United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Ground-Water Protection
Washington, D.C. 20460
February 19B7
Water
Sole Source Aquifer
Designation
Decision Process
Petition Review Guidance
-------
SOLE SOURCE AQUIFER DESIGNATION DECISION PROCESS
EPA PETITION REVIEW GUIDANCE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER PAGE
1. Introduction 1-1
2. Background of the Sole Source Aquifer 2-1
Designation Decision Process
3. Overview of Petition Processing Procedures 3-1
4. Phase I - Pre-submission Activities 4-1
5. Phase II - Initial Petition Review/ 5-1
Completeness Determination
6. Phase III - Detailed Review/Technical 6-1
Verification
7. Phase IV - Designation Determination 7-1
EXHIBITS
3-1 Sole Source Aquifer Designation Decision 3-2
Process
5-1 Completeness Determination Checklist 5-3
6-1 Areas Related to Sole Source Aquifers 6-2
6-2 Current Drinking Water Sources Matrix 6-5
6-3 Alternative Drinking Water Sources .-6—7
Matrix
APPENDICES
A. Background Information
Definitions A-l
SDWA, Section 1424(e) S~2
SDWA Amendments, Section 1427 A-3
Designations to Date A-4
Pending Designations A-5
Regional Contacts A-6
-------
B. Suggested Formats and Materials
Petition Status Log B-l
SSA Fact Sheet B-2
Acknowledgment of Receipt B-3
Acknowledgment of Completeness B-4
Notice of Deficiencies B-5
Petitioner Identifying Information Format B-6
C. Designation Package Contents
Outline of Action Memorandum C-l
Federal Register Notice C-2
Typesetting Request C-3
Responsiveness Summary C-4
Communications Plan C-5
Fact Sheet C-6
-------
1. INTRODUCTION
-------
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose of the Review Guidance
This guidance should be used by all EPA staff involved
in processing petitions for Sole Source Aquifer (SSA)
designation. While it addresses the majority of questions
likely to arise during petition processing, it cannot
anticipate all questions related to the unique
characteristics of each aquifer, petition and petitioner.
Questions arising during petition processing that are not
addressed in this manual should be directed to the SSA
Designation Officer, Office of Ground-Water Protection,
EPA Headquarters, (FTS) 382-7077.
This guidance does not cover the post-designation
project review process. The existing process should
remain in effect until modified.
1.2 Content of this Review Guidance
This guidance is divided into seven chapters.
Following this introductory chapter, Chapter 2 provides a
background of the SSA designation decision process,
including a brief legislative and regulatory history.
Chapter 3 gives an overview of the SSA designation
decision process which should be undertaken by the
Regions. More detailed procedures for each of the four
phases in the process are included in Chapters 4 through 7.
The appendices, which are referenced throughout the
guidance, provide background information, suggested
formats and examples of past designation materials, all of
which should be useful to the EPA reviewer responsible for
processing SSA petitions.
The terms and definitions used throughout this
guidance and throughout the designation decision process
are included in Appendix A-l.
1.3 Other Sources of Information
The EPA staff responsible for reviewing petitions
should be thoroughly familiar with the "SSA Designation
Petitioner Guidance," which instructs interested parties
in how to complete and submit an SSA petition. The
reviewer also should be knowledgeable about the Agency's
SSA Demonstration Program. In addition, the Office of
Ground-Water Protection (OGWP) will be issuing fact
sheets, technical question and answer documents and other
training materials for processing SSA petitions.
1-1
-------
2. BACKGROUND OF THE SOLE SOURCE AQUIFER
DESIGNATION DECISION PROCESS
-------
2. BACKGROUND OF THE SOLE SOURCE AQUIFER
DESIGNATION DECISION PROCESS
2 .1 Legislative Background
Section 1424(e) of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA),
(Appendix A-2), authorizes the EPA Administrator to
determine that an aquifer is the "sole or principal"
source of drinking water for an area. The Act also
provides for EPA review of Federal financially-assisted
projects planned for the area to determine their potential
for contaminating the aquifer. Based on this review, no
commitment of Federal financial assistance may be made for
projects "which the Administrator determines may
contaminate such aquifer," although Federal funds may be
used to modify projects to ensure that they will not
contaminate the aquifer.
Section 1427 of the SDWA, as amended in 1986,
(Appendix A-3), establishes procedures for the
development, implementation and assessment of
demonstration programs designed to protect critical
aquifer protection areas (CAPAs) within areas designated
as sole or principal source aquifers under Section
1424(e). A CAPA is an area that:
must be located within an area designated as a
Sole Source Aquifer, by June 19, 1986, and has a
Clean Water Act, Section 208, ground-water
quality protection plan, approved prior to that
same date; or
must be located within an area that is designated
as a Sole Source Aquifer no later than June 19,
1988, and that satisfies the CAPA criteria that
EPA will establish by June 19, 1987, under
Section 1427(d).
2 .2 Regulatory Background
Section 1424(e) of the SDWA includes only one
procedural requirement, that the notice of the
Administrator's determination be published in the Federal
Register. In 1977, however, EPA published proposed
regulations for all SSA designations (other than the
Edwards Aquifer). Although EPA received comments on these
proposed national regulations, they have never been
promulgated in final form.
2-1
-------
2.3 New National Designation Guidance
In mid 1986, the Office of Ground-Water Protection
established a work group to streamline the SSA designation
decision process and to develop petitioner and EPA
guidance for preparing and processing SSA petitions. The
work group based the guidance on the 1977 proposed
regulations and two drafts of revisions to these
regulations, as well as on the Agency's 12 years of
experience with the SSA program.
This "EPA Petition Review Guidance" is one result of
the work group's activities; the other is the "Petitioner
Guidance." Upon issuance, this guidance should serve as
the basis for reviewing petitions and making SSA
designation determinations.
2.i Relationship of SSAs to EPA's Ground-Water
Classification System
SSAs and the process to designate them should not be
equated which Class I aquifers as defined in EPA's
Ground-Water Protection Strategy or to the use of EPA's
Ground-Water Classification Guidelines. Much greater
analysis is needed for classification since, unlike SSA
status. Class I will be a decision-making factor in EPA
program regulations and guidances.
2.5 Designation Process Background
2.5.1 Responsibility for Designation
From the passage of the SDWA in 1974 until September
1986, Headquarter's oversight of the SSA program was the
responsibility of the Office of Drinking Water. Regional
staff were responsible for petition review and
coordination with the petitioners. The Regional
Administrators (RAs) made recommendations to the EPA
Administrator regarding designation, and the Administrator
made the final determination.
In late 1986, Headquarter's responsibility for
oversight of the SSA program was transferred from the
Office of Drinking Water to the Office of Ground-Water
Protection. Current Regional SSA program contacts are
listed in Appendix A-6. In addition, the Agency
Administrator is expected to delegate the designation
determination to the Regional Administrators in February
1987. In those cases involving a project review area
located in more than one Region, even if the aquifer
itself is located within one Region, the RA of the lead
2-2
-------
Region must obtain the concurrence of the other RA(s) and
the Assistant Administrator (AA) for Water before making a
final designation decision.
2.5.2 Designations to Date
From 1974 to October 1986, EPA made 21 designations,
listed in Appendix A-4. Another 21 were pending
designation as of October 1986, as shown in Appendix A-5.
