vvEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
State and Federal Source Water
Assessment and Protection
Program Measures- Final
Reporting Guidance
-------
Disclaimer
This document is not a regulation. Thus, it cannot impose legally-binding requirements on EPA,
states, Territories, authorized Tribes, or the public. To the extent this document summarizes
statutory or regulatory requirements, and anything in that summary is in conflict with the statutes
or regulations, the statutes and regulations control. This Guidance document does not change
or substitute for those legal requirements, is not itself legally binding, and does not confer legal
rights or legal obligations upon any member of the public, EPA, states, or any other agency. In
following this Final Reporting Guidance, EPA decision makers retain the discretion to adopt
approaches on a case-by-case basis that differ from it where appropriate. As necessary and
appropriate, EPA may change this Reporting Guidance in the future.
Office of Water (4606)
EPA-816-R-05-001
www.epa.gov/safewater
March, 2005 Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
Table of Contents
Part A. Introduction 1
1. Purpose of Final Guidance 1
2. How This Document is Organized 2
3. Background, EPA 2003-2008 Strategic Plan, and National Water Program Guidance for
Fiscal Year 2005 and forthcoming National Water Program Guidance for Fiscal Year
2006 2
4. National Source Water Assessment and Protection Program Measures and Other
Information in this Guidance 3
5. Framework Serving as the Basis for the State and National Source Water Assessment
and Protection Measures and Other Information 5
6. Rationale for How the Measures and Other Information are Indicators to Help Answer the
Key National Questions 8
Part B. Summary of National and State Source Water Measures and Information 13
Question 1: Are the State Source Water Assessments Being Completed Under Section
1453 of the SDWA? 14
Question 2: What Threats to Sources of Drinking Water Are Being Found in Assessment
Results? 18
Question 3: How Are Current and Future Drinking Water Supplies Being Protected? ... 20
Question 4: Are Source Water Protection Actions Making a Difference to Public Health
Protection? 26
Part C. Integrated Structure and Framework for Source Water Measures and Information
Reporting 29
Appendix l-lssues and Answers Raised on the Initial Reporting Guidance of 2003 31
Appendix Il-Crosswalk of National Questions, Measures, and Information Elements 39
Appendix Ill-Representations of Reporting Spreadsheets 40
Appendix IV-Definition of Substantial Implementation of a SWP Strategy 49
Appendix V-Acronyms 50
-------
Part A. Introduction
1. Purpose of Final Guidance
Over 270 million Americans receive drinking water from approximately 161,000 public water
supplies. Americans enjoy some of the world's safest drinking water. Nonetheless, drinking
water safety cannot be taken for granted. For instance, drinking water that is not adequately
treated or that travels through an inadequate distribution system can endanger the health of a
community. However, in many cases, public health protection starts at the drinking water
source. A community is likely to be at higher risk if it relies on a source that is contaminated.
Preventing contamination of drinking water sources depends on the awareness,
participation and actions of Federal agencies, state agencies, local governments, interest
groups, individual citizens and the business community. Indeed, source water protection is
based on the premise that no single entity can effectively be the driver of drinking water source
protection efforts in every case. We all need to work together. Source water includes all
current sources of drinking water from ground waters and surface waters. However, as the
results of source water assessments are used to launch source water protection programs,
such programs should not be deterred from comprehensive efforts to protect surface and
ground waters that are not now used for drinking water.
Source water protection should be a standard part of providing safe drinking water to the
public. If not eliminated, risks to source waters should be reduced to minimize risks to public
health. Building consensus to do this requires a long and sustained effort.
Source water protection means different things in different situations. This is appropriate
because the threats to drinking water sources and the means to address those threats are site
specific and most effectively implemented at the local level, with assistance from other
government and private stakeholders.
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), amended in 1996, promotes a multiple-barrier
approach to safeguarding the nation's water supply. This multiple-barrier approach goes
beyond the traditional emphasis on treatment to address new challenges and reflects a better
understanding of the need for a coordinated source water protection effort. The multiple-barrier
approach encompasses delineation and prevention of contamination of drinking water sources,
treatment appropriate to the quality of the source water, well-engineered distribution and
storage systems, operator training and certification and an informed and involved public.
Preventing contamination, therefore, is one of the key elements of the multiple-barrier approach.
The purpose of this guidance is to promote coordinated efforts that should drive state and
Federal actions to assist localities, implement protection actions where a state or Federal
program has a specific responsibility, establish tangible measures of state and local source
water assessment results and protection actions and institutionalize practical information
sharing systems so states and Federal agencies can communicate results and the status of the
program. By doing so, EPA and its many partners can more effectively and efficiently maintain
and improve the quality of America's drinking water.
-------
2. How This Document is Organized
Part A, this introduction, includes four remaining sections: (1) background on the
development of this final reporting guidance and a description of the EPA Strategic Plan; (2) the
source water assessment and protection measures in the "National Water Program Guidance
for FY 2005 and FY 2006;" (3) the framework that serves as the basis for the state and national
source water assessment and protection measures, and other information; and (4) the rationale
for how the measures and other information will answer key national questions for the source
water assessment and protection program.
Part B includes the information associated with each measure or information element, a
description of how the information should be reported in the spreadsheet format, and the
definitions for the concepts in the measure and information quality guidelines.
Part C describes reporting options, including using spreadsheets or providing information to
EPA through a source water module reporting framework.
Finally, there are five Appendices: I - Issues and answers raised on the initial 2003 reporting
guidance; II - Crosswalk of the national questions, measures and information elements;
III - Reporting tables as a proxy for the spreadsheets that states and regions should use to
report the measures and other information; IV - The definition of substantial implementation of a
source water protection strategy; and V - Acronyms used in this Guidance.
3. Background, EPA 2003-2008 Strategic Plan, and National Water Program
Guidance for Fiscal Year 2005 and forthcoming National Water Program Guidance
for Fiscal Year 2006
Early in 2000, EPA's regional Drinking Water and Underground Injection Control (UIC)
Branch Chiefs, the Ground Water Protection Council (GWPC) and the Association of State
Drinking Water Administrators (ASDWA) articulated and discussed the need for a clear vision,
goals and measures for the Source Water Program. From 2000 through early 2003, EPA held
meetings with state organizations, one public stakeholder meeting and numerous internal EPA
meetings. In 2002 and 2003, the Agency worked on a new Strategic Plan.
In March and April 2003, EPA met with states at the ASDWA and GWPC Spring meetings,
and all states were provided a review of draft reporting guidances for the Source Water
Assessment and Protection and Underground Injection Control Programs. At the same time,
EPA met with these state-level organizations to ensure consistency between the measures and
other information in the draft guidances and those measures in the draft Agency Strategic Plan
and related documents. The state/EPA workgroups met in early May 2003 to discuss the
measures again. Subsequently, GWPC and ASDWA wrote to EPA supporting initiation of the
source water assessment and protection and underground injection reporting processes. EPA
then released the State and Federal Source Water Assessment and Protection Program
Measures - Initial Reporting Guidance in August 2003, and encouraged states to pilot test it in
the Fall of 2003.
The vision for the Source Water Assessment and Protection Program was set in Goal 2
(Clean and Safe Water) of EPA's Strategic Plan, published in October 2003. The vision is
included under Objective 2.1 (Protect Human Health) and Sub-objective 2.1.1 (Water Safe To
-------
Drink), which reads, "By 2008, 95% of the population served by community water systems will
receive drinking water that meets all applicable health-based drinking water standards through
effective treatment and source water protection." The key source water protection strategic
target under this sub-objective is that "by 2008, 50% of source water areas for community water
systems will achieve minimized risk to public health (minimized risk is achieved by substantial
implementation, as determined by the State, of source water protection actions in a source
water protection strategy)."
Measures supporting this strategic target were published in the National Water Program
Guidance for Fiscal Year 2005 and will be published in a forthcoming National Water Program
Guidance for Fiscal Year 2006. These measures, known as "Program Activity Measures"
(PAMs) will measure the aggregate results of source water assessments, state-wide, regionally
and nationally, and measure source water protection strategy implementation. The Source
Water Strategic Target and PAMs are:
State and Local Source Water Assessment and Protection
Strategic Target and Program Activity Measures - National Water Program Guidance, FY 2006
Strategic Target F: Percentage of source water areas for community water systems that achieve minimized
risk to public health (minimized risk achieved by substantial implementation, as determined by a state, of
source water protection actions in a source water protection strategy).
RAM SDW-9
(FY 2006)
Percent of community water systems for which source water protection strategies are in
place and are being implemented (cumulative). (Formerly PAMs 10 and 11 combined)
PAM SDW-11
(FY 2006)
Identify at the State level the most prevalent and/or threatening categories of
existing/potential sources of contamination for surface and ground water for community water
systems (annually.) (Formerly PAM 15)
Notes:
Information on the associated population will also be requested for Strategic Target F and PAM SDW-9.
Information for PAM SDW-11 may not change after the first reporting year.
In 2004, EPA reconvened the source water measures workgroup and had several meetings
throughout the year and at the Spring and Fall meetings of ASDWA and GWPC. Comments
were received on a draft final reporting guidance subsequent to the Fall meetings. These
discussions and comments addressed refinements to the definition of substantial
implementation of source water protection strategies and issues from the initial reporting
guidance used during the pilot year of 2003. The discussions by the workgroup and at the
meetings are reflected in this final reporting guidance.
4. National Source Water Assessment and Protection Program Measures and
Other Information in this Guidance
In the course of discussions between stakeholders and EPA from 2000-2004, four key
questions were identified to guide development of the indicator measures and other information,
and provide a structure for subsequent analysis. They are:
1. Are the state source water assessments being completed under Section 1453 of the
SDWA?
2. What threats to sources of drinking water are being found in assessment results?
-------
3. How are current and future drinking water supplies being protected?
4. Are source water protection actions making a difference to public health protection?
This final guidance sets forth specific indicator measures and information elements,
consistent with the Agency's Strategic Plan and National Water Program Guidance, to provide
information to answer these questions and provide indications of whether Strategic Target F is
being attained. Below is a table showing the indicator measures and other information that will
be used to answer the national questions.
Summary of National and State
Source Water Measures and Other Information for State and Local Actions
Question
1 . Are the state source water
assessments being completed
under Section 1453 of the
SDWA?
