their developed program plans to EPA for
review and approval by the end of FY 89.  Approved plans, then, will
be eligible to receive implementation funding for subsequent program
years.

     EPA may have some latitude in interpreting the program
requirements in subsection 1428{a) that States must meet in order to
qualify for funding after FY 89.  In considering this issue, EPA has
determined that four of the six requirements present little problems
in determining what must be required by year three.  For example,
1428{a){1) requires States to specify the duties of governmental
entities that will have a part in the development and implementation
of the State WHP program; States, therefore, would be required to
provide EPA with a listing of each governmental unit involved.  Such
a requirement would place little burden on the State and is feasible
within three years.  A more complicated requirement is in Section
1428{a)(3):

     "identify within each wellhead protection area all
     potential anthropogenic  sources of contaminants...."

These options deal with the timing of this requirement.

-------
     Advantages
        Is not an implementable option in most States

        Does not take into account the limited amount of funds that
        States will probably receive and have available within the
        State to accomplish these actions
     Advantages
        May help direct WHP monies to implementation rather than
        development; also would help expedite
        work" of delineating and inventorying
     •  Better takes into account a State's financial and other
        resource limitations
                                                                        I
                                V - 8                                   I

Option 1  - Within three years states must identify each WHPA around all
public water systems 1  within its borders and identify specifically      •
all sources of anthropogenic pollution within each wellhead; all        •
activities for these elements are ineligible for funding after FY 89
                                                                        p

     •  Is the simplest option for which to provide implementation      _
        guidance to States                                              •

     •  Requires States to expedite their programs and would speed
        actual work for addressing potential WHP problems               •

     •  May help direct WHP funds to implementation rather than
        program development                                     •        •

     Disadvantages                                                      *
                                                                        I


                                                                        I
     •  Stresses completion of the program at the expense of more
        thorough planning and priority setting                          •

     •  May limit State participation in the WHP program because
        the requirements are too strict                                 •

Option 2 - Within three years states must determine/ through a
mechanism such as a general rule, allWHPAs within its borders and      ^
identify generically all sourcesof anthropogenic pollution within      •
each wellhead                                                           ™
                                                                        I
        States may refine (e.g., more fully characterize specific
        characteristics of WHPAs) these elements after FY 89 as a       •
        part of program implementation                                  •
        development; also would help expedite the actual "field         B
                                                                        I

                                                                        I
     Public water systems include community water supply systems
   and non-community water supply systems, e.g., truck stops,
   restaurants, schools.                                                •
                                                                        I

-------
                                V - 9
     Disadvantages
        Presents problems in strictly definng "development" vs.
        "implementation" in guidance to recipients/applicants.  Also
        may complicate SPA audits of recipients' financial records,
        since it may be very difficult to distinguish where development
        ends and implementation begins

        May limit State participation in the WHP program because the
        requirements are too strict

        May still be impractical to implement
Option 3 - Within three years states must determine WHPAs only for
large (e.g., serving over 500 people) community water systems, and
reserve smaller CWS and non-GWS for FY 90 and after; contamination
sources are addressed generically
     Advantages

     •  Provides clear priority for areas with higher population
        risk

     •  More realistic to implement

     •  Consistent with rules regarding public water system testing
        and State well registration programs

     Disadvantages

     •  Phasing is inconsistent with statute

     •  Ignores factors other than population that may increase risk
        in a wellhead

Option 4 - Within three years states must submit only plans for
determining WHPAs and identifying pollution sources; costs for
developing these plans are ineligible for funding after FY 89, but
States'can receive funding for implementing these plans later
     Advantages

     •  More time available to set priorities

     •  Takes into account States' differing capabilities/ resource
        availability, and workloads

     •  Will allow for more State participation in the WHP program
        than either Option 1  or 2

      Disadvantages

     •  Does not fulfill the statutory requirements of Section
        1428(d)

-------
                        V - 10
I
I
•   Directs a higher proportion of WHP authorized funds to        •
    planning rather than delineating wellhead areas and           f
    inventorying sources

•   Like Option 2, may pose a problem to EPA in defining the      •
    exact point where development ends and implementation         *
    begins




                                                                  I


                                                                  I


                                                                  I


                                                                  I


                                                                  I


                                                                  I


                                                                  I


                                                                  I


                                                                  I


                                                                  I


                                                                  I


                                                                  I


                                                                  I


                                                                  I

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
                                V - 11
INSTITUTIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
     During the remainder of this session of the workshop,
participants will be asked to address the final topics of concern,
namely the roles and relationships of state and local authorities
in effectively implementing and enforcing a wellhead protection
program.  The key questions are:

     1.  To what extent would an adequate program make use of or
         enhance existing state and local programs and regulatory
         requirements to carry out protection for WHP areas?

     2.  To what extent must the implementing agency demonstrate,
         in the program application, its ability to ensure
         coordination in implementation of the plan by appropriate
         state and local entities?

     The applicable statutory language, Subsection 1428(a),
requires that an adequate program:

     "specify the duties of state agencies, local governmental
     entities, and public water supply systems with respect to
     the development and implementation of programs required
     by this section."

     Underlying these issues is EPA's recognition of the
sensitivity that it must bring to bear in dealing with the state
and local governments in areas such as land use and ground-water
protection.  To the extent possible, EPA wants to ensure that the
WHP program is administered in a manner that is consistent with
existing State ground-water protection strategies and plans.

     The major question for participants to address is how does
SPA, while respecting the primary role of the states, ensure that
sufficient coordination will occur to allow for the implementation
of an adequate program?

-------
                                V - 12
ISSUE 3 - TO WHAT EXTENT WOULD AN ADEQUATE PROGRAM MAKE USE OF OR
ENHANCE EXISTING STATE AMD LOCAL PROGRAMS AND REGULATORY
                                                                        I

                                                                        I

REQUIREMENTS "TO'CARRY OUT" PROTECTION FOR'WHP AREAS
     The subquestion to this issue is, in implementing an adequate      •
program, should the state create a new agency or institution, or        *
should it employ existing state and local programs.
Option 1 -  An adequate program will utilize, to the maximum extent     8
possible, existing state statutes, regulations, and agencies
     Advantages                                                         I
     •  No need for new state bureaucracy
     •  Avoids duplication of effort                                    •
     •  More expeditious implementation                                 •
     Disadvantages
     •  May have program conflicts within existing agencies             I
     •  May lack authority in dealing with non-related state
        agencies or with federal agencies                               •
Option2 - Encourage, where possible, new institutions to implement
the programs                                                            •
     Advantages
     •  institutions could be specifically tailored to the needs of     I
        the program                                                     B
     Disadvantages                                                      •
     •  Could lead to duplication of effort with existing State and
        local programs                                                  _
     •  May be more costly to the states                                •
Option 3 - An adequate program need not address this question           •
     Advantages
     •  Maximum flexibility to state                                    •
                                                                        I
                                                                        I
                                                                        I

