PROTECTING GROUNDWATER AT
THE LOCAL LEVEL
March 26, 1987
Radisson Hotel — Lynchburg, Virginia
Sponsored by
Virginia Water Resources Research Center
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
and
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Cosponsored by
Institute for Environmental Negotiation, University of Virginia
Lord Fairfax Planning District Commission
U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. Soil Conservation Service
Virginia Association of Counties
Virginia Chapter of the Soil Conservation Society of America
Virginia Department of Conservation and Historic Resources,
Division of Soil and Water Conservation
Virginia Department of Health
Virginia Department of Waste Management
Virginia Municipal League
Virginia Water Control Board
Virginia Water Project
-------
PROGRAM
BALLROOM A
9:15
Welcome — WILLIAM R. WALKER, Virginia Water Resources Research Center
9:30
Virginia's Groundwater Hydrology — JOHN POWELL, U.S. Geological Survey
10:00
BREAK
10:30
Concurrent Sessions on Regional Groundwater Characteristics and Problems
ROOM B
Coastal Plain — JAMES CAMPBELL, Virginia Municipal League (moderator); REMO
MASIELLO, Tidewater Regional Office, Virginia Water Control Board; HUGH
EGGBORN, Culpeper Regional Office, Virginia Department of Health; and W.J.
SAMFORD, Virginia Department of Waste Management, (panelists)
BALLROOM A
Valley and Ridge and Cumberland Plateau — CHARLES LANCASTER, Institute for
Environmental Mediation (moderator); MAC STERRETT, Valley Regional Office,
Virginia Water Control Board; GERALD PEAKS, Abingdon Regional Office, Virginia
Department of Health; and KEVIN GREENE, Virginia Department of Waste
Management (panelists)
ROOM C
Piedmont and Blue Ridge — JASON GRAY, Virginia Water Project (moderator);
BRUCE DAVIDSON, West Central Regional Office, Virginia Water Control Board;
RONALD CONNER, Lexington Regional Office, Virginia Department of Health; and
HOWARD FREELAND, Virginia Department of Waste Management
BALLROOM D
12:00
LUNCH
Presiding — JAMES B. MURRAY, Statewide Advisory Board, Virginia Water
Resources Research Center
Keynote Speaker — MARIAN MLAY, Office of Groundwater Protection, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency
BALLROOM A
1:30
State Efforts at Groundwater Protection
Presiding — KENNETH CARTER, Virginia Chapter, Soil and Water Conservation
Society of America
Groundwater Protection Strategy — GERARD SEELEY, Virginia Water
Control Board
Underground Storage Tank Program — RUSSELL P. ELLISON, III, Virginia Water
Control Board
Septic and Well Regulations — ROBERT HICKS, Division of Sanitation Services
Landfill Regulations — ROBERT WICKLINE, Department of Solid
Waste Management
2:45
BREAK
3:15
What Localities Can Do To Protect Groundwater
Presiding — VELMA SMITH, Citizen Member, Virginia Water Control Board
Tools Available to Local Authorities — MARGARET S. HREZO, Virginia Water
Resources Research Center
Educating the Public — KATHRYN P. SEVEBECK, Virginia Water Resources
Research Center
Protecting Clarke County's Groundwater — G. ROBERT LEE, Administrator,
Clarke County
4:30
EVALUATION
5:00
CONCLUSION
-------
Virginia and a member of the Water Pollution Control Federation and the
American Waterworks Association.
Russell P. Ellison is the Underground Storage Tank (UST) program manager
for the Virginia Water Control Board (VWCB). As the UST program man-
ager. he coordinates the state statute and regulation development pro-
cess, UST notification efforts, application and compliance with federal
grants. UST data management activities, and UST public relations
efforts. In addition. Ellison is the VWCB chief regulatory hydrogeolo-
gist in charge of the board's groundwater statutes, regulations, and
standards. He has served as the state's primary groundwater expert for
such recent issues as uranium mining and high-level and low-level radio-
active waste disposal. Educated in geology at the College of William
and Mary. Ellison has worked in the field of hydrogeology for ten years.
He is a Certified Groundwater Professional and member of the Association
of Groundwater Scientists and Engineers. He is a Certified Professional
Geologist in Virginia and North Carolina and is a member of the Geolog-
ical Society of America.
Howard R. Freeland has worked for the Virginia Department of Waste Man-
agement since July, 1983. He was responsible for regulating groundwater
monitoring for hazardous waste management facilities in Virginia, and
has been involved in many groundwater projects and permitting functions
throughout the state. Before his current position, he worked for the
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation in engineering geol-
ogy. A native of Ohio and graduate of the Ohio State University. Free-
land has worked in Virginia as a geologist for nearly twenty years. He
is a Certified Professional Geologist in Georgia and North Carolina.
Jason Gray is the rural groundwater protection coordinator for the
Virginia Water Project and its regional component, the Southeast Rural
Community Assistance Project. His program works with rural, often low
income communities in groundwater education, water testing and pollution
potential assessments. Gray received his B.A. from Emory & Henry Col-
lege. and his M.A. in environmental planning from the University of
Virginia. While at U. Va., he served on the staff of the Institute for
Environmental Negotiation where he worked on a diversity of negotia-
tions. such as uranium mining, thermal pollution and the siting and cost
of a regional sewage treatment plants.
Kevin L. Greene has worked for the Virginia Department of Waste Manage-
ment since October 1985. He was responsible for regulating groundwater
monitoring at hazardous waste management facilities in Virginia. He has
worked with many groundwater projects and permitting activities through-
out the state. Prior to his current position, he worked in the Virginia
Superfund Program assessing waste disposal sites for possible inclusion
on the National Priorities List. Greene is a native of Virginia and is
a graduate of East Carolina University. He has worked with groundwater
programs for seven years.
Robert W. Hicks, director, Division of Sanitarian Services for the
Virginia Department of Health, holds a B.S. degree in chemistry and a
M.S. degree in the administration of science and technology. Hicks has
nine years of administrative experience as a sanitarian supervisor, and
three years as a field sanitarian. His service in Prince William County
and the cities of Manassas and Manassas Park has given him an
-2-
-------
understanding of the problems and issues of a mixture of rural, suburban
and urban populations.
Hargaret Hrezo has served as assistant director for research and
administration at the Virginia Water Resources Research Center since
1981. She is the author of several articles on water resource planning
and of Protecting Virginia's Groundwater: k Handbook for Local Govern-
ment Officials. Hrezo holds a M.A. and a Ph.D. in political science
from the University of Maryland.
Charles L. Lancaster is an attorney and associate on the staff of the
Institute for Environmental Negotiation at the University of Virginia.
Since joining the Institute in 1985. he has assisted in the preparation
of the Groundwater Protection Strategy for Virginia, a document which
attempts to chart the course for the groundwater protection efforts of
the Commonwealth. In addition to a 1 aw degree. Lancaster holds a mas-
ter's degree in environmental management.
6. Robert Lee, a 1969 graduate of the College of William and Mary, holds
a master's degree in policy planning and regional analysis from Cornell
University. He has worked in county government in Virginia for twelve
years, first as Assistant County Administrator for Southampton County
and, since 1978, as County Administrator for Clarke County.
Remo Masiello is supervisor for water resources development in the
Virginia Water Control Board's Tidewater Regional Office. The responsi-
bilities of this position include administration of the Groundwater Act
of 1973 and its subsequent amendments, groundwater modeling, and water
supply and quality planning. He has 17 years experience in the environ-
mental and geotechnical fields and holds B.S. and M.S. degrees in geol-
ogy.
Marian Mlay is the director. Office of Ground-Water Protection in the
Office of Water, at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Mlay has
responsibl ity for the implementation of the Wellhead Protection and Sole
Source Aquifer Demonstration Programs under the Safe Drinking Water Act
Amendments of 1986 and EPA's Groundwater Protection Strategy. Mlay
holds a B.A. from the University of Pittsburgh, and a J.D. from American
University.
James B. Murray graduated from Georgetown University with a B.A. in 1941
and obtained a B.S. in engineering from Yale University in 1943. He was
a member of the House of Delegates from 1974 to 1982. and chairman of
the Committee on Conservation and Natural Resources. Murray was a plant
manager for an electrical manufacturing facility in Albemarle County and
project director for Health Maintenance Organization (HMO). Since 1953,
Murray has been the owner and operator of Panorama Farms, a livestock
operation. He has been active in numerous community and civic activi-
ties. including board chairman for Piedmont Virginia Community College
and a board member of the Nature Conservancy.
Gerald W. Peaks is regional director. Division of Water Programs for the
Virginia Department of Health in Abingdon. A member of the National
Society of Professional Engineers, the American Waterworks Association,
and Water Pollution Control Federation. Peaks developed his expertise
during 16 years as a public health engineer and 2 years as a private
-3-
-------
consulting engineer. He earned his B.S. and M.S. degrees in civil engi-
neering at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.
John D. Powell received his master's degree in geology from George Wash-
ington University. Washington. D.C., and bachelor's degree in zoology
from the University of Maryland. Employed by U.S. Geological Survey
since 1980 as a hydrologist. his experience includes water quality and
geochemical modeling in the Appalachian Plateau Province of southwestern
Virginia and the Piedmont Province of Maryland, and groundwater contami-
nation by hazardous waste in the Coastal Plain Province of eastern
Vi rginia.
Jerrold Samford received his bachelor's degree in geology from the Col-
lege of William and Mary in 1977. and his master's degree in geology
from Virginia Polytechnic and State University in 1981. Samford taught
geology at Virginia State University and worked with two consulting
firms. Froehling & Robertson. Inc.. and Schannon & Wilson. Inc. In
1984. he joined the Northern Regional Office of the Virginia Water Con-
trol Board as chief regional geologist and in 1985. returned to Richmond
with the Department of Waste Management. Samford initially worked in
the RCRA program, and is now in the Superfund Program. He is a Certif-
ied Professional Geologist in the Commonwealth and a member of the Asso-
ciation of Engineering Geologists' Committee on Hazardous Waste Manage-
ment.
Gerard Seeley. Jr., is groundwater program manager for the Virginia
Water Control Board (VWCB). A registered professional engineer. Seeley
has also served as county engineer in Henry County and chief engineer of
the Virginia Soil and Water Conservation Commission. Seeley holds a
B.S. degree in civil engineering from Virginia Polytechnic Institute and
State University.
Kathryn P. Sevebeck has been the education director at the Water
Resources Research Center since 1982 and was the newsletter editor for
three years prior to her present position. A life-long resident of
Virginia, she has a B.S. degree in English from Ohio University and a
M.S. degree from Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in
adult and continuing education. In her capacity as education director.
Sevebeck has conducted numerous public education/information programs on
groundwater protection, water conservation, and water resources manage-
ment.
Velma Smith joined the Environmental Policy Institute as director of the
Groundwater Protection Project in 1984. Smith holds a B.S. degree from
the University of Virginia. She served as legislative assistant on
environmental and energy issues for Congressman Rick Boucher of
Virginia, and prior to that worked on farmland protection, land use and
water quality issues for the Piedmont Environmental Council in Warren-
ton. Virginia. Smith is also a member of the Virginia State Water Con-
trol Board.
R. McChesney Sterrett is a geologist in the Virginia Water Control
Board's (VWCB) Valley Regional Office in Bridgewater. He holds a B.S.
in geology from Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. He
has been employed by the VWCB for 13 years, having spent two years at
the agency's headquarters in Richmond. He has had extensive experience
-4-
-------
with underground petroleum spills, and for the past four years has
worked on the board's water supply plans. He is coauthor of four county
groundwater resource reports and is a Virginia Certified Professional
Geologist.
Robert Gray Wickline is director of Solid Waste Management, for the
Virginia Department of Waste Management. A registered professional
engineer and member of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers, he
has worked for the Virginia Department of Health and the Department of
Waste Management since 1971. Wickline holds B.S. degrees in chemical
engineering and business administration and a M.S. in civil engineering
from Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.
Diana L. Weigmann has worked with the Water Resources Research Center's
groundwater program since July 1986. She holds B.S. and M.S. degrees in
zoology from Louisiana State University and Mississippi State Univer-
sity. respectively. Weigmann received a Ph.D. degree in 1982 in limnol-
ogy from Michigan State University. She has worked on a diversity of
aquatic topics in many different habitats across the U.S. Her profes-
sional experience includes employment as an assistant professor at New
Mexico State University in Las Cruces. and she was in Sri Lanka as a
technical advisor to the government on aquatic issues in January -
April. 1986.
-5-
-------
GROUNDWATER HYDROLOGY
John D. Powell
Water Cycle
A. Precipitation
B. Evaporation
C. Infiltration
D. Runoff
Relation between Groundwater and Surface Water
A. Infiltration, porosity and permeability
B. Water table, saturated zone, unsaturated zone
C. Capillary water, spring water
D. Base flow, recharge area, discharge area
Susceptibility of Groundwater to Contamination
A. Common sources of contamination
B. Movement of contamination
-------
PROTECTING GROUNDWATER AT THE LOCAL LEVEL
VIRGINIA WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH CENTER
ASSESSING GROUNDWATER POLLUTION POTENTIAL
Margaret S. Hrezo
Diana L. Weigmann
Stephen Goldstein
Assessing a locality's groundwater pollution potential requires consid-
eration of the physical characteristics of local aquifer systems and of
the community's social, political, and economic conditions.
A. Physical Characteristics
The physical characteristics of a location affect its potential for
groundwater pollution. Thus, it is important for localities to develop
an understanding of their groundwater resources. Localities can attempt
to develop comprehensive, detailed descriptions of groundwater supplies
or "rule of thumb" sketches. Depending on local conditions and needs,
either type of study can be appropriate.
1. Comprehensive Assessments
Information required for a detailed, comprehensive understanding of
local resources include:
-- Well logs recording construction, performance and "natural"
groundwater quality;
The boundaries and extent of major aquifer systems 1n an area:
-- Hydrogeologic factors controlling recharge, groundwater movement
and availability, such as distribution and types of major uncon-
solidated deposits and elevation of the water table:
-- The range of groundwater quality in principal aquifers:
-- Topographic configuration of the bedrock;
-- Area of the potential cone of depression;
-- Topographic maps showing surface water bodies and land forms:
-- The range of well depths and yields;
-- Water level fluctuations and the water usage in an area: and
-- The estimated potential and most favorable areas for groundwater
development.
Gathering such data requires the services of a professional hydrogeol o-
g1st. If necessary information is unavailable, the cost of collecting
data for comprehensive analyses may be as high as $500,000 over three
years.
