EPA 910/948-248
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle WA 98101
Ground Water
Program Profile
1991
Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
-------
PROFILE OP GROUND WATER PROTECTION IN IDAHO
INTRODUCTION 1
A. State History of Ground-Water Protection 1
B. Legislative Authorities 2
I. SETTING GOALS AND DOCUMENTING PROGRESS 4
IA. Ground-Water Protection Goal 4
IB. Evaluation Mechanism 6
1C. Public Participation 7
Public Involvement 7
Public Outreach and Education 7
II. CHARACTERIZING THE RESOURCE AND PRIORITIZING ACTIONS 9
IIA. Resource Assessment 9
Aquifer Mapping
Aquifer Vulnerability Mapping
Ground-Water Standards and Aquifer Classification
Wellhead Protection Area Delineation
Sole Source Aquifer Designation
Ground-Water Quality Assessments
State Programs and the USGS
IIB. Contamination Source Identification 20
Underground Storage Tanks
Solid Waste Landfills
Hazardous Waste Facilities
Underground Injection Control Wells
Land Spreading Operations
IIC. Setting Priorities 23
I ID. Data Management, Monitoring, and Research 26
Data Management
Monitoring
Quality Assurance
Research
III. DEVELOPING AND IMPLEMENTING PREVENTION AND CONTROL 31
PROGRAMS
IIIA. Source Elimination 31
Idaho Waste Reduction Assistance Program
Agricultural Pollution Abatement Plan
Grassy Swales
-------
IIIB. Locational Criteria 38
Hazardous Waste Facility Siting
Source Specific Locational Criteria
Septic Systems
Underground Injection Wells
Public Water Supply Regulations
Land Application of Wastewater
IIIC. Permitting, Compliance Monitoring and 39
Enforcement Systems
Permitting
Land Applied Wastewater
Underground Injection Wells
Well Construction Standards
Solid Waste Disposal Sites
Hazardous Waste Sites
Septic Tanks
Other Control Programs
Underground Storage Tanks
Idaho National Engineering Laboratory
Drinking Water Program
Agricultural Chemicals/Chemigation
Feedlots and Dairies
Mining
Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer Protection Program
Indian Lands
Compliance Monitoring
IDHW
IDWR
DOA
Health Districts
Enforcement
IDHW
IDWR
DOA
Remediation
Superfund Type Activities
RCRA Corrective Action
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
Contamination Log
INEL
IV. DEFINING ROLES WITHIN THE STATE AND THE RELATIONSHIP 54
TO FEDERAL AGENCIES
IVA. State Roles 54
IDHW
IDWR
DOA
State Fire Marshal
State Insurance Commissioner
INEL Oversight Program
Idaho Geological Survey
Coordination Mechanisms
-------
IVB. Local Roles 57
IVC. Relationship with Federal Agencies 58
V. RESOURCES 60
VA. Financial 60
VB. Personnel 61
Appendix A 62
Appendix B 64
Appendix C 65
-------
LIST OF ACRONYMNS
APAP - Agricultural Pollution Abatement Plan
BLM - Bureau of Land Management
BMP - Best Management Practices
DOA - Department of Agriculture
GWQPA - Ground Water Quality Protection Act
I DEW - Idaho Department of Health and Welfare
IDWR - Idaho Department of Water Resources
IGIAC - Idaho Geographic Information Advisory Committee
IGS - Idaho Geologic Survey
PWS - Public Water Supply Program
RCRA - Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
SCO - Soil Conservation Commission
SCS - Soil Conservation Service
SDWA - Safe Drinking Water Act
UIC - Underground Injection Control Program
DSFS - United States Forest Service
USGS - United States Geological Survey
-------
INTRODUCTION
A. STATE HISTORY OF GROUND-WATER PROTECTION
Prior to 1983 ground-water protection in Idaho was limited to
existing statutory and regulatory authorities administered by
various media programs and state agencies. None of these were
dedicated to a distinct focus on protection of ground water as a
resource, but this was either a secondary goal or an incidental
benefit of the regulation. Such program regulations were also very
limited since, for example: the solid waste regulations were ten
years old and out of date; state hazardous waste legislation did
not exist; the underground injection control program was not
delegated from EPA, etc.
Recognizing the need for a more comprehensive approach to ground-
water protection the Ground-Water Quality Management Plan for Idaho
was administratively adopted by the Idaho Department of Health and
Welfare (IDHW) in 1983. A ground-water unit was formed in IDHW's
Water Quality Bureau in 1984 when EPA's new ground-water grant
program was initiated. After beginning to implement some of the
recommendations, the plan was subsequently updated in 1985 to
provide additional direction for ground-water quality protection.
While the plan provided the framework for a good beginning, it was
largely an IDHW plan and was not formally adopted by the Governor
and/or the legislature. The need for a more multi-agency approach
was recognized with the advent of increased scrutiny on such issues
as agricultural chemicals in ground water, etc. and the state was
beginning to address the need for a more comprehensive plan
when other developments arose.
After the 1985 plan update IDHW began working on one of the key
recommendations which was the development and adoption of ground-
water standards which included an aquifer classification system.
IDHW researched the various approaches taken in other states and
developed several draft proposals during 1985-1987. In late 1987
formal hearings were held throughout the state. The proposed
ground-water standards proved controversial and were brought to the
attention of the state legislature. A special legislative
committee was formed to provide guidance on ground-water
protection. Public meetings were held around the state to seek
additional input and IDHW was requested to delay the standards
adoption process.
After seeking public input the legislature decided there was great
interest in protecting the ground-water resource but that
legislation was needed to guide the process. Legislation was
drafted in 1988 and the proposal was introduced during the 1989
session.
-------
The Ground-Water Quality Protection Act was enacted by the 1989
legislature and was signed by the Governor. The Act amends Idaho
Code, Section 39-102 and adds new sections of Idaho Code Sections
39-120 through 39-127. Also included in the Act is an amendment
to Idaho Code, Section 67-6537 requiring local governments to
consider the impacts to ground water in comprehensive planning
decisions.
The Act calls for creation of a Ground-Water Quality Council that
is responsible for developing a Ground-Water Quality Plan. The
plan is to present a strategy to protect and maintain the ground-
water quality in the State by requiring components that:
1. "Describe the state's overall approach to protecting its
ground water.
2. Take into account existing and future beneficial uses and
existing ground-water quality.
3. Identify existing authorities and programs to protect ground-
water qua1ity.
4. Propose legislative, administrative and economic mechanisms to
protect ground-water quality.
5. Review and make recommendations on plans for development and
administration of a comprehensive ground water monitoring
network, including point of use, point of contamination and
problem assessment monitoring sites across the state and
assessment of ambient ground-water quality utilizing, to the
greatest extent possible, collection and coordination of
existing data sources, and
6. Include programs to promote and assure public awareness of
ground-water protection" (Idaho Code 39-120)
The plan was completed by June 30, 1991. A series of public
meetings and hearings were held during the summer and fall of 1991
to seek input in finalizing the plan document. The Council will
formally adopt the plan and submit it to the 1992 legislature.
The legislature will adopt, amend, or reject the plan through
passage of a statute. After action by the legislature, the plan
shall have the force and effect of law.
B. LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITIES
The Ground-Water Quality Protection Act of 1989 is the primary
legislation for ground-water quality in Idaho. In addition the
-------
Statutes listed below were enacted for other purposes but have
ground-water protection implications as well.
Idaho Environmental Health and Protection Act
Hazardous Waste Management Act of 1983
Hazardous Waste Siting Act
Public Records Act
Injection Wells- Protection of Ground Water as a Public Resource
Chemigation Law of 1989
-------
I. SETTING GOALS AND DOCUMENTING PROGRESS
IA. Ground-Water Protection Goal
The Ground-Water Quality Protection Act of 1989 (Senate Bill 1269)
will be the foundation for the future of Idaho's comprehensive
ground-water protection program. Older waste disposal and
injection well statutes (Title 42, Chapter 39, Idaho Code) also
declare the ground waters of Idaho to be a public resource which
must be protected against unreasonable contamination or
deterioration of quality to preserve such waters for diversion to
beneficial uses. Much rides on the reception the legislature gives
the proposed The Ground-Water Quality Plan next session.
The Idaho Ground-Water Quality Protection Act of 1989 (GWQP) has
it's general ground water goals and policies worded as follows:
"The goal of the legislature in enacting the Ground-Water
Quality Protection Act of 1989 shall be to maintain the
existing high quality of the state's ground water and to
satisfy existing and projected future beneficial uses
including drinking water, agricultural, industrial and
aquacultural water supplies. All ground water shall be
protected as a valuable public resource against unreasonable
contamination or deterioration. The quality of degraded
ground water shall be restored where feasible and appropriate
to support identified beneficial uses."
The purpose of the Ground-Water Quality Plan is to protect ground-
water quality for use by the public. The plan also provides
guidance and direction to state agencies, local governments and
citizens in preventing ground water contamination. This purpose
is to be accomplished by fulfilling goals of the statute which are
listed in Table 1.
-------
TABLE 1; GOALS AND REQUIREMENTS OF THE
IDAHO GROUND-WATER PROTECTION ACT
Prevent contamination of ground water from point and non-point
sources to the maximum extent possible.
The discovery of any contamination that poses a threat to
existing or projected future beneficial uses of ground water
shall require appropriate actions to prevent further
contamination. These actions may consist of investigation and
evaluation of enforcement actions, if necessary, to stop further
contamination or clean up existing contamination as required
under the Environmental Protection and Health Act.
All persons in the state should conduct their activities so as
to prevent the non-regulated release of contaminants into ground
water.
Education of the citizens of the state is necessary to preserve
and restore ground-water quality.
Make public the results of investigations concerning ground-
water quality subject to the restrictions contained in Section
39-120, Idaho Code (Idaho Code 39-120)
Develop a ground-water monitoring plan concurrently with the
development of a ground-water quality plan. The ground-water
monitoring network will be a dynamic ongoing program.
Establish a system or systems within state departments and
political subdivisions of the state for collecting, evaluating,
and disseminating ground-water quality data and information.
Develop and maintain a natural resource geographic information
system. The system shall be accessible to the public.
-------
IB. Evaluation Mechanism
The membership of the Ground-Water Council, currently developing
the Ground-Water Quality Protection Plan, is made up of 17 voting
members and 5 ex-officio nonvoting members. The Ground-Water
Quality Protection Act (GWQPA) specifies the various interests to
be represented on the Council including: industry, agriculture,
mining, state government, local government and the general public.
The Council is to exist for up to two years after legislative
approval of the plan and will then be disbanded if not reauthorized
by the legislature. During the two years after plan adoption, and
thereafter if reauthorized, the Council is to oversee progress in
implementing the plan.
Current drafts of the plan present a wide variety of proposed state
policies on ground water protection issues along with
recommendations for implementation that are based on Council
consensus . Once the legislature approves the plan by adopting it
as statute, the Council will likely prioritize the recommendations
and develop an implementation schedule. During the life of the
Council an annual report is also required detailing the number and
concentration of contaminants discovered in the ground-water
monitoring program mandated by the GWQPA.
The policies being addressed in the latest draft of the plan which
each have implementation recommendations include the following:
The broad general ground-water policy
- Existing and future beneficial uses
Categorization of ground water
Prevention of ground water contamination
Public education on ground-water quality
Ground-Water quality research
Public participation in ground-water activities
Local/State government interaction
Local/State consistency
Federal consistency
Interstate/Interprovincial/Tribal agreements
Artificial recharge of ground-water aquifers
Statewide ground-water quality monitoring network
Regional and local ground-water monitoring
Publicly funded ground-water data standards
Idaho ground-water data information system
Agricultural chemical and nutrient management
Mining
Remediation
Ground-water quality standards
Agency roles
Liability for remediation costs
It is likely that some of these policies will include
recommendations for new state legislation.
-------
1C. Public Participation
Public Involvement
In addition to specifying the makeup of the membership of the
Ground-Water Council to insure representation by a broad range of
interests in development of the plan, the GWQPA mandates public
participation in plan development. It states that the Departments
of Health and Welfare, Water Resources, and Agriculture should take
actions necessary to promote and assure public confidence and
public awareness of ground-water quality protection. In addition
the statute specifies that the plan include programs to promote and
assure public awareness of ground-water protection.
Upon completion of the plan, the GWQPA also requires that the
Council publish notice after giving 20 days notice as provided in
Section 60-109, Idaho Code, in one or more newspapers and shall
issue statewide news releases announcing the availability of the
plan for inspection by interested persons. The announcement shall
indicate where and how the plan may be obtained or reviewed and
shall indicate that not less than three public hearings shall be
conducted at various locations in the state before formal adoption.
The first public hearing shall not be held until 45 days have
elapsed from the date of the notice announcing the availability of
the plan. After public hearings the Council shall prepare a
written summary of the comments received, provide comments on major
concerns raised, make amendments to the plan as necessary and then
formally adopt the plan.
When state agencies develop or revise any regulation their Legal
Services Divisions will publish public notice of proposed rules or
rule changes. The location of copies for review is specified and
a copy will be mailed for a small fee. Written comments are
invited and the deadline for submitting comments is specified.
Public Outreach and Education
Idaho currently has several ongoing outreach activities. The Idaho
Department of Health and Welfare (IDHW) publishes a quarterly
newsletter entitled "Idaho Clean Water" which is widely distributed
and covers both ground and surface water issues and programs. The
Idaho Department of Water Resources (IDWR) publishes a quarterly
newsletter entitled "Injection Well Quarterly" which is aimed at
the user, designer, and planner of underground injection wells.
They also produce a document entitled "Idaho Currents" which
provides information on energy and water news. IDWR also received
demonstration grant funds under a national competition for a
program called Operation Outreach and they are developing public
information brochures on various types of injection wells. IDWR
is pursuing education of the water well drilling community by
organizing annual workshops and publishing a bi-annual newsletter
for licenced drillers.
-------
Idaho has initiated the Idaho Waste Reduction Assistance Program
(IWRAP) under federal funding. A waste reduction and recycling
clearing house has been established and a toll-free hot line made
available. IWRAP has also linked the public with regional waste
exchanges and is networking with national information exchange
services. IDHW has also promoted waste reduction and recycling
with a Solid Waste Awareness Week and a three year public service
awareness campaign called "Let's Talk Trash". The three-R's
(reduce, reuse and recycle) have also been promoted within Idaho
schools.
During May 1990 IDHW's Hazardous Materials Bureau assisted Boise,
Ada County and Latah County in Household Hazardous Waste Collection
Day events in Boise and Moscow. People were polled on future years
with 46% favoring annual events and 42% supporting them semi-
annual ly.
The GWQPA stresses public participation and awareness and current
drafts of the Ground-Water Quality Protection Plan contain policy
recommendations that call for expanded efforts in a number of
areas. While the plan has not been adopted, these recommendations
will, in all likelihood, be retained since they are widely
supported. One key recommendation is for establishment of a
ground-water quality information clearing house.
-------
II. CHARACTERIZING THE RESOURCE AND PRIORITIZING ACTIONS
IIA. Resource Assessment
Aquifer Mapping
A 1981 report entitled "Ground-Water Resources of Idaho" was
developed by IDWR to identify and describe the major aquifers of
the state. Because of the complex geologic makeup of the state,
it was not practical or possible to identify and describe each and
every aquifer. Seventy major ground-water flow systems were
identified with many comprising more than one aquifer. Several
major plates were developed at scale of 1:1,000,000 depicting the
seventy major flow systems, the general lithologies ,the
potentiometric contours and the direction of ground-water movement.
Although seventy aquifers were identified, many are limited in
extent and yield. There are three major aquifer types in Idaho,
each depicted by their geology as shown in Figure 1.
