New York State Source Water Assessment Program Plan, 2000

NEW YORK STATE

SOURCE WATER ASSESSMENT PROGRAM PLAN

FINAL

Prepared by:

New York State Department of Health
Bureau of Public Water Supply Protection
547 River Street
Flanigan Square, Room 400
Troy, New York 12180-2216

November 1999

Acknowledgments

The New York State Department of Health is greatly indebted to the many individuals and organizations

who contributed their time, expertise, and resources during the development of this plan. Their tireless

efforts will greatly benefit future protection of New York State's public drinking water supplies for years

to come. The Department of Health would like to thank all of the members of Source Water Protection
' Coordinating Committee, the Committee’ technical and advisory working group members, and local health
_ department representatives for sharing their wide array of experience and technical skills. The Department
of Health greatly appreciates the time and efforts of all of the water suppliers and private citizens who have
also contributed to this plan and would also like to acknowledge the many organizations that have assisted
with efforts related to development of New York’s Source Water Assessment Program by sharing their
1 personnel, data, meeting locations,-and many other resources. These organizations include:

| Association of Towns of the State of New York
| Citizens Campaign for the Environment
" Citizens Environmental Coalition
Cornell Cooperative Extension
Cornell University
County Health Departments
- County Soil and Water Conservation Districts
, County Water Quality Coordinating Committees
' League of Woman Voters of New York State
' Miller Environmental Group
| New York Conference of Mayors
' New York Rural Community Assistance Program
New York State Department of State
New York Environmental Management Councils
| New York Farm Bureau
New York Planning Federation
New York Rural Community Assistance Program
New York Rural Water Association
, New York Section of the American Water Works Association
New York State Association of Regional Councils
_ New York State Chemical Alliance
New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
New York State Environmental Facilities Corporation
| New York State Legislative Commission on Water Resource Needs of New York State and Long Island
' New York State Rural Development Council
| New York State Soil and Water Conservation Committee
New York State Water Resources Institute of Cornell University
New York Water Environment Federation
| State University of New York at Fredonia
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service
United States Department of Agriculture, Rural Utilities Service
| United States Environmental Protection Agency
United States Geological Survey
Upper Susquehanna Coalition

q
i
Hl

poss

NEW YORK STATE
SOURCE WATER ASSESSMENT PROGRAM PLAN

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
OVErVieW 6.0 cence nee een e ne een e eee e eee e teen ees i
T.0%  TntrOductiOn: sess ws sesesssusrsnes ae seneien aot saree coraamen eas KreUNINR ace RANKIN Be etoMERINES HEEL 1
1.1 Program Background ........ 0.0. c cece eect tee een nent een eee 1
12: = Propiain Demographics 3 cy.25 ms vay ee CREE Se SOE A OE we BEE Ge Bee 1
** 1.3 Program Goals and Outcomes . od
14 = Program Funding 20... 0... cc cece cee teen een eee t eee ee 3
2.0 Source Water Assessment Program Development Process .........00. 000s ee ee eeee 3
21 Existing Activities Related to Source Water Assessment and Protection ....... 4
2.2 Public Participation... 0.0... eect eee e net e ee ene 6
2.3 Data Collection During Plan Development .............. 00. c eee ee seen eee 8
3.0 New York State’s Approach to Source Water Assessments ...........500 sce eevee 9
3.1 Source Water Assessment Objectives oe)
3.2 State Strategic Approach to Source Water Assessments ...........000000 05 11
3.2.1 Type and Extent of Threats 2.0.0.0... cece eee eee eee eee eee 11
3.2.2 Type and Size of System ..
3.2.3, Local Support...........
3.2.4 Setting Priorities
4.0 | New York’s Approach for Conducting Assessments and Reporting Results

Al Data and Information Collection ............. 000 e cece eee ee

4.1.1 Collecting Available Information on Public Water Systems .

: 4.1.2 Collecting Available Information from Other Data Sources .
4.2 Delineation of Assessment Areas 2.1... 0.0... ccc cee eee eee eens

4.2.1 General Approach for Delineation of Source Water Assessment Areas . 18

4.2.2 Ground Water Delineations ........... 0... c cece e cece cece eee 18
4.2.3. Surface Water Delineations ..................05. 2.21
4.2.4 Assessment Areas Which Extend Beyond State Boundaries . “gene
4.2.5 Conjunctive Delineations ...... 4 piesa 023
43 Contaminant Inventory ......... ..24
4.3.1 Contaminants of Concern ................. ..24
4.3.2 Significant Potential Sources of Contamination .. + «25
44 Susceptibility Analysis ........ 0.0... c eee eee . 26
4.4.1 Estimating Contaminant Prevalence from Land Cover ..... 227
4.4.2 Estimating Contaminant Prevalence from Discrete Sources . seal
4.4.3. General Description of Susceptibility Zones ............... . 28
44.4 Estimating Sensitivity and Susceptibility of the Water Supply ........ 29
4.4.5 Susceptibility Review and Refinement ...............0....000005 31
4.5. Methodology for Completing Assessments .......... 00.0.0 cece eee eee 32

4.6 Assessment Format and Availability
4.6.1 Assessment Format ....--++erstecrrteeres :
4.6.2 Procedures for Making Assessments Available to the Public

5.0 Program Implementation .....-++-+s0erreeceeresees sess eee
5.1 Administration ....---++-+++

ies ws . 40
5.1.1 Delegation ......-seeeeecrerereeteres sess ms
5.1.2 Coordination .....-.+-sscrerrseeetss ese -
5.1.3 Progress Reporting ....--+--+0errecrerresssess se os
5.2 Schedule .....----0++++ Pe ee al Hr = a
53 Updating .......beeeeeee ree rer reser sees!
nik RERSN OH 0 45
GIOSSATY occ eee ee eee eee ee Ee eee EEE
Figures .......eeeeeeeenee sees seryn sae es

Figure 1 - Ground Water Delineation Methods
Figure 2 - Surface Water Delineation Approach - d
Figure 3 - Sensitivity Analysis for Ground Water Supplies

Figure 4 - Susceptibility Matrix ... wedesenerensnsgnees sees
Figure 5 - Methodology for Conducting Assessments

aye eee 61
Tavles Table 7 “GIS Coverages for the Source Water Assessment Program
- eeds to Perform Assessments ....-+++.rrcrtrrrert teers
ied - Coie for Consideration when Completing Source Water Assessments a n
Table 4 - Potential for Ground Water Contamination Based on Lend = wcvnate ae oom
Table 5 - Potential for Surface Water Contamination Based on Lan ‘ over... _
Table 6 - Potential for Ground Water Contamination from Discrete Sources
Table 7 - Potential for Surface Water Contamination from Discrete Sources...» +++

Table 8 - Evaluation of Contaminant Prevalence Associated with Mapped Land Cover

nec ammoin exe aiasllegl Pa HSWIRT an maemiev sl REE 16
for a Particular Contaminant ..---+-+++++* cette soonest .
Table 9 - Evaluation of Containment Prevalence Associated with Discrete Potential ”
Sources of Contamination .......0+2+eereerr tresses esse

Table 10 - General Description of Susceptibility Zones ....++-++++e00 0

way miwencae oe we et 79
References ...seeeee cence reese nese seers nese esses eee
. ie Gees 83
tyBCOS ope 45,6005 74 xrern noe psn Hb HYIBESTS oe wncen me SURE DE TS tt
Appe Appendix A Listing of Local and State Health Department Offices
dixB Public Participation Plan a ,
endl C. List of Source Water Protection Coordinating Committee Members
Anpenals D_ New York State Department of Health Technical References
Appendix E Wellhead Protection Program Delineation
Appendix F List of Contaminants of Concern <
ixG Hypothetical Source Water Assessmen -
oe H Sania of Comments and Responses on the Public Comment Draft of

the SWAP Plan

New York State
Source Water Assessment Program Plan
Overview

Congress amended the Safe Drinking Water Act in 1996 and added a new program that requires
states to evaluate the sources of water that are used to supply public drinking water. This new
program is called the Source Water Assessment Program. The New York State Department of
Health (DOH) is implementing the program for New York State. With help from the New York
State Department of Environmental Conservation, County Health Departments, other state and

federal governmentagencies as well as private and public interest groups, the DOH developed a plan
to carry out this new program.

The Safe Drinking Water Act requires that each source of water (e.g. well, stream, lake, reservoir)
used by a public water system be evaluated to identify possible contaminant threats to the source

water quality. This evaluation is called a Source Water Assessment and the elements that will be
completed for each source water assessment are described below.

¢ Delineate the source water assessment area. This involves determining where the
public drinking water originates. In New York, most public drinking water systems draw
water from wells. However, some of New York’s largest systems use water from streams,
lakes and reservoirs. The assessments will identify an area of land surrounding the well,
stream or other water body that likely contributes water to each source of public water.

Complete the contaminant inventory. This involves identifying and listing potential
sources of contamination that could adversely affect the quality of the source of water.

Conduct a susceptibility analysis. This involves evaluating the likelihood that a source
of public drinking water could become contaminated.

The Source Water Assessment Program is a program to compile and organize information for
making better decisions regarding source water protection. The information compiled for the
assessments will assist the State in overseeing public water systems and the completed assessments
will provide a rational basis to support future local and state source water protection activities. The
Source Water Assessment Program does not impose any new mandates or regulations on owners or
operators of public water systems. Funding for the Source Water Assessment Program is from a
single $5.9 million federal grant which will be spent over four years (1998 - 2001).

Pagei

Previous Assessment Efforts Related to the Source Water Assessment Program

The Source Water Assessment Program will integrate on-going source water assessment and
protection efforts. Federal, state and local pollution prevention regulations provide the baseline
protection to public water systems. Some water sources are protected through regional programs
such as those for an entire watershed or aquifer. There are also programs aimed at the particular
protection needs of an individual source of public water. For the major water sources in the state,
source water protection efforts are already underway. The Source Water Assessment Program will
document the status of existing source water protection efforts for a particular water source. Some
source water assessments, by identifying significant threats of contamination to sources of public

water, may help focus source.water protection efforts.

New York’s Source Water Assessment Program

There are more than 9,000 public water systems in New York that have their own water source.
Some public water systems use more than one source of water, therefore, statewide there are more
than 14,000 water sources to be evaluated under the Source Water Assessment Program.

About one eighth of New York’s public water systems include municipal systems that serve villages,
towns and cities. However, the majority of public water systems in New York State are smaller
systems that are owned and operated by apartment complexes, mobile home parks, schools,
workplaces, and businesses that serve water to the public, such as motels and restaurants.

New York’s approach to completing source water assessmentswill follow a step-by-step process that
builds upon existing information to focus the assessments on relevant water quality issues. New
York’s approach to source water assessments is based on three guiding principals: 1) maximize use
of existing information; 2) emphasize use of a statewide Geographic Information System; and 3)
emphasize state.and local partnerships. The main elements of New York’s source water assessment
process are summarized below.

1. Gather Existing Information on the Source of Public Water
The DOH will work with County Health Departments, the Department of Environmental
Conservation and other local entities to collect the information that already exists for a
source of public water. The information will be put into a Geographic Information System
(GIS), a computer program that organizesinformation and displays it on a map. In areas that
can provide local support and/or already have assessments or protection efforts underway,
the DOH’s assessment will complement the ongoing work.

2. Determine the Area of Land that Contributes Water to the Source of Public Water
Sources of public drinking water include surface water bodies (e.g., streams, lakes, rivers or
reservoirs) and ground water (¢.g., wells or springs). The land that contributes to the source
of public water is the assessment area. The area of land that contributes water to a surface
water body is defined differently than the area of land that contributes water to a well. Some

Page ii

*

water sources that supply public water s
systems have been delineated duri i
assessment efforts and the DOH will build on these earlier delineations. same pews

there wae o zones delineated for public water supplies served by wells. These two
oundaries within which possible contami ill b

eaentnte elvennrnts I ‘inant sources will be evaluated.

1 ig the well is called the Inner Well Z

is Zone a larger, more broadly deli fini Dn eres

, ly delineated area. Defining the area of land i

water to a ground water source involves reviewing i jon about vein wal
3 c iewing information about the soil

through which water flows. The dimensions of these zones will be pooner

amount of information about the soil and ro wi well is constructe we!
1
bout ths | and rock in which the structed, as well as the

rs seu a ene me is a surface water body then the assessment area is defined as the
oundary of the watershed or sub-watershed. A wate: i area
Pog i ° rsh i
within which the water drains to a particular river, stream, etc. sheds geographical
> » etc.

vst the Sources of Possible Contamination

he ver OF bs “ significant epee sources of contamination located within the
H ones or within the watershed boundaries. A i

contamination is considered to be signi i i ibility es ee eed

gnificant if there is a possibility th inati
that source could reach the area i mang hana a ay
where the public water system tak into i

and could pose a threat to : system takes water into its system.

u people who drink the water. Whether a soi ible
pose : eopl 1 : urce of
contamination is considered significant will vary, depending on several factors Ceara

ie significant potential source: 0! will be evaluated as part of the source
th f tial ‘ces of contamination that will b aluated rt of th

* sewage treatment plants;

¢ facilities that store or handle lar; iti i

‘ge quantities of chemicals;
* petroleum and hazardous material spills; and “
« landfills.

imt ike ee ee the ways the land is used in an assessment area will be
entory. Fifteen different types of land i i
assessment process; some examples of land ne types are: sul be evaluated in the

« residential;
* pasture;

¢ forested; and
* commercial.

ae a - a sources of (iilatisdbaaid different land use categories, the DOH
} e sources of contamination exist, as well as th taminati
likely to be associated with that Se ete ehede eek
source or land use. Specific chemicals and
0 be t 0 other type
contamination (such as viruses and sediment) have been grouped into fourteen fsa

Page iii

imi i i mon
categories. The categories are based on similar properties of alae ot oe
igi i i have similar impact on the source of pul 3
origins, or if the contaminants I ict O1 Leica pe
i determine the likelihood that a specific type of
A rating system was developed to : , eae tal
i i inati ce of water with a specific contami z
will contribute to the contamination of a sour " Se dhen
i ith each contaminant category and ha: g
f land cover has been combined with e« k ory an s
atingof “high”, “medium”. low” or “negligible”. Each category . manne
> > ; °
i i taminant category has been given
rces when combined with each cont e ; rating
“possible” or “not possible”. Land uses and contaminant categories ee * apie
ium” Individual contaminant sources whi
“medium” are of greatest concern. v ontan ?— Pn ttn
i is information is used in the next p
“possible” are of greatest concern. This infc I at
nett which is to determine how susceptible a source of water is to contamination.

Determine How Susceptible the Source of ete ce fe to ane —
i identified and priori
Once the contaminants of concern have been ident
i that the source(s) of contamination
ea, the DOH will evaluate the likelihood t f cor i
eee public drinking water supply. This will be done by eralvang se eet
i i f contamination. e
tt the source water relative to possible sources 0! !
dace which source(s) of contamination pose the greatest threat to the source of public

water.

" include a quality check called the
i of the assessment process will also ine! i
eecbanity Review/Refinement. The results of this assessment quality check, any changes
that were made and why they were made will be discussed in this section.

i ilability of the Assessments ; :
CoE seme has been completed it will be made available to the public. Ata

minimum, the assessments will be available from the sat A eons
isi be made available through o1 i

Where there is interest, the assessments may D¢ | ors Seance et
ibrari ici ddition, a Public Summary of the sout

as local libraries or municipal offices. In a 7 ‘ emtene

i ity water systems, such as a
Assessment may be created for certain commun e Bie same
i tems determined to have a high susceptibility y
public water systems and those sys' : i oe lat take 9 8
inati e more widely dis
water contamination. These summaries can :
particular local interest. The assessments are expected to be completed in 2002 and 2003

Page iv

1.0 Introduction

1.1. Program Background

Congress, in the 1996 Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act, placed an emphasis on the
protection of surface and ground water sources used for public drinking water. To obtain the
authority created in the Act to reduce monitoring, states must develop a Source Water Assessment
Program and complete assessments of public drinking water sources and make these assessments
available to the public. In New York State, the Source Water Assessment Program is being
developed and implemented by the New York State Department of Health (DOH) with input from
other government agencies and private and public interest groups.

1.2 Program Demographics

In New York State, there are 10,758 public water systems of which over 9,000 have their own
sources of water. A water system which provides piped water to the public for human consumption
is considered a public water system if it has at least five service connections or regularly serves an
average of at least 25 individuals daily for at least 60 days out of the year. These 9,000 public water
systems are served by approximately 14,000 sources of water in New York State. The source waters

serving a public water system may consist of ground water, surface water, or a combination of both
ground and surface water.

There are several different types of public water systems in New York State: community water
systems, non-community water systems, and non-transient non-community water systems. There
are 3,418 community water systems in New York State. A community water system is a public
water system which serves at least five service connections used by year-round residents or regularly
serves at least 25 year-round residents. Community water systems include: municipal water systems
(1,195 systems in New York State); investor owned water companies which serve residential
populations (357 systems); county authorities and major wholesalers (8 systems); and mobile home
parks, apartment complexes and permanent residential institutions such as nursing homes (1,735

systems). It is estimated that 87 percent of the population of New York State is served by
approximately 151 community water systems.

There are 6,584 non-community water systems in New York State. These non-community systems
are further divided into whether they serve regular (non-transient) or variable (transient) consumers.
A non-transient non-community water system (e.g., schools, commercial/industrial facilities)
maintains its own drinking water sources and regularly serves at least 25 of the same people, four
or more hours per day, for four or more days per week for 26 or more weeks per year. There are 756
non-transientnon-community water systems in New York State. All other types of non-community
water systems are transient, non-community water systems (e.g., restaurants, motels). There are

5,828 such systems in New York State that maintain their own source and provide water to transient
populations, -

Page 1

In 1974, the New York State Health Department was granted authority for implementation of the
Public Water System Supervision Program established in the 1974 Federal Safe Drinking Water Act.
While being centrally administered, the regulatory oversight of the public water supply program in
New York State is provided through 45 local health departments (36 county health departments and
9 state district offices; see Appendix A), located throughout the state. Under the Safe Drinking
Water Act and its amendments, national limits on contaminant levels in drinking water have been
established to ensure that public drinking water is safe for human consumption. In New York State,
drinking water standards are established in 10 NYCRR Section 5-1, State Sanitary Code.

The requirements of the 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments to complete assessments of
source waters serving public water systems applies only to those public water systems which meet
the federal definition of a public water system. The federal definition of a public water system, from
the Safe Drinking Water Act, is any system that has 15 service connections or regularly serves at
least 25 individuals. New York regulates a number of smaller systems which do not meet this
definition. The distinction between the state and federal definition of a public water system
primarily exists for community water systems which have between 5 and 15 service connections and
serve between 15 and 25 individuals. Therefore, formal source water assessments need not be
completed for approximately 400 community water systems which meet the New York State public
water supply definition, but not the federal definition. These small systems will continue to be
assessed through sanitary surveys, which can also identify significant source contaminant threats.
‘Assessments will be completed for all public water systems which meet the federal definition of a
public water system, including community water systems (both municipal and non-municipal),
transient non-community water systems and non-transient, non-community water systems.

Under federal regulations, transient (e.g., restaurants, motels) non-community water systems are not
subject to the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) requirement for contaminants with chronic
health concerns. However, under New York State regulations, all public water systems are required
to meet maximum contaminant levels, including most of those with chronic health concerns.
Monitoring by transient, non-community systems for these contaminants is only required at State
discretion, that is, where the State believes a contaminant is likely to be present.

1.3 Program Goals and Outcomes

The goal of the Source Water Assessment Program is to complete assessments of the source waters

serving New York’s public drinking water systems and to make the assessmentinformation available ' }

to the public. There are approximately 14,000 raw water sources serving the State’s public water

systems. Each source water assessment will delineate the boundaries of the assessment area(s), |

identify significant potential sources of contamination within the assessment area, and assess the

susceptibility of the public water system(s) to contamination within the assessment area. Once the .

Source Water Assessments are complete, information from the assessments will be made available
to the public.

This program is not a source water protection program, rather it is a program to compile and
organize information in order to make more informed decisions regarding source water evaluation

Page 2 |

and the delivery of safe public drinking water. The Source Water Assessment Program does not
i a any ay mandates or regulations for protecting sources of public drinking water. However,
information from completed source water assessments may be used to direct local and state

protection efforts and oversight of public drinkin;
; f ¢ ( g water systems. The completed asse: i
provide a rational basis for future source water protection activities. P ssments will

1.4 Program Funding

A Drinking Water State Revolving Fi i
g Fund was created in 1996 as a result of New York State’
arene of Chapter 413 of the Laws of 1996 (Clean Water/Clean Air Bond Act) and ie ae
fal aedlte nacre ie ame Drinking Water Act. The Drinking Water State Revolving
significant financial incentive for public and private drinki
finance needed infrastructure im Cr oe een ae
anc frast provements (e.g., treatment plants, distribution mains, st
sel The Drinking Water State Revolving Fund receives funds from federal Safe Drinking
ater Act Capitalization Grants and the State’s Clean Water/Clean Air Bond Act. °

te ae Plestee. © the Safe pono Water Act also authorized the States to take up to 10%
pitalization Grant for federal fiscal year 1997 to complete
water areas that serve public water systems. Fundin; ce AmennattPioaiaarnn
: t ' ig for the Source Water Assessment P:
only available in federal fiscal year 1997, but the moni sderal fiscal years,
i i ies can be spent over four federal fiscal
x = Final Intended Use Plan - Drinking Water State Revolving Fund dated October 22, 1997, the
aa te aw to ana the maximum amount of 10% of the total annual federal Capitalization
ederal fiscal year 1997 ($5,916,770) to develop and impl
Assessment Program. A work plan describin, sin a ebjentiv a
; - g the DOH’s intended objectiv: id i
totaling $1,540,620 for the first year of the Source W: : arent rama
540, ‘ater Assessment Program (federal fi
1998) was approved by the EPA in May ib rer on a
V " ry 1998. A work plan describing the objecti
we ad cee sted hn developed for the second year of the program (aceite
was approved in July 1999 by the EPA as part of the State’s Drinking W:
‘ pprovec te
eevolving Fund Capitalization Grant request for FFY‘99 funding. The State has Seems
following expenditures for the remaining two years: $1,600,000 (federal fiscal year 2000) and

$1,100,000 (federal
annually. (federal fiscal year 2001), Work plans and budgets for these funds will be developed

2.0 Source Water Assessment Program Development Process
This Source Water Assessment Pro;
; gram plan was developed using the State Source Wat
oes age Trotection routine - Final Guidance published by the EPA in ‘August 1997 ae
in Section 2.2, the DOH conducted an extensive outreach effort to i :
u i J nduc ather input for th
= . cevelopment. prior ° disseminating a draft plan to the public, a aon draft of this
‘as Submitted to the Source Water Protection Coordinati ; i iti
Advisory Committee established b: i i vedl Boiling. Gooweas ie DOM
ry the DOH) and its various technical Worki.
and local health unit staff for review and comi iti oe: A deer
1 Ith unit f ment. Additional input is being sought at publi
hearings and in writing during the public comment period. The DOH believes that ie en i

Page 3

involving as many parties as possible throughout the state, will result in a plan that serves a variety
of purposes, including the improvement of source water protection.

to Source Water Assessment and

2.1. Existing Activities Related

Protection

Many aspects of source water protection have been practiced in New York State for decades. The
authority for State promulgated Watershed Rules and Regulations has existed since 1885. Specific
protection programs have been developed for numerous ground water and surface water sources
across the state, particularly for the sources serving the largest public water systems. Although
specific approaches implemented at the local level have varied throughout the century-long history
of Watershed Rules and Regulations, virtually all approaches have included the basic concepts of
delineation and inventory of potential contaminant sources.

Source water protection has also been provided by numerous environmental quality programs in
New York State, implemented primarily by the New York State Department of Environmental ~
Conservationand county health departments. These programs, including both point and non-point ~
source pollution controls (e.g., waste discharges, solid and hazardous waste, bulk storage, pesticides,
etc.), are designed to protect both ground and surface waters of New York State on the basis of their
classificationsand water quality standards. The water quality standards were developed to protect
ground water and surface water used as public drinking water sources. Although these
environmental quality programs generally address broader geographic areas than the Source Water
Assessment Program, they are a key component of source water protection.