Regional offices of the Virginia Water Control Board (VWCB) and the U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) will have some of the necessary data. Local
governments also should work with Regional Planning District Commissions
because geological boundaries are easier to study than are political
boundaries. USGS will work with local governments and states on compre-
hensive studies on the basis of up to a 50-percent federal match. USGS
has helped prepare both countywlde and area-wide studies. For more
-1-
-------
information, contact Chief, Virginia Office. Water Resurces Division
United States Geological Survey. 3600 West Broad Street. Room 606. Rich-
mond. VA 23230; telephone (804) 771-2427.
2. "Rule of Thumb" Sketches
Local governments often lack the money and staff to undertake comprehen-
sive hydrogeol ogical studies. To help them better protect groundwater
in the absence of comprehensive studies, several less complex and costly
methods of interpreting groundwater's physical characteristics have been
developed. The National Water Well Association (NWWA) has developed one
of the best "rule of thumb" procedures, a standardized method called
DRASTIC. The goal of DRASTIC is to determine the relative vulnerability
to groundwater contamination of one area of the political jurisdiction
in comparison to other areas within the locality.
DRASTIC, an acronym of the most significant information needed to assess
an area's general pollution potential, is implemented on the basis of
hydrogeological settings. A hydrogeologic setting is a mappable unit of
at least 100 acres with common hydrogeol ogic characteristics and. there-
fore. common vulnerability to contamination.
The major elements in DRASTIC are:
-- (0) depth a contaminant must travel to reach the water table.
-- (R) [net] recharge, or the amount of water in a land area (at
least 100 acres) that travels to the water table from the sur-
face;
-- (A) aquifer media, the material (soil, limestone) that serves as
an aquifer:
-- (S) soil media, or the uppermost soil layer;
-- (T) topography, or the slope of the land;
-- (I) Impact to the vadose zone (the unsaturated zone above the
water table, including topsoil). Some materials will delay a
contaminant's flow more than others;
-- (C) (hydraulic) conductivity of the aquifer, or how easily water
flows through the aquifer.
The system assumes that information on these elements is available or
can be estimated. Table 1 lists potential sources of the data for
Virginia required to perform a DRASTIC analysis. Information will be
incomplete, but county groundwater reports are primary Informational
sources. At present, about 15 of these groundwater reports covering 30
counties exist. Localities will benefit by working closely with the
U.S. Geological Survey and the Virginia Water Control Board in develop-
ing and using data for the DRASTIC system. It is especially important
to review with USGS the DRASTIC assessments and the definitions devel-
oped for each hydrogeologic factor.
-2-
-------
Table 1: Sources of Hydrogeologic Information
Depth to Net
Water Table Recharge
Virginia Water Control Board X X
(central and regional offices)
U.S. Geological Survey X X
(but would be
site-speci fic)
U.S. Department of Agriculture -
Soil Conservation Service
Regional Planning Commissions
County and Regional Water Supply
Agencies
Private consulting firms X
Virginia Department of Health X
State Colleges and Universities X X
Professional Associations X X
Aquifer Soil Impact of the Hydraulic
Media Media Topography vadose zone Conductivity
X X X
X XX X
X X
X X X
X X X
X X X
-------
Information on each element is placed on a map of the study area result-
ing in a numerical score (DRASTIC Index) for each 100-acre segment. The
higher the score, the greater the groundwater pollution potential. It is
essential to remember that the indices (scores) are relative -- a
DRASTIC Index is not an absolute quantity and is useful only in compar-
ing one part (100-acres segment) of a locality with other parts. The
NWWA also has developed a separate agricultural DRASTIC Index relating
the index's elements to the movement of pesticides and herbicides
through soil. The two types of DRASTIC indices cannot be compared with
each other.
The model does not require extensive technical expertise, but ideally a
DRASTIC mapping team will include a planner and a geologist. An appre-
ciation for the complexity of evaluating groundwater pollution potential
also is important. It can be used in any area 100 acres or larger where
(1) the pollutant is on the surface. (2) water flushes the pollutant
into the groundwater, and (3) the pollutant has the same mobility as
(moves with) water. Because of the mobility condition. DRASTIC cannot
help determine potential pollution from petroleum products since they
are not water soluble.
Once the DRASTIC Index is computed and the pollution potential of each
portion of the locality is compared, the local government should under-
take site investigations of the 100-acre areas where pollution potential
appears high. This is necessary because protecting an aquifer may
require more information on its physical characteristics than is
required to compute its relative pollution potential score. The DRASTIC
system does not include all factors that may influence a location's vul-
nerability to groundwater pollution; for example nearness to a popula-
tion center, the toxicity of a contaminant, or the time for a pollutant
to travel from its point of introduction to a populated area. Such con-
ditions will be site-^specific and thus beyond the scope of what DRASTIC
was designed to do -- allow a locality to concentrate its available
resources on those parts of its jurisdiction with the highest pollution
potential based on physical characteristics.
Undertaking a DRASTIC mapping currently would cost a county of 1.000
square miles approximately $20 per square mile. More Information on
DRASTIC is available from Linda Aller. director of research for the
National Water Well Association. 6275 Riverside Drive. Dublin. OH
43017. States already using DRASTIC include Maine. Florida, and Idaho.
New Castle County, Delaware also has used the system.
B. Social. Political, and Economic Considerations
Once the locality understands the physical characteristics of its
groundwater, it can incorporate political, social or economic factors
into evaluating how to allocate resources or deciding whether to develop
regulations to protect its groundwater. These factors may either
encourage or inhibit protection of the local resource. Economic consid^
erations include (1) the location of existing Industries, (2) the avail-
ability of land and/or services for clustering future industrial devel-
opment into designated sections or an industrial park. (3) reactions of
existing industries to increased regulation of their activities, and (4)
the incentives the local government can offer new or existing develop-
ment to voluntarily protect groundwater supplies. Important social and
-4-
-------
political considerations are local attitudes toward land use regulation,
citizens' and public officials' understanding of the importance of pro-
tecting groundwater and of the effect of their activities on the
resource, and the locus of power within the community. Social, politi-
cal. and economic factors, thus, are very important in determining
whether or not the locality will undertake a groundwater protection pro-
gram and. if undertaken, that program's timing, scope, and components.
Their importance highlights how essential local public awareness and
involvement programs are to successful groundwater protection.
C. Useful Publications
Aller. Linda: Truman Bennett. Jay H. Lehr and Rebecca J. Petty.
(National Water Well Association). May 1985. DRASTIC: A Standard-
ized System for Evaluating Ground Water Pollution Potential Using
Hydrogeologic Settings. EPA/600/2-85/018. Robert S. Kerr Environ-
mental Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Ada. Oklahoma. See esp. Table
1. p. 7; Figure 19 and Tables 18-31. pp. 31-39.
Harsh. John. 1980. Ground-Water Hydrology of James City County .
Virginia (U.S. Geological Survey. Water Resources Investigations
80-961).
Comer, C. D., Prince William County Groundwater. Present Conditions and
Prospects. Planning Bulletin 303 (Richmond: Virginia State Water
Control Board. 1976)
Dawson. James W. and C. Bruce Davidson. Groundwater Resources of Henry
County. Virginia. Planning Bulletin 312 (Richmond: Virginia State
Water Control Board. 1979)
Dovel, Michael R.. Wise-Dickenson County Groundwater. Present Conditions
and Prospects. Planning Bulletin 333 (Richmond. Virginia State
Water Control Board. 1983)
Ellison. Russell P.. Ill and Remo A. Masiello. Groundwater Resources of
Hanover County. Virginia. Planning Bulletin 314 (Richmond. Virginia
State Water Control Board. 1979)
Epps. Susan R.. Buchanan County Groundwater. Present Conditions and
Prospects. Planning Bulletin 311 (Richmond: Virginia State Water
Control Board. 1978)
Farrington. Stephen. Natalie Carrington and W. V. Daniels. Jr.. 1984.
Water-Level Hydrographs for Observation Wells 1n Virginia, 1982. U.
S. Geological Survey. Open File Report 84-134 (Virginia Water Con-
trol Board. 1984)
Fennema, Robert J. and Virginia P. Newton, 1982. Ground Water Resources
of the Eastern Shore of Virginia. Planning Bulletin 332 (Richmond:
Virginia State Water Control Board. 1982)
Geraghty and Miller. 1967. The Status of Ground-Water Resources in
Nansemond County and Isle of Wight County. Virginia.
-5-
-------
Heath. Ralph C.. 1982. Basic Ground-Water Hydrology. United States
Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2220 (USGPO. 1983).
Hinkle, Kenneth R. and R. McChesney Sterrett, Shenandoah County Ground-
water. Present Conditions and Prospects. Planning Bulletin 306
(Richmond: Virginia State Water Control Board.1977)
Hrezo. Margaret, and Pat Nickinson. Protecting Virginia's Groundwater: A
Handbook for Local Government Officials. 1986 (Blacksburg: Virginia
Water Resources Research Center).
Larson. J. D., and John D. Powell, 1986. Hydrology and Effects of Min-
ing in the Upper Russell Fork Basin. Buchanan and Dickenson Coun-
ties. Virginia. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investiga-
tions Report 85-4238 (Richmond: Virginia. 1986)
Murphy. J. R.. Groundwater Resources of Loudoun County. Virginia. Plan-
ning Bulletin 315 (Richmond: Virginia State Water Control Board.
1979)
National Water Well Association. Addendum: DRASTIC: A Standardized Sys-
tem for Evaluating Ground Water Pollution Potential Using Hydrogeo-
logic Settings (Course at Charlottesville. Va.. Sept. 25-26. 1986.
presented by Linda Aller and Rebecca Petty. NWWA. (More tables of
DRASTIC indexes, but also with agricultural DRASTIC indexes, for
various tydrogeologlc settings. 1986
Newton. V. P. and E. A. Siudyla. Groundwater of the Northern Neck Pen-
insula. Virginia. Planning Bulletin 307 (Richmond: Virginia State
Water Control Board,
North Carolina-Virginia Groundwater Subcommittee. Groundwater Management
in Southeastern Virginia and Northeastern North Carolina. 1975
Park. A. Drennan. Groundwater in the Coastal Plains Region: A Status
Report and Handbook. (South Carolina Water Resources Commission.
1979)
Powel1. John D. and Joseph M. Abe, Availability and Quality of Ground
Water in the Piedmont Province of Virginia. U.S. Geological Survey
Water Resources Investigation Report 85-4235 (Virginia State Water
Control Board, 1985)
Rogers, Stanley M. and John D. Powell. Quality of Ground Water in South-
ern Buchanan County. Virginia. U.S. Government Survey. Water
Resource Investigation Report 82-4002 (U.S. Department of the
Interior. 1983)
-6-
-------
Siudyla, E. A.. T. D. Berglund, and V. P. Newton. Groundwater of the
Middle Penisula. Virginia. Planning Bulletin 305 (Richmond:
Virginia State Water Control Board, 1977)
Siudyla. Eugene A.. Anne E. May and Dennis W. Hawthorne. Ground Water
Resources of the Four Cities Area. Virginia. Planning Bulletin 331
(Richmond: Virginia State Water Control Board, 1981)
Sterrett. R. McChesney and Kenneth R. Hinkle, 1980. Ground Water
Resources of Albemarle County. Virginia. Planning Bulletin 326
(Richmond: Virginia State Water Control Board. 1980)
U.S. Water Resources Council. 1980. Bulletin 16: Essentials of
Ground-Water Hydrology Pertinent to Water-Resources Planning.
(Washington. D.C.: U.S. Water Resources Council. Hydrology Commit-
tee).
Virginia State Water Control Board. 1974. Groundwater of Southeastern
Virginia. Planning Bulletin 261-A (Richmond: Virginia State Water
Control Board. 1974)
Wigglesworth. Haywood A.. Timothy W. Perry and Russell P. Ellison. Ill,
1984. Groundwater Resources of Henrico County. Virginia. Planning
Bulletin 328 (Richmond: Virginia State Water Control Board, 1984)
-7-
-------
PROTECTING GROUNDWATER AT THE LOCAL LEVEL
VIRGINIA WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH CENTER
GROUNDWATER LAW IN VIRGINIA
Margaret S. Hrezo
Common law and state and federal statutory law affect the quality and
use of groundwater In the commonwealth.
A. Common Law
1. Use
Virginia courts have applied two common law doctrines when deciding con-
flicts over the use of groundwater:
a. The doctrine of absolute ownership grants landowners the unqualified
right to use any resources on. above, or below their land in what-
ever manner they see fit.
b. The reasonable use doctrine qualifies a landowner's rights. Reason-
ableness does not refer to the amount of water used, but rather to
its place of use. When applied to groundwater, the doctrine
requires that the groundwater be used on the land under which the
water is found. The doctrine does not limit the amount of ground-
water the landowner may use.
Virginia has not made a choice between these two common law doctrines.
In its most recent groundwater decision, Clinchfield Coal v. Compton
(1927), the court noted the trend toward adoption of the reasonable use
doctrine in the United States but made no decision concerning Its use 1n
Virginia.
Liability for interference with a well is difficult to assign under both
doctrines. Under the absolute ownership test, a groundwater user is not
liable for interference with another's well under any conditions. Rea-
sonable use incorporates a liability rule but requires the injured party
to prove that the individual causing the damage acted negligently,
wastefully, or with malicious intent. Virginia courts found no liabil-
ity where blasting operations caused a neighboring well to go dry and
where a well was lost because of subsurface mining.
2. Quality
Common law as applied to issues of groundwater quality in Virginia is
cloudy. Most contamination cases rely on the principles of tort liabil-
ity: negligence, nuisance, and strict liability.
a. When the principle of negligence is used, the well owner must show
that the polluter should have foreseen that injury would occur and
must document specific acts of negligence.
b. Virginia courts hesitate to apply the principle of nuisance 1n
-1-
-------
groundwater cases unless the activity is inherently annoying or dan-
gerous.
c. Virginia courts have never applied the principle of strict Habil ity
in deciding a groundwater case, although courts in other states have
done so. By this principle, liability is assessed even if the
injury occurred without malicious intent and regardless of the
degree of care exercised.
B. State Statutory Law
The Groundwater Act of 1973 and the state's anti-degradation policy are
two major state laws protecting groundwater.
1. Groundwater Act of 1973
The Virginia Water Control Board (VWCB) may act or a local government
may request action when:
(1) groundwater levels are declining or have declined exces-
sively; or
(2) the wells of two or more users within the area substan-
tially interfere with one another: or
(3) available groundwater supplies are or are about to be
overdrawn: or
(4) groundwater has been or may be expected to become pol-
luted: and
(5) the VWCB determines that the public health, safety, or
welfare require the designation.