Unconsolidated sedimentary aquifers yield sufficient water for
domestic and farming activities and are located in valley filled
regions of the state. Such aquifers in northern Idaho are of
glacial outwash and recent alluvium with the principal one being
the Spokane Valley-Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer. This system is
extremely productive with very high transmissivities resulting in
low draw down in high-yielding wells. Much attention is being
focused on protecting this aquifer because its extreme
vulnerability to contamination.
The Snake River Plain Aquifer in southern Idaho is composed of
primarily of basalt with sedimentary interbeds. It is the
principal aquifer in the state and one of the largest in the
country- It discharges 6.5 million acre-feet annually to the Snake
River. Smaller basalt aquifers in the Weiser River Basin and the
Lewiston-Moscow area have much smaller yields, but provide most of
the domestic water and significant agricultural water for their
regions.
Sedimentary and volcanic aquifers are found in the Boise Valley,
Mountain Home, Buhl and Twin Falls. They are composed of clay ,
silt, sand and gravel and interbedded volcanics and are located
primarily in the western Snake Plain. Such aquifers may yield
significant geothermal water.
with the advent of the new computerized geographic information
systems (CIS), environmental and natural resource agencies as well
local governments and others are moving into a new era in mapping
capability and coordination. The Idaho Geographic Information
Advisory Committee (IGIAC) was created by Executive Order No. 88-
16 dated June 26, 1988. The order established the voting
membership of the committee as members of state agencies with the
non-voting membership open to federal agencies, industrial and
-------
FIGURE I. Principal Aquifers of Idaho
LEGEMQ
Valley-rilled Aquifer
BeMlt Aquifer
Sedimentary and Volcanic
Aquifer
After USGS 1984. Graham and Camp-
Dell 1901
NOTE: All aquifer systems are
comolex. containing a-variety of
rock types.
-------
professional organizations and academic institutions. The IGIAC
was created to:
1. Review new geographic information mapping and remote
sensing technology applications which can be directed to
the states interests;
2. Make recommendations to state and federal agencies
regarding geographic information systems, mapping
programs, and remote sensing specifications;
3. Assist in the preparation of requests to pertinent federal
agencies as a part of the diversified national mapping
program;
4. Meet on at least an annual basis to review geographic
information programs carried on by federal and state
agencies and private industry, develop a list of
priorities with regard thereto, and make
recommendation with regard to possibilities for
cooperation and resource sharing; and
5. Submit an annual report to the Governor of the committee's
activities subsequent to the annual meeting.
The voting members of the committee include the Departments of
Transportation, Water Resources, Fish and Game, Parks and
Recreation, Lands, Health and Welfare, the State Tax Commission and
the Division of Financial Management.
The IGIAC established a geographic information policy and a
standard for a geographic data base in 1988. These are contained
in Appendices A and B. They emphasized that the increasingly
powerful GIS technology has the potential to greatly increase
efficiency and reduce costs and is in a period of dynamic evolution
and growth. Also GIS technology is but one of related technologies
(e.g. remote sensing and digital cartography) that can assist in
carrying out responsibilities more efficiently. IGIAC established
that it is imperative that strong emphasis be placed on
coordination among organizations using or planning these
technologies.
The 7.5-minute, 1:24,000 scale quadrangle map series has recently
been completed by USGS. The IGIAC feels that USGS needs to pursue
maintenance of its 7.5-minute mapping via acquisition of update
information from appropriate agencies, i.e., secure hydrology
feature update from IDWR, transportation feature update from
transportation departments, etc. They also have a number of other
recommendations for USGS on this mapping program which are
highlighted in 1989 annual report of IGIAC.
The small scale 1:1,000,000 maps are produced by the USGS and the
USFS and are used by nearly every agency in Idaho. Typically they
are derived maps compiled from reduced 7.5-minute, 1:24,000 scale
11
-------
maps and the agencies reprinting them usually perform an update
and add a theme such as ownership, recreation sites, etc.
Orthophoto quadrangles (OQ's) are primarily 1:24,000 scale photo-
image maps formatted to cover the same area as the standard 7.5
minute quadrangle maps. Other scales are used by some agencies
with some using a township format.
While OQ's were originally conceived as a temporary stand-in for
standard maps, they have found a niche as a replacement for high
altitude photo maps. They have been adopted and are maintained as
a base by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) , the U.S.
Forest Service (USFS), the Idaho Department of Lands, IDWR, and
several large corporations. The USGS, BLM and the USFS have OQ
production equipment. USGS produces OQ's for other agencies and
maintains a master to make copies for users while BLM and USFS
produce OQ's for internal use only. IGIAC recommends that USGS and
USFS formalize and publicize their cooperative arrangement for
production of OQ's and establish an aerial photography contract to
produce 1:80,000-scale photos where OQ's are needed. They also
feel that USGS needs to provide coordination for OQ cooperative
projects on a local basis.
Many agencies in Idaho are performing digital mapping and IGIAC
recommends that they continue to work closely together to develop
nonduplicative, multiuse digital data sets, including a graphic
coordinate database. Agencies can use the digital map information
to make and recreate maps and perform GIS analysis for management
purposes. One example will be discussed in the next section on
ground-water vulnerability mapping. The users of GIS (the ARC/INFO
system is used by all) are listed in Appendix C and this is
expected to expand rapidly.
With the increased emphasis on mapping in Idaho and the rapidly
expanding GIS capabilities, aquifer mapping for ground-water
quality protection purposes can be refined and enhanced.
Aquifer Vulnerability Mapping
Idaho has been the leader in EPA Region 10 for the past several
years in ground-water vulnerability mapping. IDHW initiated the
project but it was a multi-agency effort building on the combined
expertise of IDWR, USGS, IDHW and the U.S. Soil Conservation
Service (SCS). The purpose was to develop and demonstrate a method
to rate areas within the state for their ground-water pollution
potential. The project was initiated on a pilot project basis by
mapping the Lake Walcott quadrangle on a 1:100,000 scale. After
this was successfully completed in 1988, the mapping was extended
across the entire Snake River Plain and tributary valleys. The
project is ongoing with the intention of mapping the entire state.
The results of the work on the Snake River Plain were recently
summarized in a report entitled "Ground Water Vulnerability
Assessment, Snake River Plain Southern Idaho" dated April 1991.
The following four pages provide the excerpted Executive Summary.
12
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Idaho Ground Water Vulnerability project was initiated by the
Idaho Department of Health and Welfare to rate areas within the
state for their relative ground water pollution potential. The
Idaho Department of Health and Welfare (IDHW) combined their
efforts and expertise with the Idaho Department of Water Resources
(IDWR), the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the U.S.D.A. Soil
Conservation Service (SCS) to develop the vulnerability maps.
The project utilized a modified form of DRASTIC (Aller et. al.,
1985) which was developed by the National Water Well Association
under contract to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The
DRASTIC model evaluates the ground water pollution potential of a
given hydrogeologic setting based on a set of defined
characteristics, along with ratings or "weights" assigned to those
characteristics. This project utilized three layers which resemble
those used by DRASTIC (depth-to-water, soils, and recharge), but
differ greatly from DRASTIC in that they used different sources of
information, a finer scale, and a different point rating scheme.
The project used a Geographic Information System (GIS), which gives
the ability for enhanced data analysis and integration capabilities
over the standard cartographic techniques used by DRASTIC.
1) Description of Data Layers
a) Depth-to-water Layer
The depth-to-water layer was developed by the U.S. Geological
Survey (Maupin, in press-a; Maupin, in press-b). Depth-to-
water is important for susceptibility assessment because areas
where the ground water is close to the surface typically have
a higher probability of ground water pollution than areas
where ground water is quite deep. A computer program
(Universal Kriging) was used to generate a surface
representing first-encountered ground water below land surface
from measured water levels. The depth-to-water values were
generated by subtracting land-surface altitudes from the
KRIGED water-level surface using a simple FORTRAN program.
The depth-to-water map was then contoured and broken into
categories, with each category rated on a scale of 1 to 50
points to reflect its relative significance to ground water
vulnerability. The following ratings were used:
Depth-to-water Ranges Rating (points)
1 to 25 feet 50
26 to 50 feet 35
51 to 100 feet 20
101 to 250 feet 10
> 250 feet 1
Note:ThisExecutive Summary was excerpted from a report entitled
"Ground Water Vulnerability Assessment Snake River Plain, Southern
Idaho
13
-------
b) Recharge Layer
The "recharge" component of the Ground Water Vulnerability
Model was developed by the Idaho Department of Water
Resources. This layer represents water that penetrates the
ground surface and percolates to the water table, potentially
carrying contaminants with it.
The "recharge" map combined three data sets or layers that
indicate types of land cover. The first layer outlines
irrigated and dry cropland. The second layer differentiates
between sprinkler- and gravity-fed irrigation delivery
systems. The third layer subdivides land cover types into
five categories representing rangelands, agricultural lands,
forests, lava flows, and riparian areas. Each resulting
recharge class was given the following point rating to be used
in determining relative vulnerability:
Recharge Classes Rating (points)
Gravity-fed irrigated land 50
Riparian areas 50
Sprinkler-fed irrigated land 40
Forests 30
Dryland agriculture 20
Rangeland 20
Bare rock (lava flows) 10
Urban areas No rating
Surface water No rating
c) Soils Layer
The soils layer incorporated the State Soil Geographic
Database (STATSGO) and SOILS-5 databases developed by the SCS.
Four soil-landscape characteristics were chosen to be included
in the soils layer. These characteristics are: 1)
permeability of the most restrictive layer; 2) depth-to-water
table within the soil horizon; 3) depth to bedrock; and 4)
flooding frequency. Each characteristic was rated to reflect
its relative significance to ground water susceptibility. The
ranges of possible scores for the soils layer are as follows:
Soil Characteristics Rating (points)
1) permeability 2 to 20
2) depth to bedrock 1 to 10
3) depth to water-table 0 or 8
4) flooding frequency 0 to 5
Total 2 to 43
14
-------
The score for each soil unit was then multiplied by three to
determine the final soils vulnerability rating. This was done
because the soils layer incorporates more than one criteria
relevant to ground water vulnerability assessment, and hence
deserves more weighing than the other two layers.
2) Vulnerability Map
The Ground Water Vulnerability map (Figure 2) was generated
by merging the three characteristics (depth-to-water,
recharge, and soils) into one map using computer mapping
(Geographic Information System) techniques. The point ratings
from each layer were added to create a total vulnerability
rating.
The final vulnerability map was broken into four categories
of relative vulnerability; low, moderate, high, and very high.
The division points for these categories were derived by
graphing the relationship of total acres versus total
vulnerability factor. The resulting distribution is 30% =
low, 30% = moderate, 30% = high, and 10% = very high
vulnerability (Figure 8). These divisions will be refined
in the near future by comparing the vulnerability maps with
ground water monitoring data, and then adjusting the divisions
to correlate with the monitoring data in a statistically-
valid fashion.
3) Uses of Vulnerability Maps
The vulnerability maps are designed to serve as a tool for
prioritizing ground water management activities. Areas of
higher vulnerability can be given higher priority for prudent
ground water protection measures and study in order to assure
that limited resources are effectively used in areas of
greatest concern. Because of the scale of mapping that was
incorporated in the development of these maps, they should be
used for regional program planning purposes only, and should
not be used for making site specific decisions. This is
because there could be smaller areas of very high
vulnerability within generalized areas of low vulnerability,
and vice versa. Programs which can utilize vulnerability maps
include leaking underground storage tanks (LUST), wellhead
protection, ground water monitoring, public water supplies,
agricultural chemicals, waste water management, best
management practice (BMP) implementation and development,
hazardous and solid waste management, state and federal
superfund programs, land use planning, State underground tank
insurance agencies, and public information. The maps may also
be useful in establishing "Areas of Drilling Concern" within
the regulatory programs of IDWR.
15
-------
Ground-Water Standards and Aquifer Classification
As discussed in the introduction, proposed ground-water standards
that included an aquifer classification system went to public
hearing in late 1987. Legislators became interested and asked IDHW
to put them on hold while they drafted and introduced the Ground
Water Quality Protection Act of 1989. With passage of the bill,
the Ground Water Council was directed to focus on the need for
ground-water standards and the Board of Health was empowered to
adopt such standards for contaminants for which EPA had developed
maximum contaminant levels. The current draft of the Ground Water
Quality Plan recommends that standards be adopted including a
system of categories of aquifers. The categorization is proposed
to be based on vulnerability, existing and future beneficial uses,
existing quality and social and economic considerations. Three
categories have been suggested.
As proposed IDHW, IDWR and the Idaho Department of Agriculture
(IDA) would propose initial categories for the major use aquifers.
Initial categories would be adopted by rule by the Board of Health
after opportunity for public comment. Regulations are proposed for
changing the category of an aquifer or for proposing a category for
an uncategorized aquifer. The burden of proof would be on the
petitioner and any changes would require full public participation.
Different management strategies would be necessary for each
category of aquifer.
The ground-water standards would consist of a two part approach
with a preventative portion based on increasing trends rather than
fixed percentages as was proposed in 1987. The enforcement portion
would automatically kick in when an MCL was exceeded. The
standards would establish aquifer protection permits to manage a
localized source when voluntary efforts prove inappropriate or
ineffective.
Wellhead Protection Area Delineation
Idaho is currently in the process of developing the framework for
their wellhead protection program. A technical advisory committee
has been formed which will address the state's approach to wellhead
area delineation. A policy advisory committee has also been formed
to provide direction in development of the overall program. The
Idaho wellhead protection program will likely embrace a voluntary
approach for local programs so delineation techniques will probably
provide a list of options. A draft wellhead protection plan is due
to EPA in the spring of 1992.
Sole Source Aquifer Designation
Two sole source aquifer designations have been made by EPA in Idaho
and a third is expected during the fall of 1991. Those designated
include the Spokane Valley-Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer and the
Lewiston Basin Aquifer. Both are interstate aquifers with the
designations extending across the Washington border. The former was
16
-------
FIGURE 2
Relative Qrounawater Vulnerability : Idaho Snake River'Plain
Vulnerability Ratings
I I Unclassified
Low
Moderate
High
Very High
A cooperative project between:
Idaho Dept. of Health & Welfare
Idaho Dept. of Water Resources
USDA Soil Conservation Service
United States Geological Survey
:1,500,000
0 20KM 20UI
Edilian
Uoich 1991
igur«a Rilatiu Groundtatir Vulntrabllll|r mop, Snoki Ri»er Plain, Idaho
his mop confalm g.nwolU.d data - tor more d.loll rtfir to thi 1:500,000 scoli mop.
-------
the second designation in the country and was made in 1978.
Protection of this aquifer has received a great deal of attention
and the special funding provided by Congress will be discussed
later. The latter was designated in 1988 and includes Tribal lands
administered by the Nez Pierce Tribe.
Designation of the Snake River Plain Aquifer in southern Idaho has
been pending for a number of years with the boundaries extending
into Wyoming, Utah and Nevada as well. This is one of the most
productive aquifers in the world and designation should occur in
the fall of 1991. Over 9000 square miles will be included in the
designation.
Sole source designation has been used creatively in Idaho in
protecting the ground water resource especially for the Spokane
Valley-Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer. Projects proposed for Federal
financial assistance have frequently been modified to better
address ground-water protection concerns because the required
review by EPA. The cooperation and assistance of State and local
agencies in the review process has also been instrumental in
factoring in ground-water protection concerns.
Ground-Water Quality Assessments
In 1979 the USGS identified the need for a dedicated statewide
ground-water monitoring program involving that agency and IDHW and
IDWR to address trends and identify contamination. This continuing
need was also recognized in the original 1983 ground-water quality
management plan and the 1985 update and was included as a
recommendation for implementation. Lack of funding was an
impediment and most monitoring was small scale and mostly done in
areas of known or suspected contamination.