-------
                         V - 13

Disadvantages

•  Could limit integration with existing state program

•  Would not fulfill statutory requirement to indicate the
   roles of state and local agencies in developing and
   implementing the programs

-------
                                V - 14
                                                                        I
                                                                        I
ISSUE 4 - TO WHAT EXTENT MUST THE IMPLEMENTING AGENCY DEMONSTRATE,      I
IN THE PROGRAM APPLICATION, ITS ABILITY TO ENSURE COORDINATION IN       •
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PLAN BY APPROPRIATE STATE AND LOCAL ENTITIES
     Implementation of an adequate program may well require that a
number of diverse agencies and services operate together in new
ways.  For example, local zoning agencies may have to coordinate        •
efforts with public health agencies.                                    •

     The means of achieving such coordination could include:

     •  New state legislation authorizing a designated implemehting     I
        agency to manage and coordinate all State agencies and
        local entities for the purposes of carrying out the WHP         •
        program                                                         •

     •  A Governor's executive order establishing a special task
        force, commission or oversight committee to manage and          •
        coordinate all State agencies and local entities                •
        participating in the WHP program
Option 1 - Require that the identified State Implementing Agency
demonstrate some statutory authority by which it can manage and
     •  A Governor's designation of a lead agency to manage and
        coordinate all State agencies and local entities
        participating in the WHP program                                _

In all cases, the test of adequacy will be whether there is             ™
sufficient management and coordination authority to administer the
program's operational requirements.                                     fl

                                              mp'
                                              it can manage ana         tm
coordinate the program among all participating entities                 •

     Advantages

     •  Would provide a legal basis for adequate program management     •
        and coordination among several agencies and entities at
        both the State and local levels of activity                     •

     Disadvantages

     •  May not be legally feasible                                     •

     •  May take too long
Option 2- Require a demonstration of some administrative mechanism
reVg^, a Governor's Task Force or Oversight Committee? by whicF
program management and coordination will occur•

     Advantages

        Could provide adequate program management and coordination       I
        without need for new legislation
                                                                         I

-------
                                V - 15

Disadvantages

     *  May not be effective without statutory underpinning

Option 3 - Require identification of a lead agency to tie
responsible for managing and coordinatingthe efforts of program
implementation"

     Advantages

     •  Is the simplest means of providing program management and
        coordination

     Disadvantages

     •  Mere designation of a lead agency may not adequately ensure
        needed coordination
        May cause "turf" problems within a state

            sqi
            >Ts
Option 4 - Require no showing of management and coordination
ability; simply require a listing of duties by Agency oT
jurisdiction
     Advantages

     •  Maximum flexibility to the states

     Disadvantages

     *  This option is the least likely to provide adequate program
        management and coordination

-------

-------
APPENDIX A:   Safe Drinking Water Act  Amendments of 1986

-------
I
I
i
i
I
s
i
i
i
I
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i

-------
I
I
I
i
I
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
t
i
i
i
i
  cu
  ?
 I
  a
*-ฃ•
i*
ii
I-5
*j
5

I
i^tlilf
 •S a ฃ a-** ฃ ^
       dl

          *•*
•c^^^ss-s  ^^ig5
ง^•1 &!!-*:ง  3^25-c^
^ *• 3Jปป  . L~-  toSj-V
   ** 3 C3 ~^:  "•-
•o^o-Cll^i
^i^lii!
feป-ซ^8--lt-ซ
I'5^jง^Sx-ฐ
:h;i^;ง^
II?
l^a
e 
-------
            ill  illi  *
            .2*8  1|ปซ
            rt ?• ^  ^ป •-
   o -  ia,
   *"S  5
   So  **
   0.2  e-a
            ป, o-s  c"e"3 a
            Ji ซi O  CI ฃ*<ฃ
            ~1S.  -23^0  5
            ^ k>  H .. s ^
la
II
       05 -a
14
a-S
S-s
quality.
authority
          ***! f^l
                  ซ gง,
t
o
a,

"&•
              C**
                  u-
                 ft fc
   •5 |e|.^ 11 ^5

   tellM^II
   1325
     *• K  ซs
    58^|^'
    "rf?^5^

  IS^Iil*
-•i^i^n
             & c
            < ซ 00
             P S c
             fcg;-
    'c4*.
    Q.-5
           t. I.
          _5 5 a>
         _™s c. •*

        !I^S
             HOQ
        •^


J^M  I
ซS c^t^i  D'
cp ง.S-S a?
'Js  eb-a-a^
                                                                ll-
•s o
ii'-w
hM

2^
U 3
CO
o'r
ci
"* -^ O _ ซ5

"tx.ll?
 S-S~. C! O-5
 •ฐS S| E-5


| lNj|
Co •-ป -w C3
                                                                       i
oo
   O2 ซC  3 3^  C^2ซ0  O  Ocote^,oeJ e^-O  *^ O
   ^t C           S- fc e*

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
CO
o ~


*1
•?ง
o
a >ซ
•งt=
•Ci i* w
 ^>:c: c
 C Q, ซU
-|E

SZS
 a ซ |
10
ii:
ซd ซA *4f
 S 2""
^gs
           -c

           •5
           c
            k. -
            * "W
            .sl
           c
           a c
~tJ C o<*^i= p  ^ o 6.
81 ฐ ซ ป.ฐ^3 fe  =5 c~r

l^^llb^ll
Sg^s-S8^fiซ
ซ 3 g ซ> p U 5pง* -. O
                                    >*C-Ccs%i^*^Q9'^4^r^^^
                                    13"o^ a"ซ5 ปJ.a 2^ c c
                                    a >vS Sซ'~ c-cฐ S t^, o'-
                                    3 < >Q s -v o^^aa^o^
2 ^ฃ
^1
c 2 3^8Hfc^ง-a4S"ป  SS^^-g^.jpg
^^                  11^1!^?
                          I
                      flM
                      8 0,3 a
                      gl
                       ^S
                           eJ1i=
                           S0-^ 3
                                          a  ซ
 *• •>
r P<
                                   S1^
                                   c* •**
                                    s  > -i:  Co
                                    •• ซ* -~ ^   J
                                              5a6
20jiEaP = ง
|sซ|l& 5-1
^ eซ So *• <* ?
 .ซ• S ff 
-------
CM
                                                           c.S
                                                         ^Jr^'Sl^
                                                         SS^^Ts
                                                         .— P -2  *•
                                                         sl^SsS-rf
                                                         ฃ-s.iwi I e
                                                         UlilH
                                                         !^!U
                                                         ^i^g^S-
                                                         C <ซ) E S;T3 *-^3
                                                         lua-lu
                                                         2*eQง-g.s
                                                           "  S-S^
                                                         IT^
                                                         a
                                                         