2-3
-------
3. OVERVIEW OF PETITION PROCESSING PROCEDURES
-------
3. OVERVIEW OF PETITION PROCESSING PROCEDURES
3.1 Principles of the Designation Decision Process
Several general principles underlie the SSA
designation decision process:
Timely processing of the petitions is essential,
especially for those petitioners who intend to
apply for SSA demonstration funds. Ideally, the
entire process, from petition submission to
designation, should take approximately six
months; however, it may take longer, depending on
the adequacy of the petition, the complexity of
the aquifer and the sufficiency of Regional
Office resources. This relatively short
processing time does not mean that any of the
steps outlined in this manual can be eliminated.
It does mean that the EPA reviewer should remain
aware of the targetted six-month period and
conduct the review accordingly.
The responsibility for developing a complete and
acceptable petition rests with the petitioner.
EPA staff may assist the petitioner by providing
any readily available data concerning the aquifer
that may be useful and by answering questions
regarding petition completion and the designation
process. EPA should not, however, fund or
conduct studies or library reviews or actually
prepare portions of the petition for the
petitioner. EPA's responsibility is to receive,
review and process petitions as expeditiously as
possible.
EPA should make a final designation decision on
all completed petitions. Once EPA has determined
that a petition is complete, the RA should issue
either an approval or denial within a reasonable
period of time, usually 30 days. Petitions
cannot be placed on an inactive status without
justification.
3.2 Overview of the Process
The SSA petition review process consists of four
phases, as shown on Exhibit 3-1. As this overview shows,
EPA has established a target of approximately six months
for completing petitions. Petition preparation
3-1
-------
EXHIBIT 3-1
SOLE SOURCE AQUIFER DESIGNATION DECISION PROCESS
II. INITIAL REVIEW/
COMPLETENESS DETERMINATION
IV. DESIGNATION DETERMINATION
HI. DETAILED REVIEW/TECHNICAL VERIFICATION
I PRE*SUBMISS10N ACTIVITIES
ro
EPA
REGION
TIMEFIWME V "v J X v y V V- J V
mCSTABWSIttO 1)0 OATS ID OATS
TMfc FRAME MOAT*
-------
and response time are not included in this estimate;
therefore, the entire process may take longer than six
months depending on how quickly the petitioner responds to
requests for additional information. Processing time also
will vary according to the availability of EPA staff and
the complexity of the petition and aquifer in question.
As stated in Section 2.1, in order to be considered
for SSA funding, a CAPA must be located within an SSA that
is designated by June 1988. Given the minimum six-month
processing time for SSA designation decisions, EPA has
determined that any petitioner interested in eventually
applying for SSA funds should submit the SSA petition by
December l, 1987. Even for petitions submitted by this
date, EPA cannot guarantee that designation decisions will
be made by June 1988, since the processing time may vary
widely among petitions. It is unlikely that EPA could
make a designation decision before the June 1988 deadline
for petitions submitted after December 1, 1987, since the
processing time will be insufficient.
EPA's responsibility in each of the four processing
phases is described in general in the following sections.
A more detailed description of the activities to be
carried out in each phase is included in Chapters 4
through 7 of this guidance manual.
3.2.1 General Procedures
In order to track the status of each petition and to
monitor the timeliness of the process, each Region should
establish a Petition Status Log. Appendix B-l contains an
example of this log. One page should be maintained for
each petition received by the Region. The page also may
serve as the cover sheet for the petition file. Each EPA
Regional staff person who performs an activity for a
particular petition is responsible for updating the log.
The EPA reviewer should maintain complete and careful
records throughout the process, taking special care to
document the reasons for all decisions. This will be
particularly important in those cases that result in
denial of a petition.
3.2.2 Phase I - Pre-submission Activities
The SSA designation decision process begins when a
potential petitioner contacts the SSA Coordinator in the
EPA Regional Office, expressing an interest in SSA
3-3
-------
designation. EPA Regional staff should describe the
program and designation decision process to the potential
petitioner. Upon request EPA should send each potential
petitioner the "SSA Designation Petitioner Guidance," the
fact sheet and any information that is readily available
pertaining to the aquifer in question. The staff time
spent locating and transmitting this information should be
minimal.
3.2.3 Phase II - Initial Petition Review/Completeness
Determination
The second phase begins when the petitioner submits a
petition to the EPA Regional Office. The objective of
this phase is to determine whether the petition is
complete, using the completeness checklist included in
Chapter 5. A determination of completeness means that the
petition is sufficiently complete to go on to the more
rigorous technical verification phase. A determination of
completeness at this early stage does not necessarily mean
that EPA should not ask the petitioner to supply
additional data at a later point; it also does not
guarantee that designation is forthcoming.
If the petition is determined to be incomplete, the
EPA reviewer should return it to the petitioner, along
with a written indication of the missing data. EPA has no
further review responsibility in relation to an incomplete
petition until the petitioner resubmits it.
The opportunity for public comment also is announced
during this phase.
3.2.4 Phase III - Detailed Review/Technical
Verification
The third phase of the designation decision process
has two major objectives:
To verify that the aquifer is the sole or
principal source of drinking water for the
defined aquifer service area, that is, that it is
needed to supply 50% or more of the drinking
water for the area and that the volume of water
which could be supplied by alternative sources is
insufficient to replace the petitioned aquifer
To verify or modify, as applicable, the
boundaries of the aquifer, its recharge area and
the streamflow source area(s), if appropriate;
this information is used to determine the
boundaries of the designated area and the project
review area.
3-4
-------
During the course of reviewing the petition, the EPA
reviewer may determine that there is insufficient
hydrogeological, drinking water use or other technical
data to make the determinations regarding sole or
principal source or the boundaries of the various areas.
If this is the case, the reviewer should request
additional technical data from the petitioner.
In addition to conducting the technical review, the
EPA reviewer is responsible for conducting a public
hearing, if appropriate, reviewing written comments and
incorporating public input from these sources into the
designation consideration.
This phase ends when the EPA reviewer submits his/her
recommendation for petition approval or denial to the
Regional Administrator in a Designation Package, which
includes the petition.
3.2.5 Phase IV - Designation Determination
The Regional Administrator should approve or deny the
SSA petition, based on the information in the Designation
Package and the designation criteria. The final
designation decision is the only element of the process
that requires publication in the Federal Register. The
designation determination for project review areas that
extend into more than one Region must have the concurrence
of the RA(s) of the other affected Region(s) and the AA
for Water.
3-5
-------
4. PHASE I - PRE—SUBMISSION ACTIVITIES
-------
4.0 PHASE I - PRE—SUBMISSION ACTIVITIES
4.1 Purpose
The purpose of this phase is for the Regional EPA
staff to supply potential petitioners with information
regarding the SSA program in general, the petition
processing steps and, if readily available, the specific
aquifer. This phase also serves as a "screening" process
to assist potential petitioners in determining whether
their petitions would be appropriate. For example, a
community group may desire SSA designation to prevent
siting of a landfill, not realizing that designation only
allows for EPA review of Federal financially-assisted
projects and that it excludes projects that are funded by
State or local governments, purely private projects or
programs carried out by the Federal government itself. As
another example, a local interest group may want SSA
designation in order to qualify for SSA demonstration
funds, not understanding that only public entities with
jurisdiction over the CAPA are eligible to apply for grant
funding.