2. What threats to sources of
drinking water are being found in
assessment results?
3. How are current and future
drinking water supplies being
protected?
4. Are source water protection
actions making a difference to
public health protection?
Source Water Measures and Other Information
1 .1 Mapped source water areas (SWAs) for CWSs by state.
(Other information)
1 .2 PWSs with complete assessments, and associated
population served - cumulative. (Other information)
2.1 For CWSs, most prevalent categories of significant
potential sources of contamination (aggregated at the state
level and nationally, using the assessment information, split by
ground water and surface water systems). (RAM SDW-1 1)
2.2 For CWSs, most threatening categories of significant
potential sources of contamination (aggregated at the state
level and nationally, using the assessment information, split by
ground water and surface water systems). (RAM SDW-1 1)
3.1 Percent of CWSs that have source water protection
strategies in place and are being implemented, and associated
population served - cumulative. (RAM SDW-9)
3.2 For CWSs, percentage of source water areas that have
source water protection strategies substantially implemented,
and associated population served - cumulative. (Strategic
Target F)
3.3 State source water protection activities. (Other
information)
4.1 Overtime, percent change in CWSs or SWAs for CWSs,
and associated population served, with substantial
implementation of source water protection strategies (proxy for
minimized risk to public health). (Strategic Target F)
See Part B for definitions of the information elements.
In addition to the national and state measures for source water assessment and protection,
the National Water Program Guidance noted above includes national measures for Clean Water
Act (CWA) and SDWA integration. These measures and other information are the culmination
of internal efforts since 2001 to better integrate the program requirements and policies of the
two statutes to increase the focus on protection actions for sources of drinking water. These
measures and other information indicate that EPA is: (a) strengthening the Nationally
Recommended Water Quality Criteria (NRWQC) that are published under Section 304(a) of the
CWA by amending current criteria or publishing new criteria (FY 2005 PAMs 22 and 23); (b)
-------
assuring that state water quality standards support the public water supply use for contaminants
of concern originating in surface water from human activity (FY 2005 PAMs 21 and 24); and (c)
enlisting the CWA tools to address those state water quality standards (FY 2005 PAMs 25, 26
and 27). The latter three PAMs possibly will entail actions under the Nonpoint Source,
Stormwater and CWA permitting programs.
Complementing the integration measures and actions across the Water statutes, EPA's
Office of Water (OW) is continuing to work across other programs to coordinate efforts to protect
source waters. Coordination actions are occurring with: (a) the Office of Pesticide Programs
(OPP) to protect source water through registration procedures for pesticides; (b) the Office of
Underground Storage Tanks (OUST) to protect source water by focusing program resources on
tanks within state delineated source water areas; (c) the Office of Solid Waste (OSW) to identify
and better mitigate the effects of ground water plumes migrating off-site of contaminated sites in
delineated source water areas; (d) the Office of Science Coordination and Policy (OSCP) to
develop an endocrine disrupter screening program that includes drinking water contaminants;
and (e) the Office of Research and Development (ORD) to implement research on numerous
aspects of source water assessment and protection.
EPA is also continuing to coordinate actions with other Federal agencies and departments
to increase technical and policy support for source water protection activities. Such
coordination activities include, but are not limited to, working with: (a) the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) to facilitate use of Farm Bill resources; and (b) the Department of Interior's
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) regarding its source water related monitoring programs and
other technical support activities.
5. Framework Serving as the Basis for the State and National Source Water
Assessment and Protection Measures and Other Information
The source water measures and other information at the state, regional and national levels
should provide guideposts for judging the progress of strategic actions to minimize risks to
source waters, as envisioned by the provisions of the SDWA Amendments of 1996. The source
water measures and information also provide information for targeting actions in source water
areas (SWAs) to prevent contamination from the most serious potential threats to drinking
water. State-wide, regional and national information regarding source water assessment results
and protection actions also provides accountability to legislative bodies (state legislatures and
Congress) and is a means to demonstrate that tax dollars are being well spent and that EPA is
meeting certain objectives and strategic targets under the EPA Strategic Plan. In addition, EPA
should be able to measure its own program outputs and whether they are leading toward
contamination prevention and minimized risk, and thereby should be able to provide feedback
and opportunities for national, regional, state and local program refinement and improvement.
A. Congress required assessments to be used at the state and Federal levels for
protection.
Congress provided the states with the lead responsibility for implementing source water
assessments under Section 1453 of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). Section 1453 of the
SDWA, as described in the Final National State Source Water Assessment and Protection
Programs guidance, published August 6, 1997:
-------
"requires states to develop, submit to EPA, and implement, once approved, SWAPs [Source
Water Assessment Programs]. These required state SWAPs...must meet all the
requirements under sections 1453 and 1428(b) and (c) of the SDWA Amendments of 1996."
Further, the Guidance pointed to the goal of the SWAP program in SDWA Section 1453 that
"[e]ach source water assessment needs to be, as stated in the statute, 'for the protection and
benefit of public water systems' [section 1453(a)(1)]." In other words, Congress clearly desired
that an assessment be a precursor to the development of a full source water protection program
to protect the drinking water for that area. (See below for more on Congress' intent that source
water assessments would lead to voluntary protection programs.)
B. Congress expected that voluntary protection actions would follow assessments,
even though they are not mandated, and that all the tools of state and Federal
governments could be brought to bear on implementing source water protection
programs based on the source water assessments.
Although the SDWA includes many provisions that indicate that source water protection is
voluntary, the clear intent in the SDWA is that the mandatory assessments will lead to voluntary
protection programs.
Indeed, House and Senate committee reports make this point. For example, House Report
104-632, Part 1 states "the Committee recognizes that [source water protection] can be a
cost-effective strategy for ensuring safe drinking water supplies...to address [source water
protection], the bill creates a new program in which states with primacy will conduct an
assessment, coordinated with existing information and programs, to determine the vulnerability
of sources of drinking water within state boundaries...designed to protect source water from
threats identified during the assessment."
The 1997 Guidance also states "while these [Source Water Protection and Petition
Programs] are voluntary, EPA believes it is wise for states to plan for protection programs at the
same time they plan for and implement their SWAPs. Such simultaneous planning would
provide both efficient use of taxpayers' SWAP funds and accountability to the public regarding
productive use of source water assessment information." Also in the guidance is a statement
that "the new prevention provisions of the Amendments has two key elements: (1) a clear state
lead, with flexibility and resources to achieve results. This is necessary because prevention is
ultimately about land use and water quality management, which generally are exercised at the
state and local levels and (2) a strong ethic of public information and involvement within the
state's decision making processes."
The 1997 Guidance describes all the tools in the amended SDWA for states to use to
develop and implement source water protection programs. It reads: "in the 1996 Amendments
to the SDWA, Congress included a number of important provisions related to SWP beyond the
SWAPs including, (1) continuation of the Wellhead Protection Program (Section 1428), a new,
optional petition program (Section 1454)... and (3) and authority for states to use DWSRF funds
for source water protection programs [Sections 1452(g)(2)(b), and four subsections under
Section 1452 (k)(1)-(A)(i),(A) (ii), (A)(iii), (D)]."
-------
Finally, the 1997 Guidance included two chapters which fully described programs under the
SDWA as well as other Federal programs that can assist states and localities implementing
source water assessment and protection programs:
• Chapter Four describes the relationship between source water assessment and protection
and other Public Water Supply Supervision (PWSS) Program efforts, including SDWA
rulemaking efforts, Wellhead Protection and UIC.
• Chapter Five summarizes some of the programs outside of the SDWA, administered by EPA
and other Federal agencies, that states can build on in developing and coordinating their
source water programs. For example, it describes all of the tools under the Clean Water Act
using the Watershed Approach components of water quality standards, monitoring
programs, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program, Nonpoint
Source Program, Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Program, National Estuary Program,
Clean Lakes Program and the Wetlands Program. It also describes other EPA and Federal
programs, many of which are jointly administered with the states.
C. To utilize all of the state and Federal statutory authorities and tools to assist with
state and local protection efforts, one critical activity is for states to take the lead in
understanding the results of assessments, understand the status of source water
protection actions at the state and local levels, and provide that information to the
Federal government.
While source water protection implementation will be primarily a local effort, the measures
and other information in this guidance should assist EPA and states in collaborating with the
many partners needed for source water protection. For example, states could use the maps of
source water areas or the list of priority sources of contamination to partner with other state
agencies, such as Agriculture or Transportation. The Federal government could use such
information to partner with programs such as those managing Federal lands or Federal facilities.
Collaboration could also occur for programs that can take direct protection actions under
Federal statutes (e.g., Superfund) or through state statutes such as those relative to hazardous
waste facilities.
In addition, states and the Federal government can target assistance for source water
protection. For example, by understanding which communities have advanced implementation
of a source water protection strategy, it would be possible to direct state assistance either to
those communities doing more or to those doing less, depending upon a state's strategic
approach. The information could also help EPA to target efforts to assist states with
implementation of SWP.
-------
6. Rationale for How the Measures and Other Information are Indicators to Help
Answer the Key National Questions
Source Water Assessments and Source Water Areas
Question 1: Are the state source water assessments being completed under Section 1453 of
theSDWA?
Question 1 Information:
1.1 Mapped SWAs for CWSs by state. (Other information)
1.2 PWSs with complete assessments, and associated population served - cumulative.
(Other information)
The requirements for a source water assessment for a PWS, under Section 1453 of the
SDWA, were described in the 1997 Final Guidance to include these actions:
"delineate the boundaries of the areas providing source waters for PWSs, identify, to the
extent practical, the origins of regulated and certain unregulated contaminants in the
delineated area, determine the susceptibility of the PWS to such contaminants...make the
results of the source water assessments available to the public."
That guidance also set forth several components of an approvable state program such as
maps of delineated source water areas.
Each state must provide EPA with information regarding whether it is completing the
assessments under its EPA approved program based on Sections 1452(k)(1)(c) and 1453 of the
SDWA.