-------
1
I
I
I
I
f
I
I
i
i
f
I
i
i
i
i
l
i
f
I Is-
•3 c
1 iฐ.
| .?ง

V


1
   ฎ p
a

  1
- ซ*ซ!ซ}
I'KS*|-ga|
oป S u S 5 5 "3


 le3J3-|8?8
 5^l|jf:
  "lil-ง1l

-------
i
t

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
APPENDIX B:  SSA Congressional Conference Report

-------
I
1
I
I

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
 05 3
 tn'^
 ,2 •-
 O™ s M^i u. STซ5^ts—i Cr^ C
  P^ ft 4 *•   M Tj ^^ 00 ^^ CJ ^^ ta


 ••u:^!lia|Jh..


 •^llBiiB*-
          >vฐ-5
           o ซ * 2 -.
           •"KcB 6g
            3.-. Bป?2'r:
                         II*M:
                        5&S^s
                        •3-ris-ss^
iง
cr
                  to ฃ
                — 8 v
                iu o 5

                •SJS
                •**J3
-So'sStJ^'e "c w o c S-5 S'S g
o "  ™ <ฅ >>-S ••• of- ซ*=:5 en ฐ ซ
S.-aiSs'S3 .Js"5*0^"**
ซฃ3J kg-gg^J

*lงLB3s5|jsl|lsiSt
 ^^ol^^lffS
                                                rn ป
                                         *• ** ^r qj
                                         oป o> w So
                                         > >_o. >T
                               :jsซ3
                               ^^JJ^
                               Sos o o
6 CB
fc ฐ
oซn
(3 "3

fi

I-
••5
                                                              6
                         " .ซ. ho fc. ~
                         ง s-fe it
                         •?• u>S-r ป•

       *3" C-S^-tJ we 5
l^lllllllllil^tli1
Sss'l?!!!!!
c'ซ ~ o

,J^15ซ
'si's  a^ s
                           S"i^f.il

                                                    K
                                                    O.



                                                    I

                                                    ซ

                                                    fe
                                                    2
                                                    O
                                                    S
                                                    w
                                                    Q
                                                    X
                                                    w
                                                    b.


                                                    
                                                a>-S-ง g i-IS ซ|
                                                - e  ป ป  g ^

                                                       L* 4)
                                                       3 JC
                                       a a>
                                       g|s
                                       co_o g
                                                ^ ฃ 2'3 s oJi-0
                                                ^-* -^ ป ^J ^ -"^ r^

                                                I -,
                                                       O
                                                       •Jl
                                                   O
                                                   5 a
                                                -, " -j>
                                                2 c -y
                                                ^. ^\ ฐ
                                                      ~ a ^ " ^. v. i-

-------
eo
•ซ*
   > o

   ฃง
   $3

   'I*

   -3ซ

   -S3^6|^|||c
3^1*'
 -S S-5 m
งงฃ|ฐS8.2

3*8 ^
          ^
          SllSfl
            O" 4) *" *
          g a 5 ซ g^-S
       ซ ซ~ a * ง-2
       t. OS en-J in  fir,

       *sl?!3*s-
          S ซJ c 2 *—

       j*:!i3j!
               ป- a>
    S5
  •-S'lu-sg-i-s8^
  ,, S.^^ s g a.<.a ป a,

  |ll?SrfilIII|,i!

  it|i|%i^!ill
      -^ai
                l|s.S.5
                g^J3
   m ,''•-' c C! *ป_ .
   ja S; ฐ-- o ซ^3 - o -i
   —>T) C o fi
                        J^งlป:;iง8|ฃe^i^ง
                        •g e B5ซ S5 ง||-J rQ g ฐ ซ S3 8 g1"
                                                                   I
       '
       Ct" O C
       iฐy
       .ti w  •S
   ^"-S.a^'Su

   li!!Pซ
   SS!fซ!
      •I'S ซซ2
            a>
         ss-as
         o^X a>

         feg*ซ
         _. MX g
         S-S-a*

         ||-i|

         3*0. a>i
         C  > to
         c XQ--
          - c c
            • is

           •ซH
            Jffia1
            ง^ul
            s*3E
            s^sj
            < c.21"
ป ปa^1 ง 8*8 IS ฃ••ง
ซ|ซ22ง-2B8|g*|

C E-jpn 2 a ซ fe S ft  V
- ss^-^a.:: Q.I- u a
   c5ffi.324sagซ2T3

3Mง1^ii!:isS
to ซ ป-"S g'd c 2




งl>gSaE^8ฃg2
    ' ป> ซ Q. ? "* 3 O
-q<
C4 _

- gj= ^ซป


gs2^|l.
•3 3 *15 S E =•&.
    agSffiซซ
                                   , a>
                                   S^
                      as
              589-2^ 5
                    a
   •il^g-S^lf

  S^S-ISIe-Sl
  So^o-^Soajo^-
•SSS^SJg-n^^la,^

ง"3." "•BS.S'S 8'35-S

-------
I

                                         —              Q c3 J.5 O
                                        •? Hill         iffi
C 3

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
APPENDIX C:  List of State WHPA Methods References

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

-------
1
I
1
I
I
I
                   STATE
              MASSACHUSETTS
                                   REFERENCE DOCUMENT
                         Heath, D.L.,  "Hydrogeologic Considera-
                             tions of Zone of Contribution Methods
                             Used By Cape Cod Planning and Eco-
                             nomic Development Commission and SEA
                             Consultants, Inc. for Public Supply
                             Wells in Barnstable, Massachusetts,"
                             (Office of Groundwater Protection
                             U.S. Environmental Protection Agency)

                         Gallagher, T. and Nickerson, S., "The
                             Cape Cod Aquifer Management Project:
                             A Multi-Agency Approach to Ground
                             Water Protection," Proceedings of the
                             National Water Well Association Third
                             Annual Eastern Regional Ground-Water
                             Conference, (1986)

                         Roy, Steven P., and Drake, John T.,
                             "Development of the Massachusetts
                             Ground-Water Monitoring Program,"
                             p. 145-149

                         Evaluation of Approachesto Determine
                             RechargeAreas for PublIc Supply
                             Wells, Report, (Cape Cod Aquifer
                             Management Project Aquifer Assessment
                             Committee, April 1986)

                         Edgartown WaterResource Protection
                             Program, Final Report, (Anderson-
                             Nichols & Co., Inc., May 1985)