With the passage of the 1989 GWQPA the legislature recognized the
need for long term monitoring by mandating development of a
comprehensive ground-water monitoring network. This is to include
point of use monitoring, point of contamination monitoring, problem
assessment monitoring and assessment of the ambient ground-water
quality. The ambient monitoring network is managed by IDWR and the
initial wells were selected and sampled in 1990. This was expanded
to a 400 well network in 1991. The final network may include as
many as 1500 - 2000 wells. The regional and local monitoring is to
be administered by IDHW but to date has gone unfunded. A specific
monitoring plan is being developed by a sub-committee of the Ground
Water Council and will constitute part of the overall Ground Water
Quality Plan called for in the GWQPA. The monitoring plan will
address ambient monitoring, regional problem monitoring and site
specific problem monitoring. An annual monitoring plan is to be
prepared along with an annual report on results which will be
available to the public.
The small scale localized sampling programs have detected a variety
of contaminants including nitrates, bacteria, petroleum products,
pesticides, etc. Groups other than State and Federal agencies are
also becoming interested in monitoring. In 1990 and again in 1991
18
-------
The Farm Bureau worked with farmers and State agencies in
conducting a fairly extensive sampling program where well owners
provided samples for analysis. Although the results were not
alarming, pesticides were detected and high nitrates reconfirmed
as a problem in some wells.
State Programs and the OSGS
The State programs and USGS have a long history of working together
on cooperative projects on a variety of ground-water issues. As
discussed previously, the IGIAC group relies heavily on USGS
products and USGS serves as a nonvoting member. In recent years
USGS has also served as an active member on the ground water
vulnerability task force and was a key participant in developing
one of the GIS data layers for the maps.
The USGS started the Regional Aquifer-System Analysis program in
1978 prompted by the 1977 drought. The purpose was to define
regional hydrology and geology to establish a framework of
background information on geology, hydrology and geochemistry of
the important aquifer systems in the U.S.. Several of these
detailed studies were carried out within Idaho's borders with major
effort being the Snake River Plain Aquifer. This work provided a
great deal of new data on ground water in these areas of the state.
The National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program is a manor
new USGS effort designed to describe the status and trends in the
quality of the Nation's ground and surface water resources. The
Administration decided that USGS should begin with implementation
in 1991 after an earlier pilot project and followed up with
substantial funding. Sixty study units throughout the country will
be extensively analyzed over a period extending to 2002. The Upper
Snake River Plain in Idaho will be one of the first 20 to be
initiated and intensively studied. This program should aid the
state considerably in implementing their ground-water protection
program.
19
-------
IIB. CONTAMINATION SOURCE IDENTIFICATION
The current draft of the Ground Water Quality Plan recognizes a
variety of both point and non-point sources of contamination and
references the list in the Office of Technology Assessment's 1984
report. Table 2 provides this listing. Idaho has done a priority
ranking of major sources which will be discussed in the next
section on priority setting.
A number of ground water contamination sources are currently
regulated by state and federal agencies. The following provides
a brief summary of information on each source type. Additional
discussion on the status and direction of these programs are
provided in Chapter III.
Underground Storage Tanks
Idaho feels they need enabling legislation to receive delegation
from EPA for the underground storage tank program. Current
information shows that approximately 3200 nonexempt tank sites have
been registered in Idaho. The state estimates approximately 30%
of the nonexempt population are unregistered which would bring the
total to about 4600. Furthermore, they estimate that between 1900-
2400 contaminated sites exist and that between 300-600 of these
sites have ground water contamination.
Solid Waste Landfills
There are an estimated 140 landfills in Idaho that are not well
regulated from a ground-water protection standpoint because the
regulations date back to 1973.
Hazardous Waste Facilities
There are currently 976 Idaho businesses and government agencies
that are known to generate, treat, store, transport or dispose of
hazardous waste. Five hazardous waste facilities are permitted
including three post closure permits, one storage and treatment
permit, and one storage,treatment and disposal permit. The
disposal permit is for a major state- of-the- art facility where
the vast majority of the wastes come from out of state.
Underground Injection Control Wells
IDWR has received primacy from EPA to administer the Underground
Injection Control (UIC) Program. Class V wells are the only type
allowed in Idaho and an estimated 4500-5000 exist. Shallow wells
(under 18 feet) pose a threat to ground-water quality in Idaho as
their number and uses are not well understood. There is reason to
believe that numerous automobile service stations are utilizing
this practice.
Improperly constructed wells drilled near areas high risk or known
contamination provide the opportunity for increased vertical
20
-------
Taole
Potential Sources of Ground Water Contamination
CATEGORY I - Sources designed to discharge
substances:
Subsurface percolation (e.g., septic tanks and
cesspoo/sJ
Injection Wells
Hazardous waste
Non-hazardous waste (e.g., brine
disposal and drainage)
Non-waste (e.g., enhanced recovery, artificial
recovery, solution mining and in-situ
mining)
Land Application
Waste Water (e.g., spray irrigation)
Wastewater byproducts (e.g., sludge)
Hazardous waste
Non-hazardous waste
CATEGORY II - Sources designed to store,
treat, and/or dispose of substances;
discharge through unplanned release:
Landfills
Industrial hazardous waste
Industrial non-hazardous waste
Municipal Sanitary
Open dumps, including illegal dumping (waste)
Residential (or local) disposal (waste)
Surface Impoundments
Hazardous waste
Non-hazardous waste
Waste tailings
Waste piles
Hazardous waste
Non-hazardous waste
Materials stockpiles (non-waste)
Graveyards
An/mat burial
Aboveground storage tanks
Hazardous waste
Non-hazardous waste
Non-waste
Underground storage tanks
Hazardous waste
Non-hazardous waste
Non-waste
Containers
Hazardous waste
Non-hazardous waste
Non-waste
Open burning sites
Detonation sites
Radioactive disposal sites
CATEGORY III - Sources designed to retain
substances during transport or
transmission:
Pipelines
Hazardous waste
Non-hazardous waste
Non-waste
Materials transport and transfer operations
Hazardous waste
Non-hazardous waste
Non-waste
CATEGORY IV • Sources discharging
substances as a consequence of other
planned activities:
Irrigation practices (e.g., return flow)
Pesticide applications
Fertilizer applications
Animal feeding operations
De-icing salts applications
Urban runoff
Percolation of atmospheric pollutants
Mining and mine drainage
Surface related mining
Underground mine-related
CATEGORY V - Sources providing conduit or
inducing discharge through altered flow
patterns:
Production wells
Oil (and gas) wells
Geothermal and heat recovery wells
Water supply wells
Other wells (non-waste)
Monitoring wells
Exploration wells
Construction excavation
CATEGORY VI - Naturally occurring sources
whose discharge is created and or
exacerbated by human activity:
Ground water - surface water interactions
Natural leaching
Salt-water intrusion/brackish water upconing
(or intrusion of other- poor-quality
natural water)
(from Office of Technology Assessment, 1984)
21
-------
movement and spread of contaminants to otherwise uncontaminated
aquifers. IDWR is exercising its authorities to establish "Areas
of Drilling Concern."
Land Spreading operations
Approximately 100 land application permits have been issued over
the past several years under a new land application permit program
that was initiated in 1988. These permits regulate the conditions
for land application of municipal and industrial wastewater.
Dairies and confined animal feeding operations are exempt from land
application permit requirements.
22
-------
lie. SETTING PRIORITIES
In 1979 the USGS prioritized Idaho's aquifers based upon the
sources of potential pollution, population, and ground water use.
This assessment was based on hydrologic units which are surface
features that describe general recharge areas for aquifers. By
applying such a rating system directly to major aquifers, their
potential for pollution can be determined. The eleven major
aquifers were ranked in priority order in terms of pollution
potential in Figure 3. The areas of highest priority for
protection such as the Boise, Snake Plain and Rathdrum Prairie have
begun to receive the most attention for vulnerability mapping,
aquifer protection plans and other protection activities.
Most known and potential sources of ground-water contamination have
been ranked in Idaho. IDHW ranked potential contamination
utilizing two factors. The first related to the adequacy of the
present regulatory program for a particular land use practice or
contamination source with unregulated or unmonitored activities
placed highest. The second factor was the relative public health
or environmental risk posed by the potential contamination.
Activities which can produce contaminants of high toxicity which
are typically found in areas of high population density were ranked
highest. The two factors, regulatory program development and
relative risk, were ranked on a scale of 1-3 and combined using the
formula in Table 3. Idaho considers Table 3 to present the ranking
of potential sources of ground-water contamination in the state and
plans to place most emphasis accordingly-
Combined with the above list of ranked sources, the ground-water
vulnerability maps described previously will serve as a valuable
tool for prioritizing ground water management and protection
activities. Areas of higher vulnerability can be given priority
for the limited resources available for protection activities,
special studies, and monitoring programs. Because of the scale
used in development of the maps, they should be used for regional
program planning purposes only and not for making site specific
decisions. There can be areas of very high vulnerability within
generalized areas of low vulnerability and vice versa. Programs
which should find the maps useful include underground storage
tanks, management of agricultural chemicals, hazardous and solid
waste management, wellhead protection, wastewater management,
ground-water monitoring, public water supply management, nonpoint
source best management practices (BMP) application, remedial
action, underground storage tank insurance considerations, etc.
The Ground Water Quality Plan mandated by the legislature will
include a series of ground water policy statements for the state
each having a list of recommendations for implementation. Once
the legislature adopts the plan, the Ground Water Council will
likely prioritize the recommendations and develop a implementation
schedule.
23
-------
Pollution Pottntlal Rating of SOOM Major Aojitftri
-------
Table:3'
Priority Ranking and Rating of Potential Sources of Groundwater
Contamination
Factor
Priority Potential Source of Contamination Regulatory Risk Score2
1
2
3
4
5
6
6
6
6
7
8
9
10
11
Petroleum handling and storage
Feedlots and dairies
landfills and hazardous waste sites
Land application of wastewater
Hazardous material handling
Pesticide handling and use
Land spreading of septage and sludge
Surface runoff
Pits, ponds and lagoons
Radioactive substances
Fertilizer application
Septic tank systems
Mining. Including oil & gas drilling
Wells: injection, geothermal , domestic
Silvicultural activities
2.9
2.8
A /%
2.0
ZS
1.5
2.3
2.3
2.0
2.3
Z3
1.5
1.8
1.5
1.7
1.5
3.0
2.0
*> a
£.0
2.3
3.0
2.3
2.0
Z3
ZO
ZO
2.3
ZO
ZO
1.8
1.8
295
243
O^T
^4.5
240
237
225
215
215
215
215
194
191
177
175
150
'Modified from Tedwiicil Report for the Snak« Plain Aquifer (IOHW 1985) and Environmental and
Energy Study Institute (1995)
2Total Score is determined by the formula:
ToUl Score « / Regulatory2 + Risk2 x 100
2
-------
IID. DATA MANAGEMENT, MONITORING, AND RESEARCH
Legislative mandates in the GWQPA of 1989 require that a
comprehensive ground water monitoring network be developed, a CIS
data management system be developed and maintained and that a
ground-water quality data management program be established.
Data Management
The GWQPA clearly recognizes the need for a comprehensive ground-
water quality data management system to meet the needs and handle
the information for multiple state and local agencies. IDWR is
currently coordinating this project and receives much input and
assistance from IDHW and IDA as well as others. These agencies had
previously developed data systems to meet some of their own needs
and this new initiative will build upon past work while developing
new capabilities to meet more of the identified needs. In
developing the system, the state intends to have it encompass the
scope of ground water minimum data set developed nationally by EPA
in coordination with others and meet other broader state needs.
The GWQPA establishes that the data system be accessible to the
public and they intend to meet this requirement by allowing others
to access and read the information but not have the capability to
manipulate it.
To date IDWR has been working on the development of user and system
requirements. This will be completed so that any computer hardware
or software acquired will be adequate to meet everybody's
objectives. Data processing staff have been hired. A consultant
is to be responsible for developing, installing, and modifying the
computer software necessary to satisfy all user needs. It is hoped
that a prototype information system will be available by late 1991.
Initial input data from primary sources has been requested.
The draft Ground Water Quality Plan now undergoing public
participation contains two proposed policies related to ground
water monitoring data issues. The first states that all publicly
funded ground-water quality monitoring and data gathering
activities will be consistent with the ground-water monitoring plan
which is part of the overall Ground Water Quality Plan. This is
to encourage that all public entities submit data in an electronic
format to be easily incorporated into the data system and that
appropriate quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC)
guidelines be followed. The second policy relates to the need for
the data management system to include data from past, present, and
future ground-water quality monitoring and that it all be
accessible to the general public.
In implementing this policy, state agencies will maintain an
effort to coordinate with all public and private ground-water
quality data collection programs. A technical data review
committee will be established to classify all data as to its level
of confidence, utility, and limitations it may have. The committee
will make use of the data management system's capability to
26
-------
evaluate data confidence and record results of the review process.
A data certification procedure is also proposed whereby the
supplying organization would certify that the data is free of data
entry errors.
Well Drillers Reports have historically been maintained by IDWR.
These reports are prepared and submitted by the driller as required
by Idaho statute. The drillers report is an important and often
sole source of subsurface information on aquifer lithology, water
levels, and well design. Currently these reports are on microfiche
and are extensively utilized by government and the public. The
microfiche is organized by legal survey description and has no
search, sort, and retrieval mechanism thereby reducing this systems
usefulness for subsurface research. The IDWR is studying the
implementation of a digital imaging system where these reports
would be stored in an optical disk and would be available as an
indexed image to government and the public via computer link. IDWR
has secured partial funding and is reviewing equipment and software
options. The new system could make the current 60,000 drillers
report archive more useful and help IDWR process approximately 2500
new reports received annually.
The GWQPA also required that a natural resource CIS be developed
and maintained which will be accessible to the public. For the
past several years IDWR has been the lead for GIS and has been
instrumental in development of the ground-water vulnerability maps.
This will continue and other agencies such as IDHW and will obtain
GIS workstations and have access to the database.
Monitoring
The GWQPA mandated that a comprehensive ground-water quality
network be established and that ambient, point of use, point of
contamination and problem assessment monitoring be addressed. As
part of the Ground Water Quality Plan being developed by the
Ground Water Council a proposed overall monitoring plan has been
developed specifying roles, responsibilities, etc. It is envisioned
that each year an annual monitoring plan for that particular year
covering items such as sampling objectives, probable site
locations, QA/QC, sampling constituents and estimated costs.
IDWR is to have responsibility for ambient monitoring and IDHW for
local and regional monitoring. Funding for the ambient program has
been provided but to date the local and regional monitoring has
gone unfunded. Table 4 provides a comparison of the types of
monitoring that are to be done by each agency. IDWR worked in
cooperation with USGS in sampling 97 wells during the summer_of
1990. Selection of the well sites was coordinated with existing
monitoring programs to reflect as many different locations as
possible throughout the state. An analysis for more than 70
potential contaminants was performed for all the wells.
Preliminary results show positive detection for at least one of the
potential contaminants at approximately 20 percent of all the
sampled sites. The network and sampling have been significantly
expanded in 1991 to a minimum of 400 sites. A proposed minimum
27
-------
Area of
Monitoring
Monitoring
Duration
Types of Questions
Monitoring Will Answer
Lead
Agency
Ambient
Monitoring
Statewide
Long term,
ongoing
What is general statewide ground
water quality? What are the
trends over time? Are there
problem areas that need more
detailed monitoring? What are
background levels? Is ground
water generally suitable for
drinking, agricultural, and
industrial purposes?
IDWR
Problem
Monitoring
A. Regional
Monitoring
Areas of high
vulnerability,
10-250 square
miles
Typically 1-5
years per area
What is ground water quality in
areas of highest vulnerability?