In addition, states and EPA can use the maps of source water areas as part of the source
water assessments to demonstrate to other state and Federal programs where, geographically,
they could prioritize protection actions. The mapped source water areas will permit other
programs to overlay the locations of facilities addressed by their program (e.g., underground
injection wells or Clean Water Act permitted sites) or locations of critical areas (e.g., wetlands)
with these source water areas. Also, by placing source water areas in the same database as
watershed areas, it will be easier to see how source water areas compare geographically to
watersheds that are impaired or threatened, as defined under the Clean Water Act.
Thus, the visual overlay displays showing the proximity of source water areas and significant
potential sources of contamination regulated by a program (e.g., underground storage tanks or
landfills) may increase the likelihood that the program will take source water quality into
consideration when making decisions.
States and EPA can therefore develop state-based and national GIS coverages and share
these coverages with other programs, within the bounds of security considerations. EPA is
requesting that the states provide their source water areas to EPA using a EPA/state jointly
developed specific approach. (See the issues and answers regarding these procedures in
-------
Appendix I under national Question 1.) EPA is continuing a process to develop clear guidelines
for sharing source water area maps at the Federal level across programs.
Threats to Source Waters
Question 2: What threats to sources of drinking water are being found in assessment results?
Question 2 Measures:
2.1 For CWSs, most prevalent categories of significant potential sources of
contamination (aggregated at the state level and nationally, using the assessment
information, split by ground water and surface water systems). (RAM SDW-11)
2.2 For CWSs, most threatening categories of significant potential sources of
contamination (aggregated at the state level and nationally, using the assessment
information, split by ground water and surface water systems). (RAM SDW-11)
States and the Federal government can use these measures to target limited resources to
focus source water program efforts on collaborating with programs that address potential
sources of contamination that are most prevalent or most threatening to source waters. While
some states do not have information on both measures, or have not yet analyzed their
information in this way, these indicator measures should help guide such analyses. In addition,
to the extent that states will be updating assessments, these measures form a recommendation
for what minimum set of state-aggregated information may be useful to states and the Federal
government.
Wth a prioritized list of sources of contamination, collaboration with other programs should
be more effective in reducing risks to source waters. For example, states in the New England
Region have identified underground storage tanks (USTs) as one of the most prevalent potential
sources of contamination in ground water-based source water areas. Those states, the regional
office and EPA Headquarters are now focusing efforts, such as inspections, to address USTs in
ground water-based source water areas. In some cases, state and Federal governments can
directly implement best management practices, such as in situations where the facilities are
government-owned, or where land is government-owned, such as certain forested lands.
Source Water Protection
Question 3: How are current and future drinking water supplies being protected?
Question 3 Measures and Other Information:
3.1 Percent of CWSs that have source water protection strategies in place and are being
implemented, and associated population served - cumulative. (PAM SDW-9)
-------
3.2 For CWSs, percentage of source water areas that have source water protection
strategies substantially implemented, and associated population served - cumulative.
(Strategic Target F)
3.3 State source water protection activities. (Other information)
(Discussion for Questions 3 and 4 combined is presented below.)
Question 4: Are source water protection actions making a difference to public health
protection?
Question 4 Measure:
4.1 Over time, percent change in CWSs or SWAs for CWSs, and associated population
served, with substantial implementation of source water protection strategies (proxy
for minimized risk to public health). (Strategic Target F)
Since Congress intended for the required assessments to lead to voluntary protection
actions, which can reduce risks to source waters and thereby to public health, this guidance
includes three measures of source water protection implementation: one at the state level and
two at the local level. Unless assessments lead to voluntary protection actions, the purpose of
the SWAP program described in Section 1453 of the SDWA will not be realized.
States and localities across many programs and agencies have implemented many source
water protection actions to protect the source water for CWSs, at least since the early 1970s
when the SDWA and CWA were enacted. The measures and other information in this guidance
should permit states to document current and future actions at the state level, and thus can be
summarized at state and national levels.
The two measures of local source water protection noted under Question 3 above measure
two different statuses in each community for implementation of source water protection
strategies: first, initial implementation, meaning some protection actions are occurring under a
strategy; and second, substantial implementation actions occurring under that same or a
modified strategy.
The key difference between each status for source waters of CWSs will be defined by each
state. States should take the lead in defining when actions for implementing source water
protection strategies will be deemed as meeting the substantial implementation level - and
reported as such. This guidance provides a very broad definition of substantial implementation
to guide development of more detailed state definitions. Although protection programs are
voluntary, these two source water protection measures are based on state leadership in
defining these statuses differently. Also, the measures establish the expectation that states will
institute a process to acquire information sufficient to make judgements about the status of
strategy implementation. This also implies the establishment of a state data system to maintain
this information by CWS along with the ability to report to EPA.
A state's approach to the collection, storage and reporting of this information could be as
basic as asking a local entity to "check-off that a CWS is at the initial level or substantial level
of implementation, using a state's definitions. This information could be collected by personnel
doing sanitary surveys, possibly even using a "Personal Digital Assistant" to capture this
information for each CWS and transfer it to a state database electronically.
10
-------
To aggregate this information at the state level and provide it to EPA, states should structure
information flow from a local entity to the state. That local entity likely would be a governmental
unit or a water supplier. One possibility is for a state to rely on large CWSs to supply the
information separately, the State Rural Water Association to provide information on the CWSs it
works with, and county planners and health or environmental officials to supply information for
the remaining CWSs. There are many other creative ways states can structure a relationship
with their localities to gain information regarding the status of implementation of source water
protection strategies for CWSs. EPA is working closely with ASDWA and GWPC to describe
different state approaches or perhaps to develop new approaches.
Regarding the state narratives for state-level source water protection actions, states and the
Federal government could possibly use this information to both understand the status of
collaborative relationships with other state-level programs and non-government organizations,
and increase the sharing of ideas across states on state-level strategic approaches.
For example, these narratives could explain the cooperative role of State Rural Water
Associations in local source water protection strategy development and implementation. In
many states, Rural Water Association staff are working full-time on source water protection
implementation actions. A narrative that explains the state's connections to these efforts would
help other states and the Federal government improve these relationships.
Alternatively, a state could emulate another state or group of states that are implementing
specific approaches to program integration with the Clean Water Act. This information should
also equip EPA with better information to explain to stakeholders the full range of source water
protection actions at the state level and possibly inspire such stakeholders to assist states
where there are untapped coordination opportunities.
Another use of the information on the status of state and local source water protection
implementation is to set priorities at the state and Federal levels. As noted before, indicator
measures could assist states in working with local communities, or assist EPA in working with
the states to target staff and financial assistance toward those priorities. Targeting could either
occur to assist communities with CWSs that have already reached the substantial level of
implementation to maintain that status or to assist those communities not yet at that level,
thereby increasing the pace of actions to attain that level of implementation.
This source water protection information is also important for state and Federal
communications to senior program managers and stakeholders relative to reporting progress
toward meeting the congressional goal for SWAPs. Thus, if states report that more
communities have attained the substantial level of implementation of source water protection
strategies, it can be reported, under these measures, that progress is being made toward
minimizing risks to source waters and public health.
11
-------
EPA realizes that measuring the status of local source water protection actions is a very
rough proxy for measuring water quality changes. Increasing source water protection actions
even to the substantial level as defined by a state will not guarantee either water quality
improvements or necessarily forestall water quality degradation. Therefore, these measures do
not substitute for current Federal and state programs that monitor for water quality, but are in
addition to those programs. Source water protection programs are just beginning to grow based
on completed source water assessments, and monitoring for regulated drinking water
contaminants in source water areas is generally limited. Use of direct measures of water quality
by states and the Federal government will be considered in future discussions of strategic plan
measures of the results of source water protection implementation.
12
-------
Part B. Summary of National and State Source Water Measures and
Information
The following pages present each of the source water protection measures and other
information for the four national questions. This Part includes a description of how the
information should be reported in the spreadsheet format; relevant definitions associated with
the information to be reported; the requested information elements, or specific pieces of
information; and the information quality expected.
13
-------
Question 1: Are the State Source Water Assessments Being Completed Under Section 1453 of the SDWA?
How the Information Should Be Reported
Definitions
1.1 Mapped SWAs for
CWSs by state. (Other
information)
States should report polygon information to
EPA using the approach developed in
cooperation with states in 2003. EPA works
with each state on an agreed upon
information management process for the
transfer of SWA polygons.
SWA polygons are the mapped delineated portion of
a ground water area or watershed around each
drinking water source (one or more sources per
SWA) that may contribute pollution to the water
supply. The states should at least report the outer
boundary of each SWA.
For ground water-based CWSs, the map would
include land areas where, if pollutants are spilled or
discharged on the surface, they could filter through
the soil to the ground water and be drawn into a
particular well. The ground water SWA is delineated
in accordance with approved state programs under
the Final National Source Water Assessment and
Protection Programs Guidance, August 1997.
For surface water-based CWSs, the map presents
the entire watershed area upstream of the CWS's
intake structure to the boundary of the state borders,
i.e., the topographic boundary up to the state's
border. It is the perimeter of the catchment basin
that provides water to the intake structure.
Attribute information includes the method the state
used to delineate each SWA and other information to
indicate the SWA characteristics and to align the
polygon information with the other CWS and drinking
water source inventory data already reported by the
state to EPA's SDWIS/Fed database of drinking
water information for the PWSS Program.
14
-------
Information Elements
Information Quality
SWA polygons in digital format are digital shape files that
electronically define the area that encompasses a ground
water or surface water SWA. To be usable, the shape files
should align to the unique PWS ID and drinking water source
ID already available through SDWIS/Fed for each CWS water
source.
Key attribute information includes the SWA ID and name
(linked to the CWS and facility IDs), the SWA type (e.g.,
ground water, surface water, or both), the delineation method
code and the characteristics of the specific SWA (e.g.,
assessment zone, protection area, etc.). Additional attribute
information that would be useful, but that is not essential to
describing the SWA polygon, is defined in EPA's Polygon
Data Model developed with the states in 2003.
Metadata associated with the SWA polygons includes the
delineation method used (e.g., calculated fixed radius) and
the projection (e.g., Albers), used in mapping the polygon.
EPA will perform a quality assurance (QA) review of the information
states provide to ensure that all requested information is present.
EPA will convert the polygons to a standard projection, using the
Reach Indexing Tool, for national consistency and convert attribute
information to a standard table structure. EPA will only use SWA
polygon information that is aligned to a SDWIS/Fed PWS and facility
IDs.