Nassau and Suffolk Counties have a long history of ground water management programs beginning
with the Nassau-Suffolk Comprehensive Development Plan (1972) which focused primarilyon water
quantity, but also examined water quality issues such as salt water intrusion and contamination by _
heavy metals and other toxics. The 208 Plan (1978) was the first comprehensive attempt at water
quality management on Long Island. The 208 Plan delineated eight major hydrogeologic zones on |
Long Island based on ground water flow patterns and determined which areas contribute recharge

to the upper glacial and Magothy aquifers which are used as sources of public drinking water. The |
Long Island Comprehensive Special Groundwater Protection Area Plan (1992) established nine ;
special groundwater protection areas which were deemed critical for the maintenance of good water
quality in the upper glacial and Magothy aquifers.

i
i
H

Various levels of source water assessment have also been completed for ground water sources by
the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. The comprehensive New York
State Groundwater Management Program recommended key policies and program initiatives ;
endorsing geographic targeting and critical protection areas on Long Island (1986) and Upstate New |
York (1987). Principal and primary aquifers were defined and mapped through a cooperative a
program with the United States Geological Survey. These concepts were forerunners of the Safe |
Drinking Water Act’s Wellhead Protection Program which is a pollution prevention program
designed to protect ground water sources that are relied upon by public drinking water systems. i

EST

Page 4's

imlementetion of Ni ela evonmental Conservation was initially responsible for the
ork’s Wellhead Protection Program which w: i
September 1990. In 1998, New York’s Gover i desi SOL SE ca anes
t n 8s, rnor Pataki designated the DOH as the stat
ee for continued ro arn of New York’s Wellhead Protection Program Two key
nts of the Source Water Assessment Program, delineationand i in
¢ 5 tential contaminant sour
inventory, were addressed for public water s: i ne Stas
a ystems using ground water by the Ni
Wellhead Protection Program. Althou; ici Be thes a
\ 5 gh many of the municipal community publi i
in New York State made valuable pro ion Program hp aiee
gress under the Wellhead Protection Pro, ft i
support of county or regional planning a; i iti eal Mien
rt 0 gencies, water authorities, or the New York Rural
Association), the Wellhead Protection Pro; i : sisceptibility to
ation), ! ‘ gram did not evaluate wat ibili
contamination or provide for public disclosure of the assessments. Sr supply suscepabilty te

La tia ora of the Wellhead Protection Program established a “baseline” two zone
protection area for all public water systems (community and ¢ i i

water supplies and allowed broad flexibilit inition ee
: ies an v y for locally-initiated refinements or revisio1

ae oor policy emphasized regional aquifer management for wells in Scouuasi

aquifers, and fixed radius delineations for bedrock wells. Many of the local community refinements

utilized an intermediate fixed radius (e. i ineati
‘ .Z., one mile) d i
modeling has been utilized for certain systems. ) Seneation Approasi ast yarSapaICetS

ei ema sone of the Wellhead Protection Program delineation policy (e.g., multiple
5 sis on aquifer assessments) can be used in the Source W: nt] gram,
np ater Assessment Pro;
some revisions are needed to make the program more i i :
ome re net practical. First, our understandi f the
significance of microbial contamination and its migrati itat ofthe first
i ration may necessitate ai i
Wellhead Protection Program zone fo 4 oir tindlopmondinatal
2 x many systems. Second, in order to cond i
evaluation of the susceptibility of wells to c inati ’ pe ant
n ontamination, the second Wellhead Protecti
zone (regional aquifer) may have to be narrowed. i oeaury exiecdl den
: ; especially where such aquifers
many miles. Finally, delineations outside of New Y k’s Pri fers Tivecintiied
aay, Primary Aquifers will i
ee ae ork’s ary Aquifers will need to be clarified
aquifer maps are not of sufficient scale or accurac’
; : ; 0 to support rea:
contaminant source inventories or to provide for public disclosure of the final een

periet ital se contaminant sources under the Wellhead Protection Program was
n only for selected municipal community water syst
p eceeminiee iaoneenigaeomet ystems, and was generally not completed
; ~ unity water systems (except where the ithi
a municipal wellhead protection area). The c i sven S eombieea ier tie
I . ontaminant source inventori
parr ar . entories completed for the
gram were typically more generalized because th i
support the contaminant susceptibilit i i vB, Wale Setzer
y analysis that is a key goal of the S.
Propram, Althou 1 y goal of the Source Water Assessment
é gh this component of the local Wellhead Protecti i i
t ‘ ection Program projects will be
ee foundation for the Source Water Assessment Program, the Source Water henna ‘mea
er focus the contaminant inventories to support susceptibili
0 f t t ibility assessm
expand the inventories to include all public water systems served by round vision “

In additi i
a pithain ge Wellhead Protection Program, several watershed programs have been established
ork State. These watershed programs are intended to protect surface waters that are used

Page 5

for sources of public drinking water and detailed delineationsand contaminant inventories have been
completed. Most notable of these watershed protection programs are those addressing the
Croton/Catskill/Delaware Reservoirs (New York City), Tomhannock Reservoir (City of Troy),
Skaneateles Lake (City of Syracuse), and several other Finger Lakes’ sources. Source water
assessment and protection activities have also been initiated in some areas by New York’s County
Water Quality Coordinating Committees, Environmental Management Councils, and county health

departments.

The DOH has, over the years, worked with many other programs as well as several state and federal
agencies toward protecting drinking water sources. The DOH has actively participated on numerous
committees, emphasizing the importance of considering those contaminants which may pose health
threats when present in drinking water. The committees include the statewide Non-point Source
Coordinating Committee and the New York State Soil and Water Conservation Committee. The
Non-point Source Coordinating Committee focuses on coordination among state and local agencies
and institutions to improve the management of non-point sources for watershed and aquifer
protection, The New York State Soil and Water Conservation Committee developed the Guide to
Agricultural Environmental Management. Agricultural Environmental Management is a voluntary
program which assists farmers in evaluating their farming practices, especially those which may
negatively affect drinking water sources. Once identified, Best Management Practices can then be
implemented, specifically those which are beneficial for source water protection.

The Upper Susquehanna River Coalition, in conjunction with the Water Resources Institute of
Cornell University, initiated a pilot project in the Upper Susquehanna River Basin to conduct source

water assessments of several public drinking water systems. The pilot project which was completed |
in August 1998, included areas both within New York and Pennsylvania. As part of this pilot
project, source water assessments were completed in four study areas: Pierce Creek in Binghamton
(Broome County, New York); Village of Afton (Chenango County, New York); Ouleout Creek
Watershed (Delaware County, New York); and that portion of the river basin known as Great Bend
which passes through Susquehanna and Tioga Counties (Pennsylvania). The goal of this pilot
project was to implementan integrated watershed management program for the Upper Susquehanna
River Basin based on New York’s Source Water Assessment Program. The outcome of this pilot
project included a one day workshop on August 25, 1998. The workshop included presentations on |
the results of the source water assessment efforts and integrated the federal, state and local

perspectives related to conducting source water assessments.

2.2

Public Participation

The DOH developed an aggressive public participation plan to fully involve the public in the HI
development and implementation of the Source Water Assessment Program plan. The public
participation plan (Appendix B) exceeds the requirements of both the Safe Drinking Water Act and
the EPA’s State Source Water Assessment and Protection Programs - Final Guidance. Many :
elements of the public participation plan are quite innovative. For example, the DOH held focus |
group meetings, a satellite broadcast and worked with the New York State Department of 4
Environmental Conservation and the New York State Soil Conservation Committee to provide iH
funding for County Water Quality Coordinating Committees (local organizations) to hold public |:

Page 6

meetings to discuss the Source Water Assessment Program and how it can be integrated into existin;

programs and local water quality strategy plans. The DOH also established a statewide citizen
advisory committee called the Source Water Protection Coordinating Committee. The Committee
formed five technical and advisory working groups to provide the DOH with ideas suggestions and
comments on specific aspects of the methodology for conducting assessments and making them

available to the public. These and other as; i icipati
le pects of the public part
Water Assessment Program are summarized below. P pastcipetion ei Seeie Senos

The Source Water Assessment Program public participation effort began in November 1997, with
two focus group meetings held in Albany and Ithaca (New York). Each meeting followed a similar
format and was attended by individuals representing various interests, such as public health,
agriculture, business, local government, state and federal government and public water suppliers.
The purpose of the focus group meetings was to provide the DOH with guidance on: who would use
the assessments; how the assessments would be used; how the State should reach different
constituencies; and what the conflicting wants and needs were within and between constituenci

Approximately 60 individuals attended the focus group meetings. _

In January 1998, the State convened the Source Water Protection Coordinating Committee. Th:

initial goal of this statewide citizen advisory committee was to provide the DOH with advice and
guidance on developing the Source Water Assessment Program Plan. After the plan is complet

the committee will provide feedback on the technical guidance documents that will be develo, ed fo :
implementation of the Source Water Assessment Program. The Committee has a broad member hit :
similar to the focus group attendees and meets quarterly. A listing of the Committee’s cenein is
included in Appendix C. The Committee first met on January 12, 1998 and has also met on ‘April

1, 1998, June 10, 1
to00 june 10, 1998, September 28, 1998, December 10, 1998, June 8, 1999, and September 8,

At the first Source Water Protection Coordinating Committee meeting, five subcommittees, called
working groups, were established to address the following aspects of the Source Water Assessment
Program: Delineation Issues, Contaminant Inventory/Significance,Public Participation/Assessment
Format, Geographic Information Systems/Data Collection, and Aquifer/Watershed and Inter-
jurisdictional Issues. The working groups were tasked with advising the DOH on technical issues
and development of the Source Water Assessment Program plan. The working groups have
convened a total of 28 meetings and the main sections of this plan are based on discussions and

guidance provided to the DOH b i isti i ici i
eee y the working groups. A listing of working group participants is

- June 16, 1998, Cornell University sponsored a video teleconference on the Source Water
lah ii Program that was broadcast via satellite to approximately 50 downlink sites. Most of
k fe pownlink oe were in New York State; however, some were in other states and at EPA
ae a a val asl =e D.C. The purpose of the video conference was to provide local entities
One ng information: a description of the Source Water Assessment Program; how the

will conduct source water assessments; a historical perspective on past and on-going source
water assessment efforts; and an overview of the Source Water Assessment Program’s past, present,

‘uture public participation efforts. A video tape of the satellite conference is available for
and fut b pi ip ite conference is available f

Page7

The DOH publicized the video conference with the help of New York’s County Water Quality
Coordinating Committees. The County Water Quality Coordinating Committees were asked to
sponsor downlink sites and hold public meetings in conjunction with the satellite broadcast. The
committees were also asked to provide the DOH with feedback from the participants on the Source
Water AssessmentProgram. The DOH has estimated that approximately 1,000 individuals viewed
the satellite broadcast in conjunction with a public meeting to discuss elements of New York’s
Source Water Assessment Program.

In September 1998, the DOH held regional workshops in five areas of New York State (Albany,
Lake Placid, Long Island, Syracuse, Batavia). The purpose of these workshops was to ask the
interested public for guidance on specific issues in the plan that needed to be resolved. The plan was
revised based on the feedback received during the regional workshops and the September 28, 1998
meeting of the Source Water Protection Coordinating Committee.

The draft plan was distributed for public comment. The public comment period was from November
10 until December 18, 1998. During that time, three public hearings were held, one each in Albany,
Rochester and Long Island. Public comments received during the comment period and at the public
hearings are included ina responsivenesssummary (Appendix H) in this plan. The revised plan will
be distributed to all commentors and involved parties. After EPA approval, the final plan will be
redistributed to all interested parties and made widely available to the public.

The New York Rural Water Association received an EPA Source Water Assessment Program public
participation grant. As part of the grant, the New York Rural Water Association conducted five
seminars in November 1998 for small water suppliers, local government officials and educators. The
goal of these seminars was to provide these groups with detailed information about the Source Water
‘Assessment Program and encourage the attendees to make comments and suggestions on the draft
Source Water Assessment Program plan. The New York Rural Water Association worked closely
with the DOH to coordinate these seminars with other program-related public participationactivities.

2.3 Data Collection During Plan Development i

The DOH plans to use reasonably available information for completing assessments. This will be |
accomplished primarily by establishing a geographic information system (GIS). Much of the data ©
needed to complete assessments is available in a variety of formats and in many locations across the
state. In developing the methodology for conducting assessments, DOH has identified some GIS
data coverages (Table 1) which provide at least an introductory level of information for the whol:
state. Knowledge of what informationis readily available helped to drive the contaminantinventory
planning. For example, the EPA Region II Land Cover Data Set (covering New Jersey and New 4
York) has recently become available. This gives land use information on the basis of 30 meter
pixels, or colored squares on the map. Previously available data was not fine enough to be helpful a
when determining what types of non-point source contamination might be present. With this data i
we can estimate what types of contamination may reach an intake based on land use. a

The largest amount of data associated with contaminant source identification is available through
the New York State Departmentof Environmental Conservation. The DOH is actively working with
the Department of Environmental Conservation to make additional source water assessment data |}

available and to improve the quality of the existing data. A list of data coverages helpful in #

parm: psa - a as Table 1. This list is the starting point of data compilation and
considered complete. The extent of data across thi i i
popipereideeeacermmenie iaind s the state is not uniform and some of
prove accuracy. Statewide covera; ill bi
local data sets where available. While i svaicanddedel tee
‘ : : some locally available data sets have been identi
. ee . ich
will be identified during implementation of the Source Water Assessment —— others

ie ai Le i oi and distribution is the New York State GIS Data Sharing
. The is a member of this data sharing coo i i

’ is a ) perative and will be able t
available GIS data to maximize the quality of assessment information. Other members jusage aie

and federal agencies, counties, and localitie:
? > > Ss, as well as the state of Vermont.
by the DOH will be made available to other members of the cooperative. 2 eS

3.0 New York State’s Approach to Source Water Assessments

3.1 Source Water Assessment Objectives

h >

ee . vo cae Fae eee and Protection Programs Guidance acknowledges that

sessment efforts based on the objectives set fc i
‘or particular water syst
states systems. For
= pee vite oa es i ag for comprehensive protection activities while other
lems 1 r more focused protection from specific contami icrobi
or situations (e.g., spills). Further, states ma i Pau piieene
ations 5 i z ly target certain systems for al i itori
u u e y's ‘or alternative monitorin;
‘or maintaining filtration avoidance, and may conduct different levels of assessments for these ee

of systems. Described below are three overal program objectives, any of which may apply at a
eg) > all} ippl

sective: . an .
Objective: During the initial assessment determine whether a sophisticated source-specific

protection program is needed, taking into consi i i
Pabbena tel. 5 ig sideration whether a protection program already exists

pons 7. Hie major io of both the assessment and the local program(s), the
of information (e.g., mapping scale) and roles of all partici :

assessment methodology detailed in Section 4.5 di . ee ol fe

incorporated into the assessment process. ® Giscusses how these factors will be

Objective: . .
saestve: Coneiute to the protection and benefit of source waters through greater public water
erator awareness of contaminant threats (possibly in conjunction with an ancillary effort

to provide technical assistance o:
n Best Management Practices) and inc: iti
; reased
governments of the potential threats to drinking water sources. revognition By Joc

Based o hewn and ane “ past, locally-driven source water protection efforts, and the
1s of small, privately owned drinking wate itis lik

most public water systems will not becom: i i ed in $0 A a oem
u ¢ actively involved in sophisticated

protection programs such as described in Chi A Source Waier
apter 3 of the EPA’s State S

Assessment and Protection Pro; i we anellany to the

; grams Guidance. Most water systems art ill

primary business of the operator (e.g., mobile hi rea ie lot

c (eg, ome park, restaurant) and the lack of

management capacity of these supplies makes sophisticated protection programs impractical

Page 9

The remoteness of many systems (these businesses would not have their own source if they
were located in developed areas) lessens the need for a sophisticated protection program.

Objective: Increase assessment information for critical drinking water program decisions, especially
regarding future regulations.

The efforts of the EPA, the states and other stakeholders, accentuated by the intent of
Congress in the 1996 reauthorization of the Safe Drinking Water Act to base drinking water
regulations on public health priorities, affirm the need for informed regulatory decision-
making based on source water assessments. The following paragraphs highlight three
examples of how these source water assessments may be used in New York State.

>

Monitoring requirements: The Safe Drinking Water Act legislation allows states
to use source water assessment information to target monitoring requirements. The
Source Water Assessment Program will review the existing vulnerability
determinations previously made for a limited number of systems, and will update and
refine that information and analysis. The Source Water Assessment Program will
also provide a comprehensive review of all systems subject to the monitoring |
requirements (ie., community and non-transient non-community water systems), to |
effectively use the monitoring flexibility allowed by the Safe Drinking Water Act.

Future Ground Water Rule: The EPA has discussed the conceptual basis of the

Ground Water Rule with states and other stakeholders for the past five years. The :

EPA’s schedule for promulgation of the Ground Water Rule overlaps the

implementation of the Source Water Assessment Program. The EPA plans to 2

propose the Ground Water Rule in the Spring of 2000 and have the final Ground

Water Rule promulgated by November 2000. The concepts for the Ground Water

Rule being discussed by the EPA, center ona determination of ground water source

susceptibility to microbiological contamination. The Source Water Assessment |:
Program may provide preliminary information about this susceptibility. a

Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule: In November 1997, the EPA
reproposed the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule, which included
treatment techniquerequirement for Cryptosporidium, and Stage of the Disinfection

maximum contaminant levels for total trihalomethanes from 100 to 80 micrograms
per liter (ug/l), set anew maximum contaminant level for total haloacetic acids of 60
ug/l, and set treatment techniques for systems with high levels (over 2.0 ug/l) of total |
organic carbon. The EPA also requested comments on a schedule for a Long Term }1
Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule which may base treatment requirements on F
the risk of source water contamination to Cryptosporidium, and a Stage st i

4

a

Byproduct Rule. Stage 1 of the Disinfection Byproduct Rule would lower the i

A
4

Disinfection Byproduct Rule which would set stricter maximum contaminant levels i
for disinfection byproducts. These rules highlight the need for source water,
assessments and would help direct the priorities for certain surface water sources:
Unfortunately, the evolving nature of this rulemaking activity will affect the Source
Water Assessment Program susceptibility determinations, particularly with respect
to judging the significance of a potential source of contamination. The Long Term

Page 10

Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule and Sta; isi i
n e II Disinfecti
will probably not be promulgated until 2002. ° infection Byproduct Rule

3.2 State Strategic Approach to Source Water Assessments

sisi i |
Consistent with EPA’s State Source Water Assessment and Protection Programs Guidance, New

York’s approach to source water ass i
es : ae F :
La ssments will be to establish priorities on the basis of factors

° type and extent of threats;

Pes size and management capacity of a public water system; and
local support for individual source or regional water resource protection.

Resources to determine the level of effort
s needed to conduct an assessment for i
system will be apportioned according to these priorities. Snok- public water

ie inmlitietoatin the assessments will follow an evaluation process (See Figure 5) that goes
iple iterations building upon existing information (see Table 3 e

the assessments to major issues related i Sent Ot aeN Waiseapatenie Tos

to the protection and benefit of publi

DOH refers to this multi-phase se i i Mere eee bevel
quential evaluation process as an “iterative priori

ers to 1 : riority-based

suponehy This approach also recognizes the differences among public water syeleths: their sources

previous assessment efforts. The “iterative priority-based approach” can cost-effectively target

Source Water Assessment Pro i
: N gram resources, coordinate local pr i i
information for all public water systems. Protection forts and provide useii

Due ie oo tpetaoamen } ha water systems for which source water assessments must be
is ssessments may be performed to encourage comprehensi
within selected watersheds or aquifers. Thi i taal feba AACA es F
. ‘is approach will also lead to a more effici
resources. Grouped source water assessmet i i ape atgh
nts will most likely be perf< d i i
hydraulic sensitivity or where i iti ete ehas eiee
other uniform conditions or situatio: i
multiple public water system wells exi Teh ise ateestiom te anne
xist close to each other or which d: i
remotely recharged aquifer; areas where i ee oy Hee
y A a strong regional group effort is und
multiple public water systems with intakes i ett itelsides
es in the same lake; watershed: i iplei
' i ; i r eds that contain multiple intak
or public water systems; areas with heavy developmental pressure; and areas where land use is

uniform and there is a limited likeli i i
ihood for pote ithi
iar potential contaminant sources within the source water

3.2.1 Type and Extent of Threats

Existi itori
as aero Faeroe En data can be used to provide an indication of the type and extent
co a public water system, as well as, define ibili i
Significance of potential sources of inatic : Se oe auet redline
g contamination. However, threats t i
itidGen : ; , threats to source water quality are
pletely predictable based on previous trend.
Program will look b , Pp us trends and the Source Water Assessment
eyond the present to anticipate potential i
Thee nticipate potential future source water quality problems.
jource Water Assessment Program will help identify those sources of drinking oe that are

Page Il

i=

unusually susceptible and require more extensive assessment, protection and/or drinking water
regulatory control on the basis of the following priorities:

. Existing Contamination Problems - Source waters with documented drinking water
quality problems (¢.g., elevated nitrates) will be given the highest priority and will
be addressed first.

. Naturally Sensitive Hydrologic Regime - Source waters which are determined to be

naturally susceptible to contamination because of the hydrologic setting will also be
given priority under the Source Water Assessment Program (¢.g., shallow alluvial
wells which are susceptible to microbiological contaminants and volatile organic

compounds).

. Potential Land Use Coverage- The Source Water Assessment Program will consider
dynamic conditions such as changes in land or chemical use and alterations of
hydrologic conditions (¢.g., increased pumping of an aquifer). Areas that are
experiencing or most probably will experience development pressures or other
changes in contaminant generation will also be considered under this priority.

. Potential for Surface Water Contaminants - Surface waters tend to be most
susceptible to microbiological contaminants such as Cryptosporidium and —
contaminants which directly or indirectly result in the formation of disinfection 4
byproducts (total organic carbon and phosphorus). }

3.2.2 Type and Size of System

As noted in the EPA guidance, the Source Water Assessment Program can employ different
assessment approaches for each of the three regulatory classifications of public water systems:
community, non-community,and transientnon-community (see Section 1.2). The methodology that
will be used to perform a source water assessment for public water systems will not vary except with
regard to the type of delineation that is conducted (see Section 4.2). The delineation approach
utilized will be determined by the type of public water system.

The Source Water Assessment Program will consider differences in the type and size of public water :
systems for establishing priorities for completing assessments. The type, size and management |;
capacity of a public water system will be a factor with regard to the availability of existing |
information. The level of detail in an assessment of a larger public water system will most likely #
be greater than that for a small public water system. Typically, public drinking water sources which |
serve large populations have been given greater attention by the State and have received more /
resources for assessment and protection activities. Additionally, the public health significance of 4
possible adverse impacts to a public water system is determined, in part, by the type and size of the
water system. More detailed assessments may be completed for public water systems serving larger 4

populations due to the significance of identifying possible health risks within the source wate!
assessment area.

3.2.3. Local Support

In many locations, wellhead and watershed protection efforts are underway. Support for these local
and regional source water efforts will be evaluated and, where possible, the DOH will coordinate
source water assessments with these ongoing programs. In some cases, public water systems in these
areas will have amore detailed assessment. Areas with assessment or protection efforts underwat

will be given a higher priority for detailed assessments because federal, state and county agencies,

and local entities (e.g., local government, vol i
8. , volunteer groups) may provide resources and/ i
to make a more detailed assessment possible. crass

3.2.4 Setting Priorities

as ; iterative, priority-based” approach to assessments will consider the factors discussed in Section
z at ae and extent of threats; system size, type, and management capacity; and local support
for individual source or regional protection) to focus on the major issue(s) of probable contamination
for a particular public drinking water source.