                         Groundwater Protection Strategy, Report,
                             (Comonwealth of Massachusetts Depart-
                             ment of Environmental Quality Engi-
                             neering Division of Water Supply,
                             January 1983)

                         Horsley, Scott W., and Cambareri,
                             Thomas C., "Delineating Zones of
                             Contribution for Public Supply Wells
                             to Protect Ground Water in New
                             England," Proceedings of the National
                            Water Well Conference, (Journal
                            NEWWA, March 1986)
Note:  *Awaiting Delivery

-------
                    LIST OF REFERENCES
            FOR STATES SURVEY OF WHPA METHODS
     STATE
CONNECTICUT
FLORIDA
ILLINOIS
MASSACHUSETTS
               REFERENCE DOCUMENT
*1.   EXPLANATION  AND
     MAPPING TECHNIQUE
EXAMPLE OF  AQUIFER
*2.   EXPLANATION OF  CONNECTICUT'S AQUIFER
     CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM

 1.   Wellfleld Travel  Time Model for Selected
        Dade,  Broward,  and Palm Beach
        Counties Florida,  Final Report,
        9243-110 (Camp Dresser & McKee,  Inc.,
        August 1982)

 2.   The Study of Water Supply and The Selec-
        tion of Future Wellfield Sites in
        Broward County. Florida. Executive
        Summary (James M.  Montgomery,
        Consulting Engineers,  Inc. in associ-
        ation with Dames & Moore, June 1986)

 3•   PalmBeachCounty Well Field Protection
        Model, Draft Report,  (Dames & Moore,
        October 1986)

 *•   Dade County's Regulatory Approach to
        Wellfield Protection.  Report, (Metro-
        politan Dade County Environmental
        Resources Management)

 5.   DeHan,  R.S., "New Approach to Protection
        of Sensitive Aquifers in Florida,"
        Department of  Environmental Regula-
        tion

 1.   A Plan For Protecting Illinois Ground-
        water, Conceptual  Plan, (Ground-Water
        Section, Division of Public Water
        Supply)

 1.   New England Project Proposal, Demonstra-
        tion of the Use of Three-Dimensional
        Ground-Water Modeling to Delineate
        Zones  of Contribution to Public
        Supply Wells,  Cape Cod. Massachu-
        setts, (Northeastern Water Resources
        Division, April 1986)
Note:  *Awaiting Delivery
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
                        I
                        I
                        I
                        I
                        I
                        I
                        I

-------

      STATE
MASSACHUSETTS
PENNSYLVANIA
SOUTH CAROLINA


SOUTH DAKOTA



VERMONT
                 REFERENCE DOCUMENT
 9.  Horsley, Scott W.,  "Delineating Zones of
         Contribution for Public Supply Wells
         to Protect Groundwater," Proceedings
         of the National Water Well Conference
         (Journal NEWWA, November 1983)

*10.  Cape Cod Planning and Economic Develop-
         ment Commission, "Water Supply
         Protection Project Report," 1979.

*11.  Offer,  Stuart A. and Grahame J. Larson,
         "Determination of Recharge Rates to a
         Drift Aquifer Using Bomb Tritium
         Within the Saturated Zone," (Michigan
         State University, 1982)

*12.  U.S.  Department of the Interior Geo-
         logical Survey, "Digital Models of
         Ground-Water Flow in the Cape Cod
         Aquifer System, Massachusetts," Open-
         File Report 80-67, (Water Resources
         Investigations, 1981)

*13.  Groundwater and WaterResource Pro-
         tection Plan for theTown of
         Barnstable. Massachusetts,  Report,
         (SEA Consultants, Inc., 1985)

  1•  Proposals forthe  Management of Ground-
         WaterQuality in Pennsylvania:
         Protection and  Monitoring.  (Division
         of Water Quality Bureau of Water
         Quality Management,  July 1985)

 •1.  TECHNICAL PAPER{S) DISCUSSING ISOTOPE
      AND TRITIUM DATING TECHNIQUES.

 *1.  PRELIMINARY REPORTS DISCUSSING PROPOSED
      METHODOLOGY FOR DELINEATING WELL HEAD
      PROTECTION AREAS

  1.  Vermont Aftuifer Protection Area Refer-
         ence Document,  Aquifer Protection
         Areas Prototype Project, (Department
         of Water Resources and Environmental
         Engineering)
                         "Groundwater Protection," Ground Water
                            Protection Law. Chanter 4j.
Note:  *Awaiting Delivery

-------
     STATE
VERMONT
                     8
WASHINGTON
          REFERENCE DOCUMENT
Ground-Water Resources of the Rutland
   Area,  Vermont,  Water-Resources
   Investigations 82-4057, (U.S.  Geo-
   logical Survey, 1963)

Ground Water Favorability Map of  the
   Nulhegan-Passumpsic River Basin,
   Vermont,  (Vermont Department of
   Water Resources and the U.S. Geo-
   logical Survey, 1967)

Ground Water Favorability Map of  the
   Otter Creek Basin, Vermont, (Vermont
   Department of Water Resources  and the
   U.S. Geological Survey, 1967}

Ground Water Pavorability Map of  the
   Lamoille RiverBasin, Vermont,
   Vermont Department of Water Resources
   and the U.S.Geological Survey, 1967)

Ground Water Favorability Map ofthe
   Missisguoi RiverBasin, Vermont,
   (Vermont Department of Water
   Resources and the U.S. Geological
   Survey, 1967)

Stateof Vermont Ground Water Favora-
   ability Map of the Batten Kill,
   Walloomsac Riverand Hoosic River
   Basins, (Vermont Department of Water
   Resources and the U.S. Geological
   Survey, 1966)

Guidelines for Development of Ground
   Water Management Areas and Programs,
   Chapter 173-100 WAC, (Water Resources
   Planning and Management Section
   Washington State Department of
   Ecology,  April 1986)
Note:  *Awaiting Delivery
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I

-------
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
 I
I
I
APPENDIX D:  Glossary of Hydrogeologic Terminology

-------
I
I
I
I


-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
                             GLOSSARY
     The purpose of this Glossary is to provide to the Workshop
Participant a list of terms commonly used by hydrogeologists.
The definitions provided in this glossary are not necessarily
endorsed by EPA nor are they to be viewed as suggested language
for regulatory purposes.  Numbers in brackets indicate the
reference source.


Adsorption.  The assimilation of gas, vapor, or dissolved matter
by the surface of a solid [1],  The attraction and adhesion of a
layer of ions from an aqueous solution to the solid mineral
surfaces with which it is in contact; [2].