How much variability is there in
ground water quality in these
areas? How widespread are the
problems? What needs to be
addressed by applying BMP's? How
effective are the BMP's?
IDHW
I
B. fiite-
flpecific
Monitoring
Areas of
contamination
incidents, less
than 10 square
miles
Typically 1-5
years per site
(except where
duration specified
by state or
federal statute)
Are there point-source impacts
such as leaking underground
tanks, chemical spill, or
landfill? Once the area is
identified and problem isolated
is the management plan working to
rectify the problem? Are addi-
tional studies needed?
IDHW
Table ^. Comparison .of the three parts of the Ground Water Quality Monitoring Program
-------
monitoring of 375 wells annually was proposed and approved by the
Ground Water Council. Hopefully annual funding will be provided
so that the monitoring can begin to provide data for trend
analysis.
Over past years many ground-water quality studies have been
conducted by various state and federal agencies mostly in the
vicinity of known or suspected sites of contamination. Also public
water supply wells are required by law to be routinely monitored.
In spite of these previous efforts the ability to describe existing
statewide ground-water quality is still extremely limited. The
limitations on existing ground-water quality information are:
- Data from all monitoring efforts are not stored in a central
database so that much information is not readily useable
in making assessments of ambient quality.
- There are variations in sampling and analytical methods
between collecting agencies making data potentially
incomparable.
- The period of record is generally short (the same wells are
not revisited) and the frequency of analysis is inadequate
to identify trends over time.
- Interpretation of long term trends is very difficult because
cyclic seasonal variations in ground water quality are
poorly understood.
- Evaluation of potential ground-water impacts from point
sources is sometimes difficult because existing monitoring
and/or water supply wells are not always optimally cited or
constructed.
- Non-point source monitoring is rarely done because of the
costs involved for large well networks.
- Interpretation of variations in ground-water quality with
depth are difficult because wells are often open to several
aquifers.
- Improperly designed monitoring systems often do not allow
determination of the specific source of contamination that
is detected.
- Sampling programs do not always provide for analysis of all
the potential contaminants of concern.
Although the mandates in the GWQPA for statewide monitoring and
data management systems will help alleviate some of these
shortcomings, some will continue to remain issues to deal with.
29
-------
Quality Assurance
The draft monitoring plan proposed for the statewide monitoring
plan clearly recognizes the need for QA/QC. The plan contains a
section on sample collection and laboratory practices indicating
specific QA/QC plans will be prepared for each sampling event
modeled after procedures established by EPA. A QA/QC coordinator
has recently been hired by Bureau of Laboratories to develop
laboratory wide procedures. The laboratory will be asking for
sampling plans in advance of sampling events. The annual review
planned for the monitoring program will focus the status of issues
including QA/QC.
The IDA will soon be completing a new two million dollar laboratory
which will greatly enhance the capability for sampling analysis.
Research
Much ground-water research is done at the University of Idaho and
the Idaho Geological Survey (IGS) maintains close affiliation with
the school. Publications and maps are available from the IGS
office in Moscow, Idaho. The draft Ground Water Quality Plan
contains a research policy proposing ongoing research to protect
ground-water quality. The recommendations for implementation are
that the Universities have the lead, that research be of an applied
nature designed to allow a better understanding of factors
affecting quality, that the research involve local, state and
federal agencies as well as interested private entities, and that
the Universities consult with the above to determine high priority
ground-water research needs.
30
-------
III. DEVELOPING AND IMPLEMENTING PREVENTION AND CONTROL PROGRAMS
IIIA. SOURCE ELIMINATION
Idaho Waste Reduction Assistance
Idaho has initiated the Idaho Waste Reduction Assistance Program
(IWRAP) under federal funding. A waste reduction and recycling
clearinghouse has been established and a toll-free hot line made
available. IWRAP has also linked the public with regional waste
exchanges and is networking with national information exchange
services. IDHW has also promoted waste reduction and recycling
with a Solid Waste Awareness Week and a three year public service
awareness campaign called "Let's Talk Trash". The three-R's
(reduce, reuse and recycle) have also been promoted within Idaho
schools.
Agricultural Pollution Abatement Plan
Idaho has long been recognized as a leader in non-point source
agricultural pollution abatement activities. While most of the
emphasis has been placed on surface water issues, the need for
coordinated surface water /ground-water approach is beginning to be
recognized. The program began in 1976 when the Soil Conservation
Commission (SCC) initiated development of the Agricultural
Pollution Abatement Plan (APAP) . The APAP development process
spanned three years and involved extensive public interaction. The
APAP basically calls for replacing management practices impacting
water quality with best management practices (BMP's) that minimize
such impacts. Funding from the state's Water Pollution Control
Account has been made available annually to fund demonstration
projects for BMP's. Table 5 provides a list of some of these
projects that relate to ground water that have been funded under
this program as well as other ground-water projects that have been
funded from other sources such as CWA 319, the President's USDA
Clean Water Initiative Program, etc.
The BMP development process in Idaho is a multi-agency effort that
involves a systematic approach. To evaluate BMP's and the degree
they are implemented the APAP established the Idaho State Water
Quality Feed Back Loop Process. The process was contained in the
APAP when it was certified by the Governor in 1979 and was
officially incorporated into the Idaho State Water Quality
Standards in 1987. An integrated system of BMP's are approved by
the state, implemented on a site specific basis and evaluated
through monitoring and modified as needed to achieve water quality
standards. The SCC and its Districts are recognized to be the
principal local agency for implementing and coordinating soil and
water quality programs in their respective districts and as so
assume a leadership role in BMP implementation. Each District
?ollSws the Field Office Technical Guide in each SCS Field Office
which contains the standards and specifications for soil and water
conservation practices.
31
-------
SUMMAMY Of IDAHO AQracULI/TRAL PROGRAMS AND PBOJECTS
OCTOBER 1991
rnOJECT TITLE
LEAD AGENCIES
OOOPERATORS
SNAKE RIVER
DEMONSTRATION
PROJECT
USDA PRESIDENTIAL
INITITIVE PROJECT
DEMONSTRATE GROUND WATER BEST
MANAGEMENT PRACTICES TO GAIN
ON FARM ACCEPTANCE AND ADOPTION
6 YEAR PROJECT
BEGINS 1/91
DESIGN, DEVELOP. AND IMPLEMENT A
GROUND WATER MONITORING PROGRAM
AND ASSIST IN THE EVALUATION PROCESS
US DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AGENCIES
(SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE. COOPERATIVE
EXTENSION SERVICE. AGRICULTURAL STABILIZATION
AND CONSERVATION SERVICE)
IDAHO SOIL CONSERVATION COMMISSION
IDAHO DEPARTMENT Of AGRICULTURE
IDAHO DEPARTMENT Of WATER RESOURCES
IDAHO DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
EAST CASSIA SOIL CONSERVATION DISTRICT
WEST CASSIA SOIL CONSERVATION DISTRICT
MINIOOKA SOIL CONSERVATION DISTRICT
MONITORING FUNDS PROVIDED BY
EPA lit NATIONAL MONITORING PROGRAM
1 OF t USDA PRESIDENTIAL INrTITIVE
PROJECTS IN IDAHO,
1 OF t USDA DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS
IN U.S.
IDAHO SNAKE -
PAYETTE RIVERS
HVDROLOOIC UNIT
U5DA PRESIDENTIAL
INITITIVE PROJECT
IDENTIFY THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF
NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION FROM
PESTICIDES AND NUTRIENTS,
DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT GROUND WATER
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES TO
REDUCE ADVERSE GROUND WATER QUALITY
IMPACTS FROM CONTRIBUTING SOURCES
5 YEAR PROJECT DESIGN. DEVELOP, AND IMPLEMENT A
BEGINS 1^1 GROUND WATER MONITORING PROGRAM
TO IDENTIFY GROUND WATER IMPACTED
BY AGRICULTURAL NONPOINT SOURCES
US DEPARTMENT Of AGRICULTURE AGENCIES
(SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE, COOPERATIVE
EXTENSION SERVICE, AGRICULTURAL STABILIZATION
AND CONSERVATION SERVICE)
IDAHO (OC CONSERVATION COMMISSION
IDAHO DEPARTMENT Of AGRICULTURE
IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES
IDAHO DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
CANYON SOIL CONSERVATION DISTRICT
GEM CONSERVATION DISTRICT
PAYETTE SOIL CONSERVATION DISTRICT
WEISER RIVER SOIL CONSERVATION DISTRICT
ADAMS SOIL CONSERVATION DISTRICT
MONITORING FUND SOURCE IS UNKOWN.
1 OF 1 USDA PRESIDENTIAL INITITIVE
PROJECTS IN IDAHO,
1 OF »7 USOA HYDROLOGIC UNIT
PROJECTS IN U.S.,
RELATED TO OREGON'S HYDROLOGIC UNIT
PROJECT IN MALHEUR COUNTY.
LOWER PAVETTE IDENTIFY THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF
NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION FROM
STATE AORICULTURAL PESTICIDES AND NUTRIENTS. DESIGN
WATER QUALITY AND DEVELOP A PLAN OF ACTION TO
rnoORAM PROJECT REDUCE ADVERSE GROUND WATER QUALITY
IMPACTS FROM CONTRIBUTING SOURCES
S» YEAR PROJECT
BEGAN Hit
ASSIST IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF A
GROUND WATER MONITORING PROGRAM
TO IDENTIFY GROUND WATER IMPACTED
BY AGRICULTURAL NONPOINT SOURCES
PAYETTE SOU CONSERVATION DISTRICT
IDAHO SOU CONSERVATION COMMISSION
USDA SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE
IDAHO DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
INITIAL MONITORING FUNDS HAVE BEEN
GIVEN TO DEO BY THE SOIL CONSERVATION
COMMISSION. THESE ARE LIMITED FUNDS
AND ARE NOT ADEQUATE TO COMPLETE
THE PROJECT. INTENTION IS TO INCLUDE A
REQUEST FOR MONITORING FUNDS IN WITH
THE OVER ALL PROJECT BUDGET.
SCOTT'S POND IDENTIFY THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF
NONPOINT SOURCE WATER POLLUTION
STATE AORICULTURAL FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES WITH
WATER QUALITY AN EMPHASIS ON GROUND WATER QUALITY
PROGRAM PROJECT IMPACTS RESULTING FROM IRRIGATED
CHOP LANDS. DAIRIES. AND FEEDLOTS
!. YEAR PROJECT
BEGAN 9/90
ASSIST IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF A
GROUND WATER MONITORING PROGRAM
TO IDENTIFY AND ASSESS NONPOINT
SOURCE IMPACTS RESULTING FROM
IRRIGATED CROP LANDS, DAIRIES.
AND FEEDLOTS
NORTH SIDE SOIL CONSERVATION DISTRICT
US SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE
IDAHO DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
SOIL CONSERVATION COMMISSION
NORTH SIDE CANAL COMPANY
JEROME COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
IDAHO DAIRYMAN'S ASSOCIATION
JEROME COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE
IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF FISH » GAME
GROUND WATER QUALITY MONITORING HAS
BEEN FUNDED THROUGH THE IDAHO POLLUTION
ACCOUNT FUND. THIS IS THE FIRST
OHOUNO WATER PROJECT FUNDED THROUGH
THIS ACCOUNT.
32
-------
SUMUAI1VOI IIMMOA.-.IIICUIUTRALPROC.nAMS AND PROJECTS
OCTOBER 1991
PROJECT TITLE
OUTPUT
LEAD AGENCIES
COOPERATORS
DEEP CREEK DETERMINE THE STATUS OF BENEFICIAL
USES OF SURFACE WATERS AND QROUND
STATE AGRICULTURAL WATER WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA.
WAT EH QUALITY IDENTIFY THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF
PROGRAM PROJECT ANY ADVERSE IMPACTS ON WATER QUALITY
RESULTING FROM NONPOINT SOURCE
AGRICULTURAL ACTIVTTIES.
2 YEAR PROJECT
BEGINNING 4(81
ASSIST IN THE DESIGN AND
IMPLEMENTATION OF A WATER QUALITY
MONITORING PROGRAM TO CHARACTERIZE
CURRENT WATER QUALITY CONDITIONS.
ASSIST IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF A WORK
PLAN TO ADDRESS ANY ADVERSE WATER
QUALITY IMPACTS IDENTIFIED.
BALANCED ROCK SOIL CONSERVATION DISTRICT
U3DA SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE
IDAHO SOIL CONSERVATION COMMISSION
IDAHO DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
GROUND WATER QUALITY MONITORING HAS
NOT BEEN FUNDED. INTENTION IS TO INCLUDE
A REQUEST FOR MONITORING FUNDS IN WITH
THE OVERALL PROJECT BUDGET REQUEST.
JUMP CREEK DETERMINE THE STATUS OF BENEFICIAL
USES OF SURFACE WATERS AND GROUND
STATE AGRICULTURAL WATER WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA.
WATER QUALITY IDENTIFY THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF
PROGRAM PRCurr.T ANY ADVERSE IMPACTS ON WATER QUALITY
RESULTING FROM NONPOINT SOURCE
AGRICULTURAL ACTIVTTIES.
2 YEAH PROJECT
BEGINNING 4/81
ASSIST IN THE DESIGN AND
IMPLEMENTATION OF A WATER QUALITY
MONITORING PROGRAM TO CHARACTERIZE
CURRENT WATER QUALITY CONDITIONS.
ASSIST IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF A WORK
PLAN TO ADDRESS ANY ADVERSE WATER
QUALITY IMPACTS IDENTIFIED.
OWHYEE SOIL CONSERVATION DISTRICT
USDA 8OH. CONSERVATION SERVICE
IDAHO 8OtL CONSERVATION COMMISSION
IDAHO DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
GROUND WATER QUALITY MONITORING HAS
NOT BEEN FUNDED. INTENTION IS TO INCLUDE
A REQUEST FOR MONITORING FUNDS IN WITH
THE OVERALL PROJECT BUDGET REQUEST.
BEAR RIVER DETERMINE THE STATUS OF BENEFICIAL
USES OF SURFACE WATERS AND GROUND
STATE AGRICULTURAL WATER WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA.
WATER QUALITY IDENTIFY THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF
PROGRAM PROJECT ANY ADVERSE IMPACTS ON WATER QUALITY
RESULTING FROM NONPOINT SOURCE
AGRICULTURAL ACTIVTTIES.
2 YEAR PROJECT
BEGAN 10/90
ASSIST IN THE DESIGN AND
IMPLEMENTATION OF A WATER QUALITY
MONITORING PROGRAM TO CHARACTERIZE
CURRENT WATER QUALITY CONDITIONS.
ASSIST IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF A WORK
PLAN TO ADDRESS ANY ADVERSE WATER
QUALITY IMPACTS IDENTIFIED.
FRANKLIN BOIL CONSERVATION DISTRICT
USDA SOn. CONSERVATION SERVICE
US DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND QAME
US FOREST SERVICE
IDAHO SOIL CONSERVATION COMMISSION
IDAHO DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
GROUND WATER QUALITY MONITORING HAS
NOT BEEN FUNDED. INTENTION IS TO INCLUDE
A REQUEST FOR MONITORING FUNDS IN WITH
THE OVERALL PROJECT BUDGET REQUEST.
INITIAL GROUND WATER QUALITY SAMPLES
WERE COLLECTED AND ANALYZED
APPROXIMATELY 10NO.
ADMINISTRATION
OF THE GROUND
WATER PORTION
OF THE STATE
AGRICULTURAL
WATER QUALITY
PROGRAM
INCORPORATION OF GROUND WATER
QUALITY PROTECTION IN THE ESTABLISHED
STATE AGRICULTURAL WATER QUALITY
PROGRAM.