The information provided to potential petitioners
during this phase should be sufficient to ensure that the
petitions are as complete as possible and adequate for a
technical review the first time they are submitted.
In general, contact with the petitioner during this
phase should be by telephone and mail.
4.2 Qualified Petitioners
Any person may petition to have an aquifer designated
as an SSA. A person is any individual, corporation,
company, association, partnership. State, municipality or
Federal agency (and includes officers, employees and
agents of any corporation, company, association, State,
municipality or Federal agency).
4.3 Information to be Provided Regarding the SSA Program
The "SSA Fact Sheet" (Appendix B-2) outlines the major
points that EPA staff should cover when first describing
the SSA program to a potential petitioner. The EPA staff
person should offer to send the Fact Sheet to the
petitioner and explain that the person may call again
after reading the Fact Sheet. The Fact Sheet also may be
used as a guide to answer potential petitioners' questions
over the phone if there is sufficient time to do so.
4-1
-------
4.4 Information to be Provided Regarding SSA Designation
Petition Processing
The "SSA Fact Sheet" contains information regarding
the petition processing activities. In addition to the
information included on the Fact Sheet, the potential
petitioner should understand:
The six-month time frame is the minimum; the
process may take more time, depending on the
adeguacy of the information submitted by the
petitioner, EPA workload, the complexity of the
aquifer and petition and the nature of the public
participation process.
For those petitioners interested in SSA
Demonstration Program consideration, a petition
should be submitted by December 1, 1987; however,
submission of a petition by December 1987 does
not necessarily guarantee designation by June
1988. It is unlikely that petitions submitted
past this date will be processed in time for the
June 1988 deadline.
EPA should review the petition and may supply the
petitioner with readily available, pertinent
information regarding the aquifer to be
designated, but should not prepare the petition
or conduct detailed technical analyses applicable
to the petition.
If the potential petitioner so chooses, EPA should
send the petitioner the "Sole Source Aquifer Designation
Petitioner Guidance" immediately.
4.5 Information Regarding Specific Aquifers
In some cases, the EPA Regional Office may have
hydrogeological studies, Clean Water Act, Section 208,
plans or other materials on hand regarding specific
aquifers. Upon request, when materials such as these are
readily available, EPA Regional staff may send them to the
potential petitioner. The staff time spent locating and
transmitting this information should be minimal. If large
amounts of data are available at EPA, the EPA reviewer
should either send the materials to the library for the
petitioner to check out, or the petitioner's request for
information should be handled using Freedom of Information
Act procedures. In either case, the EPA staff person
should inform the petitioner how the material will be made
available.
4-2
-------
EPA staff also should inform the petitioner of other
sources of technical data. These sources include:
Federal agencies, such as Department of Commerce,
Department of the Interior
United States Geological Survey
Soil Conservation Service
State department of natural resources
State geological survey
State natural or water resources agency
State environmental agency
State or local health department
University extension service
Local or regional planning agency
Local water authority.
4.6 Completion of Phase I
Once the petitioner has gathered all the pertinent
available information from the sources described above,
the petitioner is responsible for developing and
submitting the petition. This phase ends when the EPA
Regional Office receives the petition.
4-3
-------
5. PHASE II - INITIAL PETITION REVIEW/
COMPLETENESS DETERMINATION
-------
5. PHASE II - INITIAL PETITION REVIEW/
COMPLETENESS DETERMINATION
5.1 Purpose
The main purpose of Phase II is to determine if the
petition is complete, i.e., that its contents are adequate
to perform a more detailed, rigorous technical review in
Phase III. This phase begins when the Regional Office
receives a first-time or resubmitted petition from the
petitioner. The announcement of the opportunity for
public hearing and call for written comments also occur
during this phase. The phase ends when EPA either returns
the petition to the petitioner for additional information
or notifies the petitioner that the petition is
sufficiently complete to begin the detailed review in
Phase III.
5.2 Acknowledgment of Petition Receipt
EPA should receive four copies of the petition from
the petitioner. Two of these should contain original maps
or diagrams if copies of these would not reproduce all
necessary colors. The copies should be used as follows:
Original - To be held as the Region's official
copy of the petition.
Second original or Copy 1 - To be used for
Regional review and comment.
Copy 2 - To make additional copies for public
comment or information. A Region also may want
to make copies to send to the affected States(s)
and other Regions, if appropriate.
Copy 3 - For EPA Headquarters.
Upon receipt of the petition, the EPA reviewer should:
Log in the petition on the Status Log
(Appendix B-l), with the name of the aquifer, the
contact person and the receipt date
Acknowledge receipt of the petition with a letter
such as that shown in Appendix B-3.
If the petition could lead to a project review area
spanning more than one Region, the Region initially
receiving the petition must send a copy of the petition to
the other Region(s) involved. The affected Regions
5-1
-------
should then determine which one will act as lead Region
for purposes of conducting the review and obtaining
concurrences from each RA and the AA for Water.
5.3 Completeness Determination
If several petitions require review, the EPA reviewer
should begin with the one that was logged in first.
Previously submitted petitions that have been resubmitted
to EPA with more complete information should be reviewed
before first-time submissions.
Exhibit 5-1 is a checklist that should be used to
determine if all required items are included in the
petition. _In general, a petition should be considered
complete if a plausible and up-to-date response has been
provided for each of the petition elements. Spaces
between the sections should be used for the reviewer's
written comments.
Subsequent to the completeness review, the reviewer
may do one of the following:
Notify the petitioner by letter, such as the one
in Appendix B-4, that the petition has been
determined to be complete and will now undergo
technical verification. The letter must explain
that the determination of completeness does not
necessarily mean that EPA will not request
additional information in the future and does not
guarantee designation. The Region also should
notify the Headquarters OGWP that a complete
petition has been received.
If requested information is not included in the
petition, the reviewer should send the petitioner
a "Notice of Deficiencies," such as the one in
Appendix B-5, indicating the additional
information the petitioner should submit in order
for the petition to be considered complete.
Copies of the petition may be returned to the
petitioner with the "Notice of Deficiencies," but
the Region's official copy of the petition should
be retained.
If information is missing that can easily be
obtained over the phone, such as contact names
and addresses, the reviewer may call the
petitioner for the additional information.
Information completed in this way should be so
noted on the petition.
5-2
-------
EXHIBIT 5-1
COMPLETENESS DETERMINATION CHECKLIST
NOT
INCLUDED INCLUDED
I. Petitioner Identifying Information
All items on the suggested petitioner
identifying information format should be
completed (see Appendix B-6). Attach a
completed copy of the format to this
checklist.
II. Narrative
A reasonable response for each of
the following topics should be
included. Each topic should be
described in approximately one
paragraph:
General location of the aquifer
Ground-water dependency in the
area and on the particular
aquifer for which designation
is requested
Availability of other public
water supplies
Reasons for interest in SSA
designation
Why the aquifer is vulnerable
to contamination
Quality of the water from
the aquifer
Relationship of the petitioner
to the purveyor(s) of the
water supply.
5-3
-------
EXHIBIT 5-1 (2)
COMPLETENESS DETERMINATION CHECKLIST
NOT
INCLUDED INCLUDED
III. Sole or Principal Determination
Information should be sufficient to
determine whether the aquifer is the
sole or principal drinking water
source for the aquifer service area.