Advection.  The process by which solutes are transported by the
bulk motion of the flowing ground water [1],

Aeration.  The process of bringing air into intimate contact with
water, usually by bubbling air through the water to remove
dissolved gases like carbon dioxide and hydrogen sulfide or to
oxidize dissolved materials like iron compounds [1].

Air stripping.  A mass transfer process in which a substance in
solution in water is transferred to solution in a gas, usually
air [1].

Alkaline.  Any of various soluble mineral salts found in natural
water and arid soils having a pH greater than 7.  In water
analysis, it represents the carbonates,  bicarbonates, hydroxides,
and occasionally the borates, silicates, and phosphates in the
water [1].

Alluvial.  Pertaining to or composed of alluvium or deposited by
a stream or running water.[1]

Alluvium.  A general term for clay, silt,  and sand, gravel, or
similar unconsolidated material deposited during comparatively
recent geologic time by a stream or other body of running water
as a sorted or semisorted sediment in the bed of the stream or on
its floodplain or delta, or as a cone or fan at the base of a
mountain slope.[1]

Anisotropic.  Having some physical property that varies with
direction.[1]

Anisotropy.  The condition under which one or more of the
hydraulic properties of an aquifer vary according to the
direction of flow.[2]

-------
                                                                     I
                                                                     I
Aquiclude.  A saturated, but poorly permeable bed, formation, or     m
group of formations that does not yield water freely to a well or
spring.  However, an aguiclude may transmit appreciable water to     •
or from adjacent aquifers.[1]                                        •

Aquifer.  A formation, group of formations, or part of a             •
formation that contains sufficient saturated permeable material      •
to yield economical quantities of water to wells and springs.[l]
Rock or sediment in a formation, group of formations, or part of
a formation which is saturated and sufficiently permeable to         •
transmit economic quantities of water to wells and springs.[2]       •

Aquifer, unconfined.  An aquifer in which there are no confining     ฃ
beds between the zone of saturation and the surface.  There will     ฃ
be a water table in an unconfined aquifer. Water-table aquifer is
a synonym.[2]                                                        _

Aquifer test.  A test involving the withdrawal of measured           •
quantities of water from or addition of water to, a well and the
measurement of resulting changes in head in the aquifer both         •
during and after the period of discharge or additional]              |

Aquitard.  A geologic formation, group of formations, or part of      _
a formation through which virtually no water moves.[1]                •

Artesian well.  A well deriving its water from a confined aquifer
in which the water level stands above the ground surface;             •
synonymous with flowing artesian well.[l]                             •

Artificial recharge.  Recharge at a rate greater than natural,        ซ
resulting from deliberate actions of man.[1]  The process by          •
which water can be injected or added to an aquifer.  Dug basins,      m
drilled wells, or simply the spread of water across the land
surface are all means of artificial recharge.[2]                      M

Basalt.  A general term for dark-colored  iron- and magnesium-rich
igneous rocks, commonly extrusive, but locally intrusive.  It is      ซ
the principal rock type making up the ocean floor.[1]                 j|

Baseflow.  That part of a stream discharge derived from ground
water seeping into the stream.[2]                                     I

Bedrock.  A general term for the rock, usually solid, that
underlies soil or other unconsolidated material.[1]                   •

Buried valley.  A depression in an ancient land  surface or in
bedrock now covered by younger deposits,  especially a preglacial      _
valley filled with glacial drift.[1]                                  •

Calibration.  Adjustment of the input data until computed heads
match the field values.[3]                                            ft
                                                                      I

                                                                      I

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Capillary fringe.  The zone at the bottom of the vadose zone
where ground water is drawn upward by capillary force.[1]  The
zone immediately above the water table, where water is drawn
upward by capillary attraction.[2]

Carbonate.  A sediment formed by the organic or inorganic
precipitation from aqueous solution of carbonates of calcium,
magnesium, or iron.[l]

Carbonate rocks.  A rock consisting chiefly of carbonate
minerals, such as limestone and dolomite.[1]

Cathode.  Any negatively charged electrode, as in an
electrolytes, characteristically moving toward a negative
electrode.[1]

Cation.  An ion having a positive charge and,  in electrolytes,
characteristically moving toward a negative electrode.[1]

Cation exchange.  Ion exchange process in which cations in
solution are exchanged for other cations from an ion
exchanger.[1]

Chlorine.  A gas, C12, widely used in the disinfection of water
and as an oxidizing agent.[1]

Clastic.  Pertaining to a rock or sediment composed principally
of broken fragments that are derived from pre-existing rocks or
minerals and that have been transported some distance from their
places of origin.[1]

Coefficient of permeability.  An obsolete term that has been
replaced by the term hydraulic conductivity.[1]

Coefficient of storage.  The volume of water an aquifer releases
from or takes into storage per unit surface area of the aquifer
per unit change in head.[l]

Coefficient of transmissivity.  See Transmissivity.[1]

Colloid.  Extremely small solid particles, 0.0001 to 1 micron in
size, which will not settle out of a solution; intermediate
between a true dissolved particle and a suspended solid which
will settle out of solution.[1]

Cone of depression.  A depression in the ground water-table or
potentiometric surface that has the shape of an inverted cone and
develops around a well from which water is being withdrawn.  It
defines the area of influence of a well. [1]

-------
                                                                      I



Confined aquifer.  A formation in which the ground water is
isolated from the atmosphere at the point of discharge by
impermeable geologic formations;  confined ground water is            •
generally subject to pressure greater than atmospheric.[1]            ป

Confining bed.  A body of material of low hydraulic conductivity      •
that is stratigraphically adjacent to one or more aquifers. It        •
may lie above or below the aquifer.[2]

Contamination.  The degradation of natural water quality as a         •
result of man's activities.  There is no implication of any           •
specific limits, since the degree of permissible contamination
depends upon the intended end use, or uses, of the water.[1]          •

Darcy's law.  A derived equation for the flow of fluids on the
assumption that the flow is laminar and that inertia can be           _
neglected.[1]                                                         M

Density.  Matter measured as mass per unit volume expressed in
pounds per gallon (lb/gal). pounds per cubic ft (lb/ft3), and         •
kilogram per cubic m (kg/m3).[l]  The mass of quantity of a           |
substance per unit volume.  Units are kilograms per cubic meter
or grams per cubic centimeter.[2]                                     •

Diagenesis.  The chemical and physical changes occurring in
sediments before consolidation or while in the environment of
deposition.[2]                                                        •

Digital computer model.  A model of ground-water flow in which
the aquifer is described by numerical equations with specified
values for boundary conditions which are solved on a digital
computer.[2]

Direct precipitation.  Water that falls directly into a  lake or
stream without passing through any land phase of the runoff
cycle.[2]