EPA is working closely with the states throughout the QA process to
ensure the integrity of the polygon information, including the GIS
formatting. See the questions on the polygon collection effort in
Appendix I.
15
-------
Question 1: Are the state Source Water Assessments Being Completed Under Section 1453 of the SDWA?
How the Information Should Be Reported
Definitions
1.2 PWSs with complete
assessments, and
associated population
served - cumulative.
(Other information)
The information includes the percent of
PWSs, and the associated population
served, with assessments completed for all
SWAs.
The percentages will be computed based on
the number of PWSs or SWAs for PWSs in
SDWIS/Fed using the frozen database at
the end of calendar 2000, the year in which
EPA finished approving state Source Water
Assessment Programs.
This information should be reported until
assessments are complete. Only states that
reported less than 100 percent of their
assessments complete in the previous
reporting year will be expected to report
assessments complete.
As defined in each state's EPA-approved SWAP, an
assessment for a PWS can only be counted and
considered as complete if the four steps of the
assessment have been completed. The four steps
include: (1) delineation of a SWA, (2) identification of
significant potential sources of contamination, (3)
determination of the PWSs susceptibility and (4)
release of the results to the public.
16
-------
Information Elements Information Quality
The percentage of assessments complete by type of water States should provide percentages of PWS or SWAs with
system-CWS, non-transient non-community water system completed assessments and the associated population served, from
(NCWS) and transient NCWS. The percentages will be the state source water assessment database.
computed based on the number of systems in SDWIS/Fed
using the frozen database from the end of 2000.
The population served by those systems with complete
assessments, for each water system type.
17
-------
Question 2: What Threats to Sources of Drinking Water Are Being Found in Assessment Results?
How the Information Should Be Reported
Definitions
2.1 ForCWSs, most
prevalent categories of
significant potential
sources of contamination
(aggregated at the state
level and nationally, using
the assessment
information, split by
ground water and surface
water systems). (PAM
SDW-11)
Note: reporting will likely be
for either this measure or
Measure 2.2; however,
reporting for both is
acceptable.
States should report the rank order of the
top 5 most prevalent categories of
significant potential sources of
contamination at CWSs or SWAs for CWSs
in their state.
States should provide a ranking from 1
through 5 of the most prevalent categories
of significant potential sources of
contamination, separately for surface water-
and ground water-based water supplies.
The rankings for each water source type
should reflect actual state-generated
information from the assessment results.
For example, the potential contamination
source identified at the highest percentage
of CWS SWAs would be ranked number 1.
Appendix III lists and defines the categories
of significant potential sources of
contamination.
Note: this state information may or may not
change after the first reporting year.
A significant potential source of contamination is
defined in a state's EPA-approved Source Water
Assessment Program (based on options for the
definition in EPA's Final National Source Water
Assessment and Protection Programs Guidance of
August 6, 1997 on pages 2-15, 2-16 and 2-17).
Most prevalent potential sources of
contamination
For a CWS, or SWA for CWS:
The most prevalent categories of potential sources of
contamination are those found most often.
For a State:
The top-ranked categories of significant potential
sources of contamination, aggregated for all CWSs
or CWS SWAs, in the state. For example, if large-
capacity septic systems are identified most frequently
as a significant potential source of contamination,
then these would be the top ranked category in the
state.
2.2 For CWSs, most
threatening categories of
significant potential
sources of contamination,
(aggregated at the state
level and nationally, using
the assessment
information, split by
ground water and surface
water systems). (PAM
SDW-11)
Note: reporting will likely be
for either this measure or
Measure 2.1; however,
reporting for both is
acceptable.
States should report the rank order of the
top 5 most threatening categories of
significant potential sources of
contamination at CWSs or SWAs for CWSs
in their state.
States should provide a ranking from 1
through 5 of the most threatening significant
potential sources of contamination,
separately for surface water- and ground
water-based water supplies.
The rankings for each water source type
should reflect actual information from the
assessment results. For example, the
potential contamination source that
threatens the highest percentage of CWS
SWAs would be ranked number 1.
Appendix III lists and defines the categories
of significant potential sources of
contamination.
Note: this state information may or may not
change after the first reporting year.
A significant potential source of contamination is
defined above.
Most threaten ing categories of significant
potential sources of contamination
For a CWS or SWA for CWS:
The most threatening significant potential sources of
contamination as defined by a state refers to the
categories of existing and potential sources of
contamination that pose the most risk to the CWS or
SWAs for a CWS found in an assessment. Some
states defined "most threatening" in their approach to
susceptibility in their EPA-approved SWAPs.
For a State:
The top-ranked categories of significant potential
sources of contamination, aggregated for all CWSs
or CWS SWAs, in the state. For example, if large-
capacity septic systems are identified most frequently
as a threatening significant potential source of
contamination, then these would be the top ranked
category in the state.
18
-------
Information Elements Information Quality
State rankings of the most prevalent categories of potential States should provide the information based on information derived
sources of contamination, 1-5, with separate rankings for from the state source water assessment database.
ground water and surface water CWSs or SWAs for CWSs.
State rankings of the most threatening categories of States should provide the information based on information derived
significant potential sources of contamination, 1-5, with from the state source water assessment database.
separate rankings for ground water and surface water CWSs
or SWAs for CWSs.
19
-------
Question 3: How Are Current and Future Drinking Water Supplies Being Protected?
How the Information Should Be Reported
Definitions
3.1 Percent ofCWSs that
have source water
protection strategies in
place and are being
implemented, and
associated population
served - cumulative.
(RAM SDW-9)
The information for this measure should be
the percent of CWSs or SWAs for CWSs,
and the associated population served, with
SWP strategies in place and being
implemented, by water source type.
Source water protection strategies should be
developed to guide protection actions. A source
water protection strategy for a CWS/SWA
addresses (as described in 3.2) the identified
significant potential sources of contamination and
other key actions based on the findings of a source
water assessment or management plan and could
provide the foundation for future protection
strategies, to the extent necessary, for CWSs/SWAs
of low relative risk or minimally threatened due to the
natural characteristics of the source water. It can be
based on an adopted written strategy, adopted
written laws, or actions taken by various entities
independent of one, written, strategy, and could
include a process for updating assessment results. It
can also be established through a source water
management system or plan that is designed to
reduce risks identified in a source water assessment,
and that may include specific actions or indicators. A
strategy for a CWS should either: (1) include an
emergency response plan in compliance with the
Public Health Security and Bioterrorism
Preparedness and Response Act of 2002
(Bioterrorism Act); or (2) describe how it will comply
with any relevant actions described in a state's
emergency drinking water plan approved by EPA
pursuant to federal regulations at 40 CFR 142.10(e),
which may include a specific CWS-based emergency
plan.
A source water area is defined under Section 1453
of the Act and in each EPA-approved state SWAP
program (this could be the same as a state-defined
wellhead protection area for ground water-based
CWSs in some states and could be a conjunctive
delineation). Single source water areas can also be
grouped into another area defined by the state or
substate entity (e.g., wells in a single aquifer, intakes
within the same watershed, etc.).
20
-------
Information Elements Information Quality
Percentage of CWSs or SWAs for CWSs, and the associated States should provide the information based on information in their
population served, with a strategy in place and being source water-related databases.
implemented.
The universe for calculating the percentage is the number of
CWSs and population served in the SDWIS/Fed frozen
database at the end of the year for which the information is
being reported.
21
-------
Question 3: How Are Current and Future Drinking Water Supplies Being Protected?
How the Information Should Be Reported
Definitions
3.2 For CWSs,
percentage of source
water areas that have
source water protection
strategies substantially
implemented, and
associated population
served - cumulative.
(Strategic Target F)
The information for this measure should be
the number or percent of CWSs or SWAs for
CWSs, and related population, with
substantially implemented SWP strategies,
by water source type. Where numbers are
reported, EPA will calculate percentages
based on SDWIS data.
Substantial implementation is occurring when the state
determines: for each CWS (and related population),
strategic protection actions have been or are being taken
to appropriately address state-identified significant
sources of contamination, and possibly other concerns in
a source water assessment, taking into consideration the
sensitivity of the source water to contamination.
Explanatory Definitions for Concepts in the Definition of
Substantial Implementation:
1. "State determines." The state decides, working with
CWSs and their communities, when a CWS, separately or as
a network or group, has achieved substantial implementation
of a SWP strategy.
2. "Strategic protection actions have been or are being
taken to appropriately address." Strategic protection
actions for CWSs are based on relevant SWP strategies.
Actions may reflect implementation of a WHP plan, a local
watershed plan that includes SWP, or a source water
management control system or plan designed to reduce risks
as detailed in a source water assessment, possibly with
specific action indicators in the control system or plan. States
may choose to determine a tailored set of minimum
prevention actions, detailed in a publicly released document
developed through a public involvement process consistent
with state law. Specific actions could include, but are not
limited to:
• zoning and related land-use measures that prohibit or
restrict uses (e.g., by overlay zoning or related actions);
• state or local health regulations (e.g., sanitary setbacks);
• land acquisition/conservation easements;
• enforceable (i.e., enforceable under state and/or local
laws), or voluntary BMPs;
• public outreach, involvement and education programs
related to each significant threat; and/or
• other actions taken under Federal or state statues such
as under the Clean Water Act (e.g., TMDLs, NPS
management).
These appropriate actions may occur for one CWS or multiple
CWSs and be: (a) state-wide, including Federal actions taken
within a state; (b) regionally across jurisdictions; or (c) locally.
3. "Identified significant sources of contamination" can
be the same as the "significant potential sources of
contamination" defined in a state's EPA-approved SWAP
(see EPA's national SWAP guidance of Augusts, 1997 on
pages 2-15, 2-16 and 2-17). Or the state can identify, for
SWP, a more narrow subset of the significant sources of
contamination.
4. "Sensitivity of the source water to contamination."
Whether the hydrology or hydrogeology provides a natural
barrier (e.g., a confined aquifer) that minimizes the risk to
public health directly, rather than, or in addition to, source
water strategic protection actions.
