United States

 Environmental Protection Office of Water EPA 816-R-97-009

 Agency 4606 August, 1997

 _____________________________________________________________________________

 STATE SOURCE WATER

 ASSESSMENT AND 

 PROTECTION PROGRAMS

 

 

 FINAL GUIDANCE

 

i

CONTENTS

Chapter 1: Overview of Source Water Assessment and Protection 

and the Safe Drinking Water Act ...................... 1-1

I. INTRODUCTION ............................................. 1-1

A. Purpose of this Document ................................. 1-1

B. Background ............................................ 1-1

1. EPA’s Source Water Protection Goal .................. 1-2

2. Past Accomplishments of EPA and its Partners ........... 1-3

II. SDWA AMENDMENTS OF 1996—NEW RESOURCES AND TOOLS FOR

SOURCE WATER PROTECTION ............................... 1-4

A. The Benefits of Public Involvement ......................... 1-6

B. Assessment Programs .................................... 1-6

C. Source Water Protection and Petition Programs ................ 1-7

D. Drinking Water State Revolving Fund and Other Financing ....... 1-8

III. COORDINATION AND INTEGRATION ......................... 1-10

A. Source Water Assessment and Protection and Other Public Water

Supply Supervision Program Implementation Efforts ........... 1-10

B. Source Water Assessment and Protection and the Watershed Protection

Approach ............................................. 1-10

C. Source Water Assessment and Protection and Other Federal/State

Agency Programs ...................................... 1-11

IV. EPA Technical Assistance ..................................... 1-12

V. Conclusion ................................................. 1-13
ii

Chapter 2: Final Guidance for State Source Water Assessment Programs2-1

I. INTRODUCTION ............................................ 2-1

II. CONTENT OF STATE SUBMITTALS ............................ 2-3

A. Adequate Public Participation in Developing the State Source Water

Assessment Program ..................................... 2-3

B. Requirements/Options for State Assessment Approaches ......... 2-7

1. Statutory Requirements ............................. 2-7

2. Strategic State Approaches .......................... 2-7

3. Requirements/Options for Delineations, Source 

Inventories and Susceptibility Determinations ........... 2-12

4. Adequate Assessment(s) for Waters Which Cross State or 

Country Borders, Boundary Rivers, Multi-State Rivers and the

Great Lakes and EPA’s Role in Assisting States Accomplish 

These Assessments ............................... 2-19

C. Requirements/Options for Making Assessments Available to the 

Public ................................................ 2-21

1. Content of Understandable Assessments— Mapping Assessment

Information, Listings of Sources and Narrative Assessment

Reports Made Available to the Public ................. 2-21

2. Procedures for Making Assessments Available to the Public 2-22

D. Requirements/Options for State Program Implementation ....... 2-24

1. Timetables ...................................... 2-24

2. Resources to be Committed to the Effort ............... 2-25

3. Delegations of Efforts ............................. 2-26

4. Role and Coordination of State Agencies and with Other

Federal/State/Tribal Programs ....................... 2-26

5. Reporting of Program Progress ...................... 2-27

6. Updating the Assessments .......................... 2-27
iii

III. PROGRAM SUBMITTAL PROCESS ............................ 2-28

A. Process for Submitting the State Source Water Assessment Program and

for Program Implementation .............................. 2-28

1. Statutory Requirements ............................ 2-28

B. Outline of the Process For Submitting and Implementing a Program2-29

IV. THE DRINKING WATER STATE REVOLVING FUND AND SOURCE

WATER ASSESSMENTS ..................................... 2-30

A. The Intended Use Plan: The Key Funding Vehicle ............. 2-30

B. The Importance of Funding Source Water Assessment Programs . 2-30

C. Work Plans, Financing, and Implementing Assessments Prior to EPA

Approval of State Source Water Assessment Programs ......... 2-31

D. DWSRF Funding for Programs Supporting State Source Water

Assessment Programs ................................... 2-32

1. Total Maximum Daily Load Program ................. 2-32

2. Monitoring/Modeling Activities ..................... 2-33
iv

Chapter 3: Tools for State Source Water Protection Implementation 

Including Petition Programs and the Drinking Water

 State Revolving Fund ........................... 3-1

I. INTRODUCTION ............................................. 3-1

A. Local Source Water Protection Programs ..................... 3-2

II. OPPORTUNITIES FOR SUPPORT OF STATE AND LOCAL SOURCE

WATER PROTECTION EFFORTS UNDER THE SDWA OF 1996 ..... 3-3

A. Funding for State Source Water Protection Programs under SDWA

Section 1452(g)(2)(B) .................................... 3-3

B. Funding for State Wellhead Protection Programs Under SDWA Section

1452(k)(1)(D) .......................................... 3-7

C. Funding for State Petition Programs Under SDWA Section

1452(k)(1)(A)(iii) ....................................... 3-7

D. Loans for Voluntary Incentive-Based Source Water Quality Protection

Programs .............................................. 3-7

E. Land Acquisition and Conservation Easements ................ 3-8

III. GUIDANCE FOR STATE SOURCE WATER QUALITY PROTECTION

PARTNERSHIP PETITION PROGRAMS ......................... 3-8

A. State/Local Program Procedures ............................ 3-9

1. Substance of Petitions and Process for Submission of 

Petitions To the State ............................... 3-9

2. Recommended State Procedures for Approval/Disapproval of

Petitions Submitted by Local Voluntary Partnerships ..... 3-10

3. Technical and Financial Assistance Available to 

Localities with Approved Petitions ................... 3-10

4. EPA/State Procedures for Grants ..................... 3-11

5. Additional Funding for Local Source Water Petition Programs3-13

B. Benefits and Limitations of the Petition Program .............. 3-14
v

Chapter 4: Relationship Between Source Water Assessments, Source

Water Protection Programs, and the Public Water Supply

Supervision Program ................................. 4-1

I. INTRODUCTION ............................................. 4-1

II. WELLHEAD PROTECTION .................................... 4-1

III. INTERIM MONITORING RELIEF ............................... 4-1

IV. ALTERNATIVE MONITORING ................................. 4-2

V. CHEMICAL MONITORING REFORM ........................... 4-3

VI. SURFACE WATER TREATMENT/DISINFECTION 

BYPRODUCTS RULES ........................................ 4-4

VII. UNDERGROUND INJECTION CONTROL: CLASS V WELLS ....... 4-6

VIII. SANITARY SURVEYS ........................................ 4-8

IX. GROUND WATER DISINFECTION RULE ....................... 4-9

X. CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT ................................... 4-9

XI. OPERATOR CERTIFICATION ................................. 4-10

Chapter 5: Coordination of Source Water Assessments, Source Water

Protection Programs, and Other EPA and Federal Programs 5-1

I. INTRODUCTION ............................................. 5-1

II. INTEGRATING SOURCE WATER ASSESSMENTS AND PROTECTION

WITH OTHER EPA WATER PROGRAMS ........................ 5-2

III. LINKAGES TO OTHER EPA PROGRAMS ...................... 5-20

IV. LINKAGES TO OTHER FEDERAL PROGRAMS .................. 5-21

V. CONCLUSION .............................................. 5-26

 
vi

Appendices:

A. EPA Outreach Process for Notice and Comment by Stakeholders on National

Source Water Assessment and Protection Programs Guidance ......... A-1

B. Process for State Submittal and Implementation of Source Water

Assessment Programs ......................................... A-3

C. Enhancing Topographic Delineations for Surface Water Based Source 

Water Protection Areas ........................................ A-5

D. Conjunctive Delineation of the Zone of Ground Water Contribution and the

Area of Surface Water Contribution to Public Water Systems .......... A-9

E. Partial List of Potential Sources of Contamination Found In Wellhead

Protection

Areas and In Watersheds ...................................... A-13

F. Factors to Consider When Doing Adequate Contamination Source Inventories

and Susceptibility Determinations ............................... A-17

G. Timetable for Certain Actions Under the 1996 SDWA Amendments ... A-21

H. Glossary of Terms ........................................... A-23

I. Requirements for Implementing Sections 1453 and 1428 of the Safe Drinking 

Water Act for State Source Water Assessment Programs ............. A-27

J. List of Acronyms ............................................ A-31
Final Final

Chapter 1

Overview of Source Water Assessment and

Protection and the Safe Drinking Water Act

Final 1-1 Final

Overview of Source Water Assessment and Protection 

and the Safe Drinking Water Act

I. INTRODUCTION

A. Purpose of this Document

The purpose of this document is to provide factor in determining the location of

guidance required by the Safe Drinking centers of population. Indeed, safe drinkWater Act (SDWA) Amendments of 1996 ing water was essential to the quality of

(P.L. 104-182) for state Source Water community life because of the link

Assessment Programs [sections 1453 and between public health and the quality of

1428(b)] and for Source Water Petition the public water supply.

Programs (section 1454). This document

describes the elements of an EPA- We can look at our own history to see how

approvable state Source Water Assessment important a safe, adequate source of water

Program (SWAP) submittal as well as has been to the development of our

EPA’s recommendations for what may be country. Early settlements were charted, in

included in a state Source Water Protection part, according to a ready supply of water

(SWP) Program. The document also for drinking, irrigation, and farming. One

provides an overview of how source water early American example of the importance

assessment and protection integrates with placed on maintaining a clean source of

other SDWA programs and efforts and water is Lord Delaware’s proclamation for

how other EPA and federal programs can Jamestown, issued in 1610:

assist states in developing and

implementing assessment and protection There shall be no man or woman

programs, and vice versa. dare to wash any unclean linen,

B. Background

Public drinking water supplies have always twenty feet of the old well or new

been key to the location and development pump. Nor shall anyone aforesaid

of communities. The public water supply within less than a quarter mile of

of a community often defines and directs the fort, dare to do the necessities

its growth. Historically, the location of a

good source of drinking water was a key

wash clothes, . . . nor rinse or

make clean any kettle, pot or pan,

or any suchlike vessel within
Final 1-2 Final

of nature, since by these unmanly, (FIFRA)—provide authorities, financial

slothful, and loathsome support, and technical assistance to protect

immodesties, the whole fort may sources of drinking water, especially

be choked and poisoned. ground water.

Today, states, municipalities, water

suppliers, and citizens have undertaken

efforts to protect the drinking water

supplies of their communities. From Since the 1986 Amendments to the

Anaheim, California to Portland, Oregon to SDWA, which established the WHP

Tallahassee, Florida to Boston, Program, EPA has supported states and

Massachusetts and places in between like communities in their efforts to protect their

Dayton, Ohio and El Paso, Texas, people

are using several tools to protect their

sources of drinking water, including wellhead protection (WHP), watershed

protection, and reservoir management. 

And this is happening not only in the cities

and large towns; thousands of small and

rural communities are also actively

engaged in protecting their source waters. 

Actions have also been taken on the federal

level to protect water supplies. For

example, the Clean Water Act (CWA)

ensures protection of surface waters

designated, in part, for use as drinking

water. Other environmental laws—the

SDWA (which includes the WHP

Program, the Sole Source Aquifer (SSA)

Program, and the Underground Injection

Control (UIC) Program), Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA),

Comprehensive Environmental Response,

Compensation, and Liability Act

(CERCLA) and Federal Insecticide,

Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act

1. EPA’s Source Water Protection

Goal

sources of drinking water. An Agency

SWP goal is that “by the year 2005, 60

percent of the population served by

community water systems will receive their

water from systems with SWP programs in

place under both WHP and watershed

protection programs.”

How is EPA going to accomplish this

goal? First, we will build on the solid

foundation in place due to the collective

efforts since the SDWA 1986 amendments,

including WHP Programs, SSA Programs,

and public water system (PWS) monitoring

waivers and treatment exemptions that are

based on the existence of SWP efforts. 

Furthermore, the Agency will continue to

build on the successes and efforts of EPA’s

Watershed Protection Approach, Nonpoint

Source (NPS) Programs, Comprehensive

State Ground Water Protection Programs

(CSGWPPs), the Toxic Release Inventory

(TRI), pollution prevention and

community-based initiatives, and other
Final 1-3 Final

federal programs such as the U.S. States

Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Rural Water Association 

Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). For American Water Works Association

example, EPA Headquarters and Regional National Association of Towns and

SWP representatives will work with their Townships

counterparts in the NPS Program to help National Association of Counties

ensure that NPS threats identified through League of Women Voters

source water assessments are Retired and Senior Volunteer

acknowledged as concerns by both Program

programs. Groundwater Foundation

Second, we will make full use of the new From these partnerships grew public

tools and resources provided under the information networks and information

1996 SDWA amendments, with their sharing. The EPA Community Source

emphasis on public involvement and state Water Protection Mentor Project, which

SWAPs, which are logical first steps provides individual mentors to help 

toward state SWP Programs. Also, the implement protection efforts in

amendments provide states an communities, was established, and the

unprecedented opportunity to set aside CWA sections 106 and 319 programs were

funds from the new Drinking Water State put to new uses. The SSA Program was

Revolving Fund (DWSRF) for eligible used to protect major underground sources

source water assessment and protection of drinking water, and CSGWPPs have

activities. been a vehicle for focusing contaminant

2. Past Accomplishments of EPA and

its Partners

Prior to the 1996 SDWA, EPA pollution control efforts on the protection

emphasized ground water and wellhead of drinking water supplies. Watershed

programs and the Watershed Protection protection tools and information have been

Approach to protect source waters. The developed and broadly disseminated to

approval of state WHP Programs was a communities through such vehicles as the

core component of this effort along with internet and highly successful national

the formation of multiple partnerships with conferences. States, such as Massachusetts

agencies and associations that had an and Illinois, and large systems, such as

interest in SWP, such as the following: Portland, Boston, Seattle, and New York,

source control programs on the protection

of drinking water sources. The Watershed

Protection Approach also has provided the

critical means to better focus water
Final 1-4 Final

have developed extensive watershed free of contamination and a good scientific

protection approaches to protect their grasp of each system's susceptibility to

drinking water supplies from potential contamination. 

contamination as a way to ensure the

highest quality water and to reduce The new prevention provisions in the

treatment costs. Amendments has two key elements:

II. SDWA AMENDMENTS OF

1996—NEW RESOURCES AND

TOOLS FOR SOURCE WATER

PROTECTION

The SDWA Amendments of 1996 provide use and water quality management,

an even greater focus on prevention as an which generally are exercised at the

approach to ensuring safe drinking water state and local levels.

that complements the traditional treatment

approach. This approach aims to prevent A strong ethic of public information

problems by increasing both PWSs' and involvement within the states'

capacity to provide safe drinking water and decision-making processes.

protecting the source waters from which

we draw our drinking water. The SDWA requires states to establish and

There are linkages among different parts of these elements. EPA, both in Headquarters

the law which together create a tapestry of and in the Regions, is committed to helping

interwoven provisions in which the ensure successful assessments. As such,

prevention programs are integrated with, EPA will provide assistance to the states

and essential to the success of, the new to:

regulatory flexibilities in the amendments.

The amendments embody the concept that uses the amount of funding from

new, responsible regulatory flexibility the DWSRF necessary to do a solid

(within a baseline of national protection) is job on the assessments.

appropriate, if triggered by sound

information on relevant local conditions. Stretch the assessment dollars by

For instance, with respect to monitoring, working to get the strong

states can provide flexibility to systems, involvement of all appropriate

but it must be based on a history relatively participants and contributors. 

A clear state lead, with flexibility

and resources to achieve results. 

This is necessary because

prevention is ultimately about land

implement SWAPs which include both of

Ensure that each state sets aside and
Final 1-5 Final

Encourage networks for exchange

of information about models for

assessments that have worked for

states, communities, and water

suppliers in other areas.

Identify and help use other

applicable information that can

contribute to or serve for the

assessments, as the law provides.

In the area of SWP, the law represents a

real, national commitment to try the

flexible, state-driven prevention approach. 

There is great flexibility for states to shape

their own SWP programs, with the funding

available under the DWSRF program setaside provision, section 1452(g)(2)(B). 

This provision enables states to adopt SWP

programs that fit the needs and conditions

of each state.

In making linkages between the source

water provisions and other provisions,

including regulatory ones, the

Amendments create a powerful incentive

for fully implementing SWP programs. 

Simply put, the law will not work as

effectively and many of the flexibilities it

offers will not be available without a strong

nationwide commitment to SWP.

Chapter 4 details many of these linkages assessments and capacity development

for source water assessment and protection. strategies alike, states need to be sure the

But virtually every new section of the law

contains important examples. For

example, the Section 1420 capacity

development provisions—in which states

must develop a strategy and take several

actions to boost and ensure the technical,

financial and managerial capability of water

systems reliably to deliver safe drinking

water— have many linkages which are

similar to source water. Just as the base of

information and analysis from a source

water assessment is vital for monitoring

flexibility, so the capacity development

strategy can generate such a base to equip

states to make decisions on restructuring

and water supply alternatives necessary to

offer the flexibilities of variances and

exemptions to small systems. The two

programs are directly linked in that the

challenging task of achieving increased

capacity through improved management of

the water resources and/or physical

infrastructure will be easier and cheaper if

SWP can help provide the water system

with cleaner source water.

Some of these linkages are in common. 

For both source water and capacity, the

annual Intended Use Plan (IUP) that must

be prepared for the DWSRF set-aside

funds is the opportunity to make the public

case for these prevention activities. And

because the SDWA Amendments only

ensure funding once for source water
Final 1-6 Final

programs they propose in these IUPs are

the right ones to equip them to make these

linkages. Similarly, public participation is

required by the Amendments in developing

both of these programs, and in the IUPs, to

ensure that states’ exercise of their wide

discretion in these programs is responsive

to their constituents’ needs, preferences,

and conditions. 

A. The Benefits of Public

Involvement 

The 1996 Amendments place a strong guidance to states by explaining a new

emphasis on public awareness and section 1453 and section 1428(b) of the

involvement. For example, EPA is to SDWA for state SWAPs. States with

develop a regulation for community water Public Water Supply Supervision (PWSS)

suppliers to provide an annual consumer program primacy must submit SWAPs to

confidence report that includes information EPA for approval. States must submit their

on each system's source waters. States are program to EPA no later than 18 months

required to involve the public in after EPA publishes this final guidance. A

developing SWAPs [section 1428(b)], and state program is automatically approved 9

the actual source water assessments for months after submittal to EPA unless EPA

PWSs must be made available to the disapproves the program (or portion

public, in addition to information on thereof).

contaminant occurrence and drinking water

standards violations. A state SWAP must: (1) set forth the

Involving the public in source water assessments; (2) delineate the boundaries

assessments and protection programs offers of the areas providing source waters for

states and localities the opportunity to PWSs; and (3) identify, to the extent

channel the energies of an increasingly practical, the origins of regulated and

informed public into efforts to protect their certain unregulated contaminants in the

water supplies. It is critical to increase delineated area to determine the

public involvement in the actual susceptibility of PWSs to such

development of the state SWAPs in order contaminants. Assessments are to be

to build a base of support for using the completed for all PWSs within 2 years

assessments once they are completed. 

Stakeholder involvement can help states

clearly define goals for the assessments,

design the process for completing

inventories and susceptibility

determinations, define the role of

protection measures, and determine the

best use of set-asides from the DWSRF for

these activities. 

B. Assessment Programs

Chapter 2 of this document provides

state’s strategic approach to conducting the
Final 1-7 Final

after EPA approval of the state’s program. the significant potential sources of

EPA may extend this period up to 18 contamination, and understanding the

months taking into account funds made susceptibility of the source waters of the

available to the state under the DWSRF. PWS(s) to contamination. However, it

States must make the results of the source may be done simultaneously with other

water assessments available to the public. actions that complete a prevention

To avoid duplication, assessment programs program: forming a team, monitoring

may make use of sanitary surveys, state source water quality, implementing

WHP Programs, pesticide state management measures for sources of

management plans, state watershed contamination, and contingency planning. 

approaches including efforts under the In any event, assessments are a tool for

Surface Water Treatment Rule (SWTR), further efforts— not a complete process in

and efforts under the Federal Water and of themselves. Congress explicitly

Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act). recognized this in the numerous statutory

For a state to tailor alternative monitoring section 1453 assessments.

requirements for PWSs under a new

alternative monitoring authority [section To be effective tools, SWAPs need to be

1418(b)], a state must have an EPA- measured for success. The basic measure

approved SWAP. Any PWS seeking of state performance is whether a state

alternative monitoring requirements under completes the program as described in its

a state’s alternative monitoring authority approved program submittal. A program is

must have completed an assessment of its complete when all local assessments are

source water(s). accomplished in accordance with the

Each source water assessment needs to be,

as stated in the statute, “for the protection However, because EPA’s goal is to

and benefit of the public water systems” implement full SWP programs for at least

[section 1453(a)(1)]. In other words, 60 percent of the population served by

Congress clearly desired the assessment as CWSs (144 million Americans) by the year

a precursor to the development of a full 2005, EPA will also encourage states and

SWP program to protect the drinking water localities to implement prevention

for that area. Indeed, an assessment programs. EPA will track progress

provides essentially the first three steps of towards achieving this goal. Agency

a full prevention program: delineating the efforts to achieve this goal focus on

source water protection area, inventorying encouraging the states to actively help their

references to the further application of the

state’s EPA-approved SWAP. 
Final 1-8 Final

PWSs develop full SWP programs, programs of various types. States may

although such programs are not required approach these options in different ways. 

by the SDWA amendments. For example, some states may prefer to

C. Source Water Protection and

Petition Programs

While these programs are voluntary, EPA may allow systems considerably more

believes it is wise for states to plan for discretion to develop and implement

protection programs at the same time they approaches that are based almost entirely

plan for and implement their SWAPs. on the results of system-level assessments. 

Such simultaneous planning would provide

both efficient use of taxpayers’ SWAP The Petition Program, as described under

funds and accountability to the public section 1454, is an entirely voluntary

regarding productive use of source water incentive-based approach. The intent of 

assessment information. In particular, the Petition Program is to receive, approve,

states will likely use current information on and respond to petitions from a PWS

the hydrogeology of different regions of operator/owner or local government. 

the state to determine the level of detail in Petitions request assistance in the

assessments necessary to support development of voluntary local incentiveprotection program options under based partnerships to (1) reduce the

consideration. Finally, opportunities for presence of contaminants, (2) provide

flexibility for PWSs under federal financial or technical assistance requested,

monitoring regulations, ground water and (3) develop recommendations for

disinfection regulations, Class V UIC voluntary, long-term SWP strategies.

programs, and filtration will likely benefit

from, and in some cases be contingent on, Chapter 3 describes some of the benefits

having protection programs in place. and limitations of the section 1454

Chapter 3 of this document describes many state may consider when adopting such a

options that states may consider in program. Further, Chapter 3 describes

developing SWP programs that go beyond how a state-tailored Petition Program could

their required assessment program, be eligible for funds set aside from the

including: statewide or local SWP DWSRF.

Programs; WHP Programs; innovative

local, partnership approaches; and petition

develop statewide SWP Programs using

one basic model while allowing PWSs

some discretion to make modifications

based on local conditions. Other states

program and some modifications that a
Final 1-9 Final

D. Drinking Water State Revolving

Fund and Other Financing

States may set aside funds from the capacity building.

DWSRF to finance the source water

assessment and protection activities In addition, the new SDWA amendments

described above. This includes three contain separate provisions —not funded

possible set-asides: (1) up to 10 percent of through the DWSRF provision—with

a state’s allotment for the DWSRF to funding authorizations for WHP Programs,

administer or provide technical assistance CSGWPPs, and the UIC Program. 

for SWP programs within the state; (2) up However, appropriations for the WHP and

to 15 percent of the state’s capitalization CSGWPP programs were not provided in

grant for more than one of several SWP FY 1997, and UIC funding will likely

activities (i.e., land acquisition/easements, remain at the level of previous years. 

voluntary protection and petition activities, Additional financial support for local SWP

source water assessments and WHP); and activities may be available under CWA

(3) up to 2 percent of the state’s allotment section 319 grants to state NPS programs

for additional technical assistance to small or section 106 programs, and there may be

PWSs. Funds for source water

assessments are only available from FY

1997 allotments. States can apply for

these funds in FY 1997 and FY 1998.

States must match, dollar-for-dollar, the 10

percent set-aside noted in number (1)

above, though certain existing state

expenditures may substantially meet the

match requirements. For the latter two setasides, the 15 percent and 2 percent, there

are no separate state match requirements. 

As a separate match, each state is required

to provide a 20 percent match for the entire

DWSRF capitalization grant to the state

(see the final DWSRF Guidelines for a full

description of this 20 percent match

requirement). Funds set aside from the

DWSRF can also be used for PWS

activities that may complement SWP, such

as operator certification and system

opportunities for targeting the resources of

other programs, such as pesticide State

Management Plans (SMP) or USDA Farm

Bill conservation programs, to support

source water assessment and protection

efforts.

The Clean Water Act State Revolving

Fund (CWSRF) provides a powerful

partnership between EPA and the states,

allowing flexibility to fund projects that

will address states’ highest priority water

quality needs. While traditionally used to

build or improve wastewater treatment

plants, loans available under the CWSRF

are being used increasingly for agricultural,

rural, and urban runoff control; estuary

improvement projects; wet weather flow
Final 1-10 Final

control, including stormwater and sewer systems for additional or reduced

overflows; and for alternative technologies. monitoring, or for actions to help assure

As they evaluate source water assessment compliance with drinking water standards. 

and protection options, states may consider

how to access the CWSRF and the other

funding sources described above.

III. COORDINATION AND

INTEGRATION

A. Source Water Assessment and

Protection and Other Public

Water Supply Supervision

Program Implementation Efforts

Chapter 4 explains how EPA plans to that they work together to better protect

continue its efforts to incorporate source public health and the environment while

water assessment and protection into the reducing duplication of effort and program

regulatory and programmatic functions of costs. The watershed protection approach

the PWSS Program. These linkages are provides a framework in which to achieve

essential to ensuring that prevention efforts better program integration, improve

lead to better-quality drinking water. identification of the highest priority

When increasing systems’ capacities, problems, and increase stakeholder input. 

certifying operators, conducting sanitary The watershed approach focuses federal,

surveys, reforming monitoring, improving state, tribal, and local government

small system operations, or implementing programs and citizen efforts on

standards, PWS managers have an environmental and public health

unprecedented opportunity to ensure that management within hydrologically defined

prevention efforts are enhanced by these geographic areas, taking into consideration

components of the overall drinking water both ground and surface water flow. 

protection program. For example, source Watershed protection approaches may vary

water assessments will generate in terms of specific objectives and

information on significant potential resources. They emphasize partnerships

contamination sources and on the (with the people most affected by

susceptibility of systems to contamination management decisions), a geographic

by these sources that may help states target focus, and scientific data, tools, and

B. Source Water Assessment and

Protection and the Watershed

Protection Approach

The development of state SWAPs and

SWP Programs offers a unique opportunity

to integrate not only drinking water

programs, but also to integrate drinking

water, clean water, coastal, solid and

hazardous waste, agricultural and other

environmental management programs so
Final 1-11 Final

techniques. Many states are developing watershed to take action. Through

strategies for watershed management. improved communication and

Source water assessment and protection coordination, the watershed protection

programs could be an integral component approach can reduce costly duplication of

of these strategies. efforts and conflicting actions.

Operating and coordinating programs on a Finally, the watershed protection approach

watershed basis makes good sense for strengthens teamwork between the public

environmental, financial, social, and and private sectors to achieve the greatest

administrative reasons. For example, by environmental improvements with the

jointly reviewing the results of assessment resources available. This emphasis gives

efforts undertaken for SWP, total those people who depend on the aquatic

maximum daily loads (TMDLs), state resources for their health, livelihood, or

water quality inventories, volunteer quality of life a meaningful role in the

monitoring, state NPS programs, and other management of the resources. Through

aquatic resource protection program such active and broad involvement, the

managers at all levels of government can watershed approach can build a sense of

better understand the cumulative impacts community, reduce conflicts, increase

of various human activities and determine commitment to the actions necessary to

the most critical problems within each meet societal goals and, ultimately,

watershed. Using this information to set improve the likelihood of sustaining longpriorities for action allows these managers term environmental improvements.

to allocate limited financial and human

resources to address these problems.