Discharge area.  An area in which there are upward components of
hydraulic heat in the aquifer.  Ground water is flowing toward
the surface in a discharge area and may escape as a spring, seep,     _
or aseflow, or by evaporation and transpiration.[2]                   •

Discharge velocity.  An apparent velocity, calculated for Darcy's
law, which represents the flow rate at which water would move
through an aquifer if the aquifer were an open conduit.  Also
called specific discharge.[2]

Dispersion.  The spreading and mixing of chemical constituents in     I
ground water caused by diffusion and mixing due to microscopic        •
variations in velocities within and between pores.[1]
                                                                      I

                                                                      I

-------

Drainage basin.  The land area from which surface runoff drains
into a stream system.[2]

Drawdown.  The distance between the static water level and the
surface of the cone of depression.fi]  A lowering of the water
table of an unconfined aquifer or the potentiometric surface of a
confined aquifer caused by pumping of ground water from wells.[2]

Dynamic equilibrium.  A condition of which the amount of recharge
to an aquifer equals the amount of natural discharge.[2]

Effective porosity.  The amount of interconnected pore space
through which fluids can pass, expressed as a percent of bulk
volume.  Part of the total porosity will be occupied by static
fluid being held to the mineral surface by surface tension, so
effective porosity will be less than total porosity.[2]

Equipotential line.  A contour line on the water table or
potentiometric surface; a line along which the pressure head of
ground water in an aquifer is the same.  Fluid flow is normal to
these lines in the direction of decreasing fluid potential.[1]  A
line in a two-dimensional ground-water flow field such that the
total hydraulic head is the same for all points along the
line.[2]

Equipotential surface.   A surface in a three-dimensional ground-
water flow field such that the total hydraulic head is the same
everywhere on the surface.[2]

Evapotranspiration.  Loss of water from a land area through
transpiration of plants and evaporation from the soil.[l]  The
sum of evaporation plus transpiration.[2]

Evapotranspiration, actual.   The evaporation that actually occurs
under given climatic and soil-moisture conditions.[2]

Evapotranspiration, potential.  The evapotranspiration that would
occur under given climatic conditions if there were unlimited
soil moisture.[2]

Flow lines.  Lines indicating the direction followed by ground
water toward points of discharge.  Flow line are perpendicular to
equipotential lines.[1]

Flow Model.  A digital computer model that calculates a hydraulic
head field for the modeling domain using numerical methods to
arrive at an approximate solution to the differential equation of
ground-water flow.[3]

Glacial drift.  A general term for unconsolidated sediment
transported by glaciers and deposited directly or land or in the
sea.[1]

-------
                                                                     I
Ground water.  The water contained in interconnected pores
located below the water table in an unconfined aquifer or located
in a confined aquifer. [2]                                             •

Ground-water basin.  A rather vague designation pertaining to a
ground-water reservoir which is more or less separate from
neighboring ground-water reservoirs.  A ground-water basin could
be separated from adjacent basins by geologic boundaries or by
hydrologic boundaries. [2]

Ground-water, confined.   The water contained in a confined            •
aquifer.  Pore-water pressure is grater than atmosphere at the
top of the confined aquifer. [2]                                       •

Ground-water flow.  The movement of water through opening in
sediment and rock which occurs in the zone of saturation.             _

Ground-water, perched.  The water in an isolated, saturated zone      •
located in the zone of aeration.  It is the result of the
presence of a layer of material of low hydraulic conductivity,        •
called a perching bed.  Perched ground water will have a perched      |
water tabl e . [ 2 ]

Ground-water table.  The surface between the zone of saturation       I
and the zone of aeration; the surface of an unconfined                —
aquifer. [1]

Ground-water, unconfined.  The water in an aquifer where there is     •
a water table . [ 2 ]
Hydraulic conductivity.  The rate of flow of water in gallons per
day through a cross section of one square foot under a unit
hydraulic gradient, at the prevailing temperature (gpd/ft2) .  In
the SI System, the units are m^/day/m2 or m/day. [1]  A                •
coefficient of proportionality describing the rate at which water     •
can move through a permeable medium.  The density and kinematic
viscosity of the water must be considered in determining
hydraulic conductivity. [2]  Hydraulic Conductivity (K) is a
measure of the capacity of a porous medium to transmit water.  It
is governed by the size and shape of the pores, the effectiveness
of the interconnection between pores, and the physical properties      •
of the fluid. [3]                                                      •

Hydraulic gradient.  The rate of change in total head per unit of
distance of flow in a given direction. [1]  The change in total
head with a change in distance in a given direction.  The
direction is that which yield a maximum rate of decrease in           ซ
head. [2]  The difference in hydraulic heads (hx - h2) , divided by     •
the distance  (L) along the flowpath.[3]
          i - (h! - H2) / L
                                                                      I

                                                                      I

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Hydrodynamic dispersion.  The process by which ground water
containing a solute is diluted with uncontaminated ground water
as it moves through an aquifer.[2]

Hydrogeologic.  Those factors that deal with subsurface waters
and related geologic aspects of surface waters.[1]

Igneous rocks.  Rocks that solidified from molten or partly
molten materials, that is, from a magma.[1]

Infiltration.  The flow of water downward from the land surface
into and through the upper soil layers.[2]

Interference.  The condition occurring when the area of influence
of a water well comes into contact with or overlaps that of a
neighboring well, as when two wells are pumping from the same
aquifer or are located near each other.[1]

Intrinsic permeability.  Pertaining to the relative ease with
which a porous medium can transmit a liquid under a hydraulic or
potential gradient.  It is a property of the porous medium and is
independent of the nature of the liquid or the potential
field.[2]

Ion.  Any element or compound that has gained or lost an
electron, so that it is no longer neutral electrically, but
carries a charge.[1]

Isotropic.  Said of a medium whose properties are the same in all
directions.[l]

Isotropy.  The condition in which hydraulic properties of the
aquifer are equal in all directions.[2]

Karst topography.  A type of topography that is formed on
limestone, gypsum,  and other rocks by dissolution, and is
characterized by sinkholes, caves, and underground drainage.[1]

Kinematic viscosity.  The ratio of dynamic viscosity to mass
density.  It is obtained by dividing dynamic viscosity by the
fluid density.  Units of kinematic viscosity are square meters pr
second.[2]

Laminar flow.  Water flow in which the stream lines remain
distinct and in which the flow direction at every point remains
unchanged with time.  It is characteristic of the movement of
ground water.[1]  That type of flow in which the fluid particles
follow paths that are smooth, straight, and parallel to the
channel walls.  In laminar flow,  the viscosity of the fluid damps
out turbulent motion.  Compare with Turbulent flow.[2]