As noted in the previous discussion on the interaction with the drinking water regulatory program.
decisions often need to be made with less than ideally complete information. proiescionul jud 2 nt
and experience can help compensate for scientific uncertainty. The advantage that the comprehensive
statewide Source Water Assessment Program will have over some isolated assessment efforts will
be the perspective gained through the systematic accumulation and organization of available
information. This knowledge-based approach could outline general priorities for systems in the
state. It would also suggest an order for assessing particular drinking water sources and the relativ

distribution of the Source Water Assessment Program resources. This approach is detailed ‘i
Section 4.5, Methodology for Completing Assessments. “oe

Assessments of ground water sources will consider potential sources of microbiological
contamination as a priority. Current and pending regulations requiring ground water disinfection
reflect the concern about the risk from microbial pathogens. Ground water sources are, however,
generally afforded greater protection from microbiological contamination than are surface water
sources, Filtering and adsorptive characteristics of the soil, as well as longer travel times due t

slower-flowing ground water, reduce the transport of viable pathogens. “ve

pila ° éiverse ae results in an assortment of wells with differing degrees of surface water
pen: : ba end of the aa are the ground water sources determined to be under the direct
Pues "Surface water. These sources are the most sensitive to microbiological contamination,
ona é VA ; an. ontentingion Therefore, assessments for these sources will consider potential
phe ‘ig a] Giardia, bacteria, and viruses as a priority. As surface water influence
s aeeetat ikely an there is more opportunity for natural filtration, the likelihood of

‘obiological contamination of the ground water decreases. As a result, assessments of ground

water sources will differ in how high a priority they giv: i iological co
rity the ntaminant i
te 8 igh a p give microbiological ti its and their

Prioriti i

deol for specific assessments of ground water sources for community water systems are

cont <i in Section 4.22. The source water areas for community water systems are primarily
ined within the county’s jurisdiction. For transient non-community water systems, the major

Page 13

issue will be Ground Water Rule susceptibility determinations. Transient non-community water
systems that already disinfect would probably have the lowest overall priority because these
assessments are least likely to yield results of public health significance.

Source Water Assessments for surface water sources will focus primarily on microbiological
contamination. Cryptosporidium will be the central contaminant of concern, because of its severe
health ramifications (particularly for immunocompromised populations), the difficulty in effectively
treating water contaminated with Cryptosporidium, and its persistence in the environment. Although
much remains to be learned about the sources and behavior of Cryptosporidium in the environment,
the greatest concern would be given to rivers with direct sewage discharges located within short
travel times of public drinking water system intakes. The next ranking of risk would be assigned
to large multi-use lakes. The least concern would be for lakes and reservoirs free of wastewater
discharges and manure runoff.

Another major issue which will be used to rank surface water risk is the likelihood that sources of
contaminants will reach source waters as disinfection byproduct precursors. Ranking of sources will
include those water systems which have disinfection byproducts above the proposed Stage I and II
maximum contaminant levels and those on the Priority Waters List because of excessive nutrient
levels. In addition, surface water risk will also be
chemical contaminants, including sources where intermittent low-levels of pesticides have been

detected.

The priorities given to microbiological contaminants and disinfection byproduct precursors in
surface water supplies will not necessarily preclude consideration of other contaminants in
assessments of surface water sources. Assessments will also give priority to contaminants that have
been detected in the supply, or contaminants with significant potential sources in the assessment
area. For example, recent monitoring in New York State has detected pesticides in surface runoff
from some agricultural lands at the beginning of the growing season. Based on these findings,
surface water assessments will give pesticides and herbicides a high priority when assessment areas
include significant cropland cover.

4.0 New York’s Approach for Conducting Assessments and Reporting Results

The EPA’s Guidance on State Source Water Assessment and Protection Programs describes three
elements which must be included in a source water assessment for a public water system: a
delineation of the source water assessment area; an inventory of significant potential sources of
contamination within the delineated area; anda

elements of the source water assessment are complete, states must evaluate the potential for water
systems to draw water that contains contaminantsat levels which could pose a public health concern.

States are also required to involve the public in the development of their Source Water Assessment f
Program plan and make the results of completed source water assessments available to the public.

Previous sections of this plan present information on the program background, public participation,
plan development, and New York’s overall approach to meet the goals set forth in the EPA’s

Page 14

ranked based on the presence of detectable ¢

determination of the susceptibility of the public |
water system to the potential contaminant sources that were inventoried. In performing these tasks, {|
states are charged with collecting all reasonably available information for delineations and utilizing |
this information to the extent practical for completing the contaminant inventory. Once these §

ARR ID SRE

guidance document. The purpose of this section of the i
\ i : I ; plan is to present New York’s approach fi
collecting available information, executing the three technical program requirements (delineation,

contaminant inventory, and susceptibility determinatio ind presenting source wat
‘y ination), and pi
y > ig ater assessment

4.1 Data and Information Collection

Information that will be used to conduct source water assessments includes: public water syst

data; natural source water characteristics; source water locations; delineation history; contin ant
inventory; regulatory issues; source water protection; and additional sateen that il be
determined during refinement of the susceptibility analysis. The types of data needed 33 a di ‘
come ase ene are dicate in Table 2. Some of the data categories have an abteiak next

cause these pieces of information are consi i ing initi

water assessments. The significance of these data ne neowment a i Paine rth?
evaluated by the DOH through several pilot projects. Additional data categories may be added a

removed from Table 2 as determinati iti i
i ions about the most critical data for completing assessments are

pak information for the source water assessments can come from many sources. The DOH
a“ : fee ie Ae “r a or cases has already started working, with other State agencies and local
ailable information. The DOH is aware that at the watersh

e : ed, county and town

epee os in many locations have been completed or are underway. The DOH will
cal point person to coordinate data collection from local oft i

including public water systems. The coordi Sat aa lg
inator may representa county or watersh izati

Involvement of local representativesin th i i ea ormiction icone

e collection of data is critical for the completi
I letionof,
and representative source water assessments. The DOH will work with each County anid isthe

Health Department to determine the uni
! 1 t unique factors that need to be consi i
available information for each county’s source waters. onsidered when collecting the

The ponent ey and completeness of the data will vary because of its many sources. To
r this, metadata will be attached to the dataset t i ;
ee ; ‘o note the quality of the data used for
‘ormation on where the data came fre hi i
nar ican: n c ‘om so that the user can determine
I particular project. The DOH will review the quali ilati
a ity of data compilati d
in assessments for various source waters around th re consi highqualit
5 ; r s ts ‘ e state to ensure consistency and high quality.
epending on the issues which may arise, minor changes may be needed in the way the asia ome

4.1.1 Collecting Available Information on Public Water Systems

Th F .

ee idles ne bh ot detail of the available information will vary for each assessment. This will

se iat le a that will be completed for an assessment. Initial assessments will be based

irs a mR a wil follow the methodology outlined in Section 4.5 of this plan. At the core
able informationis data from sanitary surveys, vulnerability assessments and public water

systems. Sanitary surveys and vul ili
Distt Healtt De a ‘a ulnerability assessments are performed by either the County or

i a - The purpose ofa sanitary survey is to evaluate and document the
pabilities of a public water system to continually provide safe drinking water and

Page 15

identify any deficienciesrelated to operation of a particular public water system. The
surveys are conducted by County.or District Health Departments and include a
review of the source water and the presence of activities in the source water area that
could adversely affect the drinking water supply. Other aspects ofthe survey include _
evaluations of the intake construction, water treatment operation, and the water
distribution system. The surveys are an ongoing field review of significant, basic
assessment information. Copies of surveys are kept on file in local health
departments and key aspects of the surveys are entered into the DOH’s Safewater
Database, This database is maintained by local health units and the DOH. Some of
the information entered into the Safewater Database is reported to the EPA. Some
sanitary surveys emphasize a system’s source water while others may contain very
little detail about the source water. As the DOH moves towards utilizing the EPA’s |
State Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS) database, sanitary survey
information will be more readily available. 4

° Vulnerability Assessments - A vulnerability assessment evaluates factors which
could contribute to the contamination of a public water supply by chemicals. A
vulnerability assessment is performed by the County or District Health Department
in order to determine the monitoring frequency required for a public water system.
Vulnerability assessments are performed on systems that have 3,300 or fewer .
customers. The methodology for conducting a vulnerability assessment for volatile
organic chemicals is presented in Appendix D (Technical Reference PWS-72).

. Public Water System Data - Every public water supply is required to monitor for
certain contaminants. This monitoring data will be used in the assessments.
Additionally, some water sources have had delineations completed under a watershed
initiative or the State’s Wellhead Protection Program. In such cases, this information
will be used when conducting the assessments. To ensure that there are no omissions
or errors, the DOH will provide public water suppliers with an opportunity to review &
assessments of their system(s) before they are finalized. bi

Information from the sanitary surveys, vulnerability assessments (where applicable), and the public
water system are considered the minimum amount of information necessary to conduct a source
water assessment. If this information is not complete, the DOH will work with County and District #
Health Departments to acquire information about the public water system and source waters. i

4.1.2 Collecting Available Information from Other Data Sources

The DOH will be trying to use data that has been collected for purposes other than analyzing a public
water supply. For example, the assessments will try to utilize available statewide data which #
include: land use data; discrete potential contaminant sources; details shown on digitized aerial f
photographs (i.¢., digital orthophotos); topography of the watershed; hydrography information; 4
observed contaminants at the water source; and census data. The DOH will be responsible for F
collecting and analyzing those databases that are maintained at the State level and which will be
useful in conducting assessments.

In some parts of the state, detailed information such as tax map information has been collected which
would allow for more accurate assessments. When these information sources are believed to be
reliable, they will be used in addition to or instead of the statewide coverages. In cases where there
is uncertainty about the reliability of smaller scale data, the statewide coverages would be used. In

the event that there is disagreement between the entities involved with the assessment process, the
DOH will determine which data sets are appropriate to use. ,

In some counties, watershed and/or aquifer protection activities may have been initiated for some
source waters serving public water systems. Additionally, there may be active County Water Quality
Coordinating Committees or other water resource protection groups involved with water qualit

assessment and/or protection. Information from these existing organizations and efforts may be
useful for conducting assessments and the DOH wants to use these resources. However, there is
great variation between counties and it would not be efficient to establish one method of collecting
local data for the entire state. Throughout the assessment process, the DOH plans to work as needed
with local organizations and people who provide information and resources for conducting

assessments. These involved parties will have an opportunity to review the assessment before it is
finalized to ensure there are no errors or omissions.

Where source water assessments have been completed, for example in the New York City and the
City of Syracuse (Skaneateles Lake) watersheds, these assessments will be used to fulfill Source
Water Assessment Program requirements. These existing assessments likely exceed the EPA’s
Source Water Assessment Program requirements for contaminant inventory and susceptibility
determinations. Given the extensive state involvement in these protection efforts, the Source Water
Assessment Program requirement remaining for these two watersheds would be to assure that the
assessment information is made available to the public. However, it should be noted that separate

assessments will need to be completed for small public water systems which insi
Skaneateles and New York City watersheds. * sre nested inside the

The regional aquifer systems on Long Island have been investigated and assessed and many
protection and management programs are already in place. The 208 plan (1978) delineated eight
major hydrogeologic zones based on ground water flow patterns. Three areas were identified as
contributing to the deep recharge of the Magothy aquifer. The Long Island Comprehensive Special
Ground Water Protection Area Plan (1992) was a further refinement toward managing the Long
Island aquifers in a comprehensive manner with the establishment of Special Groundwater
Protection Areas. The 1992 plan made use of geographic information systems to map the locations
* contaminant plumes, wells, land use cover, and other information to facilitate the protection of
e drinking water supplies. The Source Water Assessment Program will build on these significant
efforts by reviewing these assessment efforts for completeness, and will concentrate on further
evaluating the contaminant inventory or susceptibility analysis of a particular contaminant group.
Such as viruses, and facilitating public access to the vast amount of information already collected.

Page 17

4.2 Delineation of Assessment Areas

4.2.1. General Approach for Delineation of Source Water Assessment
Areas

Consistent with the 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments, each source water assessment that
is completed for a public water system will include the element of delineation. It is important to
recognize that the delineated areas will not constitute source water protection areas. Since, in many
cases, the delineated areas will be based on a minimum amount of available hydrogeological
information, the defined assessment areas may not be suitable for establishinga sophisticated source
water protection strategy. Rather, the delineated area(s) around any public water supply well(s) or
intake(s) will comprise a source water assessment area that has been established for the purpose of
completing the other required program elements of contaminant inventory and susceptibility
analysis. However, consistent with the Source Water Assessment Program principles, the ~
delineations will approximate the source water contributory areas based on reasonably available

information. The size and extent of the delineated source water assessment area will vary depending .
on the source type (i.e., surface water or ground water) among other factors. e

For many public water systems, the delineation will be an early step for completing the other
required Source Water Assessment Program elements (contaminant inventory and susceptibility). ..
However, in some cases the delineation approach will be determined, in part, by the susceptibility j
of the public water system to a potential contaminant source. In areas with known source water 4
problems, the accuracy of new delineations will be given special priority. The goals of delineating «!
the boundaries of source water areas are two-fold: (1) define the assessment area for public water
systems served by surface waters or ground waters and (2) target the areas that include significant

potential contaminant sources that may pose a potential threat to a public water system. :

Consistent with the overall guiding principles for New York’s Source Water Assessment Program, '
delineations of assessment areas will maximize use of existing information and emphasize the use %
of a statewide GIS. Delineations of source water areas completed as part of previous assessment q
efforts will be reviewed for completeness, and information will be incorporated into source water 4
assessments, as appropriate. GIS-based maps will be developed which identify the boundaries of the 4
source water assessment areas as well as other information (e.g., locations of surface water drainage a
areas, aquifer recharge areas, public water system intakes and wells, and significant potential

contaminant sources) relevant to the source water assessment.
4.2.2. Ground Water Delineations

The DOH recognizes that there is a variety of standard and accepted methods used to delineate zones}
around a ground water supply well and that each of these methods varies in degrees of complexity, 4
cost, and the level of technical expertise necessary for implementation. Furthermore, the extent andj
availability of existing hydrogeologic information is a significant factor in ‘determining the type of
delineation that will be completed. Where sufficient hydrogeological information exists of
delineations have already been completedas part of local wellhead assessmentand protection efforts,

the source water assessment delineation will attempt to maximize the use of this information.

Previous Assessment Efforts

Prior 2, delineations of source water assessment areas, the DOH will undertake a
Caer es compideiin sneer sam available, existing information to evaluate delineations that
leted as part of previous assessment efforts for publi
Source Water Assessment Program will build i ineaii eats soupy We Stee
s : upon earlier delineation effort: I
including the New York State De i oe Gielen
n partment of Environmental Conservati i
Geological Survey, local health units, universiti ool se ang Cate ar
| Ys 5 sities, New York Rural Water Associati
Regional Councils, and others. As a minim valle und ents
s . um effort, the DOH will revi WI
health department files for well lo i i lester ee
L gs and other relevant information. The DOH wil
same information from public water s ities listed Wee
; a systems and the other entities listed above. Where ay i
f ropriat
previous delineation efforts may.be expanded or modified. For example, reasonably "yvailable

information may indicate remote rechar;
. : ‘ge areas for bedrock or ; .
is under direct influence of surface water: or confined aquifers, or that an aquifer

Ihead ction Pro, : The EPA’s St
Wel head Prote gram: tate Source Water Assessment and Protection Pi
ene ae oe use of the delineation approach established by the Wellhead Ao
m. The delineation approach established under New York’s Wellhead i
recognizes the diversity of geological conditions and aqui SEINEH MoE Bi
juifer uses across New York S
acknowledges the need for flexibility wh i nd i Fetoaltes
: e ni 'y when selecting ground water delineation approach
site-specific conditions. Under the Wellhead Protection Program, the aquifer he Aloe sane

and bedrock aquifers are treated di . .
State. a reated differently than unconsolidated aquifers elsewhere in New York

tee ates ay eoaeietor Be ae aquifer on Long Island is based on a simplified variable

» will ; ‘eet for areas upgradient of a well and a radi

downgradient of a well. The delineation wih hiedoee ce
4 i approach for the Magothy and Lloyd Aqui

Island is based on the boundaries of the De reas in ticliatne
i ep Flow Recharge Ai i

of Environmental Conservation and the Suffolk County Saniaey a eperine

had unconsofidated a pouncaes have been delineated as part of wellhead protection

; 's of maps developed by the United States Geological

as the baseline delineation for unconsolid: ifers i eon Wanton mes

x i lated aquifers in Upstate New Y S
detailed delineationshave been com fe va aieNenr fink teachin
1 pleted. For bedrock aquifers in U;
Protection Program delineation a) : sar oOrieae tara a ae,
proach used a fixed radius of 1,500 fe

Chapter 3, “Wellhead Protectio ineati soube rl ohn: oe
is n Area Delineation”, of the 1990 submi

York State Wellhead Protection Program is included as loot fo the EPAon the New

: In New York State, the siti i
Sa , the siting of new public wat
¥ if: sina nae through the New York State Department of Environmental Cuoemite
developed - ee Permit Program. Under this program, specific permit conditions have been
e protection of new public water system wells, including the designation of strict

protection zones ina delineat
ed area that gene: ithi ini i
ba ectomzoneeitta tiling generally encompasses an area within a minimum radius

&
Page Ii *
Page 19

Ground Water Delineation Approach for Source Water Assessment Areas

As indicated previously, where existing information is reasonably available, it will be used to
delineate the source water assessmentarea for a public water system. However, the DOH anticipates
that in many cases, especially for non-community water systems, there will be limited information
about the ground water resources serving a public water supply well. Furthermore, assessment
efforts are made even more difficult, because both the quantity and quality of information will be
highly variableamong different public water supply wells and regions of the state. The ground water
delineation methodologies set forth in this section attempt to address these difficulties, while
producing delineations that are reasonably accurate and useful in attaining the goals the Source
Water Assessment Program. When appropriate and practical, additional information will be used
to enhance the delineation methodologies described in this section to meet the goals of the Source
Water Assessment Program. °

The two primary considerations in selecting a delineation methodology are the availability of
information and the inherent sensitivity of a well’s hydrogeologic setting. If a delineationexists that
is considered to be scientifically sound and at least as protective as the delineation approaches
described in this document, it will be utilized in the Source Water Assessment Program. When there
is sufficient evidence that a well (or a group of wells) is located in a sensitive hydrogeologic setting,
such as fractured bedrock, the nature of the source water assessment area delineation will rely
heavily on the quantity and quality of the available information and professional judgement.
Furthermore, available information may indicate the presence of a confining layer and remote
hydraulic recharge. In such cases, professional judgement will be the basis for identifying the
probable areas which contribute to remote recharge of the well(s) and for defining the source water
assessment areas.

In all instances where there is limited information about the local hydrogeological conditions for
public water systems using ground water wells, the delineation approach will be based on the type
of public water system. This delineation approach builds upon the minimum delineations completed
for wells under New York’s Wellhead Protection Program and vulnerability determinations as
required under the Safe Drinking Water Act. This approach establishes a base level of information
from which future source water assessment and protection efforts can be refined.

For public water supplies served by ground water wells, there will be two delineated zones for source
water assessments: an area immediately surrounding the well called the Inner Well Zone and a
larger, more broadly delineated area called the Outer Well Zone. Schematics of these delineation
zones are depicted in Figure 1. These delineations will be the boundaries within which the inventory
of potential contaminant sources are completed. Source water assessment area delineations may be
modified to include potentially significant contaminant sources which are located near, but not
within, areas defined by the ground water delineation methodologies.

Page 20

Communit ate! ms_and Non-Transient, Non-Communit ater Systems
Inner Well Zone - Calculated Fixed Radius

‘The delineation for the Inner Well Zone will be consistent with the current approach
as outlined in the DOH’s Technical Reference 72 (see Appendix D) for determining -
vulnerability to contamination by volatile organic chemicals. This Technical
Reference calculates a radius based on five years’ hypothetical pumpage. The
pumping rate for a particular well will be estimated based on existing information
collected by the DOH’s Safewater Database or received from the water supplier. If
information about the pumping rate is not available, then the pumping rate will be
estimated, consistent with the approach outlined in Technical Reference 72. In all
cases, the Inner Well Zone will be assigned a minimum radius of at least 500 feet.

Outer Well Zone - Modified Arbitrary Fixed Radius

‘A reasonable estimate of the ground water flow towards a supply well will be made
using available information. Once the direction of ground water flow has been
estimated, a semicircular area upgradient from the public water supply well(s) will
be delineated, using a radius of one mile or existing hydrogeologic barriers (¢.g.,
ground water and/or surface water divides, aquifer boundaries), whichever is smaller.
The extent of the upgradient area may be modified should information indicate that
there are obvious limits to the probable recharge area. Ifa reasonable estimate of the
ground water flow direction towards a supply well can not be made, then the
delineation of the Outer Well Zone will be a fixed radius of up to one mile in all
directions around the well.

(Transient) Non-Community Water Systems
Inner Well Zone - Arbitrary Fixed Radius of 500 feet
Outer Well Zone - Arbitrary Fixed Radius of 1,500 feet

Delineations of source water areas for springs determined to be solely supplied by ground water, will
follow the approach described in Section 4.2.2 for ground water supply wells. However, for springs,
any land areas below the spring collection device will be eliminated from the assessmentarea, unless
a remote recharge area has been defined. Delineations for springs influenced by surface water, will
follow the approach outlined in Section 4.2.5 for conjunctive delineations.

4.2.3 Surface Water Delineations

Topographic watershed boundary delineationis the only methodology widely used to identify land
areas which drain to surface waters. While New York will use this method for all of its source water
assessments, subdividing the watershed may also be useful for identifying contaminant sources

which have the greatest potential to impact particular public water supply intakes. As in the overall

Page 21

|

source water assessment effort, the use of existing information and GIS will be emphasized to
complete surface water delineations.

Previous Assessment Efforts

Surface water delineations for the Source Water Assessment Program will utilize, to the extent
practical, work performed during other surface water assessmentefforts in New York State. The state
will use the United States Geological Survey watershed Hydrologic Unit Codes and available stream
order codes (e.g., reach files), to the extent appropriate, in creating new delineations and in geo-
referencing and cataloging source water assessment data. New York’s Source Water Assessment
Program will utilize information from and share information with the EPA’s 305(b) and 303(d) water
programs. In New York, these programs are administered by the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation. The 305(b) water program has historically been (and often still is)
called the Priority Waters List. This list categorizes and describes use impairments of waterbody
segments taking into account both the amount and quality of the available information. Recently,
water body segments without problems have been included under the 305(b) program in New York
State and the Priority Waters List has become a subset of this listing. The 303(d) water program is
a list of the priority waters which are targeted for the development of water quality based effluent
limits (also called total maximum daily load analysis). Furthermore, the Source Water Assessment
Program will utilize delineationsmade under the EPA’s Clean Lakes Program and other regional and
local water quality assessment and management efforts.

Surface Water Delineation Approach for Source Water Assessment Areas

Consistent with the guiding principles for the overall Source Water Assessment Program effort,
surface water delineations will rely heavily on existing information. Many of the surface waters in
New York State with public water system intakes have already had their watersheds delineated. For
the purposes of the Source Water Assessment Program, these delineations will be used in digital GIS
format, when they are available. Where delineated watershed borders have not yet been digitized,
decisions will be made on a case-by-case basis. In some cases, the GIS-based methodology described
below may be used to create new delineations. These decisions will be based on the quality of
existing watershed maps, the magnitude of the digitizing efforts required, and the availability of state
and local resources to perform this task.

All new watershed delineations created under the Source Water Assessment Program will be based
on natural topographic boundaries and take into account water diverted into or outside of the natural
watershed. In addition to geographic boundaries, time-of-travel determinations from potential
contaminant sources to intake structures will be made where appropriate and practical.

A GIS-based Digital Elevation Model will be used to create new delineations of topographic
boundaries. These delineations will then be visually checked for accuracy against topographic
contours and the accuracy limitations of this methodology will be noted in the final assessment.
Where fine-scale delineationsare needed, use of more detailed or additional data coverages such as

storm sewer maps and field checks will be necessary. As described above, the final methodology
choice will be made on a case-by-case basis.