DEGREE OF GROUND WATER QUALITY
INVOLVEMENT WILL VARY DEPENDING
ON INITIAL PROJECT EVALUATION.
IDAHO DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
USOA SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE
IDAHO SOn. CONSERVATION COMMISSION
INDIVIDUAL CONSERVATION DISTRICTS
THE STATE AGRICULTURAL WATER QUALITY
PROGRAM HAS REQUESTED QROUND WATER
OUAUTY CONCERNS BE REPRESENTED IN
THE PROGRAM. PAST REPRESENTATION
HAS BEEN INADEQUATE DUE TO LIMITED
PROGRAM INVOLVEMENT.
ADEQUATE ADMINISTRATIVE INVOLVEMENT
HAS BEEN ESTIMATED TO REQUIRE APPROX.
M HOURS PER PROJECT. APPROX. 5-7
PROJECTS ARE INITIATED EACH YEAR
33
-------
SUMMARY Of IDAHO AGFOCULUTRAL PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS
OCTOBER 1991
PROJECT TITLE
OUTPUT
LEAD AGENCIES
COOPERATOHS
rmnuNo wATrn
OUALITY COUNCIL'S
AGRICULTURAL
CHEMICALS
SUBCOMMITTEE
ASSIST IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF A
GROUND WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT
PLAN FOR AGRICULTURAL CHEMICALS
IN GROUND WATER.
1 YEAR PROJECT POOV1OE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO
BEGAN 7/W THE QROUND WATER QUALITY COUNCIL'S
AGRICULTURAL CHEMICALS SUBCOMMITTEE
DURING THE DEVELOPMENT OF A STATE
WIDE GROUND WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
FOR AGRICULTURAL CHEMICALS.
IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
IDAHO DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
ASSOC. OF tO»- CONSERVATION DISTRICTS
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
IDAHO WATER RESOURCE RESEARCH INSTITUTE
SNAKE RIVER CHEMICAL, INC.
IDAHO FARM BUREAU FEDERATION
THE AGRICULTURAL CHEMICALS
SUBCOMMITTEE IS ASSISTING THE GROUND
WATER QUALITY COUNCIL IN DEVELOPING
A AGRICULTURAL CHEMICAL MANAGEMENT
PLAN FOR THE STATE.
EPA 319
SPECIAL
BONUS
PROJECT
PROVIDE GROUND WATER OUALITY DATA
TO SUPPORT INFTIAL GROUND WATER
QUALITY CHARACTERIZATION FOR
USE IN AGRICULTURAL NONPOINT SOURCE
PROJECTS IN CENTRAL SNAKE PJVER PLAIN
1 YEAR PROJECT PROVIDE INITIAL CHARACTERIZATION
BEGAN »«0 OF GROUND WATER QUALITY CONDITIONS
WITH RESPECT TO ADVERSE IMPACTS
RESULTING FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTTVTTY
IDAHO DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL OUALfTY
US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
PROJECT FUNDING HAS BEEN PROVIDED BY
EPA THROUGH A SECTION 319 GRANT.
THIS PROJECT IS INTENDED TO PROVIDE
INITIAL GROUND WATER OUALITY MONITORING
SUPPORT FOR THE SNAKE PLAIN DEMON-
STRATION PROJECT AND VERIFICATION
MONTTOH1NQ TO SUPPORT THE SNAKE PLAIN
GROUND WATER VULNERABILITY MAPPING
PROJECT.
EPA 319
CONFINED ANIMAL
FEEDING OPERATION
(CAFO)
DESIGN. DEVELOP, PFOMOTE INNOVATIVE
CONFINED ANIMAL FEEDING OPERATION
FACILITIES AND BEST MANAGEMENT
PRACTICES TO REDUCE POTENTIAL ADVERSE
IMPACTS ON GROUND WATER QUALrTY.
1 YEAR PROJECT PROVIDE PROJECT ADMINISTRATION,
BEGAN 1*1 OVERSIGHT. FACnjTIES, AND TECHNICAL
SUPPORT FOR A SOIL CONSERVATION
SERVICE ENGINEER IN THE TWIN FALLS
FIELD OFFICE.
IDAHO DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL OUALITY
US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AOENCY
US SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE
PROJECT FUNDmo HAS BEEN PROVIDED BY
EPA THROUGH A SECTION 318 GRANT. THIS
PROJECT IS INTENDED TO BE EXTENDED
BEYOND THE CURRENT TERMINATION DATE.
THIS PROJECT IS INTENDED TO PROVIDE
SUPPORT FOR THE SNAKE PLAIN DEMON-
STRATION PROJECT AND THE SCOTT'S POND
PROJECT WITH RESPECT TO CONFINED ANIMAL
FEEDING OPERATIONS WITHIN THE AREA.
STATE PESTICIDE
MANAGEMENT PLAN
DEVELOP AND ESTABLISH A PREVENTITIVE
AND RESPONSIVE APPROACH TO ADDRESSING
GROUND WATER CONTAMINATION RESULTING
FROM AGRICULTURAL CHEMICALS.
Z.YEARPFIOJECT
BEGAN B/BO
ASSIST IN PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT BY
PROVIDING TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
RELATIVE TO QROUND WATER QUALITY
PROTECTION.
IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
IDAHO DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL OUALfTY
THE STATE PESTICIDE MANAGEMENT PLAN
IS BEING COORDINATED THROUGH THE EPA
FEDERAL INSECTICIDE, FUNGICIDE. AND
ROOENTICIDEACT. PLAN DEVELOPMENT
IS SCHEDULED TO BEGIN 7WI.
34
-------
si iMUAnv or IDAHO Ar.nicuLlrrnAL PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS
ociourn 1901
PROJECT TITLE
LEAD AQENCIE9
COOPERATORS
nFTVISION OF THE REVISE THE STATE AGRICULTURAL
STATE AoniCUlTUFW POLLUTION ABATEMENT PLAN TO INCLUDE
POI LUTION
ARATEMENT PLAN
THOSE ITEMS IDENTIFIED AS
INADEQUATELY ADDRESSED IN THE
FEDERAL CLEAN WATER ACT SECTION 31»
NONPOINT SOURCE WATER QUALITY
ASSESSMENT.
1 YEAH PROJECT ASSIST IN THE AGRICULTURAL POLLUTION
BEGAN «WO ABATEMENT PLAN REVISION BY PROVIDING
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE WITH RESPECT
TO GROUND WATER QUALITY PROTECTION.
SOURCES OF GROUND WATER CONCERN
INCLUDE CONFINED ANIMAL FEEDING
OPERATIONS AND IRRIGATED CROPLANDS.
IDAHO SOIL CONSERVATION COMMISSION
IDAHO ASSOC. OF SOIL CONSER DISTRICTS
IDAHO FARM BUREAU
IDAHO WATER USERS ASSOCIATION
IDAHO CATTLE ASSOCIATION
IDAHO AGRICULTURAL CHEMICAL ASSOCIATION
IDAHO DAIRYMEN'S ASSOCIATION
US SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE
U OF I EXTENSION SERVICE
FARMERS HOME ADMINISTRATION
US BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
US BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
IDAHO DEPARTMENT Of LANDS
IDAHO DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
US FOREST SERVICE:
AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE
AGRI. 8TABIL 1CONSERV. 8ERV.
IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES
US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
THE IDAHO SOIL CONSERVATION COMMISSION
HAS ESTABLISHED AN INDUSTRY REPRESENTED
COMMITTEE TO LEAD THE REVISION PROCESS
STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES PARTICIPATE
IN THE COMMITTEE PROCESS BY PROVIDING
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.
SOIL CONSEOVATION TO ADDRESS CURRENT ISSUES AND
SERVICE WATER
QUALITY
MANAGEMENT
COMMITTEE
PLOT OUT OUR FUTURE OURECTION IN
POLICY TYPE ISSUES AND DIRECTION.
TO PARTICIPATE IN COMMITTEE
DISCUSSIONS CONCERNING CURRENT
AND FUTURE POLICY TYPE ISSUES
AND DIRECTION.
USDA SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE
IDAHO SOIL CONSERVATION COMMISSION
IDAHO DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL OUALFTY
THE SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE WATER
QUALITY MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE REPORTS
TO THE SOS STATE CONSERVATIONIST
(PAULCALVERLEY).
SOIL CONSERVATION
SERVICE WATER
OUALITY TECHNICAL
COMMITTEE
TO ADDRESS CURRENT ISSUES AND
PLOT OUT OUR FUTURE DIRECTION IN
TECHNICAL ISSUES.
TO PARTICIPATE IN COMMITTEE
DISCUSSIONS CONCERNING CURRENT
AND FUTURE TECHNICAL TYPE ISSUES
AND DIRECTION.
USDA SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE
IDAHO SOIL CONSERVATION COMMISSION
IDAHO DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL OUALITY
THE SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE WATER
QUALITY TECHNICAL COMMITTEE REPORTS
TO THE WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT
COMMITTEE.
IN-HOUSE AG
CHEMICAL GROUND
WATER OUALITY
MONITORING
TO OBTAIN GROUND WATER OUALFTY
DATA TO CHARACTERIZE AND EVALUATE
IMPACTS RESULTING FROM AGRICULTURAL
ACTIVITIES.
DESIGN. DEVELOP, IMPLEMENT. AND
EVALUATE GROUND WATER OUALITY
PROJECTS.
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
SPECIFIC TO PROJECT
IN-HOUSE PROJECTS DEVELOPED TO ADDRESS
SPECIFIC PROGRAM CONCERNS OR TO ASSIST
OR SUPPORT RELATED IN-HOUSE PROJECTS.
COOPERATIVE AO TO OBTAIN GROUND WATER QUALITY
CHEMICAL GROUND DATA TO CHARACTERIZE AND EVALUATE
WATER OUALITY IMPACTS RESULTING FROM AGRICULTURAL
MONITORING ACTIVITIES.
DESIGN, DEVELOP. IMPLEMENT, AND
EVALUATE GROUND WATER OUALITY
PROJECTS.
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
SPECIFIC TO PROJECT
COOPERATIVE PROJECTS TO ADDRESS
SPECIFIC CONCERNS OR AREAS. THESE
PROJECTS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AN
ASSET TO THE DIVISION'S PUBLIC RELATIONS.
35
-------
SUMMARY Of IDAHO AOmCULUTRAL PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS '
OCTOBER 1991 1
PROJECT TITLE
OUTPUT
LEAD AGENCIES
COOPERATOHS
USOA FARM BILL STATE ENVIRONMENTAL AGENCIES WILL
HAVE A MAJOR ROLE IN DETERMINING
LANDS AND PRACTICES ELIGIBLE FOR
PROGRAM ASSISTANCE.
PARTICIPATION THROUGH SECTION 319
AND WELL HEAD PROTECTION PROGRAMS.
USOA AGENCIES
TO BE DEVELOPED
THE 1W1 FARM BILL HAS INCORPORATED
VARIOUS GROUND WATER QUALITY PROTECTION
ISSUES. ACTIONS IN RESPONSE TO THESE
ISSUES NEED TO BE ADDRESSED THROUGH
STATE WATER QUALITY PROGRAMS
RATHDRUM PAIRIE
PROJECT
DETERMINE THE STATUS OF BENEFICIAL
USES OF SURFACE WATERS AND GROUND
WATER WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA.
IDENTIFY THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF
ANY ADVERSE IMPACTS ON WATER QUALITY
RESULTING FROM NONPOINT SOURCE
AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES.
DESIGN. DEVELOP. AND IMPLEMENT A
GROUND WATER QUALITY PROTECTION
PROGRAM TO PROTECT WATER OUAUTY
FROM AGRICULTURAL NONPOINT SOURCES.
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
SPECIFIC TO PROJECT ACTIVITY
THE RATHORUM PAIRIE PROJECT IS A
COMPONENT OF THE SOLE SOURCE
AQUIFER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM.
DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE
PESTICIDE
APPLICATORS
CERTIFICATION
AND TRAINING
PROGRAM
SERIES OF EDUCATIONAL WORKSHOPS
TARGETED FOR PESTICIDE APPLICATORS
ATTENDANCE IS REQUIRED TO OBTAIN
APPLICATORS CERTIFICATION
CURRENTLY NOT PARTICIPATING
IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
UNIVERSITY OF IDAHO •
COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SYSTEM
ATTENDANCE IS REQUIRED TO OBTAIN
NEEDED CERTIFICATION FOR
APPLICATION OF SELECT PESTICIDES
36
-------
Revisions to the APAP are under consideration and many will relate
to better incorporation of ground water concerns so a more balanced
approach to surface water and ground-water quality protection is
maintained. The state feels that passage of the 1990 USDA Farm
Bill provides new tools for the development of individual farm
plans for protection of both. In addition, the President's Water
Quality Initiative provides many new resources to address
agricultural pollution issues and inter-agency committees have been
established to address current issues and plot future direction.
USDA Water Quality Demonstration Project and Hvdrologic Unit
Project
Two USDA water quality projects have recently been implemented to
address ground water impacts resulting from agricultural
activities.
The Snake River Plain Demonstration Project was one of eight
nationwide water quality projects and the Snake-Payette Rivers
Hydrologic Unit Planning Project was one of 37 nationwide water
quality projects which were selected and funded by USDA. The
demonstration project is located in south central Idaho and the
hydrologic unit project is located in southwestern Idaho. These
projects are designed to show farmers and ranchers new ways to
minimize the effects of agricultural nonpoint sources of pollution
on ground-water quality. The USDA's Soil Conservation Service and
the University of Idaho Cooperative Extention Service provide joint
leadership for these five year projects. Cost share will be
provided by the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service
to eligible farmers and ranchers who install approved management
practices. Ground-water monitoring is being performed by IDHW to
document the effects of these installed practices on the area's
ground-water quality through funding awarded by EPA's Clean Water
Act Section 319 nonpoint source program.
Grassy swales
Injection wells are numerous in Idaho and provide a direct conduit
for contaminants to reach ground water. The concept of using
grassy swales as an alternative is beginning to be implemented
primarily in North Idaho where they are following the lead of
Spokane County. The idea is to use the grassed area as a filter
for contaminant removal before infiltration.
37
-------
IIIB. LOCATIONAL CRITERIA
Hazardous Waste Facility Siting
In 1985 the legislature passed the Hazardous Waste Facility Siting
Act encouraging alternatives to land disposal of hazardous waste,
requiring the development of a state hazardous waste siting
management plan, a site licencing program, and mandating a great
deal of public involvement in siting decisions. A Siting Board was
also established. The licencing program was not to be duplicative
of the RCRA permitting program and to date only one licence has
been issued under the siting law program.
Source Specific Locations! Criteria
Septic Systems: The minimum setback from domestic water supply
wells under the existing rules is 100 feet.
Underground Injection Wells: For certain types of Class V wells
minimum setback distances from water wells have been established
by regulation based on the discharge rate to the injection well.
For example for a discharge rate of 1-2 cubic feet per second the
minimum setback is 2500 feet while for a discharge rate 4-5 cubic
feet per second it is 4000 feet.
Public Water Supply Regulations: Minimum setback distances for
public water supply wells include the following:
50 feet from a sewer line
100 feet from a home septic tank
50 feet from livestock operations
These setback requirements will be looked at when regulations are
updated as it is felt that they do not provide adequate protection.
Setback requirements will also be addressed in the wellhead
protection program.
Land Application of Wastewater: Each land spreading operation gets
a site specific permit which may specify a setback distance. The
applicants are required to supply maps showing all wells in the
area.
Land Applications of Sewage Sludge: Under current Idaho water
quality regulations, sewage treatment plants are to have a sludge
disposal plan which is approved by IDHW. The plan is to cover
application rates when used as fertilizer and include setbacks to
streams and wells. The requirement to have such plans has been
adhered to in a very limited sense, however.