22
-------
Information Elements Information Quality
Percentages of CWSs or SWAs for CWSs, and the States should provide information based on information from their
associated population served, with a strategy that has been source water-related databases.
substantially implemented.
The universe for calculating the percentage is the number of
CWSs and population served in the SDWIS/Fed frozen
database at the end of the year for which the information is
being reported.
23
-------
Question 3: How Are Current and Future Drinking Water Supplies Being Protected?
How the Information Should Be Reported Definitions
3.3 State source water States should provide a narrative report on This narrative information will permit states to
protection activities. state-level source water protection actions document the current actions each year. Actions that
(Other information) including, but not limited to: collaboration will likely be described would encompass both
among state programs and with Federal actions at the state level to coordinate and leverage
programs; state and local partnerships with across state government and with Federal agencies,
governments or private entities for but also actions to increase local protection efforts. A
protection; direct protection actions; and any full accounting of these actions will provide a good
other relevant actions during the year for context for the percentages of CWSs or SWAs for
which information is being reported. CWSs with implemented or substantially
implemented SWP strategies.
24
-------
Information Elements Information Quality
A narrative description of how the state defines the concepts States should report using all available information and, likely, a
in measures 3.1 and 3.2, particularly what is meant by a variety of information sources.
"strategy developed and initially implemented," and a
"substantially implemented strategy." The narrative should
also describe the state's source water protection activities for
the year.
25
-------
Question 4: Are Source Water Protection Actions Making a Difference to Public Health Protection?
How the Information Should Be Reported Definitions
4.1 Overtime, percent Based on the state-level percentage Aggregated by state and then nationally, changes in
change in CWSs orSWAs provided in Measure 3.2, this measure the percentages CWSs or SWAs for CWSs with
for CWSs, and associated reflects the year-to-year change in the substantially implemented SWP strategies. The
population served, with percentages of CWSs or SWAs for CWSs trend is the change in percentage.
substantial with substantially implemented source water
implementation of source protection strategies.
water protection
strategies (proxy for
minimized risk to public
health). (Strategic
Target F)
26
-------
Information Elements Information Quality
This measure includes no new information elements. See information quality under Questions 3.1 and 3.2.
Information from Measure 3.2, percentage of SWAs for
CWSs with substantially implemented SWP strategies, will be
used to compute the measure.
27
-------
-------
Part C. Integrated Structure and Framework for Source Water
Measures and Information Reporting
Two options available to states for reporting source water information are: (1) completing
spreadsheets and submitting them to EPA and (2) electronic reporting and data transfer using
water system level data.
1. Spreadsheets and Narratives
EPA will distribute the spreadsheets, which are essentially electronic versions of Appendix
III. States are encouraged to provide the information in the spreadsheets, using this Guidance
and the instructions provided with the spreadsheets. In addition, states are encouraged each
year to provide, for Measure 3.3, a narrative description of their source water protection
strategies and actions.
2. Optional Electronic Reporting on Pilot Basis using Water System Level Data
At their discretion, states may use an electronic reporting approach, developed by EPA and
GWPC based on a Source Water Protection (SWP) data module in 2003. This information
may be at the system-level or the source water area-level and may vary by measure. Electronic
reporting enables EPA to accept both the delineated SWA polygons in Geographic Information
System (GIS) format and the CWS-level or SWA-level tabular data needed to develop the
spreadsheets for the source water measures and other information. Of course, states could
provide other information, such as for non-community water systems, if desired. Thus, if a state
uses this Source Water Protection data module, EPA fully expects to generate the spreadsheets
from the more detailed data submitted.
GWPC and OGWDW have generated a report on the 2003 Source Water Protection data
module pilot effort, which is available to the states and regions upon request. A copy is
available from Carl Reeverts (Reeverts.Carl@epa.gov).
Following publication of this Guidance, EPA and GWPC fully expect to produce a document
explaining the details of how to use the Source Water Protection data module for reporting.
EPA intends to continue to work with GWPC through the FY 2008 reporting cycle to improve the
system, making adjustments based on the suggestions in the pilot report and from subsequent
discussions between EPA and state users.
The SWP data module is illustrated in the "SWP Database Model" diagram below. The data
module will also include a table of the data elements and attributes EPA is collecting (not shown
here). These tables will be included in detail in the subsequent EPA/GWPC document.
Source water assessment and protection data will flow from the states to EPA's data module
via an XML schema and through EPA's central data exchange (CDX) into the SWP data
module. GWPC supported development of the pilot XML schema consistent with EPA's SWP
data module and provided technical assistance and support to the pilot states in populating the
XML schema. OGWDW, in turn, facilitated the transfer of the populated XML schema through
CDX into EPA's ORACLE-based SWP data module, which is kept in a secure database with a
contractor.
Since this process is still in the pilot stage, EPA intends to provide whatever support is
necessary to those states that volunteer to pursue this option.
29
-------
2. Source Water Protection Relational Database Management System (RDBMS):
- Conceptual Data Flow from State to SWP Database Thru CDX
30
-------
Appendix l-lssues and Answers Raised on the Initial Reporting
Guidance of 2003
There were various issues raised after the release of the Initial Reporting Guidance in
August, 2003. Below are answers to those questions that are directly relevant to the Final
Guidance.
General Issues
Information on community water systems (CWSs) and public water systems (PWSs).
States will have the opportunity to share with EPA information on CWSs and, if a state
prefers, also for PWSs. Because of limited resources for prevention, and since stakeholders
are only beginning to focus such prevention efforts, initial efforts will likely focus mostly on
CWSs. The mapped areas for assessments for non-CWSs are still critical in order to ensure
that key Federal and state agencies know the locations of source water areas and assessment
results for non-CWSs so they can implement prevention efforts in those areas. For example,
the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Forest Service could implement such prevention actions for
the non-CWSs operated by them or located near forests and provide effective prevention
actions to protect the consumers of those non-CWSs.
Measuring by source water areas (SWAs) or CWSs for measures other than Measure 1.2,
Completed Assessments.
While both source water area and CWS information is expected to address the information
needs for these measures, states are encouraged to share one type of information only: either
for CWSs or for source water areas. EPA intends to work with individual states using SWAs to
convert to CWSs.
Measuring EPA progress in integrating SDWA and CWA actions to protect the Nation's
drinking waters and public health.
States and EPA are working to fully utilize programs under these two statutes to help protect
drinking water sources. The many actions EPA is undertaking are described in Section 4 of
Part A. The National Water Program Guidance for 2005, which is available on the Office of
Water's Web site, includes measures for EPA implementation to integrate these statutes.
Substance of state-wide and national reports on program measures and other
information.
While state and national reports on the measures and other information will vary in content
and structure, the reports should help state and national programs prioritize actions to better
achieve program goals and objectives. These reports could help EPA and other Federal
programs adjust the level of staff; financial resources; and technical assistance, training and
technology transfer functions to help states and localities implement source water protection
programs. For example, if agriculture is identified as being among the most prevalent significant
sources of contamination in one region of the country, resources for programs addressing
agriculture could be focused in that region. Or, if septic systems were identified as a prevalent
potential source of contamination for ground water-based CWSs, national program resources
could be directed to better address septic systems. Completing the first national reports should
set in place a process for jointly working with states and their national organizations to produce
31
-------
future reports. Likewise, if states decide to do reports, this could form a process for jointly
working across state agencies and with local communities to gather information relevant for
source water protection.
Reporting using "population" as a metric for source water assessments completed and
for source water protection implementation.
The Guidance includes reporting both for water systems and for population served by those
systems. This should permit state and national reports to use summary information that
includes both; that is, the populations associated with a particular number or percentage of
water systems. Just as the national reports would be based on the water system information in
SDWIS, so would the population information.
Reporting on future sources of drinking water, either ground water or surface water.
There is no expected reporting under this Guidance for waters that a state has not assessed
either under its SWAP Program or under any updated assessments. However, while the Source
Water Assessment Program required by the 1996 Amendments to the SDWA focused on
current sources of drinking water as delineated under EPA-approved SWAP programs, EPA's
1997 SWAP Guidance recommended updates to assessments including assessments for new
drinking water systems. The SWAP Program is not intended to deter states from prudent
planning for future water supplies that may focus protection efforts in a comprehensive
protection approach on surface and ground waters that are not now used for drinking water, but
may be in the future.
Question 1: Are the State Source Water Assessments Being Completed under
Section 1453 of the SDWA?
Source water areas for assessment and/or protection.
For the polygon information collection for all states, EPA expects to accept those areas the
state will share so long as it is clear what is being shared and how it was developed. At a
minimum, EPA requests the SWA boundaries used by a state in developing its source water
assessments (i.e., the area in which the state conducted its most detailed contaminant source
inventory and susceptibility determination). This could include multiple delineation zones
nested into one outer source water area boundary. Since the delineation methods for CWSs of
similar size vary dramatically by state, EPA intends to work with each state based on the state's
information. States that have separate SWA boundaries for assessments, as compared to
boundaries for protection, can submit both. EPA has not identified information needs for
separate source water area boundaries, but expects to make provisions for identifying such
separate boundaries in the Agency's SWA information repository, which is with a contractor and
will be secure.
Availability of mapped SWAs to EPA programs, Federal agencies and state programs.
One of the key benefits of making mapped SWAs for CWSs available to Federal and state
agencies is that knowing the location of such areas could help these agencies focus future
assessment and prevention actions within SWAs. EPA's objective is to build a
nationally-consistent geospatial data coverage to represent, for the PWSS Program, the intake
and well inventory point locations and SWAs. EPA recognizes its responsibility to manage
sensitive locational information in a secure manner. Therefore, EPA expects to implement a
32
-------
policy which will both achieve the benefits of making the SWAs available to EPA programs and
Federal agencies, and ensure that the information will be used in a responsible manner.
What is the status of the SWA polygon information collection?
OGWDW initiated the development of national GIS coverage of the state-delineated source
water areas in October 2002. As of December, 2004 EPA has GIS coverages of some or all the
SWAs from 24 states. A second round of SWA information collection will continue to be
voluntary for the states. All SWA polygon information collection from the states will be
coordinated through the EPA regions.
How will the polygon information received from the states be processed and where will it
be stored?