Page 22

————

With the exception of the Great Lakes system described below, the entire watershed of surface water
sources will be assessed for significant potential sources of contamination. A surface water
assessment area may be further delineated into sub-watersheds when it is necessary to effectively
conduct the contaminant inventory portion of an assessment or where needed to focus additional
susceptibility determinationefforts. Figure 2 depicts a delineation of a surface water watershed and
sub-watersheds. In the cases of the Great Lakes, St. Lawrence, and Niagara Rivers, a highly detailed
contaminant inventory will not be developed for the entire watershed, Instead, the DOH will first
review available water quality data for the waterbody as a whole and take note of regional
characteristics (e.g., topography). Next, a water-supplier survey will be used to identify local
potential impacts on source water quality. This survey will identify intake characteristics (e.g.,
depth, distance from shore), potential sources of water quality fluctuations (e.g., seasonal
fluctuations, nearby rivers), and.other potential risks (¢.g., nearby ports and shipping lanes).
Individual assessment area delineations will be tailored to address the concerns of each particular
intake.

A similar approach will be used to focus efforts in other watersheds which extend over wide
geographic areas and have long detention times, such as the Finger Lakes. In these cases, sub-
watersheds within the overall delineated assessment areas will be ranked into higher and lower

priority zones. This will be particularly important when additional delineation efforts will be useful
to address fate and transport issues.

4.2.4 Assessment Areas Which Extend Beyond State Boundaries

The DOH will make use of reasonably available information when delineating assessment areas that
extend beyond its borders. In general, potential contaminant sources in other states are unlikely to
impact source waters in New York because most trans-boundary waters flow away from New York.
Numerous studies, agreements, organizations, and commissions exist to facilitate the transfer of
information across state and international borders when needed (e.g., National Water Quality
Assessments for the Hudson and Delaware Rivers and Lake Erie, Lake Champlain Basin Program,
Upper Susquehanna Coalition, International Joint Commission, New England Interstate Water
Pollution Control Commission, Delaware River Basin Commission). In many cases, trans-boundary
delineations and digital hydrologic unit code borders already exist. In addition, the GIS-based
methodology for creating new ground water delineations utilized in the Source Water Assessment
Program does not depend on GIS coverage information from bordering states.

4.2.5 Conjunctive Delineations

Delineating the zone of surface water and ground water contribution to a public water system is
termed “conjunctive delineation”. The concept of conjunctive delineations is important to
completing a source water assessment that evaluates all possible contributions of contaminants to
a public water system. This concept is particularly significant for ground water under the direct
influence of surface water. Where information is reasonably available, New York’s Source Water
Assessment Program may evaluate ground water under the direct influence of surface water, ground
water otherwise influenced by surface water, and surface water influenced by ground water which
originates from areas beyond the topographical watershed boundary. The latter case is considered
to be of less importance in New York, and surface water under the influence of ground water will

Page 23

only be evaluated where the available evidence indicates that there is a significant potential for
contamination.

Under the Source Water Assessment Program, efforts to complete conjunctive delineations will be
prioritized based on whether the public water supply is currently being disinfected, the proximity
of a ground water supply source to surface water(s), the local hydrogeological setting, and the
presence of potential significant microbial contaminant sources within the source water area. For
example, non-disinfected shallow public water system wells, and those wells in certain geological
settings, will be a priority, particularly when surface waters are nearby or existing information
suggests that surface and ground waters are hydraulically connected.

Under New York’s Source Water Assessment Program, detailed conjunctive surface water
delineations will only be created where there is strong evidence that ground water sources are being
impacted by surface waters. Where surface water influencesare only suspected, the potential surface
water impact will only be described in the assessmentnarrative. These conjunctive delineations will
include both ground water and surface water components (as described in Sections 4.2.2 and 4.2.3
of this plan, respectively) for all ground water sources that are known or determined to be under the
direct influence of surface water. For those ground water sources where surface water influence
determinations have not been made by the time their source water assessment is conducted, the
potential for surface water influence will be made on a case-by-case basis. For example, in cases
where an inner zone ground water assessment area delineation is intersected by surface water, the
potential that these drinking water sources are surface influenced will be evaluated.

4.3 Contaminant Inventory

Consistent with the federal Source Water Assessment Program guidelines, New York State will
complete an inventory of significant potential contaminant sources within the delineated source
water assessment ateas for each public water system. The approach to this effort will be based on
two of New York’s guiding principles for the Source Water Assessment Program: maximize use of
existing information and emphasize use ofa statewide GIS system. The focus of this effort will be
to identify possible sources of EPA and New York State contaminants of concern that could enter
a public drinking water system and pose a subsequent public health threat.

4.3.1 Contaminants of Concern

The contaminants of concern addressed by source water assessments will include those raw water
contaminants regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act (contaminants with a Maximum
Contaminant Level, contaminants regulated under the Surface Water Treatment Rule, and the
microorganism Cryptosporidium) as well as those which the DOH has determined may present a
concern to public health. Among these additional contaminants are organic chemicals and other
substances currently regulated by New York State’s drinking water regulations and the State’s
ambient water quality standards and guidance values. These compounds comprise most synthetic
contaminants of public health concern that are not currently regulated by the Safe Drinking Water
Act.

The inclusion of additional contaminants in an assessment will be determined based on the
likelihood that the contaminants will affect the particular source water being assessed. Some

Page 24

examples of other additional contaminants that may be addressed in certain situations are: radon,

microbes likely to be addressed by the Ground Water Rule, contaminants on the EPA’s Contaminant
Candidate List, and phosphorus.

In most instances, contaminants will be grouped and addressed by category (e.g., pesticides,
protozoa, halogenated solvents). This approach avoids burdensome listing of individual
contaminants, yet addresses contaminants that are likely to originate from a common land cover or
point of origin. In addition, some contaminants have been grouped based on similar fate and
transport characteristics. A list of the contaminants considered in each contaminant category is
provided in Appendix F. However, some contaminants will be addressed individually, based on

unique contaminant characteristics or particular resistance to conventional drinking water treatment
techniques.

Assessments will prioritize contaminants of concern. Contaminant prioritization will be based on
the existence of potential sources of contamination and the susceptibility of the source water to
contaminants. Prioritizationwill depend on the characteristicsof individual or regional source water
assessment areas. Statewide, there will be a more general prioritization of contaminants based on
whether a source is a ground water or surface water source. This dual approach addresses different
contaminants, regulatory concerns and different contaminant transport characteristics.

43.2 Significant Potential Sources of Contamination

To identify significant potential sources of contamination, New York’s Source Water Assessment
Program will use a method which uses information that is readily available, pertains to drinking
water quality, and is likely to be used during future protection efforts. Initially, New York will use
previously collected information to identify locations of potential sources of contamination.
Available mapped coverages include Department of. Environmental Conservation permitted facilities
(RCIS), Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) facilities, solid waste sites, and bulk storage facilities. Table
1 provides more complete list of mapped coverages currently available for all of New York State.
Completeness and access to several additional statewide coverages (e.g., petroleum and hazardous
material spill locations) are also being investigated.

New York will also use land cover information to assess potential sources of contamination that
could result primarily in what is referred to as “non-point source pollution.” Fourteen land cover
categories have been mapped for the entire state by the Department of Environmental Conservation.
Land use maps consist of pixels representing areas 30 meters square.

Table 4 summarizes the ratings assigned to each land cover category for each contaminant category.
These ratings reflect the potential for a particular contaminant category to occur in ground water
associated with the area of a particular land cover. These land cover ratings are intended to reflect
where contaminants are generated or enter hydrologic systems. Similarly, Table 5 summarizes the
ratings assigned to each land cover category based on the potential for a particular contaminant
category to occur in surface water. Tables 4 and 5 assign ratings of “negligible”, “low”, “medium”,
or “high” to each of the fifteen land use categories for each of the 14 contaminant categories of
concern. These ratings reflect the likelihood that a land cover category will be a source of a
particular contaminant category. For example, in Table 4 the likelihood of “high intensity
commercial” being a potentially significant source of petroleum products in ground water has been

Page 25

assigned a rating of “medium/(high)”, whereas the likelihood of petroleum products coming from
“evergreen forest” has been rated “negligible”. On some occasions, as in the previous example, two
ratings will be given for a particular land cover and contaminant category. When this is the case,
the rating given in parentheses is considered to reflect the worse case scenario. The rating not in
parentheses is considered to be the more common situation. These ratings could be refined as more
information becomes available. Tables 4 and 5 differ primarily on the basis of the mobility of the
contaminant. Sediment and phosphorus, for example, do not move through ground water as easily
as through surface water. Therefore, the ground water table (Table 4) has a lower risk rating for

these contaminants than the surface water table (Table 5).

In order to account for the presence of septic systems in an a’sessmentarea, it has been assumed that
homes included in the “low intensity residential” land use category use septic systems to dispose of
their sewage. This generalization overestimates septic system usage since there will be occasions
when some of the homes in “low intensity residential” areas will be connected to a public sewage
collection system. However, during the assessment process if it appears that there is a significant
potential for contamination as a result of failing septic systems, an attempt will be made to collect
additional information regarding septic system locations and densities.

Tables 6 and 7 assess whether or not each discretely mapped potential source of contamination other
than land use, could be a potential source of a particular contaminant category. Discrete contaminant
sources have been assigned a rating of “possible” or “not probable” for each contaminant category.
Table 6 addresses the potential for ground water contamination, and Table 7 addresses the potential
for surface water contamination.

It should be clearly noted that the ratings provided in Tables 4 - 7 do not refer to the susceptibility
of water sources to those contaminant groups. Susceptibility determinations must consider other
variables, such as the proximity of the source water to the point or non-point sources of
contaminants, and the geological and locational characteristicsof the ground or surface water source.
The ratings provided in the tables are meant to help narrow down and prioritize the contaminants of
concern in an assessmentarea, independentof the sensitivity of the source water to the contaminants.
For example, if an assessment area’s land use consists entirely of forest and row crops, and the only
discretely mapped location found is a petroleum spill, the presence of chlorinated solvents in the
assessment area will probably not be a significant issue.

4.4 Susceptibility Analysis

Once the contaminants of concern have been prioritized for an assessment area, the susceptibility
of the water supply to those contaminants will be evaluated. The susceptibility analysis will evaluate
the potential for the water supply to draw water contaminated by inventoried sources at
concentrations that would pose a human health threat. The susceptibility analysis takes into account
hydrologic and hydrogeologic factors, intake or well location and integrity, unique characteristics
of the contaminants, and characteristics of potential contaminant sources. In addition, the
susceptibility analysis takes into account the prevalence of contaminant sources within the
assessment area.

Page 26

4.4.1 Estimating Contaminant Prevalence from Land Cover

Using the matrices provided in Tables 4 and 5, each of the fourteen land cover categories will be
assigned a stated rating for each contaminant category. When two ratings are provided for a given

land cover contaminant category combination, the worse case scenario (rating in parentheses) will
initially be used.

This approach will allow GIS maps to be generated which depict the relative likelihood of
contamination from a particular contaminant category based on the mapped land use. For example,
when assessing the potential for protozoan contamination of surface water (Table 5), areas that are
“pasture” will be mapped as “high”, and areas that are “other grasses” and “woody wetlands” will
all be mapped as “medium”. In-this way, a map of the delineated area could be generated showing
the distribution and frequency of land cover which pose low, medium, or high potential for
protozoan contamination. Carrying this example further, the map could be used to calculate

percentages of land cover within the delineated area which pose low, medium, or high potential for
protozoan contamination.

The next step in determining the extent to which land use increases the potential for contamination
is to rate the land use based on its frequency and location. Table 8 will be used to assign these
ratings. Table 8 may need to be adjusted for different contaminant categories based on differing
toxicities and/or fate and transport characteristics. Using Table 8, land covers assigned a “medium”
potential for contamination and land covers assigned a “high” potential for contamination will be
rated based on the amount of that land cover within the assessment area(s) and the hydrologic
proximity of the land cover to the water source.

When a delineated area contains both land cover assigned a “medium” potential for contamination
and land cover assigned a “high” potential for contamination, the approach described above will
produce two ratings. When this is the case, the higher rating of the two will be used to characterize

the potential for contamination from the particular contaminant category due to land use in the
delineated area:

4.4.2 Estimating Contaminant Prevalence from Discrete Sources

Tables 6 and 7 list the discrete potential sources of contamination that will be considered for all
source water assessments. Using Tables 6 and 7, each of the discrete potential sources of
contamination will be assigned a rating of “possible” or “not probable” for each contaminant
category. This will allow an evaluation by GIS to show the possibility of contamination from a
particular contaminant category based on the locations of these mapped potential sources. For
example, when assessing the potential for protozoan contamination of a surface water source,
wastewater treatment plant discharges would be shown on the map, because they are possible
sources of protozoan contamination. Petroleum spill locations, on the other hand, would not be
shown on this map, because they are not considered probable sources of protozoan contamination.

Mapped potential sources of contamination will vary significantly with respect to the amount of
chemical and microbial contaminants and how well such contaminants are contained and/or
controlled. Therefore, the procedure for assessing the tisk of contamination from each of these
discrete sources will have some flexibility. Technical Reference PWS-72 provides an example for

Page 27

assessing the risk of contamination for volatile organic chemicals (including halogenated solvents
and petroleum products) in watershed and ground water recharge areas. A general rating system is
provided in Table 9 which provides room for judgement about characteristics of discrete sources of
contamination. Guidance will be developed for distinguishing between minor and major discrete
potential sources of each contaminant category with respect to various source water conditions. For
example, the significance of a bulk storage facility as a discrete potential source of contamination
will differ depending on the size of the water source.

If the contaminant prevalence rating due to land cover differs from the contaminant prevalence rating
due to discrete sources for a particular contaminant category, the higher rating will generally be used
to make the susceptibility determination. When this approach results in a “high” contaminant
prevalence rating for a contaminant category, the assessment will be considered in greater detail to
see whether the “high” rating accurately describes conditions in the assessment area.

4.4.3. General Description of Susceptibility Zones

As is described in Section 4.2, Delineation of Assessment Areas, the source water assessment area
for ground water systems may be comprised of two delineated zones. The subdivided assessment
areas will constitute the different susceptibility zones. Susceptibility Zone 1 will incorporate the
more hydrologically significant area, and Susceptibility Zone 2 will incorporate the larger area of
contribution. Table 10 provides a general description of what areas constitute Susceptibility Zone
1 and Zone 2 based on source type and delineation. For example, for many wells, the Inner Well
Zone (see Section 4.2) generally has a shorter time-of-travel, less opportunity for natural filtration
of contaminants,and less dilution. Therefore, the Inner Well Zone will comprise Susceptibility Zone
1, and potential sources of contamination within this zone will be weighed more heavily when
evaluating the source’s susceptibility. Potential sources of contamination in the Outer Well Zone
will be considered, but will be weighed less heavily. This area will constitute Susceptibility Zone
2.

When the assessment area of a surface water source is a single delineated watershed, the entire
watershed will constitute Susceptibility Zone 1. When the assessment area of a surface water source
includes sub-watersheds within a larger watershed area, Susceptibility Zone 1 will contain
subwatersheds near the intake that have shorter travel times and a more immediate influence on the
water system. Susceptibility Zone 2 will contain the remainder of the watershed. In the
susceptibility analysis, Susceptibility Zone 1 and Susceptibility Zone 2 will be mutually exclusive
from one another. That is, when contaminant inventories are being compiled for zone 1, they will
not be included in the contaminant inventory for Zone 2, and vice versa.

In certain cases, susceptibility zones will be combined in order to compile a single contaminant
inventory for multiple sources in close proximity to each other. In situations where a lake has
multiple water intakes, some or all of the intakes may fall within a common assessment zone
depending on the size of the lake and its accompanying watershed. In these cases, intakes which
lie within the same susceptibility zone may be grouped together for assessment purposes. In an
aquifer setting, individual wells may be grouped for a susceptibility analysis if there is substantial
overlap in their source water assessment area delineations. Ina few instances, Inner Well Zones
(Susceptibility Zone 1) will overlap when wells are closely clustered and draw ground water from
similar depths in the source aquifer. More frequently, several wells may share a common Outer Well

Page 28

Zone (Susceptibility Zone 2) consisting of the aquifer recharge boundary, but each well will have
distinct inner well zones (Susceptibility Zone 1).

After completing the steps described above, the following pieces of information will have been
generated: (1) contaminant categories of significant concern in the delineated area; (2) land uses with
the potential to contribute significantly to the identified contaminantcategories; (3) discrete potential

sources within these identified contaminant categories; and (4) areas that comprise susceptibili y
Zones 1 and 2, when applicable. ° _

Ground water sources with significant recharge from surface waters will have a conjunctive
delineation. This additionally delineated area will be assessed for contaminants of concern believed
to persist in water moving through -the watershed, streambank (or lake bottom), and/or aquifer, and
that could then enter the well. Nitrates, pesticides and microbiological pathogens (protozoa, bacteria,
and viruses) are three contaminant categories where this contamination route has been observed.
These situations will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. ;

4.4.4 Estimating Sensitivity and Susceptibility of the Water Supply

Ground Water Sources: A key component of an accurate susceptibility analysis is determining the
sensitivity of the drinking water source to contamination, Ground water sources in unconfined
aquifers or conditions of high hydraulic conductivity (e.g., fractured bedrock, karst geology) are
likely to provide less of a physical barrier to contamination, and therefore may be more sensitive,
than supplies that are in deep, confined aquifers. ,

Figure 3 provides a general scheme for determining the sensitivity of a ground water source to
contamination. Information that is collected during the early stages of the assessment process will
be used to support decision making associated with evaluating a public water supply’s sensitivity.
Along with considering well characteristics, this approach also addresses the situation when little
is known about the hydrogeological characteristics of a well area. When this is the case, the source
will be assigned the rating of “unknown sensitivity”. The category of “unknown sensitivity” has
been assigned a priority that will fall between “medium sensitivity” and “high sensitivity”.

Based on the sensitivity analysis for ground water systems presented in Figure 3, systems that fall
into one of the following three categories will be assigned a “high” sensitivity rating:

1) wells in which significant levels of contaminants have been detected;
2) wells that draw from fractured bedrock with no overlying lower permeability layer; and
3) wells that draw from unconfined aquifers of high hydraulic conductivity.

When carrying out a source water assessment of a ground water source, the sensitivity of the source
will be characterized using Figure 3. Another factor that will be considered when evaluating the
sensitivity of the source to contaminationis the integrity of the well(s). Additional guidance will be
developed to supplement Figure 3 for evaluating the sensitivity of ground water sources. This
sensitivity rating will be used to estimate the susceptibility of the supply to contamination by
applying the matrix presented in Figure 4. Figure 4 weighs the sensitivity of the ground water source
against the contaminant prevalence in the source assessment area. The prevalence of different
contaminant categories will already have been estimated using Tables 9 and 10, using the method

Page 29
described in Sections 4.4.1 and 4.4.2 Areas that have a medium or high potential for contamination
will be considered for all ground water sources irrespective of their sensitivity rating.

The DOH has determined that the susceptibility of ground water sources with high sensitivity is
worth noting, even if contaminant prevalence in the assessment area is minor. Therefore, water
sources assigned a “high” sensitivity rating with assessment areas containing “low” contaminant
prevalence will be assigned a susceptibility determination of “medium to high”. High sensitivity
water sources with only negligible contaminant prevalence in the assessment area will not be

assigned a susceptibility determination, but will nonetheless be noted due to the high sensitivity of
the water source.

Surface Water Sources: Surface water sources provide fewer physical barriers from contamination
than ground water sources. Surface water sources are protected somewhat by dilution, time of travel,
settling, volatilization, and contaminant deterioration due to environmental stresses. Contaminant
reduction resulting from some of these natural influences is reflected in the ratings assigned to the
different land use types in Table 5. Surface water sources do not, however, share the benefits of
filtration and adsorption.

Furthermore, as is described in Section 4.2 (Delineation of Assessment Areas), delineations of
surface water assessment areas will be made with the intention of identifying the area most likely
to directly influence the water source. Asa result, the surface water delineation will usually define
a zone of contribution to which the supply is highly sensitive.

Therefore, in most assessments, contaminant prevalence in surface water assessment areas will not
be adjusted to reflect the amount of physical protection afforded by the water source. Instead,
contaminant prevalence ratings obtained by applying Tables 5, 7, 8 and 9 will be adopted as the
susceptibility ratings for surface water sources. These susceptibility ratings may be refined by more
detailed, contaminant-specific fate and transport analyses.

Sensitivity and Susceptibility of Assessment Areas With Conjunctive Zones: As discussed in
Section 4.2, Delineation of Assessment Areas , the evidence for surface water influence on ground
water sources can vary. Therefore, the susceptibility analysis will take into account the weight of
evidence when evaluating whether a ground water source could be impacted by potential sources of
contamination in the conjunctive watershed. For sources with little information, estimating the
likelihood of contamination due to land cover will be general, and based on the sum of estimates
made for the 11-digit Hydrologic Unit Codes comprising the upgradient watershed. All upgradient
State Pollution Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) permitted discharges, however, will be
considered as potential sources of pathogens.

Sources that meet the regulatory definition of ground water under the direct influence of surface
water will be considered to behave more like surface water. The evaluation of these sources will
consider the surface watershed to be the more hydrologically connected zone and will use the ratings
provided in Tables 5 and 7 for the initial contaminant inventories and estimates of contaminant
prevalence. In these cases, contaminant properties will be considered with respect to ease of
transport through soil or water to the water system well, persistence in the environment, and whether
contaminants change after being released into the environment. Additional consideration will be
given to the characteristics of potential contamination sources, such as the likelihood that

Page 30

contaminants will be released from the source, the size of the potential contaminant release, and the
effectiveness of any pollution prevention measures in place to mitigate the threat.

4.4.5 Susceptibility Review and Refinement

Contaminant prevalence and natural sensitivity of a water source will be combined to determine the
potential susceptibility ofa drinking water source to a particular contaminant category. A rating will
be assigned by the susceptibility matrix as described in Section 4.4.4. At this point in the assessment
process, the susceptibility determination will be reviewed to ensure that the objective(s) of the
assessmentare met. A susceptibility determination will be refined under the following conditions:

1. when contaminant categories rate high in an assessment area;

2. when information is available to allow detailed evaluation of the potential release,
fate and transport characteristics of contaminants, and;

3: when refinement would be consistent with the objectives of the assessment.

Using the iterative approach, additional data sets may be used to provide greater detail for the
assessment and to refine susceptibility determinations. For example, if an assessment area includes
a significant amount of agricultural Jand, and contaminants that could be of agricultural origin have
been detected in the water source (¢.g., nitrates, pathogens), then it would be appropriate to use
Agricultural Environmental Management data, if available. Agricultural Environmental
Management data can provide more detailed information about watershed-wide farm management
practices, cropland acreage, and farm animal numbers that could benefit susceptibility refinement.
In addition, where pesticides have been detected in large surface watersheds, the pesticide reporting
data set can be used to identify areas of greatest concern.

‘As another example, the “low intensity residential” land cover assumes that the homes contained in
this category use septic systems for their waste disposal. Compliance with the future Ground Water
Rule may warrant that the DOH take a closer look at sources whose assessment areas contain a
substantial amount of “low intensity residential” land cover and which, as a result of the
predominance of this land cover in their assessment areas, are determined to be highly susceptible
to microbiological contamination. Additional information about septic system location and
abundance can be obtained from tax parcel data and census tract information. In such situations, it
would be appropriate to consider more detailed information and refine susceptibility determinations.

When a surface water assessment initially yields a high susceptibility determination for a
contaminant category, and the assessment area addressed covers a large geographical area, it may
be appropriateto refine the susceptibility determinationby considering segments of the surface water
assessment area more closely. Those geographical portions of the assessment area that are thought
to be the origins of most of the contaminant category of concern will be evaluated in greater detail.
For example, if the assessment of a tiver source determines that the source is highly susceptible to
phosphorus, and phosphorus contamination in the assessment area most likely originates from one
tributary to the river, then the drainage area of that tributary may be evaluated in greater detail to
identify potential sources of phosphorus contamination. Existing setback and buffer zone
delineations may also be evaluated. This detailed information will help to prioritize protection
efforts within the assessment area.