Establishing environmental indicators

helps guide activities toward solving those

high-priority problems and measuring

success in making real world

improvements rather than simply fulfilling

programmatic requirements. Besides

driving results towards environmental

benefits, the approach can result in cost

savings by leveraging and building upon

the financial resources and the willingness

of the people with interests in the

C. Source Water Assessment and

Protection and Other

Federal/State Agency Programs

In Chapter 5, we indicate how delineating

source water protection areas, inventorying

significant potential sources of

contamination in those areas, and making

susceptibility determinations can benefit,

and benefit from, other EPA programs and

federal programs. For example,

delineating source water protection areas

will enable other programs to identify
Final 1-12 Final

where these areas are located. Also, as

assessments are completed, these other

federal programs (and in some cases state EPA has many resources to assist these

programs) will be able to reset priorities for programs. For example, a comprehensive

prevention efforts to reduce or eliminate listing of all WHP Technical Assistance

contaminants flowing into PWS wells or Documents and how to secure them is

intakes. For some PWSs, this could mean described in a document titled Office of

significant increases in efficiency through Ground Water and Drinking Water

both reduced monitoring and reduced need (OGWDW) Publications (EPA 810-B-96-

for new or more expensive treatment 001). Other documents and information on

technologies. The delineated source water SWP and WHP are available at

protection areas will also certainly increase OGWDW’s internet homepage found at

the awareness of federal, state, and local [http://www.epa.gov/OGWDW]. Another

managers of other programs that action in compendium now available on the internet

these areas may be a high priority for the [http://www.epa.gov/owow/watershed/tools/] is

protection of human health. titled Watershed Tools Directory: A

Similarly, the benefits that other EPA and B-95-005). These documents are available

federal programs can provide to state and by calling the Safe Drinking Water Hotline

local source water assessment and at (800) 426-4791, or by e-mailing a

protection efforts are potentially very large. message to: hotlineThe information, authorities, technical and sdwa@epamail.epa.gov. There are several

financial resources, and communication forthcoming documents on delineation

networks that these other programs have methods such as State Source Water

can be invaluable in helping the states and Protection Area Delineation Methods For

PWSs conduct the assessments and Surface Water Drinking Water Supplies;

implement protection measures. See Delineation of Source Water Protection

Chapter 5 for specific examples of benefits Areas: An Integrated Approach For

provided to source water assessment and Ground and Surface Waters, Case Studies

protection programs by other EPA and For the Conjunctive Delineation of

federal programs. In the coming year, Ground-Water/Surface-Water Source

EPA plans to develop a much more Water Protection Areas; and a

detailed handbook on the opportunities for Compendium of Wellhead Protection Area

integration of SWP efforts with the vast Delineation Documents.

array of federal and state programs. 

IV. EPA Technical Assistance 

Collection of Watershed Tools (EPA 841-
Final 1-13 Final

In addition, over the next 2 years, EPA will inclusive process is a model for how the

sponsor or cosponsor source water Agency will do business in the future. (See

assessment/protection conferences and Appendix A.) 

meetings. For instance, a conference with

the National Governors’ Association and

five other state executive branch

organizations will be held in 1997. In

addition, a conference entitled, “Source

Water Quality and Protection: Delineation,

Monitoring and Effectiveness” is

tentatively scheduled for the spring of

1998.

V. Conclusion

Source water assessment and protection

programs provided for under the 1996

amendments to the SDWA offer

opportunities and tools to protect drinking

water at its source. In so doing, the

President and the Congress have

committed the nation to the building of a

pollution prevention barrier to drinking

water contamination. Each of us is

challenged to do our part in carrying out

this commitment—to make SWP a worthy

complement to the drinking water

treatment process. This guidance is the

product of the efforts of a wide array of

stakeholders from states, other federal

agencies, local governments, water

providers, businesses and environmental

and citizen groups. We are fully engaging

these groups in many ways and appreciate

the contributions made by each

stakeholder. We hope this open and
Final 1-14 Final

 
Final Final

 

Chapter 2

Final Guidance for State Source Water

Assessment Programs 

Final 2-1 Final

Final Guidance for State Source Water Assessment Programs

I. INTRODUCTION 

The SDWA Amendments of 1996, P.L. national policy on these issues.

104-182, include amendments to section

1428, and a provision adding a new section States are required to involve the public in

1453 to the Act. Section 1453 requires developing their SWAPs and to make the

states to develop, submit to EPA, and results of the assessments for public water

implement, once approved, SWAPs. supplies available to the public when

These required state SWAPs are to be completed. In doing so, EPA expects that

submitted to EPA no later than 18 months such information will encourage the

after EPA publishes this guidance in final. development and implementation of

The states must meet all the requirements complete local SWP Programs, which

under sections 1453 and 1428 (b) and (c) incorporate the SWAP assessment

of the SDWA Amendments of 1996. functions, and add the establishment of

Within 2 years after EPA approval of the local teams, source management, and

program (unless extended), states are contingency planning. (See Chapter 3 for

required to complete assessments for all descriptions and means for supporting

PWSs which include source water these additional steps of a complete SWP

protection area delineations, inventories of Program.)

certain contamination sources, and

determinations of susceptibility that The core purpose of the source water

provide for “the protection and benefit of

public water systems.”

This document provides guidance to EPA

personnel and states on how best to

implement the Source Water Assessment

and SWP programs under the SDWA, as

amended. It also provides guidance to the

public and to the regulated community on

how EPA intends to exercise its discretion

in implementing the source water

assessment and protection provisions of the

SDWA. The guidance is designed to

implement the statutory requirements and

assessments in any source water protection

area is to provide a strong basis for

developing, implementing, and improving

SWP actions in that source water

protection area. Furthermore, states need

to consider the many other programs under

the SDWA and other environmental laws

(detailed in Chapters 4 and 5) whose

success for public health protection

depends upon source water assessments,

EPA strongly recommends that these

assessments be viewed not as activities
Final 2-2 Final

done for their own sake, but to protect assessments. Some tribes have

source waters, and to establish a “good implemented WHP activities and

science” basis for providing greater watershed approaches. If so, these tribes

regulatory flexibility to reduce costs and have already begun to delineate their

maintain the delivery of safe water to the source water protection areas and likely

public. have begun a contamination source

The elements that a submittal will need to continue to implement these programs.

contain in order to be approved by EPA are

described in Part II in this chapter. Many If a tribe decides to establish and

of these are explicit in sections 1453 and implement a program, it may submit it to

1428 and must be included as specified; EPA for approval. The process and

many other elements, EPA believes, are timetable for tribal programs, once

crucial for an effective SWAP. For these submitted to EPA, will be the same as

latter elements only, where a state can described here in Chapter 2 for states. 

show it has an equivalent alternative(s), EPA and an interested tribe will negotiate a

EPA will approve the alternative timetable for implementation based on its

element(s), provided that the state resources for the program. 

demonstrates that the alternative meets the

same functional objectives. There are also Tribes may also want to consider

several recommendations that EPA will participation in a state SWAP as an

make for state submittals, but these alternative to, or in conjunction with, their

recommendations are optional for the own program. This could include

states. In other words, EPA is not seeking involvement on a state’s technical and

to apply the guidance as a regulation, but citizens advisory committee(s), as

intends, where appropriate, to allow described in section II.A of this chapter.

equivalent alternatives to meet the

functional objectives of the statute. Tribes can finance development and

Tribal Organizations. While the statute

does not explicitly require the tribes to

implement SWAPs, EPA recommends that

each tribe implement such a program to the

extent appropriate resources are available

to do so. Tribes can benefit from ensuring

that the PWSs on tribal lands undertake

inventory. These tribes are encouraged to

implementation of a SWAP in various

ways. One possibility is to receive funding

from the states. Tribes can also apply for

EPA to fund part of their programs using

EPA’s discretionary funds. Several tribes

have used CWA funding to support source

water assessment-type efforts.
Final 2-3 Final

Organization of this Chapter. The

remainder of this chapter is presented in

three parts:

Part II includes the requirements

and options for: public

participation in developing the state

submittal; the state’s assessment

approach; making assessments

available to the public; and program

implementation.

Part III includes the specific

requirements for when and how the

states will submit SWAPs to EPA

and when and how EPA will

approve or disapprove them. 

Part IV includes a discussion of the Developing the State Source

opportunities for states to use the Water Assessment Program

DWSRF and other funding sources

for developing and implementing

SWAPs.

II. CONTENT OF STATE

SUBMITTALS

In order to be approved, a state submittal

needs to contain the following four

sections:

Description of how the state

achieved public participation in

developing its submittal. (See

section II.A.)

Description of the approach the

state will take to implement a

SWAP, including the goals for the

state SWAP consistent with the

national goals of protecting and

benefiting PWSs. (See section

II.B.)

Description of how the state will

make the results of assessments

available to the public. (See section

II.C.)

Description of how the state will

implement its chosen approach to

SWAPs. (See section II.D.)

A. Adequate Public Participation in

Section 1428 (b) of the SDWA requires

that, “to the maximum extent possible,

each state shall establish procedures,

including but not limited to the

establishment of technical and citizens

advisory committees, to encourage the

public to participate in developing the

protection program for wellhead areas and

SWAPs under section 1453. Such

procedures shall include notice and

opportunity for public hearing on the state

program before it is submitted to the

Administrator.” EPA believes Congress

intended that a state’s public participation

process would build public support and
Final 2-4 Final

responsibility for local water supplies. elderly, transplant patients, dialysis

Therefore, to achieve this goal, for a patients, chemotherapy patients,

SWAP to be approvable, a state needs to people living with HIV/AIDS),

have utilized a public participation process business groups (e.g., agricultural

for developing and implementing a SWAP. chemical manufacturers and small

Further, to understand how the state tribes, land conservation groups,

implemented section 1428(b), a state drinking water suppliers of various

submittal needs to contain a description of type and sizes, wastewater

how the state ensured broad representation treatment plant operators, farmers

on advisory groups and wide public and developers, and others. While

involvement in developing its submittal by a state needs to provide

having: opportunities for these groups to

Convened a statutorily required program development or

statewide technical advisory implementation if any group

committee and a citizens advisory decides not to participate.

committee. One committee is

possible if a state demonstrates in Because a state’s response to the

its submittal that the structure, recommendations of the

membership, and process of the committee(s) should be on the

committee provided for viewpoints public record, a state needs to

for both technical (i.e., technical describe in its submittal the advice

feasibility and effectiveness of a of the committee(s) regarding key

state’s SWAP approach) and program development questions

citizens (i.e., desirability and such as those identified in the

appropriateness of a state’s SWAP several tables in this chapter. (See

approach) considerations. The state Tables 1 through 6.)

needs to provide adequate

opportunity to participate on the Conducted public hearings or

advisory committee(s) to public workshops, focus groups,

representatives of public interest conference calls, or meetings

groups (e.g., river and watershed around the state with prior

organizations), public health groups dissemination of invitations and

(e.g., medical associations), basic information. Opportunities

vulnerable population groups (e.g., need to be provided for general

businesses), local governments,

participate, it may still proceed with
Final 2-5 Final

public involvement by wide and To the extent that:

effective advance notice of the

involvement process; wide (1) A state has implemented these

distribution/availability of decision required SWAP elements for public

planning documents with adequate participation during development of

time to review; meaningful and its WHP Program and/or Watershed

substantial opportunities for all Approach, (or when developing the

interested parties to provide detailed state’s ground water or the state’s

comments; and provision of direct, surface water programs); and

genuine feedback from state

program officials. In addition, a (2) These programs included

state might consider internet delineations, source inventories,

conferences or other outreach and susceptibility determinations

actions. similar to the requirements in this

Furthermore, a state needs to include in its

submittal a responsiveness summary the state needs to undertake only those

showing how the significant public public participation requirements it has not

comments and opinions were used in previously completed.

developing the submittal. These may be

full written responses on the record to all EPA strongly encourages the state to

substantive comments, summarizing continue to work with its technical and

agreement, disagreement, and substantive citizens committee(s) to solicit advice as

reasons for each. the assessments are being done. The

States may use certain DWSRF set-aside linkages to the stakeholders within the state

funds to reimburse members of the as assessments are completed and the

committee(s) or others for travel and other results and assessment information are

expenses associated with public made available to the public. In addition,

participation, based on identified need. the committee(s) can advise the state on

However, EPA recommends that such how to use the assessments in

expenditures be consistent with the level of implementing prevention programs and

funding afforded for the entire assessment improved treatment methods.

effort.

guidance; 

committee(s) will provide valuable
Final 2-6 Final

Table 1

Public Participation:

Key Issues for Advisory Committee(s)

1. Should the state do more to provide adequate

opportunity for stakeholder groups to

participate in development of the program? If

so, how?

2. Should the state do more to receive

recommendations from both technical and

citizen’s perspectives?

3. What should the state do for ongoing public

participation in implementing assessments

once the state’s SWAP is approved?
Final 2-7 Final

STATE TECHNICAL AND CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEES

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ): Oregon’s DEQ developed a WHP

Advisory Committee for policy review and technical advice for their WHP Program. The

committee, 16 people from industry, utility companies, environmental organizations, not-forprofits, and state and local government, met a total of fourteen times over a period of two

years from 1992 to 1994. DEQ offered to pay travel expenses, but only one member

requested reimbursement, based on need. Meetings were open to the public.

Potential members knew what was expected of them before joining the committee. DEQ

explained the extent and duration of the commitment, the goal of working through issues to

provide substantive input, and the reality that the committee’s recommendations would not

necessarily be DEQ’s final policy decision. The committee’s public concurrence with the final

product was one of many extremely valuable benefits of the process.

A significant part of the success of the committee was due to DEQ’s efforts at planning even

before the first meeting. Committee meetings were staffed by two people: one to take notes

or minutes and handle the logistics and administrative tasks, and one to provide technical and

policy guidance and develop the agenda. The committee presented recommendations to

DEQ on all aspects of the WHP Program.

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA): The Illinois EPA built on its tradition of

public involvement in forming a Source Water Protection Technical and Citizen’s Advisory

Committee. The committee of 21 represents PWSs, environmentalists, business, farmers,

and federal and state government. IEPA provides administrative support and a meeting room

and offers travel expenses. The option of reimbursement ensures that committee

membership is based on qualifications, not geography.

Prior to the first meeting, committee members received copies of IEPA’s planning documents

and the U.S. EPA State Source Water Assessment and Protection Programs Draft Guidance. 

The meeting was devoted to discussion of the structure and composition of the committee

itself, background on the new SDWA and IEPA’s related programs, and input and

suggestions on IEPA’s proposed source water assessment and delineation program. In

future meetings, the committee will continue to provide detailed input to IEPA.

The committee will continue to meet on demand throughout the planning and implementation

of the program. Illinois has many mechanisms for public participation, and indeed many

Technical and Advisory Committee members serve on other committees as well. Therefore,

the group decided to meet on an as-needed basis. One specific focus of the group will be to

provide input on the development of public documents.

In addition to the committee’s input, IEPA is holding a public hearing on the CWA and SDWA

revolving loan funds intended use plan. Advance notice of the public hearing was sent out to

over 200 potential watershed and ground water stakeholders. A detailed presentation of

IEPA’s proposed source water assessment and delineation program will be presented at this

hearing. Public comment forms, to obtain written input on the program, are also planned.
Final 2-8 Final
Final 2-9 Final

B. Requirements/Options for State

Assessment Approaches

1. Statutory Requirements 

The goals for state SWAPs are written in program under this subsection shall include

the statute at section 1453 (a)(1), which a timetable . . . allowing for not more than

provides that assessments will be 2 years for completion after approval of the

accomplished “. . .for the protection and program.” “The Administrator may extend

benefit of public water systems and for the any timetable. . . to extend the period for

support of monitoring flexibility. . . .” completion by an additional 18 months.” 

Section 1453 (a)(2)(A) requires that states

“delineate the boundaries of the assessment

areas in such state from which one or more

public water systems in the state receive

supplies of drinking water, using all One of the first steps in any SWAP needs

reasonably available hydrogeologic to be a review of relevant, available

information on the sources of the supply of sources of existing data (including

drinking water in the state and the water susceptibility determinations) at the

flow, recharge, and discharge and any federal, state, and local levels. This would

other reliable information as the state include gathering and analyzing the data to

deems necessary to adequately determine determine what additional information may

such areas.” need to be collected and analyzed to

Section 1453 (a)(2)(B) also requires that state’s assessment program. Many states

states “identify for contaminants regulated have already gathered considerable data on

under this title for which monitoring is contamination sources, performed

required under this title (or any unregulated vulnerability assessments, and analyzed

contaminants selected by the state, in its monitoring data on contaminants in

discretion, which the state, for purposes of implementing the Phase II and V rules and

this subsection, has determined may in developing approved waiver programs

present a threat to public health), to the under those rules. Many states have also

extent practical, the origins within each performed similar work in developing

delineated area of such contaminants to WHP programs. EPA strongly encourages

determine the susceptibility of the public states systematically to assemble, review,

water systems in the delineated area to

such contaminants.”

Section 1453 (a)(3) requires, in part, that

“the Administrator's approval of a state

2. Strategic State Approaches

(a) Initial State Actions

complete individual assessments and the
Final 2-10 Final

and as appropriate utilize information and 1428(b) of the SDWA Amendments of

analyses from these and other existing 1996 (including the completion of source

sources including those specified in section water assessments for all PWSs, and the

1453 (b)(6), early in their SWAP release of the results of the assessments to

implementation. Such information sources the public). To gain EPA approval of its

could include delineations and assessments program, the state needs to include in its

done under a WHP program or state program submittal:

watershed approach; vulnerability

assessments, sanitary surveys, monitoring A description of the level of

programs, delineations and assessments exactness and detail that each

done under a state management plan for assessment (or category of

pesticides; and any other delineations and assessments) will achieve once it is

assessments done under the CWA considered by the state to have been

(including state 305 (b) reporting “completed.” A “completed”

particularly for waters designated to be assessment for a PWS(s) must

used for drinking water sources under state include:

water quality standards), or under state or

local statutes. Moreover, any water system - A delineation of the source

with an existing waiver may already have a water protection area, 

substantial amount of information needed - A contamination source

for a source water assessment, meaning inventory for that source

these systems are among the likeliest water protection area, and 

candidates for expeditious completion of - A determination of the

assessments. PWS’s susceptibility to

(b) Completeness

Section 1453 requires states to complete

their SWAPs no later than 2 years after A description of how each

program approval, or, with an approved assessment will be “for the

time extension, up to no more than 3 1⁄2 protection and benefit of the public

years after program approval. EPA defines water systems” in the state so that

that a state program is“complete” only EPA can determine whether it does

when a state has completed all the actions meet the goals of section 1453.

in its EPA-approved SWAP and met all the

requirements under sections 1453 and

contamination by sources

inventoried within the

source water protection area.
Final 2-11 Final

In regard to the latter requirement, EPA

cannot properly evaluate whether a SWAP

provides for the protection and benefit of Significant funds have been made available

PWSs unless the state describes the linkage through the DWSRF set-aside for the

of these assessments to ongoing or future SWAPs. Many states have already

SWP efforts. Thus, an approvable state undertaken considerable efforts through

SWAP submittal needs to describe such their WHP and watershed protection

linkages, including whether the state plans programs and through their state 305(b)

to implement a SWP Program and how a reports to assess the quality of their source

SWAP will link with existing protection waters and the nature of the threats. Thus,

programs such as WHP programs under EPA realizes that achieving the same level

section 1428 (b). Several options for the of exactness and detail in assessments for

SWP approaches are described in Chapter all PWSs is a significant undertaking that

3. EPA hopes to ensure the information may not be possible with the funding

gained through SWAPs will be directly provided and that may not be appropriate

used for protection actions. EPA, for the purposes of this assessment.

therefore, intends that this requirement for

state submittals will prevent the waste or Therefore, EPA recommends that a state

inefficient use of the DWSRF set-asides establish a strategic approach to its SWAP

for source water assessments by ensuring that will result in different levels of

their utility as intended by Congress and assessments (i.e., with different degrees of

will ensure that clear goals for the use of exactness for delineations and detail in

the assessments will be described to the inventories and susceptibility

public for review during a state’s process determinations) for individual or categories

for SWAP development. This description of PWSs.

may also be consistent with—and may

assist in clarifying—plans for the DWSRF

set-asides described in the state’s IUP, and There are several alternative approaches or

any work plan based on the IUP, as factors that a state could employ separately

required under section 1452. SWAPs are or in combination:

intended to be supplemental and used to

support existing and future SWP efforts,

including WHP programs, which remain in

force (under the SDWA Amendments of

1996).

(c) Differential Approaches

Factors for Determining Approaches. 

Previous Assessment Efforts for

PWSs. Under WHP and Watershed

Protection approaches, formal

assessment efforts may have

already been completed for many
Final 2-12 Final

PWSs. The state needs to understanding the condition of their

determine which of these may have source waters.

already met the goals of the SWAP

and, therefore, would need little or

no additional effort within the

timeframe of their section 1453

SWAP.

Type and Extent of Threats. 

States often have a good sense of

the potential threats to many of the

systems operating within their

borders, even in the absence of

formal assessments. For example,

based on general information about

the hydrology or hydrogeology and

land use patterns influencing the

source waters of a PWS, (e.g.,

information gathered for existing

monitoring waiver programs, as

well as available monitoring data), a

state can make some preliminary

decisions about which systems are

threatened and which are not.

Type and Size of PWS. Some

states may target larger systems for

more extensive assessments due to

the greater population risks and

desire to reduce these risks,

whereas other states may target

smaller systems for more extensive

assessments due to these systems’

lack of economies of scale and need

for assistance in assessing and

Objectives for a Source Water

Assessment. Some states may

desire to vary assessment efforts by

the objectives they set for those

systems. For example, a state may

target some systems for

comprehensive protection activities

while other systems may be

targeted for more focused

protection from certain

contaminants (e.g., microbial) or

situations (e.g., spills). Further,

some states may target certain

systems for alternative monitoring

or for maintaining filtration

avoidances and conduct different

levels of assessments for these

systems than for others.

Examples of Approaches. There are many

combinations of approaches that are

approvable. The following are several

illustrative examples of how states could

differentiate assessments:

For transient non-community

systems, a state may decide to

conduct assessments that identify

sources of microbial and nitrate

contamination only within a

specified distance from the drinking

water well, leaving more detailed

assessment efforts for all
Final 2-13 Final

community water systems (CWSs) state's specific situation). Also, to be

and the majority of non-transient approvable, the state submittal needs to

non-community water systems explain that the approach to complete the

(NCWSs). assessments provides “for the protection

The state may know, based on

information from, for example, a

monitoring waiver program, of

systems that are drawing from

confined aquifers that produce

water which is hundreds if not

thousands of years old. A state

could decide that assessments for

these PWSs be very limited because

the types of sources of

contamination that could threaten

these waters are very specific and

few.

For systems which are seeking

benefits for their PWSs through

regulatory flexibility (e.g., filtration

avoidances), or that want to be

equipped to do SWP, states may

want to perform more detailed

assessments that require an

understanding of their complex

hydrologic patterns and identify and

analyze the nature of the threats

from many sources of

contamination. 

While EPA recommends that states choose

a differential approach, each state must

have a coherent rationale for the approach

it chooses (i.e., it must make sense for the

and benefit of PWSs” in that state.

Process for Approaches. States may

undertake differential approaches to

assessments in many different ways. EPA

recommends states consider one or both of

the following processes:

An iterative process whereby a state

initially uses readily available data

to do assessments for all systems. 

Then based on the results of these

initial assessments, more detailed

assessments are undertaken for

those systems the state determines

need more exactness, specificity,

and thereby additional effort; and/or

Similar to the iterative process,

where one level of assessment is

completed but then a more detailed

effort follows, an interim

assessment provides some initial

information. The interim

assessment is undertaken to provide

a basis for some immediate benefit

to a system(s) (e.g., a less costly

monitoring or treatment

alternative). However, a more

comprehensive assessment would

then be undertaken to meet the
Final 2-14 Final

requirements, including timeframes, fact, EPA recommends that, for an initial

of section 1453. assessment, a state coordinate with federal

Conversely, the process that states tribes to gather and review all existing data

use for collecting and analyzing available at the state level. With a

data to guide decisions on completion of this initial assessment, the

monitoring or treatment alternatives state’s coordination efforts would focus on

may be equivalent to an interim supporting and/or working closely with

Section 1453 assessment; or it is local stakeholders.

possible to consider these as

complete Section 1453 assessments,

but only for those contaminants

that have been adequately

addressed by the state's analysis

and in accordance with this

guidance. 

Coordination Using the Approaches. A

state’s differential approach to assessments

can provide the blueprint for making the

state’s efforts for coordination the most

cost-effective possible. The state can align

specific federal/state programs to specific

elements of its differential approach. For

example, the state may know that the

majority of transient NCWSs are operated

by state and federal land stewardship

agencies such as forest and park land

agencies; the state SWAP could enter into

a memorandum of understanding with

these other agencies and programs to

accomplish the type of assessments

targeted for these systems.

Similarly, an iterative process could point

to a particular strategy for coordination. In

agencies, other states, other countries, and

Table 2

State’s Strategic Approach:

Key Issues for Advisory Committee(s)

1. Has the state done an initial review of all data

sources available and determined the scope

of the need for additional information?

2. What level of exactness/detail should be

achieved by each assessment to be

considered “complete?”

3. Should the level of assessment provide for the

protection and/or benefit of the public water

supply(s)?

4. What should be the basis for differential levels

of assessments to be completed for different

public water supplies or categories of public

water supplies? System type or size? 

Preliminary information about the existence of

threats? Other?

5. How will the state SWAP be coordinated

among various environmental and other state

programs (e.g., PWSS, water quality, water

resources, agriculture, land use, information

management, geologic)?

6. How would the state’s assessment program

lead to state watershed approaches and link

to wellhead and other protection programs?

3. Requirements/Options for

Delineations, Source Inventories

and Susceptibility Determinations
Final 2-15 Final

Each source water assessment for a public approach established by that program. 

water supply(s) must include three However, whether the state has an

elements: a delineation of the source water approved WHP Program or not, it may

protection area; an inventory of significant adopt the delineation approach employed

potential sources of contamination within by another state’s EPA-approved WHP

that area; and a determination of the Program for the hydrogeologic settings

susceptibility of the public water supply(s) common to both states. EPA recommends

to the sources inventoried. These that, in either case, a state consider

assessments can be done on an “area-wide” modifying the WHP Program approach,

basis involving more than one PWS. The where necessary, to take advantage of the

following describes what EPA believes regulatory flexibility to be offered to states

these efforts require and what the state and PWSs in the future under rules such as

needs to include in its program submittal to the Ground Water Disinfection Rule

meet the intent and requirements of section (GWDR). (See Chapter 4.)

1453 and thereby gain Agency approval. 

A state may put forth an alternative to what There are situations for ground water

EPA believes these efforts require, systems where states need to delineate

provided the state demonstrates that the assessment areas outside of, and in

alternative meets the same functional addition to, the typical wellhead protection

objectives. areas (WHPAs). In cases where a

(a) Delineation of Source Water

Protection Areas

Ground Water Systems. For PWSs

relying on ground water, the state program

submittal needs to indicate that the

delineation of source water protection Surface Water Systems. For PWSs

areas will be in accordance with accepted relying on surface waters, the state

methods under the WHP Program of program submittal needs to adopt a policy

section 1428 of the SDWA as described in that sets the delineation of the source water

EPA’s publication titled Guidelines for protection area to include the entire

Delineation of Wellhead Protection Areas, watershed area upstream of the PWS’s

published in June, 1987. Where a state has intake structure (see Figure 1), up to the

an EPA-approved WHP Program, a state boundary of the state borders. In other

may continue with the delineation words, the delineation of the source water

protection area contiguous to the well or

wellfield would alone be inadequate to

provide for the protection and benefit of

the PWS, states need to delineate recharge

areas that are not adjacent to or

surrounding the well.
Final 2-16 Final

Figure 2 A Watershed Area

protection area for these public water potential contamination sources and

supplies would be the topographic determining susceptibility of the public

boundary, up to the state’s border, that is water supply, the state can choose to

the perimeter of the catchment basin that segment the delineated watershed area(s)

provides water to the intake structure. (see Figure 2) into units (e.g., stream

EPA recommends that states use the segments, buffer zones, sub-watershed

United States Geological Survey (USGS) areas) for more cost-effective analysis. 

hydrologic unit codes (HUC) to the extent EPA strongly recommends that states work

appropriate. Where water is diverted into with upstream neighboring states or

this area from another watershed(s), the nations to gain assessment information on

watershed area(s) upstream of each watershed areas that would normally be

diversion structure would also need to be part of a source water protection area for a

delineated in a similar manner. EPA PWS except for its location outside of the

strongly encourages states to include in the state’s borders. EPA also recommends that

delineated area those parts of a watershed states coordinate assessments so they are

that are outside its boundaries and will consistent within a watershed area that

assist the states with any of this work if crosses borders. (See section II.B.4 of this

requested. chapter.)