-------
                                                                      I
Leachate.  The liquid that has percolated through solid waste and
dissolved soluble components .[ 1 ]

Leaky confining layer.  A low-permeability layer that can             •
transmit water at sufficient rates to furnish some recharge to a
well pumping from an underlying aquifer.  Also called
aquitard. [2]
Limestone.  A sedimentary rock consisting chiefly of calcium
carbonate, primarily in the form of the mineral calcite.[l]           •

Metamorphic rocks.  Any rock derived from pre-existing rocks by
mineralogical, chemical, and/or structural changes, essentially
in the solid state, in response to marked changes in temperature,
pressure, shearing stress, and chemical environment, generally at
depth in the Earth ' s crust . [ 1 ]                                        _

Molecular diffusion.  Dispersion of a chemical caused by the          ™
kinetic activity of the ionic or molecular constituents. [1]

Molecule.  A stable configuration of atomic nuclei and electrons      |
bound together by electrostatic and electromagnetic forces.  It
is the simplest structural unit that displays the characteristic      •
physical and chemical properties of a compound. [1]                    •
Moraine.  A mound, ridge, or other distinct accumulation of
unsorted, unstratified glacial drift, predominantly till,             1
deposited chiefly by direct action of glacier ice.[l]                 •

Naturally developed well.  A well in which the screen is placed       •
in direct contact with the aquifer materials; no filter pack is       •
used.[1]

Observation well.  A well drilled in a selected location for the      •
purpose of observing parameters such as water levels and pressure     •
changes.[1]  A nonpumping well used to observe the elevation of
the water table or the potentiometric surface.  An observation
well is generally of larger diameter than a piezometer and
typically is screened or slotted throughout the thickness of the
aquifer.[2]                                                           _

outwash.  stratified sand and gravel removed or washed out from a     •
glacier by meltwater streams and deposited in front of or beyond
the end moraine or the margin of an active glacier.  The coarser
material is deposited nearer to the ice.[l]

Outwash plain.  A broad, gently sloping sheet of outwash.[1]          ซ

Overburden.  The loose soil, silt, sand gravel, or other              *
unconsolidated material overlying bedrock, either transported or
formed in place; regolith.[l]                                         B
                                8
                                                                      I

                                                                      I


-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Partial penetration.  When the intake portion of the well is less
than the full thickness of the aquifer.[l]

Perched water.  Unconfined ground water separated from an
underlying main body of ground water by an unsaturated zone.[1]

Percolate.  The act of water seeping or filtering through the
soil without a definite channel.[1]

Permeability.  The property or capacity of a porous rock,
sediment, or soil for transmitting a fluid; it is a measure of
the relative ease of fluid flow under unequal pressure.[1]

pH.  A measure of the acidity of alkalinity of a solution,
numerically equal to 7 for neutral solutions, increasing with
increasing alkalinity and decreasing with increasing acidity.
Originally stood for the words potential of hydrogen.[1]

Piezometer.  A nonpumping well, generally of small diameter,
which is used to measure the elevation of the water table or
potentiometric surface.  A piezometer generally has a short well
screen through which water can enter.[2]

Piezometer nest.  A set of two or more piezometers set close to
each other but screened to different depths.[2]

Pollutant.  Any solute or cause of change in physical properties
which renders water unfit for a given use.[2]

Pollution.  When the contamination concentration levels restrict
the potential use of ground water.[1]

Porosity.  The percentage of the bulk volume of a rock or soil
that is occupied by interstices, whether isolated or
connected.[1]  The ratio of the volume of void spaces in a rock
or sediment to the total volume of the rock or sediment.[2]

Potentiometric surface.  An imaginary surface representing the
total head of ground water in a confined aquifer that is defined
by the level to which water will rise in a well.[l]  A surface
that represents the level to which water will rise in tightly
cased wells.  If the head varies significantly with depth in the
aquifer, then there may be more than one potentiometric surface.
The water table is a particular potentiometric surface for an
unconfined aquifer.[2]

Pumping cone.  The area around a discharging well where the
hydraulic head in the aquifer has been lowered by pumping.  Also
called cone of depression.[2]

-------
                                                                      I
Pumping test.  A test that is conducted to determine aquifer or       ™
well characteristics. [1]  A test made  by pumping a well for a
period of time and observing the change in hydraulic head in the      •
aquifer.  A pumping test may be used to determine the capacity of     m
the well and the hydraulic characteristics of the aquifer.  Also
called aquifer test. [2]                                               ซ

Radial flow.  The flow of water in an aquifer toward a vertically
oriented well. [2]

Radius of influence.  The radial distance from the center of a        I
well bore to the point where there is no lowering of the water
table or potent iometric surface (the edge of its cone of              •
depression) . [1]                                                       •

Recharge.  The addition of water to the zone of saturation; also,
the amount of water added. [1]                                         •

Recharge area. An area in which there are downward components of
hydraulic head in the aquifer.  Infiltration moves downward into      •
the deeper parts of an aquifer in a recharge area. [2]                 |

Recharge basin.  A basin or pit excavated to provide a means of       _
allowing water to soak into the ground at rates exceeding those       •
that would occur naturally. [2]                                        ~

Recharge boundary.  An aquifer system boundary that adds water to     •
the aquifer.  Streams and lakes are typical recharge                  |
boundaries. [2]

Runoff. That part of precipitation flowing to surface streams. [1]     •
The total amount of water flowing in a stream.  It includes           —
overland flow, return flow, interflow, and baseflow. [2]

Safe yield.  The amount of naturally occurring ground water which     •
can be economically and legally withdrawn from an aquifer on a
sustained basis without impairing the native ground-water quality     •
or creating an undesirable effect such a environmental damage.        •
It cannot exceed the increase in recharge or leakage from
adjacent strata plus the reduction in discharge, which is due to
the decline in head caused by pumping. [2]                             •

Saline-water encroachment.  The movement, as a result of human
activity, of saline ground water into an aquifer formerly             •
occupied by fresh water.  Passive saline-water encroachment           |
occurs at a slow rate due to a general lowering of the freshwater
potent iometric surface.  Active saline-water encroachment             _
proceeds at a more rapid rate due to the lowering of the              •
freshwater potentiometric surface below sea level. [2]                 ™
Sandstone.  A sedimentary rock composed of abundant rounded or
angular fragments of sand set in a fine-grained matrix (silt or
                                10
                                                                      I

                                                                      I

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
clay) and more or less firmly united by a cementing material.[1]
Saturated zone.  The zone in which the voids in the rock or soil
are filled with water at a pressure greater than atmospheric.
The water table is the top of the saturated zone in an unconfined
aquifer.[2]