OGWDW expects to store the SWA polygon shape files and associated attribute information
from the states in a secure server developed and maintained by Research Triangle Institute
(RTI), a contractor to EPA. OGWDW expects to hold the validated SWA polygon information in
the secure server at RTI until OGWDW and each state agrees that it is appropriate to transfer it
to a server at EPA for EPA use.
The process of soliciting and validating the SWA information received from each state
involves a number of steps:
• OGWDW expects to first pre-screen the raw state information to align it to locational
information already submitted by the states to SDWIS/Fed. Since each state's file format
and attribute information are unique, OGWDW intends to work as necessary with the
individual state to resolve information and format consistency issues.
• After aligning the state information to SDWIS/Fed, RTI should use software to convert each
shape file to a standard geographic projection that identifies a unique area. This should be
used to populate the database, along with applicable Federal Geographic Data Committee
(FGDC) data and other attribute data. The polygons and their attributes should not be
altered from what the state provides to EPA. Data gaps should be addressed on a
case-by-case basis with the states.
• Finally, EPA expects to provide its geospatial projection and associated attribute table to the
state for review. OGWDW is requesting that each state affirm that EPA's representation of
the state data is consistent with what the state is using.
What if the polygons are not tagged specifically to SDWIS/Fed public water supply
identification numbers?
EPA intends to only use SWA polygon information that is aligned to SDWIS/Fed PWS and
facility IDs. Other than aligning the information to the existing inventory records in SDWIS/Fed,
all other information that EPA will use should be converted (through collaboration with the
regions and states) to a standard table structure.
What if national and state maps do not agree?
OGWDW intends to maintain SWA information from a state, and EPA will not change the
shape of any state polygons. It is possible that OGWDW will maintain converted SWA polygon
information that has been affirmed by the state as representative of the data maintained by the
33
-------
state. OGWDWwill likely also maintain a record of when the information was received from the
state to assure continuing information comparability. Updates to OGWDWs SWA database will
likely be based only on information updates received from the states.
Why is the measure of Tribal assessments completed not included in this Guidance?
While source water assessments for public water supplies on tribal lands were not required,
EPA's 1997 Final National Source Water Assessment and Protection Programs Guidance
recommended that "each tribe implement such a program to the extent appropriate resources
are available to do so."
Federal Direct Implementation programs have been working with tribes to do assessments
and, in some cases, have done much of the actual assessment work in cooperation with tribal
staff. Because this Final Guidance is written for states, and there is a separate overall EPA
Tribal Strategic Plan with measures, information on the tribal measure is not included here. The
measure for tribal assessments is PAM SDW-10 in the National Water Program Guidance for
2006, "number of Tribal community water systems that have completed a source water
assessment consistent with national guidelines."
Question 2: What Threats to Sources of Drinking Water Are
Being Found in Assessment Results?
Measuring most prevalent and most threatening significant potential sources of
contamination.
Some states may find it difficult to summarize results on the significant potential sources of
contamination identified in their source water assessments. However, this information is useful
in helping to focus the appropriate state and Federal resources for prevention actions.
Based on a state's approved SWAP, there is a possibility that states will only have one data
set and not the other, e.g., most prevalent or most threatening, but not both. However, both are
included in the measures so all states can report using their current data system.
For these measures, states are strongly encouraged to share information by ranking the top
five categories of significant potential sources of contamination in source water areas for CWSs
or for CWSs. Providing this information will increase its utility to states and the Federal
government to focus protection actions relative to priority sources of contamination.
Eliminate from PAM 11 in the upcoming 2006 National Water Program Guidance the most
threatening categories of sources of contamination.
As noted above, while some states may only be able to report the most prevalent sources of
contamination, other states may only have aggregated information on the most threatening
sources. At the state and national levels, understanding the differences in the categories will
be important. The most prevalent category can be a proxy for the most threatening category,
but not a substitute. If a state defined the most threatening sources in its SWAP Program, that
information should be critical at the state level. At the national level, it is useful to know how
many states will report similar categories of information. With a substantial number of states
reporting this information, possibly even a third, it should provide the national program an
understanding of whether the top five categories of most prevalent sources of contamination are
different than or similar to the most threatening categories.
34
-------
Question 3: How Are Current and Future
Drinking Water Supplies Being Protected?
Counting when a source water protection strategy is in place and initial implementation
is occurring for a CWS(s) or SWA(s) of a CWS(s).
While this final Guidance provides flexibility to states in defining this status, the key
ingredient is that the state have a clear definition of a SWP strategy in place. Source water
protection strategies should be developed to guide protection actions. A source water
protection strategy for a CWS/SWA addresses identified significant potential sources of
contamination and other key actions based on the findings of a source water assessment or
management plan, and could provide for future protection strategies, to the extent necessary,
for CWSs/SWAs of low relative risk or minimally threatened due to the natural characteristics of
the source water. It can be based on an adopted written strategy, adopted written laws, or
actions taken by various entities independent of one, written, strategy, and could include a
process for updating assessment results. It can also be established through a source water
management control system or plan designed to reduce risks as detailed in a source water
assessment, possibly with specific action indicators in the control system or plan. A strategy for
a CWS should either: (1) include an emergency response plan in compliance with the Public
Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002 (Bioterrorism Act); or
(2) describe how it will comply with any relevant actions described in a state's emergency
drinking water plan approved by EPA pursuant to federal regulations at 40 CFR 142.10(e),
which may include a specific CWS-based emergency plan.
Source water protection actions can be implemented either before, during, or after a
strategy has been developed; however, ongoing implementation should occur for it to be
countable. For example, most CWSs are implementing source water protection actions in
delineated source water areas for specific sources of contamination, such as point sources
(shallow underground injection wells) or nonpoint sources (stormwater runoff). Such program
actions may have been in place prior to source water protection strategy development, but are
ongoing. Therefore, for CWSs or SWAs for CWSs, we fully expect to count them as achieving
initial implementation if such actions are ongoing, and a strategy is in place.
Necessity of including a contingency plan or CWS-specific emergency plan in a source
water protection strategy for a CWS.
As noted in the previous answer, for CWSs covered by the Public Health Security and
Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002, this Guidance states that a strategy is
not counted unless it is in compliance with that Act. For all other CWSs, the Guidance states
that a "State, substate, or CWS-specific emergency plan should be in place." Contingency
planning has been a part of the SDWA Section 1428 since 1986 for ground water-based PWSs
covered by EPA-approved state wellhead protection programs. Nothing in the 1996
Amendments to the SDWA or in the 2002 Bioterrorism Act changed that language in Section
1428.
Measuring substantial implementation of source water protection strategies as a proxy
for minimizing risks to public health in a SWA.
To measure "substantial implementation," this Guidance recommends that states define
substantial implementation of a source water protection strategy using, as a beginning point, the
definition in Part B (which is also in Appendix IV). States will have great latitude to set policies
for determining which sources of contamination are significant for protection actions and for
35
-------
determining the nature and extent of the actions needed to meet the substantial level of strategy
implementation.
The assumption underlying this measure is that substantial implementation of protection
actions that address significant sources of contamination will reduce loadings of contaminants
to source waters. Thus, as loadings are reduced, the quality of waters should be maintained or
increase, and risks to public health should decrease, or at least be maintained at current levels.
It would be better to measure risk minimization directly, using water quality changes.
However, there is very limited monitoring data available to do this, and future resources to
implement such a monitoring system are uncertain.
EPA and the states could use other information to characterize risk changes also, such as
increases or decreases in watershed ratings described in the CWA Section 305(b)/303(d)
biennial reports, or contamination detects and compliance rates reported in state or Federal
drinking water supply databases.
States will likely establish more or less stringent definitions for the content of source
water protection strategies, strategies initially implemented, or strategies substantially
implemented.
Providing states flexibility in these definitions is critical, given the lack of statutory
requirements. This could indeed lead to different definitions. State narrative information,
however, should permit EPA to explain in any report the variation among the states in the
percentages of CWSs at the initial or substantial levels of implementation. It should not be
assumed that states with more stringent definitions will have lower numeric results. Those
states may, in fact, have the same or better results due either to past or current implementation
of preventive actions that meet the more stringent definitions.
Reporting on strategies initially implemented should permit states to count CWSs that
only have a strategy in place, or only have protection actions and no strategy.
State definitions of a strategy initially implemented should include protection actions already
implemented, and in fact, could constitute a strategy as well as implementation. That is, by
doing the initial protection actions for a CWS, the totality of these actions can constitute the
strategy. This may be more appropriate where there are only a few sources of contamination
that are significant and a few source water protection actions would be needed to address them.
For a community that has a written strategy, but has done nothing to implement it, either
before or after the strategy was established, we fully expect not to count it as having a strategy
initially implemented.
Question 4: Are Source Water Protection
Actions Making a Difference to Public Health Protection?
Measuring how SWP actions will make a difference to public health protection.
As noted above, EPA expects to use substantial implementation of source water protection
strategies as a proxy for minimizing risk to public health. To use these measures nationally
each year, states would need to report the extent to which these strategies are being
implemented, i.e., the percent of CWSs or SWAs for CWSs achieving substantial
implementation of SWP strategies. The percentage change from year-to-year, therefore, would
36
-------
measure whether prevention actions are making a difference. This percentage change would
provide a general description regarding whether or not past prevention actions are making a
difference in minimizing risks to public health.
Reporting and Database Issues
For the 2006, 2007, and 2008 reporting, what are the states' reporting options?
As described in Part C of this Guidance, states may: (1) use the spreadsheet files provided
by EPA, or (2) report using the source water reporting module process. The source water
reporting module will likely continue to be piloted for the 2006 to 2008 period and any state may
use it. Since information provided via the reporting module is for each CWS, or for each SWA
for a CWS (or for PWSs if a state prefers), more information is provided to EPA than just the
spreadsheet summary data. EPA expects to place the SWP module information in a secure
database with a contractor until a place in EPA's database has been developed. EPA would
then generate the spreadsheet of summary information, in cooperation with the states, so
comparable information is available for analysis across all states.
For states that want to continue using the pilot source water reporting module, EPA has
developed a source water data framework for efficient and cost-effective sharing of source
water data elements between states and EPA. Working with the Ground Water Protection
Council, EPA has developed and pilot tested a data exchange mechanism to accommodate the
transfer of state data to EPA's central data exchange (CDX), using an XML schema that
converts state-specific formats to the EPA standard.