After holding public hearings, if the VWCB finds that an area meets
these requirements. 1t may designate it as a groundwater management area
and require permits for the use of groundwater. The act exempts (1)
withdrawals less than 300.000 gallons per month: (2) agricultural with-
drawals (although the board may require by regulation the reporting of
withdrawals exceeding 300.000 gallons per month); (3) groundwater heat
pumps: and (4) any withdrawal not located within the groundwater manage-
ment area. The southeastern corner of the state -- the counties of Isle
of Wight. Prince George. Southampton. Surrey. Sussex and the cities of
Chesapeake. Franklin. Hopewell. Norfolk. Suffolk. Portsmouth, and
Virginia Beach -- and the Eastern Shore -- Accomack and Northampton
counties -- are the two designated groundwater management areas.
2. Ant1-degradation Policy
The "anti-degradation" policy states that "if the concentration of any
constituent in groundwater is less than the limit set forth by ground-
water standards, the natural (higher) quality for the constituent shall
be maintained; natural quality shall also be maintained for all constit-
uents. including temperature, not set forth in groundwater standards."
Thus. Virginia effectively recognizes only one class of groundwater.
EPA's groundwater protection strategy is based on three classes but
states are not required to adopt that approach.
New or increased discharges are allowable if it can be demonstrated that
the discharge is required for needed economic or social development and
-2-
-------
if waste treatment is provided (where feasible) and present and antici-
pated uses of the water are preserved.
C. Federal Statutory Law
1. CERCLA
The Superfund Reauthorization Bill that President Reagan signed in Octo-
ber 1986 adds a section (205) amending Subtitle I of the Solid Waste
Disposal Act to govern the management of underground storage tanks. The
new section
(1) requires states to inventory underground storage tanks
containing petroleum and other regulated substances:
(2) requires EPA to develop and promulgate financial respon-
sibility regulations for corrective action and for com-
pensating third parties for property damage and bodily
injury;
(3) authorizes EPA or a state to require corrective or to
undertake corrective action needed to protect human
health and the environment until EPA issues final under-
ground storage tank regulations;
(4) establishes a $500 million Underground Storage Tank Trust
Fund for taking corrective action in an emergency or
where the financial resources of the tank owner have been
exhausted; it will be funded by a 0.1 cent/gallon
increase in the gasoline tax:
(5) requires tank owners and operators to maintain Insurance
to cover cleanup costs.
Synopses of the other major federal laws affecting groundwater may be
found in Appendix G of Protecting Virginia's Groundwater; A Handbook
for Local Officials.
The list of selected federal laws affecting groundwater (Appendix G)
includes Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 and Amendments: Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 and Amendments; Clean Water Act of
1977. amending the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 by
replacement and Amendments; Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976: and
the Federal Insecticide. Fungicide and Rodenticide Act and Amendments.
-3-
-------
TO ~0
_j. _j.
Q_ fD
-O Q_
0) 3
o
3
CD
-------
UNDERSTANDING THE GROUNDWATER RESOURCES OF THE
PIEDMONT AND BLUE RIDGE
Bruce Davidson
I. Geology and Groundwater Characteristics of the Piedmont and
Blue Ridge
II. Sources of Contamination and Their Effects on Groundwater
III. Petroleum Hydrocarbon Contamination: A Case History
IV. State Water Control Board Groundwater Programs and Local
Governments
-------
PROTECTING GROUNDWATER AT THE LOCAL LEVEL:
HEALTH CONSIDERATIONS
Ron Conner
Hugh J. Eggborn
Gerald W. Peaks
I. Introduction
A. Drinking water sources
1. Surface
2. Ground
B. Groundwater characteristics
1. Health related
2. Aesthetic related
II. Potential Health Problems
A. Bacteriological
B. Inorganic
C. Organic
D. Radiological
III. Well Testing
A. Sample collection
B. Cost
C. Analysis time
IV. Local/State Cooperation
A. Site selection
B. Development activities
C. Monitoring
D. Communication
E. Emergency response
-------
PROTECTING GROUNDWATER AT THE LOCAL LEVEL:
SOLID AND HAZARDOUS. WASTE DISPOSAL
Howard R. Freel and
Kevin L. Greene
W. Jerrold Samford
I. Department of Waste Management
A. Organization
B. Responsibilities
1. Bureau of Hazardous Waste Management
2. Bureau of Solid Waste Management
a. Solid waste
b. Superfund
c. Nuclear waste
C. Special programs
1. Hazardous waste hotline 1-(800)-552-2075
2. Emergency response
a. Department staff
b. CERCLA
II. Minimization of Potential for Contamination Through Design
A. Monitoring requirements
1. RCRA
2. Solid waste
III. Factors of Concern 1n Planning for a Waste Disposal Site
A. Waste reduction/minimization
1. generation controls
2. volume reduction
B. Recycling
-------
C. Facility design
1. Capable of protecting the environment and health
2. Optimal use of available space
3. Useful monitoring Incorporated
a. groundwater
b. waste type
c. surface water
d. a1r/methane
IV. Facility Life
1. How long will the facility last
2. Can 1t be expanded now
V. Enforcement Control
1. State Department of Waste Management
2. Virginia State Water Control Board
3. Local county administrative rules
-------
PROTECTING GROUNDWATER AT THE LOCAL LEVEL
VIRGINIA WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH CENTER
RISK ASSESSMENT
Diana L. Weigmann
A. What Is Risk Assessment?
Environmental risk assessment is the evaluation of scientific data and
the social, economic, and political factors that must be considered to
reach an ultimate decision on the prohibition, control, or management of
chemicals and other potentially harmful materials and activities. Its
purpose is to aid decision makers by providing information on the actual
statistical probability of the event in question occurring, so that a
social judgement can be made on whether or not the benefits outweigh the
risks of the harmful event.
An important principle of risk-benefit analysis is to allow each person
the widest possible choice supported by full information on risks and
benefits. Society is not and never will be risk-free, but citizens can
make more informed decisions if they understand both the beneficial and
adverse implications of their decisions.
B. Why Is Risk Assessment Important?
The need for environmental risk assessments have increased because of
(1) the discovery that certain chemicals persist in the environment and
could have adverse effects on plants and animals, including humans: (2)
the increased introduction of chemicals into the environment by the
rapid growth of the chemical industry and higher use of chemical prod-
ucts by people; (3) the federal Toxic Substances Control Act (TOSCA).
that requires information on the ecological fate and effects for new
products suspected of posing substantial human risks; (4) the federal
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). that requires information
regarding the fate and effects of leachates from land disposal of haz-
ardous solid wastes; (5) the federal Clean Water Act Amendments, that
require development of water quality criteria for toxic pollutants; (6)
studies of hazardous air pollutants under the Clean Air Act; (7) the
need for managers of manufacturing and distributional operations to know
the environmental impact of the materials they handle so that they can
make appropriate decisions; (8) customers' demands for data on the fate
and effects of substances in the products they purchase; and (9) the
need for product research and development to be directed by valid infor-
mation on efficacy, economics, health effects, and environmental
effects.
Risk assessment methods are currently being extensively used to evaluate
hazardous waste sites in the U.S. The U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) employs risk assessment to evaluate potential superfund
sites under CERCLA. The EPA attempts to quantify risks posed by aban-
doned sites and to compare remedial alternatives for these sites using
risks and costs, among other factors. EPA's methodology is based upon a
set of indicator chemicals, separated into carcinogens and
-1-
-------
non-carcinogens, that theoretically represent the risk characteristics
of a site. The population of people at risk for various site-related
exposures are identified and the levels of acute and chronic uptakes of
chemicals for the population are determined. This data is combined with
that on carcinogenic potency factors to derive estimates of cancer risk.
Also, projected intakes of non-carcinogens are compared with established
acceptable daily intakes.
Although risk assessment is a significant part of the CERCLA decision-
making process, most techniques for evaluating the risks of chemical
releases in complex environmental settings are still being developed.
More information on the evaluation of risks associated with CERCLA sites
is available 1n "Endangerment Assessment Manual" (EPA 1985a). "Superfund
Public Health Evaluation Manual" (EPA 1985b). "Exposure Assessment Hand-
book" (EPA 1986a). and "Toxicology Handbook" (EPA 1986b). These draft
guidance manuals provide excellent information for local officials
engaged in community land use planning. For example, risk assessment
may be one component in deciding whether a particular site 1s acceptable
for waste disposal.
C. How Are Risks Assessed?
Human health effects are the pivotal concern in risk assessment. To
adequately protect human health, two questions must be answered: (1)
"What types of test procedures on experimental animals are required for
a valid assessment of the chronic toxicity of the chemicals?" and (2)
"How can such data be extrapolated to estimate the real risks of the
chemicals to humans?"
Two basic components of risk assessment are risk quantification and risk
evaluation. To quantify the risk, the hazard must be identified and
the probability of its occurrence estimated. Decision structures which
resemble living trees -- called event trees or decision trees -- can be
used to evaluate responses and consequences. Risk evaluation, the most
difficult and potentially controversial part of risk assessment,
involves determining the socially acceptable risks. One approach to
risk assessment is provided in Table 1. The quantified risk is compared
with various existing risks encountered in everyday life.
-2-
-------
Table 1. Actions Increasing Risk of Death by One in A Million (Conway.
1982).
Action Nature of Risk
Smoking 1.4 cigarettes
Drinking 0.5 liter of wine
Spending 1 hour in a coal mine
Spending 3 hours in a coal mine
Living 2 days in New York or Boston
Traveling 6 minutes by canoe
Traveling 10 miles by bicycle
Traveling 30 miles by car
Flying 1000 miles by jet
Flying 6000 miles by jet
Living 2 months in Denver on vacation
from New York
Living 2 months in average stone or
brick building
One chest x-ray taken in a
good hospital
Living 2 months with a cigarette
smoker
Eating 40 tablespoons of improperly
stored peanut butter
B Drinking heavily chlorinated
water (e.g.. Miami) for 1 year
Drinking 30 12-oz. cans of diet soda
Living 5 years at site boundary of a
typical nuclear power plant in the
open
Drinking 1000 24-oz. soft drinks from
recently banned plastic bottles
Living 20 years near PVC plant
Living 150 years within 20 miles of
a nuclear power plant
Eating 100 charcoal broiled steaks
Risk of accident by living within 5
miles of a nuclear reactor for 50
years
Cancer, heart disease
Ci rrhosis of the 1 iver
Black lung disease
Accident
Air pollution/heart disease
Accident
Accident
Accident
Accident
Cancer caused by cosmic radiation
Cancer caused by cosmic radiation
Cancer caused by natural radio-
activity
Cancer caused by radiation
Cancer, heart disease
Liver cancer caused by aflatoxin
Cancer caused by chloroform
Cancer caused by saccharin
Cancer caused by radiation
Cancer from acryl onitrile monomer
Cancer caused by vinyl chloride
(1976 standard)
Cancer caused by radiation
Cancer from benzopyrene
Cancer caused by radiation
The allowable maximum amount of a particular chemical, such as a
-3-
-------
pesticide, that an average human can ingest with no observable effect,
referred to as NOEL for no-observable-effect-1evel. is determined by
dosing laboratory animals over their lifetimes with different amounts of
this chemical being investigated. Curves representing the response of
the animals at each dose (dose-response curves) are plotted and the max-
imum dose at which no harmful effects occur is determined.
Two different species of animals are normally tested and the NOEL for
the most sensitive species is divided by a generous safety factor to
establish the acceptable daily intake (ADD. If. for example, a safety
factor of 100 were chosen, then humans with perhaps the same tolerance
as the most sensitive test species, could consume 100 times more than
the AD I before any observable detrimental effect should occur. Sug-
gested "health advisory levels" for potentially harmful chemicals in
drinking water developed by the EPA. the Virginia Department of Health,
and the Virginia Water Control Board are based on the daily intake of
1.06 quarts of water by a 22-pound child or 2.12 quarts by a 154-pound
adult.
-4-
-------
References
Canter. L. W.. and R. C. Knox. 1985. Ground Mater Pollution Control.
Lewis Publishers, Chelsea. MI. pp. 526.
Conway, R. A.. 1981. "Introduction to Environmental Risk Analysis. Ch.
1 in Environmental Risk Analysis for Chemicals. R. A. Conway, edi-
tor. Van Nostrand Reinhold Company. New York, NY. pp. 1-30.
Inhaber, H., Energy Risk Assessment. 1982. Gordon and Breach Science
Publishers. Inc.. New York. NY. pp. 1-54.
Lee, W. W. and Nair, K., 1979. "Risk Quantification and Risk Evalua-
tion", Proceedings of National Conference on Hazardous Material Risk
Assessment. Disposal and Management. Information Transfer, Inc.,
Silver Spring. MD. pp. 44-48.
Nisbet. I. C.. 1982. "Uses and Limitations of Risk Assessments 1n Deci-
sion-Making on Hazardous Waste Sites" Proceedings of the National
Conference on Management of Uncontrolled Hazardous Haste Sites. Haz-
ardous Materials Control Research Institute. Silver Spring, MD, pp.
406-407.
Schweitzer. G. E.. 1981. "Risk Assessment Near Uncontrolled Hazardous
Waste Sites: Role of Monitoring Data". Proceedings of the National
Conference on Management of Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites. Haz-
ardous Materials Control Research Institute. Silver Spring. MD. pp.
238-247.
USEPA. 1985a. Office of Waste Programs Enforcement. (Draft) Endanger-
ment Assessment Handbook. PRC. Environmental Management. Inc.
USEPA, 1985b. Office of Waste Programs Enforcement. (Draft) Superfund
Publ1c Health Manual. ICF Incorporated.
USEPA. 1986a. Offices of Emergency and Remedial Response, Solid Waste
and Remedial Response, and Solid Waste and Remedial Response.
(Draft) Superfund Exposure Assessment Manual. Versar Inc., January
14, 1986.
USEPA, 1986b. Office of Waste Programs Enforcement. Toxicology Hand-
book: Principals Related to Hazardous Waste Site Investigation.
PRC, Environmental Management, Inc.. August 1985.
-5-
-------
PROTECTING GROUNDWATER AT THE LOCAL LEVEL
VIRGINIA WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH CENTER
MARCH 26. 1987
In order to help us evaluate this workshop and to plan for future ones, please
complete this form. Where appropriate, please check yes or no. With open-
ended questions, be as candid and specific as possible. Thank you for your
hel p.
SESSION 1: GROUNDWATER HYDROLOGY
1. This session was:
Yes No
a. appropriate for my level
of knowledge
b. well organized
c. useful to my locality
d. interesting
2. The session would have been more useful to me if:
3. The most useful part of the session was:
-------
SESSION 2B: UNDERSTANDING THE GROUNDWATER RESOURCES OF THE
PIEDMONT AND BLUE RIDGE
1. This session was:
Yes
a. appropriate for my level
of knowledge
b. well organized
c. useful to my locality
d. interesting
2. The session would have been more useful to me if:
3. The most useful part of the session was:
-------
Q>
ri-
ft)
O
-s
r+
-------
VIRGINIA'S GROUNDWATER PROTECTION STRATEGY
Gerard Seeley. Jr.