38
-------
PERMITTING, COMPLIANCE MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT SYSTEMS
Permitting
While Idaho has general enabling legislation under Title 39,
Chapters 1 and 36 to protect the environment and health of the
state, they have not developed a permit program allowing assumption
of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) from
EPA and the federal system operates in the state. The NPDES system
is a surface water protection program and does not cover potential
ground-water impacts unless the ground water discharge has the
potential to impact a surface water body. Recent changes, however,
now make the NPDES program available to regulate the use of sewage
sludge and septate as fertilizer and to regulate sludge/septate
landfills, disposal pits, and lagoons. Future rules may allow EPA
to delegate this authority separately from other NPDES permitting
authority.
Unlike some of the other states in Region 10, Idaho does not have
general waste discharge regulations to deal with any type of
potential ground water impact that may arise. Rather, they have
used the above mentioned general enabling legislation along with
other media specific statutes to write permitting regulations that
control some activities with potential ground water impacts.
Land Applied Wastewater: Concern about past and future potential
ground water impacts of municipal and industrial wastewater land
spreading operations lead to the establishment of a new permitting
program in 1988. IDHW administers the program and worked closely
with the regulated community in developing the program. Since
inception of the program 84 of the 97 applicants have been
permitted with a number of additional applications expected in the
next year. A semi-automated annual report submittal tracking
mechanism has been set up and there are plans to incorporate land
application site and monitoring information into a CIS ground-
water vulnerability data layer. Now that the bulk of the initial
permitting has been processed IDHW wants to begin evaluating the
effectiveness of the program. This program could also be expanded
to cover sewage sludge and septage thus controlling these ground-
water threats in another way than the NPDES option mentioned above.
Underground Injection Wells: Injection wells are defined as any
bored, drilled, or dug hole deeper than it is wide used for
subsurface placement of fluids. Only Class V wells are authorized
in Idaho and the regulatory program is administered by IDWR which
received primacy from EPA in 1984. Prior to receiving primacy IDWR
operated a UIC program of their own. Shallow wells are those less
than 18 feet deep and they are authorized by rule but must be
reported for inventory purposes. Wells deeper than 18 feet require
a permit and abandonment requires IDWR notification and proper
plugging. The quality of the injectate is also to be regulated.
Many have expressed the opinion that this program is underfunded
and not effective because of large number of shallow wells of
unknown location.
39
-------
Well construction standards: The owner of any well constructed,
drilled, deepened or enlarged after July 1, 1987 requires a
drilling permit from IDWR. Wells are to be constructed in
accordance with the well construction standards adopted in 1988
which state all wells shall be constructed in a manner that will
guard against waste and contamination of ground water. Many
people, however, have expressed the opinion that the well
construction standards are outdated and inadequate.
Solid Waste Disposal Sites: The regulations covering solid waste
were written in 1973 and are not up to date especially in terms to
ground-water protection. They require landfills to have
conditional use permits, but this authority has been exercised in
a limited manner. Much effort went into seeking new legislation
in 1990 but it was not successful leaving a major source of
potential ground-water contamination unregulated by IDHW.
During 1991, IDHW together with the Health Districts, have been
actively looking into the future of Idaho's solid waste program.
A new and considerably upgraded program may emerge within the next
several years with some funding made available to support it. An
interim measure taken by one of the counties on its own, was to
follow the State of Washington regulations as the basis for
developing a new landfill.
EPA's RCRA Subtitle D landfill criteria has finally been finalized
and will become effective in October 1993. Under Subtitle D,
States have the lead role for permitting and enforcement, and are
expected to have, or adopt, regulations which are at least as
stringent as the new federal criteria. Secondly, citizens may file
suit in federal district court to achieve enforcement of the
Subtitle D criteria.
Hazardous Waste Sites: Idaho has final authorization from EPA to
operate nearly all aspects of the RCRA hazardous waste program so
IDHW has permitting authority for storage, treatment and disposal
facilities. As discussed earlier, there are few permits in Idaho
as it is complex process with stringent requirements (including
ground-water protection) which motivates generators to have the
waste handled off site.
Septic Tanks: The Idaho regulations for subsurface sewage disposal
require that installation permits be acquired from IDHW for
subsurface systems. The permit applicant must supply a specified
list of information with the permit request. The permit will be
issued or denied based on completeness and on meeting the technical
standards contained in the regulations. Installers must also have
a registration permit. Recent court decisions have determined that
the State Legislature, through concurrent resolutions, has the
authority to change Idaho Rules and Regulations. Consequently,
regulations have been altered to allow less stringent requirements
in one area of the state.
There is currently a discrepancy between Idaho statutes and EPA
40
-------
regulations regarding the inclusion of septic systems serving at
least 20 persons as a Class V injection well. EPA is working with
Idaho to change state statutes to make this inclusion.
Other Control Programs
In addition to source control programs requiring permits other
control programs for ground-water protecting or monitoring are
underway or evolving.
Underground Storage Tanks: Idaho currently has 11 people working
in the Underground Storage Tank Program (UST) and the Leaking
Underground Storage Tank Program (LUST) at IDHW all who are funded
by EPA grants. In 1990 the legislature passed a concurrent
resolution authorizing IDHW to submit a UST regulatory proposal to
the legislature for approval. IDHW submitted a proposal in 1990
which included draft regulations as well as necessary staffing and
funding levels. No further action has been taken by the
legislature. IDHW, however, feels they need further legislative
direction to actually implement a program and apply to EPA for
primacy- The legislature has also established a Petroleum Tank
Insurance Fund to provide low cost insurance to tank owners with
tanks in compliance with federal standards, a Certified Tank
Technician Program for tank testing, installation and removal
(administered by the Fire Marshall) and a UST Upgrade Assistance
Program to assist small retailers to qualify for conventional
loans.
EPA currently has responsibility for enforcing the federal UST
regulations for notification, tank testing and financial
responsibility. IDHW is provided both UST and LUST funding to
support staff working on these programs. To qualify for the UST
grant the state must be actively seeking primacy. Currently state
action on this issue is uncertain since IDHW feels further
legislative direction is necessary.
Sewage Sludge: -Under the state water quality standards, sewage
treatment plants are required to have sludge disposal plans
approved by IDHW. In some cases IDHW visits and approves
individual sites, but in general the requirement to have such plans
is not closely followed.
Idaho National Engineering Laboratory: The Idaho National
Engineering Laboratory (INEL) is an 890 square mile U.S. Department
of Energy (DOE) facility in Eastern Idaho. It lies over the Snake
River Plain Aquifer and has nine major facilities with nuclear
reactor research, fuel reprocessing and waste management,
constituting it's major operations. In 1989, at the recommendation
of the Governor, the Idaho legislature established the state's INEL
Oversight Program. The purpose of this major new program is to
ensure that Idaho monitors INEL activities to protect public health
and the environment, to ensure that the people of Idaho have a
vigilant and independent overseer with full access to INEL and to
provide Idahoans with an independent factual analysis of INEL
activities.
41
-------
Over 30 state personnel paid by both federal and state funding
sources make up the oversight team. The team represents a variety
of state agencies with coordination provided by the Deputy Director
of IDHW. The staff conducts independent health and environmental
studies, analyzes historic and current environmental monitoring and
health data, ensures compliance with state environmental
regulations, oversees environmental restoration activities, makes
recommendations to DOE and reports findings to the legislature and
the public. To improve the state's effectiveness, a state project
office has been established near INEL in Idaho Falls where 11
technical staff are responsible for ground-water monitoring,
hazardous waste and water quality inspections, corrective action
and engineering review of drinking water and wastewater systems.
This program is to take a comprehensive environmental and public
health view of the facility on a scientific basis. There are
still problems related to issues of sovereign immunity regarding
federal government compliance with state regulatory requirements.
A notice of violation was recently issued by the state to INEL
covering a number of environmental regulations.
There is also a group of eight people (with an additional 12 FTE
approved) in the Hazardous Materials Bureau who are funded by DOE
and responsible for overseeing the superfund mandated cleanup of
past practices contamination. These staff members are independent
of, but work in close coordination with, the Oversight Program.
Drinking Water Program: Idaho has received primacy from EPA for
the Public Water Supply (PWS) program in 1978 but that status is
tentative as IDHW has been unable to secure adequate resources to
adequately implement the new requirements of the 1986 amendments
to the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) . The program is currently 70%
federally funded and 30% state funded. They would like to keep the
program if adequate state resources can be secured from the
legislature.
With the exception of the developing Wellhead Protection Program
that is separately authorized in the SDWA, the PWS program is not
set up to protect ground-water but the monitoring data from it is
used to assist in the state's overall ground-water protection
efforts. Both the PWS and the ground-water program are located in
the same section at IDHW somewhat simplifying coordination. The
majority of drinking water in the state comes from ground-water
sources. Private wells have no monitoring requirements but their
construction is minimally regulated by IDWR.
Monitoring of public wells is done as required by the SDWA with
analysis required at the state laboratory or a state certified
laboratory. The sampling is done by the purveyor so there are
questions about QA/QC. Monitoring results have resulted in some
wells being taken off line but that has not solved the
contamination problem. The vulnerability criteria used in Idaho
for justifying the need for waiving VOC monitoring is testing once,
and if no hits are detected the source is considered not
42
-------
vulnerable. They feel this approach has saved $200,000 in unneeded
monitoring costs.
Agricultural Chemicals/Chemigation: In addition to the discussion
of this in the above section on source reduction, the Department
of Agriculture chairs the Agricultural Chemicals Subcommittee of
the Ground Water Council. The Ground Water Quality Plan being
developed will contain a Agricultural Chemicals Ground Water
Management Plan as an appendix. This appendix will not meet all
the requirements for a State Pesticide Management Plan (PMP) as
required by EPA's draft National Pesticides in Ground Water
Strategy. The PMP is expected to be developed as a separate
document by the Department of Agriculture with assistance from
IDHW. The ongoing vulnerability mapping program will assist
greatly in implementing the PMP. The PMP will outline the state's
approach to dealing with use of pesticides in the state that are
deemed by EPA to be of concern because potential ground-water
contamination.
In 1989 the Idaho legislature passed a chemigation law for
regulation of chemicals added to irrigation water which is spread
on the land. The Department of Agriculture administers the program
and promulgated the required regulations in 1990. All those using
chemigation must be licenced and must follow the general and
technical requirements of the regulations. One of the major
requirements of the regulations is for the use of backflow devices
to prevent chemicals from flowing back into the well.
Under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA), the State of Idaho has enforcement primacy for the use and
misuse of pesticides. The Department of Agriculture administers
this enforcement program based on State regulations and on
requirements listed on pesticide labeling. The Department of
Agriculture also administers the State pesticide applicator
certification program which requires training of certain types of
pesticide applicators.
Agricultural chemicals container rinsate regulations are also
pending finalization.
Feedlots and Dairies: Dairy operations in Idaho are regulated
through a general waste discharge permit (NPDES) issued by the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as authorized under the
Federal Clean Water Act. Through a contractual agreement, the
Water Quality Bureau of the Department of Health and Welfare^s
Division of Environmental Quality assists EPA in implementing this
program by conducting periodic field inspections and responding to
complaints. If violations are identified, the operation is
referred to EPA for enforcement. The State of Idaho does not have
enforcement authority under this permit program.
The Water Quality Bureau published the "Idaho Waste Management
Guidelines for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations" in 1987.
These guidelines are intended to provide technical assistance to
dairy operators for properly operating and maintaining dairies.
43
-------
The guidelines address water quality problems, current regulations,
runoff control, land application of animal wastes, and odor
control. These are merely guidelines, and the State of Idaho does
not have the authority to enforce these guidelines as regulations.
There are no state drinking water regulations directly applicable
to dairy operations, particularly on how a dairy operates.
However, there are Federal and State Safe Drinking Water
Regulations that have limitations on the amount of nitrates and
bacteria that may be present in public water supply systems
providing water to 10 or more households or 25 or more people.
Nitrates and bacteria can be the result of dairy operations,
although other sources such as septic tanks can also create these
contaminants. These regulations only limit the allowable amount
of these contaminants in the drinking water supplied in public
drinking water, and have no direct application on how a particular
dairy operates. There are no state water quality regulations that
apply to private water systems such as an individual house with a
domestic water well, so it is that well owner's responsibility to
assure that his well is providing water safe for consumption.
Without adequate personnel either at the state or federal level to
perform compliance inspections of CAFOs, the NPDES permit system
is unlikely to meet EPA's intended goal of approximately 400 CAFOs
in the Twin Falls area, only 29 have obtained a NPDES permit. The
percentage of CAFO operators who have voluntarily applied for their
NPDES permit is very small. An inordinate amount of time is spent
on responding to illegal discharge complaints and working with the
operator to control the discharge.
It is not practical to view EPA's CAFO permit program as a final
solution to addressing surface water and groundwater concerns
associated with dairies and feedlots. The issuance of permits is
the first step in a process that will take the input and
cooperation and coordination form a number of government agencies.
Development of specific design criteria for waste management
facilities, operation and maintenance considerations, and update
of Idaho Waste Management Guidelines for CAFOs need to be addressed
along with a viable ongoing compliance inspection and enforcement
program in order to adequately control the problem.
Sludge and Septage: Idaho is not decided where to go with a sludge
management program. EPA has developed the criteria for what a good
state program would be but the Agency's technical regulatory
requirements won't be out until January 1992 and the state wants
to see the final version before making any decisions. Generally
this program is not viewed as a high priority.
Currently the state water quality standards call for municipalities
to have sludge management plans but this is not evenly implemented.
There are liner requirements for municipal lagoons which are
usually natural liners but sometimes plastic liners have been
required. The requirement was that they have either an approved
disposal site or such a plan, one or the other. Sludge land
application guidelines were developed by the state a number of
44
-------
years ago. The land application of wastewater permit program
discussed earlier does not cover sludge. Some sludge is also
disposed of in monofills and there are municipal composting plants
in Couer d' Alene and Lewiston. The state is also concerned about
septage disposal and has regulations governing the cleaning of
septic tanks. Federal sludge regulations for municipal wastewater
treatment plants may include septate land application requirements.
State septage regulations may need to be updated.
The NPDES program is run by EPA in Idaho and municipal permit
applicants are being asked to submit a sludge management plan as
part of their application. Many of the applicants have been
advised of this several times with limited success.
Mining: On January 1, 1988 the Rules and Regulations for Ore
Processing by Cyanidation went into effect. The regulations
established the procedures and requirements for the issuance and
maintenance of a permit to construct, operate and close that
portion of an ore processing facility which utilized cyanidation
and is intended to contain, treat or dispose process water or
process-contaminated water containing cyanide. The regulations
specify procedures for obtaining a permit and set minimum
performance standards for: 1) the design and construction of the
cyanidation facility; 2) water quality monitoring and reporting;
3) process water containment and control during operation; and 4)
seasonal and permanent closure of the facility- Site-specific
design and operating flexibility are built into the program. The
burden of proof is upon the permit applicant to demonstrate how
water quality will be protected. Permit requirements may also vary
depending on local factors. A form of financial assurance for
detoxification of heaps and solutions at permanent closure is
required before operation may begin. The regulations also provide
procedures for public involvement, appeals modification or
expansion of a facility and permit revocation.
"Registration" in lieu of a permit was required for facilities
existing on January 1, 1988. Registration provides the Department
with information needed to evaluate future expansions or
modifications and provides a basis for compliance inspections.
Prior to the March 31, 1988 deadline for registration, eight
cyanide facilities registered as existing facilities. Of those
eight facilities, only three are currently operating.
The fact sheet and draft permit are prepared in the appropriate DEQ
field office with coordination by the central office. Engineering
plan and specification reviews are done in the field offices. The
permit is finalized in the central office and sent to the applicant
under the Director's signature. Since January 1, 1988, fourteen
applications have been received, two were returned as incomplete
with no resubmittal, one is on hold at the request of the
applicant, one is currently being processed, and ten permits have
been issued.