A. Aquifer service area
l. Description of the aquifer
service area
2. Map delineating the boundaries
of the aquifer service area
B. Population
1. Total population within
the aquifer service area
2. Population served by
the aquifer
5-4
-------
EXHIBIT 5-1 (3)
COMPLETENESS DETERMINATION CHECKLIST
III. (continued)
NOT
INCLUDED INCLUDED
C. Current Sources of
Drinking Water
1. Information similar to that
requested on the "Current
Drinking Water Sources"
matr ix
2. A brief narrative description
of each current source, with the
method(s) used for calculating
the percentages used
in the matrix
3. Explanation of seasonal
variations
4. Explanation of actual use
versus potential capacity
5. Explanation of why the source
currently is not used to its
full capacity
5-5
-------
EXHIBIT 5-1 (4)
COMPLETENESS DETERMINATION CHECKLIST
III. (continued)
NOT
INCLUDED INCLUDED
D. Alternative Sources of Drinking Water
1. Information similar to that
requested on the first
version of the "Alternative
Drinking Water Sources" matrix
2. Information similar to that
requested on the second
version of the "Alternative
Drinking Water Sources" matrix
5-6
-------
EXHIBIT 5-1(5)
11I.D. (continued) Alternative Sources of Drinking Water
Requested item
Na rrat ive
Description
Why source
not currently
in use
Legal or
institutional
constraints
How estimated
daily supply
was calculated
What is necessary
to transfer to
this source
Estimated cost
to provide water of
comparable quality
Determination of
economic
feasibility
Source 1
Inc.
Not
Inc
Source 2
I nc.
Not
Inc,
Source 3
Inc.
Not
Inc
Source 4
Source 5
I nc.
Not
Inc.
Inc,
Not
Inc
-------
EXHIBIT 5-1 (6)
COMPLETENESS DETERMINATION CHECKLIST
NOT
INCLUDED INCLUDED
IV. Hydroqeoloqical Data
Information should be sufficient
for EPA to verify the boundaries
of the areas in question and to qive
EPA a qeneral understandinq of
the system.
A. Aquifer and its location
1. Narrative description of
the locale, includinq
topoqraphy, climate,
qeoloqy, qround-water
use and occurrence
2. Delineation (plane view) of
aquifer's boundaries on USGS
7.5- or 15-minute quad topo-
qraphic maps; delineation of
very larqe aquifer areas
(qreater than 1,000 mi2)
on 1:100,000 scale maps
3. Detailed (as necessary)
descriptions and diaqrams
of the aquifer's hydroloqy
and hydroqeoloqy includinq:
5-8
-------
EXHIBIT 5-1 (7)
COMPLETENESS DETERMINATION CHECKLIST
IV,A (continued)
NOT
INCLUDED INCLUDED
Delineation of the
aquifer and non-aquifer
units
Longitudinal and trans-
verse geologic cross
sections depicting the
aquifer
Data or estimates
concerning aquifer
characteristics such as
porosity, hydraulic
conductivity, direction
of ground-water flow
and well yields
4. Description of discharge
or ground-water withdrawal
from the aquifer,
for example:
Wells (drinking, irriga-
tion, industrial)
Springs
Stream baseflow
Maps showing water
table contours or
potentiometric
surfaces, springs and
surface water pathways
5-9
-------
EXHIBIT 5-1 (8)
COMPLETENESS DETERMINATION CHECKLIST
IV. (continued)
NOT
INCLUDED INCLUDED
B. Recharge Area(s)
1. Delineation of recharge
area(s) on topographic maps
2. A description of methods
used to determine recharge
area(s), for example:
Assessment of
topographic, geologic
or hydrogeologic maps
Review and assessment of
of regional and sub-
regional ground-water flow
system(s) data
Data obtained from field
studies based on isotopic
dating techniques, observa-
tion well networks, tracer
tests, etc.
Numerical simulation, i.e.,
regional flow modeling
5-10
-------
EXHIBIT 5-1 (9)
COMPLETENESS DETERMINATION CHECKLIST
IV.B (continued)
NOT
INCLUDED INCLUDED
Description and location
of natural and man-induced
aquifer recharge such as
precipitation, snow melt,
unlined surface impoundments,
irrigation, injection of
fluids and injection wells
C. Streamflow Source Area
Note: If the streamflow source area is
not included in the project review
area, there should be a statement
as to why it has not been included.
If the streamflow source area has
been included in the project review
area, the following information is
requested:
1. Delineation of the
streamflow source area
on detailed topographic
maps including location
of losing streams, if such
streamflow demonstrably
contributes to the aquifer
through these areas
2. Explanation of methods
used in determining
streamflow contributions
3. Streamflow characteristics
including delineation of
gaining and losing portions
of streams
5-11
-------
EXHIBIT 5-1 (10)
COMPLETENESS DETERMINATION CHECKLIST
IV. (continued)
NOT
INCLUDED INCLUDED
D. Designated Area
Delineation of the proposed
designated area on a topo-
graphic map
E. Project Review Area
Delineation of the proposed project
review area on a topographic map
5-12
-------
The reviewer should record on the Status Log the date
on which one of the above actions was taken.
5.4 Start-up of the Public Participation Process
For petitions that are complete, the reviewer also
should initiate the public participation process. The
purposes of this process are to;
Inform interested parties of EPA's intent to
consider designation of an SSA
Gather additional information that may be helpful
in making the designation determination
Provide an opportunity for parties that support
and oppose the designation to express their
viewpoints.
There are several activities involved in the public
participation process; these activities are described in
the following sections. The EPA reviewer also should be
familiar with 40 CFR, Part 25, which delineates public
participation policy for the SDWA program.
5.4.1 Workshops
In certain cases a Region may find it helpful to hold
an informal workshop prior to holding a more formal public
hearing. These are cases involving large geographic areas
of concern, complicated aquifer systems or particularly
controversial issues. Workshops can provide an
opportunity to discuss and dispense with extraneous
concerns and to clarify the main issues so that the public
hearing participants are more informed and the public
hearing discussions more focused and objective.
5.4.2 Written Comments
The deadline for written comments should be
approximately two weeks following the announced public
hearing date. Interested parties should be encouraged to
submit their comments before the public hearing, if
possible. Comments received following the deadline should
not be considered unless the Region formally extends the
public comment period.
5-13
-------
5.5 Public Hearings
The following steps should be taken in preparation for
a public hearing:
5.5.1 Site Selection
The public hearing should be held in a place conducive
to objective and constructive input from those people that
could be included within the designated area or project
review area.- This may require several hearings in one or
more counties or States. Possible sites include:
Federal facilities
Town hall
County auditorium
Public theaters
High school auditoriums
College lecture halls.
The EPA External Affairs Office also may have
suggestions. In addition, the EPA reviewer may ask the
petitioner to suggest possible suitable locations, since
the petitioner may be more familiar with the immediate
area.
The following factors should be taken into
consideration when selecting the site for the public
hearing:
Rental Fee - Some facilities do not charge a fee
for community-oriented meetings. If a fee must
be paid, the reviewer should identify in advance
which EPA account will be used to cover the cost.
Liability Insurance - Most facilities will not
allow the use of a room unless the sponsors have
insurance coverage. The Federal Tort Claims Act
should be cited as proof that EPA is insured
against liability for injury or property damage
due to negligence, wrongful act or omission of a
Federal employee action, within his/her scope of
employment. This statute indicates that the
Federal government is self-insured and cannot
provide site-specific insurance coverage. The
Tort Claims Act specifies that those with a civil
liability claim against the Federal Government
are to submit the damage claim to the agency
involved for adjudication.