-------
STATE GROUNDWATER PROTECTION EFFORTS:
UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK PROGRAM
Russell P. Ellison, III
I. The Federal UST Activities
A. November 1984 - Federal UST Law signed by the President.
B. May 1985 - Federal Interim Prohibition in effect.
C. May 1986 through March 1987 - Computer input of notification
data.
D. May 1986 through February 1987 - State UST statute development.
E. February 1987 - General Assembly considers two UST laws: one
administrative and another for cleanup funding.
F. January 1987 - UST Trust Fund begins - $500,000,000 cleanup
fund for petroleum tank spills.
II. The State's UST Activities
A. May 1985 - Governor designates VWCB to receive UST
Notifi cations.
B. November 1985 - Federal grant funding to the VWCB.
C. May 1986 through March 1987 - Computer input of notification
data.
D. May 1986 through February 1987 - State UST Statute development.
E. February 1987 - General Assembly considers two UST laws: one
administrative and another for cleanup funding.
F. Near-future federal grant and state efforts contingent upon
statute passage include: enforcing Interim Prohibition
compliance: initiating program delegation from EPA;
developing state UST regulations.
-------
STATE GROUNDWATER PROTECTION EFFORTS: SEPTIC AND WELL REGULATIONS
Robert W. Hicks
I. Historical
A. Pre-1982
1. New sewage disposal regulations more specific criteria
for evaluation, design, and construction
2. Alternative and experimental systems addressed and
encouraged
3. Private wells installed in conjunction with sewage dis-
posal system addressed
B. 1982 to Present
1. New sewage disposal regulations more specific criteria for
evaluation, design, and construction
2. Alternative and experimental systems addressed and
encouraged
3. Private wells installed in conjunction with sewage disposal
system addressed
C. Future
1. Constant review and update of sewage disposal regulations
2. Continued encouragement of alternative systems such as
mounds and LPD
3. Development of regulations to govern all private wells
4. Increased attention to proper utilization and disposal of
septage
II. EPA - Septic System and Groundwater Protection - An Executive
Guide
III. Relationship Between Groundwater and Septic Tanks
A. Good soil makes a good system
B. Need oxygen rich environment to reduce potential for ground-
water contamination
-------
C. Proper sizing of system reduces potential for groundwater
contamination
D. Routine maintenance reduces groundwater contamination poten-
tial (often ignored)
E. Virginia regulations strive to achieve the above goals
IV. Technologically - How Can This Be Addressed
A. Alternative treatment methods
1. LPD - especially in soils with percolation rate of less
than 5 minutes per inch
2. Mounds
3. Sand filters
V. Educational Aspects of On-Site Waste Disposal
A. Development of educational pamphlets
1. Care and maintenance of ST
2. Options for alternative systems
3. Obtaining a system permit
B. Encourage use of flow reducing devices
C. Development of system models for public display and demon-
stration
VI. Addressing Groundwater Concerns in Proposed Mass Drainfield Reg-
ulations
VII. Conclusion
-------
LANDFILL REGULATIONS
Robert W. Wickline
-------
PROTECTING GROUNDWATER AT THE LOCAL LEVEL
VIRGINIA WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH CENTER
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
Diana L. Welgmann
A. Traditional Solid Waste Disposal Methods
Solid wastes are defined as any garbage, refuse, sludges from waste-
treatment or water-supply treatment plants, and other discarded materi-
als. These wastes include solid, liquid, semi-solid, or gaseous materi-
als from industrial, commercial, residential, mining, and agricultural
activities (Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 1976). Not Included
in this category are solid and dissolved materials from domestic sewage,
irrigation return-flows, point-source industrial discharges, or nuclear
production.
In the U.S.. residential, commercial, and industrial garbage is dis-
carded in more than 18.500 municipal and industrial solid waste land-
fills. These mostly unlined and unmonitored sites are estimated to leak
more than 90 billion gallons of contaminated leachate into groundwater
annually. Leachate from household wastes normally contains high concen-
trations of sulfate, chloride, and ammonia. Nationwide there are also
over 50.000 ponds for the treatment, disposal, and evaporation of
wastes. An estimated 100 billion gallons of waste (including solvents,
heavy metals, acids, and cyanide) leak annually from these impoundments
into groundwater.
Sanitary landfills are land excavations where wastes are placed and cov-
ered daily with soil. The term sanitary signifies that the waste 1s
covered with soil to decrease odors and make the site less attractive to
vertebrate and invertebrate pests. In sanitary landfills, precipitation
and surface runoff still can infiltrate the upper soil covering and. in
unlined excavations, perhaps allow leachate to reach groundwater. Open
dumps, where household garbage, automobiles and old tires, unwanted
appliances, dead animals, and a myriad array of other waste items are
discarded indiscriminately are illegal 1n Virginia. Though illegal,
unsightly, and unhealthy, open dumps are a convenient means of disposal
that will not be eliminated without increased enforcement.
B. Alternatives to Landfills
Integrated programs of waste management -- sanitary landfills, incinera-
tion. waste reduction, and energy and waste recovery and recycling --
are becoming more popular nationwide. Stringent environmental laws on
air and water pollution, the cost and difficulty in obtaining appropri-
ate sites for sanitary landfills and incineration facilities, as well as
new technologies for cost-effective recovery and recycling are stimulat-
ing innovative solutions to the long-term disposal of waste.
1. Incineration
Incineration, currently being considered for incorporation into the
-1-
-------
waste management programs of many Virginia communities, can (1) provide
electrical power for industry and municipalities; (2) reduce the amount
of wastes transferred to landfills by up to 80 percent; (3) decrease the
costs of hauling and disposal; and (4) increase the life of present
landfills while decreasing the requirement for future landfills. How-
ever, incineration is not a panacea for waste management because dloxins
are emitted to the air and concentrated with heavy metals 1n the ash.
These toxic materials must be properly discarded.
The Portsmouth Redevelopment and Housing Authority will heat the Ida
Barbour Park housing project with fuel derived from garbage and will
save about $50,000 annually. This is the first public housing project
in the state to supply heat and hot water with garbage-derived fuel.
2. Recycling
Many of the materials that American society labels as "waste" and buries
in landfills can be recovered; for example, industry is Increasingly
using recycled material because of the savings in energy and transporta-
tion. Anywhere from 30 percent to 75 percent of the materials discarded
at municipal landfills can be recovered and recycled to industry or
agriculture.
Many Virginia localities are examining methods to separate glass, paper,
cardboard, tires, aluminum, and other metals from their solid waste
stream. Recyclable paper totals about 17 percent of a locality's solid
waste, about 10 percent of the weight is recyclable glass, and about 0.7
percent is aluminum {Division of Litter Control). Recycling requires
only two minutes per day for the average homeowner to prepare his or her
garbage. This amounts to 73 minutes per month to prepare glass, cans,
aluminum, and newspaper.
In the most recent recycling study done by the EPA (1981), Virginia's
recycling efforts were so negligible that we were unranked among the 50
states. Nationwide, according to the National Association of Recycling
Industries, more than half of all aluminum beverage containers were
recycled in 1984.
The recycling of plastic is just beginning, but with an appropriate mar-
ket. sorted plastics are worth 5 cents to 40 cents a pound. Unlike
glass and aluminum, plastic cannot legally be recycled into new contain-
ers because of the dangers of contamination. Recycled plastic can be
used in a variety of products, ranging from automotive parts to fiber-
fill for jackets and quilts. The demand for recycled platlc is pur-
ported to far exceed the supply. The plastics industry claims that last
year 20 percent of all plastic was recycled.
Waste automotive oil, considered hazardous, no longer is transported to
landfills. Before the recent oil glut, oil had a value of 25 cents per
gallon, and waste oil dealers throughout the nation had set up a network
of collection sites.
The Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals, and Energy has organized a
used oil recycling program (1-800-552-3831) with collection centers
located across the state. In 1986, 910 service stations statewide par-
ticipated as collection centers. By February 1987, participation had
-2-
-------
decreased to 449 stations because they now have to pay a fee to recy-
cling companies that pick up the oil. The stations may be forced to col-
lect a fee from customers for their used oil because they receive no
state funds for the recycling program. The centers are provided as a
public service to aid homeowners in safely disposing of their waste oil,
to prevent the inadvertent pollution of surface water and groundwater,
and to preserve energy resources by reprocessing the oil back to heating
oil or refining it for use as lubricating oil.
The average cost of running a weekly curbside trash collection and recy-
cling program 1s $20 to $30 a ton. an amount rarely recouped by selling
the recovered materials. But it costs $40 to $60 a ton to haul trash to
a landfill, and burning trash costs $70 to $120 a ton. Following are
two examples of innovative waste management approaches that Virginia
localities are using.
Southeastern Public Services Authority (SPSA). serving five cities and
three counties, will open a massive trash reclamation center adjacent to
the Norfolk Naval Shipyard in Portsmouth. Usable metals will be recy-
cled and garbage culled and sorted. SPSA will sell trash to the Navy
under a 30-year contract benefiting the navy and local taxpayers. The
Navy will derive low-cost fuel, and naval revenues will lower costs and
save landfill space for local residents. Waste fuel will generate all
of the steam and 60 per cent of the electricity used in the shipyard
between 1988 and 2188. During the first year of operation. SPSA expects
to receive $7 million from the operation.
Methane generated during the natural decomposition of organic material
has been tapped to provide heat and energy for local farms, homes, and
industries. Virginia Beach will receive $150,000 to $200,000 annually
for methane from its 4 million tons of decaying garbage. About 2.3 mil-
lion cubic feet of high-quality methane can be withdrawn each day for at
least 15 years from what affectionately has been called 'Mount Trashmore
II." Methane and carbon dioxide are natural byproducts of decomposition
at landfills; natural gas used 1n about 55 percent of American homes is
primarily methane.
3. Land Application of Sludge
The lime-rich sludge from water treatment plants and the sewage sludge
from wastewater treatment plants present a large and significantly grow-
ing waste disposal problem. In Virginia, land application is being con-
sidered as a major no-discharge alternative to conventional discharging
systems. About 25 of the 1.680 no-discharge certificates (NPDES permit
program) have been issued to control land application of municipal sew-
age (both effluent and sludge).
Land application eliminates a direct discharge of wastes to state
waters, provides waste operators with a cost-effective alternative, and
extends a significant economic Incentive to landowners 1n the form of
fertilizer and soil conditioners.
The agricultural use of sewage sludge has become so popular with muni-
cipalities and farmers in Virginia that almost half of this material
generated in the state is returned to the land for agricultural
-3-
-------
purposes. More than 85.000 acres have been permitted for agricultural
use of sewage sludge. By applying sewage sludge, farmers save about $2
million in fertilizer costs.
Nationwide, sludge has been spread on the land surface to enrich and
enhance the soil or used to fill abandoned strip mines. This can be an
effective means of disposal for certain types of sludge, but resistant
synthetic chemicals derived from domestic, agricultural, municipal, and
industrial activities can contaminate sludge and ultimately enter sur-
face water and groundwater. Soil microbes degrade many organic com-
pounds and plants remove soluble nutritive compounds such as nitrogen
and phosphorus. However, excessive rates of organic sludge application
can promote the movement of nitrate into groundwater.
Major industries spreading sludge as a waste disposal technique include
coal-fired utilities, textiles, canning, petroleum refining, and paper.
Application rates and sludge constituents must be monitored carefully to
prevent inorganic and insoluble compounds such as toxic metals and salts
from concentrating 1n plant tissues or entering groundwater.
Sewage sludge, organic yard waste and vegetative debris can be composted
into humus, selling at $3 a cubic yard. The Hampton Roads Sanitation
District produces Nutri-Green compost, a fertile mixture of leftover
solids from millions of area drains. Sludge, normally incinerated by
waste treatment plants. 1s turned into compost, a valuable soil amend-
ment, by this facility.
During a 51-day composting process, sol Ids separated from the water are
mixed with wood chips. Compost is very popular with gardeners and land-
scaping firms, and the sanitation district has not been able to produce
enough compost to meet the demand. The compost sells for about $3.50
per 40-pound bag; the Hampton Roads Sanitation District made more than
$50,000 on sales of Nutri-Green in 1986.
C. Additional Information Sources
Additional sources of information on solid waste disposal include:
1. Diehl, Jack. 1986. How to Comply with Hazardous Waste Regulations.
a Step-by-Step Method (Bureau of Hazardous Waste Management.
Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Health).
2. Institute for Local Sel f-Reliance. 1986. A Sol id Waste Planning
Workbook for Virginia Local Officials and Citizens. (Institute
for Local Self-Rellance. 2425 18th St. NW. Washington. DC
20009).
3. LeGrand. Harry E. 1983. A Standardized System for Evaluating
Waste-Disposal Sites (Worthington, Ohio: National Water Well
Association).
4. Taylor. Hunter F. 1986. Energy Recovery from Municipal Solid Waste:
A Feasibility Guide for Local Governments 1n Virginia (Rich-
mond. VA: Departmtne of Mines, Minerals, and Energy).
5. Virginia Division of Energy. 2201 West Broad Street, Richmond,
-4-
-------
Virginia 23220. Samuel 0. Bird, director, 804-257-1310.
6. Virginia Division of Litter Control, 1215 Washington Building, Capi-
tol Square, Richmond, 23219, Lynn Hudson, commissioner,
804-786-8679.
7. Virginia Department of Waste Management. 11th Floor, Monroe Build-
ing, 101 North 14th Street. Richmond, 23219, Cynthia Bailey,
executive director. 804-225-2667.
8. Virginia A1r Pollution Control Board. 801 Ninth Street Office Build-
ing, Richmond, 23219, Richard L. Cook, executive director,
804-786-6035.
9. Virginia Water Control Board, 2111 North Hamilton Street, Richmond,
23230, Richard N. Burton, executive director, 804-257-6384.
-5-
-------
o 5
CD =
d a
r
O
O r
c
r
a
-------
PROTECTING GROUNDWATER AT THE LOCAL LEVEL
VIRGINIA WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH CENTER
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS
COASTAL PLAIN PROVINCE
Howard E. Alvis
9 New Market Rd.
Richmond. VA 23273
Dennis A. Hill
10777 Main St., Suite 102B
Fai rfax, VA 22030
John M. Milgrim
10777 Main St.. Suite 102
Fairfax. VA 22030
James 0. Bowman
10777 Main St.
Fairfax. VA 22032
Milton L. Johnston
Munic. Ctr.,Princ. Anne Rd.