As described below, for the purposes of

undertaking an inventory of significant

Ground Water/Surface Water Interface. 

EPA recommends that states consider the

impacts of ground water on surface water

when delineating source water protection

areas for PWSs based mostly on surface

water. The source water protection areas

may include surface water contribution

areas and zones of ground water

contribution to public surface water

supplies. The consideration of surface

water contribution areas and zones of

ground water contribution during the

delineation process is termed “conjunctive

delineation.” (See Appendix D for further

discussion.)
Final 2-17 Final

EPA also recommends that States consider proposed Enhanced Surface Water

the impacts of surface water on public Treatment Rule, which included adding

water wells when delineating certain PWSs Cryptosporidium as a regulated

based mostly on ground water but in the contaminant, on July 29, 1994 (54 Fed.

vicinity of a body of surface water. These Reg. 38832), and is required to promulgate

source water protection areas may include the final rule by November 1998, pursuant

surface water contribution areas in addition to SDWA section 1412(b)(2)(C). EPA

to the zones of ground water contribution agrees with the recommendation the

to the PWS. This is important because the Agency received through a Federal

pumping of wells in the vicinity of surface Advisory Committee Act process that the

water may induce infiltration of the surface final rule should contain a removal

water into the ground water and requirement for Cryptosporidium.

subsequently into the pumping well. (See Therefore, by the deadline for state SWAP

Appendix D for further discussion.) submittals, Cryptosporidium will be a

(b) Source Inventories within

Delineated Source Water

Protection Areas 

The state program submittal needs to has determined may present a threat to

indicate what “contaminants of concern” public health. In particular, in light of the

its SWAP will address and what expectation that other microbiological

“significant potential sources” of these contaminants (e.g., pathogenic viruses and

contaminants the program will inventory in bacteria) will be addressed under the

assessment efforts. GWDR, EPA recommends that states

Contaminants of Concern. The

contaminants of concern must include

those raw water contaminants regulated

under the SDWA (contaminants with a Significant Potential Sources. A state

maximum contaminant level (MCL), program submittal also needs to indicate

contaminants regulated under the SWTR, what types of potential sources of the

and the microorganism Cryptosporidium.) contaminants of concern will be considered

This includes Cryptosporidium because “significant” and, therefore, inventoried in

EPA is in the process of regulating this the assessments. The inventory needs to

microorganism. EPA published a include a clear description of the sources of

regulated contaminant.

In addition, states may include those

contaminants that are not federallyregulated under SDWA but which the state

inventory the sources of these

microorganisms in the context of their

assessment approach.
Final 2-18 Final

contamination (or categories of sources) by PWS(s) will result in identifying the

location either specific or by area (this types of significant potential

could be locational coordinates to assist in sources that will be inventoried. 

mapping). As a starting point, Appendix E

lists the types of potential contamination The first approach relies on the inherent

sources for both ground and surface characteristics of the potential

waters. Potential sources include contamination sources (i.e., the amounts

Superfund sites, TRI sites, National produced, stored or used, the likelihood of

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System release including existence of mitigation

(NPDES) permittees, underground storage efforts, etc.). All sources of contamination

tanks (USTs), RCRA sites, and others in the source water protection area that

included in public databases, as well as meet the thresholds for these factors are

anticipated future sources and NPSs. identified as significant potential sources

To gain Agency approval, a state needs to potential sources in the source water

choose and describe in its submittal one or protection area is identified. The state

both of the following two approaches for makes a determination as to the

determining which types of potential susceptibility of the water system(s) to

sources of contamination are significant: these sources. This stepwise approach

Define a significant potential source small source water protection areas (i.e.,

of contamination as any facility or WHPAs). For these, this approach may, in

activity that stores, uses, or some cases, actually provide an

produces, as a product or by- “automatic” susceptibility determination,

product, the contaminants of for the exact location of the significant

concern and has a sufficient potential contamination sources within

likelihood of releasing such small WHPAs would be irrelevant,

contaminants to the environment at assuming there is constant hydrogeology,

levels that could contribute (i.e., given the small size of the source

significantly to the concentration of water protection area, the PWS would be

these contaminants in the source susceptible to any significant source

waters of the public water located in the area).

supply(s); or

Describe how an initial information and initial determinations of

susceptibility determination for the the susceptibility of a PWS(s) to identify

once the presence of these significant

could be rather burdensome, except for

The second approach utilizes existing
Final 2-19 Final

Figure 3 Watershed Area—Segmented for

Assessments

what potential sources would be significant The approach EPA recommends assumes

if located in the source water protection broad initial inventories, with a narrowing

area. This approach is likely to be more and iterative focus based on protection

useful for assessments for PWSs in large goals and better information. As the

source water protection areas. In analysis for any source water protection

particular, EPA recommends that a state area becomes more detailed, a state may

segment large surface water source water want the inventory to be very specific so

protection areas into smaller areas and that protection actions can focus on

determine what types of potential sources specific facilities or areas within a source

would be significant, given the water protection area. Thus, if a state

susceptibility of PWSs for each such determines it will enhance SWP actions yet

segmented area. (See Figure 2.) For not discourage voluntary implementation

segments close to the intake structure, most of protection measures, a state may:

types of contamination sources may be

found to be significant. Whereas for For point sources: identify the

remote segments, most, and in some cases names and addresses of these

perhaps all, types of potential sources may sources of contamination.

be determined insignificant. This approach

allows the state to focus the actual source For NPSs: identify the geographic

inventory effort on those types of area where the NPSs are located. 

contamination sources that are considered

to be significant in each segment. Compliance with federal, state, or local

statutes by a facility or activity that is a

potential source of contamination does not

necessarily mean that a PWS is not

susceptible to that source. Existing

controls and management measures that

are determined by states to be effective

may be an appropriate screen for

susceptibility for some potential sources.

EPA recognizes that completion of these

inventories can be resource intensive. The

Agency recommends that states set up

community volunteer programs under state

or other appropriate quality supervision,
Final 2-20 Final

which can adopt lower-cost methods to related to the likelihood of a significant

locate potential sources of contamination release and to the inherent characteristics

(e.g., using hand-held global positioning of the source (e.g., toxicity, fate and

units). EPA recommends credible groups transport, etc.). (Appendix F provides

within each source water protection area do more detail on possible factors to be

some of the work for the inventories, such considered.)

as the elderly through RSVP programs or

younger people such as the Boy Scouts or The state submittal also needs to describe

Girl Scouts or 4H Club members. how the results of the susceptibility

(c) Determination of Public Water

Supply(s) Susceptibility

The state program submittal needs to protection area; a relative comparison to

describe the state’s definition of a findings by other assessments; or some

“susceptibility determination” and how it other result that would provide for the

will be achieved through the SWAP effort. protection and benefit of the PWSs.

A state may define “susceptibility

determination” as the potential for a A susceptibility determination does not

PWS(s) to draw water contaminated by necessarily require modeling or monitoring

inventoried sources at concentrations that in the source waters to determine which

would pose concern. Such a potential sources of contamination are

determination, therefore, would likely take significant. Nonetheless, EPA encourages

into account hydrologic and hydrogeologic states to undertake such modeling and

factors, inherent characteristics of the monitoring, taking advantage of other

contaminants (e.g., toxicity, environmental resources for these activities than those

fate and transport); and characteristics of available through the DWSRF, where

the potential source of the contaminant necessary to provide a basis for good

(location, likelihood of release, source management measures.

effectiveness of mitigation measures). 

States should note that in small source By including the language in section

water protection areas, where differences 1453(a)(2)(B) “to determine the

in distances between sources and the intake susceptibility of the public water systems

are small, and hydrologic and in the delineated area,” to the identified

hydrogeologic factors are relatively contaminants, Congress decided that an

constant, susceptibility of a water supply is analysis of a PWS’s susceptibility to

analysis will either be: an absolute measure

of the potential for contamination of the

public water supply; a relative comparison

between sources within the source water
Final 2-21 Final

potential sources of contamination will be any assessment, will depend upon the

the means for a state to make the inventory state’s SWAP program approach.

useful for decisions regarding source water

protection programs and other possible

uses. The legislative history further

indicates that a SWAP is intended to

include an analysis of potential threats to

PWSs from the inventoried sources. In

describing the link between the

information in the assessments and source

water protection programs, the House

Committee on Commerce report described

such programs as “designed to protect

source water from threats identified

during the assessment” (emphasis added). 

Simply identifying the numerous

significant potential sources of

contamination does not in itself determine

which of them may or may not present

threats to drinking water, or, which are

priorities to manage in order to protect

drinking water. A scientific analysis of the

hydrogeology and/or hydrology, an

understanding of the contaminants, and an

analysis of the effectiveness of existing

prevention and mitigation measures are

essential so states can credibly apply the

assessment results to SWP and monitoring

and other regulatory flexibility, as

Congress intended. An analysis of the

risks from these sources, described as a

determination of “susceptibility” in section

1453 (a)(2)(B), is therefore a required part

of each SWAP, and thereby for each

assessment in a source water protection

area. The level of detail, however, from

Table 3

Delineation, Source Inventory, and Susceptibility:

Key Questions for the Advisory Committee(s)

1. What delineation method and criteria will be

used for systems using ground waters? 

Where shall recharge areas not be included

and why?

2. What contaminants that are not currently

regulated by EPA should be part of the state’s

SWAP program?

3. Should the state segment source water

protection areas for more focused source

inventories? What should be the basis for

such segmentation?

4. How should the state define and identify

significant potential contamination sources

and how should the state undertake their

inventory within source water protection

areas?

5. How will the results of the susceptibility

analysis be characterized?

4. Adequate Assessment(s) for Waters

Which Cross State or Country

Borders, Boundary Rivers,

Multi-State Rivers and the Great

Lakes and EPA’s Role in Assisting

States Accomplish These

Assessments 

(a) Role of the State

Unless a state can demonstrate that an

alternative meets the same functional

objectives, a state SWAP submittal needs

to contain the following:
Final 2-22 Final

A description of how the state will Virginia could describe how they

delineate source water protection cooperate with each other through the Ohio

areas, conduct an inventory of River Valley Water and Sanitation

contamination sources, and conduct Commission (ORSANCO). 

a susceptibility determination for

that portion of a boundary river, the States should also consult closely with

Great Lakes, or multi-state river local stakeholders across state borders

that is within its borders (using the (particularly water suppliers, watershed

segmented approach in section associations, ground water protection

II.B.3.a). teams, and governments) to get their

A description of how the state will of effort that would be necessary to

make the maximum practical effort achieve the best assessments.

to coordinate with other states,

tribes, or nations to do assessments,

particularly for categories of

significant potential sources of EPA, working through the Regions, will

contamination in upstream states. strongly encourage cooperation among

While not an assessment technique, and complementary source water assessments

therefore optional, states may describe in in a watershed that includes several states

their submittal the contingency planning or countries. Many states already

policy they have for these water bodies in participate in multi-state organizations for

case of spills or other emergencies. protecting rivers or lakes that cross state

States may want to describe any multi-state voluntary on the part of the states, when

agreements or organizations in which they requested by the states, EPA will facilitate

participate or which may be established to discussions and provide regional

create protection and contingency plans. assistance.

States should encourage consortiums

across state lines of water suppliers,

dischargers, and other affected parties to

develop contingency plans and

communication networks in the case of

spills and other emergencies. For example,

Pennsylvania, Ohio, Kentucky, and West

perspective on the scope, focus, and level

(b) Role of EPA

states to accomplish compatible and

boundaries. While these efforts are
Final 2-23 Final

Table 4

Boundary Waters, Multi-State Rivers, and the Great

Lakes: Key Issues for Advisory Committee(s)

1. What agreement should the state maintain or

initiate with other states, tribes, or nations to

gain more complete and consistent source

water assessments?

2. What contingency plans should be pursued?

3. What coordination/facilitation activities should

the state request of EPA?

4. Are compatible and complimentary

assessments being done in watersheds

shared with other states and countries? 

C. Requirements/Options for

Making Assessments Available to

the Public

The statute at section 1453(a)(7) requires

that states “make the results of the source

water assessments conducted under this

subsection available to the public.”

The following describes what EPA

believes this statute requires and what a

state needs to include in its program

submittal to meet the intent and

requirements of section 1453 and thereby

gain Agency approval. A state may put

forth an alternative to what EPA believes

these efforts require, provided the state

demonstrates the alternative meets the

same functional objectives.

1. Content of Understandable

Assessments— Mapping

Assessment Information, Listings

of Sources and Narrative

Assessment Reports Made

Available to the Public

The results of the assessment reflect the

state's analysis of the susceptibility of the

PWS(s) in a source water protection area to

the inventoried sources of contamination. 

For a program to be approvable, a state

needs to make these results available in an

understandable manner and in an

expeditious way after they are complete. 

In addition, as a matter of proper

accountability for the results of a process

reached using DWSRF funds, a state needs

to make available all information collected

during each assessment, when requested. 

Further, a state needs to create maps as part

of the results, and those maps need to

include the delineated area and the sources

of contamination described in the

inventory.

The susceptibility determinations most

usable by the public could be in a narrative

form, but may be presented on a map if the

results of the analysis would be more

understandable in that format. 

Furthermore, EPA recommends that maps

be created through a Geographic

Information System (GIS), but topographic

formats may also be used.
Final 2-24 Final

EPA recommends that states determine the The public is defined as all consumers in a

appropriate scale of such maps, and source water protection area as well as all

therefore, the locational detail. For other members of the public, including

example, a map may need to identify federal, state and local government

individual USTs to help target resources agencies. To the extent that a watershed

for pulling tanks or taking other prevention area or recharge area crosses state

actions. The scale needs to be as detailed boundaries, EPA recommends that the

as necessary to make the assessment contiguous (or other) states make the

provide for the protection and benefit of maximum practicable effort to provide

the public water supplies. consistent information to all members of

USGS can supply GIS coverages of waters area.

within and across state boundaries and

EPA can supply coverages of Reach File 3, To demonstrate that it has met the

that show the location and “address” of requirements for making the results of each

surface waters in the country to a assessment available, EPA recommends

1:100,000 scale. (Reach File 3 is described that a state:

in chapter 5.)

2. Procedures for Making

Assessments Available to the

Public

For an approvable SWAP submittal, a state Make the report widely available

must describe how it will ensure that the via the internet and other means.

results of the assessments are made

available to the public, either directly or Provide widespread notification of

through a delegated entity, in an availability (such as through bill

expeditious manner after the results are stuffers) describing in detail how

done. A state’s description may include the public can obtain a hard copy

approaches from below, but must include (using state rules for charging for

some reasonable and effective array of copies).

means to ensure results will be made

widely available. Permit the public to request a copy

the public in such a source water protection

Create a brief report,

understandable to the public, in an

expeditious manner after the

assessment is finished.

through postage free return mail
Final 2-25 Final

cards, a free call-in number, and report exists and how it can be

internet posting. obtained.

EPA encourages states to make the The notice could be sent to each

assessments widely available by linking customer as part of a utility’s

the results to the Agency’s “Surf Your consumer confidence report. These

Watershed” internet effort, the Index of reports are required annually and

Watershed Indicators (IWI), state 305(b) may be the most efficient method to

waterbody delineation and assessment send either the assessment or the

efforts, and with the Reach File 3 System. results of the assessment, or

(See further description in Chapter 5.) Of announce the availability of the

key importance for such data integration is assessment. This often could

the accurate identification of locational extend beyond, but will, at a

coordinates for public water supply wells minimum, have to comply with the

and intakes, and inventoried significant regulations that will be published

potential sources of contamination. Other under section 1414 (c)(4) of the

options include: SDWA (as amended in 1996).

Send copies of the assessment or a Establish an active outreach process

summary to the public through to make sure each household in the

access to either a telephone or delineated area knows about the

on-line computer system. States assessment report’s availability and

could use existing or new how to access it easily. This effort

information lines or information could include a PWS newsletter, or

phone numbers of community water flyer to each household. The local

supplies. communities affected could

Send a notice or results of each assessment in a local newspaper. 

assessment to each customer in his Communities encompassing PWSs

or her water bill advising could advertize its availability on

consumers annually (or in some radio or on local cable televisions

other timeframe) about how to as well as on local government

attain a copy or view completed internet home pages.

assessments. Such a procedure

would advise all customers that the

advertise the availability of the
Final 2-26 Final

Develop a statewide database of

assessments and have them

accessible through a homepage with

possible links to other ground water

and watershed databases. Such a

database could become part of

EPA’s IWI through the “Surf Your

Watershed internet system. EPA

will provide technical assistance if a

state wishes to use “Surf Your

Watershed” and thereby avoid

creating its own internet program.

Briefly summarize the assessments

from a statewide perspective and

note the availability of the

assessments in the state CWA

section 305 (b) reports. These

reports are available to the public,

and the availability of the

assessments and how to obtain them

could be easily described in one of

the sections of the state report.

Table 5

Making the Results of Assessments 

Available to the Public:

Key Issues for Advisory Committee(s)

1. What should be included in the results of the

assessments, what should be the format of an

understandable report on results, and when

should the results be made available?

2. How and when should the state make

available all the information collected during

each assessment when someone requests it?

3. What type of maps should be developed to

display the results of the assessments?

4. How and when should the state make public

all information collected during each

assessment for a PWS(s)?

5. How should the state or delegated entities

provide wide notification of the availability of

the results and other information collected?

D. Requirements/Options for State

Program Implementation

Section 1453 requires EPA to approve or

disapprove a state SWAP submittal. 

Therefore, EPA needs to assess not only

the policies and approach proposed by the

state but also the likelihood that such an

approach will be successfully carried out

(i.e., whether the proposed program is

feasible and viable). The following

describes what states will need to include

in their program submittal regarding

implementation to meet the goals and

explicit requirements of section 1453. A

state can put forth a different determination

as to what is required to gain EPA

approval, but the state needs to
Final 2-27 Final

demonstrate that the alternative meets the Consideration of the availability to

same functional objectives. the state of funds under the

1. Timetables

In an approvable submittal, a state needs to additional time is needed to

propose a timetable for implementing and complete the assessments based on

completing assessments within the state. A an analysis of how much DWSRF

“completed state SWAP” and a “complete funding it is spending to do the

local assessment” are defined in section assessments. For this reason, EPA

II.B.2.a. encourages states to determine how

The proposed timetable in the submittal assessments for their source water

must be no more than 2 years after EPA protection areas, and then take up to

approves a state program. However, the the full 10 percent allowed from the

statute at 1453(b) allows EPA to grant a FY 1997 allotment. States can

state’s request for an extension of the time apply for these funds in FY 1997 or

available for completion of assessments up FY 1998.

to 18 months after the original 2-year

period. Thus, statewide completion of the Consideration of other relevant

assessments could be a maximum of 3 1⁄2 factors, for example, statewide or

years from initial EPA approval of a state's sub-state emergencies such as

program. States that are continuing to natural disasters.

implement WHP Programs and have been

accomplishing assessment-type work in For the initial program submittal, a state

local watershed efforts, will, in effect, be can provide a rationale for the eventual

implementing assessments over a 6 3/4 extension of the timeframe and base its

year period from the date of enactment submitted timeframes and priorities on the

which was August 6, 1996. extended deadline. If a state requests an

To be approvable, requests for an EPA will make a determination of the

extension to complete a state SWAP must timeframe extension as part of the approval

be made based on: of the state's program.

DWSRF under section 1452 of the

Act. That is, based on its approved

program, a state must show that

much it would cost to complete the

extension as part of its initial submittal,
Final 2-28 Final

2. Resources to be Committed to the

Effort

To be approvable, a state needs to explain discussion of the DWSRF policies for

how it will complete assessments as SWAP.

described in its SWAP using resources the

state proposes to allocate.

(a) Funding from Drinking Water

State Revolving Fund 

For complete discussion of the Agency’s of the section 319 grants and of the

DWSRF policies, the reader may refer to CWSRF may potentially provide support

EPA’s Drinking Water State Revolving to states for assessment and protection of

Fund Program Guidelines released on source waters from NPSs of pollution. The

February 28, 1997, which is available by most recent section 319 grants and

calling the Drinking Water Hotline (1-800- program guidance specifies that 319 grants

426-4791). can be used to support SWP activities,

A state may set aside up to 10 percent of its continue to be eligible to use CWA section

allotment under section 1452 for 106 funds for WHP activities, which may

assessments for PWSs in accordance with include source water assessments.

section 1453 of the 1996 SDWA

amendments. Unlike other SWP activities

eligible for DWSRF assistance, funds for

delineations and assessments under section If a state will delegate some of the aspects

1453 programs are only available from the of assessments, the submittal needs to

FY 1997 capitalization grant. For this include a description of how, to whom, and

reason, EPA encourages states to what aspects of assessments the state will

determine how much it would cost to do delegate, and a formal definition of

complete assessments for their source delegation used in regulations, guidance, in

water protection areas, and then take the another formal state policy, or created for

amount necessary up to the full 10 percent this program. The state submittal also

allowed from the FY 1997 allotment. needs to include a description of the

States can apply for these funds in FY financial capacity of the entity or entities

1997 or FY 1998. Funds set-aside for this who will be performing delegated aspects

purpose must be obligated within four

fiscal years after a state receives its grant. 

Part IV of this chapter provides more

(b) Other Financing Options

Aside from the DWSRF, other potential

sources of financial support for source

water assessments exist. A limited portion

including assessments. States will

3. Delegations of Efforts
Final 2-29 Final

of the assessments to undertake such Federal agencies.

aspects successfully. States and delegated

entities may involve any other appropriate State drinking water programs do not have

groups allowable under state law to do the the resources nor the databases necessarily

assessments. EPA recommends that if to adequately accomplish the assessments

local entities will, in fact, conduct some alone. The assessments will have to be a

aspects of assessments, that appropriate team effort at the state level assisted by

stakeholders participate in the assessments. local stakeholders and federal agencies. 

States have discretion to decide if funding EPA recommends that states briefly

under section 1452(k)(1)(C) will describe coordination in their submittals to

accompany state delegation. However, ensure this coordination will take place.

EPA encourages states to do so because

providing funding where necessary for

delegated assessment activities can ensure

effective completion of the state’s For EPA to know whether a state will be

approved SWAP. EPA believes that meeting the goals of section 1453 and

Congress expected the assessment set-aside accomplishing the state's program

funds would be sufficient for assessment objectives and approach, a state submittal

functions. needs to describe how it will periodically

4. Role and Coordination of State

Agencies and with Other

Federal/State/Tribal Programs

In order for EPA to evaluate whether a for assessments in the required biennial

state will be able to meet the timetable for reports.)

completing assessments set forth in a

SWAP submittal, a state needs to explain For EPA to determine whether a state

in the submittal how it will coordinate using funds under section 1452(k)(1)(C) is

with: moving towards completion of its SWAP

State environmental programs; EPA:

Tribes;

Local stakeholders;

Other states (as described in section

II.B.4);

5. Reporting of Program Progress

report to EPA on progress of the effort.

(See Final DWSRF guidelines for

reporting requirements. Essentially, states

are required to describe how funds have

been expended, using the set-aside funds

program, these states need to report to
Final 2-30 Final

The total number of PWSs, EPA recommends the state present as part

categorized as ground water, of its submittal a plan to update the

surface water, or combined (this assessments, particularly if the state

should be consistent with Safe decides not to modify the scope of its

Drinking Water Information System previous ground water delineation

(SDWIS) reporting). approach in anticipation of its systems’

needs under forthcoming rules providing

The number PWSs by category for flexibility. (See section II.B.3.(a) of

with “completed” delineations, this chapter.) This could include a brief

source inventories, and description of the process it plans to use to

susceptibility determinations. update the assessments to incorporate the

The population served by the PWSs expected to be promulgated by EPA

in source water protection areas. (described in Chapter 4) during the time

How completed local assessments assessments under its approved SWAP

have been made available to the program. These rules include:

public.

States can use current reports or a separate

report to EPA as the mechanism for Chemical Monitoring Reform Rule

providing information on SWAPs. For and Alternative Monitoring Rule

example, states can use their WHP

Program biennial reports to report on Underground Injection Class V

completed programs for ground water, Rule

surface water, and combined systems.

6. Updating the Assessments

Some of the key benefits possibly available EPA notes that states will need to have

to PWSs with adequate assessments will be periodically updated assessment-type

regulatory flexibility under existing as well information in order to make adequately

as future rules such as the CMR, informed decisions in the future on such

alternative monitoring, and GWDR. For matters as monitoring flexibility. EPA

EPA to understand how the state program further recommends that states update

will continue to provide benefit to PWSs, assessments to include new active and

newly regulated contaminants and rules

period when the state is completing the

Ground Water Disinfection Rule

Enhanced Surface Water Treatment

Rule
Final 2-31 Final

current PWSs, and new wells/intakes

identified by the state in its reporting to

EPA under the previous regulations. Also

states should update the assessments for

other purposes such as new changes in

land use that could, if not identified, hinder

protection of PWSs.

Table 6

State Program Implementation: 

Key Issues for Advisory Committee(s)

1. What should be the timetable for state SWAP

program implementation?

2. How much should the state spend on SWAP

program development and implementation,

and should the resources come from the

DWSRF and/or other resources?

3. Should the state delegate aspects of the

assessments? If so, to whom? Should

funding be provided to delegated entities?

4. How should state agencies coordinate with

each other and with other state, federal, and

local stakeholders when implementing

SWAPs? 

5. How and what should the state report to EPA

regarding SWAP implementation?

6. When and how should the state update a timetable, established in consultation

assessments?

III. PROGRAM SUBMITTAL

PROCESS

A. Process for Submitting the State

Source Water Assessment

Program and for Program

Implementation

1. Statutory Requirements 

The statute at section 1453(a)(3) requires

that “a state source water assessment

program under this subsection shall be

submitted to the Administrator within 18

months after the Administrator’s guidance

is issued under this subsection and shall be

deemed approved 9 months after the date

of such submittal unless the Administrator

disapproves the program as provided in

section 1428(c). States shall begin

implementation of the program

immediately after its approval. The

Administrator’s approval of a state

program under this subsection shall include

with the state, allowing not more than 2

years for completion after approval of the

program.”

The statute at section 1453 (a) (4) states

that the timetable referred to in paragraph

(a)(3) must “take into consideration the

availability to the state of funds under

section 1452 (relating to state loan funds)

for assessments and other relevant factors. 

The Administrator may extend any
Final 2-32 Final

timetable included in a state program

approved under paragraph (3) to extend the

period for completion by an additional 18

months.” 

B. Outline of the Process For disapproval to the Governor of the state.

Submitting and Implementing a

Program (See Appendix B) Within 6 months of EPA’s written

Based on the statutory requirements at Governor or Governor’s designee

sections 1453 (a)(3) and 1428 (c)(1), there must submit a modified program to

are three separate and distinct phases for EPA. These state modifications to

establishing state SWAPs: the program submittal must be

Requirements for Program Submittal . 

States must submit SWAPs to the program (or portion thereof) in the

appropriate EPA Regional Administrator 9-month period, EPA will negotiate

by February 1999. The states must with the state in an expeditious

develop programs with public manner to ensure that the state has

participation, as defined in section II.A. an opportunity to develop an

Approval Process for Submittals. EPA

must approve or disapprove a state

program within 9-months after submittal. 