Sedimentary rocks.  Rocks resulting from the consolidation of
loose sediment that has accumulated in layers.[1]

Seepage velocity.  The actual rate of movement of fluid particles
through porous media.[2]

Shale.  A fine-grained sedimentary rock, formed by the
consolidation of clay, silt, or mud.  It is characterized by
finely laminated structure and is sufficiently indurated so that
it will not fall apart on wetting.[1]

Solute Transport Model.  Mathematical model used to predict the
movement of particles in the aquifer through time.[3]

Specific capacity.  The rate of discharge of a water well per
unit of drawdown, commonly expressed in gpm/ft or m/day/m.   It
varies with duration of discharge.[1]

Specific yield.  The ratio of the volume of water that a given
mass of saturated rock or soil will yield by gravity to the
volume of that mass.  This ratio is stated as a percentage.fi]

Stagnation point.  A place in a ground-water flow field at which
the ground water is not moving.  The magnitude of vectors of
hydraulic head at the point are equal but opposite in
direction.[2]

Static water level.  The level of water in a well that is not
being affected by withdrawal of ground water.[1]

Storage specific.  The amount of water released from or taken
into storage per unit volume of a porous medium per unit change
in head.[2]

Storativity.  The volume of water an aquifer releases from or
takes into storage per unit surface area of the aquifer per unit
change in head.  It is equal to the product of specific storage
and aquifer thickness.  In an unconfined aquifer, the storativity
is equivalent to the specific yield.  Also called storage
coefficient.[2]

Stream, gaining.  A stream or reach of a stream, the flow of
which is being increased by inflow of ground water.   Also known
as an effluent stream.[2]
                                11

-------
                                                                      I
Stream, losing.  A stream or reach of a stream that is losing         ™
water by seepage into the ground.  Also known as an influent
stream.[2]                                                            •

Total dissolved solids, TDS.  A term that expresses the quantity
of dissolved material in a sample of water, either the residue on     ซ
evaporation, dried at 356T (180*C), or, for many waters that         •
contain more than about 1,000 mg/1, the sum of the chemical           *
constituents.[1]

Transmissivity.  The rate at which water is transmitted through a     I
unit width of an aquifer under a unit hydraulic gradient.
Transmissivity values are given in gallons per minute through a       •
vertical section of an aquifer one foot wide and extending the        |
full saturated height of an aquifer under a hydraulic gradient of
1 in the English Engineering system; in the International System,
transmissivity is given in cubic meters per day through a             •
vertical section of an aquifer one meter wide and extending the       B
full saturated height of an aquifer under a hydraulic gradient of
1.[1]  The rate at which water of a prevailing density and            •
viscosity is transmitted through a unit width of an aquifer or        |
confining bed under a unit hydraulic gradient.  It is a function
of properties of the liquid, the porous media, and the thickness      _
of the porous media.[2]                                               •

Transpiration.  The process by which water absorbed by plants,
usually through the roots, is evaporated into the atmosphere from     •
the plant surface.[1]   The process by which plants give off water     p
vapor through their leaves.[2]

Turbulent flow.  Water flow in which the flow lines are confused      •
and heterogeneously mixed.  It is typical of flow in surface-         —
water bodies.[1]  That type of flow in which the fluid .particles
move along very irregular paths.  Momentum can be exchanged           •
between one portion of the fluid and another.  Compare with           •
Laminar flow.[2]

Unconfined aquifer.  An aquifer where the water table is exposed      •
to the atmosphere through openings in the overlying materials.[1]

Unsaturated zone.  The zone between the land surface and the          I
water table.  It includes the root zone, intermediate zone, and       •
capillary fringe.  The pore spaces contain water at less than
atmospheric pressure,  as well as air and other gases.  Saturated      •
bodies, such as perched ground water, may exist in the                J
unsaturated zone.[2]

Vadoze zone.  The zone containing water under pressure less than      •
that of the atmosphere, including soil water, intermediate vadose     ™
water, and capillary water.  This zone is limited above by the
land surface and below by the surface of the zone of saturation,
that is, the water table.[1]

                                12
I

I

I

-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Viscosity.  The property of a substance to offer internal
resistance to flow.  Specifically, the ratio of the shear stress
to the rate of shear strain.[1]  The property of a fluid
describing its resistance to flow.  Units of viscosity are
newton-seconds per meter squared or pascal-seconds.  Viscosity is
also known as dynamic viscosity.[2]

Water budget.  An evaluation of all the sources of supply and the
corresponding discharges with respect to an aquifer or a drainage
basin.[2]

Water table.  The surface between the vadose zone and the ground
water; that surface of a body of unconfined ground water at which
the pressure is equal to that of the atmosphere.[1]  The surface
in an unconfined aquifer or confining bed at which the pore water
pressure is atmospheric.  It can be measured by installing
shallow wells extending a few feet into the zone of saturation
and then measuring the water level in those wells.[2]

Well, fully penetrating.  A well drilled to the bottom of an
aquifer, constructed in such a way that it withdraws water from
the entire thickness of the aquifer.[2]

Well interference.  The result of two or more pumping wells, the
drawdown cones of which intercept.  At a given location,  the
total well interference is the sum of the drawdowns due to each
individual well.[2]

Well, partially penetrating.  A well constructed in such a way
that it draws water directly from a fractional part of the total
thickness of the aquifer.  The fractional part may be located at
the top or the bottom or anywhere in between the aquifer.[2]

Well point.  A screening device, equipped with a point on one
end, that is meant to be driven into the ground.[1]

Well screen.  A filtering device used to keep sediment from
entering a water well.[l]

Well yield.  The volume of water discharged from a well in
gallons per minute or cubic meters per day.[1]
                                13

-------
I

I

I
        GLOSSARY REFERENCES

[1]   Driscoll,  F.G.  1986                               M
     Groundwater and Wells. Second Edition,            •
     Johnson Division,  St.  Paul,  Minnesota. 1089       —
     Pซ

[2]   Fetter, C.W.,  1980                                I
     APP!ied Hydrogeolqgy.   Charles E. Merrill
     Publishing Company, Columbus, OH 488 p.           •




                                                       I



                                                       I



                                                       I



                                                       I


                                                       I


                                                       I


                                                       I



                                                       I



                                                       I


                                                       I



                                                       I


                                                       I


                                                       I

-------
 I
. fl

 i
 i
 i
i
 i
 i
 i
 i
i
 i
i
 i
i
i
i
i
i
            DATE DUE
UUI
                          PRINTED IN U.S.A.
                                                U.S. EPA Headquarters Library
                                                      Mail code 3201
                                                1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
                                                   Washington DC 20460

-------
 I
 I
*
 I
 I
 I
I
 I
 I
1
I

-------