5-14
-------
Distance - If there is a large geographic area of
concern, more than one site may be selected for
the hearing.
5.5.2 Schedulinq
To ensure the greatest participation, from both
government agencies and the public, it is best to split
the hearing between the afternoon (2:00-4:00 pm) and the
evening (7:00-9:00 pm). The hearing may extend past
9:00 pm but should not extend beyond 11:00 pm. If time is
not sufficient to allow for the presentation of all
substantive comments, the EPA reviewer should extend the
written comment period to accommodate those who did not
participate during the public hearing. In the interest of
time, a second hearing should be avoided, if possible.
The public hearing should be scheduled between 60 to
80 days from the end of Phase II to allow time for some
technical verification prior to the hearing. It must be
scheduled at least 45 days from the date of announcement.
5.6 Notice of Opportunity for Public Hearing/Callfor
Written Comments
The notification of the opportunity for public comment
and scheduling of a public hearing does not have to be
published in the Federal Register. One or more of the
following methods must, however, be used to announce the
hearing:
Formal Public Hearing Notice in newspapers
Press releases to area newspapers and radio
stations (coordinate with the Regional Office of
External Programs)
Information letters to Federal, State and local
officials and interest groups.
Most Regional Offices maintain a public notice list; all
parties on the list should be notified of the opportunity
for public hearing. All notifications and press releases
should contain the following information, at a minimum:
Announcement of receipt of a complete petition
Petitioner name
5-15
-------
Proposed SSA name and general
locat ion
Public hearing date, time and place
Deadline for written comments
Address to which written comments should be mailed
Name, address and phone number of EPA Regional
contact
Availability of public hearing transcripts - date
and place
Location of documents for public review.
EPA should notify the petitioner directly of the public
hearing date, time and location.
5.6.1 Documents for Public Review
The EPA reviewer should ensure that the petition and
any other information submitted by the petitioner, as well
as any other pertinent resource material, and the
transcript, following the public hearing, be placed in a
public library or town hall for review by the general
public. The location of the material should be included
in the written announcement of the public hearing.
5.6.2 Court Stenographer
Arrangements should be made, through the Support
Services Branch (or equivalent), to have a Court Reporter
present to record the proceedings of the hearing.
Sufficient funds should be allocated for this service.
Costs generally include an appearance fee, a specific cost
per page of transcript and a surcharge for evening work.
The EPA staff should arrange to receive copies of the
transcripts from the reporter service within 10 to 14 days
of the hearing.
5-16
-------
6. PHASE III - DETAILED REVIEW/TECHNICAL VERIFICATION
-------
6- PHASE III ~ DETAILED REVIEW/TECHNICAL VERIFICATION
6.1 Purpose
The four major objectives of Phase III are:
To verify that the aquifer is the sole or
principal source of drinking water for the
defined aquifer service area
To verify or modify, as applicable, the
boundaries of the various areas included in the
petition
To incorporate public comments into the
designation decision process
To make a recommendation to the Regional
Administrator regarding designation of the
aquifer.
Phase III begins once the petition has been determined
to be complete and ends when the EPA reviewer sends the
Designation Package to the Regional Administrator, with a
recommendation for approval or denial of the petition.
6.2 Technical Verification
In this activity the reviewer should determine whether
the aquifer is, in fact, the sole or principal source of
drinking water for the defined aquifer service area. The
reviewer should also verify that the boundaries of the
following, as described in the petition, are correct and
meaningful:
Aquifer
Aquifer service area
Designated area
Recharge area
Project review area
Streamflow source area(s) (if applicable).
Exhibit 6-1 is a schematic representation of how these
areas could relate to one another.
The complexities of the aquifer and ground-water flow
systems, the capabilities of the petitioners and the
amount of petition detail will vary considerably among
petitions. The following sections present factors for EPA
reviewers to consider in verifying the technical data and
making a designation determination.
6-1
-------
EXHIBIT 6-1
AREAS RELATED TO SOLE SOURCE AQUIFERS
Aquifer - Geological formation, group of formations or part of a formation which is capable
of yielding a significant amount of water to a well or spring.
—Aquifer service area - Areal extent above the aquifer and including those lands where the
entire population served by the aquifer live.
Designated area - Surface area above the aquifer and its recharge area(s).
(Boundaries are contiguous with those of recharge area)
Streamflow source area - Upstream headwaters area of losing streams that flow into the
recharge area.
—— Project review area - Area within which Federal financially-assisted projects will be reviewed,
which includes the designated area and all or a portion of the streamflow source area(s).
6-2
-------
During the review it may become apparent that
additional technical information is necessary in order to
complete the verification. In this case the reviewer
should send a letter to the petitioner detailing the
information that is necessary to complete the review.
This letter should ask the petitioner to supply the
information prior to the public hearing, if at all
possible; in most cases EPA should hold the public hearing
even if the additional data have not yet been received,
since the necessary data may be provided at the hearing.
The technical verification should take place in the
following sequence:
6.2.1 Verification of Aquifer Boundaries
The first step is to identify the aquifer that is the
focus of the petition. Under the definition of an
aquifer, petitioners may request designation of part of an
aquifer, an entire aquifer or an aquifer system depending
on the hydrology, lithology or ground-water flow systems.
The EPA reviewer should first verify that the proposed
aquifer boundaries, as delineated by the petitioner, are
correct, using the topographic maps, hydrogeological
descriptions and diagrams and geologic cross-sections
included in the petition.
The reviewer may need to modify the aquifer boundaries
for reasons such as the following:
To ensure that the aquifer boundaries are based
on sound hydrogeologic data and principles.
To help ensure that all hydrogeologically
connected portions of the the aquifer will, in
fact, be afforded adequate protection by the
designation. This could arise in the case of
petitions for partial aquifers.
To ensure that designation of the aquifer will
not create undue complexity in the implementation
of the SSA program, as in the case of petitions
for entire aquifer systems spanning vast areas.
There may be reasons such as very low
permeabilities or aberrations that suggest
designation of something less than the entire
aquifer system.
The reviewer also should verify that the aquifer is
capable of yielding "a significant amount of water to a
well or spring." For purposes of the SSA petition, a
"significant amount" is to be the same as "sufficient
yield," that is, "capable of supplying a well with
approximately 150 gallons of water per day."
6-3
-------
6.2.2 Verification of Aquifer Service Area Boundaries
The second step is to verify the boundaries of the
aquifer service area, which is the area for which the
petitioned aquifer should be the sole or principal source,
of drinking water. The aquifer service area includes the
surface area above the aquifer, as determined in the
previous step, as well as the area within which all of the
people who are served by the aquifer live.
In verifying the boundaries of the aquifer service
area the reviewer should verify that the residences of all
of the people who live within the area served by the
aquifer have been included within the boundaries of the
area delineated by the petitioner. People living within
the area should not be excluded because they use surface
water or water from another aquifer. If they were
excluded, drinking water use from the proposed SSA would
always be 100%. Obvious "gerrymandering" for instance, to
exclude a metropolitan area from within the aquifer
service area, is not acceptable.