VA Beach. VA 23456
P. Obst
4100 Chain Bridge Road
Fairfax. VA 22030
Pete Britton
P.O. Box 7067
Richmond. VA 23221
Vlesley 0. Jones
P.O. Box 329
G1oucester, VA 23061
Dwight J. Peck
605 William St.
Fredericksburg, VA 22401
Christopher Clarkson
7630 Little River Tpke.
Annandale. VA 22003
Ivie Lancaster
605 Willi am St.
Fredericksburg, VA 22401
James W. Rein
P. 0. Box 15225
Chesapeake. VA 23320
George Corbett
P. 0. Box 223
Virginia Beach, VA 23458
Marilyn W. Layer
P. 0. Box 127'
North, VA 2312B
E. Schaeffer
4100 Chain Bridge Rd.
Fairfax. VA 22030
ThomasH. Daniel
22 Lincoln Street
Hampton. VA 23669
Marybeth Marek
P. 0. Box 424
Bowling Green. VA 22427
Martin Shannon
10777 Main St.. Suite 102B
Fairfax. VA 22030
Amar Dwarkanath
P. 0". Box 15225
Chesapeake, VA 23320
James Maresch
400 N. Eighth Street
Richmond. VA 22401
Bartley E. Tuthill
Ag.Bldg..Munic.Cntr
VA Beach. VA 23456
John E. Fisher
2201 Vf. Broad St.
Richmond, VA 23220
Byron Marshall
P. 0. Box 27032
Richmond. VA 23273
Joseph E. Manduke
8918 Herrmann Dr.
Columbia, MD 21045
Martin C. Fisher
224 Ballard St.
Yorktown, VA 23690
John McCarthy
Box 222
Washington, DC 22747
W. Dean Shaw
8918 Herrman Dr.
Columbia. MD 21045
-1-
-------
PIEDMONT PROVINCE
Kenneth V. Becraft
P. 0. Box 100
Lynchburg. VA 24588
Julian T. Bolton
P. 0. Box 292
Centreville, VA 22020
Robert G. Estabrooke
9500 Godwin Dr.. B110/012
Manassas. VA 22110
J. L. Florence
9301 Lee Ave.
Manassas. VA 22110
Dan E. French
P. 0. Box 100
Madison Hts. VA 24572
Stanley I. Goldsmith
P. 0. Box 420
A1 tavista. VA 24517
Robert A. Hammond
P. 0. Box 103
Goochland. VA 23063
Gladys L. Harris
308 Kerfoot Avenue
Front Royal. VA 22630
Marcus Haynes
9301 Lee Ave.
Manassas. VA 22110
Richard Hefter
5595 Pageland La.
Gainesville, VA 22065
Georgia H. Herbert
P. 0. Box 460
Warrenton. VA 22186
Debbie Hoi bach
87 Lee Hwy.. Suite 25
Warrenton, VA 22186
Harry L. McKissick
103 South St.
Farmvilie, VA 23901
D. Michael Liskey
1216 Moseley Dr.. #12
Lynchburg. VA 24502
John Meehan
9307 Lee Avenue
Manassas. VA 22110
Victoria M. Mock
Mead Paperboard Prod.
Lynchburg, VA 24505
James L. Noffsinger
P. 0. Box 100
Rustburg, VA 24588
Nancy K. O'Brien
413 E. Market St.. #102
Charlottesville, VA 22901
Lorene W. Payne
9123 Center St..Bx 512
Manassas. VA 22110
Winnie Peele
26-C Fairfax St.
Leesburg. VA 22075
Natalie Pi en
26D Fairfax St.. S.E.
Leesburg. VA 22075
Carol A. Pyecha
525 Taylor St.
Lynchburg. VA 24504
W. Guy Rivers
Dept. of Bio..Lnbrg Coll.
Lynchburg.VA 24501
J. Stephen Snarr
P. 0. Box 389
Manassas. VA 22110
Steve H. Via
P. 0. Box 2526
Lynchburg. VA 24501
W. Bidgood Wal1. Jr.
P. 0. Box 307
Farmville. VA 23901
Diana C. Weand
Box 512. 9123 Center St.
Manassas. VA 22110
Richard S. Weber
26D Fairfax St.. S.E.
Leesburg. VA 22075
Robert Wil1iamson
16 Court PI.
Chatham, VA 24531
Clyde D. Wimmer
P. 0. Box 512
Manassas, VA 22110
-2-
-------
VALLEY & RIDGE PROVINCE & CUMBERLAND PLATEAU
Sharon E. Angle
P. 0. Box 1337
Staunton. VA 24401
Michael H. Armm
401 Mclntire Rd.
Charlottesville. VA 22901
Don Benner
87 Lee Hwy.. #25
Warrenton. Va 22186
Bob Blankenship
2308 Highland Farm Rd #12
Salem. Va 24153
Rod Bodkin
P. 0. Box 268
Bridgewater. VA 22812
Ken Boone
1206 Kessler Mill Rd.
Salem. VA 24153
W. C. Boswell
P. 0. Drawer M
Chi 1howie. VA 24319
Linda S. Campbell
Rt. 2. Box 223
Luray. VA 22835
R. Lei th Campbel1
Rt. 2 Box 223
Luray. VA 22835
Charles Carlton
P. O. Box 906
Bluefield. VA 24605
John E.B. Clark. Jr.
P. 0. Drawer M
Chilhowie. VA 24319
Treva Cromwell
2160 Devonshire Rd.
Charlottsvil le. VA 22901
Ty G. Davidson
118 Center St.
Bedford. VA 24523
Ken Diebel
AG.Ec.Hutcheson Hl.VPI
Blacksburg. VA 24061
Penny Diebel
AG.EC.Hutcheson Hl.VPI
Blacksburg. VA 24061
Larry Feazell
Box 11910 Iron Wks Pk
Lexington. KY 40578
Julie Gochenour
Rt. l.Box 432
Maurertown. VA 22644
Ron Hachey
P. 0. Box 279
Fincastle. VA 24090
John M. Hal stead
AG.Ec.Hutcheson Hl.VPI
Blacksburg. VA 24061
Lisa Herrinton
1116 S. Main St.
B1acksburg. VA 24060
Mrs. John Huckle
Rt. 1. Box 255
Earlysville. VA 22936
James G. Jones
P. 0. Box 336
Bedford. VA 24523
Randolph S. Kiser
116 N. Main St.
Bridgewater. VA 22812
David R. Knicely
1840 E. Market St. #7
Harrisonburg. VA 22801
John D. Mason. Jr.
P. 0. Drawer M
Chilhowie. Va 24319
W. R. McClure
P. 0. Drawer M
Chil howie. VA 24.319
William.K. Norris
401 Mclntire Road
Charlottesville. VA 22901
Tunstall C. Powers. Jr.
P. 0. Box 806
Christiansburg. VA 24073
James A. Preston
116 N. Main. Box 268
Bridgewater. VA 22812
Julie Ritchie
P. 0. Box 268
Bridgewater. VA 22812
-3-
-------
Valley & Ridge Province & Cumberland Plateau (continued)
Mary Joy Seal a
401 Hclntire Rd.
Charlottesville, VA 22901
Thomas B. Trevillan
401 Mclntire Rd.
Charlettesville, VA 22901
Frank S. Wiggins
P. 0. Box 58
Staunton. VA 24401
Ian Smith
1206 Kessler Mill
Salem. Va 24153
Rd.
Herbert B. Whitmer. Jr.
Rt. 2 Box 143
Mt. Crawford, VA 22841
01 in B. Will is
Rt. 9
Abingdon, VA 24210
Michel le Titman
1840 E. Market St.
Harrisonburg. VA 22801
Mrs. H. B. Whitmer
Rt. 2 Box 143
Mt.Crawford. VA 22841
-4-
-------
GROUNDWATER PROTECTION TOOLS
Margaret Hrezo
I. Tools Within Local Authority in Virginia
A. Zoning
B. Sensitive area protection
C. Erosion control, site plan review, and subdivision ordinances
D. Best management practices
E. Fee simple purchase
II. Strengthening Local Authority
A. Zoning enabling act
B. Mandatory BMPs?
C. Site plan ordinances
D. Eminent domain
-------
EDUCATING THE PUBLIC
Kathryn P. Sevebeck
I. Establishing Goals and Objectives
A. Plan for both short-term and long-term achievement
B. Make them appropriate, attainable, realistic
II. Develop and Distribute Literature
A. Produce nontechnical publications for the general public
B. Use announcements, newsletter, press releases to keep the
public informed
III. Educate Agency Personnel. Educators, Extension Agents
A. Sponsor or co-sponsor conferences, workshops, seminars
B. Keep them informed of new publications and information
IV. Develop and Conduct Media Programs
A. Provide accurate, newsworthy, timely information
B. Keep them informed and involved
V. Utilize Local Resources and Expertise
A. Tap local authorities and colleges for resources and ideas
B. Involve them in all stages of the program
-------
PROTECTING CLARKE COUNTY'S GROUNDWATER
G. Robert Lee
I. Why is Clarke County Concerned About Groundwater?
A. Valley and Ridge physiographic province
B. 1981 Berryville toxic scare
C. Dye tracing indices
D. Fecal coliform indices
II. Data Elements.
A. U.S. Geological Survey-- three-year research project
B. Student Environmental Health Project-- VPI
C. Water well mapping program-- Clarke County League of Women
Voters
D. The effects of agricultural chemicals on groundwater quality
in the Northern Shenandoah Valley-- UVA Department of Environ-
mental Sciences (Virginia Environmental Endowment Grant)
E. Geographic Information System-- American Farmlands Trust Pilot
Project
F. Geologic map compilation with emphasis on solution feature in
carbonate rock-- Division of Mineral Resources
III. Groundwater Protection Program-- EPA-VWCB (205J) Planning Grant
A. Natural resource conservation overlay zoning districts
B. Sole source aquifer designation
C. Minimum well construction standards
D. Sinkhole land use control ordinance
E. On-Site wastewater treatment system management program
F. Underground petroleum storage tank regulations
-------
For
Quality
Water
The Problem
Everyone wants clean water. Everyone
also wants a nice, affordable place to live.
Balancing these demands, however, can be
challenging.
Urban development creates several types
of water pollution. The kind that first comes
to mind is sewage from domestic and indus-
trial wastes. This pollution is called "point
iource" because it originates from a specific
point. Since point source pollution is easily
identified, it can be controlled through regul-
ation.
A type of pollution people usually don't
consider is called "nonpoint source"(NPS).
You might have guessed by its name that such
pollution comes from everywhere (farmland,
construction sites, city streets, suburban
lawns, etc.). NPS pollution is much harder to
identify and treat than is point source pollu-
tion. Nonetheless, it must be treated if we are
to maintain water quality sufficient for
recreation, domestic consumption and the
health of our aquatic resources.
Every time it rains, sediment, nutrients,
chemicals, salts, petroleum and toxic substan-
ces wash from the land into our streams and
rivers. Efforts to control agricultural runoff
began in the mid-1980s, but efforts regarding
urban nonpoint source stormwaier runoff are
relatively new. They are very important, how-
ever, because the greater area of paved surfaces
and rooftops in urban areas have replaced the
latural surfaces which once absorbed and
j purified stormwater before it entered streams.
Besides the increased pollution, there are also
the accompanying problems of more frequent
and severe flooding, stream channel erosion,
and the loss of reservoir storage capacity due
to sedimentation.
Ways to control these runoff problems
are called Best Management Practices or
BMPs. Best Management Practices Hand-
books which provide guidelines for the design
and installation of these practices have been
published by the Virginia State Water Control
Board. One of these handbooks centers on
urban development and, like the others, is
available from that agency.
The above photos illustrate what can happen
with little or no control of urban nonpoint
source (NPS) pollution.
-------
, Mittmum tfoMW naeS Ma*
P'OMt and anhanoa.
nitutl oonSitioni
9p«n ib«m uwi only"
parkins, rtoraatlon, ale
Piooa-o'oow euiimngi auowao
lonalbla lird uh vajalativo
oovtf iinmiii to hold io>i "
particularly on agricultural
or eonatruotion ulaa
FLOOD PLAIN PROTECTION
Preserving the floodplain and natural drain-
age system can be economical.
Because urban BMPs are new, their cost-
effectiveness is still under study. This aspect
of BMPs is particularly important to land
developers, They are understandably reluc-
tant to spend money on these practices, which
might lead to higher development and hous-
ing costs, until they are satisfied that
improved water quality will result.
One study recently published by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency called
"NURP" (National Urban Runoff Program)
proves that, indeed, some of these BMPs are
quite effective. Below are descriptions of tech-
niques and practices which can be used to
reduce nonpoint source pollution.
Developers are reluctant to spend for BMPs
unless cost-effectiveness is known.
What Can Be Done?
The objective of stormwater manage-
ment is to simulate natural runoff conditions
as much as possible. Sometimes this can be
done through careful site planning, but some
projects need structural measures that retain
and absorb rainfall.
Working with Nature
Site planners should identify natural fea-
tures which affect drainage such as water-
ways, flood plains, vegetative buffers and
pervious soils and plan to build around them
as much as possible. Preserving and enhanc-
ing natural features rather than replacing or
ignoring them can lead to a more pleasing
environment for the inhabitants and cost
economies for the developers.
For instance, preserving the flood plain
and the natural drainage system may prevent
the need for an expensive, structural drainage
system. The savings achieved by this strategy
can help offset the reduction in development
income due to fewer lots being developed.
A careful soil analysis of the property can
reveal another management strategy. Since
little of the water falling on impervious soils
is absorbed, building over those soils won't
significantly increase the surface runoff.
Leaving pervious soils undeveloped, how-
ever, allows continued infiltration of rainfall
in those areas.
Build on impervious soils and leave porous
soils free to infiltrate water.
a Diroot runoff ovor pormaibia tolla toanhanoa
infiltration
Mora parmaaM
liiiiniiiiiiiiliiiiiiiir
b Loeiti rterMHor
on ptrmMblt •otl«, ind
•truoturti on imprmtablt
•oils
Wi I lii || fli ii 11111 i fii'fiili' V'.' i.-'
Lwa ~•'-mo a awl ''hiLLi • Mora oarmaaM aollj
tT||ll||l||ll|'|l||||||||fl|l
DESIQN GUIDELINES RELATING TO 80IL8
-------
Developers can also prevent increasing
runoff by minimizing the area of impervious
surfaces, such as rooftops, roadways and
channel linings. Planned-unit developments
and cluster developments are excellent ways
o accomplish this. Also, using grassed road-
side ditches rather than curb and gutter can
reduce runoff problems,
Developers should also manipulate topo-
graphy and ground covers to their advantage.