If there is no EPA action in the 9-month

period, a state program will be deemed

approved. When approving a program, the IV. THE DRINKING WATER

Regional Administrator must include a STATE REVOLVING FUND

timetable, established in consultation with AND SOURCE WATER

each state, for completion of the program. ASSESSMENTS 

States must begin implementation

immediately upon approval. A state must A. The Intended Use Plan: The Key

complete program implementation within 2 Funding Vehicle

years of approval unless an extension is

granted. Requirements for extensions are

described in section II.D.1.

Disapproval Process for Submittals. If the

Regional Administrator determines a

program (or portion thereof) is to be

disapproved, EPA must send a written

statement of the reasons for such

statement to the Governor, the

based upon the recommendations of

the EPA. If EPA disapproves the

approvable program. 

EPA must then make a decision on

whether to approve or disapprove a

state’s re-submittal.

Consistent with EPA’s Guidelines for

implementing the DWSRF, the central
Final 2-33 Final

component of the capitalization grant EPA will ask states that indicate in their

application is the IUP. The IUP describes IUP that they do not intend to set aside the

how a state intends to use available full 10 percent for assessments if they have

DWSRF funds to meet the objectives of considered their source water assessment

the SDWA and further the goal of needs in the light of the limited time frame

protecting public health. A state must for the availability of funds for that

prepare the IUP, and after providing for purpose. Assessments are particularly

public review and comment, submit it to important as the foundation of effective

the Regional Administrator as part of its SWP programs; without them, further

capitalization grant application. The IUP progress in protecting source waters from

must include specific details on how a state contamination in an efficient and effective

will use all funds in its capitalization grant, way is very difficult. Assessments are

including funds it will allocate for the necessary components of WHP Programs

set-asides. and SMPs for pesticides and they will play

States have the option of developing the under a number of existing and future

IUP in two parts, one part that identifies federal drinking water protection rules. In

the distribution and uses of the funds addition, the information obtained through

among the various set-asides and the assessments will be critical in targeting

DWSRF, and the other part dealing only source water areas for protection by other

with project funding in the DWSRF. A federal and state programs, including UIC

state may submit a capitalization grant Class V programs, USDA’s Farm Bill

application for only the funds it intends to programs, NPS programs, and watershed

allocate among the set-asides. This option protection programs.

provides states with a great opportunity for

expediting the process for receiving those

funds. As with all grant applications, the

state would have to include a detailed

description (workplan) of the assessment

activities to be funded under the set-aside.

B. The Importance of Funding

Source Water Assessment

Programs

key roles in providing regulatory flexibility

C. Work Plans, Financing, and

Implementing Assessments Prior

to EPA Approval of State Source

Water Assessment Programs

States may use the DWSRF 10 percent

set-aside funds for assessments prior to

receiving EPA approval for a SWAP

Program submittal under the following

conditions:
Final 2-34 Final

The state must have an approach used by the state to conduct the

EPA-approved WHP Program assessments.

under section 1428 of the SDWA

before using the funds to conduct In order for EPA to provide an interim

assessments for systems dependent approval of a state's approach for

on ground water; or if the state does assessments as part of the Agency's review

not have an approved wellhead of the state's DWSRF workplan, the

program, the delineations and workplan must include:

assessments for systems dependent

on ground water must be conducted A description of the state's approach

in accordance with any approved to assessment consistent with the

state program’s delineation policy language of Chapter 2, section II.B

and process or the EPA's June 1987 in this document.

guidance, Guidelines for

Delineations of Wellhead A description of exactly what

Protection Areas, and the state's aspects of the assessments the

approach for assessments must set-aside funds will be used for

receive interim approval by EPA as prior to approval of a state's SWAP.

part of the Agency's review of the

state's DWSRF set-aside work A timeframe for when the state will

plans; and submit the SWAP to EPA for

For systems dependent on surface

water, the state's approach for If EPA finds any of these descriptions

assessments must be described, and substantially inconsistent with this

receive interim approval by EPA, guidance, EPA will disapprove the state's

consistent with this guidance, as approach to assessments and the state will

part of the DWSRF set-aside work not be permitted to use the set-aside funds

plans. until such time as the state makes

In those states where DWSRF set-aside EPA's objections or receives approval of its

funds are used for assessments prior to SWAP.

having an approved SWAP program

submittal, EPA will review on an annual

basis these expenditures, as well as the

approval.

necessary changes to the workplan to meet
Final 2-35 Final

D. DWSRF Funding for Programs

Supporting State Source Water

Assessment Programs

Congress encouraged the use of other rivers, streams, or estuaries meet state

existing programs and efforts that provide water quality standards and designated

information that could be used for source water uses. A TMDL quantifies the

water assessments, as indicated in section pollution to be controlled from permitted

1453(a)(6)(E) of the Amendments: “to point source discharges as well as NPSs

avoid duplication and to encourage such as storm water runoff. EPA

efficiency, the (Source Water Assessment) encourages states to use relevant

program . . . may make use of . . . information from existing TMDL programs

delineations or assessments of surface or to help complete source water delineations

ground water sources under programs or and assessments. 

plans pursuant to the Federal Water

Pollution Control Act.” This intent is also A question that arises is whether states can

reflected clearly on page 64 of the Senate use a portion of the DWSRF allocation for

Environment and Public Works Committee source water assessments to develop a

report (S. Report 104-169) on the 1996 TMDL. EPA’s February 1997 DWSRF

amendments: “states are strongly Program Guidelines state that:

encouraged to use existing assessment data

gathered under other state and federal “States may use funds from this set-aside

programs and guidance developed by EPA (note: the 10 percent set-aside for source

under other federal laws.” water assessments in accordance with

1. Total Maximum Daily Load

Program

One example of an existing program that funds to develop TMDLs only if a clear

can provide useful information for source cause and effect relationship can

water assessments is the TMDL program demonstrate that development of the

under the CWA. A TMDL is designed to TMDL is essential to public health

show how much pollution needs to be protection and continuing compliance with

reduced by individual sources in a national primary drinking water

watershed. A TMDL is a quantitative regulations. Funding TMDLs through

assessment of water quality problems and source water set-asides is only eligible if it

contributing pollutant sources and provides

the information needed to specify the

amount of a pollutant that needs to be

reduced by individual sources so that lakes,

section 1453 of the SDWA) for the

development of TMDLs in limited

circumstances. The state must establish a

policy of allowing use of the set-aside
Final 2-36 Final

will prevent or reduce source water (i.e., delineation, source inventory and/or

contamination or enhance the efficiency of susceptibility determinations).

the drinking water treatment process. In

this context, TMDL activity may be In a limited number of cases, states may

weighed against other source water find that a greater portion than 10 percent

assessment and delineation priority of the 10 percent set-aside may be used for

activities. State SWAPs submitted to EPA TMDL development to improve either the

that propose to include TMDL activity quality and/or efficiency of their SWAPs. 

must ensure that the development of States have this discretion, although they

TMDLs does not delay the completion of must demonstrate clear reasons, consistent

the source water assessments.” with the above criteria, for allocations

Consistent with these constraints, there are recommended by this guidance in their

numerous scenarios under which TMDL bi-annual reports to EPA on the DWSRF

development would be eligible to be program. Again, any funding for TMDLs

funded under the 10 percent set-aside for may be linked to their intended use as

Fiscal Year 1997 DWSRF appropriations. platforms for SWP activities directly

To promote the continued integration of related to public health protection and

public health goals into CWA programs, compliance with drinking water

and to encourage efficiency as envisioned regulations.

by Congress, EPA encourages states to use

up to 10 percent of the 10 percent set-aside

to develop TMDLs for source water areas

as long as the TMDL assessment satisfies As described in section II.B.3.(c), a source

the following criteria: (1) there is a direct water assessment should not ordinarily

linkage between contaminant(s) and/or require modeling or monitoring in the

sources in the TMDL assessment and source waters to determine which potential

public health; (2) the contaminant(s) in the sources of contamination are significant or

TMDL assessment are those that are the susceptibility of the public water

regulated under the SDWA; (3) the TMDL supply. Given the expense of modeling

assessment will assist a PWS(s) achieve or and monitoring, EPA believes that, in most

maintain compliance with a National cases, it would not be cost-effective to

Primary Drinking Water Regulation; and pursue such activities under a SWAP, since

(4) the TMDL performs one or more of the it must complete some level of assessment

three functions required of a state SWAP for all public water supplies. Rather, a

greater than the 10 percent threshold

2. Monitoring/Modeling Activities

state should derive as much information as
Final 2-37 Final

possible from existing monitoring and

modeling efforts or results to support its

assessment. Once completed, an

assessment can, among other functions,

assist the state in determining where

additional monitoring and modeling

activities are needed and pursue these

efforts under appropriate federal and state

programs. Therefore EPA discourages the

use of the funds from the SWAP set-aside

of the DWSRF for these activities unless

the state can show that it provides a costeffective means that are necessary for

achieving the program’s objective of

completing assessments for all PWSs

within the required timeframe.

 
Final 2-38 Final
Final Final

Chapter 3

Tools for State Source Water Protection

Program Implementation

Including Petition Programs

and the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund

Final 3-1 Final

Tools for State Source Water Protection Implementation

Including Petition Programs and the Drinking Water

 State Revolving Fund

I. INTRODUCTION

As described in Chapter 2, the SDWA

Amendments of 1996 require states to

develop and submit to EPA for approval

SWAPs. Upon EPA approval, these

programs are to complete assessments for

all Public Water Supply Systems within

two years after approval if not extended as

provided in the Amendments. This chapter

addresses the principal potential application

of these assessments after they are

completed; i.e., development of SWP

Programs.

In the 1996 Amendments to the SDWA,

Congress included a number of important

provisions related to SWP beyond the

SWAPs, including: (1) continuation of the

WHP program (section 1428) and new

authority for states to support their WHP

efforts through use of DWSRF funds

[section 1452(k)(1)(D)]; (2) a new,

optional petition program (section 1454)

that states may use to help overcome crossprogram coordination barriers and facilitate

voluntary, incentive-based SWP efforts

based on locally driven partnerships, and

authorization to use DWSRF funds to carry

out such programs [sections

1454(a)(1)(B)(i) and 1452 (k)(1)(A)(iii)];

(3) authority for states to use DWSRF

funds to administer or provide technical

assistance through SWP programs, except

for enforcement actions [sections

1452(g)(2)(B) and (D)]; (4) new authority

to provide localities with DWSRF loans

that may be used to purchase land or

easements from willing sellers or grantors,

if the purpose is to protect source water

and ensure drinking water standards

compliance [section 1452 (k)(1)(A)(i)], and

(5) new authority to provide loans to

communities to implement local, voluntary,

incentive-based SWP measures [section

1452 (k)(1)(A)(ii)].

While the 1996 Amendments do not confer

any new regulatory or enforcement

authorities for drinking water source

protection upon the states, many of the

provisions require EPA to further

incorporate SWP into drinking water

regulations, particularly as a basis for

increased regulatory flexibility. (Chapter 4

describes how these SWP efforts can be

coordinated with other drinking water

programs to be of mutual benefit.)
Final 3-2 Final

These provisions of the SDWA 1996 Furthermore, the Senate Environment and

Amendments are clearly intended to Public Works Committee report provides

encourage states and localities to go beyond that, “the only options typically available to

source water assessments and implement community water supply systems finding

efforts to manage identified sources of contaminants in their water supply have

contamination in a manner that will protect been treatment or the development of new

drinking water supplies. This objective is water supplies. . .To remedy this problem,

furthered by the requirement that these the bill adds a new section to the SDWA

assessments be made available to the public that provides a means other than treatment

because, along with other new required for CWSs to address problems or emerging

consumer awareness activities, such problems of contamination,” that is, SWP

information will motivate citizens and efforts including the petition program.

communities to put in place local SWP

Programs.

For example, in the report of the House

Commerce Committee (whose bill,

H.R.3604, contained the SWAP provision

as enacted), states that, “the Committee

recognizes that SWP can be a cost-effective

strategy for ensuring safe drinking water

supplies. . .To address SWP, the bill

creates a new program in which states with

primacy will conduct an assessment,

coordinated with existing information and

programs, to determine the vulnerability of

a source of drinking water within state

boundaries. . .A separate provision in the

DWSRF section provides that DWSRF

funds may be used. . .to administer state

SWP programs, except for enforcement

actions. . .designed to protect source water

from threats identified during the

assessment.”

A. Local Source Water Protection

Programs

In addition to the three steps of a source

water assessment (delineation; source

inventory; and susceptibility

determination), a local SWP effort hinges

on three key steps:

Local Teams

Before any meaningful approach to SWP

can be developed, a team of responsible

individuals needs to be assembled to guide

the process in a cohesive, efficient manner.

They need to be focussed on the primary

objective of protection of drinking water

sources, but they must also recognize the

constraints from other ongoing activities in

the watershed, and the opportunities to

support other watershed objectives for

conservation and habitat restoration.

Ideally, a team will always have at least
Final 3-3 Final

one representative who is actually

employed by a PWS. Getting local citizens

involved in SWP efforts heightens a sense

of ownership in protecting the resource.

The participation of citizen groups such as

retired volunteers has proven very effective

in drinking water protection activities in the

past.

Management Measures

Once potential contaminant sources to

which a PWS may be susceptible have been

identified and inventoried under SWAP

assessments as outlined in Chapter 2,

options for managing these sources need to

be determined. The basic goal is to reduce

or eliminate the potential threat to drinking

water supplies within source water

protection areas either through federal,

state, or local regulatory or statutory

controls, or by using non-regulatory

(voluntary) measures centered around an

involved public, while supporting

conservation and other benefits from

watershed protection and avoiding

unnecessary adverse effects on other

activities in the watershed. While land-use

controls, regulatory and pollutant source

management measures, and other methods

have traditionally been used for a variety of

purposes in controlling impacts of land use

and municipal growth, only recently have

these tools been employed to protect

drinking water supplies on a large scale.

Contingency Planning

Contingency planning is simply the

development and implementation of both

long and short-term drinking water supply

replacement strategies for supplying safe

drinking water to the consumer in the event

of contamination or physical disruption.

II. OPPORTUNITIES FOR

SUPPORT OF STATE AND

LOCAL SOURCE WATER

PROTECTION EFFORTS

UNDER THE SDWA OF 1996

The DWSRF was authorized under section

1452 by Congress to assist PWSs to

finance the costs of infrastructure needed to

achieve or maintain compliance with

SDWA requirements and protect public

health. In addition, states may use a

portion of their capitalization grants to fund

various state and local water systems

management programs and projects

including SWP activities. States may elect

to use up to 31 percent of the funds

available to them under section 1452 for

eligible set-aside activities.

The following are descriptions of various

set-asides directly relevant to SWP. (Please

note that the set-asides described in

subsections B through F are subject to an

overall cap of 15 percent of the DWSRF

capitalization grant, and that cap includes

capacity development activities as well
Final 3-4 Final

SWP activities. Please see EPA’s Drinking While this area of activity is optional,

Water State Revolving Fund Program Congress’ repeated, strong encouragement

Guidelines [February 1997] for details.) to states to translate their source water

A. Funding for State Source Water

Protection Programs under

SDWA Section 1452(g)(2)(B)

A state may use up to 10 percent of its

allotment to administer a SWP program (as

well as a public water supply supervision

program, capacity development program

and operator certification program). While

this set-aside has additional matching fund

requirements, this section provides the

state with the greatest flexibility in using

the DWSRF to establish SWP programs.

State programs could take virtually any

form that represents a coherent, articulated

basis for the appropriate use of taxpayers’

funds for SWP.

Accordingly, the following is intended as a

general discussion to suggest some of the

wide scope of this flexibility. Each of the

categories discussed in the following

provide for a stronger focus of local, state

or federal programs and activities on

drinking water protection. Of course, a

state program could use in conjunction

parts or concepts from any or each of these

categories, or other ideas, according to

resources, opportunities or local

appropriateness.

assessment results into protection indicates

the need to consider, and to the extent

possible, decide at the assessment stage on

undertaking protection efforts. As noted

previously, timely decisions on protection

approaches can enable the most efficient

use of data and analyses generated by

assessments, and most fully capitalize on

the one-time national investment in

assessments. Possible state programs and

activities could fall into any of several

categories, particularly and most likely the

following:

Source Water Protection Through Local

Management

Under this approach, the state would focus

its protection efforts on educating,

equipping and funding local communities

and conservation districts to undertake

directly local SWP initiatives. Such an

approach emphasizes local land use

controls, ordinances, and management

measures.

State technical assistance could help local

entities put together a SWP strategy or

specific management measures to carry out

a local strategy; many of these local

management measures could then be

supported by the state using DWSRF set-
Final 3-5 Final

asides under section 1452(k)(1)(A) (see relevant aspects of the program. Source

headings B through E below). water assessments may generate the

Even if a state decides to put its SWP focus criteria or triggers in such programs, or to

elsewhere, some elements of this approach draw appropriate attention to the potential

are likely to be helpful in any situation. susceptibility of certain drinking water

Local leadership, cooperation and sources. These susceptible sources, once

coordination are vital components of most recognized, can be elevated within the

successful SWP initiatives, and the SDWA existing program’s framework of

Amendments provide a variety of resources protection priorities. Finally, the

that can be tailored to realize the potential additional resources made available under

of many local opportunities. the DWSRF for source protection can

Source Water Protection Through

Enhancement or Broader Integration of

Existing State Management Programs

Many states currently have active programs

to protect water resources from particular

sources of contamination (e.g. the UIC

Program, the Non-Point Source Program),

or to protect waters or lands in a certain

region(s) of the state, certain types of lands

(e.g., agricultural lands), or land

management generally on a statewide basis.

The SDWA Amendments offer an

opportunity to highlight or better integrate

protection of drinking water sources into

those states’ proven, ongoing programs

with a wide range of resource management

and water quality protection objectives.

Often, drinking water protection may

already be recognized as an objective of the

state program, but perhaps not for both

surface and groundwater, or for all

information and analyses to meet the

make it possible to address the more

vulnerable drinking water sources under

the activities or authorities of the existing

program, without disrupting the existing

program’s continuing priorities, or

necessarily diverting its resources from

those priorities.

Source Water Protection As A “Lens” to

Focus Other Federal/State Programs

A wide range of programs at the state and

particularly the federal level (see, e.g.,

Chapters 4 and 5 of this Guidance) offers

relevant authorities and resources that can

achieve SWP objectives. States may

choose to use this approach to create or

enhance a function to coordinate whatever

programs in this range the state believes

will contribute to reaching those objectives.

For example, a network or clearinghouse

function could give a focal point and

facilitate assistance for local governments,
Final 3-6 Final

water systems, and others in communities by applying criteria or priorities selected

to gain access to these relevant programs by the state. This function would also help

and resources. The state office in which to improve coordination among the relevant

this assistance function was placed could agencies on SWP objectives at different

provide a pathway through the complex and levels of government as the applications

time-consuming job of identifying the and supporting information moved in

various types of program help (regulatory tandem through the respective processes.

and/or non-regulatory) that may be

appropriate to a particular local situation,

and pursuing them through different

application processes and levels of

government. After identifying appropriate

state and/or federal programs, the state

office could if necessary help to formulate

and then present the relevant program

applications or petitions and documentation

to the appropriate agencies, and then work

with the communities to advance these

applications in the agencies’ consideration

processes.

States could adjust the level of effort of this

function as appropriate to its resources and

priorities. For example, a state

clearinghouse office for SWP could

respond to requests for aid of the type

discussed above, or might use the source

water assessments to identify high priority

areas to work proactively with local

communities to see that appropriate

programmatic aid and attention was

provided. Where communities that had

been informed about their situations

through the source water assessments

sought help, the state clearinghouse could

respond to these requests in its discretion

Comprehensive Approaches to Source

Water Protection

Existing federal laws have tended to focus

on specific source, pollutants, or waterrelated activities, and have not addressed

the need for an integrated, multidisciplinary approach to environmental

management. Historically, successes in

controlling water pollution have been most

widespread in surface water through

control of point sources and in ground

water by preventing contamination from

hazardous waste sites. Use of a watershed

approach by states could integrate surface

water protection programs with

comprehensive ground water protection

efforts, in order to focus resources of

local, state and federal governments on

protecting source water as a whole. States

are uniquely positioned and qualified to

foster comprehensive SWP because they

implement most existing water and natural

resource programs.

States desiring to move towards or adopt

this approach can use the source water

assessments as a starting point, to identify
Final 3-7 Final

which data developed by other programs the implementation of these existing WHP

can be used in the assessments. programs or to develop such programs for

Assessment results that incorporate such submittal to EPA for approval.

data from multiple programs can provide a

statewide priority-setting structure, by

ensuring that the assessments include data

appropriate and applicable to all relevant

programs. This could provide a means to

advance the coordination discussed in the

approaches above, by seeking to coordinate

drinking water and pollution control

programs with state and federal

administration of related programs, such as

through the Farm bill, remedial efforts

through Superfund, the UST program,

RCRA, and management programs for air,

toxic substances and pesticides, as well as

appropriate state and local programs and

initiatives. The more comprehensive the

approach, the bigger the “toolbox” of

existing management options for SWP.

B. Funding for State Wellhead

Protection Programs Under

SDWA Section 1452(k)(1)(D)

1452(g)(2)(B) set-aside described above as

With few exceptions, most states now have well as 1452(k)(1)(A)(ii) described below.

EPA-approved WHP programs in place,

which provide the cornerstone or a “head

start” in undertaking the source water

assessments required under the 1996

SDWA Amendments. State WHP

Programs remain a requirement under

section 1428 of the SDWA Amendments of

1996. Under section 1452(k)(1)(D), funds

from the DWSRF may be used to enhance

C. Funding for State Petition

Programs Under SDWA Section

1452(k)(1)(A)(iii)

Section 1452(k)(1)(A)(iii) of SDWA

provides opportunities for loans to CWSs

by funding State Source Water Quality

Protection Partnership Petition Programs,

which are detailed under section 1454 of

SDWA. EPA is required under the

legislative mandate of the SDWA

Amendments of 1996 to issue guidance for

this program, which is provided in Part III

of this Chapter. There are particular

benefits as well as limitations to the SDWA

1452 program that states need to consider

before deciding on an approach to drinking

water source protection. A state could

establish a modified petition program to

address those limitations, and such a

program could be supported by the

D. Loans for Voluntary IncentiveBased Source Water Quality

Protection Programs

Section 1452(k)(1)(A)(ii) provides for setasides up to 10 percent of the total amount

received in any particular year as part of a

capitalization grant to the state for loans to
Final 3-8 Final

CWSs for voluntary, incentive-based

source water quality protection measures.

These funds are earmarked for the

protection of source waters within areas

delineated in assessments performed under

section 1453 (or as performed, in advance

of an EPA-approved SWAP, under an

approved DWSRF workplan; see Chapter

2); to help achieve compliance with

national drinking water regulations under

section 1412, or otherwise enhance public

drinking water source protection. These

funds would be used under any state SWP

approach, including those under section

1452(g)(2)(B) or 1454, as long as the

activity assisted was voluntary and

incentive-based.

Where assessment and delineation activities

indicate agriculture is a potential source of

contamination, states and local entities

should consider applying set-aside funds

towards voluntary agricultural resource

management planning and implementation

programs. These funds, in turn, could be

made available to soil and water

conservation districts, other local entities,

and agricultural producers within a source

water watershed to plan and implement

improved management practices under an

Resource Management Plans (RMPs)

designed to protect the source water

resource.

E. Land Acquisition and

Conservation Easements

Funds for land acquisition and conservation

easements are available under section

1452(k)(1)(A)(i) of SDWA 1996. These

funds are to be provided as loans to acquire

lands from persons willing to sell the land,

or in the case of easements, the willing

grantors of the easements, when the

interest acquired will protect drinking

water sources from contamination. Similar

to loans for voluntary, incentive-based

SWP efforts, loans under this subsection

must also be intended to foster compliance

with national primary drinking water

regulations applicable under section 1412,

and to significantly enhance the protection

of public health.

III. GUIDANCE FOR STATE

SOURCE WATER QUALITY

PROTECTION PARTNERSHIP

PETITION PROGRAMS

Section 1454 of the SDWA (section 133 of

P.L. 104-741) establishes a new authority

for a Source Water Petition Program. This

state-administered program is voluntary for

states, and is intended to support

locally-driven efforts designed to address a

limited number of contaminants identified

in local SWP assessments. Petitions may

address: (1) pathogenic organisms which

are regulated (or for which regulation is

required) by EPA drinking water
Final 3-9 Final

standards, or (2) contaminants detected in

source water that are not at levels “reliably

and consistently” below the MCL in the

source water at the intake structure or in

any collection, treatment, storage, or

distribution facility. Under the state

program, an owner or operator of a CWS,

or a municipal or local government or

political subdivision within the state may

submit a source water quality protection

partnership petition to the state, requesting

assistance in support of a local, voluntary,

incentive-based partnership among

interested parties to protect their drinking

water supply. The central focus of the

petition program is to reduce or eliminate

contaminants in the water supply by

addressing their origin; obtain financial or

technical assistance to facilitate efforts to

protect source water in order to meet

national primary drinking water regulations

and standards; and help develop voluntary

and incentive-based strategies for the longterm protection of source water supplying a

CWS. A state may submit a Petition

Program for approval at any time; it is not

necessary to wait until source water

assessments are completed.

A. State/Local Program Procedures

1. Substance of Petitions and Process

for Submission of Petitions To the

State

A petition must: facilitate the local

development of voluntary, incentive-based

partnerships among owners and operators

of CWSs, governments, and other persons

in source water protection areas; and obtain

assistance from the state in identifying

resources which are available to implement

the recommendations of the partnerships to

manage the origins of the contaminants

affecting the drinking water supplies of a

community.

Contaminants addressed under a petition

are limited to pathogenic organisms for

which a national primary drinking water

regulation has been established (or is

required under section 1412), or

contaminants for which a regulation under

section 1412 has been promulgated or

proposed, and that are detected by adequate

monitoring methods at the source water

intake structure or in collection, treatment,

storage, or distribution facilities in the

CWS when they occur above the MCL; or

are not at levels reliably and consistently

below the MCL.

Petitions submitted under this program

must at a minimum contain the following

information: (1) a delineation of the source
Final 3-10 Final

water protection area that is the area of concern, and (6) a description of technical,

consideration of the petition; (2) the financial, or other assistance that the

identity of the origins to the maximum voluntary local partnership requests of the

extent practical of the drinking water state to help develop the partnership, or to

contaminants that are to be addressed by implement the recommendations of the

the petition that are found within the participants in the partnership.

delineated source water protection area

(including descriptions of specific activities

to the maximum extent practical

contributing to the presence of the

contaminants); (3) the identity of

information gaps that would hinder the

development of recommendations made by

the voluntary local partnership for

addressing drinking water contaminants

that are to be addressed by the petition; (4)

documentation of efforts made to establish

the voluntary local partnership, including

solicitation of private individuals living

within the delineated source water

protection area who are likely to be

affected by decisions made by the

partnership and whose participation is

essential to the success of the partnership,

and members of municipal or other local

governments or political subdivisions of the

state with jurisdiction over the delineated

source water area; (5) a description of how

the voluntary local partnership has or will

identify, recognize, and take into account

any voluntary or other activities already

underway under federal or state law in the

delineated source water protection area that

are aimed at reducing or eliminating the

likelihood that contaminants will occur in

drinking water at levels of public health

2. Recommended State Procedures for

Approval/Disapproval of Petitions

Submitted by Local Voluntary

Partnerships

The state may approve a petition if it meets

the requirements of section 1454 (a).

States must provide a notice and an

opportunity for public comment on

petitions submitted under section 1454, and

states must approve or disapprove the

petition in whole or in part within 120 days

after submission.

If the state approves a petition, a notice of

approval must be provided, giving the

following information: (1) an identification

of technical, financial, or other assistance

the state will provide to help address

drinking water contaminants identified in

the petition based on public health concerns

relative to other water quality needs

identified by the state; coordination with

any other states’ programs implemented or

planned under section 1454; and funds

available (including DWSRF monies

accessed through CWA or SDWA State

Revolving Funds), and (2) a description of

technical or financial assistance available
Final 3-11 Final

from state or federal programs to assist in and implemented under a process

implementing the recommendations of the established by the Secretary of Agriculture;

local voluntary partnership in the petition. and any abandoned well closure program.