!t is difficult to estimate the number of future CN permit
applications as so much depends on the current price of gold.
45
-------
There will probably be at least one new application next year.
This will be an expansion of a currently operating, registered
facility. Tracking of permit "conditions", compliance inspections
of operating facilities, and monitoring the construction of newly
permitted facilities should receive the most attention next year.
Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer Protection Program: As mentioned
previously there is a major effort in Northern Idaho to protect
this highly vulnerable and productive aquifer under special funding
provided by Congress for the past four years. This program is
modeled after Wellhead Protection Program concepts and is being
undertaken by IDHW and the Panhandle Health District. Several
staff work at both agencies and are developing programs to better
characterize the resource and develop programs for controlling
nearly all potential sources of contamination. They are dealing
with septic tanks, solid waste, agricultural chemicals, wood waste,
pipelines, drain wells, etc. One special new program for dealing
with hazardous materials was developed and is being implemented.
Critical Materials Regulations have been developed under a recently
adopted ordinance that require all those handling specified
hazardous materials to report them to the Panhandle Health
District. Secondary containment may then be required depending on
the nature of the operation to prevent leaks and spills from
reaching the aquifer. A major national conference is planned for
the Spring of 1993 to showcase accomplishments of the aquifer
protection program both in North Idaho and Spokane County,
Washington which shares in the funding.
Indian Lands: There is limited interaction between the state and
Indian Tribes on ground-water protection but IDHW has been asked
to enforce in spill situations on occasion. Some of the Tribes
have been active in pursuing ground-water protection issues
especially the Shoshone-Bannock Tribe. There is a proposed policy
in the draft Ground Water Quality Plan that states State/Tribal
Agreements should be pursued when aquifers span Tribal boundaries.
Idaho Tribes are generally willing to respond to state requests for
PWS monitoring and report results to the state but state
enforcement does not apply.
The Shoshone-Bannock Tribe is the most aggressive of Idaho tribes
in protecting ground water. Under CWA 106 and Pesticides grants
they have developed a ground-water protection plan and adopted a
ground-water Protection Act. Both the and the Nez Pierce Tribe
have expressed interest in the Wellhead Protection Program and have
made proposals for EPA demonstration grant funds.
Compliance Monitoring
Compliance monitoring is carried out by agencies in Idaho that have
regulations covering activities with ground-water contamination
potential. The major environmental regulator is IDHW and they have
the primary role in inspections, etc.
46
-------
IDHW: IDHW conducts compliance monitoring for the above mentioned
programs they administer with inspections carried out primarily by
the staff in their field offices. Each program has it's own scheme
for setting priorities which are not necessarily tied to the value
or vulnerability of the ground-water resource. With the ongoing
ground-water vulnerability mapping program, this can begin to
change since many programs can use this information for planning
as was discussed earlier.
There is sufficient legislation to provide the basis for adequate
compliance monitoring but for nearly all programs resources are
limited. The state also does not want to overemphasize it at the
expense of other activities. Generally enough monitoring cannot
be accommodated within existing staff resources and there is
insufficient oversight over regulated facilities responsible for
self monitoring and reporting. Also better tracking systems for
monitoring inspections and results is felt as a need by IDHW.
Permit fees are generally not imposed to help cover the cost of
compliance monitoring. Through the ongoing efforts of the Ground
Water Council it is envisioned that interagency MOA's can be
developed to allow better coordination and cooperation between
agencies involved in monitoring.
IDWR: The primary ground-water protection aspects of IDWR's
activities relate to driller licencing, well construction standards
and the regulations for construction and use of injection wells.
The permits for injection wells are usually issued for 10 years and
they try to inspect at least once over that span preferably within
two years of renewal. Owners and operators of injection wells are
not normally subject to monitoring, record keeping and reporting
requirements but these requirement can be imposed for ground-water
protection purposes.
The construction of water wells requires a permit and fee. With
the large number of wells that are constructed annually the
monitoring and regulation of construction regulations is limited.
IDWR can take action if owner or drillers are in violation of
standards or if drillers have not submitted drillers reports.
Department of Agriculture: The 1989 chemigation law gives the
Director right of entry to determine compliance with the law or the
regulations promulgated thereto. The Director may also enter in
an agreement with IDWR allowing any employee of that agency to
determine compliance. The Director or his designee is also charged
with making at least 250 annual audits of chemigation
installations. Retail sellers and suppliers that have reason to
know that agricultural chemicals will be applied by chemigation
must insure that the sales recipient has a chemigation licence.
US Environmental Protection Agency: Since EPA administers the
NPDES Program they are just getting started in compliance
monitoring of sludge land spreading as newly required under this
program.
Health Districts: The seven Health Districts provide oversight of
the septic tank regulations and site inspections are made on
47
-------
installations. The Panhandle Health District also oversees
implementation of the Critical Materials Regulations discussed
previously for protection of the Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer.
The Panhandle Health District also performs project reviews for EPA
for possible ground-water impacts of proposed projects receiving
federal financial assistance. This is done in accordance with
Section 1424(e) of the SDWA outlining EPA's responsibilities once
the agency designates a sole source aquifer (as was done for the
Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer).
The Panhandle Health District also has a Cooperative Agreement with
IDWR for the UIC program. The Health District receives and
processes permit applications and does inspections, but IDWR
retains permitting authority for injection wells.
Enforcement
The agencies in Idaho with ground-water protection regulations have
enforcement authority to take action when requirements are not met.
Enforcement tools generally include notices of violation (NOV),
consent orders (CO) and civil and criminal penalties. Both formal
and informal actions can be taken. Each agency's penalty
provisions are contained in the statutes and regulations for the
programs they administer.
IDHW: Enforcement actions by IDHW that are related to ground-
water stem from regulatory programs administered by the Water
Quality Bureau and the Hazardous Materials Bureau (primarily RCRA) .
The RCRA program has been delegated to Idaho by EPA under the
stringent equivalency requirements of that program. While IDHW
lacks the authority to issue "orders", their NOV and CO processes
have been deemed adequate for equivalency to the EPA RCRA
enforcement regulations. With the exception of the PWS program,
EPA has not delegated water quality authorities to the Water
Quality Bureau and the enforcement procedures are largely the same
as RCRA. Figures 4 and 5 provide a depiction of the options and
administrative procedures that are available. Enforcement actions
are initiated in the field offices and then sent to Boise where
they are centrally handled. Ground water remediation is presently
conducted under the authority of the Water Quality Standards.
Legislation is needed to provide more authorities.
In general there is adequate legislation to provide the basis for
regulatory enforcement but regulations are lacking as in the UST
program. There is lack of adequate staff for enforcement
activities and IDHW feels that enforcement procedures need
improvement and they are working on improvement. The authority to
issue "orders" would also help streamline the enforcement process.
One of IDHW's priorities is to develop a better tracking system for
keeping up to date on the status of enforcement actions.
IDWR: Title 42, Chapter 39 related to UIC wells provides IDWR the
authority to seek injunctive relief, levy civil and criminal
penalties and issue cease and desist orders. The penalties can be
48
-------
ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT ACTION PROCESS
Violation of the Environmental
Protection and Health Act or
Rules. Regulations, Permlta, or
Ordara Promulgated Thereunder
Action
| Unresponsive
delation
iesolved
(Formal Action
Case Referral
Prepared by
Reid Office
{Civil Enforcement
Draft NOV/CO
Prepared
NOV signed by
Director
Compliance
Conference
Requested
NO
Yes
Compliance
Conference held
Consent Order
Negotiated
No —'
Ye«
Consent Order
Signed by Director
Penalty Paid and/or
Performance
Penalty not Paid
and/or Performance
Requirements not mat_
Violation
Resolved
-------
ENFORCEMENT ACTION ALTERNATIVES
WATER QUALITY BUREAU
VloMton at ttw Environmental
Protection and Hcafth Act or
RutM, Regulations. P*n*t, or
Orders Pronulgated Thereunder
Enforcement PiocwJuras
I EfHorcement
1 Internal AcOons |
Noooompfano
Conference
ErrfocccfTWK
Case Referral
Acttora \
;AdmlnictraUM
Actions
Vtotatton
[Consent Order |
50
-------
applied to those who construct, operate, maintain, convert, plug
or abandon wells in a manner that may result in injection of a
hazardous or radioactive waste in violation of Idaho Code.
Under the well construction standards owners or operators allowing
waste contamination of ground water or causing a well not to meet
construction standards are subject to civil penalties. Drillers
who violate construction standards are subject to the penalty
provisions of Title 42.
Department of Agriculture: Under the chemigation law, anyone
conducting chemigation without a licence will be liable to civil
penalties fines over and above under the general penalty provisions
of Idaho Code.
Fines are to go to the water pollution control account. The
Department can also issue stop work orders for violations of
chemigation rules. Penalties escalate with the frequency of
violation. A first violation within a five year period is to
result in warning letter from the Director. A second violation
within a five year period is to result in a misdemeanor. Upon a
third or subsequent violation, within a five year period, the
violator will be subject to a misdemeanor and be fined $10,000 for
each separate violation or $1,000 per day for continuing violations
whichever is greater. These penalties are in addition to others
provided by law for pollution of waters of the state.
Remediation
The draft Ground Water Quality Plan developed by the Ground Water
Council contains a proposed remediation policy. It states that:
"The policy of the state of Idaho is where contamination resulting
from human activities produces a significant potential for the
impairment of an existing or projected future beneficial use of
ground water, remediation should be conducted when feasible and
appropriate. Decisions for when to initiate remediation, the
extent of remediation needed and the appropriate remedy should take
into consideration site specific risks to health and the
environment, the cost of remediation, the technological limitations
and the need to maintain or recover beneficial uses of ground water
and interconnected surface water." The proposed policy includes
recommendations to develop remediation regulations and what they
should include, concepts for what the definition of responsible
party should be and the need for public participation.
A summary of current ongoing remediation activities is provided
below.
Superfund Type Activities: Idaho does not have any superfund type
legislation similar to the federal Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) enacted by
Congress in 1980 and reauthorized in 1986. All CERCLA type work
in Idaho is federally funded and EPA, INEL, DOD and BLM provide
funding to the Hazardous Materials Bureau to assist in overseeing
and management of the National Priority List (NPL) sites in Idaho.
There are nine NPL sites in Idaho four of which have ground-water
51
-------
problems. Responsible parties are encouraged to undertake
voluntary cleanup actions, but enforcement options and/or federal
superfund monies are used, when necessary, to facilitate site
cleanup. Federal and state criteria or standards (e.g. MCL's,
ACL's, water quality criteria, etc.) are typically used to
establish ground-water cleanup goals. Specific ground-water
remediation techniques are selected on a site specific basis after
consideration of possible options. All contractors or responsible
parties conducting superfund work for EPA or under EPA oversight
are required to submit ground-water monitoring data to the Agency
according to the formats specified in the regional ground-water
order.
RCRA Corrective Action Sites: Idaho has RCRA interim authorization
for corrective action at old waste management facilities where
contamination problems exist. They are in the early stages of the
program and are doing facility assessments to determine what is out
there.
Leaking Underground storage Tanks (LUST): Idaho receives a LUST
Trust Fund grant from EPA to fund staff to enforce Idaho's Water
Quality Standards and oversee state-led and responsible party-led
investigation and cleanup activities. There are a large number of
LUST sites in the state as discussed previously and field staff are
fully committed. It is expected that many additional LUST sites
will be discovered when Insurance Fund audits are made of
applicants for the low cost insurance. Only those meeting the
federal standards are eligible for the insurance.
Contamination Log: In 1985 a contamination log project was
initiated to help track contamination incidents and maintain an
ongoing record. After initial records of historical information
were obtained it was intended that field staff update the log on
a periodic basis as new contamination information was revealed.
These updates did not materialize on a reliable or consistent basis
and the log was largely put on hold. In 1990 the contamination log
activity was resumed as it was seen as a potential tool in
answering the increasing number of environmental audit requests on
specific areas and as a possible database for tracking enforcement
proceedings allowing sites to be prioritized and tracked. The
computer group plans to begin developing a new database system in
late summer 1991. The groundwater unit is also trying to improve
more consistent reporting on contamination incidents by field
staff.
INEL: There are 350 identified waste units at INEL containing a
wide variety of potential contamination sources. Three locations
at INEL have releases of hazardous waste beyond the waste site
boundaries. The state has worked with DOE to develop workplans for
sampling soil and regular meetings are held to hold DOE accountable
for completing scheduled activities. Hazardous Materials Bureau
staff have reviewed summary assessments characterizing contaminants
at numerous waste units and UST's. Ten waste unit closure plans
that were submitted in FY90 were found inadequate and an additional
18 are expected to be submitted in FY91. EPA created a technical
52
-------
review committee to help solve hydrogeological problems related to
environmental restoration at INEL. This committee is made up of
specialists from DOE, DOE contractors EPA, and EPA contractors,
USGS and the state. DOE is also preparing a Programmatic
Environmental Impact Statement to serve as a planning document for
future environmental restoration at DOE facilities nationwide.
53
-------
IV. DEFINING ROLES WITHIN THE STATE AND
THE RELATIONSHIP TO FEDERAL AGENCIES
IVA. State Roles
As discussed previously several state agencies have regulatory
authority over activities that affect ground-water quality. The
responsibilities and roles of each are discussed briefly below:
Idaho Department of Health and Welfare
The Idaho Department of Health and Welfare (IDHW), Division of
Environmental Quality administers most of the environmental
protection programs in Idaho and is charged by the legislature as
being the primary agency for ground-water quality protection. The
draft Ground Water Quality Plan being developed by the Ground Water
Quality Council also contains a policy assigning IDHW with lead for
regional and local ground-water monitoring. IDHW administers the
programs for drinking water, ground-water protection, wellhead
protection, solid waste, hazardous waste, sewage construction
grants, agricultural pollution abatement grants, non-point source
pollution, septic tanks, sludge land spreading plans, land
application of wastewater, and currently assists EPA in
implementing the underground storage tank, leaking underground
storage tank, and Superfund programs. In this capacity they
develop regulations, write permits, and provide compliance
monitoring and enforcement. They also have a major role in
environmental oversight at INEL along with other agencies.
Idaho Department of Water Resources
The Idaho Department of Water Resources administers programs
dealing with water quantity issues and is charged by the
legislature with being the agency responsible for the natural
resources GIS system and for collection of baseline data on the
state's water resources. The draft Ground Water Quality Plan
developed by the Ground Water Quality Council also contains a
policy assigning IDWR with lead for ambient ground-water
monitoring. IDWR is also responsible for protecting ground-water
quality through it's permitting program for underground injection
wells and the water well construction standards and driller
licencing.
Idaho Department of Agriculture
The Idaho Department of Agriculture is charged by the legislature
with being responsible for regulating the use of agricultural
chemicals as related to ground-water protection. The draft Ground
Water Quality Plan developed by the Ground Water Quality Council
contains a policy stating that agrichemicals will be managed so
that potential contaminants will not impair beneficial uses of
ground water below the crop root zone. The Department has lead
responsibility for developing the state's Pesticide Management Plan
54
-------
as called for in EPA's draft national Pesticide in Ground-Water
Strategy. The Department also has responsibility for administering
and enforcing the 1989 Chemigation Law.
State Fire Marshal
The State Fire Marshal's Office has responsibility for Certified
Tank Technician Program established by the legislature in 1990 to
help assure that persons that install, remove, and leak test tanks
meet established requirements.
State Insurance commissioner
The 1990 legislature established the Petroleum Tank Insurance Fund
that provides low cost insurance to tank owners that can
demonstrate that their tanks are not leaking and are in complete
compliance with federal technical requirements.