Page 31

In addition, the iterative approach will utilize a field review process to confirm and refine the data
collected (e.g., source data, natural characteristicsof the source, location of the source, contaminant
inventory, delineations, etc.). Asan example, on-going sanitary surveys provide a mechanism to
refine and confirm existing data. This will primarily be done when ratings for potential significant
sources of contamination are “high”.

4.5 Methodology for Completing Assessments

The decision making process associated with the methodology for completing assessments is
illustrated in Figure 5. ‘This section describes the steps used to conduct an assessment, as well as
indicates where additional information will be used to conduct a more detailed assessment when
required. A step by step discussion of the assessment methodology as outlined in Figure 5 is
presented below. ,

Box A - Collect Available Information: The DOH is planning to work with State agencies and local
entities to gather available information on water sources. The available data is comprised of
information from sanitary surveys, vulnerability assessments, public water systems and statewide
GIS coverages. The DOH will also work to gather information that has been collected for purposes
other that evaluating public water systems, but that may be useful when conducting the assessments.
The DOH plans to work with interested parties throughoutthe assessment process and to avoid errors
and omission, those entities that provide data will have an opportunity to review the assessment
before it is finalized. Data collection is discussed in detail in Section 4.1.

Box B - Evaluate System Specifics to Determine Approach: The purpose of this step in the
methodology is for the staff working on the assessment to review the available information to
determine if an enhanced (i.e., more detailed) assessment is needed. Determining which source
waters warrant a more detailed assessment will be based on discussions between the local involved
organizations and the DOH. For the majority of assessments this step is too early in the process to
make that determination. Box I (Susceptibility Refinement) of this methodology will be the place
where the assessment will be reviewed to determine if an enhanced assessment is needed.

However, in certain situations assessments will be completed in greater detail. These determinations
will be based on several criteria. The primary criterion that will be used to determine if an enhanced
assessment is warranted, is the presence of source contamination. If contamination of high public
health significance is found in the source water(s) then an enhanced assessment will be completed,
if necessary. Ongoing contamination from human activities will be weighed more heavily than
isolated contamination events or the presence of naturally occurring contaminants.

Secondary criteria that will be considered to support an enhanced assessmentare as described below.

. Ground water sources that are hydrogeologically sensitive may be considered for
enhanced delineation efforts because they inherently have a greater risk of becoming
contaminated.

. Where on-going local efforts to protect sources of drinking water may be leveraged,

enhanced assessments will be considered. Local support from government agencies
and volunteers can provide the resources and assistance necessary to complete more
thorough assessments.

Page 32

. The rate of developmentin an area will be considered during the assessment process.
While source water assessment information alone may not be detailed enough to plan
source protection efforts, it can provide advance warning to local decision makers
about the potential susceptibility of drinking water sources within their jurisdictions.

° Assessment information will be used to set monitoring requirements under drinking
water regulations. Drinking water program decisions, of greater public health
significance, such as those related to the future Ground Water Rule, the Long Term
Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule, and the Disinfection Byproduct Rule can
be aided by the source water assessments. The DOH or County or District Health
Department will work with the owner/operator of public water systems to gather
more information to refine these regulatory decisions. Proposed changes to existing
Watershed Rules and Regulations or promulgation of new locally drafted drinking
water source protection rules would also be indications that more detailed
assessments may be warranted.

The majority of public water system sources serve transient, non-community systems. Most of these
systems have no recorded contamination, are located in remote areas, are privately owned, and
operate only to support the primary business (such as a restaurant). Well log and detailed
information about the aquifer(s) will most likely not be available. Detailed assessments will not be
performed for these sources.

Box C - Determine Delineation Method: After the assessment level is determined, the delineation
method will be selected. For ground water sources, the delineation will be based on detailed
information where available, or the standard delineation procedure described in Section 4.2.

For surface water sources, the size of the system, the size of the source water body, the detention
time of the water body, and the location of the intake will be used to decide whether to select a
multiple zone delineation (i.e., nested watershed) or to make a single delineation of the entire
watershed, Section 4.2.3 describes the process for delineating surface water source areas.

The decisions made in Boxes D, F and G will be made concurrently with those decisions made in
Box E.

Box D - Delineate Source Water Assessment Area: The source water assessment area delineation
method will be selected based on the criteria described in Box C. Delineations will be completed
to the extent possible, based on available information. A delineation may be revised at any time
during the assessment process if more detailed information becomes available.

Box E - Sensitivity Analysis: A key component of an accurate susceptibility analysis is determining
the sensitivity of the drinking water source to contamination. Figure 3 provides a general scheme
for determining the sensitivity of a ground water source. Hydrogeological factors and well
characteristicsare considered. This sensitivity analysis tends to be protective, since it ranks sources
where little informationis available as having sensitivitiesbetween “medium” and “high”. If further
investigation provides the appropriate information, the sensitivity of these sources can be reevaluated
and reclassified.
r

Page 33

Surface water sources provide fewer physical barriers to contamination than ground water sources.
Therefore, in most assessments, surface water sources will be considered to be highly sensitive to
contamination.

Once the sensitivity of a source has been determined, that sensitivity rating will be used, along with
the contaminant prevalence rating (see Box G), to determine the susceptibility of the source to
contamination.

Box F - Contaminant Inventory: Two groups of available information will be used to carry out most
contaminant inventories of assessmentareas. A GIS database containing land cover information will
be used to map out land cover in assessment areas. The rating systems provided in Tables 4 and 5
assign ratings to the different contaminant categories for each type of land cover. These ratings refer
to the likelihood that a land cover will be associated with a particular contaminant category.

The second group of information that will be used are the GIS databases listing discrete potential
sources of contamination. The rating systems provided in Tables 6 and 7 assess whether or not each
of these discrete sources could be a potential source of a particular contaminant category.

Once the land cover and discrete potential sources of contamination have been mapped for an
assessment area, the contaminant categories associated with those land covers and discrete sources
will receive higher priority during the assessment. These contaminant categories will comprise the
assessment area’s contaminant inventory.

ntaminant Prevalence: Using the contaminant categories that have been
identified and given priority in an assessment area, GIS maps will be generated to determine the
prevalence of the potential sources of those contaminant categories. Contaminant prevalence will
be determined by considering percent land cover that is likely to contribute contamination (using
Table 8) and by considering the location and abundance of discrete potential sources of
contamination (using Table 9) in the assessment area.

Box H - Susceptibility Matrix: The susceptibility matrix (Figure 4) uses the results of the sensitivity
analysis (Box EF) and the results of the contaminant prevalence determination (Box G) to determine
the susceptibility of a drinking water source to a particular contaminant category. The susceptibility
matrix will be used to develop susceptibility ratings for the drinking water source for the
contaminants that have been assigned a high priority within the assessment area of that water source
(see Box F).

Box 1 - Susceptibility Refinement: At this point in the process, there may be a need to review and
refine a susceptibility determination to ensure that the objective(s) of the assessment are met. The
susceptibility determination will be refined under the following conditions:

1). when contaminant categories rate high in an assessment area,

2) when information is available to allow detailed evaluation of the potential release,
fate and transport characteristics of contaminants; and

3) when refinement would be consistent with the objectives of the assessment.

Page 34

Additional data sets may be used to provide greater detail for the assessment and to refine
susceptibility determinations. In addition, the iterative approach will utilize a field review process
to confirm and refine the data collected.

Box J - Summary of Significant Findings: After the refinement step is completed (Box 1),
information from the assessment process will be compiled to emphasize the significant assessment
findings. Those contaminant categories ranked as having a medium or high potential to impact the
drinking water source from either the land use or discrete source categories will be summarized for
the source water assessment. The summary of significant findings for each assessment will include
a source area map to present the key assessment information.

4.6 Assessment Format and Availability

One of the overall objectives of State Source Water Assessment Program, as outlined in the 1996
amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act is the emphasis of strong public involvement and
support for the protection of public drinking water system source water areas. Source water
assessments will be completed for all public water systems in the State and made available to the
public. In addition, a Public Summary of the Source Water Assessment may be created for certain
community water systems, such as all municipal public water systems and those systems determined
to have a high susceptibility to source water contamination. A discussion of the format and contents
of the Source Water Assessment and the Public Summary, as well as the proposed methods for
dissemination of these documents, is provided below.

The overall level of detail for a particular assessment will depend on the type of system, the type and
extent of threats, and the level of local interest. In most cases, source water assessments for non-
community water systems will be reported by town or by a watershed area. These reports could also
include information on community water systems located within the specified
jurisdictional/watershed area. The presentation of assessment information in a single report will

highlight source water protection issues for local decision makers and will facilitate the report
generation process.

4.6.1 Assessment Format

The purpose of this section is to provide a description of the format and content of the Source Water
Assessment and the Public Summary. The DOH realizes that not all source water assessments will
be able to conform to one specific format. The presentation of this basic information may vary for
an assessment of a complicated system (i.e., multiple sources).

Source Water Assessment

A Source Water Assessment will be a technical document that will include information that was
determined to be significant as a result of conducting the assessment. Portions of the document will
be presented in a narrative format and portions will be displayed as charts, tables, or graphs to depict
the data used in conducting the assessment. The Source Water Assessment will include an
Assessment Summary, Methodology Description, Description of Appendices, and Appendices.

a

Page 35

——————

Assessment Summary: This section will be presented in a narrative format and will summarize the
information gathered during the assessment process. For those public water systems where a Public
Summary has been prepared, it will generally be used as the Assessment Summary. In all other
cases, the summary of significant findings (Box J) will be used as the Assessment Summary.

Methodology Description: This section will be in a narrative format and will describe the DOH’s
methodology for conducting this Source Water Assessment (the methodology is described in detail
in Section 4.5 of this plan). Each step of the assessment that was performed will be discussed in
adequate detail to inform the reader of what was completed and why it was done. Each assessment
“i will contain a description of the delineation approach taken, why it was taken and the confidence

level associated with how well it represents the contributory area, and an evaluation of the reliability
of the contaminant source inventory, based on any recent field verification.

Description of Appendices: The assessment process will require the use and generation of a
significant quantity of raw data which will be included as an Appendix to the Source Water
Assessment, This section will give a narrative description of each Appendix, summarize the
information used, and describe how that information was used to complete the assessments.

It should be noted that the data included in the Appendices may not be standard for all assessments,
but will be dependent on the assessment’s level of detail. Standard appendices for inclusion in the

Source Water Assessment include: List of Available Information, Contaminant Inventory,
Susceptibility Summary, and Maps. Descriptions of the standard appendices are detailed below.

ist of Available Information - A list of the available information the DOH used to
compile the assessment.

Contaminant Inventory - This appendix will present the results of the contaminant
inventory in a matrix format and will also include a table listing the discrete
contaminant sources within the assessment area.

Susceptibility Summary - This appendix will describe the susceptibility analysis that
was completed for the potential contaminant sources, as well as the information that
was reviewed as part of the susceptibility review and refinement. Much of the
assessment process will be automated; however, each assessment will go through a
quality check called the Susceptibility Review/Refinement. The results of this
assessment quality check, any changes that were made and why they were made, will
be discussed in this section.

Maps - Land cover maps will be generated, and pertinent maps will be included in
the Source Water Assessment.

Page 36

Public Summary

The Public Summary will be used to present the most important aspects of the assessment in an
easily understandablemanner. The findings presented in each Public Summary will highlight areas
where additional information can be obtained from the assessment. The Public Summary fora
source water assessment will include the following sections: Introduction, What is the Source of
Your Drinking Water?; Map of Source Water Assessment Area; Source Water Quality and Water
Treatment Information; Evaluation of Significant Potential Sources of Contamination, Ongoing
Watershed Protection Activities; Source Water Protection Needs; and How to Obtain Additional
Information. The information included in the Evaluation of Significant Sources of Potential
Contamination section will be presented in a tabular format while the remaining sections will be
presented in a narrative format. To the extent possible, each Public Summary will be no longer than
three pages (two pages of text and a one page map). Three hypothetical source water assessments
(one depicting a large surface water source, one depicting a small ground water source, and one for
a small system where little informations available) are presented in Appendix G. A description of
the proposed contents for the Public Summary is presented below.

Introduction: The language included in the Introduction will be standard for all assessments, The
Introduction will include a statement indicating why the source water assessmentis being completed
and the name of the parties who have performed the assessment. This section will explain the
purpose of the assessment while emphasizing that the purpose of the assessmentis to evaluate source
water, not tap water. A reference will also be made to the public drinking water system’s Consumer
Confidence Report (Annual Water Quality Report) including how one can be obtained.

What is the Source of Your Drinking Water?: This portion of the Public Summary will include a
description of the drinking water source (e.g., ground water, surface water), the population served
by the system, and a description of the source water assessment area (e.g., watershed, aquifer).
Information presented in this section may include: size of watershed; drainage patterns; size of
population within the watershed; depth of groundwater well(s); geologic conditions associated with
well(s); the location of the water intake; the location of the wellhead(s); how much water is
withdrawn from the source per day; and a description of the land use within the delineated
watershed/wellhead area. This section will also include a reference to a map of the assessmentarea.

Map of Source Water Assessment Area: Each source water assessment Public Summary will be
accompanied by a map of the source water area being assessed. Information depicted on the map
will include the delineated source water assessment areas (e.g., watershed boundaries or well
delineations) and may also include the intake or well location(s), the aquifer recharge area(s), land
cover types and contaminant sources.

Source Water Quality and Water Treatment Information: This section will begin with a general
statement explaining how and why the water is treated (¢.g., disinfected, filtered, not treated). This
statement will be followed by a summary of any significant finished water sampling results for the
past twelve months, a discussion of any exceedances of any maximum contaminant levels during
this time period,.and the presence or absence of other significant unregulated source water
contaminants (i.e., Cryptosporidium, radon). .

Page 37

Evaluation of Significant Potential Sources of Contamination: The language for the first paragraph
of this section will be standard in all assessments. This paragraph will begin with a general
statement explaining that the assessment focuses on evaluating the susceptibility of the public water
system to those contaminants which may enter the water source. This will be followed by a
statement indicating that the contaminants being evaluated are those regulated under the federal Safe
Drinking Water Act as well as those which the DOH has determined may presenta concern to public
health. The remainder of this paragraph introduces the Significant Potential Sources of
Contamination Table and will briefly explain that contaminant sources in the assessment area have
been analyzed and prioritized (negligible, low, medium, and high) in accordance with their potential
to impact the water supply. Although all contaminant sources will be included in the source water
assessment, the Significant Potential Sources of Contamination Table will only address potential
sources of contamination which have been assigned a medium or high priority.

This table will include the following four columns: Potential Sources of Contamination,
Contaminants of Concern, Description, and Potential Impact to the Water Supply. The Potential
Sources of Contamination column will list land use areas and/or discrete sources of potential
contamination. Where applicable these areas/sites will be exhibited on the map. The Contaminants
of Concern column will include a description of the contaminants of concern associated with each
land use and/or discrete source listed in the previous column. For example, gasoline stations
(potential source of contamination) would have petroleum hydrocarbons and solvents listed as the
contaminantof concern. The description column will include any reasonably available information
about the potential source. Using the gasoline station example, this column may include a location
of the gasoline station in reference to the source water area, a description of the station’s
underground storage tanks (¢.g., age, size, contents), and reference to any spills or remedial actions
which may have taken place at the gasoline station. The final column in this table, Potential Impact
to the Water Supply, will provide a rating of the contaminant source’s potential to impact the water
supply from medium to high. This rating will be derived from the Susceptibility Analysis
methodology described in Section 4.4 of this plan and will take into account hydrologic and
hydrogeologic factors, intake or well location, fate, transport and toxicity characteristics of the
contaminants, and the characteristics of the potential sources of contamination.

The table will be followed by a more detailed description of the contaminants of concern and the
likely potential sources of contamination. This section may also discuss the relative health
significance of the contaminants of concern. For example, if Cryptosporidium is listed as a
contaminant of concern this section would include information on the risks associated with
Cryptosporidium for specific at-risk populationsand the general populationand measures that at-risk
populations may take to protect themselves.

The Evaluation of Significant Potential Sources of Contamination section will conclude with a
description of other potential sources of contaminants that were evaluated as part of the source water
assessment, but were not determined to pose a significant threat to the public drinking water source.

The purpose of this paragraph is to assure the public that all potential sources of contamination
located within the assessment area have been evaluated.

Ongoing Watershed Protection Activities: A section may be added that would begin with a concise

statement explaining the federal and state watershed protection programs applicable to the watershed
area, The section may also include other local watershed protection activities in place such as alocal

Page 38

watershed management plan, Agricultural Environmental Management practices, overlay zoning,
or the presence of Watershed Rules and Regulations. ‘

Source Water Protection Needs: A section may be added that would contain a brief discussion
regarding the need for additional source water protection efforts based on the findings of the source
water assessment. Examples of additional source water protection needs may include: development
of a wellhead protection program, public education programs, the names of agencies and ,
organizations which could assist with source water protection efforts, or the evaluation of particular
pollution prevention facilities or management practices. The purpose of this section is to identify
areas where source specific protectionmay be needed, not designa program to implement protection.

How to Obtain Additional Information: A description of how the public can obtain additional
information regarding the source water assessment will be included in this portion of the Public
Summary. This section will also reference the New York State DOH Source Water Assessment
Program telephone number and website address. It may also reference a telephone number fora
local health department, a local municipal office, and/or the water supplier, as well as the location

of the nearest document depository (i.e., local library). Additionally, a reference will be made to the
availability of the Source Water Assessment.

4.6.2. Procedures for Making Assessments Available to the Public

The purpose of this portion of the plan is to describe the procedures for making the Public Summary
and Source Water Assessment available to the public. The DOH solicited public comments on this
matter during the Focus Group meetings held in November 1997, the Cornell Cooperative Extension
June 16, 1998 Source Water Assessment Satellite Broadcast Video-Conference,and from the Public

Participation/Assessment Format Working Group and the Source Water Protection Coordinating
Committee.

Source Water Assessment

Source Water Assessments will be available at local health departments and the New York State
DOH’s Central Office in Albany, New York. Source Water Assessments will be distributed based
on local needs and by the least expensive method that provides the greatest number of people with
access to the document. The County Water Quality Coordinating Committees were asked to gather
local input regarding the appropriate depositories for the Source Water Assessments. Possible
depositories include: local municipal offices, Association of Regional Council offices, Soil and
Water Conservation District offices, public libraries or State Document depositories.

Public Summary

The methods used to distribute the Public Summaries will consider several avenues. The Consumer
Confidence Report rule, promulgated by the EPA in August 1998, requires community water
systems to include a brief summary of the susceptibility of the drinking water sources, using
language provided by the primacy agency (or water operator). In addition, a public summary of the
source water assessment may be created for certain community water systems, such as all municipal
public water systems and those systems ‘determined to have a high susceptibility to source water
contamination, The DOH will provide a copy of each Public Summary to the appropriate local
health department. Public Summaries will also be kept on file at the DOH’s Central Office in

Page 39

Albany, New York. In addition, the DOH may use one or more of the following methods to
distribute the Public Summary to interested parties: availability through local municipal offices, local
water suppliers, Regional Council offices, Soil and Water Conservation District offices, public
libraries and State Document depositories; postingin a public area; the DOH and other websites; and
publishing in the local media.

5.0 Program Implementation

Implementation of the Source Water Assessment Program in New York State will result in numerous
benefits, both directly and indirectly related to the protection and benefit of public water systems.
In the developmentof this plan, New York State has strived to create a functional framework which
will produce tangible products that will assist water suppliers, local officials, and citizens in their
efforts to protect the source waters from which they drink. Also, during the creation of this plan (and
implementation of this program) numerous relationships have been forged between organizations
and individuals which will ultimately facilitate inter-agency information transfer and unification

between environmental and public health programs.
5.1 Administration
5.1.1 Delegation

The State will delegate Source Water Assessment Program efforts to qualified and willing County
Health Departments as it does for the drinking water regulatory program. County Health
Departments are partially reimbursed for drinking water program activities according to a state aid
agreement. County Health Departments participate in County Water Quality Coordinating
Committees which have developed water quality strategies for implementing non-point source
controls and other source water protection efforts. The state does not contemplate delegating Source
Water Assessment Program responsibilities to public water systems, although it will welcome

partnerships for conducting these assessments.

A memorandum of understanding exists between the DOH and the Department of Environmental
Conservation to enable the organizations to work cooperatively to share the Source Water
Assessment Program duties, resources, and information. The State also plans to allocate a portion
ofits Source Water Assessment Program set-aside funds to contract with local, regional and national
interests to develop, assemble and analyze information for the Source Water Assessment Program.
These partnerships will increase the effectiveness of the Source Water Assessment Program for the
protection and benefit of public water systems. However, the DOH will retain the ultimate
responsibility for completing the source water assessments. To maximize coordination with local
efforts, the Source Water Assessment Program will consider each partner’s information, opinions
and suggested approaches, but to maintain consistency for state needs in priority setting and
regulatory decision making, the DOH working in conjunction with delegated County Health
Departments, will have final discretion.

Page 40

5.1.2 Coordination

The DOH will continue to work with its partners as the Source Water Assessment Program is
implemented, to encourage ongoing work towards source protection. These partners include many
federal and state agencies, regional and Jocal governmental agencies, as well as voluntary

organizationsat the local and regional levels. The DOH’s partnership with several federal agencies °

is further strengthened by the implementation of the Clean Water Action Plan, which establishes a
cooperative approach among several federal agencies to assess, restore and protect drinking water
quality within an integrated watershed framework.

Several federal agencies, including the United States Geological Service and the National Resource
Conservation Service, are represented on the Source Water Protection Coordinating Committee. The
DOH also coordinates activities with these agencies and other federal and state agencies through
ongoing participation on the Department of Environmental Conservation’s Water Management
Advisory and Nonpoint Source Coordinating Committees, the New York State Soil and Water
Conservation Committee, and its subcommittee, the Agricultural Environmental Management
Steering Committee.

The DOH is currently working with the Natural Resources Conservation Service of the United States
Department of Agriculture on a pilot project to apply the National Agricultural Pesticide Risk
Analysis model to two drinking water watersheds in western New York State. The model evaluates
the likelihood of pesticide run off after application under local soil and precipitation conditions for
those pesticides likely to be used in the study areas. The results of the model will be used by crop
consultants in selecting pesticides for agricultural use on land within the watersheds. Such
information and the general results of the assessments will be provided to the New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation for consideration in development of statewide
management plans for certain pesticides.

Data from the United States Geological Survey, Natural Resources Conservation Service and the
EPA will be important to completing source water assessments. Some of the data is currently
available through the Internet, but other data sets will be compiled during implementation of the
Source Water Assessment Program. As many of these data sets are dynamic, they will be accessed

at the time that an assessment or group of assessments is completed to ensure that the most recent
data is used.

For certain regulatory programs, where New York State does not have primacy, the EPA is the lead
agency for program implementationand regulatory oversight within the state. One such regulatory
program is the Underground Injection Control program for which the BPA is the lead agency in New
York State. The DOH will coordinate information and data collection efforts that are relevant to
the Source Water Assessment Program with the appropriate EPA program representatives. Certain
types of underground inj ection control wells, known as Class V wells, may pose a particular concern
to shallow ground water systems. The EPA is in the process of establishing a regulatory framework
and evaluating additional data to identify various types of Class V underground injection wells that
pose a high risk to ground water (e.g., large capacity septic systems, motor vehicle waste disposal
wells). For New York State, the EPA has established inventories of underground injection well
locations and closures and has also initiated efforts to identify those underground injection wells

Page 41

which pose a high risk for soil and ground water contamination. The DOH has already initiated
efforts to coordinate information collection with the EPA on the locations and types of underground
injection wells in New York State. This information will be evaluated as assessmentsare developed.

As described previously, some assessment work will be delegated to local partners which may
include County Health Departments, other county agencies, watershed associations, the New York
Rural Water Association, and other groups, as appropriate. Agreements to complete assessment
work will be made on a case by case basis. In addition to the local expertise available through
delegation of assessment activities, such as an understanding of local hydrogeological conditions,
ensuring local involvementin the assessment process will enhance overall source water protection
efforts. The DOH will encourage broad outreach from the delegated agencies to ensure genuine

local involvement.