By flattening slopes and improving surface
cover, runoff can be slowed down and given
more opportunity to filter into the soil where
it falls. This is especially true where the land
shape creates sheet flows rather than concen-
trated flows. Site limitations may prevent ade-
quate runoff control by site design techniques
alone, of course, and this is where structural
control measures come in.
10 square feet of porous asphalt absorbs the
equivalent of a 300 year storm.
Infiltration Measures
Infiltration practices of adequate size
provide very effective pollution control.
Because they direct rainfall into the ground,
they also decrease runoff thereby reducing the
effects of storms on receiving channels and
downstream properties. Careful design and
installation can prevent many of the perfor-
mance and maintenance problems histori-
cally associated with infiltration devices.
Although Porous Asphalt Pavement is
relatively new, it is proving to be a most versa-
tile infiltration measure and perhaps the most
cost-effective as well. The asphalt mix, which
has a minimum of fine materials, allows
water to pass through to a gravel subbase and
be stored there until it can be absorbed into the
soil or slowly drained away. Porous pavement
has an advantage over conventional infiltra-
tion measures such as pits and trenches in that
water is absorbed where it falls. It doesn't have
to be routed over the ground surface to a con-
trol device, Porous asphalt now costs about
twice as much to install as does conventional
pavement, but it can be cost-effective when all
factors are considered.
First of all, the use of porous pavement
allows for denser, more flexible site develop-
ment since it eliminates the need for other
land to be dedicated to water control or amen-
ity use. Its surface area can provide required
parking areas, and the reduction in surface
runoff due to subsurface storage and infiltra-
tion may eliminate the need for an expensive
structural drainage system. Best of all, this
pavement appears to perform at least as well
as conventional pavement with respect to
safety, durability and maintenance, and it
provides the best pollutant removal of all
structural controls.
mm
i til i e
¦ Porous Asphalt-
2V4" to 4" thick
• Filter Couree-
W crushed stone, 2" thick
- Reservoir Course -
1" to 2" crushed stone.
Thickness based on
required storage and
frost penetration
, Rlter Fabric
- Existing Soil
TYPICAL SECTION OF POROUS PAVEMENT
Where site limitations prevent the use of
porous asphalt, infiltration trenches or pits
may still be viable. These are excavations of
various sizes and configurations lined with
filter fabric and filled with uniformly graded
stone. Runoff is either artificially directed
into these devices, or they are located to inter-
cept the natural flow pattern. Water is thereby
collected for temporary storage or infiltration
into the soil. Use of the fabric liner and place-
ment of a grass strip between the device and
any paved or bare soil surface should prevent
Grass filters sediment to prevent clogging in
this infiltration trench.
-------
clogging of void spaces by sediment. A perfo-
rated pipe near the top of the trench can carry
excess flow to a controlled outlet so the mea-
sure does not overflow onto the surrounding
ground surface. Location of infiltration devi-
ces may be limited by soil types, slopes, depth-
to-groundwater, proximity to water supply
wells and potential land use. Retention and
detention measures can be used where such
limitations exist.
Ponds and Lakes
Land developers have been incorporat-
ing various kinds of ponds and lakes into their
projects for years. Wet basins are designed to
maintain a permanent water pool. They pro-
vide excellent stormwater management when
properly sized, and water quality is improved
as pollutants settle to the bottom.
According to the NURP study, wet basins
are very effective at reducing NPS pollution in
surface waters.These basins can also provide
numerous other benefits including recrea-
tion, aesthetics and water supply. Off-site
(regional) basins serving larger urban areas
are more cost-effective than are on-site basins
that control the runoff from only a single
development project (NURP reported that
per acre construction and maintenance costs
for larger basins typically run only 15 to 20
percent of the cost of on-site measures).
Stormwater management ponds like this can
add. to property values.
One way of increasing the effectiveness of
a wet basin is to construct a forebay which acts
as a sediment trap to protect the storage capac-
ity of the main basin and reduce long-term
maintenance costs. Such forebays can be
seeded with wetland plants that absorb pollu-
tants such as nutrients and heavy metals.
cf J
Forebay to
trap sediment
and other
pollutants
TANDEM POND CONCEPT
Some people consider marshes in established
urban areas undesirable. They often are
thought of as mud holes where mosquitoes
and other insects breed. While insect popula-
tions increase around marshes so do their pre-
dators' numbers and that keeps the nuisance
insects in check. In some urban communities,
fresh water marshes have created miniature
wildlife refuges which enhance property
values.
Many landowners consider urban marshes
assets rather than liabilities.
Forebays should be located carefully to
avoid aesthetic conflicts and to facilitate peri-
odic maintenance. Access should be provided
for sediment removal every few years.
Homeowner groups may find budgeting for
more frequent, less-expensive maintenance
an attractive alternative to the higher costs of
dredging a large lake every 20 to 30 years.
Dry Basins that empty completely after a
storm are much less effective than wet ponds
at improving water quality and often result in
aesthetic degradation and maintenance prob-
lems. Modifying the outlet structures of such
basins to extend detention time, however, can
-------
Dry detention basins can be used as recrea-
tion areas between storms.
reduce some types of urban pollution. In a
typical dry basin, as the flow into the basin
exceeds the capacity of the pipe through the
base of the dam, water is temporarily ponded.
The problem with this is that the "first flush"
of pollutants (heaviest load) washed into the
basin usually flows through the structure
before ponding begins. The objective of mod-
ifications is to force immediate ponding in the
basin so that pollutants settle to the bottom
(as in wet ponds). This can be done by adding
to the mouth of the outlet pipe a section of
perforated drain pipe which is wrapped in
filter fabric and buried. In order for water to
get through the basin, it must pass through
the soil and into the perforated pipe, filtering
out pollutants in the process.
Maintenance is very important to dry
basin use. These structures may require clean-
ing annually or more often depending on the
amount of rain during the year. Dry ponds
will become eyesores or even safety hazards
without adequate maintenance.
a. Typical Dry Oetantion Bas.n
Temporary Water Storage Level
Outlet
Protect •on
b. Modified Dry Basin for Extended Detention
Temporary Water Storage Level
icrete Spillway
Outlet
Protect»on
Capped, Perforated Pipe
Wrapped with Filter Fabnc and
Covered with Gravel
MODIFIED DRY DETENTION BASIN
Who is Responsible?
The way we manage land has a direct
effect upon our water resources. Those devel-
oping land for food, fiber, housing or other
uses must be aware of the relationship
between land development and water quality.
Virginians feel their water, land and nat-
ural resources are special. Our nation's earli-
est settlers were amazed by the quality and
bounty of resources here. Many land develop-
ers in our state reflect this respect for land by
striking a balance between affordable housing
and the environment. A lot of builders volun-
tarily employ imagination and innovative
technology. They have proven that quality
water and land development are not mutually
exclusive.
Every year, 60 to 70 square miles of Virgi-
nia land are converted to urban uses. That is
about the size of the City of Newport News.
With much of that development expected in a
corridor from Washington to Richmond to
Virginia Beach, the impact on relatively clean
rivers such as the Rappahannock and York
and, inevitably, on the Chesapeake Bay could
be severe unless preventive actions are taken
now.
Hopefully some of the BMPs described
above will help the builder. Of course, we
realize they do not apply to all new develop-
ment, but their potential benefits and, in the
end, economies merit consideration.
Land developers must be willing to try
innovative measures to control pollution on
their projects. Others besides the builder must
be willing to change as well. State and local
governments must be flexible enough to
allow developers to use innovative, cost-
effective techniques and environmental
controls.
If we care about the quality of our Com-
monwealth's water, we must understand that
what is happening to our streams, rivers and
bays because of our present actions - or inac-
tions - could create insurmountable problems
for future generations.
Together, we must make a serious com-
mitment to protecting and restoring our
state's waters. And we must do it now.
-------
The developer of this site used careful
erosion control and multiple stormwater
retention ponds to control nonpoint
sources of pollution on the site. The ponds,
which provide for both water quality and
quantity control and fire protection, are
an integral part of the development's
aesthetics.
For more information on these water
quality practices, please contact:
Virginia Department of Conservation and
Historic Resources
Division of Soil and Water Conservation
203 Governor Street, Suite 206
Richmond, VA 23219-2094
Tele: (804) 786-2064
Virginia Department of Conservation
and Historic Resources
Division of Soil and Water Conservation
203 Governor Street, Suite 206
Richmond, VA 23219-2094
-------
PROTECTING GROUNDWATER AT THE LOCAL LEVEL
VIRGINIA WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH CENTER
FORMULATING AND IMPLEMENTING A MANAGEMENT PRACTICES PROGRAM
Diana L. Weigmann
Margaret S. Hrezo
Rarely will the implementation of best management practices (BMPs) alone
solve contamination problems, but implementing a combination of BMPs is
an essential part of a program designed to prevent and control water
pol1ution.
A. What Are Best Management Practices
Best Management Practices (BMPs). by definition, are a practice or com-
bination of practices, a state (or designated area-wide planning agency)
has designated to be the most effective practicable means of preventing
or reducing the amount of pollution generated by nonpoint sources to a
level compatible with water quality goals. Nonpoint source pollution 1s
any pollutant -- sodium chloride, nitrates, phosphorus, bacteria,
viruses, sediments, and toxic chemicals -- whose exact place of genera-
tion and entrance into surface water and groundwater can not be located
accurately. Among the common practices that broadcast pollutants and
provide widely dispersed conduits for groundwater pollution are (1) the
application of fertilizers and pesticides on farms, parks, lawns: (2)
high densities of individual septic tank systems in residential areas;
(3) stormwater runoff with associated contaminants such as petroleum
products, toxic metals, litter, nutrients, and organic materials: (4)
deicing of roads with salt: and (5) land application of Industrial and
municipal sewage treatment sludges.
B. Voluntary Management Practices
Virginia has adopted a voluntary agricultural management practices pro-
gram. Because the program is voluntary, incentive systems have been
developed to encourage implementation. Cost-sharing has been the most
popular incentive. In the past, the federal government has paid up to
50 percent of the cost of installing devices to control pollution.
Local governments could also share the cost of pollution abatement
equipment. Additional incentives might include crop subsidy payments
that are contingent on the implementation of BMPs and crop insurance
that is made available only to farmers practicing integrated pest man-
agement. Elsewhere in the U.S., localities have instituted watershed
protection programs containing provisions for watershed protection
agreements that commit a landowner to control nonpoint source pollution
before receiving a permit to develop his property for crops, pasture,
forests, and livestock.
In 1987 Virginia's program had 14 categories under which farmers could
receive funds: (1) no-till on cropland: (2) no-till on pastureland or
hayland: (3) grass filter strips; (4) reforestation; (5) grazing land
protection; (6) animal waste control facilities; (7) streambank protec-
tion; (8) strip-cropping systems: (9) sod waterways: (10) terracing:
-1-
-------
(11) diversions: (12) sediment retention, erosion, or water control
structures: (13) permanent vegatative cover on critical areas; and (14)
protective cover for vegetable cropland. The state distributes money --
based on how agriculture in a locality affects water quality -- to
localities through 28 soil and water conservation districts (SWCDs).
Local SWCD directors prioritize funding using each locality's environ-
mental. topographic, and agricultural characteristics to make their
decisions. Final approval of all cost-share requests is given by the
local SWCD.
Those who farm in the program area can be encouraged to Institute BMPs
through incentive payments and cost-sharing. In cost-sharing, the state
pays a certain percentage of installation costs as does the farmer.
Also. USDA Agricultural Stabilization Conservation Service (ASCS) may
pay a percentage. For example, reimbursement on no-till cropland, pas^
ture. and hayland is $15 per acre. Pastures and cropland must be main-
tained in no-till for at least 5 years.
The grass filter-strip program reimburses at the rate of 10 cents per
linear foot of grassed filter strip averaging 20 feet wide with an abso-
lute minimum of 10 feet. For slopes of less than 2 percent, the minimum
width is 10 feet with a reimbursement rate of 5 cents per linear foot.
Grass filter strips must be located within 100 feet of a permanent or
intermittent waterway and must be maintained for at least 5 years.
Other programs such as reforestation will pay $75 an acre to stabilize
certain types of crop and pasture land. Two animal waste programs are
included, one of which pays up to $7,500 per landowner. Total funds are
limited, so maximum payments to landowners are predetermined. For exam-
ple, the state cost-share maximum payment in the Chesapeake Bay and Cho-
wan River program area 1s $3,500 annually (not including animal waste
programs).
More information on these Best Management Practices programs is avail-
able through the local SWCD. ASCS. Soil Conservation Service. Division
of Forestry or Virginia Cooperative Extension Service office, or Divi-
sion of Soil and Water Conservation.
C. Mandatory Management Practices
Localities in Virginia can require the Incorporation of best management
practices into new urban development projects. Localities and districts
can develop erosion and sediment control programs based on provisions of
the state law that require an approved erosion and sediment control plan
to be submitted before any grading, building, or other construction per-
mits are issued. Curtailing sediment loss not only keeps valuable top-
soil on the land, but it reduces the monetary and environmental costs of
sediment removal, such as dredging and removal of dredge spoils from
reservoirs and waterways, cleanup of toxic materials associated with
soil adsorption, replacing structures harmed by abrasion, and rehabili-
tation of aquatic ecosystems.
Developers of subdivisions and other projects can be required to employ
the best available technology and design to provide maximum watershed
protection. A mandatory review by local governments of site plans that
detail the location, construction, and operational activities Is a
-2-
-------
flexible management technique for protecting water supplies. Require-
ments can be modeled to suit the particular development site. Facility
design requirements or site plan ordinances applied to (1) municipal and
Industrial landfills. (2) underground storage tanks, (3) mining opera-
tions* and (4) sewage treatment ponds are particularly beneficial in
protecting groundwater.
Under the 1977 Clean Hater Act (PL 95-217). the Virginia Water Control
Board provided information on implementing recommended BMPs including
financial arrangements, regulatory authorities, and sources of assis-
tance. Virginia's BMP Handbooks in agriculture, forestry, hydrologic
modifications, surface mining, and urban areas present guidelines for
controlling activities to minimize point and nonpoint sources of pollu-
tion. The BMPs provided in the six technical handbooks are designed to
reflect the soils, climate, and topographic conditions in Virginia and
to provide flexible protective techniques that local governments and
individuals can apply on a case-by-case basis.