Is the reporting required?
For Strategic Measure F of the 2003 to 2008 Strategic Plan (Substantial Implementation of
Source Water Protection Strategies), EPA will likely report on this measure as part of any report
under the Strategic Plan. States are obligated, to the extent that they obligate themselves
through agreements with EPA, to provide information for this measure or for the Program
Activity Measures or other information. EPA strongly recommends that states provide this
information, whether required by agreement or not.
Every state must report on assessments completed. States were required under SDWA
Section 1453 to implement the Source Water Assessment Program and all spent funds for such
a program under Section 1452(k)(1)(c), the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF).
States therefore have an obligation to share information with the Federal government regarding
the status of completing the assessment program.
Information quality.
Information is expected to be of high quality, but it is understood that as the quality of the
information increases, the burden on the states to provide the information increases as well.
EPA strongly recommends that states collect and store the information for each CWS in a
state-level database. Various processes can be developed to aggregate information. For
measures and other information on the assessment program, states should be able to
aggregate information collected, although there are a variety of challenges for states in the
endeavor, depending on how the assessment information is stored at the state level. For the
protection measures for sub-state areas, such as for CWSs, states may need to establish a
process for collecting local information. One option could be to use a state-based certification
37
-------
process, or a local self-certification process for CWSs, on the status of local source water
protection implementation actions.
Reporting on CWSs that are in communities substantially implementing protection
actions will be difficult given resource limitations and practical issues in obtaining local
protection information, such as reporting capability.
States are requested in this Guidance to back up summary information reported to EPA with
CWS-by-CWS information. States can report this more detailed information if they choose to do
so. The effort needed to document local specific actions is a significant burden, and many
states will likely not have such a data system. Instead, states are likely to have a definition of
what constitutes implementation at different levels, and report whether a CWS is or is not
meeting that definition.
EPA understands the states' financial constraints based on previous published reports from
the states and their national organizations. However, for the status of protection actions to be
understood at the state and national levels, EPA recommends that states develop some
systematic approach to collecting the information. That approach does not have to be very
elaborate. A state could, for example, ask CWS managers to report whether the community for
the CWS meets the definitions of implementation levels set by the state.
Using best professional judgement as compared to having a state database to back up
state reported summary information on the levels of source water protection
implementation.
When states report summary information on assessments completed, that information is
based on a database. Similarly, the quality of summary information on the levels of source
water protection implementation will be much better if, in fact, states will have the backup
information specifically on which CWSs are at which status. Wthout this backup information,
states will not be able to target assistance to CWSs, nor be able to identify, if asked, the basis
for the summary information.
38
-------
Appendix Il-Crosswalk of National Questions, Measures, and
Information Elements
Question
Source Water Measures and
Other Information
Information Element
1. Are the state
source water
assessments being
completed under
Section 1453 of the
SDWA?
1.1 Mapped SWAs for CWSs by state.
(Other information)
SWA polygons in digitized format
(ground water and surface water).
Attribute information and other
relevant information
1.2 PWSs with complete assessments,
and associated population served -
cumulative. (Other information)
Percent of PWSs with complete
assessments and the associated
population served.
2. What threats to
sources of drinking
water are being found
in assessment
results?
2.1 For CWSs, most prevalent
categories of significant potential
sources of contamination (aggregated
at the state level and nationally, using
the assessment information, split by
ground water and surface water
systems). (PAM SDW-11)
State rankings of the top 5 most
prevalent categories of potential
sources of contamination for CWSs
or SWAs for CWSs (using national
agreed upon list attached to this
guidance).
2.2 For CWSs, most threatening
categories of significant potential
sources of contamination (aggregated
at the state level and nationally, using
the assessment information, split by
ground water and surface water
systems). (PAM SDW-11)
State rankings of the top 5 most
threatening categories of potential
sources of contamination for CWSs
or SWAs for CWSs (using national
agreed upon list attached to this
guidance).
3. How are current
and future drinking
water supplies being
protected?
3.1 Percent of CWSs that have source
water protection strategies in place and
are being implemented, and associated
population served - cumulative. (PAM
SDW-9)
Percent of CWSs or SWAs for
CWSs, and the associated
population served, with a strategy
in place and being implemented.
3.2 For CWSs, percentage of source
water areas that have source water
protection strategies substantially
implemented, and associated
population served - cumulative.
(Strategic Target F)
Percent of CWSs or SWAs for
CWSs, and the associated
population served, with a strategy
that has been substantially
implemented.
3.3 State source water protection
activities. (Other information)
State narrative.
4. Are source water
protection actions
making a difference to
public health
protection?
4.1 Overtime, percent change in CWSs
or SWAs for CWSs, and associated
population served, with substantial
implementation of source water
protection strategies (proxy for
minimized risk to public health).
(Strategic Target F)
No new information elements.
Percent change in substantial
strategy implementation is a proxy
for minimized risk to public health.
(Information elements under 3.2
above.)
See Part B for definitions of the information elements.
39
-------
Appendix Ill-Representations of Reporting Spreadsheets
The following pages are generic representations of the spreadsheets that regions and states
should use to report the indicator measures and other information. Additional information to be
contained in or with the spreadsheet files to be distributed includes:
• SDWIS/Fed data on the number of systems and population:
- December 2000 frozen database information for assessments completed (Measure 1.2).
- The most recent year's fourth quarter frozen database information for the source water
protection measures (Measures 3.1 and 3.2).
• Each state's prior year data, to be used as a reference, beginning in Year 2 of the
information collection.
• Complete instructions for filling out the spreadsheets that reflect the definitions and other
information in Part B.
• Each spreadsheet will indicate the FY for which the information is to be reported.
Note: This collection of information will be consistent with the Paperwork Reduction Act.
40
-------
Complete Source Water Assessments
Public Water Systems (PWSs) or Source Water Areas for PWSs
States that reported 100% for all three rows in the previous year do not
need to fill in this table
State
Reporting level (circle one): System / Source water area
Community water systems
Non-transient non-community
water systems
Transient non-community water
systems
Percent of
Systems/SWAs with
Complete Assessments
Population
Served
41
-------
Most Prevalent Significant Potential Sources of Contamination
Pick and mark the top five in priority order number 1 through 5 source categories of
CWSs orSWAs for CWSs
State:
Significant Potential Sources of Contamination
SWAs
GW-based
SW-based
CWSs
GW-based
SW-based
1. AGRICULTURE
Concentrated animal feeding operations
Other animal feeding operations
Grazing
Crop production
Fertilizer/pesticide/herbicide applications
Farm chemicals and equipment (storage and sales)
Agricultural drainage
Agricultural irrigation wells
Aquaculture
Silviculture/managed forests
2. WASTEWATER
Municipal sanitary waste treatment and disposal
(commercial, domestic, and industrial waste)
Septic (on-site sewage disposal) systems
Large-capacity septic systems
Sewer collection systems/sewer lines
Combined sewer overflows
Land application of sludge (offsite of waste treatment plants)
Class I injection wells
3. STORMWATER
Stormwater discharges (permitted and others)
Stormwater retention basins
4. COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL
Automobile related activities
Gas stations (includes historic gas stations)
Other automotive activities
Chemical/petroleum processing/storage
Dry cleaners
Manufacturing
Wood/lumber/paper processing
Industrial discharge and disposal (process water); includes
land treatment
Underground storage tanks (not leaking)
Above ground storage tanks (not leaking)
Chemical and petroleum pipelines
Landscape maintenance
Mining/resource extraction
Active mining
Inactive/abandoned mining
Sand and gravel mining
Petroleum extraction (includes Class II wells)
42
-------
Most Prevalent Significant Potential Sources of Contamination
Pick and mark the top five in priority order number 1 through 5 source categories of
CWSs orSWAs for CWSs
State:
Significant Potential Sources of Contamination
SWAs
GW-based
SW-based
CWSs
GW-based
SW-based
5. TRANSPORTATION
Airports
Railroads/subways
Freeways/State highways
Roads/streets
Transportation maintenance facilities
Ports/harbors
6. WASTE PROCESSING/MANAGEMENT
Landfills
Hazardous waste disposal sites
Unauthorized dumping
Junkyards
7. CONTAMINATED SITES
Leaking underground storage tanks
Known contamination sites/plumes/spills
8. PHYSICAL LAND & WATER ALTERATION
Erosion and sedimentation (includes construction and
sediment resuspension)
Production wells
Injection wells/dry wells/sumps/abandoned wells
9. RESIDENTIAL HOUSING
Underground and above ground storage tanks
Septic (on-site sewage disposal) systems
Lawn and garden care
10. RECREATION
Recreation activities (other than boating)
Golf courses
Surface water recreation areas
Body contact recreation areas
Recreational boating areas
11. OTHER MAJOR FACILITIES
Military installations
Federal facilities
Utilities/powerplants
Hospitals
Laboratories
Cemeteries and mortuaries
12. MISC. ENVIRONMENTAL THREATS
Natural sources (e.g., arsenic, radon, wildlife)
Atmospheric Deposition
43
-------
Most Threatening Significant Potential Sources of Contamination
Pick and mark the top five in priority order number 1 through 5 source categories of
CWSs orSWAs for CWSs
State:
Significant Potential Sources of Contamination
SWAs
GW-based
SW-based
CWSs
GW-based
SW-based
1. AGRICULTURE
Concentrated animal feeding operations
Other animal feeding operations
Grazing
Crop production
Fertilizer/pesticide/herbicide applications
Farm chemicals and equipment (storage and sales)
Agricultural drainage
Agricultural irrigation wells
Aquaculture
Silviculture/managed forests
2. WASTEWATER
Municipal sanitary waste treatment and disposal
(commercial, domestic, and industrial waste)
Septic (on-site sewage disposal) systems