Disapproved petitioners may resubmit at

any time if new information becomes Full use of available technical and financial

available, if conditions affecting the source assistance will depend upon the extent to

water that is the subject of the petition which states encourage and assist

change, or if modifications are made in the municipalities, local governments, and

type of assistance being requested. CWSs to understand and take advantage of

3. Technical and Financial Assistance

Available to Localities with

Approved Petitions

Assistance is available to help implement

the recommendations made by the

partnership in the petition, including any

program established under the Federal

Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C.

1251 et seq.); programs established under

section 6217 of the Coastal Zone Act

Reauthorization Amendments (CZARA) of

1990 (16 U.S.C. 1455b); agricultural water

quality protection program established

under Chapter 2 of subtitle D of title XII of

the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 U.S.C.

3838 et seq.) and the Federal Agriculture

Improvement and Reform Act of 1996

(P.L. 104-127); the SSA Program

established under section 1427; the

Community WHP Program established

under section 1428; any pesticide or

ground water management plan; any

voluntary agricultural resource

management plan or voluntary whole farm

or whole ranch management plan developed

existing programs at the state level that are

available to help them address sources of

contamination in source water protection

areas. These include programs for the

management of solid waste, USTs,

fertilizer and pesticide use, recycling and

reclamation, underground injection disposal

wells, state Superfund programs, and

others. A large part of the public

participation component of any source

water quality protection partnership petition

program may be focussed on making sure

that the partnership members know and

understand about these existing state

programs and their corresponding funding

mechanisms and opportunities for

integration into a comprehensive SWP

partnership. This helps conserve

resources, maximizes both regulatory and

non-regulatory management mechanisms,

and assures equal representation of the

various members of the partnership in

helping to bring about consensus at various

stages of decision making as the

partnership matures and begins to

implement its recommendations.
Final 3-12 Final

4. EPA/State Procedures for Grants

Procedures and Substance of a Submittal

of a State Source Water Quality Protection

Partnership Petition Program for EPA

and Approval of Such Programs

(a) Substance of a State Program

Submittal

The design of the State Source Water

Quality Protection Partnership Petition

Program may be to “. . .assist in the local

development of a voluntary, incentivebased partnership, among the owner,

operator, or government and other persons

likely to be affected by the

recommendations of the partnership. . .”

Beyond this statutory definition, the state

may consider how well the structure of its

Source Water Quality Protection

Partnership Petition Program satisfies the

following underlying goals: meeting the

spirit and intent of the SDWA Amendments

of 1996 (e.g., affording locals the

opportunity to develop their own drinking

water protection program through the use

of the petition process); recognizing the

diversity of hydrogeologic settings and

sources of contamination that may be

encountered on the local level; allowing

local entities maximum creativity and

flexibility in designing and implementing

the recommendations of the petitioners;

recognizing state and local primacy in

matters of land use and water allocation,

and assisting local entities in achieving

comprehensive SWP by offering the

petition process as a balancing tool in an

overall array of state-administered drinking

water protection programs such as the

state’s WHP, Sole Source Aquifer, and

watershed protection programs.

(b) Procedures for Submitting a State

Program for Grant Assistance and

for EPA Approving a Program

State programs developed for Source Water

Quality Protection Partnership Petition

Programs may be submitted to EPA at any

time. If, after a period of 120 days after

the date of submission of the program,

unless EPA determines that the program

does not meet the statutory requirements as

specified under section 1454(a) of SDWA,

the program shall be deemed approved. If

EPA disapproves a petition program (in

whole or in part) during the 120-day period

after submission of the program, EPA will

immediately notify the state, and will work

with the state to assist in the modification

or redevelopment of the program to meet

the statutory requirements necessary for

approval. Once EPA approval has been

obtained, states may immediately begin

implementing the receipt, review, and

approval process for petitions received

from local, voluntary, incentive-based

partnerships for SWP at the community

level.
Final 3-13 Final

(c) Adequacy Criteria for EPA

Approval of State Program

Submittal

EPA approval of State Source Water

Quality Protection Partnership Petition

Programs will be based upon how

adequately the state’s program process

considers and evaluates the objectives of

the local entity filing the petition. These

objectives include how well the state’s

program process facilitates the

development of local, voluntary, incentivebased partnerships through coordination of

local governments, persons living within

source water protection areas affected by

the decisions or recommendations of the

partnership, and owners and operators of

CWSs, and how well the state program

process provides for assistance from the

state in identifying resources available to

the implement the recommendations of the

partnership in addressing the origins of

drinking water contaminants specified in

the petition. (This includes the specific

activities to the maximum extent practical

contributing to the presence of the

contaminants affecting the drinking water

supplies of the community). The

contaminants for which petitions may be

submitted are specified under section 1454

(a) (3).

(d) Grants to States

Grants may be made to each state that

establishes an EPA-approved petition

program in an amount not exceeding 50

percent of the cost of administering the

program for the year in which the grant is

made available. In order to receive this

grant assistance, states must have approved

programs that meet the criteria and

objectives of section 1454, as described in

this guidance. NOTE: No funds were

appropriated for grants under section

1454 (c) in Fiscal Year 1997. As of this

writing, neither House nor Senate

appropriations bills for FY 1998 contain

a section 1454(c) grants provision.

However, states can use DWSRF funds

under section 1452(k)(1)(A)(iii) for loans

to implement petitions.

These grant program procedures and

submittal are only required if

appropriations are provided for section

1454 of the SDWA and a state chooses to

submit and apply for a grant.

5. Additional Funding for Local

Source Water Petition Programs

(a) Drinking Water State Revolving

Fund

A state may make a loan to assist a CWS

implement voluntary, incentive-based SWP

measures resulting from the

implementation of recommendations

specified by a local partnership petition

submitted to the state. Only community

(not non-community) water systems are
Final 3-14 Final

eligible for this assistance, and only

pathogenic organisms, and chemicals

exceeding MCLs or chemicals not reliably

and consistently below established MCLs

can be identified as contaminants in the

petition. If a state elects to use the

DWSRF set-aside, the state must develop a

list of systems that will receive loans,

giving priority to projects that promote

compliance and protect public health, and

subsequently seek public review and

comment on this list. States are

encouraged to review EPA’s recently

released final guidelines on the DWSRF

for use in prioritizing projects eligible for

loans under the set-aside.

(b) Sense of the Congress Regarding

the CWSRF

Section 606(c)(1) of the CWA provides for

a listing of state activities for water

pollution control eligible for funding

assistance under sections 319 (Non-Point

Source Program) and 320 (National

Estuary Program) as well as under the

state’s CWSRF IUP. It is the sense of the

Congress that each state in establishing

priorities under this section of the CWA

may give special consideration to projects

that are eligible for funding under that Act,

and that have been recommended pursuant

to a petition submitted under section 1454

of SDWA (section 133(b) of the SDWA

Amendments of 1996).

B. Benefits and Limitations of the

Petition Program

The petition program can support efforts to

focus other relevant state and federal

programs towards SWP activities. It is

intended to provide a process by which

states may encourage and facilitate

voluntary, incentive-based local

partnerships as another tool in the drinking

water compliance toolbox to address

existing and emerging problems at the local

level. The process is also intended to gain

access to various forms of financial and

technical assistance critical to successful

local SWP partnerships. For local

entities, the formation of a local

partnership will be the crucial part of the

petition process; for the state, a designated

liaison person could screen applications,

and if the petition is deemed valid, serve as

the “lens” to focus various forms of

technical and financial assistance available

under both the drinking water and other

state and federal programs. It would then

be up to the respective program

administrators to decide whether to provide

assistance to the community and selected

source water entities.

A short public comment period is provided

in the process to ensure that both drinking

water and source water stakeholders are

made aware of the request and have an

opportunity to provide input.
Final 3-15 Final

A great majority of resources that could be systems may only use the petition program

brought to bear in supporting the petition if they have a contaminant exceeding the

process fall under the jurisdiction of MCL (e.g., a violation of the MCL), or

programs beyond the scope of SDWA or for contaminants which do not appear

the drinking water community (e.g., CWA, consistently and reliably at or under the

the Federal Agriculture Improvement and MCL at the system intake structure. States

Reform Act of 1996). The petition may want to instead have a more

program attempts to focus these scarce prevention-oriented program approach than

resources on drinking water protection by that afforded by the petition program. For

encouraging the formation of local example, the state may want to consider

partnerships and by seeking the establishing detection levels for some

presentation of basic information such as contaminants in the source water upstream

the nature of the problem to be addressed; of the intake structure as the basis for a

identification of information gaps; efforts petition, or a petition could be in regard to

to establish a local partnership; recognition potential sources that may not yet have

of ongoing efforts; and the type of released pollutants to the environment

assistance required. The intent of such a (e.g., USTs).

petition is to provide a strong link between

the requested assistance and achieving The procedures and prerequisites required

public health protection. Without of local and state government by the 1454

establishing this link, it may be difficult to program may delay the resolution of

obtain resources from federal/state violations or near-violations of MCLs or

programs that are important to SWP at the the prevention of near violations of MCLs

local level, but not part of the SDWA. by a PWS. Also, limiting a state to

While the petition program may provide a result in a fragmentation of regulatory from

valuable adjunct to total SWP, it does have non-regulatory programs, whereas a more

some key limitations. Although local integrated program could be more efficient.

petitions can be developed to prevent

microbial contamination, such petitions can For these reasons, states and local

only be developed after chemical communities need to consider the net

contamination has already occurred, thus benefit of the section 1454 petition

not a preventive approach. Thus, the program in comparison to other

program is not totally a prevention approaches—including a modified petition

program approach in the traditional sense. approach, or a more comprehensive SWP

Specifically, under section 1454, local program (e.g., WHP or watershed

voluntary, incentive-based programs could
protection) in terms of cost and efficacy in

protecting the public health. The state

should evaluate the advantages and tradeoffs inherent in those programs before

deciding what is right for them.

If a state chooses to establish a 1454

petition program or a modified version of

the program tailored to meet the state’s

needs, both are eligible for DWSRF

support under section 1452(g)(2)(B). In

addition, a 1454 petition program or some

other voluntary program could be the basis

for providing DWSRF loans to CWSs

under subsection (ii) of section

1452(k)(1)(A), though loans under

subsection (iii) may only be made within a

section 1454 program.

EPA is required to issue this guidance on

the petition program, but a state program is

subject to approval by EPA under section

1454 only if the state is to receive funds to

administer the program from funds

specifically authorized under section

1454(e). To date, EPA has not requested

such funds, and no funds have been

appropriated. Nevertheless, a state may

find guidance on the petition program to be

helpful in evaluating the usefulness of the

petition program option and various

alternatives. This evaluation can lead to a

state’s tailoring a workable vehicle for

encouraging local partnerships and

facilitating coordination across federal and

state programs necessary for successful

source water protection.
Final 3-17 Final
Final Final

Chapter 4

Relationship Between Source Water

Assessments and Source Water Protection

Programs, and the Public Water Supply

Supervision Program

Final 4-1 Final

Relationship Between Source Water Assessments, Source Water

Protection Programs, and the Public Water Supply Supervision

Program

I. INTRODUCTION

Preventing the contamination of and

maintaining good quality drinking water

supplies are the primary goals of SWP

efforts under the SDWA. Reducing or

preventing chemical and microbiological

contamination of source waters could allow

PWSs to avoid costly treatment or

minimize monitoring requirements. States

could also save resources that would

otherwise have to be devoted to compliance

assistance, oversight, and enforcement.

The purpose of this chapter is to identify

those programs either already established

or under development in the PWSS

Program that could benefit from SWP

efforts, and in turn, discuss how some

PWSS activities can help states and systems

achieve objectives of the source water

assessment and protection programs.

II. WELLHEAD PROTECTION

As discussed throughout this document, the

WHP program is a pollution prevention

program designed to protect ground waterbased sources of drinking water, and offers

important linkages for state source water

assessment and SWP programs. The 1996

SDWA Amendments continue the

requirement under section 1428 for WHP

program implementation, as defined by the

1986 SDWA.

III. INTERIM MONITORING

RELIEF

How can source water assessments assist

an interim monitoring relief program?

Under section 1418(a),states may reduce

monitoring relief requirements for most

contaminants for an interim period for

systems serving under 10,000 people if: (1)

the initial sample fails to detect, at the time

of greatest vulnerability, the presence of

the contaminant; and (2) “the state,

considering the hydrogeology of the area

and other relevant factors, determines in

writing that the contaminant is unlikely to

be detected by further monitoring during

such period.”

The interim monitoring relief period would

end either when alternative monitoring is
Final 4-2 Final

adopted and approved for the state, or

August 1999, whichever comes first.

Interim monitoring relief would not apply

to microbiological contaminants,

disinfection byproducts, or corrosion

byproducts, but would apply to all other

chemical contaminants. To serve as the

basis for interim monitoring relief,

monitoring conducted at the beginning of

the period must occur at the time

determined by the state to be the time of

the source water’s greatest vulnerability to

the contaminant, “taking into account in the

case of pesticides the time of application of

the pesticide for the source water area and

the travel time for the pesticide to reach

such waters and taking into account, in the

case of other contaminants, seasonality of

precipitation and contaminant travel time.”

States could use any relevant information

gleaned from source water assessments to

help determine whether interim monitoring

relief for given systems and contaminants

would meet those requirements. At a

minimum, assessments would help the state

identify those systems likely to be eligible

or ineligible for monitoring. However,

EPA recognizes that, due to the different

timing of the interim monitoring relief and

source water assessment provisions, few

new assessments (as opposed to data from

existing sources) are likely to be available

in time to be useful for interim monitoring

relief decisions.

IV. ALTERNATIVE MONITORING

How can source water assessments assist

states in implementing an alternative

monitoring program?

Under section 1418 (b), states with an

approved SWAP may adopt “tailored

alternative monitoring requirements” where

the state “concludes that (based on data

available at the time of adoption concerning

susceptibility, use, occurrence, or WHP,

or from the state’s drinking water source

water assessment program) such alternative

monitoring would provide assurance that it

complies with the Administrator’s

guidelines.” (emphasis added) EPA has

published guidelines for alternative

monitoring under separate cover.

Alternative monitoring does not apply to

microbiological contaminants, disinfection

byproducts, or corrosion byproducts - it

would apply to all other chemical

contaminants.

Under alternative monitoring, states may

allow reductions in monitoring frequency

for most chemical contaminants in

accordance with the provisions of the

Alternative Monitoring Guidelines released

simultaneously with this guidance.

Alternative monitoring provides one of the

clearest potential benefits for states and

systems to conduct source water

assessments. Primacy states that do not
Final 4-3 Final

have an EPA-approved SWAP will not be

eligible to offer alternative monitoring to

their PWSs. For a PWS to be eligible for

alternative monitoring, the assessment for

the delineated area or areas from which the

PWS derives its source water must be

completed.

Unlike the limited time frame for granting

interim monitoring relief, there is no time

constraint for granting alternative

monitoring by the state. This should

encourage states not only to conduct source

water assessments so as to gather

information needed to make alternative

monitoring determinations, but to maintain

an active and comprehensive assessment

program. States that do so will be at an

advantage in responding to system requests

for monitoring, and in responding to the

public regarding good science justifications

for such decisions. Source water

assessments will provide states with greater

knowledge about their PWSs which will

translate into increased flexibility not only

for granting alternative monitoring, but for

using other regulatory options as discussed

below.

V. CHEMICAL MONITORING

REFORM

How can CMR assist states and localities

in conducting source water assessments?

An Advanced Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking for CMR was issued on July

3, 1997. The rule is projected to be

promulgated by August 6, 1998. EPA is

considering requiring states to screen their

systems to identify those systems at risk of

contamination and establish sampling

during the period(s) of greatest

vulnerability. This screening and the

development of system specific sampling

schedules will typically involve identifying

potential contamination source(s) and

determining the probable timing of greatest

contamination based on the management of

those sources and intervening

hydrogeologic or climatic features. These

analyses would support, and be supported

by, activities that states undertake in

implementing a SWAP. Depending on the

timing of the CMR regulations, states

could incorporate data from screening

analyses conducted under CMR into their

SWAPs or vice-versa. The process of

targeting at-risk systems may help states

establish priorities for conducting more

thorough assessments.
Final 4-4 Final

How can source water assessments assist

in the development and implementation of

CMR?

A state SWAP could serve, at least in part,

as a technical basis under the CMR for

screening systems to determine which are

at risk. For many states, the information

collected through the source water

assessments could provide a necessary

component for meeting the requirements of

CMR.

VI. SURFACE WATER

TREATMENT/DISINFECTION

BYPRODUCTS RULES

How can implementation of the Surface

Water Treatment Rule assist states and

localities in conducting source water

assessments?

Under the SWTR, a system is eligible for a

waiver from filtering their surface water

supply only if a series of water quality and

disinfection criteria are met, and the

system maintains a watershed control

program satisfactory to the state that

minimizes the potential for microbial

contamination. Systems that have received

such waivers have source water

delineations and an inventory of potential

sources of pathogens in the watershed, in

particular Giardia and viruses. They also

have a source water monitoring program

for coliform bacteria and turbidity, and are

subject to annual inspections that include a

review of the effectiveness of the

watershed program. In these cases, states

are encouraged to use information already

available with respect to SWTR

contaminants in conducting assessments of

these systems. For systems with approved

filtration waivers where sources of

regulated microbial contaminants have been

assessed, states or delegated entities must

conduct assessments for potential chemical

contamination as well if they have not been

previously inventoried and analyzed to

determine susceptibility.

How can source water assessments assist

implementation of the Surface Water

Treatment Rule and future Enhanced

Surface Water Treatment rules?

In overseeing approved filtration avoidance

waivers, states may benefit from additional

information that would otherwise not be

available in the absence of source water

assessments. The SWTR is designed to

minimize risks from only a subset of

microbial contaminants (Giardia, viruses,

Legionella) and filtration avoidance

determinations could have missed potential

sources of contamination from

Cryptosporidium, a pathogen which will be

regulated under the Enhanced SWTR, as

well as other indices such as phosphorous

loadings or chemical contamination. In

addition, assessments could provide

information on activities in the watershed
Final 4-5 Final

with potential for contamination of source lesser percentage of viruses from source

water, and on water quality in waterbodies water. In addition, unless attention is paid

upstream from drinking water reservoirs to the effluent quality of each individual

(e.g., tributaries) that could signal potential filter, the treatment plant may be subject to

threats. This type of information could suboptimal performance. Assessments in

provide states and systems with important conjunction with other watershed protection

tools to identify problems and prevent measures could identify potential threats

contamination that could ultimately trigger and help such systems maintain multiple

filtration requirements. Further, this barriers against microbial contamination

information could prove invaluable in and good source water quality and thereby

efforts by states and systems (both filtered avoid the need for additional treatment, as

and unfiltered) to prepare for future recommended in the SWTR Guidance

regulatory requirements for Enhanced Manual. Since additional treatment can

Surface Water Treatment and Disinfection only be provided in the form of increased

Byproducts. disinfection, this would have the adverse

The Agency encourages states to review byproducts. Assessments could also assist

available information on their unfiltered states to prioritize oversight, technical

surface water systems in cases where assistance efforts, or DWSRF funding

watershed land is not protected, to considerations for those systems that are at

determine whether or not system increased risk of source water

vulnerability to microbial contamination contamination. As noted above, if properly

has increased since a filtration avoidance designed, operated and maintained,

determination was made. Where states filtration will remove 99% of Giardia in

determine that microbial vulnerability has the source water; it also removes a similar

significantly increased, states may find that percentage of Cryptosporidium. Because of

additional SWP measures or assessments Cryptosporidium’s extreme resistance to

are needed, or ultimately, that filtration most disinfectants, in particular to

cannot continue to be avoided. chlorine, utilities with poor source water

For surface water systems that have enhanced SWTR, to modify disinfection or

filtration in place, the SWTR does not add treatment. Any of these options would

require any SWP measures. Filtration require major expense that could be

systems require proper operation and avoided if source water contamination by

maintenance and are generally expected to Cryptosporidium is adequately controlled.

remove only 99% (2 log) of Giardia and a

effect of increasing the level of disinfection

quality might be required, under a future
Final 4-6 Final

How can source water assessments assist

in the implementation of future

Disinfection Byproduct Rules?

Source water microbial quality and the

levels of disinfection byproduct precursors

(naturally occurring organic matter that

reacts with disinfectants to form

disinfection byproducts), will be key

factors in determining the level of

treatment that will be required under the

future Enhanced SWTR, as well as the

Stage1 and2 Disinfection Byproduct rules.

Predicted costs to comply with more

stringent standards for disinfection

byproducts increase rapidly ifa change in

treatment becomes necessary. Knowledge

of watershed characteristics, sources of

contamination, and variability of source

water quality will be important in

evaluating the feasibility of reducing

(organic) disinfection byproduct

precursors, e.g., by reducing nutrient

levels from fertilizer overuse or from

sewage treatment plant discharges.

Sources of disinfection byproduct

precursors are often also sources of

pathogen contamination. Controlling

sources may be the most economical longterm solution for some utilities to meeting

more stringent disinfection byproduct

standards as well as avoiding expensive

treatment technology changes to meet

future microbial standards.
Final 4-7 Final

VII. UNDERGROUND INJECTION

CONTROL: CLASS V WELLS

How can implementation of the UIC

program assist states in conducting source

water assessments?

The UIC program addresses various types

of wells where fluid wastes from industrial,

commercial, or municipal operations are

injected into the ground to various depths.

Different types of wells are regulated under

different regulatory programs. For

example, Class I and Class II wells inject

wastes from industrial and municipal, and

from oil and gas operations, respectively,

to depths typically to thousands of feet.

While Class I and II wells can be numerous

in some areas, they are not considered a

significant risk to drinking water supplies.

Not only are their depths generally below

aquifers used for drinking water, Class I

and II deep wells are strictly regulated by

state or EPA UIC permitting programs.

The controls for these deep wells focus on

well siting, construction, operation, and

closure. Because these safeguards are

sufficient in protecting even special sources

of drinking water, source water programs

should not emphasize further risk

assessment for Class I and II wells in

source water protection areas.

In contrast, Class V wells usually inject

wastes to relatively shallow depths that can

lie above drinking water sources

underground. Further, Class V wells do

not have prescriptive operating and

construction requirements and are not

completely inventoried. Given these

factors, Class V wells can pose risks to

drinking water sources and should be

included in SWAPs.

Class V program staff can identify Class V

wells that are potential sources of

contamination in wellhead and source water

protection areas, particularly those that

may pose a risk to a community’s water

supply. Class V program staff, as a

priority, have targeted shallow

underground disposal wells in source water

protection areas to ensure that the wells

comply with the SDWA by having owners

and operators close the well or having

other management measures applied to

avoid endangerment.

Class V wells are one of the most

important sources of contamination to

public water supplies and may always be a

high priority for identification when

assessments are conducted. Unfortunately,

these wells are not easily found since they

may consist of a septic system that a

commercial facility misused to dispose of

its wastewater, or floor drains at

industrial/hazardous material-handling

facilities. Further, some Class V wells,

such as appropriately operated septic

systems, may pose relatively low risks to

an aquifer compared to other contamination
Final 4-8 Final

sources in the same source water protection For Class V well categories other than

area. Class V program staff may have an cesspools and industrial disposal wells,

inventory of the Class V wells that are such as agricultural drainage wells, risk

located in a source water protection area and impact information is limited and the

and may assist with the search for high risk wells will not be regulated until sufficient

facilities. information is gathered. A SWAP can

EPA has transferred primary enforcement study of Class V wells where EPA will be

authority for the Class V UIC program to collecting information on those Class V

34 states. Programs in the remaining 16 wells that have been identified in source

states are implemented by EPA at the water protection areas. This information,

Regional level. EPA Regions also in turn, can be used to support the Class V

implement Class V programs for Indian rulemaking and determine whether

tribes and territories. additional regulation is needed.

How can source water assessments assist

implementation of the Class V Program?

State SWP programs can support Class V

programs by addressing Class V wells in

source water protection areas. EPA is The purpose of a sanitary survey is to

developing proposed regulations to be evaluate and document the capabilities of a

published by June 18, 1998 that are PWS to continually provide safe drinking

anticipated to target high risk Class V water and identify any deficiencies. A

injection wells, such as large capacity system’s treatment, storage, distribution

cesspools and industrial waste wells in network, operation and maintenance are

source water protection areas. Once new evaluated as part of a survey. In addition,

Class V rules become effective, it will be a sanitary survey could include analysis of

important that source water protection the source waters for the system. Sanitary

areas are delineated if the final rule targets surveys provide a fundamental

high risk wells in these areas. Source understanding of current and potential

water assessments will help state UIC threats to water quality and system

program managers save considerable reliability. Sanitary surveys could provide

resources by allowing these regulations to the opportunity for state drinking water

be targeted, as a program priority, to officials (or approved third party

delineated source water protection areas.

assist the Class V program in the national

VIII. SANITARY SURVEYS

How can sanitary surveys assist states in

conducting source water assessments?
Final 4-9 Final

inspectors) to conduct the formal source

water delineations and assessments.

If states choose to rely on the sanitary

survey schedule to conduct all of their

source water assessments, one concern

would be whether the assessments could be

completed within the time frame specified

in the Act. Under 40 CFR 142.10, states

must establish a systematic program for

conducting sanitary surveys, with priority

given to PWSs not in compliance with

drinking water regulations. The 1995

EPA/State Joint Guidance on Sanitary

Surveys recommends numerous factors for

states to consider in establishing a survey

plan. These plans will be negotiated with

EPA Regional Offices. In many cases, the

sanitary survey plans and the SWAPs could

be integrated by the state to insure

completion of source water assessments so

that the two can be done concurrently.

Sanitary surveys could provide one means

of providing updates to the SWAP and

follow-up on development of SWP

activities.

How can source water assessments assist

states in conducting sanitary surveys?

States could use information collected in

source water assessments, whether done

separately or concurrently, to enhance

sanitary survey information and to identify

systems of concern that may receive

priority for surveys.

IX. GROUND WATER

DISINFECTION RULE

How may source water assessments and

protection measures help prepare states

and PWSs for the GWDR?

Section 1412(b)(8) of the SDWA directs

EPA to issue a regulation after August

1999 requiring disinfection for ground

water systems, as necessary, after

publishing criteria for states to use to

determine if ground water systems need to

disinfect. In developing the GWDR, EPA

is considering strategies to control risk

from microbial contamination as an

alternative to disinfection. These

strategies are likely to include a well

vulnerability determination that evaluates,

among other things, the following WHPrelated activities:

Delineation of a microbial

protection area (e.g., is it based on

scientifically defensible microbial

inactivation rates, or an equally

protective method?)

A thorough inventory of significant

potential microbial sources of

contamination within the delineated

area (e.g., are sources present and

what is the relative risk they

represent?)
Final 4-10 Final

An assessment of the hydrogeologic develop technical, financial, and

conditions that apply to a PWS’s managerial capacity to comply with SDWA

source waters (e.g., is the system in requirements. States wishing to receive the

an area of intrinsic groundwater full DWSRF allotment will need to prepare

sensitivity?), and a capacity development strategy to assist

The relative effectiveness of technical, financial, and managerial

microbial source management capacity.

controls (e.g., do established

microbial setback distances for Technical capacity may be generally

sources provide protection understood in terms of three issues: source

equivalent to the delineated water adequacy, infrastructure adequacy

microbial protection area? Has the and technical knowledge. Source water

effectiveness of specific best adequacy can be defined as reliable water

management practices for sources, awareness of source water issues,

minimizing microbial contamination and may include a SWP plan. Source

been demonstrated in the field?) water assessments can provide information

When developing their SWAPs, states water adequacy, and, in turn, building of

should review the strategies being technical capacity and a capacity

considered for the GWDR. EPA also development strategy.

encourages states to review the components

of their WHP Programs and establish

setback distances for potential microbial

sources to ensure that they adequately

address microbial contamination risks.

X. CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT

How can source water assessments assist

in the development of an effective capacity

development strategy?

The 1996 Amendments to the SDWA limit system is lacking and source water

the availability of assistance from the represents a significant weakness, the

DWSRF to systems which possess or can capacity development strategy should direct

PWSs in acquiring and maintaining

directly relevant to determining source

How can the capacity development

strategy assist states in conducting source

water assessments?