6.2.3 Verification of Sole or Principal Source
In this third step, the reviewer should confirm that
the aquifer being petitioned for designation is needed to
supply 50% or more of the drinking water for the aquifer
service area and that the volume of water which,.could be
supplied by alternative sources is insufficient to replace
the petitioned aquifer should it become contaminated.
The reviewer should first verify the current drinking
water sources and percentages of drinking water supplied
by the petitioner. This information should be presented
on the "Current Drinking Water Sources" matrix.
Exhibit 6-2. If the petitioned aquifer supplies 50% or
more of the drinking water, the reviewer should proceed to
the evaluation of the alternative sources. If it does not
supply at least 50%, the aquifer cannot be considered a
sole or principal source.
The reviewer should then evaluate each potential
alternative source. The purpose of evaluating the
potential sources is to ensure that:
The petitioner has considered all possible
potential sources
The petitioner has adequately demonstrated why a
potential source should not, in fact, be
considered an alternative source, especially in
the case of public water systems.
6-4
-------
« »iA>
-------
EXHIBIT 6-2
CURRENT DRINKING WATER SOURCES
FOR THE AQUIFER SERVICE AREA
USE
SOURCE
PUBLIC
WATER SUPPLY
(COMMUNrTY AND
NON-COMMUNITY)
PRIVATE
AND OTHER
TOTAL
Petitioned Aquifer
50%
50%
Other Aquifers
—
25%
25%
Surface Water
25%
—
25%
Transported from
the Outside
—
—
..
Total
75%
25%
100%
(This total must equal 100%)
Note: Percentages are included as examples
-------
In evaluating the alternative source data submitted by
the petitioner, the EPA reviewer has room to exercise a
great deal of professional judgment. This is due to the
fact that the petition requirements in this area are hard
to define and that, in many cases, the data may be costly
and difficult to obtain.
In general, the reviewer should be satisfied that the
petitioner has made a reasonable attempt to evaluate the
viability of each potential source in the following areas:
Legal/institutional constraints
Ability to provide a sufficient quantity of water
Ability to provide water of a quality comparable
to that of the petitioned aquifer at a cosjt
deemed to be reasonable.
The EPA reviewer should consider things such as the
following, especially when evaluating the "Alternative
Drinking Water Sources" matrices:
Has the petitioner used all readily available
sources of information to obtain the data?
Do the data appear to be adequate and the
methodology for making the calculations appear to
be reasonable?
Are the conclusions supported by data?
The petitioner should supply at least one completed
copy of the "Alternative Drinking Water Sources" matrix
(Exhibit 6-3). In order for the petitioned aquifer to be
considered a principal source, the Total Estimated Daily
Supply (E) should be less than the Petitioned Aquifer
Supply (A). If (E) is greater than or equal to (A), this
signifies that there are reasonably available alternative
drinking water sources to the petitioned aquifer which
cannot, therefore, be considered a sole or principal
source.
6.2.4 Verification of Designated Area
The fourth step involves using the boundary
information for the aquifer and its recharge area(s) to
establish the area to be designated. The actual area to
be designated includes the surface area above the aquifer
as well as the aquifer's recharge area(s). This decision
is critical since this area may subsequently be used to
determine the boundaries within which a "critical aquifer
protection area" may be located. Before verifying the
6-6
-------
EXHIBIT 6-3
ALTERNATIVE
DRINKING WATER SOURCES
(A) PETITIONED AQUIFER SUPPLY
SOURCE
ESTIMATED
DAILY SUPPLY
(B)
(C)
(D)
(R Total
-------
boundaries of the designated area, the reviewer should
verify the boundaries of the recharge area, as delineated
by the petitioner. Largely unconfined, water table
aquifers should have essentially coincident recharge
areas. A confined aquifer, on the other hand, may have a
recharge area that is a considerable distance away from
the aquifer service area.
Once the recharge area boundaries have been confirmed,
the reviewer can verify the boundaries of the proposed
designated area. In some cases the actual aquifer and
recharge area(s) may vary from the area the petitioner
wishes to have designated. In these cases, ground-water
divides, as best known or believed to exist, can be used
as boundaries. Where necessary, surface water basin
divides may be sufficient for delineating designated area
boundaries. In these cases the reviewer should discuss
the variation with the petitioner and determine the reason
for the variance before making a decision on the boundary.
6.2.5 Verification of Project Review Area
The fifth and last step is to determine the extent of
the area within which Federal financially-assisted
projects will be reviewed. The project review area should
include all of the designated area, which includes the
aquifer and its recharge area(s), and may be extended
beyond the designated area to ensure that the ground water
is protected by including the streamflow source area(s).
If there is a stream or river above the aquifer and its
recharge area, the petitioner should either include
streamflow source area information or explain why it
should not be included.
If the petition contains streamflow source area
information, the reviewer should verify the boundaries of
the portion of the streamflow source area(s) that the
petitioner has included in the desired project review
area. This area will be of much greater importance in the
western, arid areas of the country than in the more humid
eastern zones. The evaluation of the streamflow source
area(s) will be more difficult than that of the recharge
area, since the identification of a losing stream usually
requires a detailed analysis of both streamflow and nearby
well data. These data often are lacking, and the
petitioner may submit generalized data from regional
studies. In general, the reviewer should not request that
the petitioner submit detailed data, if it is not readily
available.
The determination of the size of the streamflow source
area to be included in the project review area should be
based on the overall areal extent of the streamflow source
6-8
-------
area in relation to the amount of contribution made to the
recharge area. The primary reason for including the
streamflow source area is protection of ground water.
However, some streamflow source areas may be so extensive
as to be impractical to include in the project review
area, e.g., the Mississippi River basin upstream of an
alluvial plain aquifer in Arkansas. In such cases,
consideration should be given to including in the project
review area only the most immediate upstream portion of
the streamflow source area, where it contributes to the
ground water.
As with all of the other boundary determinations, the
basis for making the project review area decision must be
well documented, and all deviations from the petition
boundaries should be discussed with the petitioner.
6 .3 Public Hearing
Generally, if at least one person has indicated an
interest in providing substantive information, the public
hearing should be held on the date scheduled. In some
cases, however, it may be necessary to cancel the
hearing. Reasons for cancellation include:
No requests to make a statement have been
received by EPA two weeks prior to the public
hearing; hearing should be cancelled and EPA
processing continued.
The petitioner has withdrawn the petition;
hearing should be cancelled and EPA processing
discontinued.
The technical review has uncovered major problems
that require substantial research/additional data
before the review can be completed; hearing
should be cancelled and rescheduled at a later
date when the additional data have been supplied.
The cancellation notice should be issued through the same
means used to announce the public hearing.
If there is a question as to whether or not the
hearing should be held, the RA should make the
determination.
The transcript of the hearing should be made available
to the public at the same locations as the other
documents; announcements of its availability after the
hearing should be made at the same time as the notice of
the opportunity for public hearing.
6-9
-------
6.4 Written Comments
The written comments received during the public
comment period should be summarized along with those
received during the public hearing. This summary, along
with a statement of EPA's response or action in
relationship to each, should comprise the "Responsiveness
Summary" that will be included in the Designation Package.
6.5 Designation Recommendation
Following the public participation activities, the EPA
reviewer should complete the Phase III review of the
petition. The public hearing and written comments may
provide some information necessary to verify the technical
data in the petition or, conversely, they may raise
further questions that will require additional data. If
additional information is necessary, the EPA reviewer
should request in writing that the petitioner provide it
in order to complete the technical verification.