Large-capacity septic systems
Sewer collection systems/sewer lines
Combined sewer overflows
Land application of sludge (offsite of waste treatment plants)
Class I injection wells
3. STORMWATER
Stormwater discharges (permitted and others)
Stormwater retention basins
4. COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL
Automobile related activities
Gas stations (includes historic gas stations)
Other automotive activities
Chemical/petroleum processing/storage
Dry cleaners
Manufacturing
Wood/lumber/paper processing
Industrial discharge and disposal (process water); includes
land treatment
Underground storage tanks (not leaking)
Above ground storage tanks (not leaking)
Chemical and petroleum pipelines
Landscape maintenance
Mining/resource extraction
Active mining
Inactive/abandoned mining
Sand and gravel mining
Petroleum extraction (includes Class II wells)
44
-------
Most Threatening Significant Potential Sources of Contamination
Pick and mark the top five in priority order number 1 through 5 source categories of
CWSs orSWAs for CWSs
State:
Significant Potential Sources of Contamination
SWAs
GW-based
SW-based
CWSs
GW-based
SW-based
5. TRANSPORTATION
Airports
Railroads/subways
Freeways/State highways
Roads/streets
Transportation maintenance facilities
Ports/harbors
6. WASTE PROCESSING/MANAGEMENT
Landfills
Hazardous waste disposal sites
Unauthorized dumping
Junkyards
7. CONTAMINATED SITES
Leaking underground storage tanks
Known contamination sites/plumes/spills
8. PHYSICAL LAND & WATER ALTERATION
Erosion and sedimentation (includes construction and
sediment resuspension)
Production wells
Injection wells/dry wells/sumps/abandoned wells
9. RESIDENTIAL HOUSING
Underground and above ground storage tanks
Septic (on-site sewage disposal) systems
Lawn and garden care
10. RECREATION
Recreation activities (other than boating)
Golf courses
Surface water recreation areas
Body contact recreation areas
Recreational boating areas
11. OTHER MAJOR FACILITIES
Military installations
Federal facilities
Utilities/powerplants
Hospitals
Laboratories
Cemeteries and mortuaries
12. MISC. ENVIRONMENTAL THREATS
Natural sources (e.g., arsenic, radon, wildlife)
Atmospheric Deposition
45
-------
Explanatory Notes on Specific Categories for Significant Potential Sources of Contamination for those
that needed examples
Sources
1. AGRICULTURE
Concentrated animal feeding operations
Other animal feeding operations
Grazing
Crop production
Fertilizer/pesticide/herbicide applications
Farm chemicals and equipment (storage and
sales)
Agricultural drainage
Agricultural irrigation wells
Aquaculture
Silviculture/managed forests
2. WASTEWATER
Municipal sanitary waste treatment and
disposal (commercial, domestic, and industrial
waste)
Septic (on-site sewage disposal) systems
Large-capacity septic systems
Sewer collection systems/sewer lines
Combined sewer overflows
Land application of sludge (offsite of waste
treatment plants)
Class I injection wells
3. STORMWATER
Stormwater discharges (permitted and others)
Stormwater retention basins
4. COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL
Automobile related activities
Gas stations (includes historic gas stations)
Other automotive activities
Chemical/petroleum processing/storage
Dry cleaners
Manufacturing
Wood/lumber/paper processing
Industrial discharge and disposal (process
water); includes land treatment
Underground storage tanks (not leaking)
Above ground storage tanks (not leaking)
Chemical and petroleum pipelines
Landscape maintenance
Notes
Includes confined animal feeding operations.
Includes riparian and/or upland pasture and range grazing.
Includes irrigated and non-irrigated crop production and
specialty crop production (e.g., horticulture, citrus, nuts,
fruits).
Includes harvesting, restoration, residue management; forest
management (e.g., pumped drainage, fertilization, pesticide
application); logging road construction/ maintenance; and
silvicultural point sources.
Includes dry and/or wet weather discharges of commercial,
domestic, and industrial waste from major and/or minor
municipal point sources; Includes on site lagoons/liquid
wastes and land disposal of sludge (offsite sludge
application should be noted separately). Also includes
package plants.
Includes collection system failures and leaking sewer lines.
Includes permitted nonindustrial and industrial discharges
and other urban runoff/storm sewers; also includes illicit
connections, illegal hookups, and dry weather flows.
Includes electronics manufacturing, plastics/synthetics
producers, metal plating and finishing, homes, and furniture.
Includes major and minor industrial point sources, and land
treatment of process water.
Includes landscaping around commercial facilities such as
malls and office parks.
46
-------
Explanatory Notes on Specific Categories for Significant Potential Sources of Contamination for those
that needed examples
Mining/resource extraction
Active mining
Inactive/abandoned mining
Sand and gravel mining
Petroleum extraction (includes Class II wells)
5. TRANSPORTATION
Airports
Railroads/subways
Freeways/State highways
Roads/streets
Transportation maintenance facilities
Ports/harbors
6. WASTE PROCESSING/MANAGEMENT
Landfills
Hazardous waste disposal sites
Unauthorized dumping
Junkyards
7. CONTAMINATED SITES
Leaking underground storage tanks
Known contamination sites/plumes/spills
8. PHYSICAL LAND & WATER ALTERATION
Erosion and sedimentation (includes
construction and sediment resuspension)
Production wells
Injection wells/dry wells/sumps/abandoned
wells
9. RESIDENTIAL HOUSING
Underground and above ground storage tanks
Septic (on-site sewage disposal) systems
Lawn and garden care
10. RECREATION
Recreation activities (other than boating)
Golf courses
Surface water recreation areas
Body contact recreation areas
Recreational boating areas
11. OTHER MAJOR FACILITIES
Military installations
Federal facilities
Utilities/powerplants
Hospitals
Laboratories
Cemeteries and mortuaries
12. MISC. ENVIRONMENTAL THREATS
Natural sources (e.g., arsenic, radon, wildlife)
Atmospheric Deposition
Includes active surface mining, subsurface mining, placer
mining, dredge mining activities, and Class III injection wells;
mill tailings, mine tailings, and acid mine drainage.
Includes the impacts of past surface, subsurface, placer, and
dredge mining activities and associated mine tailings, mill
tailings, and acid mine drainage.
Includes salt storage and equipment storage and
maintenance.
Includes highway, road, and bridge construction and land
development and sediment resuspension.
Includes wells for withdrawing ground water.
Large-capacity septic systems should be included under
wastewater.
Includes research labs, private biomedical labs, and national
labs.
47
-------
Percent of CWSs or SWAs for CWSs with
Source Water Protection Strategies In Place and Being Implemented
State:
Level of Implementation
Strategy in Place and Being
Implemented
Substantial Strategy
Implementation
(Columns or rows do not need to add to 100%)
Ground water-based
Surface water-based
Total
CWS/SWA
for CWS
Population
CWS/SWA
for CWS
Population
Percent Change in CWSs or SWAs for CWSs Achieving
Substantial Implementation of Source Water Protection Strategies
State:
State total (current year)
Percent change*
current year - previous year
first year
* EPA will calculate the percent change
based on the previous and first years' data
reported by the state.
Substantial Strategy Implementation
CWS/SWA for CWS
Population
48
-------
Appendix IV-Definition of Substantial Implementation of a SWP
Strategy
Note: this is identical text to that presented under Measure 3.2 in Part B.
Substantial implementation is occurring when the state determines: for each CWS (and
related population), strategic protection actions have been or are being taken to appropriately
address state-identified significant sources of contamination, and possibly other concerns in a
source water assessment, taking into consideration the sensitivity of the source water to
contamination.
Explanatory Definitions for Concepts in the Definition of Substantial Implementation:
1. "State determines." The state decides, working with CWSs and their communities, when a
CWS, separately or as a network or group, has achieved substantial implementation of a SWP
strategy.
2. "Strategic protection actions have been or are being taken to appropriately address."
Strategic protection actions for CWSs are based on relevant SWP strategies. Actions may
reflect implementation of a WHP plan, a local watershed plan that includes SWP, or a source
water management control system or plan designed to reduce risks as detailed in a source
water assessment, possibly with specific action indicators in the control system or plan. States
may choose to determine a tailored set of minimum prevention actions, detailed in a publicly
released document developed through a public involvement process consistent with state law.
Specific actions could include, but are not limited to:
• zoning and related land-use measures that prohibit or restrict uses (e.g., by overlay zoning
or related actions);
• state or local health regulations (e.g., sanitary setbacks);
• land acquisition/conservation easements;
• enforceable (i.e., enforceable under state and/or local laws), or voluntary BMPs;
• public outreach, involvement and education programs related to each significant threat;
and/or
• other actions taken under Federal or state statues such as under the Clean Water Act (e.g.,
TMDLs, NPS management).
These appropriate actions may occur for one CWS or multiple CWSs and be: (a) state-wide,
including Federal actions taken within a state; (b) regionally across jurisdictions; or (c) locally.
3. "Identified significant sources of contamination" can be the same as the "significant
potential sources of contamination" defined in a state's EPA-approved SWAP (see EPA's
national SWAP guidance of Augusts, 1997 on pages 2-15, 2-16, and 2-17). Or the state can
identify, for SWP, a more narrow subset of the significant sources of contamination.
4. "Sensitivity of the source water to contamination." Whether the hydrology or
hydrogeology provides a natural barrier (e.g., a confined aquifer) that minimizes the risk to
public health directly, rather than, or in addition to, source water strategic protection actions.
49
-------
Appendix V-Acronyms
ASDWA Association of State Drinking Water Administrators
BMP Best Management Practice
CDX Central Data Exchange
CWA Clean Water Act
CWS Community Water System
DWSRF Drinking Water State Revolving Fund
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FGDC Federal Geographic Data Committee
GIS Geographic Information System
GWPC Ground Water Protection Council
NCWS Non-Community Water System
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NPS Non-Point Source
NRWQC Nationally Recommended Water Quality Criteria
OGWDW Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water
OPP Office of Pesticide Programs
ORD Office of Research and Development
OSCP Office of Science Coordination and Policy
OSW Office of Solid Waste
OUST Office of Underground Storage Tanks
OW Office of Water
PAMs Program Activity Measures
PWS Public Water System
PWSS Public Water Supply Supervision
RDBMS Relational Database Management System
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
SDWIS Safe Drinking Water Information System
SWA Source Water Area
SWAP Source Water Assessment Program
SWP Source Water Protection
TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load
UIC Underground Injection Control
USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
UST Underground Storage Tank
XML Extensible Markup Language
50
-------
EPA-816-R-05-001
March, 2005
------- |