The capacity development requirements of

the SDWA are extremely flexible, and

allow states to develop creative ways to

help systems build capacity. This guidance

emphasizes the importance of source water

assessment in the bigger picture of public

health protection. If technical capacity of a
Final 4-11 Final

attention onto that element. Because the

capacity development strategy also includes

managerial and financial capacity as well as

technical, states can use this opportunity to

develop a comprehensive approach to

strengthening their drinking water systems.

The holistic approach embodied in capacity

development leads naturally to an

integrated view of source water

assessment/protection. Capacity

development is compatible with source

water assessment and protection since both

focus on the foundations of safe drinking

water.

XI. OPERATOR CERTIFICATION

The 1996 SDWA Amendments require

states by February 2001 to implement an

operator certification program based on

guidelines, established by EPA, setting

minimum standards for operators of PWSs.

Both operator certification and SWP focus

on prevention. Operator certification will

help to ensure that PWSs have the technical

and managerial capacity and training to

provide safe water on a continuing basis.

Successful state SWAPs will require active

involvement by PWS operators. In this

regard, training for certified operators

should include an understanding of SWP as

a prevention technique to protect public

health.

How can an operator certification

program assist states and localities in

conducting source water assessments?

The presence of certified operators can

assist the state in conducting source water

assessments, particularly if operator

certification includes knowledge of ground

water and watershed protection problems

and techniques to solve these problems.

A fully trained operator, as the on-site

professional, should understand the

benefits of multiple barriers to prevent

contamination of drinking water supplies

and should be able to provide important

insights into the risks to water supplies

from different, potential sources of

contamination.
4-12
Final Final

Chapter 5

Coordination of Source Water Assessments

and Source Water Protection Programs, and

Other EPA and Federal Programs

Final 5-1 Final

Coordination of Source Water Assessments, Source Water

Protection Programs, and Other EPA and Federal Programs

I. INTRODUCTION

Protecting ground and surface sources of

drinking water supplies requires a wide

array of actions ranging from establishing

partnerships, assessing the vulnerability of

critical water and biological resources,

identifying and controlling sources of

pollution, land use planning and

management, monitoring for contaminants,

nutrients, and other water quality

parameters, and enforcement of various

local, state, and federal laws. Any of these

efforts benefit from coordination and

communication across different levels of

public and private interests, and reliance on

a range of funding sources,

regulatory/permit requirements, and

voluntary agreements.

The 1996 SDWA amendments provide

states with new opportunities to protect

drinking water by engaging the public, the

private sector, and governmental agencies

to take advantage of functions outside the

traditional drinking water programs

discussed in Chapter 4. Several states have

already taken steps in this direction by

adopting, for example, a statewide

watershed management framework. The

basic framework is to consolidate and

synchronize planning and implementation

efforts for individual watersheds or river

basins. Such an approach pools expertise

and funds to solve common concerns

among partners, tailored to geographicallyfocused areas that cross jurisdictional or

programmatic boundaries.

As many states have discovered, water

quality programs can be significantly more

effective by collaborating with other

agencies and integrating other program

elements such as transportation,

agriculture, mining, forestry, fisheries and

wildlife, housing, tribal affairs, parks and

public lands, land use and infrastructure

planning, energy utilities, hazardous and

solid waste, and toxic substance control.

Source water assessments can provide

better, locally-focused data that tie into a

comprehensive state water quality

management program that includes ambient

water quality standards and monitoring,

wastewater permitting, water withdrawal

permitting, non-point source controls,

pollutant load allocation, pollutant trading,

watershed planning and other elements of

water quality protection. In this way, SWP

can become more than a programmatic end

in itself; it can become a “lens” by which

states look at their priorities in other
Final 5-2 Final

programs, and focus on drinking water as a are adopted by states and tribes to protect

central element in overall water quality public health, restore chemical, physical,

management. and biological integrity of waters, and

This chapter summarizes some of the propagation of fish and wildlife, and

existing programs outside the SDWA, recreation (“fishable/swimmable”).

administered by EPA or other federal Standards consider the use and value of

agencies, that states can build on in state and tribal waters for public water

developing and coordinating their source supplies, agricultural and industrial

water programs. The linkages described purposes, and navigation. Water quality

here can be important for building a strong standards depend on the designated uses of

base of information for source water the waterbody, and are based on water

assessments, as well for initiating and quality criteria established by EPA.

evaluating mitigation, protection and

restoration strategies, contingency Water quality criteria set levels on

planning, and emergency response. How individual pollutants or parameters, or

these various programs will be blended describe conditions of a waterbody that, if

together will depend on priorities in met, will generally protect the designated

different states or regional areas across use of the water. EPA has developed to

neighboring states, as well as the unique date, 103 recommended aquatic life or

characteristics and needs for localized wildlife criteria and 181 recommended

aquifers, or individual watersheds, basins, human health criteria.

reservoir systems, rivers, or streams. A

more detailed guide to linkages with other

programs will be provided in a subsequent

guidance.

II. INTEGRATING SOURCE

WATER ASSESSMENTS AND

PROTECTION WITH OTHER

EPA WATER PROGRAMS

Water Quality Standards

Water quality standards are a fundamental

component of watershed management; they

provide water quality for the protection and

How can the water quality standard

program assist states and localities in

implementing source water protection

programs?

State or tribal water quality standards could

be the core framework on which to base

SWP, planning and management. Where

a particular water is designated as domestic

water supply, human health criteria are

benchmarks to determine if the water is

meeting its drinking water use, and for

establishing the basis for controls on
Final 5-3 Final

pollutant discharges or for management drinking water supplies that exceed

actions to ensure that the drinking water minimum standards necessary to support

use will be attained. Where criteria have fish and aquatic life and recreation, water

not yet been established for pollutants quality can be maintained unless there is a

considered to be at elevated levels in demonstrated need to lower water quality.

particular waterbodies, states or tribes State and tribal antidegradation policies and

typically use MCLs or maximum procedures can create a systematic and

contaminant level goals (MCLGs) as levels accessible planning process that protects

that should not be exceeded in ambient against haphazard development having

water. negative impacts on water quality in source

For water bodies that already meet local level beyond state and federal

designated uses, water quality standards authorities which may allow additional

contain antidegradation provisions to protections to be put in place in accordance

ensure that water quality is maintained with a watershed management plan.

(unless, through a public process, some

lowering of water quality is deemed to be

necessary to allow social and economic

development to occur), and to identify

water bodies of extraordinary ecological or

recreational significance or rarity and

safeguard water quality in such water

bodies.

The antidegradation policies of states and

tribes ensure that water quality is

conserved where possible and lowered only

when necessary, and that those affected by

the lowering of water quality have a say in

the final decision. As a result,

antidegradation policies are well-suited to

assist states, tribes and local communities

in watershed protection programs.

Sensitive or highly valued waterbodies used

as drinking water supplies can be identified

and protected from degradation. For

waters. Additional authorities exist at the

The Watershed Approach: Key Elements

Partnerships. The wide variety of

individuals, water suppliers, industry and

agricultural representatives, Native

American tribes, government agencies,

citizen groups, conservation districts, the

academic community, etc., who depend

upon the natural resources within the

watershed, as well as downstream users,

should be involved in planning and

implementation.

Geographic Focus. Activities are directed

within specific geographic areas, typically

the areas that drain to surface water bodies

or that recharge or overlay ground waters

or a combination of both.
Final 5-4 Final

Sound management techniques based on watershed assessments among different

strong science and data in a decision programs (e.g., TMDL assessment, see

making process that includes: below for others). Integrating SWP

Assessment of natural resources; and targeting source waters as high priority

Goal setting based on the condition state, local and volunteer programs, will

or vulnerability of natural resources result in better understanding of the most

and ecosystems, and the needs of critical pollutant sources, lead to more

the community; efficient use of resources, and improve the

Identification of priority problems; improvements.

Development of specific

management options and action

plans;

Implementation; and

Evaluation of effectiveness and

revision of plans, as needed.

The iterative nature of the watershed

approach encourages partners to set goals

and targets and to make maximum progress

based on available information while

continuing analysis and verification where

information is incomplete.

How can a Watershed Approach assist

states and localities in conducting source

water assessments and implement SWP

programs?

Information needed for source water

assessments may be available from other

programs into watershed protection efforts,

areas for protection by various federal,

likelihood of sustaining long-term

How can source water assessments assist

state and local watershed protection

programs?

Assessments that identify source water

priorities can be integrated into other

watershed protection efforts like point and

nonpoint source pollution control, wetlands

protection, waste management, air

pollution, and pesticide management. This

integration of efforts will allow various

watershed stakeholders to look for

opportunities to leverage limited resources

to meet common goals.

CSGWPPs, as part of the Watershed

Approach, will use the assessments for

WHPAs and certain recharge areas to

better target federal and state ground water

protection programs to these high priority

areas. Maps for these areas will be

prepared by the states so that all programs

will know their exact locations.
Final 5-5 Final

drinking water protection objectives

Key watershed protection decision makers including, as appropriate, the states’

at the state and local levels: State and CWSRF priorities.

local public health, environment, and

natural resources agencies, PWSs, industry

and agricultural sector representatives,

citizens groups, and tribes all contribute to

collaborative decision making.

For more information on watershed efforts

visit EPA’s homepage

[http://www.epa.gov/owow/watershed/].

Clean Water Act State Revolving Fund

How can the CWSRF assist states and

localities in conducting source water

assessments and implementing source

water protection programs?

As discussed previously, the CWSRF

provides a powerful partnership between

EPA and the states, providing states with

flexibility to fund projects that will address

the highest priority water quality needs.

While traditionally used to build or

improve wastewater treatment plants, loans

available under the CWSRF are

increasingly being used for agricultural,

rural, and urban runoff control, estuary

improvement projects, and wet weather

flow control (including stormwater and

sewer overflows). As they evaluate source

water assessment and protection options,

states may consider how to access the

CWSRF and to make more specific

Index of Watershed Indicators

The IWI is the first national effort to

organize aquatic resource information and

present it at the watershed level. The

Index is built on 15 different water

resource indicators using information from

a variety of public and private partners.

Drawing on these indicators, the Index

provides a description of the condition and

vulnerability of each of the 2,111

watersheds in the coterminous U.S.

(Alaska and Hawaii will be added later.)

IWI is designed so that national databases

and the descriptions of each watershed are

available on EPA’s internet homepage

under the “Surf Your Watershed” web site

[http://www.epa.gov/surf/iwi.prev.html].

Using the Index, EPA hopes that citizens

will better understand conditions in the

watersheds where they live and be part of

preserving or restoring healthy aquatic

systems. This first effort to characterize

watershed condition and vulnerability is a

“work in progress” based on current data.

 EPA will periodically update IWI to

reflect more current and complete data

from other EPA offices, states, tribes, and

others that have more detailed information,

and to reflect development of new

indicators not yet adequately covered, such

as ground water.
Final 5-6 Final

The EPA drinking water program is IWI and the analytical tools (including GIS)

actively involved in this initiative. One of available on the Surf web site provides a

the fifteen data layers is an index of several starting point to identify locations of the

drinking water data sets to characterize most serious water quality problems and

source water condition. CWS inventory where further assessment, monitoring,

and violation data have been extracted from education, and protection programs need to

the Safe Drinking Water Information be focused.

System (SDWIS) and is a key component

of the watershed index being developed. Because data will be geo-referenced and

How can IWI and the Surf Your

Watershed web site assist states and

localities in conducting source water

assessments and implementing source

water protection programs?

The IWI and Surf web site provide state

and tribal water quality managers access to

information not readily available anywhere

else. First, IWI watershed profiles colocate the CWSs at the watershed level

with the other EPA data bases identifying

point and non-point sources of

contamination of ambient ground and

surface waters. This gives states and

others ready access to data on potential

source water pollution on a geographic

basis. Second, IWI includes a separate

source water assessment data layer which

combines three data sets into a single index

to characterize source water condition.

The initial IWI release shows that 60% of

the watersheds rated show some degree of

impairment for public water supply use.

accessible through the use of the Surf data

management tools, states and localities will

be better able to display the condition and

vulnerability of drinking water intakes/

wellheads and focus on the need for

protection measures. IWI and Surf may in

the future be expanded to include

protection measures that are in place in the

watershed.

How can the source water assessments

improve the utility of IWI and the Surf

Your Watershed web site?

The initial release of IWI provides only a

watershed-level assessment of the condition

and vulnerability of the water resources.

The initial IWI also uses surrogate

measures of source water condition that are

of limited utility on a watershed-bywatershed basis. The source water

delineations and assessments will

supplement existing data sources and

provide for the first time a comprehensive

characterization of the risk to drinking

water sources in the watershed. This will

allow EPA and states to better target CWA
Final 5-7 Final

program resources to improve watersheds conducted under the CWA’s NPS Program

at risk. (section 319), the National Estuary

Clean Water Act Monitoring and Data

Management Programs

Section 305(b) of the CWA requires states

to report to EPA on the condition of their

waters. States conduct ambient water

monitoring to determine the quality of their

waters, changes in water quality over time,

the causes of water quality problems, and if

pollution control programs are working.

Water monitoring data are compared to

state standards to determine the extent to

which waters meet designated uses,

including drinking water supply. States

use their 305(b) water quality reports to

communicate findings to the public and to

better manage their water programs. The

national summary of these state reports is

presented in a report to Congress and its

conclusions about sources and causes of

pollution help determine where to focus

national water pollution control efforts and

resources. The report also includes

information on state and tribal water

pollution and drinking water programs and

special human health and aquatic life

issues.

EPA produces a variety of monitoring tools

such as technical methods and protocols, as

well as guidance recommending baseline

state monitoring program components to be

implemented. Monitoring is also

Program (NEP) (section 320), the Clean

Lakes Program (section 314), and through

various special studies and programs.

EPA’s data management program for

ambient water quality is centered on EPA’s

STOrage and RETrieval system

(STORET). This database contains

decades of raw surface and ground water

data. Much of the raw data analyzed for the

305(b) water quality reporting process is

stored in STORET.STORET, which is

available at EPA’s website at

[http://www.epa.gov/owow/storet/].

STORET is currently being modernized to

more effectively handle the complex needs

of the nation’s evolving monitoring

programs with the help of the National

Water Quality Monitoring Council, a

consortium of public and private

monitoring agencies. EPA and the USGS

are co-chairs of the council.

EPA’s information on water discharges

permitted by NPDES is included in its

Permit Compliance System (PCS) database.

How can EPA monitoring and data

management programs assist states and

localities in conducting source water

assessments?

Source water assessments are not intended

to involve substantial amounts of new,
Final 5-8 Final

ambient monitoring. Any monitoring The modernized STORET data

undertaken for assessments must be

economical and effective; cooperative work

with existing state monitoring programs

will ensure that duplication of monitoring

effort is not occurring, and that any new

data that are collected are appropriate and

credible. Coordination with the EPA data

management staff will ensure that all

needed data storage capabilities for SWP

efforts can be included in the modernized

STORET system.

For those source waters that need

additional pollutant occurrence data, EPA’s

technical monitoring tools (e.g.,

monitoring protocols and guidance

documents) may be useful.

In 1994, EPA asked states to prepare

multi-year state water monitoring strategies

addressing core program elements,

including integration with program-specific

monitoring such as source water or

NPDES. EPA will continue to work with

the states to produce comprehensive, multiyear monitoring strategies that can serve as

a base for SWAPs, and at minimum may

be closely linked with monitoring and

assessment of specific source waters.

Guidelines for the 1998 305(b) report calls

for states to include plans of how they will

achieve comprehensive monitoring

coverage of their waters, including

assessment for drinking water designated

use where applicable.

management system will be able to handle

information generated by source water

assessments. A vast array of information

on data owners, project and survey types,

field activities, sampling stations, types of

samples, and sampling results will be

storable and accessible in the modernized

STORET, along with quality assurance

checks to ensure the reliability of the

information.

EPA’s Water Body System allows states to

submit and store their CWA 305(b) data in

electronic form, including information on

whether waters designated for drinking

water can meet that use.

EPA is also working to strengthen state

georeferencing capabilities to better track

monitoring information for mapping and

GIS applications. GIS tools, including the

USGS HUC codes and EPA’s hydrological

Reach File 3 system that assigns unique

locational identifiers to the waters of the

U.S., will be valuable in source water

assessments. For Reach File 3 coverage,

call the STORET hotline at 1-800-424-

9067.

How can monitoring and data

management programs assist states and

localities in implementing source water

protection programs?
Final 5-9 Final

Monitoring data collected under the various Key decision makers for monitoring and

programs cited above, using a broad data management at the state and local

variety of technical monitoring tools, will levels: State 305(b) water quality

allow SWP program managers to 1) assessment coordinators, monitoring

characterize waters; 2) identify problems; program managers and computer

3) design programs; 4) measure the information services providers. Staff who

effectiveness of their efforts; 5) identify design performance partnerships are also

resulting trends; and 6) direct resources to critical, since it is monitoring that provides

areas of greatest need. Similarly, EPA’s the information to assess results. For more

data management systems will allow information visit EPA’s homepage

analysts and decision makers easy access to [http://www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/].

monitoring information, are flexible to

varying data requirements, and ensure that

the data stored are of documented quality.

This may help implement the most

effective controls and management

practices in source water protection areas.

How can source water assessments assist

monitoring and data management

programs?

Information about source water quality is a

valuable data layer to be added to

monitoring data collected by state and

federal agencies, and thereby improve state

and national assessments of water quality.

The water environmental indicators

reporting project at the national level and at

the watershed level (through the IWI)

includes SWP data, and the source water

assessments will make that data more

robust.

Nonpoint Source Program (NPS)

Under section 319 of the 1987 CWA

amendments, states were: (1) required to

conduct statewide assessments of their

waters to identify those that were either

impaired (did not fully support state water

quality standards) or threatened (presently

meet water quality standards but are likely

not to continue to meet water quality

standards fully) because of NPSs; (2)

required to develop NPS management

programs to address the impaired or

threatened waters identified in their

nonpoint assessments; and (3) entitled to

receive annual grants from EPA to assist

them in implementing their NPS

management programs once EPA had

approved the assessments and programs.

EPA has approved the assessments and

management programs for all states and

Territories. Many states are in the process

of revising their management programs.
Final 5-10 Final

Through FY 1997, a total of $571.5 assessments have been incorporated into

million has been awarded to the states, the National Water Quality Inventory

Territories, and some Indian tribes to help (305(b) Report) and are consequently

implement their NPS programs. The updated periodically as part of each state’s

current national guidance for this program overall water quality assessment.

was released in May, 1996.

In 1990, as part of the CZARA, Congress

required all states (29) with federally

approved Coastal Zone Management Act

programs to develop coastal NPS

programs. These programs, currently

being jointly approved by EPA and the

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration (NOAA), provide for

implementation within coastal watersheds

of management measures specified by EPA

and incorporate policies and mechanisms,

enforceable at the state level, to ensure

implementation of the specified measures.

How can the nonpoint source program

assist states and localities in conducting

source water assessments?

Some assessment activities may be eligible

for section 319 funding. In addition, the

assessments developed for the NPS

programs may serve as valuable sources of

information and data about land-based

pollution sources which may now or in the

future contribute to the contamination of

drinking water intakes and wells, and

identify both surface waters known or

suspected of being contaminated by NPS

pollution. In most states, the NPS

How can the NPS program assist states

and localities in implementing source

water protection programs?

Guidance Specifying Management

Measures For Sources of Nonpoint

Pollution in Coastal Waters (EPA, Office

of Water, 840-B-92-002, January 1993)

[http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/coastnps.html]

summarizes management measures for

preventing and reducing NPS impacts on

surface and ground waters, and is

applicable to inland as well as coastal NPSs

(agriculture, forestry, urban runoff,

marinas, hydromodification, wetlands

protection). The guidance may prove

valuable to states and localities in

developing programs and strategies to

protect drinking water sources from landbased contaminants. Furthermore, the

section 319 funds awarded to states to

assist them in implementing their NPS

management programs have been used to

implement measures to protect drinking

water sources where such activities are

described or referenced in the state’s NPS

management program. Roughly half of

each state’s 319 grant award is passed

through to local groups and organizations

for on-the-ground implementation
Final 5-11 Final

activities. Additionally, the enforceable agencies as well as other stakeholders. For

policies and mechanisms incorporated in more information visit EPA’s homepage

state coastal NPS programs could be used [http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/].

for SWP programs in coastal areas.

How can Source Water Assessments assist

state and local Nonpoint Source

Programs? that identifies waters still needing attention

As mentioned above, NPS assessments are

periodically updated as part of the National

Water Quality Inventory. Federal, state

and local assessment resources are typically

insufficient to address all waters.

Consequently, these updates must make use

of information and data from many

different organizations and agencies.

Information and data from source water

assessments would help most states expand

coverage of state water quality

assessments, and would result in more

effective use of federal, state and local

resources to improve and protect surface

and ground waters for all uses.

Key Decision Makers for Nonpoint Source

Programs at the state and local Levels:

There is a NPS coordinator in each EPA

region, and one in each state. This

coordinator is usually part of the state’s

water quality agency, although in some

cases they may be in the state’s

conservation or agricultural agency.

Increasingly, decisions about funding and

program priorities are made by a broadbased NPS Task Force representing state

Total Maximum Daily Load Program

The TMDL Program is a planning program

to meet water quality standards. Under the

CWA’s section 303(d), states are required

to identify waters that do not meet water

quality standards, even after the

implementation of nationally required

levels of pollution control technology, and

to develop TMDLs for those waters, with

oversight from EPA. The law also requires

states to establish a priority ranking for

their waters needing TMDLs. TMDLs

allocate pollutant loadings among pollution

sources in a watershed, and provide a basis

for identifying and establishing controls to

reduce both point and NPS pollutant

loadings.

How can the TMDL program assist states

and localities in conducting source water

assessments and implementing source

water protection programs?

State lists that identify waters needing

TMDLs, and TMDLs developed for

specific water bodies, are a useful source

of information for the development of

source water assessments. Section 303(d)

lists identify waters not meeting water

quality standards due to a particular
Final 5-12 Final

pollutant or stressor; this type of including local and regional governing

information will be helpful for identifying agencies, point sources, farmers, foresters,

contaminants of concern for source waters. land developers, city and state planners,

TMDLs for particular water bodies and local environmental organizations. For

generally provide more detailed more information visit EPA’s homepage

information about the sources of the

pollution and can be used to develop

allocation scenarios for pollutant loadings

among pollution sources in a watershed.

For source water serving as a public water

supply, the data developed as part of the

TMDL assessment can provide a basis for

implementing local SWP programs.

How can source water assessments assist

state TMDL programs?

State TMDL Programs are required to use

all “existing and readily available”

information in developing section 303(d)

lists and source water assessments may

provide additional data upon which to base

listing decisions and also to develop

TMDLs for a particular water body. For

example, since TMDLs are developed for

specific pollutants or stressors,

identification in source water assessments

of contaminants of concern in a particular

source water protection area would be

helpful to state TMDL programs.

Key decision makers in the TMDL program

at the state and local Levels: State TMDL

programs are generally managed by state

water quality agencies. At the local level, a

variety of stakeholders may be involved

[http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/index.html].

National Estuary Program

The NEP was established under the 1987

CWA amendments to protect and restore

the health of estuaries while supporting

economic and recreational activities. EPA

helps create local estuary programs

(referred to as “NEPs”) by developing

partnerships between government agencies,

who oversee estuarine resources, and the

people who depend on the estuaries for

their livelihood and quality of life. These

groups plan and implement programs

according to the needs of their own areas.

To date, 28 local programs are

demonstrating practical and innovative

ways to revitalize and protect their

estuaries.

For each local NEP program, multi-interest

working committees and an overall

management conference address

characterization (biological, geophysical,

chemical, and social parameters) of the

estuary and its watershed, the priority

problems for the estuary, actions to correct

the priority problems, and ways to finance

the actions. As a result of this work,

detailed comprehensive management plans
Final 5-13 Final

are produced by all programs. Regional

assessments must be conducted to assist

coastal communities with planning their

future growth.

How can the NEPs assist states and

localities in conducting source water

assessments and implementing source

water protection programs?

During development of their

comprehensive conservation and

management plans, most NEPs have

identified priority problems threatening the

estuary (e.g., contamination from onsite

disposal, excessive population growth,

overpumping of the aquifer, saltwater

intrusion). Many of these problems may

threaten local source water. States and

localities can get a head start on their own

source water assessments by using the

information compiled by the NEP.

Most NEPs currently include partners such

as NOAA whose programs under the

Marine Protection, Research, and

Sanctuaries Act include protection efforts

for surface waters. Integrating SWP

programs into state and local NEP

committees will raise awareness among

various stakeholders in the estuary and can

result in cost savings by building upon the

financial resources and willingness of the

people with interests in the estuary’s

watershed to take action.

How can source water assessments assist

individual NEPs?

Although most NEPs focus priority

attention in other areas, SWP is also of

concern. The inherent vulnerability of

drinking water sources in coastal areas to

over use and contamination has been

amplified by the rapid growth seen in these

areas. The finished source water

assessments will provide valuable

information to the NEPs and their

stakeholders, enabling the evaluation of

efforts undertaken by the local programs to

reduce threats to source waters. For

example, coastal communities most often

do not control the water quality of the deep

supply aquifers. With assessments in

hand, local and state officials can plan

together to protect recharge areas.

Key decision makers for the NEP at state

and local levels: During the planning

phase, each NEP establishes a management

conference which typically includes a

policy committee, management committee,

scientific/technical advisory committee,

and a citizens advisory committee.

Committee representatives include

individuals from EPA and other federal

agencies, state, regional, and local

government agencies, environmental

groups, educational institutions, local

industries, and the general public. To

locate contacts for a specific program,

consult the NEP Homepage
Final 5-14 Final

[http://www.epa.gov/owow/estuaries/nep.html]

or call the state coastal or marine affairs

agency, or call the main National Estuary

Program office at 202/260-1952.

Clean Lakes Program

The Clean Lakes Program is one of the

earliest programs to use the watershed

protection approach in monitoring and

restoration activities to control a wide

range of pollution sources. The program

has provided more than $145 million over

20 years under CWA section 314 to

support grants and cooperative agreements

for priority lake monitoring, assessment,

and protection projects in all areas of the

country. For more information on the

Clean Lakes Program and other lakes

information, visit its internet homepage at:

[http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/lakes].

How can the Clean Lakes Program assist

states and localities in conducting source

water assessments and implementing

source water protection programs?

Many lake assessment and restoration

activities have been conducted under the

Clean Lakes Program and information

from these studies could be useful in

developing source water assessments for

specific lakes used as source waters. Clean

Lakes Program statewide lake assessments

and Phase I studies for particular lakes may

be of greatest help in assessing lake

conditions. Phase II projects support

implementation efforts and are sometimes

followed by Phase III post-restoration

monitoring projects. A particular lake may

have only a Phase I project completed or in

some cases may have all three phases

completed.

How can source water assessments assist

state Clean Lakes Programs?

New analyses conducted for lakes under

the SWAP could better characterize the

vulnerability of important lakes, and

thereby reinforce the need for additional

lake restoration and protection activities.

Documentation of these vulnerabilities

would hopefully spur action at the local and

state level. Some of these needs can be

addressed through section 319, CWSRFs,

as well as state-funded lake programs.

Key decision makers in the Clean Lakes

Program at the state and local levels:

State lake programs are generally managed

by state water quality agencies. At the

local level, a variety of stakeholders may

be involved including local and regional

government agencies, lake associations and

lakeshore residents, and local

environmental organizations.
Final 5-15 Final

Wetlands Program How can wetlands protection assist states

The U.S. EPA, in partnership with other

federal agencies, and state, local, and tribal

governments is responsible for restoring

and maintaining the chemical, physical, and

biological integrity of the nation’s waters,

which include wetlands. Section 404 of

the CWA, which is jointly administered by

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and

EPA, establishes a program to regulate the

discharge of dredged or fill material into

waters of the U.S. While the section 404

program commonly regulates the discharge

of dredged or fill material on a case-bycase basis, provisions found within this

authority can allow for the regulation of

aquatic resources in a more comprehensive

manner. Some examples include watershed

planning, special area management

planning and advanced identification.