The DOH extended several invitations to all of the American Indian tribal organizations to
participate with development of the Source Water Assessment Program through the Focus Group
Meetings and the Source Water Protection Coordinating Committee. In New York State, there has
been no formal involvement by tribal organizations in the process of developing the Source Water
Assessment Program Plan. Data collected for the purpose of the Source Water Assessment Program
will be made available to the interested tribal organizations. Where available, the DOH will
incorporate relevant information from tribal organizations related source water assessment areas
which extend on or near tribal lands.

5.1.3 Progress Reporting

The DOH will report relevant progress on program implementation to the EPA in the Performance
Status Report as required under the terms and conditions of the Capitalization Grant as well as
through the Biennial Wellhead Protection Program Reports. This reporting will include information
about the number of public water systems, categorized by type of source and a summary of the
number and types of public water systems with completed delineations, contaminant source
inventories, and susceptibility determinations. The number of completed assessments which have
been made available to the public and how this was accomplished will also be reported. In addition,
the report will include information about the number of systems with designated source water
protection areas and the populations served by those systems.

5.2. Schedule

The DOH submitted a workplan as part of the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund’s Intended Use
Plan to the EPA in October 1997 for initial work on the Source Water Assessment Program. Most
of the Source Water Assessment Program efforts to produce assessments (ie., delineation,
containment inventory, initial susceptibility analysis) will occur during the years 2000 and 2001.
The two-year timetable requirement for completion, after the EPA’s approval of the State Source
Water Assessment Program plan will not be adequate for review and refinement of the assessments
before public release. Thus, New York State is requesting the eighteen month extension through
May 2003.

Page 42

pe crc,

Furthermore, coordination of New York’s Source Water Assessment Program approach with locally-
driven or other source water protection programs requires the longer time frame of three and one half
years allowed by the Safe Drinking Water Act to fully complete those assessments. For those
sources for which a more detailed assessment will be performed, the Source Water Assessment
Program will produce an interim assessment that would suffice for targeted monitoring requirements
and may be applicable for other regulatory decisions (¢.g., monitoring waivers), The interim
assessments would be finalized within the extension period. :

5.3 Updating

The completion of the Source Water Assessment Program is anticipated to establish a framework
for information exchange that continues independently between the various stake holders. The
Source Water Assessment Program should be a bridge between national databases (the EPA’s Index
of Watershed Indicators, Basins, and Surf Your Watershed) and local databases. The Source Water
Assessment Program will have an interactive role with the Department of Environmental
Conservation efforts for Clean Water Act reporting (305(b), 304(d) and Priority Waters Listing).
Other Safe Drinking Water Act activities such as capacity development, water resource allocation,
and regulatory programs will benefit from the systematic collection of information under the Source
Water Assessment Program and will also contribute towards providing updated source water
assessment information. The DOH may update the assessments (and make them available to the

public) as necessary to meet the originally defined or evolving objectives of the assessment for each
public water system source.

The Unified Watershed Assessment Report, issued October 1, 1998, under the lead of the New York
State Department of Environmental Conservation and the United States Department of Agriculture
Natural Resource Conservation Service, with input from the DOH and other conservation partners,
is part of a continuing process. Although it categorizes eight digit Hydrologic Unit Codes and lists
certain watershed priorities for restoration, it reflects New York stakeholders input in recognizing
the importance of protecting other watersheds. It envisions further refinement and specifically
presents a five year schedule to develop aquifer protection strategies for the Long Island ground
water system and each of the eighteen primary aquifers upstate. The New York State Department
of Environmental Conservation will work with the DOH to coordinate development of the strategies
with the Source Water Assessment Program.

Additionally, the DOH is working with other advisory members of the New York State Soil and
Water Conservation Committee to develop a comprehensive watershed management strategy which
will attempt to integrate local watershed planning and water quality management actions into the
overall scope of local, regional, state or national watershed concerns. The Source Water Assessment
Program will provide the framework for updating assessments of drinking water concerns on a
watershed basis for assembling with other natural resource concerns.

Page 43

Glossary

Page 45

+
+
x
S
a

Page 46

Glossary

Agricultural Environmental Management
(AEM). An environmental initiative
developed by farmers, farm conservation
professionals, and government officials. to
protect or improve water quality in New York
State. It consists of an environmental assess-
ment, planning and implementation process
that farmers undertake voluntarily, with help
and support from a team of agricultural and
environmental professionals.

Annual Water Supply Statement. An
annual report to consumers on the current
quality of their drinking water which is
required by New York State Public Health
Law for all community water systems serving
1,000 or more service connections. The
reports must contain analytical testing results
of source water samples and tap water, and list
violations. Information regarding water treat-
ment, conservation practices, water use
restrictions, capital improvements and a
discussion of the risks associated with giardia
and cryptosporidium are also included in
reports.

Aquifer. A geologic formation composed of
rock, till, sand, gravel and/or sediment that is
capable of storing and transmitting water in
usable quantity to a spring or well.

Biosolids. The fecal and urinary defecations
of livestock and poultry (manure), or humans
(treated sewage sludge). Biosolids are
typically spread upon or tilled into the soil to
improve fertility.

Community Water System. A public water
system with at least 5 service connections
used by year-round residents of the system or
which regularly serves at least 25 year-round
residents. Examples include municipal water
systems, mobile home parks, and private
water supply companies.

Confined Aquifer. An aquifer saturated with
water and bounded above and below by a soil
layer or rock formation that restricts the
passage of ground water.

Consumer Confidence Report. The Safe
Drinking Water Act mandates that all
community water systems provide an annual
report to consumers on the source and quality
of their drinking water beginning in October,
1999. The reports must contain technical
definitions, listings of all violations, and
information on possible health effects from
contaminants such as radon and
eryptosporidium.

Contaminant Source Inventory. A list of
possible contaminant sources with the
delineated source water assessment area(s).
The inventory process includes: reviewing
existing data on the locations of potential
contaminant sources, of identifying likely
sources for further information, and verifying
the accuracy and reliability of data sets.

County Water Quality Coordinating
Committee. A committee composed of
volunteers that advise the water quality and
pollution control programs of various county,
state, and federal agencies on coordinated and
comprehensive approaches to water issues at
the county level.

Cryptosporidium. Short for Crypto-
sporidium parvum, a parasitic protozoan that
can be transmitted to humans via contaminated
drinking water. The organism can cause an
intestinal illness called cryptosporidiosis which
may be life threatening to people with weak
immune systems. The most common symptom
is watery diarrhea but there may also be
cramps, fever, nausea, vomiting, and loss of
appetite. There is no ‘specific medical treat-
ment for eryptosporidiosis.

Page 47

EE ATE TTA

Data Coverages. Describes the manner in
which data sets are used in a Geographic
Information System (GIS). Different types
and sources of data are shown as individual
“layers”. These layers of data can be stacked
over other data layers to show how the
different data sets relate to each other.

Delineation (delineate). The process of
defining or mapping a boundary that
approximates the areas that contribute water to
a particular water source used as a public
water supply. For surface waters, the land
area usually consists of the watershed for a
reservoir or stream. For groundwater sources,
the boundary typically approximates the
surface area that contributes water to the
aquifer.

Discrete Source. A discernible contamina-
tion source such as a landfill, hazardous waste
site, or conveyance such as a pipe or drainage
ditch from a facility. Discrete sources can be
mapped as clearly defined points or areas.

Drinking Water State Revolving Fund. A
Drinking Water State Revolving Loan Fund
was created in 1996 as a result of New York
State’s enactment of Charter 413 of the Laws
of 1996 (Clean Water/Clean Air Bond Act)
and passage of the 196 Amendments to the
Safe Drinking Water Act by the U.S.
Congress. This program provides a financial
incentive for public and private water systems
to undertake needed infrastructure improve-
ments (e.g. treatment plants, distribution
mains, storage facilities).

Geographic Information System (GIS). A
computerized database/mapping system that
may be used to store, retrieve, and analyze
information based on geographic location.

Giardia. Short for Giardia lamblia, a
parasitic protozoan that can be transmitted to
humans via contaminated drinking water. The
organism can cause an intestinal illness called
giardiasis of which the main symptom is mild
or severe diarrhea. Giardia can be treated
with anti-parasitic drugs.

Ground Water. Water that has reached an
underground zone where all the openings in the
soil or rock are filled with water.

Ground Water Rule. A proposed federal
regulation that will address technical issues
related to disinfection of public water systems
that use ground water as a source of drinking
water. Under section 107 of the Safe Drinking
Water Act Amendments of 1996, the statute
reads, “. . . the Administrator shall also
promulgate national primary drinking water
regulations requiring disinfection as a
treatment technique for all public water
systems, including surface water systems, and,
as necessary, ground water systems.”

Hydrologic Unit Code. A geographic,
numbering system developed by the United
States Geological Survey to identify and
differentiate particular watersheds. The num-
bering system is somewhat akin to zip codes in
that digits are added to further refine location
(ie., an eleven digit code denotes a much
smaller watershed area than an eight digit
code). Hydrologic Unit Codes are often
referred to simply as “HUC” codes.

Inner Well Zone. An area immediately
surrounding a well or well field of a public
water supply that has been defined for the
purpose of determining the susceptibility of a
well to contamination. Potential sources of
contamination within the inner well zone are
given a higher level of scrutiny when
determining the overall susceptibility of a well
source.

Local Health Department. A state funded
district health office or county health depart-
ment that provides oversight of public drinking
water systems.

Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL). In
the Safe Drinking Water Act, a MCL is defined
as “the maximum permissible level of a
contaminant in water which is delivered to any
user of a public water system.”

Page 48

i, a

Metadata. Simply defined, metadata is “data
about data.” Metadata describes the origins of
a dataset and discuss the changes made to the
dataset by any user of the data for a particular
application. For digital geospatial data,
metadata can be used to provide background
information about the origin, content, quality,
condition and availability of a particular
dataset.

Monitoring. To systematically sample and
analyze public drinking water to ensure that
the water meets New York State standards for
drinking water quality. Monitoring can also
be used for watching trends in water quality.

Non-community Water System. A public
water system that provides water to people in
places other than their residences (i.e., places
of business, schools, restaurants, and motels).

Nonpoint Source Pollution. Pollution that
enters a water body or aquifer from diffuse
origins on the land surface. This in contrast
to a discrete source, where there is a
discernible contamination source such as a
landfill or conveyance such as a pipe or ditch.

Non-Transient Non-Community Water
System. A public water system that does not
serve a resident population but serves at least
25 of the same persons, four hours or more per
day, for four or more days per week, for 26 or
more weeks, Examples of non-transient non-
community systems include schools, offices,
and businesses which have their own drinking
water source.

Outer Well Zone. An area surrounding the
inner well zone which has been delineated for
the purpose of determining the susceptibility
of a public water supply well to contamina-
tion. Ground water within the outer well
zone is assumed to take a longer period of
time to reach the wellhead than the ground
water within the inner wellhead zone.

Pesticide. Any synthetic or naturally
occurring substance or mixture of sub-stances
that is used to destroy, repel or mitigate any

pests, including insects, weeds, nematodes,
fungi, bacteria and rodents.

Priority Waters List. This list categorizes
and describes use impairments to water body
segments taking into account both the amount
and quality of available information. The New
York State Department of Environmental
Conservation and other state agencies use the
rankings to allocate funding for pollution
prevention projects and set watershed
management strategies.

Public Drinking Water System. A
community, non-community, or non-transient
non-community water system which provides
piped water to the public for human
consumption. The system must have at least 5
service connections or regularly serve at least
25 individuals daily for at least 60 days.

Recharge area. A section of land that receives
precipitation and allows it to infiltrate an
aquifer.

Safe Drinking Water Act. The federal law
which authorizes the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency and states to oversee public
water systems and set standards for drinking
water.

Sensitivity. The existing hydrogeologic
conditions of a drinking water source and the
integrity of the water system’s well(s) or
intake(s) which makes a particular drinking
water system susceptible to influence by
contamination.

Significant Potential Source of
Contamination. A facility or activity that has
the potential to release contaminants in
sufficient amounts to a public drinking water
source as to contravene water quality standards.

Source Water or Water Source. Any
aquifer, surface water body, or watercourse
from which water is taken either periodically or
continuously by a public water system for
drinking or food processing purposes.

Page 49

Source Water Assessment. A source water
assessment provides information on the
potential contaminant threats to surface and
ground water sources that are used to supply
public water systems. Each source water
assessment consists of a delineation of the
source water assessment area, an inventory of
possible contamination sources, and an
evaluation of the susceptibility of the water
supply to contamination.

Subwatershed. A topographic boundary that
is the perimeter of the catchment area of a
tributary of a stream. :

Surface Water(s). Lakes, ponds, streams,
rivers, and other water bodies which lie on the
surface of the land. Surface waters may be
partially or fully supplied by groundwater.

Surface Water Treatment Rule. The rule
specified maximum contaminant level goals
for Giardia lamblia, viruses and Legionella,
and promulgated filtration and disinfection
requirements for public water systems using
surface water sources or 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.

Susceptibility Analysis. An evaluation of
conditions in the source water area to
determine the potential for contaminants to
impact water quality.

Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL). The
sum of the allowable loads of a single
pollutant from all contributing point and
nonpoint sources that a waterbody can receive
and still meet water quality standards. The
calculation must include a margin of safety to
ensure that the waterbody can be used for the
purposes the State has designated (e.g.,
swimming, fishing, drinking) and must also
account for seasonable variation in water
quality.

Transient Non-Community Water System.
A public water system that serves 25 or more
transient consumers per day for fewer than 26
weeks per year; examples of transient non-
community systems include restaurants, parks,
and motels that have their own drinking water
source.

Treatment Technique. A process intended to
remove contaminants or improve the taste,
odor, or clarity of drinking water before it
reaches the consumer.

Unconsolidated Aquifer. An aquifer that is
comprised of loosely formed geologic
materials, such as sand and gravel.
Unconsolidated aquifers can occur near the
ground surface or at depth.

Unconfined Aquifer. A shallow aquifer that
occurs immediately below the ground surface.
Also known as a water table aquifer because
the upper boundary of the saturated portion of
the aquifer is formed by the ground water table.

Watershed. The geographic region within
which water drains to a particular river, stream,
or body of water. Large watersheds may be
composed of several or many subwatersheds.

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, taking into consideration both
ground water and surface waters.

Watershed Rules and Regulations. Public
Health Law that authorizes the New York State
Department of Health to make rules and
regulations to protect water sources used for
public water systems within the state from
contamination.

Wellhead Protection Area. The surface and
subsurface area surrounding a well or well
field, supplying a public water system, through
which contaminants are reasonably likely to
move toward and reach a well or well field.

Page 50

Wellhead Protection Program. A state
implemented program for protecting ground
water resources that are used for public
drinking water as mandated under section
1428 of the Safe Drinking Water Act. New
York State received EPA approval in 1990 for
its Wellhead Protection Program

Page 51

Page 53

Page 52

Spoujzo UOHeeUl|ag JazeM\ Puno :| einBly
3
g
%
<
(j8@} 00¢ eouesip WNuUIU)
snipey pexiy peyeinojed,
sua3skg s93;e\4 AyJUNWIWOD-UON jUdISUELL-UON
swayshg s0;e\4 AjlunWWOD-UON jua|suelL pure swejsig s9zeyq AzlunWWOD
_ wail

Page 54

I

mouy ,U0q SOA

NN Z

‘Ayanonpuoo
‘oynespAy yBiy jo
Jeynbe peuyuooun
WO SMEIP IAM,

mouy,
3,u0q
40

+ on +—

fe

doynbe T
‘@Aoge S}sIxe JeAe}
|Aiqeeuued Jano7 t t
7 ON SoA
‘moUy 3,U0G SoA \ a
* ra JeABR JO eu
papayas UIyIM st
poupaq painjoesy jease eGeyoas payewnsy
WO. SMEIP [AM
SaQ
| SOA
MOU 1,U0G t t
ypoipeq woy Jo Jayinbe pauyuod e ut
smeip a4 |—— oN <——| __ pouaaios si tem| << ON SO,

A

Ajddns ut payeyep ueeq
‘@AeY SJUCUILUE}UCD
Jo Sjanaj jueoyiuBig

seljddng see, punosg Joy sisfjeuy Ayanisues - ¢ eunBiy

g
oO
3
—
Ss
ra
z
o
a
-
2
Ss
Ma
a
3
a
3
g
a
3
o
2
PA
o
Zz
1
4
8
S
S
he
a
a
<
5
S
cS
Ss
o
|
2°
a
i
o
2
B
ov
S
=
5
a
f
a
2g
5
ae
=

a
4

WATERSHED
BORDER

Nested-watershed

Sub-watershed

Border

Page 56

* Figure 4- Susceptibility Matrix
High | should | medium-| .
~- | benoted | high | high high
Unknown medium- high
high
Medium medium | medium-
high
Low low medium
T >
2 oe RN $ >
* ie) x ..
=} ww
5a
A is Contaminant Prevalence
fe
a5
SS Sem
Zz i)
tm Page 58

Figure 5 - Methodology for Conducting Assessments

Collect Available Information A
Evaluate System Specifics to
Determine Approach

|

Determine Delineation Method 6 |

|

[ Parallel Tracks |
; -—

Delineate Source Water i Sensitivity
Assessment Area(s) D | Analysis E

i

Contaminant Inventory

Land Discrete .
Use Locations | :
—,
Determine Contaminant gc” FY
Prevalence Susceptibility Matrix
G Ss Ea H
i

| Susceptibility
| Review/Refinement J

|

| Summary of Significant

Findings J

Report to Public

Page 59

Page 61

Tables

Page 60

a
Table 1 - GIS Coverages for the Source Water Assessment Program!
ea : | Coordinate .

Data File: . Source | Spatial Type | System Scale Availablity
Agricultural Districts Cornell Univ. | Polygon None 1:24,000 Not Yet
Aquatic Pesticide Permits DEC. Point None Not Yet
Census Tracts US Census Available

Bureau

Chemical & Petroleum Spills” DEC/DOH Point/Polygon | None Limited

Chemical Bulk Storage DEC Point NYTM’® 1:24,000 Available

(Aboveground) . (GPS)

Chemical Bulk Storage DEC Point NYTM? 1:24,000 Available

(Underground) (Geocode)

Digital Orthophotos (aka Digital | DEC/US Forty

Orthophoto Quarter Geological counties

Quadrangles, DOQQs) Service available,
others
pending

Digital Elevation Models DEC 1:24,000 Not Yet

Geology from United States USGS/ Point Lat/Long Variable Available

Geological Survey (USGS) and | NYSGS

NY State Files

Drainage Basin, unconsolidated | DEC/USGS Polygon Lat/Long 8-digit HUC

aquifer Available,
11-digit Not
Yet

Hazardous Waste Treatment, DEC Point Lat/Long Limited

Storage & Disposal Facilities

(RCIS)

Hydrography Data DEC Line NYTM? 1:24,000 Not Yet

Inactive Hazardous Waste Sites | DEC Point Lat/Long 1:250,000 Available
(Draft)

Land Application & DEC Point None Variable Not Yet

Composting Facilities, including

Sewage Sludge Facilities

Landfills(Active) DEC Point NYTM? Variable Not Yet

Land Cover Data Set USEPA/ Polygon NYTM? 30 meter Available

1988-1993 Landsat USGS pixels

Natural Heritage Program DEC Point/Polygon | NYTM?, 1:24,000 Available

(Significant plant/wildlife areas) Lat/Long

Mines DEC Point/Polygon | Lat/Long 1:24,000 Available

i . Page 62 a Page 63
it | |
- Table 1 - GIS Coverages for the Source Water Assessment Program! :

ope Coordinate Coverage
Data File Source ‘Spatial Type System Seale Availablity
NYSDOH Public Water Supply | DOH Point Variable Some areas
(PWS) Database, PWS Intake complete,
locations, Local HD PWS Data, others
Sanitary Surveys, Monitoring limited or
Waiver Data not yet
Oil and Gas Wells (Active) DEC Point Lat/Long 1:24,000 Available
Petroleum Bulk Storage DEC Point NYTM? NY City
only
(geocoded)
others in
progress
Primary Aquifers DEC Point/Line/ Lat/Long 1:24,000 Available
Polygon
Priority Water List DEC Line/Polygon | None Available
Radioactive Materials Discharge | DEC Point None Not
Permits (RCIS) Complete
Regulatory Compliance DEC Point NYTM? 1:24,000 Available
Information Systems (RCIS)
River Water Quality Monitoring | EPA/USGS Point Lat/Long EPA
STORET
Soil Surveys NRCS/Local | Polygon Some are 1:12,000 Some areas
digitized
1:250,000 | Statewide
SPDES Permitted Discharge DEC Point Lat/Long Some,
Facilities including Publicly coverage
Owned Sewage Treatment improvement
Works underway
State GIS Data Sets (Adjacent NY GIS Data Not Yet
States) Cooperative,
States
Tax Assessment Maps Office of Polygon Some,
Real except
Property. Warren and
Services Westchester
Counties
Toxic Chemical Release DEC/DOH Point Lat/Long Available
Inventory? (TRD
Underground Injection Wells EPA Point Not Yet

Page 64

Table 1 - GIS Coverages for the Source Water Assessment Program!
oe |" Veoordinate | «| Coverage

Data File x Spatial Type System. | Scale vailablity.
United States Geological Survey | USGS Image Lat/Long 1;24,000 Available
Quadrangles
USGS Well Data USGS Point Lat/Long Variable Limited
Waste Oil Storage, “| DEC Point Variable Not Yet
Reprocessing, and Rerefining
Facilities
Other locally available Pt/Line/Poly Varies Variable Not Yet
coverages:
These include county, regional,
and local data sets

Notes: 1 These data coverages are considered helpful in conducting assessments. They are a starting point
of data compilation and should not be considered complete. The extent of data is not consistent
across New York State. Some coverages need correction to improve accuracy. The Coverage
Availability column indicates whether “Available” (with no warranty of completeness or
accuracy), whether coverage is “Limited” to certain areas of the state, or whether it is “Not Yet”
available. Some coverages not now available, are currently being corrected and should be
available for use during the SWAP program.

2 Data coverages partially or wholly created at NYSDOH or NY Local Health Units

3 NYTM= New York Transverse Mercator Projection

Page 65

‘able 2 - Data Needs to Perform Assessments.