D. Developing a Management Practices Program
1. Establish a groundwater protection steering or advisory committee of
citizens, public officials, and business people;
2. Educate your citizens about the nature of nonpoint source pollution,
its sources, its effects on groundwater supplies and about the citi-
zen's role in causing and preventing it;
3. Clean your own house by investigating your locality's storage proce-
dures for road deicing salts, petroleum products, solvents, pesti-
cides. and herbicides;
4. Identify the sources of agricultural and/or urban nonpoint source
pollution in your community and the contaminants associated with
those sources:
5. Perform a similar assessment of the new development projected for
the community and the types of pollutants associated with them;
6. Investigate the possible sources of pollution in your community and
the management practices most successful in preventing or mitigating
them;
7. Work with the Division of Soil and Water Conservation (DSWC), the
Virginia Water Control Board (VWCB), the Virginia Cooperative Exten-
sion Service, and the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) on incentives
for implementing agricultural BMPs;
8. Work with your locality's industry and business, the DSWC, the
Virginia Water Control Board, and your groundwater protection com-
mittee on implementing voluntary urban BMPs;
9. Review your subdivision and erosion and sediment control ordinances.
Add any additional requirements needed to prevent groundwater con-
tamination from new urban sources.
-3-
-------
PROTECTING GROUNDWATER AT THE LOCAL LEVEL
VIRGINIA MATER RESOURCES RESEARCH CENTER
SENSITIVE AREA PROTECTION
Diana L. Weigmann
A. What Is a Sensitive Area?
In a sensitive area, groundwater supplies require special protective
measures because they can be easily polluted or depleted. Major types
of sensitive areas are (1) recharge zones; (2) locales where surface
water contributes significantly to groundwater recharge: and (35 coastal
groundwaters.
1. Recharge Areas
Recharge areas are particularly vulnerable because they replenish the
underlying aquifer with water. Aquifers are geologic formations capable
of yielding a significant amount of water. Recharge zones may be com-
posed of a variety of geologic materials -- sand and gravel: fractures
(cracks) 1n bedrock: and solution channels and cavernous passageways in
limestone or karst formations. All of these facilitate the rapid infil-
tration and percolation of precipitation or surface runoff into an aqui-
fer.
Contaminants Introduced with recharge water can directly enter an under-
ground water source in these areas, either through surface runoff or
direct subsoil percolation: the rapid movement of water through frac-
tures or permeable soils does not slow down the movement of pollutants.
Because of this movement, facilities and activities that may seriously
harm a dependable underground water supply, such as landfills, septic
systems, fuel and organic chemical storage, the use of high nitrate fer-
tilizers and pesticides, and animal feedlots. must be restricted.
Important recharge areas are not only those overlying surfaces that
replenish water pumped by existing wells; the potential development of
future wells also depends on the present protection of aquifer recharge
areas.
Virginia does not employ a differential aquifer classification system.
Such classification systems may declare certain aquifers pristine and of
drinking water quality; others are judged degraded and additional pollu-
tion may be allowed. Virginia has an anti-degradation policy, which
attempts to maintain the natural characteristics of all underground
waters in the four provinces (Coastal Plain, Piedmont and Blue Ridge,
Valley and Ridge, and Cumberland Plateau).
2. Surface Water's Contribution to Recharge
Surface water pollution also can affect groundwater supplies. The water
table fs lowered around a pumping well. The shape of this depression
resembles a cone, hence the term -- cone of depression or influence.
Cones of influence frequently exceed 400 meters in diameter. Portions
of lakes, streams, and rivers can be drawn down Into the groundwater and
-1-
-------
nearby valley wells when the cone of depression intersects surface
water. In this way. Induced recharge by polluted surface water can con-
taminate groundwater supplies. Watershed management, including programs
to prevent surface water pollution, also are an important component of
groundwater protection. An integrated surface and groundwater program
may be the most effective technique for managing water supplies.
3. Coastal Groundwaters
Overuse of groundwater supplies, pumping at rates that exceed recharge,
in coastal areas or where natural saline aquifers occur can promote salt
water intrusion. Saline waters move toward the zone of influence and
contaminate groundwater in these heavily pumped areas as well as aqui-
fer-wide. Overpumping of groundwater can lead to well Interference,
particularly between large users with powerful pumps and small individ-
ual households. When withdrawals exceed recharge, the water table is
lowered. Lowering of the water table requires well users to redrill
wells and perhaps install more powerful pumps.
B. Protecting Sensitive Areas
Programs can be instituted to protect sensitive areas: this protection
entails preventing pollution and maintaining a suitable surface and sub-
surface environment for maximum infiltration and percolation. Such pro-
grams must protect both the quality and quantity of groundwater. Compo-
nents of sensitive area protection programs Include:
(1) guiding future land use activities through coordination with
local zoning and subdivision ordinances;
(2) Identifying and mapping aquifers and recharge areas;
(3) determining recharge needs;
(4) developing well-defined criteria for selecting protected
areas;
(5) implementing a management practices program:
(6) engaging in regional planning:
(7) purchasing land or development rights;
(8) implementing a watershed protection program;
(9) providing preferential taxation;
(10) requesting designation as a groundwater management area or a
sole source aquifer:
(11) participating in the wellhead protection program.
1. Guiding Future Land Use Activities
Ideally, any land use 1n an area should be allowed only after due con-
sideration of its influence on sensitive groundwaters, because implemen-
tation of land-use controls and watershed management are most effective
in areas without extensive prior development. Pollution sources based
on known land uses can be identified and managed to some extent, but it
is impossible to turn back the hands of time. Sensitive areas covered
by impervious covers, such as concrete and asphalt, and networked with
pipes to transport precipitation elsewhere no longer facilitate the
downward movement of water. In fact, certain of these highly developed
recharge areas may have to be "written off." Wells may have to be
relocated 1f investigations show that the available, economically feasi-
ble controls are not sufficient to curtail pollution and these modified
recharge areas are more likely to promote the infiltration of
-2-
-------
pol1utants.
Coordination with local zoning ordinances is necessary so that any bur-
dens associated with establishing a sensitive groundwater protection
program can be equally apportioned to landowners in the designated area.
Conventional zoning and subdivision regulations are commonly employed to
establish use patterns, placing different restrictions on the type of
land use allowed in specific districts or zones. Such zoning can assign
land uses to sites with the most appropriate environmental characteris-
tics: this process should minimize adverse environmental effects. Zon-
ing can be used to coordinate public and private development, separate
incompatible uses, and group compatible land uses. Zoning generally
serves best to direct and manage future community development.
Cluster zoning or average density zoning permits flexibility in develop-
mental design by having a maximum number of units that can be concen-
trated on a site. Such clustering prevents damage to environmentally
sensitive portions because people and their activities are concentrated
on the least vulnerable sections. Less land is disturbed and pollution
controls, including best management practices, can be implemented more
easily.
Another flexible zoning technique 1s overlay zoning. In an overlay
zone, extra requirements, in addition to those already set by conven-
tional zoning, are placed on land use in the defined sensitive area.
Amendments may add specific performance standards within the critical
zone. An acceptable level of environmental impact would be chosen, only
development that met this standard of impact would be considered appro-
priate land use. For example, specific water quality standards could be
set. As long as the standards are met. a wide range of uses could be
al1 owed.
2. Identifying Sensitive Areas
A key component of protecting sensitive areas is knowing where they
occur. Aquifers and Fecharge areas should be Identified and mapped and
groundwater flow patterns for existing and potential water supply wells
should be documented. In addition, knowledge of patterns of land use in
the proposed sensitive area and the threats associated with these dif-
ferent use-patterns are important in developing a protection strategy
for present and future use.
3. Determining Recharge Needs
The amount of recharge necessary to maintain a productive aquifer needs
to be determined. Once this determination 1s made, sufficiently large
areas of recharge must be protected to maintain an overall equilibrium
between discharge and recharge. Care should be taken to identify
recharge sites for the aquifer that are less developed and more easily
protected.
-3-
-------
4. Developing Well-Defined Criteria
The criteria for establishing sensitive areas must be well-defined and
not arbitrary. A uniform policy with regional and local flexibility
would avoid inconsistent controls and excess degradation but still would
allow economic growth and development. For example, a policy excluding
all development from the region could impose inequitable hardships on a
locality with recharge zones when that locality does not use groundwater
supplies. Buffer zones, surrounding the areas deemed most sensitive,
provide additional protection. Fewer restrictions on land use would
occur in the buffer zone than the designated recharge zone: however, the
land use practices would be more restricted in the buffer zone than the
outlying areas.
5. Implementing Management Practices
Guidelines established as Best Management Practices (BMPs) for agricul-
ture. forestry, mining, urban areas, road maintenance, and hydrologic
modifications such as impoundments, channel alterations, and dredging in
Virginia provide direction for local officials in protecting surface and
ground water from nonpoint sources of pollution. A voluntary BMP pro-
gram, operated by the Virginia Water Control Board (VWCB) and the Divi-
sion of Soil and Water Conservation (DSWC). is available statewide.
BMPs are an important supplementary tool available to local officials
because they offer an easily implemented protective framework. The
technical guidelines were developed specifically for Virginia. Because
these programs are voluntary, their effectiveness depends on citizen
education, community interest, acceptance and understanding by the
implementers, and a system of rewards and incentives.
6. Undertaking Regional Planning
Aquifers and pollution do not recognize political boundaries. Effective
protection of certain aquifers may require localities to cooperate and
form regional planning and regulating authorities. Regional Planning
District Commissions can play an important role in facilitating regional
protection efforts.
7. Purchasing Land or Easements
The most effective method for protecting critical environments, but also
the method with the highest "up front" costs, is outright purchase.
Full-fee or fee simple acquisition, in which the full property value is
paid, may entail such acquisition methods as Installment buying,
options, right of first refusal, and purchase and lease-back. These
methods are considered "last resorts," useful in those situations where
"police power regulations" are unsuitable and where restricting land use
without compensation would be unconstitutional. Under certain circum-
stances. eminent domain can be used to acquire land necessary to protect
the public water supply. A local government can condemn property using
the doctrine of eminent domain, provided that the locality has proven
the necessity to invoke this doctrine. Once the public owns these crit-
ical lands, regulatory programs are unnecessary. The state can guaran-
tee the preservation of natural cover and the prohibition of all contam-
inating activities on land.
-4-
-------
If the outright purchase of the land is not a feasible option -- but the
community wants somewhat stringent control of the property -- then the
locality may want to negotiate an easement or a conservation restric-
tion. Easements may be sufficient protection for lands that require
restrictions on some forms of development and no public access into the
area. Easements can be mutually rewarding agreements through which the
property owner receives a property tax adjustment and open space preser-
vation and the community receives a protected sensitive groundwater
area. Such an easement does not involve possession of the land by the
government, but it does Involve an agreement by the property owners not
to develop their lands in such a way that the water quality or quantity
is threatened. Easements can allow a property owner to stay on the land
and use 1t according to the agreement. Advantages of easements to the
community may include the lower cost of obtaining and maintaining the
easement and the opportunity for future changes in land use options.
8. Implementing Watershed Regulations
Watershed regulations prohibit land uses and activities that may endan-
ger public water supplies. These restrictions on the use, storage, or
manufacture of most chemicals and petroleum products, as well as on sys-
tems for the disposal of sewage and refuse can be used to protect
regions of abundant recharge to underground reservoirs and similar
regions of importance to surface impoundments.
9. Providing Preferential Taxation
Preferential taxation can be used to delay the conversion from undevel-
oped lands to urban development. Agricultural land, open space land,
and land exemplifying other types of land use that have less impact on
water supplies than urban development may be taxed at a lower rate to
preserve the present land use. Preferential taxation can serve as one
component of a watershed management program. Preferentially taxed land
is usually subject to deed restrictions and payment of deferred taxes
when the property is sold at its market value. Numerous other tax
incentives -- donations, bargain sales, life-estate transactions, gifts
of conservation easements, and corporate donations --exist both with the
federal and state governments for property owners who protect environ-
mentally sensitive lands.
10. Applying for Groundwater Management Area or Sole Source Aquifer
Designation
In Virginia, the State Water Control Board can identify and declare
critical groundwater areas under provisions in the Groundwater Act of
1973. The board may initiate proceedings to declare an area critical to
groundwater supplies when it receives a petition from a city, town, or
county within the proposed critical zone or based on analysis by the
board that demonstrates such a need.
Localities also may protect sensitive aquifers by applying to the United
States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for sole source aquifer
status. Any person may petition the EPA administrator to designate a
specific area of a state or states as a "sole source aquifer.0 A sole
or principal drinking water source 1s defined by EPA as an aquifer pro-
viding more than 50 percent of the population with all of their drinking
-5-
-------
water. No other reliable drinking water source is presently available
or is likely to become available in the future. Therefore, this aqui-
fer, if contaminated, would create a significant health hazard to the
public. Other factors such as (1) size of population using the aquifer.
(2) susceptability of the aquifer to pollution by contaminants in the
recharge area, (3) size and location of the aquifer, and (4) public
water systems tapping the aquifer are considered before designating a
sole source aquifer (see Appendix C. p. 29. Protecting Virginia's
Groundwater: A Handbook for Local Government Officials, for Important
elements).
The EPA administrator publishes petitions in the Federal Register.
The public is allowed 30 days to submit written data and opinions. The
EPA regional administrator can hold a public meeting, if the public dem-
onstrates significant concern and interest. Within 6 months after the
petition has been published in the Federal Register, the Administrator
must deny or approve the petition. This decision, whether designating a
sole source aquifer or denying the petition, also is published in the
"Federal Register".
If the sole source designation is approved, no new underground injection
wells may be operated until a specific underground well injection pro-
gram for the area is instated. No federal financial assistance can be
given to any project -- typically highways, housing developments, and
sewage treatment facilities -- that may contaminate the aquifer at a
recharge zone.
The Sole Source Aquifer Demonstration Program, a new groundwater protec-
tion program enacted under amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act
(SOWA Sec. 1427, 1986), establishes demonstration programs for critical
aquifer protection areas within designated sole or principal source
aquifers. The EPA will issue criteria for identifying critical aquifer
protection areas before the end of June 1987. The state's governor and
any state, regional or local government with jurisdiction over an iden-
tified critical area can apply to be part of this program designed to
assess the effectiveness of different groundwater protection measures 1n
these critical areas.
The application to the EPA must include (1) the proposed critical area
boundaries. (2) the planning entity responsible for developing manage-
ment plans, (3) the procedures for public participation and for assis-
tance to public entities to implement the plan: (4) an assessment of
hydrology and groundwater resources, and (5) a comprehensive management
plan for the proposed critical areas. The EPA will pay 50 percent of
the cost of program implementation and as much as 50 percent of the man-
agement plan development costs.