There are two major components of the designation
determination itself:
6.5.1 Sole or Principal Source Determination
The reviewer already should have determined whether
the aquifer is, in fact, the sole or principal source of
drinking water for the aquifer service area. The only
criterion to be used in this determination is whether the
aquifer is, in fact, needed to supply 50% or more of the
drinking water for the aquifer service area and that the
volume of water which could be supplied by alternative
sources is insufficient to replace the petitioned aquifer
should it become contaminated.
6.5.2 Boundary Determination
Once the aquifer has been determined to be the sole or
principal source of drinking water for the aquifer service
area, the reviewer should delineate the boundaries of the
designated area and project review area for inclusion in
the Designation Package. These boundaries already should
have been verified by the reviewer in previous steps. The
reviewer may find it necessary to modify the boundaries of
these areas from those presented in the petition based on
the detailed review of the technical data. Any
modification should be fully explained and documented and
closely coordinated with the petitioner.
If all of these criteria are met, the aquifer should
be designated as a Sole Source Aquifer. There are only
two valid reasons a petition may be denied:
6-10
-------
The aquifer is needed to supply less than 501 of
the drinking water to the specified aquifer
service area
The alternative sources are capable of supplying
a volume of drinking water which is greater than
or equal to that of the petitioned aquifer
The petition was not complete or the petitioner
declined to supply data necessary for EPA to make
the sole/principal and all boundary
determinations.
6.6 Preparation of Designation Package
The EPA reviewer should transmit the designation
recommendation through
Regional Administrator
includes a copy of the
is involved, a copy of
sent simultaneously to
Water for concurrence.
Package, Appendix C, are as follows
appropriate channels to the
in a Designation Package, which
petition. If more than one Region
the Designation Package should be
each appropriate RA and the AA for
The components of the Designation
6.6.1 Action Memorandum
The Action Memorandum provides the Regional
Administrator with an overview of the characteristics of
the aquifer in question; issues surrounding its
designation; options, if any, for the designation
decision; the EPA reviewer's recommendation regarding
designation and the reasons for this recommendation. An
outline of the topics to be included in the Action
Memorandum is included in Appendix C-l. The Action
Memorandum does not need to be lengthy, since it will be
accompanied by the necessary supporting documentation.
6.6.2 Petition
A copy of the petition should accompany the Action
Memorandum. In some cases the technical documentation
submitted by the petitioner may be voluminous; therefore,
the Designation Package should include only that
documentation that is essential to making a designation
decision. The rest of the material should be easily
accessible to the RA in the Regional Office.
6.6.3 Support Document
The purpose of the support document is to provide the
Regional Administrator with sufficient hydrogeological and
other technical data to make a designation decision; it
6-11
-------
essentially suirunarizes the technical data contained in the
petition. A brief discussion of each of the following
items should be included in the support document:
Description of the aquifer and its location,
including such things as:
Topography
Climate
Geology
Ground-water use and occurrence
Alternative sources and determination of
sole/principal source
Designated and project review areas, including
the recharge area and streamflow source area(s)
as appropriate
Tables and maps, as necessary - should not be
duplicative of tables and maps that are easily
accessible within the petition.
6.6.4 Federal Register Notice
The Federal Register notice announcing designation of
the aquifer or denial of the petition should be included
in the Designation Package, along with the typesetting
request (EPA Form 2340-15) for the RA's signature.
Examples of these two documents are included in
Appendices C-2 and C-3. This is the only Federal Register
notice that needs to be issued during the SSA designation
decision process.
The Federal Reaister Notice should include:
Summary - of the action taken and why
Date - that determination becomes effective
Addresses - where data on which findings are
based are available to the public
Contact - name and address of EPA person to
contact for further information
Supplementary information:
Background
Basis for determination
6-12
-------
- Description of the aquifer system,
designated area and project review area
- Listing of the documents and other
information used in making the determination
- Project review procedures
Summary and discussion of public comments.
6.6.5 Responsiveness Summary
The Responsiveness Summary should summarize all public
comments (oral and written) received during the
designation process along with EPA's related responses
and/or actions. Appendix C-4 includes an example of a
Responsiveness Summary.
6.6.6 Communications Plan
The Communications Plan, an example of which is
included in Appendix C-5, identifies those EPA or other
offices and other parties interested in the designation
decision and describes activities to notify these
offices/parties of the final decision.
6.6.7 Fact Sheet
The Fact Sheet, Appendix C-6, is a very brief,
succinctly written document that can be used to inform the
general public about the SSA and the specific designation
decision.
6-13
-------
7. PHASE IV - DESIGNATION DETERMINATION
-------
7. PHASE IV - DESIGNATION DETERMINATION
The Regional Administrator should review the
Designation Package and request a briefing and/or
additional documentation from the EPA reviewer, as
necessary. The Regional Administrator should make the
designation and boundary determinations based on the same
factors and criteria used by the review staff, that is:
Whether the aquifer is, in fact, the sole or
principal source of drinking water for the
aquifer service area and
Whether the boundaries of the aquifer, designated
area and project review area have been adequately
delineated.
In those cases involving a project review area located
in more than one Region, even if the aquifer itself is
located within one Region, the Regional Administrator of
the lead Region must obtain the concurrence of the other
affected Regional Administrator(s) and the AA for Water
before making a final designation decision.
After making the designation determination, the
Regional Administrator will sign the Federal Register
notice and Typesetting Request; these should then be
submitted to the Federal Register Office at EPA
Headquarters. Both designations and denials should be
published in the Federal Register. The Regional
Administrator also will inform the Office of Ground-Water
Protection, HQ, of the designation determination via a
brief memorandum accompanied by the Action Memorandum, the
Support Document and the petition.
The EPA reviewer or other SSA designation staff should
notify the petitioner directly of the determination.
7-1
-------
"rePIWCT. .Coqutla
s
2
KOcfc- Olnre
Designated Sole Source Aquifers
in EPA Region 10
Idaho, Oregon, Washington
(None in Alaska)
Cohitile
Canl
*&r
Carnano
Island
Aquifer
. Ore
©
-FBT779 r^W
:?W
Whidbey
Island
_ Lar»
Nr qr^
Island Aquifer
fw.>,
amhririne
Bainbridge
Island Aquifer
,MtV*r
Newberg Area
Aquifer
Cross Valley
tnribn
ftBBBSSS®*'
«*»»«
Vashon-Maury
Island Aquifer
Centra! Pierce
County Aquifer
Aquifer
,WWdH
Spokane Valley
Rathdrum
Prairie Aquifer
•syal&ty
Cedar
Valley
Aquifer
Troutdale
Aquifer
System
4 I ¦ COW
Lewiston
Basin
Aquifer
?
BMTOfNP
Sprinpt fA
„Mtorirt.6pffnga
North Florence
Dunal Aquifer
p*Mfcug
.frwffwA
Bniiaf
Glw»m fffTy
OranttfW^
Eastern
Snake River
Plain Aquifer
JitnnWi Mi
riws
^ aMourt»mqi»
Kilometers
Legend
Project Review Areas
Aquifer Area
Source Area
laWW
,^9»n
4>EPA
QodHft Map Created 04/12/2013
•
-------
6560-50-P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Safe Drinking Water Act Sole Source Aquifer Program;
Designation of Bainbridge Island, Washington as a Sole Source Aquifer
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
ACTION: Final Determination
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that pursuant to Section 1424(e) of the Safe
Drinking Water Act, the Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) has determined that the Bainbridge Island Aquifer System located in Kitsap
County, Washington is the sole or principle source of drinking water for the citizens of
Bainbridge Island and that this aquifer system, if contaminated would create a significant
hazard to public health. As a result of this action, all Federal financially assisted projects
constructed on Bainbridge Island will be subject to EPA review to ensure that these
projects are designed and constructed so they do not create a significant hazard to public
health.