EPA’s Wetlands Program has made efforts

to integrate wetlands protection into

existing EPA programs (e.g., CWA). In

addition, some states have developed or are

developing State Wetlands Conservation

Plans (SWCPs) which provide a framework

for integrating wetland programs across

many state programs. The EPA Wetlands

Program has experience in providing

assistance for the development of

comprehensive wetlands plans,

participating in efforts to develop such

plans, and reviewing plans for other state

and local programs.

and localities in conducting source water

assessments and implementing source

water protection programs?

Wetland protection programs often need to

assess the overall health of watershed

ecosystems in order to estimate the impacts

of proposed man-made changes to wetlands

and other waters. Assessments undertaken

by federal, state, and local governments for

the purpose of protecting wetlands can

provide information that may be useful for

source water assessments.

Wetlands can provide a wide range of

different functions and benefits to local

communities including the interception and

filtration of pollutants thereby improving

source water quality and possibly reducing

treatment costs. Constructed wetlands can

improve source water quality for

downstream rivers. Integrating wetlands

protection and restoration into source water

programs can highlight the importance of

targeting wetlands and source waters as

high priority areas for protection and can

reduce duplication of efforts and conflicting

actions.

How can source water assessments assist

wetlands protection?

Source water assessments can identify

critical wetlands where the enhancement or
Final 5-16 Final

restoration of wetlands can improve water permits, they may be subject to

quality in the watershed. enforcement actions. EPA and the states

Key decision makers for wetlands permittees’ compliance status, including

protection at the state and local levels: on-site inspections and review of data

EPA Regions, and state/tribal/local natural submitted by permittees.

resources/water agencies. For more

information visit EPA’s homepage

[http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/].

The National Pollutant Discharge

Elimination System (NPDES) Program

Under the authority of the CWA, the

NPDES program regulates point source

discharges to surface waters such as

wetlands, lakes, rivers, estuaries, bays,

and oceans. Point source discharges

include wastewater from industrial

processes, effluent from municipal

wastewater treatment plants, industrial and

municipal stormwater, combined sewer

overflows, and sanitary sewer overflows.

The NPDES program also regulates

biosolids (the semi-solid residue from

wastewater treatment processes) to ensure

that they are handled properly and manages

the national pretreatment program to

reduce the level of pollutants discharged by

industrial facilities into municipal sewage

systems.

Permits regulate discharges with the goal

of ensuring protection of human health and

aquatic life. If regulated facilities fail to

comply with the provisions of their

use a variety of techniques to monitor

How can the NPDES program assist

states and localities in conducting source

water assessments and implementing

source water protection programs?

In the approximately 25 states that have

developed or are developing statewide

watershed management frameworks, where

water management program activities are

coordinated around delineated watersheds

and sub-watersheds consistent with the

Watershed approach discussed earlier in

this chapter (including both surface water

drainage areas and connections to

aquifers), information useful for source

water assessments should be available.

Recently, the NPDES program has initiated

discussions on development of a single

mechanism (a “watershed permit”) that

could address multiple pollutant sources

within a watershed. A framework for

“watershed permitting” is the next logical

step in fully integrating the NPDES

program within an overall watershed

approach. Implementation of a watershed

permit would include local watershed

monitoring, assessment, and planning to

determine appropriate, enforceable, local
Final 5-17 Final

control actions (including NPS controls).

Source water assessments can be a part of

such an overall watershed assessment and

planning effort. Also, the NPDES

program has convened a Federal Advisory

Committee to advise EPA on strategies to

control urban wet weather point sources

(i.e., stormwater, combined sewer

overflows, sanitary sewer overflows).

EPA, in cooperation with the Urban Wet

Weather Flows Federal Advisory

Committee, is developing guidance on local

watershed assessment and planning that

may be useful for source water

assessments.

Finally, monitoring requirements

associated with the NPDES program

provide a number of opportunities for

obtaining data useful for source water

assessments. Permits may contain effluent,

ambient, and biosolids monitoring

requirements that would be critical in

identifying the presence and origin of

contaminants in a delineated source water

area. EPA and the Urban Wet Weather

Federal Advisory Committee are

developing recommendations and guidance

on coordinating watershed monitoring data

within the framework of a watershed plan.

The final document may consider source

water assessment needs when providing

guidance on monitoring for watershed

planning and assessment and

recommendations for monitoring

requirements for NPDES permits.

The requirements of EPA storm water

general permits typically require industries

to conduct an inventory of all sources of

storm water contamination on the industrial

property for determining pollution

prevention opportunities. These

inventories may be a useful source of

information if requested by the NPDES

permitting authority and assembled and

analyzed on a watershed basis. In cases

where industries have spills of hazardous

substances, EPA storm water general

permits require that these spills be reported

which may be an additional source of

useful information.

EPA storm water general permits also

require certain industries to monitor their

storm water runoff for pollutants of

concern that may be generated by the

industrial operations. Typically, the

industries that are required to monitor are

those with a high level of exposure of

sources of industrial pollutant to rainfall or

runoff.

In the cities and counties regulated under

the NPDES storm water permitting

program, storm water management

programs are developed to minimize storm

water contamination in the runoff being

discharged from the municipal storm sewer

systems. All regulated municipalities are

required to implement a storm water

monitoring program during the five year
Final 5-18 Final

term of their permit. These monitoring

programs may generate significant amounts

of useful surface water quality data,

especially in those watersheds where

surface water runoff is the primary source

for drinking water reservoirs, or where

drinking water aquifers are recharged by

storm water runoff. Where this is the

case, some municipalities have designed

their entire storm water management

program around the effort to protect the

drinking water resource (Austin, Texas;

Fairfax County, Virginia).

As states and localities move beyond the

assessment phase to implementation of

SWP measures, NPDES permits will be

key measures for ensuring control of

contaminants that could threaten PWSs.

The NPDES program provides enforceable

regulatory requirements that can be

designed to meet the goals of a SWP

program. Regulation of individual

wastewater discharges and of the use and

disposal of biosolids are critical means of

ensuring attainment of water quality

standards applicable to public water

supplies and other SWP goals. In addition,

the concept of a “watershed permit” may

provide the means for aggregating

contaminant assessments and requirements

for point and NPS control measures on a

watershed basis in order to achieve these

goals.

How can source water assessments assist

the NPDES program?

Permit writers often must determine where

water quality-based permit limits are

needed and then develop limits based upon

sparse data. Source water assessments can

provide a means to collect information

from other existing data sources on

ambient levels of contaminants, and

significant potential sources of

contaminants developed in the assessment

itself, that could be used to assess the need

for permit limits for individual

contaminants and to calculate such limits.

Also, the conditions in a “watershed

permit” could be based, in part, on the

information gathered in a source water

assessment and goals identified as a result

of the source water assessment.

Key decision-makers for the NPDES

program at the state and local levels:

There are 43 states and territories

authorized to implement the NPDES

program. In these states, the program

generally is implemented by the state water

quality agency. Typically, this agency also

is responsible for water quality planning,

setting water quality standards, and

enforcement, all programs with critical

links to the NPDES program. In states and

territories that are not authorized to

implement the NPDES program, EPA is

the permit-issuing authority. In these
Final 5-19 Final

states, EPA works closely with state

agencies that implement related programs.

In addition to state authority, cities with

municipal wastewater treatment plants

covered by the pretreatment program are

authorized to establish pretreatment

requirements to reduce the level of

pollutants discharged by local industries

into municipal sewage systems.

Sole Source Aquifer Protection Program

The SSA Protection Program is authorized

under section 1424(e) of the SDWA. The

provision allows EPA to declare that an

aquifer is a “sole or principal drinking

water source” for an area if contamination

of the aquifer could create a significant

hazard to public health. A sole source

aquifer designation can be initiated by a

petition submitted to EPA from any

interested party, such as a public water

purveyor, local health department, or an

environmental group. Following a

designation, federal financially assisted

projects proposed over the aquifer are

subject to EPA review. EPA can negotiate

modifications to improve a project or even

deny funds to a project which poses a

significant risk to public health by

contamination of the sole source aquifer.

How can the Sole Source Aquifer

Protection Program assist states and

localities in conducting source water

assessments and implementing source

water protection programs?

The hydrogeologic and water usage

information assembled by EPA during the

designation process can aid in defining

protection areas and determining the

susceptibility of water supplies. Project

reviews can be a source of information on

potential contaminant sources within source

water protection areas.

A sole source aquifer designation can

increase community awareness on the use,

value, and vulnerability of aquifers and

build support for implementing various

ground water protection efforts. Project

reviews can often lead to direct technical

assistance by identifying specific activities

that may lead to ground water

contamination. In addition, technical

assistance usually involves site-specific

coordination of ground water protection

activities between state and local

environmental and public health protection

agencies. Since the program focuses

specifically on ground water and can cover

many types of activities that may impact

ground water quality, it offers an added

level of protection for projects which might

not be fully addressed through normal

federal environmental/public health impact

evaluations.
Final 5-20 Final

How can source water assessments assist

Sole Source Aquifer Protection Programs?

The information from source water

assessments can be used to help evaluate

whether an area meets SSA designation

criteria, and can provide useful information

for project reviews, such as the location of Numerous laws in addition to SDWA and

delineated source water protection areas, the CWA provide EPA and states with

potential or existing sources of authority to establish programs related to

contamination, and local variations in preventing or remediating contamination of

aquifer susceptibility. ground water or surface water supplies.

Key decision makers in the Sole Source represent additional sources of information

Aquifer Protection Program at the state and expertise for states and localities to use

and local levels: Although project review in conducting source water assessments.

authority cannot be delegated, EPA For example, regulations under the RCRA

collaborates with state and local entities, Correction Action Program require

such as health, environmental and planning remediation for releases of hazardous waste

agencies, to help evaluate whether and hazardous constituents at facilities

proposed federally-assisted projects may seeking permits to treat, store, or dispose

endanger drinking water supplies and to hazardous waste. These regulations contain

develop appropriate mitigation measures. an aquifer assessment component that could

In most cases, the key decision makers are help identify wells at risk of contamination

the state and local agencies or organizations from landfill leachate, for example. In

that petition EPA for an SSA designation. some cases, collaboration with federal or

Other Water Programs

Other CWA programs may be useful for

states in developing source water

assessment/protection programs. For

example, under section 312(f)(4)(B) of the

CWA, states may apply to EPA to establish

drinking water intake zones in surface

waters and prohibit the discharge of sewage

from boats or other watercraft within those

zones. Other programs will be addressed

in more detail in subsequent guidance.

III. LINKAGES TO OTHER EPA

PROGRAMS

These programs, listed below, may

state agencies responsible for these

programs could also save costs associated

with SWP programs. These programs, and

the linkages with SWP, will be addressed

in detail in subsequent guidance.

Pesticide SMP Program

Pollution Prevention Program

Radiation Program
Final 5-21 Final

RCRA Subtitle C and Subtitle D sources. Unfortunately, the variety of

Programs federal laws intended to protect water

Superfund Program quality and public health in some cases can

Toxic Substances Control Program appear to create a maze of overlapping, and

TRI Program sometimes conflicting, programs. Briefly

UST Program described below are some of the federal

Emergency Planning and programs that have resources, information,

Community Right-To-Know Act and expertise that states should consider in

(EPCRA) advancing their source water assessment

FIFRA and protection programs.

Coastal Zone Act (CZARA)

Great Lakes Program This is not intended to be an exhaustive

The National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA) requires an Environmental Impact

Statement (EIS), and public participation in

its review, prior to approval of any project

involving federal funding. Most states also

require EISs for state-funded projects.

Important information useful for source

water programs may be contained in EISs

on local drinking water supplies, and their

susceptibility to point and non-point

sources.

IV. LINKAGES TO OTHER

FEDERAL PROGRAMS

Most federal programs based on

development or conservation of natural

resources have some connection to water

quality protection. A key element of a

successful state or local source water

program is to build partnerships which

direct available resources towards the

specific task of protecting drinking water

compilation of all relevant linkages. EPA,

with participation by a wide range of

stakeholders, will be writing a more

detailed description of the various program

level activities and contact information will

be available in a subsequent guidance.

Prior to writing this next guidance, EPA

has been collating information provided by

other federal Programs. EPA has,

informally at the staff level, asked agencies

to identify:

The activities and programs that

have the strongest bearing on source

water assessments and protection;

How the agency can assist states

implement source water assessment

and protection programs?

How source water assessments can

be useful to the Agency's efforts

and priority setting efforts;
Final 5-22 Final

Selecting and ranking of priority

Who may states contact within the areas

agency to coordinate source water Selecting significant statewide

activities; natural resource concerns

Who are other Stakeholder's with a practices

primary interest in the agency's Technical guidance on conservation

activities? practices, including new, innovative

This information will be part of the next Coordinating with other federal,

guidance which, when completed, will be state, tribal, local public and private

widely distributed, including making it activities as they relate to EQIP.

available on the OGWDW homepage with

links to other internet resources. State water agencies may serve as members

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Established by the 1985 Farm bill, “State

Technical Committees” are a potentially

important forum for coordination between

USDA conservation programs and state and

local SWP effort.

State Technical Committees provide advice

to USDA’s Natural Resource Conservation

Service on conservation measures. The

Federal Agricultural Improvement and

Reform Act of 1996 P.L. 104-127 (“Farm

Bill”) authorizes these committees to make

recommendations to state conservationists

(the lead NRCS officials in the states) on

several source water-related activities

under the Environmental Quality Incentives

Program (EQIP), including the following:

Guidance on eligible conservation

practices

of the State Technical Committees and the

local work groups convened by local

conservation districts to advise NRCS

regarding the implementation of EQIP.

Local work group membership may include

federal, state, tribe, county, or local

government representatives. These work

groups may provide advice on source

water-related activities similar to those

listed above, including identifying priority

areas, developing priority area proposals,

describing the conditions of the natural

resources and the environment, identifying

eligible conservation practices, detailing

the need for new, innovative conservation

practices, and recommending

representatives to serve on multi-state

committees. Aside from serving as

members, any federal, state, or local

government agency, Indian tribe, or private

group or entity may identify geographic

areas to the local work groups for priority
Final 5-23 Final

area consideration. Through both the state • EQIP, discussed previously,

and local committee meetings, state water provides long-term technical,

program officials will have great financial, and educational assistance

opportunities to integrate source water to ranchers and farmers for

assessment and protection objectives with conservation practices (e.g.,

USDA conservation program concerns. integrated pest management,

For the phone numbers of state NRCS grassed waterways, filter strips,

Offices on the internet, enter the specific management of nutrients, manure,

NRCS address, as follows: grazing, and irrigation water,

[http://www.nhq.nrcs.usda.gov/ITD/fax/fax-stat.html]. capping abandoned wells) where

A number of USDA programs enhance other environmental problems.

SWP including state groundwater

management plans, voluntary agricultural • Swampbuster Program to

RMPs—also known as whole farm or ranch discourage conversion of wetlands

management plans—and the following to croplands.

programs administered by USDA’s Natural

Resources Conservation Service and the • Sodbuster Program to conserve

Farm Service Agency (FSA): highly erodible land brought into

• The CRP temporarily retires

environmentally sensitive crop land • Conservation Plans require

(based on erosion potential, producers to describe conservation

threatened wildlife habitat, risk to practices for highly erodible

water quality) and assists farmers cropland.

with conservation practices (e.g.,

filter strips, windbreaks, riparian • Other programs including

buffers, grazing restrictions); Conservation Farm Options, Flood

• The Wetlands Reserve Program Protection Program, Everglades

provides financial assistance to Ecosystem Restoration, Wildlife

landowners to restore and protect Habitat Incentives, Conservation of

wetlands in exchange for retiring Private Grazing Land, Commodity

marginal agricultural land. Credit Corporation, and purchase of

floodplain easements under the

there are critical water quality and

crop production.

Risk Reduction, Farmland
Final 5-24 Final

Emergency Watershed Protection Several studies involving source water

Program. protection area delineation and

States can use these programs to enroll and completed, and fact sheets are available on

protect environmentally-sensitive land that request. The following USGS programs

impacts drinking water supplies and to find can provide useful information for source

cost-effective solutions to source water water assessments:

problems attributable to agriculture.

Further, FSA can help states identify Federal-State Cooperative Program

already enrolled land which falls within addresses data needs for water

delineated areas. Designated WHPAs studies of interest at state and

already receive special consideration. In federal level.

addition, by designating certain geographic

areas as Conservation Priority Areas USGS Drinking Water Initiative

(CPA), states can ensure that all cropland applies USGS data and expertise to

within that area is eligible for enrollment in drinking water related issues.

the CRP. Another provision of the CRP,

the Conservation Reserve Enrollment National Water Quality Assessment

Program (CREP), allows states to target is a federally funded comprehensive

CRP enrollments to address high priority water-quality studies of 55 major

resources such as delineated source water watersheds nationwide.

protection areas. The primary contacts for

program information are available through National Stream-Quality Accounting

state and county FSA offices. Network collects water quality data

[http:.//wwwaix.fsa.usda.gov/areamap.html]. at fixed sites on major rivers

U.S. Department of the Interior

The U.S. Geological Survey has offices in

every state and has interdisciplinary teams

of scientists and technicians who can assist

states with source water assessments.

Federal matching funds are usually

available from the USGS to match funding

from state and local governments,

including the State Revolving Funds.

susceptibility analysis have been

nationwide.

National Water Quality Laboratory

analyzes full range of contaminants,

with extremely low detection limits,

for detection of trends invisible

when normal detection limits are

used.

Toxic Substances Program studies

fate and transport of toxic materials.
Final 5-25 Final

Data collection, storage, and to drinking water, contact: Glenn

retrieval—The USGS routinely Patterson, USGS, Drinking Water

collects and stores a vast amount of Coordinator, 412 National Center, Reston,

data on streamflow, aquifers, and VA 20192, Phone 703-648-6876/Fax

water quality. 703-648-5722

GIS— Most spatial data at USGS For inquiries related to a particular state,

are stored in digital form, and can use the list of USGS state representatives at

be used in a GIS. [http://water.usgs.gov/public/staterep.html

USGS can delineate drainage areas for

surface water and contributing areas for

wells. For larger drainage basins, National Wetlands Inventory Project that

delineations are already available in USGS provides maps and digital wetland data

hydrologic unit maps. (See Chapter 2 for with site specific classification and

details.) Some GIS layers are available to locational information communities need to

identify certain types of potential sources

of contamination. USGS can also work

with states to produce the required maps.

The internet address to download the HUC

boundaries is

[http://nsdi/usgs.gov/wsdi/wais/water/huc250.htm/#section6.]

USGS can use existing and new studies of

watersheds, aquifers, land use, and

contaminant fate and transport to determine

susceptibility of drinking water sources to

contamination. The USGS can also sample

streams and wells to determine occurrence

patterns and trends in contaminant

concentrations. Such studies in

Washington and New Jersey have resulted

in savings, in the form of monitoring

waivers, that more than covered the cost of

the studies. Finally, USGS can participate

in scientific review of source water

protection. For national inquiries related

E-mail gpatter@usgs.gov

].

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has a

protect the wetlands that are protecting,

maintaining, and improving their surface

water quality. Wetland maps are a

prerequisite for watershed planning. Draft

or final maps are available for 88 percent

of the conterminous United States, 30

percent of Alaska and all of Hawaii.

Ordering information for paper maps is

available by calling 1-800-USA-Maps.

Over 20,000 maps have been digitized and

are available to the public through the

internet from the National Wetlands

Inventory’s web site

[http://www.nwi.fws.gov], or by phone

(800-USA-MAPS).

Other relevant agencies within DOI include

Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the

National Park Service, the Regional
Final 5-26 Final

Aquifer System Analysis (RASA) program,

Bureau of Reclamation, and Office of

Surface Mining OSM). For example,

many Park Service Units have extensive

surface and ground water data and operate

GIS systems that can facilitate the

interpretation and availability of such data.

Also, the Bureau of reclamation has

developed projects and manages large

volumes of water through storage

reservoirs in the 17 western states for

irrigation and domestic water supplies.

The Bureau can be an important partner in

coordinating source water assessments on

interstate streams and in watershed

management where these facilities have

been constructed.

Department of Defense (DOD)

Implementation of DOD environmental

activities is largely carried out by the four

military services—Army, Navy, Air Force

and Marines. States can coordinate their

source water activities through DOD’s

Regional Environmental Quality Centers.

The services have extensive data on

existing sources of contamination

associated with defense activities and bases

and can work with the states to identify

potential sources. Many bases have their

own water supplies and have already

implemented extensive WHP activities.

Department of Transportation (DOT)

DOT and its agencies support the

development of transportation

infrastructure and implements programs

relevant to SWP. For example, the

Federal Aviation Administration is

working with airports to use best

management practices when using aircraft

deicing agents and other chemicals. The

Federal Highway Administration in

cooperation with the states, administer the

Federal-Aid Highway Construction

Program which includes erosion control

guidelines and, with EPA, is developing

training in erosion control and non-point

source pollution. The U.S. Coast Guard

issues and enforces regulations for the safe

transportation of oil and hazardous

materials in bulk by water. The Research

and Special Programs Administration is

responsible for hazardous materials

transportation (other than in bulk by water)

and pipeline safety, transportation

emergency preparedness, safety training,

and multimodal transportation research and

development.

Department of Energy (DOE)

DOE regulates all Atomic Energy Act

related uses of radioactive materials at its

sites. DOE sites prepare annual site

environmental reports and annual

environmental monitoring reports which

contain detailed environmental information.
Final 5-27 Final

Each DOE site has a program in place for

ground water and surface water protection

from radiological contamination. State

agencies seeking information on source

water at DOE sites can contact the DOE

Operations Office or the DOE area Office

with responsibility for a given site. Names

and phone numbers are available through

the DOE Homepage at

[http://www/doe.gov].

V. CONCLUSION

EPA has asked its other federal partners to

assist states as they implement the new

provisions of the new SDWA. EPA is

encouraging federal agencies to use the

information developed through SWAPs to

target and prioritize their efforts and

available funding to these areas. The

Agency is also undertaking internal efforts

to coordinate the SWAP provisions of the

new SDWA with all relevant Agency

programs.

In 1998, EPA will sponsor a federal round

table to seek these objectives. The Agency

plans to work with all federal partners to

develop a more detailed guide on the useful

linkages among programs to support source

water assessment and protection efforts

across the nation.
Final Final

Appendices

Final A-1 Final

Appendix A

EPA Outreach Process for Notice and

Comment by Stakeholders on National Source

Water Assessment and Protection Programs

Guidance

EPA’s planned effort to encourage stakeholder involvement and input in implementing policy

is evidenced by the following list of meetings. Over a period of 9 months, EPA sponsored a

variety of meetings, attended by over 2,000 people representing state agencies (drinking

water, wellhead, agriculture and forestry), Federal Agencies (EPA, USDA/FS, NRCS,

CREES, DOI/USGS), large and small water systems, environmental and public health

advocates, “up stream” interests such as agriculture and chemical manufacturers as well as

local, county and tribal officials. EPA Regional offices spearheaded 22 stakeholder meetings

around the country to get input on the Guidance and to encourage stakeholder involvement in

state program development. The discussions continued through all stages of the Guidance,

beginning with a discussion guide and progressing through the draft Guidance to the final

Guidance.

Stakeholder Meetings To Assist EPA With the Draft and Final Guidance:

• National Stakeholders Meeting—Approximately 150 people, representing National

Organizations of States, Water Suppliers, and Environmentalists, Others (January

7/8, 1997 in Washington D.C.)

• 22 EPA Regional Stakeholders Meetings (April and May 1997)
Final A-2 Final

• 3 Large Systems Seminars—AMWA representatives from PWSs serving over

50,000 people throughout the U.S. (December 1996 in Tempe, AZ; January 1997

in Portland, OR; April 1997 in New York, NY)

• 2 meetings of the National Drinking Water Advisory Council’s Working Group on

Source Water Protection—Approximately 25 members representing state agencies

(drinking water, wellhead, agriculture and forestry), Federal Agencies (EPA,

USDA/FS, NRCS, CREES, DOI/USGS), large and small water systems,

environmental and public health advocates, “up stream” interests such as

agriculture and chemical companies as well as local, county and tribal officials.

(March 13/14 1997 and June 2/3 1997, both in Washington D.C.)

• Meeting of ASWIPCA, GWPC, and ASDWA on source water assessment and

protection programs issues—Approximately 100 people representing 36 states.

(June 24-25, 1997 in San Antonio, TX)

• NGA, ECOS, and ASDWA Meeting—Approximately 40 people representing 20

states to discuss implementation of Source Water Assessments and Protection

Programs vis a vis CWA Programs. (Fall 1997)

Additional meetings will be held as States develop their programs. Check homepages for

schedules and topic areas.
EPA Guidance to States (8/6/1997)

States Develop and Submit SWAP to EPA (18 mos.)

EPA Review (9 mos.)

After EPA Approval State Implementation

(24 mos. or less depending on EPA consultation with State)

Possible EPA-Granted 18-Month Extention

8/6/1997 2/6/1999

11/6/1999 11/6/2001

5/6/2003

State and

Local Roles

Public

Information

Delineate 

Source Water

Protection Areas

Contam.

Source

Inventory

Tribal/

State

Coordination

Continual

Improvement

During

Implementation Period

State Goal(s)

State

Resubmits

(6 mos.)

If EPA

Disapproves

Eventually

EPA

Approves

Coordinate

With

Federal

Programs 

and other 

States

Public

Participation

Public Participation

Through Technical 

and Citizens 

Committees

and Through 

Public Hearings

Appendix B

Process for State Submittal and Implementation of

Source Water Assessment Programs

Public Participation Continues Throughout the Process
Final A-4 Final
Final A-5 Final

Appendix C

Enhancing Topographic Delineations for

Source Water Protection Areas

As states delineate source water protection Surface water buffer zones and setbacks

areas for surface-water based sources of are often used as a means of reducing the

drinking water, they may want to consider adverse impacts of runoff on drinking

using buffer/setback zones, time-of-travel water sources. The primary purpose of

zones and/or use modeling techniques to buffers/setbacks is to filter sheetflow and,

enhance the delineation. These to a lesser extent, encourage increased

enhancements can assist states in defining ground water infiltration. Buffer zones

“segments” for management actions. (“green areas”) may be intended to serve

Below is information that can assist states several functions such as: wildlife habitat,

in using these techniques. stream bank integrity, protection of

Buffers/Setbacks

A typical buffer/setback zone for SWP is a

strip of vegetated land generally 50 to 200

feet in width along the shore of a stream or The streamflow time-of-travel (TOT)

reservoir that is upstream of a public water approach facilitates heightened

supply intake. Analogously a management of those stream reaches most

buffer/setback can be used for a reservoir. critical to protecting drinking water intakes

Determination of the width of buffer zones from upstream significant potential sources

is often based on consideration of such of contamination. This method also

factors as: the topography of the land, the enhances delineations of source water

local land uses, the political and legal protection areas by facilitating spill- and

feasibility of setting aside such buffers, other emergency-response activities. This

slope, size of the stream and land method does not delineate protection

ownership rights. zones; rather, it calculates the TOT of flow

hyporheic zone for aquatic life, residential

or commercial exclusion or SWP.

Time-of-Travel

in a stream between a drinking water
Final A-6 Final

 Figure C-1. Land Use Parcels

intake and a point(s) upstream. It is the surface water quality. Simpler models

streamflow TOT between the intake and require less detailed, site-specific

the upstream point of interest that provides hydrologic information and provide more

the opportunity for managers to enhance generalized and descriptive output. More

protection management of long-term complex models require more extensive

potential contaminant sources and to input data and provide output with greater

respond to a contamination event. Use of predictive capability and site specificity.

this method would be of greatest Site specific output can provide locations

importance for drinking water utilities of contamination sources and yield

tapping rivers or reservoirs designated for relatively accurate predictions of variable

commercial transport and municipal and flows and water quality at any point in a

industrial wastewater discharges. Water watershed.

quality flow models provide a means

through which specific hydrologic, Contaminant source loading models

geographic, and water quality parameters estimate chemical loading rates to surface

can be used to estimate the travel time for a water. These methods are most useful for

contaminant introduced into a river to estimating variation in loading rates as a

reach a drinking-water intake and to function of changing land uses within the

estimate the level of contamination at that watershed. For example, as shown in

intake. Figure C-1, land may be divided into

Modeling

Ground water discharge and surface runoff

models may also be used to assess the

potential impact of individual contaminant

sources, and to identify watershed areas

with the greatest potential impact on source

water quality. Modeling can be used in

conjunction with source water assessments

to enhance source water quality protection

efforts. Models should be validated for the

settings in which they are used.