INEL Oversight Program
This special program enacted by the legislature has the program
administrator reporting to the Deputy Director of IDHW. The
program is guided by an internal steering committee made up of
these two individuals plus the Administrators of the Divisions of
Health and Environmental Quality at IDHW. Programs submit
proposals for resources tied to specific program objectives with
the steering committee setting priorities and approving workplans
for allocation of funds. This mechanism has been formalized with
IDWR through a Memorandum of Understanding. Affected bureaus at
IDHW must submit a workplan with measurable objectives to maintain
there Oversight funding and must participate in the INEL QA/QC
program.
Idaho Geological Survey
The Idaho Geological is closely associated with the University of
Idaho and studies and reports on geology, surface and ground water
resources, and the energy resources in the state. They maintain
an extensive list of publications, etc. that are available for
distribution.
Coordination Mechanisms
The Ground-Water Quality Protection Act of 1989 clearly recognized
the need for inter-agency coordination and public participation in
protection of the ground-water resource. It mandated the creation
of a Ground Water Quality Council representing a wide variety of
interests to guide the development of the Ground Water Quality Plan
required by the law. The Council is to exist for up to two years
after approval of the plan and will then be disbanded if not
reauthorized by the legislature. During the two years after plan
adoption, and thereafter if reauthorized, the Council is to oversee
progress in implementing the plan.
Once the plan is approved it is envisioned that more detailed
memorandums of agreement will be developed among the various
55
-------
agencies to better outline specific roles and responsibilities in
implementing the plan.
As discussed earlier many new agricultural initiatives related to
ground water such as the Clean Water Act Section 319 non-point
source program, the President's Water Quality Initiative and the
1990 Farm Bill provide a great deal of opportunity if coordinated
right. IDHW has committed FTE to maintain a broad perspective on
the overall picture to insure opportunities aren't missed and that
duplication of effort doesn't occur. The Department of
Agriculture's FTE will also be increased in July 1991 allowing more
resources to be available for coordinating on these new programs.
The Farm Bureau has also taken an active role in water quality
issues and has been working with state agencies on ground-water
monitoring programs.
56
-------
IVB. Local Roles
The Ground Water Quality Protection Act of 1989 contains a specific
section on the duties of local government in ground-water
protection. Local units of government are directed to incorporate
provisions of the adopted statewide Ground Water Quality Plan in
their programs and are encouraged to implement ground-water quality
protection policies within their jurisdictions. Implementation of
such local policies, however, must be consistent with the state
plan and not preempted by the laws or regulations of the state.
All units of state and local government are directed to cooperate
with the Ground Water Council and are to assist state regulatory
agencies in disseminating public information on protection of
ground-water quality. They are also to cooperate in the collection
of ground-water quality data and in research on technologies for
preventing or remedying ground-water contamination. Any unit of
government which issues a permit or licence dealing with the
environment is to take into account the effect of the activity on
ground-water quality and may attach conditions to the licence or
permit to mitigate potential adverse effects. They may not,
however, require permits or licenses that are not otherwise
authorized by law. Also, if a state agency issues a permit or
licence dealing with the environment, and that agency considers the
impact of that activity on ground-water quality, no other unit of
government may impose additional prohibitions or conditions that
impact the rights of the permittee.
The ground-water quality law also directs local governing boards
amending, repealing, or adopting comprehensive plans to consider
what such action would have on the quality of ground water. The
draft Ground Water Quality Plan developed by the Ground Water
Council also contains two proposed policies on state/local issues.
The first states that all units of local government shall integrate
the state plan into their existing programs and planning activities
and are authorized and encouraged to implement ground-water quality
protection policies within their respective jurisdictions. The
second states that local governments shall not adopt ground-water
quality ordinances, regulations, standards, etc. that are not
consistent with state plan or impose duplicative requirements on
the public.
Local unit of government can adopt ground-water protection
ordinances, etc. which cover protection measures not covered by
state programs. Such is the case in North Idaho where the
Panhandle Health District used the ordinance approach to develop
Critical Materials Regulations requiring secondary containment
measures for those handling specified hazardous materials. The
ground-water protection authorities of local government, however,
have become controversial during development of the Ground Water
Quality Plan because of the wording in the ground water protection
act that was discussed above.
57
-------
IVC. Relationship with Federal Agencies
State ground-water protection regulatory agencies generally have
their primary interaction with EPA at the federal level although
other agencies are involved as discussed below. The relationship
with EPA varies depending on the nature and status of the pollution
control program involved. On overall protection of the ground-
water resource the state works with EPA on a voluntary cooperative
basis to work towards building a comprehensive program through
federal financial and technical assistance. Other programs
originate from a national statutory mandate and allow delegation
from EPA to the state if requirements are met. In Idaho the IDWR
has been delegated the UIC program and IDHW has been delegated the
RCRA and PWS programs. EPA provides financial assistance and
maintains oversight of the state programs.
For other programs where the state has not sought delegation they
receive funding to assist in implementation such as in the NPDES
and UST programs. For some programs EPA has no authority such as
for septic tank regulation and land applied wastewater permitting.
Other programs such as Clean Water Act Section 319 for nonpoint
source pollution control require that the state develop an EPA
approved plan to be eligible to receive funding for implementation.
The Idaho Department of Agriculture will be working closely with
EPA over the next several years in developing and implementing the
state's Pesticide Management Plan as called for in the proposed
national Pesticides in Ground-Water Strategy. This will require
close coordination between the pesticides and ground-water programs
at both EPA and the state.
The state's relationship with INEL is a special oversight program
with DOE and it's purpose and scope were discussed previously.
With the increased focus on agricultural practices and water
quality the state needs expanded coordination and interaction with
USDA and its various outreach and financial and technical
assistance programs. The state has been a leader in this area and
the 319 non-point source program, the President's Water Quality
Initiative and the 1990 Farm Bill provide many new opportunities
to reduce surface and ground-water quality impacts by the adoption
of new and improved BMP's.
The state has worked closely with USGS on a number of monitoring
and resource characterization projects over the years as was
discussed previously. The USGS has also been a key player in the
vulnerability mapping program currently underway. The new NAWQA
program being implemented by USGS is a major long term program
which includes parts of Idaho as initial study areas and should
benefit state ground-water protection efforts greatly. USGS is
also involved in the INEL Oversight Program.
The BLM and the USFS have been heavily involved in nonpoint source
issues and work closely with both EPA and the state in addressing
these issues. The BLM also has a cooperative agreement with IDHW
58
-------
to fund a position in the Hazardous Materials Bureau for assessing
pollution from BLM's extensive land holdings in Idaho.
Approximately 40% of the permitted landfills are on lands leased
to counties by BLM.
The draft Ground Water Quality Plan contains a proposed policy
related to federal consistency. It states that it is the policy
of the state of Idaho that ground water underlying all federally
owned lands be
provided with the same level of protection as other ground waters
of the state. For implementation it states that federal agencies
should comply with the plan and any ground-water standards that may
come about as well as incorporating all applicable state and local
ground-water protection provisions.
59
-------
V. RESOURCES
VA. Financial
The state of Idaho is heavily dependent on federal funding for many
of its environmental programs. For example, Superfund activities
in Idaho are entirely funded with federal dollars from various
agencies. Getting adequate state funding to administer the PWS
program has been a problem and with the many new responsibilities
added by the 1986 amendments to the SDWA it is uncertain whether
the state can maintain primacy. Currently EPA provides about 70%
of the funding. The Department of Agriculture has gotten an
increase for staff support in dealing with water quality issues
with EPA now funding about 1/3 of the program. The IDWR receives
EPA funding to administer the UIC program which requires a 25%
match.
The ground-water protection unit at IDHW has utilized funding from
several sources to support its activities. These include Clean
Water Act 106, 319 and 205(j) funding, some state funds and funding
from DOE for the INEL Oversight Program. Also for the past four
years Congress has provided substantial special appropriations to
be used for programs to protect the Rathdrum/Spokane Prairie
Aquifer in both Washington and Northern Idaho. Substantial
progress is being made.
For a number of years the state has supported the Agricultural
Pollution Abatement Plan with funds from Water Pollution Control
Account. Funds for this account are generated from specially
generated tax revenues. Potential sources of funding for these
type of activities have considerably expanded with funding of the
319 non-point source program, introduction of the President's Clean
Water Initiative and passage of the 1990 Farm Bill.
The Ground Water Quality Protection Act of 1989 mandated both an
ambient monitoring program and regional and local ground-water
monitoring programs. To date funding has been provided to IDWR for
ambient monitoring but IDHW hasn't been provided funding for the
local and regional program for which they are responsible.
The draft plan will make recommendations for how the provisions of
the plan should be funded. When the final proposed plan goes to
the legislature next January, many issues on the adequacy of
financial resources will be decided depending on the action taken.
60
-------
VB. Personnel
The organizational structure in the Water Quality Bureau at IDHW
has made coordination on ground-water protection somewhat simpler
than in other states. The ground-water protection, PWS, UST and
LUST programs have been in units supervised by the ground
water/drinking program manager. A current reoriganization effort
may undo this however. The ground-water protection unit has a
supervisor and 10 staff members working on the Ground Water Quality
Plan, the land applied wastewater permit program, the vulnerability
mapping project, the agricultural water quality program, ground-
water monitoring efforts, the wellhead protection program and soil
science and hydrogeologic technical support. Each of the field
offices also have staff that deal with ground-water issues. The
following provides staffing levels for other programs impacting
ground water (including field staff) and the percentage of funding
support derived from federal sources.
Program # of Staff % Federally Funded
PWS 14 70
UST/LUST 11 90
RCRA 17 49
CERCLA 20 99
Solid Waste/Sludge 1 0
Nonpoint Source 24 75
Laboratory 56 16
Data Management 6 40
The Department of Agriculture has two FTE working on water quality
issues and IDWR has 3 staff working on the UIC program.
61
-------
APPENDIX A
STATE OF IDAHO
POLICY STATEMENT FOR
GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS
Background
In the past decade, governmental agencies and private industry have
developed increasingly powerful computer systems designed to
process and analyze map information. Collectively called
geographic information systems (GIS), these systems have the
potential to significantly increase efficiency and reduce costs to
the State for conducting land, water, demographic, and other
resource management activities.
GIS technology, much like the computer field in general, is in a
period of dynamic evolution and growth. Moreover, GIS technology
is but one of a number of related technologies (e.g., remote
sensing, and digital cartography) that could assist state agencies
in carrying out their mandated responsibilities more efficiently.
Indeed, these technologies are becoming ever more closely linked,
and are part of the information management activities of Idaho.
Within this framework, it is imperative that emphasis be placed on
coordination between the departmental organizations currently using
or planning to use these technologies. This coordination will
facilitate exchange of data between agencies.
Objectives
A. Encourage and assist in the development, implementation, and
use of geographic information systems to meet current and
future statewide and departmental missions and objectives.
B. Establish an effective management and support framework for
the orderly growth of geographic information system technology
within the State.
C. Achieve and maintain levels of hardware, software, and data
compatibility in accordance with State standards and promote
the sharing of technology, research, applications, and data
resources throughout the State of Idaho.
D. Encourage cooperative work among state agencies, universities,
federal agencies and private associations to test,
demonstrate, and complete cooperative projects within their
mandated responsibilities.
E. Coordinate development of statewide information predicated
upon agencies implementing their own geographic information
systems.
F. Develop a central catalog of geographic information for
current and future agency and statewide applications.
62
-------
Policing
It is the policy of the State of Idaho to encourage the utilization
of geographic information systems when such use enhances the
overall cost effectiveness of administrative functions or improves
productivity. It is also the State's policy to acquire, and
support geographic information systems through well planned
implementation strategies. These strategies include:
a. Develop and maintain data standards for base category
data, statewide exchange data and, as needed, project data.
b. Develop and maintain contracts for state agency use
covering the purchase of geographic information systems software
and hardware.
Management and Organizational Responsibilities
A. The Idaho Geographic Information Advisory Committee (formerly
the Idaho Mapping Advisory Committee) will be responsible for
developing data standards for geographic information systems.
B. The IGIAC will be responsible for the development of
specifications for the contract purchasing of geographic
information systems hardware and software in conjunction with
the state purchasing agent and the state data processing
coordinator.
C. The acquisition and application of geographic information
systems hardware and software will be accomplished in
accordance with each agency's approved automated data
processing plan.
D. The IGIAC will establish a standing CIS subcommittee to
accomplish the following:
1. Hold quarterly meetings for information exchange and
work status review. Identify opportunities for exchange
of data, joint production of data or the contracting of
work between state agencies.
2. Review needs for geographic information and determine
data categories necessary for statewide applications.
Establish and maintain an inventory of each category's
collection status.
3. Provide GIS informational and educational
opportunities as needed.
4. Work with agencies to implement the objectives of
this policy.
63
-------
APPENDIX B
IDAHO MAPPING ADVISORY COMMITTEE
RECOMMENDED STANDARDS FOR DIGITAL CARTOGRAPHIC DATA
January 29, 1988
GEOGRAPHIC BASE DATA - This includes digital cartographic data and
information that are captured and stored as a part of a statewide
geographic data base. These data elements must be at a level of
accuracy which make them suitable for interchange with federal and
local government entities. Digital Line Graph (DLG) - as defined
by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), National Mapping Division is
the recommended standard for these data. This implies an accuracy
of plus or minus 40 feet. This standard is used by the USGS in
the production of their 7.5 minute quad (1:24000) maps. Any data
which are digitized from a 7.5 Quad map should conform to this DLG
standard.
IDAHO GIS DATA - Unique state data and information developed for
use in Idaho Geographic Information Systems (GIS) are intended for
interchange among Idaho State Agencies. These data re "system"
specific. Vendors represent geographic information and digitized
data in different ways. They may or may not include facilities for
the interchange of geographic data with other vendor's systems.
When the state, through the Idaho Mapping Advisory Committee
(IMAC), establishes a recommended GIS standard, this category of
data can be captured and remain in the standard system format.
This category includes map data captured from scales other than
1:24,000, including the 1:100,000 scale. As DGL standard are
adopted and published by USGS for other map scales, they can also
be adopted by IMAC. Until that time, state agencies can continue
to collect data with available systems and software.
PROJECT SPECIFIC DATA - This includes the collection of data to
generate a report or meet the needs of a single agency. The data
and information collected are not intended for interchange with
other agencies or government entities. No standard is appropriate
to the specific project or problem which is being addressed.
64
-------
APPENDIX C
IDAHO ARC/INFO USERS
COMPANY/AGENCY
Geographic General, Inc.
Power Engineers, Inc.
Morrison-Knudsen Co.
Potlatch Corporation
Boise Cascade Corporation
U.S. Forest Service
Pest Management
Boise National Forest
U.S. Soil Conservation Svc
U.S. Geological Survey
Water Resources
University of Idaho
Forestry
Landscape Architecture
Geography
ID Dept of Health & Welfare
ID Dept of Water Resources
ID Dept of Lands
Nez Perce Tribe
LICENSE
1
2
2,
2
i 2
1
t 2,2
'C 1
TYPE
1
,1
2
2
1
1
2,2,1,1,1
2
1
CONTACT
Andy Little
Mary Ann Mix
Kim Johnson
Steve Smith
Brad Holt
343-1181
788-3456
386-5000
799-1288
384-7632
Joy Roberts 364-4224
Rich Jeffs 364-4211
Doug Harrison 334-1525
Molly Maupin 334-9012
Michael Scott 885-6960
Toru Otawa 885-7729
Karl Chang 885-6240
Mike Cook 334-5907
Hal Anderson 334-7888
Dave Gruenhagen334-3864
Jack Bell 843-5416
1-PC ARC/INFO License
2-Workstation ARC/INFO License
65
------- |