11. Participating 1n the Wellhead Protection Program
This program for states, enacted in 1986 under an amendment to the Safe
Drinking Water Act (SDWA Sec. 1428), promotes preventing contamination
of public water supply wells and well fields. States have three years in
which to voluntarily submit a wellhead program that extends protection
over the surface and subsurface area surrounding a well. Any state
choosing not to submit a program loses eligibility for federal funds
associated with wellhead protection. EPA will fund from 50 percent to
-6-
-------
90 percent of program development and implementation costs.
State agendas for wellhead protection must include at least (1) a geo-
graphic determination of the area required to protect each wellhead. (2)
a clear description of all sources of contamination associated with
human activities and consideration of these potential sources of pollu-
tion before construction of a new public water supply, (3) the duties of
local and state agencies and public water systems in implementing the
program. (4) a description of assistance, both technical and financial,
and the educational, training, and demonstration projects required to
achieve objectives. (5) plans for supplying alternate drinking water
sources 1n case the wells or wellfields are contaminated, and (6)
encouragement of public participation in program development and imple-
mentation.
C. Some Suggestions for Getting Started
1. Establish a Groundwater Protection Advisory or Steering Commit-
tee as soon as a decision to protect sensitive groundwater 1s
made. This may be effectively accomplished by forming a subcom-
mittee of the local planning commission. For example, Clarke
County formed a Water Study Subcommittee with experienced mem-
bers of the local planning commission to design their ground-
water protection program.
2. Identify and map the sensitive areas. Is 1t primarily developed
or underdeveloped, the site of existing wells or potential ones?
What alternative water supplies are available?
3. Identify existing sources of contamination within the sensitive
area.
4. Build a base of public support for action by informing the pub-
lic about why the aquifer requires protection and the options
being considered.
5. Work with other localities that affect the sensitive area to
develop a regional approach.
5. Use the Groundwater Protection Committee to explore and evaluate
the various protection options.
6. Make sure the options selected are well-suited to your locali-
ty's present and projected land use patterns and the sources and
types of contaminants in your area.
-7-
-------
PROTECTING GROUNDWATER AT THE LOCAL LEVEL
VIRGINIA WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH CENTER
THE IMPORTANCE OF THE PUBLIC IN PROTECTING GROUNDWATER
Margaret S. Hrezo
Kathryn P. Sevebeck
A. Why Public Involvement Is Important
The cooperation of local citizens is essential to successful groundwater
protection efforts because the actions of citizens can cause groundwater
contamination, and any public official's ultimate goal 1s to develop
policies that both solve problems and are acceptable to citizens.
1. Citizen Actions Can Pollute Groundwater
Improper use and disposal by households, farms and small businesses of
of such common household products as antifreeze, degreasers, waste motor
oil, paint, varnishes, wood stains, spot removers, fertilizers, and pes-
ticides may introduce pollutants into groundwater that can migrate to
public or private wells and permanently contaminate dependable drinking
water sources.
2. Solving Problems Acceptably
Research has shown that agencies with limited public participation often
do not receive public support for proposed policies, whereas agencies
that encourage public involvement tend to receive more positive feed-
back. This tendency is very important because preserving high quality
groundwater supplies requires a commitment of local money and local
agency personnel as well as changes in public attitudes about ownership
of groundwater and land.
B. How to Involve the Public
Three important elements in successfully involving the public in ground-
water protection are: (1) increasing citizen awareness of the Issues,
problems and protection activities; (2) choosing the right methods for
incorporating the public into program development and Implementation;
and (3) developing continuing programs.
1. Increasing Citizen Awareness
Citizens need information in nontechnical language on groundwater defi-
nitions and terminology; groundwater resources in the area; the poten-
tial for and sources of contamination; and the individual actions they
can take to help protect the resource. Such information 1s essential to
developing the citizen awareness and knowledge on which public support
depends. The benefits of a groundwater protection program are signifi-
cant and local governments should inform the people of the benefits.
Although the specific design and organization of a citizen awareness
program on groundwater protection will vary according to the individual
-1-
-------
needs and circumstances of each community, a typical approach will
involve distribution of information in as many forms as possible. Pam-
phlets. handbooks, slide shows, exhibits, a speakers' bureau, newspaper
articles, films, television interviews, radio public service announce-
ments. and bumper stickers all can be used. Programs for schools and
civic and service organizations are Important. Help with these activi-
ties is available from extension agents, the Virginia Water Resources
Research Center, and state agencies with responsibility for groundwater
protection.
A citizen awareness program also should focus on informing the public of
meetings, conferences, program presentations, and ways they can partici-
pate in protecting local groundwater supplies.
2. Involvement Techniques
Choosing the right techniques for presenting the information on ground-
water protection is an important part of promoting public involvement.
Often it is the way a topic is presented to the public rather than the
topic itself that generates opposition. The most successful approaches
use two-way communication between citizens and decision makers. Public
hearings are an ineffective method for generating either good Informa-
tion or discussion. Workshops and advisory (steering) committees are
the most effective methods for promoting two-way communication between
the public and decision makers.
A good way to involve citizens is to establish a Groundwater Protection
Steering Committee as soon as the community decides to protect Its
groundwater supplies. This committee would work with local public offi-
cials and agency personnel 1n organizing needed assessments of ground-
water supplies and pollution potential, investigating possible program
goals and objectives, and exploring alternative management options.
Clarke County, for example, formed a subcommittee of the local planning
committee to Initiate a groundwater protection program. Such committees
provide a communications link between local officials and the public and
should represent a wide range of local interests.
Advice on conducting workshops can be found in the publications by Graf
and the Army Corps of Engineers listed in the references. Similar
advice on the establishment and use of advisory committees can be found
in the publication by Ertel. Excerpts from these publications follow
the references.
3. Maintaining the Momentun
An effective groundwater protection program requires creating a climate
for cooperation and then building on that climate when specific projects
or problems arise. Continual public awareness and involvement activi-
ties nurture and protect that atmosphere of cooperation.
Local officials play a major role in encouraging the involvement of
organizations and individual citizens. Good leadership 1s essential to
the credibility and visibility of a program. Groundwater protection
programs need not be costly. Capitalize on the energies of more vocal
opponents by enlisting their participation in the planning and implemen-
tation stages. Print and broadcast reporters will disseminate
-2-
-------
information on the issues, but make sure the information given them is
complete and accurate. Local officials and citizens must acknowledge
that protecting vital ground and surface water resources is not the type
of problem a community can solve with a short-term, intense information
campaign. Dependable sources of clean water will result only from a
continuing commitment by a vigilant, informed citizenry.
D. For More Information
Blackwelder, Brent, and Peter Carlson. 1982. Survey of Water Conser-
vation Programs in the Fifty States (Washington. D.C.: Environmen-
tal Policy Institute).
Creighton. James L. 1980. Public Involvement Manual (Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Government Printing Office).
Ertel, Madge. 1974. Publication No. 44. The Role of Citizen Advisory
Groups in Water Resources Planning (Amherst. Massachusetts: Uni-
versity of Massachusetts Water Resources Research Center).
Graf, Don. "Improving the Workshop Process" 1n L. McKenzie. ed. 1972.
The Grass Roots and Water Resources Management. (Pullman, Washing-
ton: State of Washington Water Resources Center).
Hanchey, James. 1975. Public Involvement in the Corps of Engineers
Planning Process (Fort Belvoir. VA: U.S. Army Engineer Institute
for Water Resources).
Hrezo. Margaret S. and Wayne J. Howe. 1985. Social Feasibility as an
Alternative Approach to Water Resource Planning (Blacksburg, VA:
Virginia Water Resources Research Center. Bulletin 149).
Hrezo. Margaret S. and Pat Nickinson. 1986. Protecting Virginia's
Groundwater: A Handbook for Local Government Officials (Blacksburg.
VA: Virginia Water Resources Research Center).
Ross. Peggy J.. "Education of Publics for Participation in Water
Resources Policy and Decision Making", in James M. Stewart, ed.
1974. Proceedings: Conference on Public Participation in Water
Resources Planning and Management (Raleigh, North Carolina: Insti-
tute of the University of North Carolina. UNC-WRRI-74-95). pp.
77-127.
Winters, Richard. "Public Involvement in the Wild and Scenic Rivers
Program Viewed by the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation" in L. McKenzie.
ed. 1972. The Grass Roots and Water Resources Management (Pullman,
Washington: State of Washington Water Resources Center).
-3-
-------
Public Education/Information Program
A national summary of effective water conservation programs by the Envi-
ronmental Policy Institute provides a model for a groundwater protection
citizen awareness program. Key recommendations are:
1. Set public groundwater protection goals at various levels:
2. Develop an intensive media program;
3. Hake available and distribute appropriate literature;
4. Educate water agency and health department personnel;
5. Promote conferences, symposia, and seminars;
6. Encourage school programs:
7. Develop public demonstration models:
8. Publish newsletters to keep citizens Informed:
9. Contact and recruit local college help for resources and
ideas:
10. Create a speakers' bureau to make presentations to schools,
businesses, and service organizations and to appear on televi-
sion and radio. Steering committee members can be used as
speakers.
Source: Brent Blackwelder and Peter Carlson. Survey of Water Conser-
vation Programs in the Fifty States. Environmental Policy Institute,
Washington. D.C. (1982) at 24-26.
-4-
-------
Minnesota Bureau of Outdoor
Recreation's Approach to Public Participation
1. Review drafts of conceptual plans should be widely disseminated.
2. Encourage citizens to organize into interest groups, such as prop-
erty owners, and appoint a representative to serve on a steering
committee.
3. Hold small individual public meetings to stimulate conversation
between conflicting interest groups. No one group should dominate
the planning effort.
4. Stimulate discussion on alternatives early in the planning process.
5. It is very important to take the pressure off the planners
directly.
6. Get out and talk to the people affected to ascertain their needs.
7. B1g meetings are not as useful as small meetings. Although big
meetings do provide an opportunity to air differences, there is a
danger of polarizing interest groups, which makes later compromise
difficult.
8. Do the planning openly. Come up with a concept and hold interim
presentations to small groups and solicit feedback.
9. Don't just solicit Ideas, but also tell the public your ideas.
There is a tendency to make people suspicious If you don't tell
them what you're thinking.
10. The traditional Inventory stage of the planning process should
include an inventory'of ideas and on the basis of these inventories
you should formulate a conceptual plan.
Source: Richard Winters. "Public Involvement in the Wild and Scenic
Rivers Program Viewed by the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation" in Linda
McKenzie. ed. The Grass Roots and Water Resources Management. State of
Washington Water Research Center, Report No. 10. Pullman, Washington
(July. 1972) at 114-115.
-5-
-------
Don Graf offers seven recommendations for Improving the workshop pro-
cess, They are:
1. Condense written information into less than 30-40 pages. Use
graphs and charts at the workshop to summarize the written
material's major points and to highlight trends and/or points
of potential conflict.
2. Hire a full-time workshop director, preferably one Independent
of the sponsoring agency.
3. Publicize the workshop through a variety of means to reach peo-
ple of many different backgrounds.
4. Invite representatives of specific groups to participate.
5. Prepare a format for recording the workshop's results.
6. Compile a mailing 11st and distribute information on the avail-
ability of documents.
7. Use guest speakers or movies to foster understanding of techni-
cal issues.
Source: Don Graf. "Improving the Workshop Process," in Linda McKenzie.
ed. The Grass Roots and Water Resources Management. State of Washington
Water Resources Center, Report No. 10, Pullman, Washington (1972) at
33-35.
-6-
-------
Hadge Ertel offers the following recommendations for establishing a Cit-
izen Advisory Committee.
1. At the very beginning of a CAC's existence, make as clear an expla-
nation as possible of the purposes of the program, the functions of
the CAC, and the appropriate distinction between their advisory
role and staff decisionmaking responsibility. Common understanding
on these important matters can avoid future misunderstandings.
2. Be sure that someone, ideally a recording secretary who is not also
a group participant, is responsible for taking accurate minutes of
meetings.
3. Assure provision of appropriate meeting locations and supporting
amenities.
4. Encourage the organization of an appropriate subcommittee structure
for concentrated attention on special topics, but try to coordinate
subcommittee meetings with meetings of the whole group in order to
use members' time most efficiently.
5. Assign specific staff responsibility for continuous coordination of
CAC activities. (A detailed list of the tasks required for such
coordination will be found 1n Chapter IV of Ertel's paper).
6. Schedule CAC meetings well in advance or according to a regular
schedule approved by the members. Do not, however, call a CAC
meeting unless there are matters of significant substance to be
considered. Never let members feel their time has been wasted in a
meaningless meeting.
7. Try to include some special informational or programmatic aspect in
CAC meetings that will be of help to the members in giving useful
advice. This will also serve to make attendees feel that their
time has been usefully spent.
8. Ask the CAC to serve as a "trial audience" for public presentations
by professional study participants. They can be an Invaluable help
in suggesting ways of presenting technical Information In terms
that are understandable to the lay public.
9. Allow sufficient time for CAC members to review reports and docu-
ments on which you want their comments. These volunteers have many
conflicting pressures on their time; they may react very negatively
to such material if they feel they are not given adequate time for
its careful consideration.
10. Provide, at regular meetings, for personal exchanges of information
and opinion between advisors and the professional study partici-
pants.
Source: Madge Ertel. The Role of Citizen Advisory Groups in Hater
Resources Planning. University of Massachusetts Water Resources Research
Center. Publication No. 44, Amherst. Massachusetts (July, 1974) at
118-124.
-7-
-------
Speqjcer'- ^ oIim f^bioz/l - MS^-S
Basics o-f Gjroa y?£L Wa~b&r
Slobs i^Xdwple^
Z-oyie. of /je.jrc(-biQi<7
i-
f)"flKcfi. f^O'-h:
C frac&reJO
l/o I by 2 /Ziclfye. f Cuvy7 bty lo/j^l P/$ 6<&ci
(7),. /rftrjc unJ^tiMit^ j/a,
A--,a&ts /dhpfiX' q~^ $!u &u£j q&/ (U&fij >-Jka£«>j
Q-S
(&£&- l/o. Q*pt> o-f Public fizu\-d/) -5
Potlorta-j) torn -from Onp^? ,
CtJ^%L^
/t^XiJb J^CcujLaJU 0>^JL^
./Kvt ^Xj^Ju 0-^.0^
-------
-Llohc\/ye of P fcT"- \jjhcib abowb siptaye^
-bci/lks si ~6^~~ r lA/^s V° *1 ~ ^^ Q}A.Sdiiw&-^
fe'i C){ k ¦{..¦-> ^
(7) Gey a l t M
* i ¦' r f, / ^ — 7 " /
sor•' I' i itfcv.- Queloc /ont-
r /..- '.'/»-. ¦ 'fljoavJL -==^
-------
¦C o
< "5
Q. O
-S C
O 13
—' Q_
o s:
£5 OJ
C r+
0)
-s
------- |