A variety of models has been developed to

assess the impact of changing land use on

residential, commercial-, industrial-, and

agricultural-use parcels. If agricultural
Final A-7 Final

land is subdivided by soil type, crop type,

and land management practice, the NPS

loading rates for runoff, sediment yield,

and ground-water discharge may be

estimated for each parcel type. These

parcel estimates are summed to obtain the

total loading rate for the watershed or

watershed areas.

Several states, local governments, water

suppliers, and watershed management

authorities have begun modeling to

identify those land uses that have the

greatest potential impact on source water

quality. Modeling can identify areas

within the watershed that may be

incorporated into the source water

protection area. Modeling can also be

used to assess the impact of differing land

management strategies within the source

water protection area to foster more

effective SWP.
Final A-8 Final
Final A-9 Final

Appendix D

Conjunctive Delineation of the Zone of

Ground Water Contribution and the Area of

Surface Water Contribution to

Public Water Systems

There are numerous hydrogeologic settings to the stream. To establish a source water

where there is a significant hydraulic protection area to protect public water

connection between a stream or lake and supplies (PWSs) from all significant

an underlying aquifer. Alluvial sand and potential sources of contamination, it is

gravel deposits within the floodplains and important to determine if the PWS is

terraces of river valleys typically function providing water from both ground water

as high yield aquifers and are commonly and surface water sources.

used to produce municipal supplies.

Ground water in these deposits typically Conjunctive delineation of source water

exhibits a strong degree of hydraulic protection areas is the integrated

connection with the stream. Along many delineation of the zone of ground-water

reaches, stream water and ground water contribution and the area of surface-water

routinely move between the aquifer and the contribution to a public water supply.

stream. States that choose to consider the hydraulic

Ground water that occurs in fractured rocks surface water when delineating a source

in mountainous areas is also typically water protection area, will afford

strongly connected to streams. Most of the themselves the opportunity to reduce

flow in a mountain stream results from contamination from ground-water and from

ground water discharge. Most of the water surface-water sources.

that infiltrates into fractured rocks above

the stream valley will eventually discharge

connection between ground water and
Final A-10 Final

1. Considerations for Conjunctive

Delineation for Systems Primarily

Supplied By Surface Water

Contaminants in ground water may ground water is the entire portion of the

ultimately be discharged into surface ground-water basin upgradient of the

water. As ground water flows towards surface-water intake. Complete

discharge points, the water is exposed protection of the intake may encompass

to processes that provide some degree these two regions. However, sources

of in-situ remediation for many of contamination entering the ground

contaminants. The longer the ground- water at a significant distance from an

water travel time and the greater the intake, may undergo in-situ

distance between the site of remediation of many constituents that

contaminant entry to an aquifer and the is sufficient for the ground water to

site of potential discharge to surface meet drinking-water standards at the

water, the more likely that such intake.

contaminants will undergo some

remediation before discharge. Although the geographic location of a

Persistence of contaminants in the surface-water divide may

subsurface and creation of toxic approximately coincide with that of a

daughter products increase the need for ground-water divide in an underlying

source reduction and long travel-time water-table aquifer, colocation

and/or distance setbacks. frequently does not occur. Absence of

The water supplied by a surface-water the hydraulic properties of the aquifer,

intake may have a significant ground- distribution of recharge, etc. divides

water component. In some locations, may also fail to coincide as the result of

during part of the year, a major discharge from large-capacity wells, or

component of (and possibly all) surface the artificial recharge of large volumes

water is ground water base flow. The of water to the aquifer. Additionally,

USGS has estimated that about 40 seasonal changes in the position of

percent of stream baseflow in the ground-water divides is not unusual.

United States is ground water. States making the initial assumption

The region (in the absence of divides approximately coincide, may

engineered surface-water diversions) of want to consider further hydrogeologic

surface-water contribution to a

drinking-water intake is the total

watershed area uphill of the surfacewater intake. The region contributing

colocation results naturally, reflecting

that ground-water and surface-water
Final A-11 Final

investigation to determine if this surface water component.)

assumption is correct. This is During periods of high streamflow,

particularly important where wells are surface water will migrate into ground

located near enough to ground-water water, the higher the stream stage, the

divides to cause displacement of the further the potential migration of

divide (the divide will be moved away stream water. Streams that are

from a pumping well.) "perched" (streams underlain by an

unsaturated zone) may leak water and

For further discussion of conjunctive contaminants through the unsaturated

delineation of source water protection zone to an underlying unconfined

areas, the reader is referred to the aquifer.

document Delineation of Source Water

Protection Areas, a Discussion for The pumping of wells in the vicinity of

Managers; Part 1: A Conjunctive surface water may induce infiltration of

Approach for Ground Water and Surface the surface water into the ground water

Water (expected August 1997). and subsequently into the pumping

2. Considerations for Conjunctive

Delineation for Systems Primarily

Supplied By Ground Water

The water supplied by a PWS well with the aquifer, will usually have a

often includes a surface water shorter travel time than the time-ofcomponent. travel designated in the state/local

This fact is recognized in the term

“ground water closely connected to A conjunctively delineated source

surface water,” which is used in some water protection area for a PWS well

water protection programs. (The reader could include, 1) the WHPA plus the

may note a similarity between this term entire watershed area upstream of the

and “ground water under the influence intersection of the WHPA and the

of surface water,” which is a stream, or 2) the WHPA plus the entire

performance standard indicating that watershed area upstream of the

water withdrawn from a well contains a intersection of the WHPA and the area

specific indicator or indicators, for where there is significant surface water

example, giardia, of the presence of a discharge to ground water.

well.

A component of the water discharged

by a well whose WHPA intersects a

stream in good hydraulic connection

WHP program.
Final A-12 Final
Final A-13 Final

Appendix E

Partial List of Potential Sources of

Contamination Found in

Wellhead Protection Areas and

 in Watersheds

Introduction

Appendix E gives specific examples of potential sources of contamination. Under section

1453 states may, but are not required to, inventory all of these potential sources of

contamination. Depending on the local situation, the following potential sources may or may

not be significant potential sources. Appendix E should be used in conjunction with

Appendix F. The stars (*) indicate sources of microbial contaminants.

Agriculture

Crop-related sources

Irrigated crop production

Non-irrigated crop production

Specialty crop production (e.g., horticulture, citrus, nuts, fruits)

 Grazing-related sources*

Pasture grazing - riparian and/or upland*

Pasture grazing - riparian*

Pasture grazing - upland*

Range grazing - riparian and/or upland*

Range grazing - riparian*

Range grazing - upland*
Final A-14 Final

Intensive animal feeding operations*

Concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs; permitted; PS)*

Confined animal feeding operations (NPS)*

Aquaculture*

Atmospheric deposition

Collection system failure

Combined sewer overflow*

Construction

Highway/road/bridge construction

Land development

Contaminated sediments

Debris and bottom deposits

Domestic wastewater lagoon*

Erosion from derelict land

Groundwater loadings

Groundwater withdrawal

Habitat modification (other than hydromodification)

Removal of riparian vegetation

Bank or shoreline modification/destabilization

Drainage/filling of wetlands

Highway maintenance and runoff

Hydromodification

Channelization

Dredging

Dam construction

Upstream impoundment

Flow regulations/modification

Industrial Point Sources

Major industrial point sources

Minor industrial point sources

Internal nutrient cycling (primarily lakes)

Land disposal

Sludge*

Wastewater*

Landfills*

Inappropriate waste disposal/wildcat dumping*
Final A-15 Final

Industrial land treatment

Onsite wastewater systems (septic tanks)*

Hazardous waste

Septage disposal*

Leaking underground storage tanks

Marinas and recreational boating

In-water releases*

On-land releases*

Municipal point sources*

Major Municipal Point Sources - dry and/or wet weather discharges*

Major Municipal Point Sources - dry weather discharges*

Major Municipal Point Sources - wet weather discharges*

Minor Municipal Point Sources - dry and/or wet weather discharges*

Minor Municipal Point Sources - dry weather discharges*

Minor Municipal Point Sources - wet weather discharges*

Package plants (small flows)*

Natural sources (e.g., arsenic, radon, wildlife)*

Other

Recreation and tourism activities (other than boating)

Golf courses

Resource extraction

Surface mining

Subsurface mining

Placer mining

Dredge mining

Petroleum activities

Mill tailings

Mine tailings

Acid mine drainage

Abandoned mining

Inactive mining

Salt storage sites

Sediment resuspension

Sewer lines (leaking)*

Silviculture

Harvesting, restoration, residue management
Final A-16 Final

Forest management (e.g., pumped drainage, fertilization, pesticide application)

Logging road construction/maintenance

Silvicultural point sources

Sources outside state jurisdiction or borders*

Spills (accidental)*

Unknown source*

Urban runoff/storm sewers*

Nonindustrial permitted*

Industrial permitted*

Other urban runoff*

Illicit connections/illegal hookups/dry weather flows*

Highway/road/bridge runoff

Erosion and sedimentation

Waste storage/storage tank leaks (above ground)*

NOTE: EPA’s 305(b) guidance also asks states to identify major sources of contamination of

waters designated for drinking water supply use. States are urged to coordinate their source

water and 305(b) information and programs.
Final A-17 Final

Appendix F

Factors to Consider When Doing An Adequate

Contamination Source Inventory and

Adequate Susceptibility Analysis

Under section 1453, states, or their entities delegated to do assessments or portions of

assessments, will be accomplishing contamination source inventories and susceptibility

analyses for each delineated source water protection area. States will have to consider many

factors when considering a class of land uses or a site. Below is a list of factors that states

might consider. The factors utilized in each analysis should be selected on a site-specific

basis and may include the following factors.

Factors For Ground Water and Surface (roads, railroads, airports) where

Water Sources of Drinking Water potential spills of hazardous substances

Land-use zoning contaminate the drinking water source?

Existing best management practices or Sludge disposal areas

controls Are there utilities right-of-ways using

Surface water/ground water interaction pesticides?

Has any on-site landfilling, land Are there permitted wastewater

treating, or surface impounding of discharges (NPDES) which are of

waste, other than landscape waste or concern?

construction and demolition debris Are there any industrial wastewater

taken place, and will such discharges into on-site drainage

circumstances continue? systems (e.g., septic systems, dry wells,

Are there any sand and gravel etc.)?

excavations which expose the water Are there agricultural, landscaping, or

table and are used for illicit dumping? golf course activities which might lead

Are there major transportation corridors to releases of nutrients (fertilizers,

or petroleum products might
Final A-18 Final

manure) or pesticides to ground water hazardous waste sites)?

or stormwater runoff? Has any situation(s) occurred at this

Are there concentrated releases of site which resulted in a “release” of any

nitrogen to ground water from hazardous substances or petroleum?

agricultural practices, landscaping Have any hazardous substances or

practices, or dense developments petroleum, which were released, come

relying on cesspools or septic systems? into direct contact with the ground

Are there portions of the source water surface at this site? (Note—do not

protection area with high percentages automatically exclude paved or

of impervious sources which can otherwise covered areas that may still

themselves contribute heavy metals or have allowed chemical substances to

organics, or which might lead to penetrate into the ground).

increased stormwater runoff and Have any of the following

decreased ground water recharge? actions/events been associated with the

Location of stormwater discharges? release(s) referred to above?

Are there any discharges directly into a - Hiring of a cleanup contractor to

surface water supply or near a well? remove obviously contaminated

Are there road salt storage areas? materials including subsoils

Are there activities which involve the - Replacement or major repair of

use, handling, or disposal of hazardous damaged facilities

substances or petroleum products? - Assignment of in-house

Are there any on-site piles of special or maintenance staff to remove

hazardous waste present, will such obviously contaminated materials

circumstance continue, and is there including subsoils

piling of other wastes which could - Designation of the release as

cause contamination of ground water? “significant”

Are there any USTs present at the site, - Reordering or other replenishment

and will such circumstances continue? of inventory due to the amount of

Is the use and management of above substance lost

ground tanks consistent with best - Temporary or more long-term

management practices? monitoring of ground water at or

Has any on-site release of any neat the site

hazardous substance or petroleum - Stopped the use on an on-site or

taken place which was of sufficient nearby water well because of

magnitude to contaminate ground offensive characteristics of the

waters (known Federal or state water
Final A-19 Final

- Coping with fumes from subsurface

storm drains or inside basements, Additional Factors For Surface Water

etc. Sources of Drinking Water

- Signs of substances leaching out of

the ground along the base of slopes Steep slopes

at other low points on or adjacent to Clay content of soils or soils that are

the site highly erodible (critical areas)

- On-site release(s) that may have Recreational areas (campgrounds/trailer

been of sufficient magnitude to parks or greenway trails nearby a

contaminate ground waters. reservoir or tributaries)

Water quality monitoring and use high bacterial readings

assessments (305(b) Report) Land uses (that may not have zoning)

Depth to the water table Biological steam or lake assessments

Confinedness of the aquifer (305(b) Report)

Nature and thickness of the soil Modeling

sequence Upstream NPDES discharges

Hydrogeologic parameter values Has any on-site landfilling, land

Physical and chemical characteristics treating, or surface impounding of

of potential contaminants waste, other than landscape waste or

Other hydrogeologic/soil/chemical/ construction and demolition debris

physical factors that determine the taken place, and will such

likelihood of ground-water circumstances continue?

contamination and the fate and Is the use and management of

transport of contaminants to and containers and above ground tanks

through the aquifer consistent with best management

Probable sources and causes of use practices?

impairments (305(b) Report) Residential, commercial, or industrial

Well integrity construction activities.

Natural sources of contamination

Tributaries or areas of a reservoir with
Final A-20 Final
Final A-21 Final

Appendix G

TIMETABLE FOR CERTAIN ACTIONS

UNDER THE 1996 SDWA AMENDMENTS

MANDATES FOR EPA FROM SDWA AMENDMENTS

EPA ACTION ITEM DATE DUE CITE

Disinfection and Disinfection Byproducts

Promulgate Interim Enhanced Surface Water November, 1998 1412(b)

Treatment Rule

Promulgate Stage I Disinfectants and November, 1998 1412(b)

Disinfection Byproducts Rule

Promulgate Final Enhanced Surface Water November, 2000 1412(b)

Treatment Rule

Promulgate Stage II Disinfection Byproducts May, 2002 1412(b)

Rule

Ground Water Disinfection Rule: Issue “After August, 1999" 1412(b)(8)

regulations requiring disinfection for all public By May, 2002

water supply systems, including surface water

systems and “as necessary” ground water

systems, and promulgate criteria for determining

whether to require in ground water systems

Public Notification/Consumer Awareness

Regulation for Public Notification Unspecified 1414(c)(2)(A)

Regulation on Consumer Confidence Reporting August, 1998 1414(c)(4)(A)
EPA ACTION ITEM DATE DUE CITE

Final A-22 Final

Capacity Development and Operator Certification

Publish guidance describing legal authorities and August, 1998 1420(d)(4)

other means to ensure new CWSs and

NTNCWSs demonstrate capacity (developed in

consultation with the states)

Publish information on recommended operator February, 1998 1420(d)(2)(B)

certification requirements, resulting from

partnership with states, PWSs, and the public

Publish guidelines specifying minimum February, 1999 1419(a)

standards for certification and recertification of

operators (in cooperation with states)

Source Water Protection

Guidance to states for developing SWAPs August, 1997 1453(a)

Guidance to states to assist in developing source August, 1997 1454(d)

water petition programs

Approval of state programs for source water February, 1999 1453(b)

assessments

Miscellaneous

Guidance establishing procedures for state August, 1997 1429(b)

application for ground water protection grants

Publishing document related to modifying 12 August, 1998 1445(a)(1)(D)

standards

Alternative monitoring guidelines August, 1997 1418(b)
Final A-23 Final

Appendix H

Glossary Of Terms

Community Water System (CWS). A

public water system that serves at least 15

service connections used by year-round

residents of the area served by the system

or regularly serves at least 25 year-round

residents.

Class V Underground Injection Control

(UIC) Rule. A rule under development

covering wells not included in Class I, II,

III or IV in which nonhazardous fluids are

injected into or above underground sources

of drinking water.

Non-Community Water System

(NCWS). A public water system that is

not a community water system. There are

two types of NCWSs: transient and nontransient

Comprehensive State Ground Water

Protection Program (CSGWPP). The

program consists of a set of six strategic

activities which foster more efficient and

effective ground water protection through

more cooperative, consistent, and

coordinated operation of all relevant

Federal, state and local programs within a

state. The activities include establishing

goals, setting priorities, defining

authorities, implementing programs,

coordinating information collection and

management, and operating public

education and participation activities.

Conservation Easements. Easements are

an interest in land that entitles a person to

use the land possessed by another

(affirmative easement), or to restrict uses

of the land subject to the easement

(negative easement). A conservation

easement restricts the owner to uses that

are compatible with conservation

environmental values. Easements are

governed by state laws and thus there are

variations among the states in how they are

administered.

Contamination Source Inventory. The

process of identifying and inventorying

contaminant sources within delineated

source water protection areas through

recording existing data, describing sources

within the source water protection area,

targeting likely sources for further

investigation, collecting and interpreting

new information on existing or potential

sources through surveys, and verifying
Final A-24 Final

accuracy and reliability of the information

gathered. operators of community and nontransient,

Drinking Water State Revolving Fund

(DWSRF). Under section 1452 of the

SDWA, EPA awards capitalization grants

to states to develop drinking water Primacy State. State that has the

revolving loan funds to help finance responsibility for ensuring a law is

drinking water system infrastructure implemented, and has the authority to

improvements, SWP, to enhance enforce the law and related regulations.

operations and management of drinking State has adopted rules at least as stringent

water systems, and other activities to as federal regulations and has been granted

encourage PWS compliance and protection primary enforcement responsibility.

of public health.

Farm Bill. The Farm Bill of 1996 is Source Water Assessment and

technically titled the Federal Agricultural Protection. EPA’s Regional office’s

Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (P.L. meetings with stakeholders interested and

104-127). involved in source water assessment and

Ground Water Disinfection Rule

(GWDR). Under section 107 of the Significant Potential Source of

SDWA Amendments of 1996, the statute Contamination. A facility or activity that

reads, “. . . the Administrator shall also stores, uses, or produces chemicals or

promulgate national primary drinking elements, and that has the potential to

water regulations requiring disinfection as release contaminants identified in a state

a treatment technique for all PWSs, program (contaminants with MCLs plus

including surface water systems, and, as any others a state considers a health threat)

necessary, ground water systems.” within a source water protection area in an

Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL).

In the SDWA, an MCL is defined as “the

maximum permissible level of a

contaminant in water which is delivered to Sole Source Aquifer (SSA) Designation.

any user of a public water system.” The surface area above a sole source

Operator Certification. Certification of

noncommunity water systems as required

by a state implementing an EPA approved

Water Operator Certification Program.

Regional Stakeholder Meetings for

protection.

amount which could contribute

significantly to the concentration of the

contaminants in the source waters of the

public water supply.

aquifer and its recharge area.
Final A-25 Final

Source Water Protection Area (SWPA). Susceptibility Analysis. An analysis to

The area delineated by the state for a PWS determine, with a clear understanding of

or including numerous PWSs, whether the where the significant potential sources of

source is ground water or surface water or contamination are located, the

both, as part of the state SWAP approved susceptibility of the PWS(s) in the source

by EPA under section 1453 of the SDWA. water protection area to contamination

Subwatershed. A topographic boundary

that is the perimeter of the catchment area

of a tributary of a stream.

State Source Water Petition Program.

A state program implemented in

accordance with the statutory language at

section 1454 of the SDWA to establish

local voluntary incentive-based

partnerships for SWP and remediation.

State Management Plan (SMP)

Program. A state management plan under

FIFRA required by EPA to allow states

(e.g. states, tribes and U.S. territories) the

flexibility to design and implement

approaches to manage the use of certain

pesticides to protect ground water.

Surface Water Treatment Rule (SWTR).

The rule specified maximum contaminant

level goals for Giardia lamblia, viruses

and Legionella, and promulgated filtration

and disinfection requirements for PWSs

using surface water sources or by ground

water sources under the direct influence of

surface water. The regulations also

specified water quality, treatment, and

watershed protection criteria under which

filtration may be avoided.

from these sources. This analysis will

assist the state in determining which

potential sources of contamination are

“significant.”

To the Extent Practical. States must

inventory sources of contamination to the

extent they have the technology and

resources to complete an inventory for a

Source Water Protection Area delineated

as described in the guidance. All

information sources may be used,

particularly previous Federal and state

inventories of sources.

Transient/Non-Transient NonCommunity Water Systems

(T/NTNCWS). Water systems that are

non-community systems: transient systems

serve 25 non-resident persons per day for 6

months or less per year; non-transient

systems regularly serve at least 25 of the

same non-resident persons per day for

more than 6 months per year. Transient

non-community systems typically are

restaurants, hotels, large stores, etc. Nontransient non-community systems typically

are schools, offices, churches, factories,

etc.
Final A-26 Final

Underground Injection Control (UIC) Watershed Area. A topographic area that

Program. The program is designed to is within a line drawn connecting the

prevent underground injection which highest points uphill of a drinking water

endangers drinking water sources. The intake, from which overland flow drains to

program applies to injection well owners the intake.

and operators on Federal facilities, Native

American lands, and on all U.S. land and

territories.

Watershed. A topographic boundary area through which contaminants are

that is the perimeter of the catchment area reasonably likely to move toward and

of a stream. reach such water well or well field.

Watershed Approach. A watershed

approach is a coordinating framework for

environmental management that focuses

public and private sector efforts to address

the highest priority problems within

hydrologically-defined geographic areas,

taking into consideration both ground and

surface water flow.

Wellhead Protection Area (WHPA). The

surface and subsurface area surrounding a

well or well field, supplying a PWS,
Final A-27 Final

Appendix I

Brief Summary of Requirements for Sections

1453 and 1428(b) State Submittals of the Act

for State Source Water Assessment Programs

Requirements and EPA Guidance for the State Submittal Under Section 1453 of SDWA

The elements that a submittal will need to contain in order to be approved by EPA are

described in Chapter 2, Part II. Many of these are explicit in sections 1453 and 1428 and

must be included; many other elements EPA believes to be crucial for an effective SWAP.

For these latter elements only, where a state can show it has an equivalent alternative to what

EPA expects of a submittal, EPA will approve the alternative element(s), provided that the

state demonstrates that the alternative meets the same functional objectives. (For more

detailed language on each requirement, refer to Chapter 2.)

In order to be approved, a state submittal needs to contain the following four sections:

Description of how the state achieved public participation in developing its submittal

Description of the approach the state will take to implement a SWAP and the

requirements/options for assessments

Description of how the state will make the results of the assessments available to the

public

Description of how the state will implement its chosen SWAP
Final A-28 Final

Each state is statutorily required to: Each state needs to:

Public Participation

Convene a technical advisory committee and Ensure broad representation on its advisory

a citizens advisory committee (or one group(s)

committee) Provide adequate opportunity to various

groups to participate on the advisory

committee(s)

Describe the committee’s advice regarding

program development questions

Conduct public hearings workshops, or focus Provide opportunities for general public

groups, etc. involvement, by various means

Provide a summary of how the state

responded to all substantive public

comments
Each state is statutorily required to: Each state needs to:

Final A-29 Final

SWAP Approach

Conduct SWAPs for the “protection and Describe the approach the state will take to

benefit of PWSs” implement a SWAP

Submit SWAPs to the appropriate Regional implement a source water protection

Administrator by February 1999 (within 18 program

months after EPA publishes final guidance) Describe how a SWAP will link with

Describe whether the state plans to

existing protection program

Delineate boundaries of the assessment areas For ground water systems, use delineation

using all reasonably available hydrogeologic methods in accordance with EPA accepted

and other information guidelines for WHP

Include recharge areas that are not adjacent

to or surrounding the well

For surface water, delineate the entire

watershed area upstream of any intakes or

diversion structures, up to the state’s borders

Conduct a contamination source inventory Indicate what “contaminants of concern” its

Conduct an inventory for raw water Include a clear description of the sources of

contaminants regulated under SDWA, and contamination (or categories of sources)

Cryptosporidium Choose an approach for determining which

SWAP will address

types of potential sources are significant

Indicate what types of potential sources of

the contaminants of concern will be

considered “significant”

Conduct a susceptibility determination Define “susceptibility determination”

Describe how the results of susceptibility

determination will contribute to the

protection and benefit of the PWSs

Conduct SWAPs for the “protection and Describe how it will delineate source water

benefit of PWSs” protection areas, conduct an inventory of

contamination sources, and conduct a

susceptibility determination for that part of a

boundary river, the Great Lakes, or multistate rivers that are within the state’s borders

Exert the maximum practical effort to ensure

interstate coordination for assessments
Each state is statutorily required to: Each state needs to:

Final A-30 Final

Making the Results of Assessments Available to the Public

Ensure the results of the assessments are Make the results of the assessments available

made available to the public in an in an expeditious manner

understandable manner Make available all the information collected

during each assessment, when requested

Create maps which include the delineated

area and sources of contamination described

in the inventory

Implementing the Chosen SWAP

Implement the SWAP immediately upon Describe how, to whom, and what aspects of

approval SWAP implementation the state will

delegate

Indicate the state’s definition of delegation

State the financial capacities of the entity or

entities to whom aspects of the assessments

are delegated

Explain how it will complete the

assessments, using the resources allocated by

the state

Explain how it will coordinate with other

state environmental programs, Tribes, local

stakeholders, other states, and federal

agencies

Describe how it will periodically report to

EPA on the progress of the SWAPs

Complete the assessments in the approved Describe the timetable for implementing and

timetable completing the assessments within the state

Indicate whether the state wants an extension

(of up to 18 months)
Final A-31 Final

Appendix J

List of Acronyms

305(b) The National Water Quality Inventory Report to Congress mandated by section 305(b) of

the CWA

AMWA American Metropolitan Water Association

ASDWA Association of State Drinking Water Administrators

BLM Bureau of Land Management

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

CMR Chemical Monitoring Reform

CPA Conservation Priority Area

CREP Conservation Reserve Enrollment Program

CRP Conservation Reserve Program

CSGWPP Comprehensive State Ground Water Protection Program

CWS Community Water System

CWA Clean Water Act

CWSRF Clean Water Act State Revolving Fund

CZARA Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments

DBP Disinfection By-Products

DOD Department of Defense

DOE Department of Energy

DOI Department of Interior

DOT Department of Transportation

DWSRF Drinking Water State Revolving Fund

ECOS Environmental Council of the States

EPCRA Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

FIFRA Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act

FSA Farm Service Agency

GIS Geographic Information System

GWDR Ground Water Disinfection Rule

GWPC Ground Water Protection Council

IUP Intended Use Plan

IWI Index of Watershed Indicators

MCL Maximum Contaminant Level

MCLG Maximum Contaminant Level Goal

NASDA National Association of State Departments of Agriculture

NCWS Non-Community Water System

NGA National Governors’ Association

NEP National Estuary Program
Final A-32 Final

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

NPS Nonpoint Source

NRCS Natural Resource Conservation Service

OGWDW Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water

OSM Office of Surface Mining

ORSANCO Ohio River Valley Water and Sanitation Commission

PWS Public Water System

PWSS Public Water Supply Supervision Program

RASA Regional Aquifer System Analysis

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

RMP Resource Management Plan

RSVP Retired and Senior Volunteer Program

SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act

SDWIS Safe Drinking Water Information System

SMP State Management Plan

SSA Sole Source Aquifer

STORET STOrage and RETrieval U.S. Waterways data system

SWAP Source Water Assessment Program

SWCP State Wetlands Conservation Plan

SWP Source Water Protection

SWTR Surface Water Treatment Rule

TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load

TOT Time-of-Travel

TRI Toxic Release Inventory

UIC Underground Injection Control

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

UST Underground Storage Tank

WHP Wellhead Protection Program

WHPA Wellhead Protection Area