Standard Assessment Data Indicated by *

System Data

*Whether purchased, if so, whether system has own reservoir

*Category of system, (e.g., Community; Non-transient or transient non-community)
Population served

*Production capability and actual production

*Disinfection use and type

*Any known quality violation

*Any known contamination

Ownership

*Whether Source Water Protection in place, kind of protection

Whether owner has jurisdiction over some or all of the source areas

Public perceptions of water source quality and contaminant source impacts
*Date of last sanitary survey/inspection

*Significant findings from sanitary survey/inspection

*Monitoring waiver in force

*Disinfection waiver in force

*Justification for monitoring waiver(s)

*Justification for disinfection waiver(s)

Type and availability of more detailed information

1 Characteristi ti urce
An initial determination would be made as to what kind of source it is, then further decisions would
follow from there.
*Ground water source
*Surface water source
*Ground water source under the direct influence of surface water
Ground water source otherwise affected by surface water
Surface water source directly impacted by ground water

Location of Well/Ground Water Sources

Aquifer source

Consolidated or unconsolidated aquifer

Confined or unconfined aquifer

*Other known geological, soils, or aquifer characteristics data

What is the hydraulic conductivity of hydrogeologic units

Well production capacity

Actual production of the well/how much water is used

*Proximity of other wells (within the cone of influence of the system well)
Depth to aquifer

Depth of screen, if any

ind Water Sources Influenced face Water
Is the influence direct
How confirmed
Characteristics of the contributing surface water body(ies)
Proximity of well to surface water body

Page 66

Table 2 ~ Data Needs to Perform Assessments

Standard Assessment Data Indicated by *

Surface Water ce:

*Source flow data- quantity, direction of flow, time-of-travel
*Source type, name

*Intake location relative to water body

*Source water quality data

Detention time

Delineation History

Ground Water
*Has source been delineated
Has delineated area been digitized
Whether single or multiple aquifers
Type and accuracy of delineation

Surface Water

*Has watershed been delineated

Scale of delineation

Known time of travel from parts of watershed

Jineations done by DOH

Surface Water

Criteria for area of Great Lakes watershed or other large watershed (bigger than 1 8-digit HUC code)
Delineation process used

Ground Water

Delineation method selected and why selected

Whether done as conjunctive delineation

Whether regional delineations were used

Whether this delineation is lumped into a larger delineation

Contaminant Inventory (Note: Inventory Categories found in the delineated water source assessment
area(s) will be considered in each inventory, not all categories will be present in each)
*LandUse/Land Cover Data (Landsat) - statewide or more specific
Septic Use Data Source - how proportioned
More detailed information on septic use available
*Toxic Release Inventory - facility location
*Agriculture Environmental management data available
Type of potential contaminants present
Whether known contaminant releases and where
*Solid Waste/Biosolids Sites
Known release of contaminants
Size of facility
Year of operation

Page 67

. Table pA ~ Data Needs to Perform Assessments

Standard Assessment Data Indicated by *
Contaminant Inventory (continued)
*Wastewater Treatment Plants

Size of facility

Discharge quantity and quality requirements

Types of contaminants permitted

Any data indicating significant noncompliance with permit conditions
*Other State Pollution Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) Permitted Facilities

Size of facility

Discharge quantity and quality requirements

Types of contaminants permitted

Any data indicating significant noncompliance with permit conditions
*Bulk Storage Facilities

Type of product stored

Type of contaminant

If release is known - when did it occur, type of material and quantity released
*Petroleum or Hazardous Material Spills

Type of contaminant

Quantity spilled :

Remediation efforts completed

Known problems related to spill
*New York State Inactive Hazardous Waste Disposal Sites

Type and quantity of contaminants present

Whether contaminants migrating from site

Status of remediation

Whether site is a known to have contaminated a source of public drinking water
*Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation Liability Act (CERCLA) Information

System sites

Type and quantity of contaminants present

Whether contaminants migrating from site

Status of remediation

Whether site is known to have contaminated a source of public drinking water
*Major Transportation Routes: Roads, Railroads, Water Transport Routes, Pipelines

Known significant contaminant materials transported via transportation route
Significant storage or use of fertilizers

Known quantity and composition
Underground Injection Well Locations

Activity Status

Years Utilized

Known Chemical Composition of Injected Material

If release is known - when did it occur, type of material and quantity released

Regulatory Issue:
Whether there are any of particular relevance to the system

Monitoring Waivers granted
Ground Water Rule
Long Term Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule/Disinfection Byproduct Rule

Page 68

* Table 2. - Data Needs to Perform Assessments

Source Protection

*Watershed rules and regulations in effect/proposed

Ongoing source protection activities

Type of organization for source protection, municipal, voluntary, etc.
Whether source protection would reduce a particular threat to the source

Su: ibility Review/Refineme

Location of contaminant sources relative to drinking water source
Likelihood/Timing of Release

Effectiveness of pollution prevention activities

Special impacts of local soils/geology (Soil infiltration groups A- D)
Karst or fractured rock

Presence/sources of Spring(s)

Potential of local vegetation to affect contaminant transport
Steepness of slopes

Contaminant Fate and Transport issues of persistence and mobility

Page 69
able 3 - Criteria for Consideration when Completing Source Water Assessments —

Source ype
Surface Water

Ground Water

Ground Water Under Direct Influence of Surface Water

Ground Water Otherwise Influenced by Surface Water

Surface Water influenced by Ground Water (i.e. gaining streams)

Natural Sensitivity of Source
Aquifer permeability/confinement
Time-of-Travel

Contributory Area

Source Characteristics
Aquifer Type (unconfined, confined, bedrock, consolidated, unconsolidated)
Surface Water Body Type (¢.g., river, lake, reservoir)

Extraction Characteristics

Well location and depth

Intake location and depth

Extraction type: well, caisson, infiltration gallery, spring
Integrity of extraction device (e.g., well casing, intake structure)

xistin: sessment Inf tion
Accuracy/timeliness
Completeness
Level of detail

Wat stem Classification

Type: Community

Non-Transient Non-Community Water System
Transient Non-Community Water System

Size

Type of Ownershi
Municipal

Investor-Owned Utility
Private/Ancillary

Management Capacity

Whether source water protection in place
Whether source water area within system owner jurisdiction

Jurisdiction of Source Water Assessment Areas
Coincides with Municipal Public Water System

Town/County where Public Water System is located
Multiple municipalities

Page 70

Table 3. - Criteria for Consideration when Completing Source ‘Water Assessments

Land Use

Past

Current

Near-term change
Projected/Anticipated (e.g., zoning)
Percent ownership by supplier
Percent ownership by governments

Multiple Use Waterbodies
Human
Wildlife

Industrial/Commercial

Locations of Major Sources of Contamination

Local
Regional
Transboundary

ic Percepti
Water Quality
Land Use
Contaminant Sources

xisting Source Water Protection/Manage
local (public water system, town, non-governmental organization)
regional water resource (county, coalition, state, etc.)

Potential for Upgrading Source Water Protection
local
regional

Safe Drinking Water Act Regulatory Issues

Monitoring Flexibility

Ground Water Rule .

Long Term Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule/Disinfection Byproducts Rule

Page 7I

Table 4 - Potential for Ground Water Contamination Based on Land Cover’

‘Table 5 - Potential for Surface Water Contamination Based on Land Cover” Jeg oe

Contaminant Category

Contaminant Category “ Land Cover Types:

Low Intensity | High Intensity] High Intensity | Evergreen: ae ‘Low Intensity | High Intensity | High Intensity] oe

Water Residential |. Residential | Commercial. |\. Pasture — | Row Crops | -Other Grasses | Forest.’ < Mater Residential | Residential | Commercial | Pasture |: Row Crops |" Other Grasses | Forest
Halogenated Solvents N LM) L(M) M(H) N(L) L L N [Halogenated Solvents N N(L) L M N N N N
Petroleum Products N L i) M(H) N(L) L L N Petroleum Products Nil) L L M N N N N
Pesticides/Herbicides N L() M M L M L N Pesticides/Herbicides N M M(H) M(H) M H M L
[Other Industrial Organics N L M L(M) N(L) L L N [Other Industrial Organics N L M M(H) L L L N
Metals N L C M NL) L L N Metals N L M M(H) L LM) L N
Nitrates N M M(H) M L(M) M(H) L N Nitrates L L M M L(M) M(H) L N
Phosphorus N N N N N N N N Phosphorus L M M(H) M(H) M M(H) L N
[Sediments/Turbidity N N N N N N N N Sediments/Turbidity L(M) M M(H) M(H) L LM) N N
Protozoa N M M(H) L(M) M L(M) L(M) L Protozoa L M(H) H M(H) H M(H) L(M) L
Enteric Bacteria L “_M M(H) L(M) M L(M) L(M) L Enteric Bacteria L M H M(@) M(H) M(H) L(M) L
Enteric Viruses L H M(H) L(M) M L L(M) L Enteric Viruses L M H M(H) M(H) M(H) L(M) L
[Cations/Anions (Salts, Sulfate) Nd) L(M) M(H) M(H) L L L N [Cations/Anions (Salts, Sulfate) N L M M L L L N
Industrial Radionucleides N N Nd) NW) N N N N [Industrial Radionucleides N N L M N N N N
Disinfection Byproduct Precursors N N N N N N N N Disinfection Byproduct Precursors L(M) M M(H) M M(H) M(H) L L(M)

Halogenated Solvents
Petroleum Products
Pesticides/Herbicides

[Other Industrial Organics

Metals

Nitrates

Phosphorus

|Sediments/Turbidity

Protozoa

Enteric Bacteria

Enteric Viruses

|Cations/Anions (Salts, Sulfate)
Industrial Radionuclides
Disinfection Byproduct Precursors

z|_ |B |
TTI) | 718

ZlZizjericie| zz zizl zjzjziz

£464 bd tal Col al 4 4 44 44
z
oii

zlzl2zlr|e}e}2)2)2]2]2) 2) 2) 248
&

ZpZlr[er[rycpzpzfe|zpzjazjrjz

e]Z/C| S| S|) 2] 2c} ziziz

z

Definitions:
Negligible (N): Land use type results in minimal, if any, presence of the contaminant category

Low (L): Land use type results in detections that are expected to be rare and, if detected, contaminant concentrations are expected to be below levels of concern
for drinking water,

Medium (M): Land use type results in detections that are expected to be uncommon but, if detected, contaminant concentrations could be expected to be at or
above levels of concern for drinking water.

High (H): Land use type results in detections that may occur frequently at levels of concer for drinking water.
Notes:

When two ratings are given, the rating in the parentheses "()" is considered to reflect the worse case scenario, and the rating not in the parentheses is
considered to be the more common situation.

Page 72

aa Forest, Sand sand):
Halogenated Solvents N N N N N N

Petroleum Products N N N N N N
Pesticides/Herbicides N N L L N N

[Other Industrial Organics N N £ L N N

Metals N N N(L) N(L) N N

Nitrates N N L. L N N

Phosphorus N N L Li Ls L
|Sediments/Turbidity N N L L M M

Protozoa L lL. L(M) L(M) L L

[Enteric Bacteria L L L(™) L(M) L L

Enteric Viruses L L Rw) L(M) LC L

[Cations/Anions (Salts, Sulfate) N N L L cL L

Industrial Radionuclides N N N N N N N
Disinfection Byproduct Precursors N(L) N(L) L(M) L(M) N N. L(M)

Definitions:

Negligible (N): Land use type results in minimal, if any, presence of the contaminant category.

Low (L): Land use type results in detections that are expected to be rare and, if detected, contaminant concentrations are expected to be below levels of concern for
drinking water.

Medium (M): Land use type results in detections that are expected to be uncommon but, if detected, contaminant concentrations could be expected to be at or above
levels of concem for drinking water,

High (H); Land use type results in detections that may occur frequently at levels of concer for drinking water,
Notes:

When two ratings are given, the rating in the parentheses "( )" is considered to reflect the worse case scenario, and the rating not in the parentheses is
considered to be the more common situation,

Page 73

SOnSsHa}OBIeYD PaysioeA Jo Jayinbe Jo aanoodsaut “AloSa1Vo jUeUTUNE]UOD II JO soos J]quqoud B ParopIsUOd JOU St 9oINOS UOHUTUTEIUOD [eNUDIOg (AN) F1qEqGOId ION

sonsta}oeeyo poysioqem 10 sapInbe Jo sansodsou “A10Fayeo JUUIWEIUOD aYp} Jo 2oINOs a]qissod B parapIsuod St soins UOTeUIUTEIUOD ENUDIOg :(d) AIGISSOd

SON
d d dN d d d d d ssosindaig 1onpoidAég uons2zuIsIq,
d d dN d d d d d saprjonuorpey jeensnpuy
d d aN d d d d d (aryins ‘Sies) suoruy/suoneD|
dN d dN dN d d d ‘sasnulA 9U21Uq|
dN d ‘aN aN d a d BuaIeg SHUG
dN. ad. dN dN d d d BOZOIONd|
d d d d d d d Aupiain./siwouipog|
d d ‘aN d d d d smuoydsoug
d d dN d d d d ‘SEMIN |
d d d d d d d seq
d d aN d d d d = SoRMeSIQ [ENSNpUy FoMO|
d d dN d d d d ‘SOPIOIGIOH/S2PIONso|
d d d d d d d ‘Slonpoig winajonad|
d d dN d d d d SWSATOS PoeUssOEH

SOnSLaOBIeYO paysiorem 40 saInbe so aanoadsast ‘AsoSoye9 JueUTWEIUOS o1f1 Jo SoIMOs a[qeqosd B parapIsuod JOU SI GoINOs UONEUIUTEIUOO JERUAICT =(AN) PGEqOLd ION

soljsuiajoeseyo paysiajem 40 sazmbe Jo aanjoadsaust ‘Aro8oje sweUTUEUOD ay] JO douNOs 2IqGIssod B PaxepIsUOD SI 9osNOS UONeUTUAEIUOD JeNUa}Od :(q) IIq!ss0g

SS COULIIETE

d d aN d a d Srosmnoaig ronpordkg uoRsagUISIG]
d d dN d d d SopfonuoIpeY [eLSNpUy
aN d ‘aN qd d d Giging ‘sies) suoruy/suOHED
aN dN aN aN a d Sosa, SUSI
dN dN dN dN d d euoeg suey,
dN aN” aN aN d d BOz0101d|
aN aN aN aN aN aN Aupiqm ysuaunpas|
d d aN d sns0ydsoud
d qd. aN d SOWENIN]
d d aN d Sea
d d d d So1ueaiQ [eUISpU] J5O)
d d dN d ‘SoploiqiaH/SepIonsed|
d d d d Sionporg winayonag|
d d aN d ‘SwuaAyos pareuadorery|

Page 75

Page 74

ape r ts oar ow

2 Oo<0Q

Table 8 - Evaluation of Contaminant Prevalence Associated with Mapped Land
Cover for a Particular Contaminant

Land Cover with Contaminant Category
Rated “High”

Land Cover with Contaminant Category
Rated “Medium”

Susceptibility
Zone 1

Susceptibility
Zone 2

Susceptibility Susceptibility
Zone | Zone 2

100%

Page 76

Table 9 - Evalu: tion of Contaminant

revalence Associated
Contamination

with Discrete Potential Sources of

Characteristics of . 2 SOG ca oe
Genpaninnay Location of Discrete Contaminant Source Relative to PWS Source.
~ Source :
ate Susceptibility.
Zone 1 A
Major High Medium
Minor ~ Medium Low

None Present

Negligible

Page 77

Table 10 - General Description of s

eeptibility Zone 1
‘ologically

Ground Water

Wells (unless known to be
remotely recharged)

Inner well zone (see Section
4.2.2)

Outer well zone (see
Section 4.2.2)

Remotely recharged wells

If available, hydrologically
established recharge area or
best estimate of remote
recharge area based on
available information

To be determined based on
available information

Topographic catchment area

To be determined based on
available information

Catchment areas within the

Remainder of watershed

Surface water sources with
significant travel times immediate vicinity of the
intake
Other surface water sources Entire watershed Not applicable

Page 78

References

Page 79

i iia

References

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. New York State Wellhead Protection
Program (submittal to United States Environmental Protection Agency), September 1990.

New York State Department of Health. Final Intended Use Plan - Drinking Water State Revolving
Fund, October 22, 1997.

New York State Department of Health, Center for Environmental Health. Technical Reference; Item |
No. PWS184; Guidance for Conducting Sanitary Surveys (7/20/93).

New York State Department of Health, Center for Environmental Health. Technical Reference; Item
No, PWS72; Determining Vulnerability to Contamination by Volatile Organic Chemicals (6/25/90).

United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. State Source Water Assessment
and Protection Programs - Final Guidance (EPA816-R-97-009), August 1997.

Page 80 . Page 81

Appendices

Page 83

Page 82

Appendix A
Listing of Local and State Health Department Offices

i (a a ERE ARENT FAS NSN RN Ta eee a DA RE AE eee Lee NEED ER pT em ns ARENA Ben AEWA eA tt ee NSE ROE HAND ES § Ime REE SSR MSS,
Listing of Local and State Health Department Offices
County Health Departments
County Address Phone

Albany S. Ferry & Green Streets, Albany, NY 12201 518/447-4620
Allegany Court House, Belmont, NY 14813 716/268-9254 |
Broome 1 Wall Street, Binghamton, NY 13901-2795 607/778-2887
Cattaraugus 1701 Lincoln Ave., Suite 4010, Olean, NY 14760 716/373-8050
Cayuga PO Box 219, 160 Genesee St., Auburn, NY 13021 315/253-1405
Chautauqua Health & Social Services Bldg., Mayville, NY 14757 | 716/753-4481
Chemung 103 Washington St., PO Box 588, Elmira, NY 14902 | 607/737-2019
Chenango County Office Bldg., Norwich, NY 13815 607/337-1673
Clinton 133 Margaret Street, Plattsburgh, NY 12901 518/565-4870
Columbia 71 North Third St., Hudson, NY 12534 518/828-3358
Cortland PO Box 5590, 60 Central Ave., Cortland, NY 13045 | 607/753-5035
Dutchess County Office Bldg., 387 Main Mall, Poughkeepsie, | 914/486-3472

NY 12601

| Erie Rath Office Bldg., 95 Franklin St., Buffalo, NY 716/858-7677

14202
Genesee 3837 W. Main Street, Batavia, NY 14020 716/344-8506
Livingston ; 2 County Campus, Mt. Morris, NY 14510 716/243-7280
Madison County Office Bldg., Wampsville, NY 13163 315/366-2526
Monroe 111 Westfall Road, Rochester, NY 14692 716/274-6067
7 Nassau 240 Old County Road, Mineola, NY 11501 ; 516/571-3691
Niagara * | Shaw Bldg., 5467 Upper Mountain Rd., Lockport, 716/439-7444
NY 14094

Oneida 520 Seneca Street, Utica, NY 13502 315/798-5064

‘ Onondaga PO Box 15190, Syracuse, NY 13215-0190 315/435-6623

Orange 124 Main St., Goshen, NY 10924 914/291-2332

| Orleans 14012 Rt. 31 West, Albion, NY 14411 716/589-3251

| 7 Oswego 70 Brunner Street, Oswego, NY 13126 315/349-3567
Putnam 4 Geneva Road, Brewster, NY 10509-9809 914/278-6130

|

F

\

EE eo

Listing of Local and State Health Department Offices

Listing of Local and State Health Department Offices

District Offices
State District
Counties Offices Address Phone
Schuyler, Steuben Hornell 107 Broadway 607/324-8371
Hornell, NY 14843-0430
Sullivan Monticello 50 North Street, Suite 2 914/794-2045
Monticello, NY 12701-1171
Delaware, Greene, Oneonta 28 Hill Street, Suite 201 607/432-3911
Otsego Oneonta, NY 13820-9804
Essex, Franklin, Saranac Lake 11-15 St. Bernard Street 518/891-1800
Hamilton Saranac Lake, NY 12983-1839
Jefferson, Lewis Watertown 317 Washington Street 315/785-2277
Watertown, NY 13601-3741
State Regional Offices
Western (2 offices) 584 Delaware Ave., Buffalo, NY 14202 716/847-4530
Bevier Bldg., 42 S. Washington Street, Rochester, 716/423-8069
NY 14608
Metropolitan 5 Penn Plaza, 4" Floor, New York, NY 10001-1800 212/613-2442
Capital 2 University Place, Rm. 410, Albany, NY 12203 518/458-6731
or 458-6445
State Field Offices
Syracuse 217 South Salina Street, 3 Floor, Syracuse, NY 315/426-7608

13202

County Health Departments (continued)

County Address Phone
Rensselaer 1600 Seventh Ave., Troy, NY 12180 518/270-2664
Rockland Sanatorium Road, Pomona, NY 10970 914/364-2609
Schenectady 107 Nott Terrace, Suite 306, Schenectady, NY 518/386-2818

12308-3170
Schoharie PO Box 667, 342 Main Street, Schoharie, NY 12157 | 518/295-8382
Seneca 31 Thurber Drive, Waterloo, NY 13165 315/539-5331
Suffolk 415 Oser Avenue, Suite 3, Hauppauge, NY 11788 516/853-2251
| Tioga 231 Main Street, Owego, NY 13827 607/687-8566
Tompkins 401 Harris B. Dates Drive, Ithaca, NY 14850 607/274-6688
Ulster 300 Flatbush Ave., PO Box 1800, Kingston, NY 914/340-3010
12401
Westchester 145 Huguenot Street, New Rochelle, NY 10801 914/637-4901
Wyoming 338 North Main Street, Warsaw, NY 14569 716/786-8894
New York City Health Departments
New York 125 Worth Street, New York, NY 10013 212/788-4646
New York 2 Lafayette Street, 11" Floor, New York, NY 10013 | 212/676-1520
New York State Department of Health :
Albany Center for Environmental Health 518/458-6400
2 University Place or
Albany, NY 12203 800-458-1158
: District Offices
State District

Counties Offices Address Phone

St. Lawrence Canton 58 Gouverneur Street 315/386-1040
Canton, NY 13617-3200

Ontario, Wayne, Geneva 624 Pre-Emption Road 315/789-3030

Yates Geneva, NY 14456-1334

Saratoga, Warren, Glens Falls 77 Mohican Street 518/793-3893

Washington Glens Falls, NY 12801-4429

Fulton, Herkimer, Herkimer 5665 State Rt. 5 315/866-6879

Montgomery Herkimer, NY 13350

Appendix B
Public Participation Plan

DB} STATE OF NEW YORK
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH

Source Water Assessment Program
Public Participation Plan for Development of
the Source Water Assessment Program Plan

Final

Wellhead Protection Coordinating Committee Video Conference
Purpose: Meet with the committee to talk about the Source Water Assessment Program, the Source
Water Assessment Program public participation plan and the idea of a focus group meeting(s).
Completed: May 22, 1997

County and District Health Departments’ Conference
Purpose: Meet with the city, county and district Department of Health (DOH) staff to discuss the
Source Water Assessment Program, the Source Water Assessment Program public participation plan
and the outcome of the Wellhead Protection Coordinating Committee meeting.
Completed: September 16, 1997

Focus Group Meetings
Purpose: To provide the DOH with guidance on who will use the assessments, how they will use
them and how the DOH should conduct outreach activities so that we obtain comments from the
affected public prior and during the development of the Source Water Assessment Program plan.
Completed: November 19 & 20, 1997

Convene Source Water Protection Coordinating Committee
Purpose: The committee’s first task is to provide the DOH with input on the Source Water
Assessment Program plan development. The committee’s membership has a broad based
representation, There are five working groups to help develop different sections of the plan. The
working groups are: public participation/assessment format; delineation; GIS/data collection;
contaminant inventory/significance; and aquifer/watershed and interjurisdictional perspectives. The
Committee meets quarterly.
Completed: January 12, April 1, June 10, September 28, and December 10, 1998

June 8, September 8, 1999

4a. Establish and begin discussions with working groups
Purpose: Each working group will provide the DOH with input on the Source Water
Assessment Program plan contents as it pertains to their specific working group topic.
Completed: February 1998

4b. Write discussion draft of the Source Water Assessment Program plan.

7. Distribute a draft of the Source Water Assessment Program plan to workshop attendees.
Completed: April 1, 1998

‘ ‘Purpose: Distribute the draft and an overview of the workshop questions to prepare people for the

| workshops.
4c. Set-up Listserve | Completed: August 26, 1998
Purpose: Provide participants of the Source Water Protection Coordinating Committee and
affiliated working group members with an avenue to exchange information regarding source 8. Hold Regional Workshops
water assessment and protection. Purpose: Refine draft plan and gather comments from different areas of the state on issues related to

Completed: April 7, 1998 implementing the Source Water Assessment Program.

Completed: September 10, 14, 18, 22 & 23, 1998
4d. Consult with Source Water Protection Coordinating Committee and review initial draft of the

Source Water Assessment Program plan. 9. Distribute public comment draft of the Source Water Assessment Program plan .
Completed: April 17, 1998 |

| Purpose: As required in the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Source Water Assessment Program plan
| will go through a public review and comment period.