DATES: This determination shall be effective on [Insert publication date]
ADDRESSES; All documents relating to this determination are available for inspection
by the public during normal business hours at the U.S. EPA Library, Region 10, 1200
Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101 between the hours of 9:00 a.m. - 12:00 p.m.
and 1:00 - 4:00 p.m. and at the Bainbridge Island library at 1270 Madison Avenue North,
Bainbridge Island.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Eastman, EPA Region 10,
1
-------
Drinking Water Unit, by mail at the Seattle address given above, by telephone at
(206) 553-6249, or by email at Eastman.susan@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
Section 1424(e) of the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300h3(e), Public Law 93-523
of December 16, 1974) states:
If the Administrator determines, on his own initiative or upon petition, that an
area has an aquifer which is the sole or principal drinking water source for the area and
which, if contaminated, could create a significant hazard to public health, he shall publish
a notice of the determination in the Federal Register. After the publication of any such
notice, no commitment for Federal financial assistance (through a grant, contract, loan
guarantee, or otherwise) may be entered into for any project which the Administrator
determines may contaminate such aquifer through a recharge zone so as to create a
significant hazard to public health, but a commitment for Federal financial assistance
may, if authorized under another provision of law, be entered into to plan or design the
project to assure that it will not so contaminate the aquifer.
On August 5,2009, EPA received a petition from two citizens of Bainbridge Island
requesting designation of the Bainbridge Island Aquifer System as a Sole Source Aquifer
(SSA). On April 20,2012, EPA published a notice in the Bainbridge Islander newspaper
and mailed fact sheets to island residents which served to announce the public comment
period. The public was permitted to submit comments and information on the petition
from April 20 through June 4,2012. Public comments received by EPA were generally in
2
-------
support of the designation,
II. Basis for Determination
EPA defines a sole or principle source aquifer as an aquifer or aquifer system which
supplies at least 50 percent of the drinking water consumed in the area overlying the
aquifer, and for which there is no alternative source or combination of alternative
drinking water sources which could physically, legally and economically supply those
dependent upon the aquifer (U.S. EPA, 1987, Sole Source Aquifer Designation Decision
Process, Petition Review Guidance).
Among the factors considered by the Regional Administrator in connection with the
designation of an area under Section 1424(e) are: (1) Whether the Bainbridge Island
Aquifer System is the area's sole or principal source of drinking water and (2) whether
contamination of the aquifer system would create a significant hazard to public health.
On the basis of technical information available to the EPA, the Regional Administrator
has made the following findings in favor of designating the Bainbridge Island Aquifer
System a SSA:
1. The Bainbridge Island Aquifer System currently serves more than 23,000 residents of
Bainbridge Island. One hundred percent of the current population obtains their drinking
water from the petitioned aquifer system either from individual wells or from one of the
more than 150 water systems on the island.
2. There is no existing alternative drinking water source or combination of sources which
supply drinking water to the designated area, nor is there any available cost effective
future source capable of supplying the drinking water demands for the population served
3
-------
by the aquifer service area. No potential surface water bodies exist to provide a source of
drinking water, piping water from the Kitsap Peninsula across Agate Pass Bridge to
Bainbridge Island is cost-prohibitive and installation of a desalination plant is too costly.
3. Since groundwater contamination can be difficult or sometimes impossible to reverse
and since the Bainbridge community relies on the Bainbridge Aquifer System for
drinking water purposes, contamination of the aquifer system would pose a significant
public health hazard.
The legal and technical basis for the proposal was outlined in an EPA publication titled:
"Support Document for Sole Source Aquifer Designation of the Bainbridge Island
Aquifer System".
III. Description of the Bainbridge Island Aquifer System
The petitioned area includes all of Bainbridge Island. The island is a mix of developed
land and forests. Six principal aquifers make up the Bainbridge Island Aquifer System.
On island precipitation recharges the aquifers and is the only source of recharge for lakes,
ponds, and streams. The island has a total of 53 miles of seawater shoreline and the
aquifer area is bounded on all sides by Puget Sound. Interior plateaus reach maximum
elevations of 300 to 400 feet above mean sea level. The island can be divided into 12
drainage basins. Large volumes of unconsolidated glacial and interglacial materials from
at least six advances and retreats of Pleistocene continental glaciers over the last 300,000
years has shaped the present-day landscape and underlying hydrostratigraphy of the
island and are host to the aquifers on Bainbridge Island. The aquifer system is vulnerable
to contamination from potential seawater intrusion, accidental spills, petroleum projects,
4
-------
small hazardous waste generators, household hazardous waste disposal, leachate from the
closed island landfill, leachate from the Wyckoff Superfund site in Eagle Harbor, failing
septic systems, fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides and improperly abandoned wells,
Bainbridge Island's hydrogeologic characteristics are similar to the following Puget
Sound islands whose aquifers have already been designated as SSA's by EPA: Camano,
Whidbey, Marrowstone, Guemes and Vashon-Maury. Please see the Support Document
for a more detailed hydrogeologic description.
IV. Information Utilized in Determination
The information utilized in this determination include the petition; U.S. Geological
Survey, 2011, Conceptual Model and Numerical Simulation of the Groundwater-Flow
system of Bainbridge Island, Washington, Scientific Investigations Report 2011-5021, 96
pages; Washington Department of Ecology, 201 la, Confirmed and Suspected
Contaminated Sites List, Bainbridge Island City Strawberry Plant Site, August 16; EPA
guidance documents and the City of Bainbridge Water Resource Study (2000). For a
complete list of references used by the petitioner see the Support Document.
V. Project Review
Publication of this determination requires that EPA review proposed projects with
Federal financial assistance in order to ensure that such projects do not have the potential
to contaminate the Bainbridge Island SSA so as to create a significant hazard to public
health. Proposed projects that are funded entirely by state, local, or private concerns are
not subject to SSA review by EPA. EPA does not review all possible Federal financially-
assisted projects but tries to focus on those projects which pose the greatest risk to public
5
-------
health. Memorandums of Understanding between EPA and various Federal funding
agencies help identify, coordinate and evaluate projects.
VI. Summary
Today's action affects the Bainbridge Island Aquifer System located on Bainbridge
Island, Kitsap County, Washington. Projects with federal financial assistance proposed
within the Bainbridge Island Aquifer System will be reviewed to ensure that their
activities will not endanger public health through contamination of the aquifer. A public
notice regarding the SSA designation request was published in the Bainbridge Islander
newspaper on April 20, 2012. Seven comments were received all in general support of
the designation of the Bainbridge Island Aquifer System.
AUTHORITY: Section 1424(e) of the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300h3(e),
Public Law 93-523 of December 16, 1974
Dated: IM^ck 'Zk j
Dennis J. McLerran
Dennis J. McLerran
Regional Administrator
6
------- |