5. Put Source Water Assessment Program information on NYS DOH Web Site Completed: November 10 - December 18, 1998
Purpose: Provide citizens with access to information about the Souree Water Assessment Program :
and a mechanism to ask the NYS DOH questions about the program. 9a. Hold public hearings on the plan.
Completed: September 10, 1998 Purpose: As required in the Safe Drinking Water Act, public hearings were held for the Source
i Water Assessment Plan.
6. Work with County Water Quality Coordinating Committees Completed: November 23, December | & 3, 1998
Purpose: Involve active local entities in the development of the Source Water Assessment Program |
Plan. | : 9b. Prepare a responsiveness summary
Purpose: Address the comments that were received from the public on the draft plan.
6a. NYS Soil & Water Committee Water Quality Symposium Completed: February 6, 1999
Purpose: Conducted a session at the symposium to inform and educate local groups that we :
: would like to work with at the local level. The session covered: overview of Source Water 9c. Revise document
| Assessment Program, historical perspective, state and local approach to Source Water Purpose: Based on the comments received during the public comment period, the draft plan was
: Assessment Program and how the public can be involved. revised as necessary.
Completed: March 5, 1998 Completed: February 6, 1999
\ 6b. Cornell Cooperative Extension Source Water Assessment Program Satellite Telecast 10. Submit plan to the Environmental Protection Agency.
: Purpose: Provide local interested parties information about the Source Water Assessment Completed: February 4, 1999
Program, how they can be involved in developing the program plan and receive feedback on
specific planning questions. Downlinks of the broadcast in almost each county with meetings 10a. Revise draft as needed
on the Source Water Assessment Program held in conjunction with the broadcasts, Provided Purpose: To address significant EPA review comments as appropriate.
each facilitator with a packet of information to help support setting up, holding and running
these meetings. Provided multiple copies of fact sheets, public summaries of the plan and 10b. Receive EPA approval of plan i
questions to guide the meeting discussion. Completed: November 6, 1999 i

Completed: June 16, 1998

6c. Update of County Water Quality Strategies

Purpose: Integrate the Source Water Assessment Program into each County’s Water Quality
‘ Strategy Document. i

Ongoing

6d. Review responses from the meetings held in conjunction with the satellite broadcast.
| Completed: August 1998
|

Appendix C

{ H List of Source Water Protection Coordinating
; Committee Members

LIST OF SOURCE WATER PROTECTION COORDINATING COMMITTEE MEMBERS

Committee Member, Alternate or

Namie AsTiNation Working Group Member*
Albeck, Dale Broome County Health Department Working Group Member
Ash, Albert NYS Department of Environmental Conservation Working Group Member
Babbitt Myers, Kyle Cornell Cooperative Extension of Sullivan County Working Group Member
Babcock, Kirk Miller Environmental Group Working Group Member
Banks, Eric Southern Tier AIDS Program Inc. SWPCC Alternate
Boria, William Chautauqua County Health Department Working Group Member
Breiten, Jessica Herkimer-Oneida Regional Planning Working Group Member
Brink, Ron Broome County Health Department Working Group Member
Brown, Diane Southern Tier AIDS Program SWPCC Member
Brown, Craig U.S. Geological Survey Working Group Member
Burns, Laurie Council of Community Services SWPCC Member
Cavalcoli, Mona NY Section American Water Works Association Working Group Member
Chartier, Gerry NYS Environmental Facilities Corp. SWPCC Member
Church, David NY Planning Federation SWPCC Member

Denz, Robert Conference of Environmental Health Directors SWPCC Member
DePinto, Joe Great Lakes Program Working Group Member
Dirlam, H. Kier Southern Tier West Regional Planning & Dev. Board SWPCC Alternate
DiTella, Katrie TXA Water Quality Program Working Group Member
DuBois, Marilyn Leg. Comm, on Toxic Substances & Hazardous Waste SWPCC Alternate
Eckhardt, David U.S. Geological Survey Working Group Member
Esser, Anthony U.S. Department of Agriculture (NRCS) Working Group Member
Fais, Jennifer Southern Tier Central Regional Planning & Development SWPCC Alternate
Ferrara, Rocco Capital District Regional Planning Commission SWPCC Alternate

Ford, Libby NY Water Environment Organization SWPCC Member
Fullmer, Jeff Citizens Campaign for the Environment Working Group Member
Garry, James NYS Department of Environmental Conservation Working Group Member
Gilberto, Donna NYS Conference of Mayors & Municipal Officials SWPCC Member
Goodale, Bruce Rural Community Assistance Program SWPCC Member
Grantham, Deborah Cornell University Working Group Member
Guerin, Thomas NYS Association of County Health Officials SWPCC Member

Hanle Younge, Lee NYS Association of Environmental Mgmt Council SWPCC Member

Hayes, Gary NYS Association of Regional Councils (NYSARC) SWPCC Member

Heinz, Erica Leg. Comm, on Toxic Substances & Hazardous Waste SWPCC Member
Heminway, Diane Citizens Environmental Coalition SWPCC Alternate
Hinchcliff, Diana Alliance of Chemical Industries of NYS SWPCC Member
Hoffman, Rick NYS Department of State Working Group Member
Hoxsie, Ed Dutchess County Soil and Water Conservation District Working Group Member
Hullar, Ted Cornell Center for the Environment SWPCC Member

Jones, Barbara Council of Community Services of NYS, Inc. SWPCC Alternate
Karimipour, Shohreh NYS Department of Environmental Conservation Working Group Member
Kauffman, Kevin Intermunicipal Water Commission Working Group Member
Kay, David Upstate Chapter - American Planning Association SWPCC Member
Kendall, Dan NYS Department of Environmental Conservation Working Group Member
Kendall, Barbara Local Cornell Cooperative Extension Agents SWPCC Member
Kepple, Dan Federation of Lake Association SWPCC Member
Landre, Betsy Finger Lakes-Lake Ontario Watershed Protection Alliance SWPCC Member

Lee, Cara Scenic Hudson SWPCC Member
Letourneau, Patrick AIDS Network of Western New York Inc. SWPCC Member

Lewis, Rich NYS Soil and Water Conservation Committee SWPCC Alternate
Lubin, Rebecca NY Planning Federation SWPCC Alternate
MacBeth, Lee City of Syracuse Water District Working Group Member
Mapstone, Greg Ulster County Health Department Working Group Member
Markussen, Ken NYS Department of Environmental Conservation Working Group Member
McCardell, Jim NYS Soil and Water Conservation Committee SWPCC Member

Medd, David NY Water American Water Company SWPCC Member

MASWAPPLAN\APPENDIX.DOC

eer

LIST OF SOURCE WATER PROTECTION COORDINATING COMMITTEE MEMBERS

ake Committee Member, Alternate or
Name Affiliation Working Group Member*
Medovich, Mike Southern Tier East Regional Planning Development Board SWPCC Alternate
Meyland, Sarah Citizens Campaign for the Environment SWPCC Member
Miklasz, Cally NYS Soil and Water Conservation Committee Working Group Member
Miller, David Rural Utilities Service Working Group Member
Miller, Todd U.S. Geological Survey SWPCC Alternate
Milligan, Michael State University of New York - Fredonia SWPCC Alternate
Mirando, John Long Island Water Corporation SWPCC Member
Mithen, Lori Association of Towns of the State of New York SWPCC Member
Moore, L. Grady U.S. Geological Survey SWPCC Member
Morse, Rick Legislative Commission on Water SWPCC Alternate
O'Mally, Pam NYS Association of Regional Councils Working Group Member
O'Neil, Charles New York Sea Grant SWPCC Member
Ortiz, Lisa Long Island Water Corporation SWPCC Alternate
Ossont, Jack Citizens Environmental Coalition SWPCC Member
Pacenka, Steve Water Resources Institute - Cornell University Working Group Member
Patterson, Joseph Herkimer-Oneida Regional Planning ‘Working Group Member
Pike, Howard NYS Department of Environmental Conservation Working Group Member
Pokalsky, Kenneth Business Council of NYS SWPCC Member
Porter, Mary Jane NYS Water Resources Institute Working Group Member
Porter, Keith NYS Water Resources Institute Working Group Member
Posten, Steve NYS Chemcial Alliance Working Group Member
Rabe, Ann Citizen's Environmental Coalition SWPCC Member
Rice, Gary Tioga County Health Department SWPCC Alternate
Robbins, Sy Suffolk County Department of Health Working Group Member
Rowe, Don New York State Association of County Health Officials Working Group Member
Rynkiewicz, Peter Cortland County Health Department Working Group Member

‘| Scalera, Pat NY Rural Water Association Working Group Member

Schrantz, Brian Southern Tier West Working Group Member
Silberstein, Barry NYS Chemical Alliance Working Group Member

: Simroe, Theodore New York City Department of Environmental Protection SWPCC Member

{ Skaley, James Tompkins County Planning Department Working Group Member
Smith, Steve Cornell University GIS Program Leader Working Group Member
Smith, Kevin Tug Hill Commission SWPCC Member
Smith, Libby NYS Department of Environmental Conservation Working Group Member
Soderberg, John Farrell, Fitz, Caemmerer, Cleary, Barnosky SWPCC Member
Squires, Joy Statewide Association of Citizen Advisory Council SWPCC Member
Stack, Keith NYS Department of State SWPCC Member
Stallman, Claudia NYS Association of Environmental Mgmt. Council SWPCC Alternate
Stewart, Kyle NY Farm Bureau SWPCC Member
Stoner, Scott NYS Department of Environmental Conservation Working Group Member
Swenson, Richard U.S. Department of Agriculture (NRCS) SWPCC Member
Their, Audrey Environmental Associates Working Group Member
Vahue, David NYS Rural Development Council SWPCC Member
Wagenet, Linda Cornell University Working Group Member
Waivada, Teri Hudson Valley Regional Council SWPCC Alternate
Waldron, Steve Central New York Health Systems Agency, Inc. SWPCC Member
Washington, Val Environmental Advocates SWPCC Member
Webb, William Northeast Rural Community Assistance Program SWPCC Alternate
Whalen, Mildred League of Women Voters of NY State SWPCC Member
Williamson, Karen NYS Soil and Water Conservation Committee Working Group Member
Wilson, Mike State University of New York — Fredonia SWPCC Member
Winkley, Steven NY Rural Water Association SWPCC Member
Young, Walter Lake Champlain-Lake George Regional Planning SWPCC Alternate
Zimmerman, Rich NY Farm Bureau SWPCC Alternate
Zorn, David Genesee/Finger Lakes Regional Planning Council Working Group Member

*Some members are on the Coordinating Committee and a working group. In these cases the member will only be identified as
being a member (or alternate) on the Coordinating Committee.

M:ASWAPPLAN\APPENDIX.DOC

Appendix D
New York State Department of Health Technical References

silane. BO

ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH MANUAL

NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH | ITEM NO: PWS 72 DATE: 6/25/90
OFFICE OF PUBLIC HEALTH

CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SUBJECT: Determining Vulnerability To
Contamination By Volatile
Organic Chemicals 3

TECHNICAL REFERENCE
Page 1 of 11

DEFINITION

Volatile organic chemicals (VOCs) as used in this manual item are vinyl

_ chloride and the 52 Principal Organic Contaminants (POCs) that are listed on

Table 9A of Part 5.

POLICY

It is the policy of the New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH) to
conform with U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) "Guidance to Determine
Vulnerability of Public Water Systems to Coritamination by VOCs", published a
November 13, 1985. Consequently, COMMUNITY WATER SYSTEMS SERVING POPULATIONS
OF 3300 OR MORE ARE CONSIDERED VULNERABLE. It is also NYSDOH policy that
nontransient noncommunity (NTNC) systems serving populations of 3300 or more
are considered vulnerable. Also, sources at which VOCs have been detected are
considered vulnerable.

As required by Part 5, Table 9, the State or Local Health Department (LHD)
must determine that a source of water supply is invulnerable to contamination
in order to reduce VOC monitoring requirements for systems with 150 or more
service connections. It is NYSDOH policy not to reduce the initial monitoring
requirement: from four quarters for surface water sources, except as noted below
in this section.

NYSDOH policy requires that the LHD determine the vulnerability of sources
for those community and NTNC systems with fewer than 150 service connections
in order to increase the initial and repeat monitoring of these systems where
required.

Those systems serving fewer than both 25 persons and 15 service connections
are not covered by EPA regulations. NYSDOH policy is that these systems are
invulnerable to VOC contamination, unless the LHD makes a special determination
that the system is vulnerable. Thus, these systems need collect only one
initial sample even for surface sources. If the LHD suspects an unusually high
vulnerability for one of these systems, the LHD should contact the Bureau of
Public Water Supply Protection to arrange for surveillance sampling.

Attachment 1 summarizes the need to determine vulnerability and the dates
by which these determinations should be made. For systems using groundwater
sources with fewer than 150 service connections, the LHD should determine
vulnerability by September 30 of the year prior to the scheduled initial
monitoring. Vulnerable systems should then be notified that they must monitor
for four quarters during the scheduled initial year, that is 1991 for community
and 1992 for NTNC systems, respectively. ‘

ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH MANUAL

NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH } ITEM NO: PWS 72
OFFICE OF PUBLIC HEALTH

CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH

DATE: 6/25/90

SUBJECT: Determining Vulnerability To
Contamination By Volatile

Organic Chemicals
TECHNICAL REFERENCE

Page 2 of 11

NYSDOH policy requires all determinations of invulnerability to be based
on a field survey of the watershed or recharge area. The LHD resources devoted
to making a determination of invulnerability should be commensurate with the
avoided cost of additional VOC monitoring, usually about $200 per analysis.
However, review of vulnerability factors and field surveys could have the added
benefit of contributing to the overall awareness of the need for source
protection, and occasionally discover previously unknown VOC contamination
before it affects a source of water supply. The vulnerability analysis will
also provide useful information for the development of Watershed Rules and

. Regulations. The Statewide Water Resources Management Strategy strongly a
recommends adoption of Watershed Rules and Regulations for each public water
system.

The vulnerability of all systems with surface water sources determined to
be invulnerable must be periodically reviewed. The LHD must review
vulnerability of those systems with 500 or more services every three years and
those systems with fewer than 500 services every five years, or when an obvious
change that affects vulnerability occurs.

ULNERABILITY FAI

The State and EPA's evaluation of available occurrence data has shown that
no single factor can perfectly predict the presence or absence of VOCs ina
water supply. However, size and proximity of a water source to VOC use
increases the probability of contamination. If VOCs have been detected in the
water source from previous monitoring, the source is considered vulnerable.

In Part 5, footnote 12 to Table 9 lists five factors that must be
considered by the State or LHD in determining the vulnerability of a source of
water supply to contamination by VOCs. Each of these five factors are discussed
in a separate section below.

1. Previous torin ults

As stated above, a source where VOCs have been detected is considered to
be vulnerable. Detections of VOCs in other sources in the same water system
or in the distribution system also strongly suggest that each source would
be vulnerable, although the remaining four factors discussed below may be
considered. VOC detections in the upgradient ground or surface water also
indicate vulnerability as discussed in the subsection below on Proximity
to VOC use, etc..

ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH MANUAL

NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH | ITEM NO: PWS 72
OFFICE OF PUBLIC HEALTH

CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH

DATE: 6/25/90

SUBJECT: Determining Vulnerability To
Contamination By Volatile
Organic Chemicals 3

TECHNICAL REFERENCE

Page 3 of 11

It is more difficult to use the lack of detection to demonstrate an absence
of vulnerability. Source-specific monitoring data would carry the most
weight, provided that the monitoring was representative of current
conditions and was properly performed. Monitoring which meets Part 5
requirements for method, analytes, detection limit and approved laboratory
is most acceptable. Previous monitoring which meets the criteria discussed
in Technical Reference PWS 70, Monitoring for Volatile Organic Chemicals,
may also be considered. Monitoring should cover a range of hydrological
conditions. For example, a well should be monitored during both the low
groundwater periods, usually during autumn and winter, and high
groundwater, usually in the spring.

Distribution system monitoring such as that done by the State for the
"Report of Statewide Surveillance of Organic Compounds In Selected
Community Water Systems" (Phases 1, 2 and 3) may be used if it is likely
that the distribution system water is representative of a particular source
or sources. Important considerations would be a predominant use of a
particular source, configuration of the distribution system or a proximity
of sources that would indicate similar vulnerability.

Likewise, monitoring data from nearby wells can be used if it was obtained
within five years of when the source is to be monitored and it represents
the upgradient groundwater to the source for which the vulnerability
determination is being made. The monitoring data should be from wells
within the cone of influence of the well under review and screened at a
similar depth or aquifer stratum. Monitoring of ambient surface water or
of public water systems using the same surface water source can be used as
long as it was completed within three years of when the source is to be
monitored and the previous monitoring is representative of seasonal
changes. The location of the previous monitoring must also be subject to
the same overall vulnerability determination as the source under review.
Previous monitoring results are more applicable for determining the
vulnerability of reservoirs and lakes than of rivers.

Number of persons serv’ the_pub water s

The number of persons served by the water system has been strongly linked
to the occurrence of VOC contamination in many drinking water supplies.
All community and NTNC systems serving 3300 or more persons are considered
by definition vulnerable to VOC contamination.

ae as ee we

ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH MANUAL

NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH | ITEM NO: PWS 72

CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH

DATE:
OFFICE OF PUBLIC HEALTH | 6/25/90

SUBJECT: Determining Vulnerability To

| Contamination By Volatile
Organic Chemicals

TECHNICAL REFERENCE

Page 4 of 11

Smaller systems are seen to be less vulnerable to contamination since the
sources for these systems generally are remote, less susceptible to changing
conditions and have smaller watersheds. Monitoring evidence has confirmed
this. State surveys show that 23 percent of public water supplies serving
over 3300 population have detectable VOCs, whereas only 11 percent of those
systems serving fewer that 500 persons have detectable VOCs.

Proximity of a smaller system to a larger system

Proximity of a smaller system to a larger system or community may increase:
the vulnerability of the smaller system, because nearby discharges into
surface waters or into groundwater recharge areas can contaminate the source
of drinking water. Proximity to large urban industrial and commercial areas
also increases the possibility that improper waste disposal could
contaminate local drinking water sources with VOCs.

Proximity of a surface water source to a large community can be defined in
terms of the flow rates between the community and the monitoring point.
Proximity is harder to define for groundwater systems, although it may be
possible to roughly estimate the hydraulic gradients and travel times
between a well and the large community. A more thorough discussion of
proximity is presented in the section titled, DETERMINING PROXIMITY TO

SOURCE.

Proximity to a large community can also be defined statistically, by means
of Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas. The State or LHD may also
categorically declare all systems within a certain jurisdiction to be
vulnerable because of its population or general state of development, for
example a county with a population greater than 150,000 or a town with a
population of over 10,000.

Proximity to VOC use, etc.

The watershed area or the groundwater recharge basin tributary to a well
should be surveyed for nearby commercial or industrial use, disposal or
storage of VOCs. A hierarchy of use can be established for a watershed area
or groundwater basin.

High volume VOC uses include:

metal fabricators,

= solvent producers,

ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH MANUAL

|

NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH | ITEM NO: PWS 72
1

DATE: 6/25/90
OFFICE OF PUBLIC HEALTH

CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH

SUBJECT: Determining Vulnerability To
Contamination By Volatile

Organic Chemicals om |
TECHNICAL REFERENCE

Page 5 of 11

e refineries,

= petroleum or solvent bulk storage facilities,
= electroplating plants,

= airfields,

= military bases,

= hazardous waste (Superfund) sites, and

= contaminated wells.

Any of the high volume VOC uses are indicators of the potential for
significant presence of VOCs in or near drinking water sources.

Low volume VOC use can also indicate some potential for VOC
contamination. Low volume uses include:

» electronic component processors,

. dry cleaners,

. Sanitary landfills, dumps and junkyards,

= small commercial users such as print shops, and

= gasoline stations and vehicle-servicing facilities.

The Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) in regulating
discharges, maintains an Industrial Chemical Survey which has useful
information on use, storage and disposal of VOCs. DEC also maintains a

computerized data base on spills and registration of petroleum and chemical
‘storage facilities.

Other potential sources of VOCs less apparent are buried fuel tanks at homes
or farms, and subsurface wastewater disposal systems. Certain VOCs, such
as trichoroethylene, have been used for degreasing septic systems.
Subsurface wastewater disposal systems also represent a concealed point of
VOC contamination to the ground water.

ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH MANUAL

NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH J ITEM NO: PWS 72
OFFICE OF PUBLIC HEALTH

CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH

DATE: 6/25/90

SUBJECT: Determining Vulnerability To
Contamination By Volatile
Organic Chemicals

TECHNICAL REFERENCE

Page 6 of 11

Because of the high probability of VOC use in close proximity, wells
serving certain NTNCs systems should be considered vulnerable. These
vulnerable NTNCs include:

= any industrial facility,

= shopping centers or commercial buildings with dry cleaners, or print
shops, and

® highway rest areas with automotive service facilities.

Protection of water source

3

The source may be protected by natural factors or legal controls. To offer
protection, Watershed Rules and Regulations must be modern enough to control
VOC uses, and the rules must be enforced. Some watersheds are protected
by strict access and land use laws.

Ground water sources can be protected naturally by geological formations
above the aquifer that are impermeable to VOCs used or stored near the
surface. However even geologically invulnerable formations can be polluted
by improper well construction or discharges into existing wells. Modern
Watershed Rules that employ the three-zone concept to control VOC uses would
also be effective, but it is unlikely they exist for the smallest systems
that would be reviewed for vulnerability.

To conclude that a natural hydraulic barrier protects a well ina confined
aquifer, adequate records on well construction must demonstrate that it is
properly cased and sealed through the strata above the aquifer. Lack of
well records would suggest the possibility of the well being vulnerable.

Rating the vulnerability of ground water systems will often require
simultaneously considering aquifer protection and nearby | use of VOCs. It
is important to characterize the recharge areas by:

= locating all industrial, commercial or municipal facilities that handle
wastes or use solvents,

. identifying geological materials that are porous, fractured or have
solution openings:near VOC uses that overlap the cones of influence of
drinking water wells, and

=* locating abandoned wells. Abandonment may indicate faulty well
construction, an opportunity for improper dumping, or the existence of
a contaminated well.

ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH

MANUAL

NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH | ITEM NO: PWS 72
OFFICE OF PUBLIC HEALTH.

CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH

DATE: 6/25/90

SUBJECT: Determining Vulnerability To
Contamination By Volatile
Organic Chemicals i

TECHNICAL REFERENCE

Page 7 of 11

DETERMINING PROXIMITY TO SOURCE

The approach to assessing proximity should depend on the type of water

source. The recommended approach for five types of source are discussed below.

1.

Wells

Ideally, the area of proximity would be based on a hydrogeological
assessment of the wellhead recharge area extending upgradient from the well
for an estimated groundwater travel time of five years. It is unlikely,
however, that the field-verified information necessary to assess the area
and travel time are available for most small water systems. General aquifer
mapping exists for the primary aquifers, but by definition the primary
aquifers serve large populations, so the primary aquifers are probably
located in vulnerable areas.

A simplified, but conservative approach is needed to define proximity for
the smallest wells for which there is little hydrogeological information.
A rough estimation of the area around a well which could affect it within
five years is to equate the total well pumpage during the five years to an
imaginary cylinder in the aquifer. Attachment 2 develops the mathematics
of this approach. Briefly, the volume of water pumped over five years is
the average pumpage multiplied by the five years. The equivalent aquifer
volume is the depth of the aquifer multiplied by the area of proximity and
the porosity of the aquifer. The depth of the aquifer can be estimated from
the length of the well screen. If the natural flow gradient of the aquifer
is ignored, the area of proximity can be assumed to be a circle around the
well. Solving for the radius of the circle then gives the distance away
from the well that should be used for proximity.

This roughly’ defined area of proximity may suffice for evaluation of
vulnerability resulting from low volume VOC uses. The flow gradient of the
aquifer should be taken into account for evaluation of. the vulnerability
from high volume VOC uses. For systems with 150 or more service
connections, all upgradient areas should be reviewed for high volume VOC
use, unless available hydrogeological information can help to establish the
area within a 3-year travel time to the well. For systems with fewer than
150 service connections, review of the area within a semicircle of one-mile
radius upgradient of the well should be adequate, unless there is evidence
of extremely high groundwater velocities in the aquifer, such as within a
fractured bedrock. Attachment 2 graphically depicts these areas.

Other potential contributors to VOC vulnerability such as large septic
systems, underground fuel tanks or a large community (3300 population or

ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH MANUAL

ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH MANUAL

NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH | ITEM NO: PWS 72 DATE: 6/25/90 i
| OFFICE OF PUBLIC HEALTH | NEW TORR STATE DEPAATHENT GF HEALTH ITEM NO: PWS 72 DATE:6/25/90
CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SUBJECT: Determining Vulnerability To d
Contamination By Volatile | i CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SUBJECT: Determining Vulnerability To

TECHNICAL REFERENCE

Organic Chemicals Contamination By Volatile
| Page 8 of 11 |

Organic Chemicals
TECHNICAL REFERENCE

Page 9 of 11

more) should be considered if they appear to be upgradient of the well and
within the circle of proximity.

VULNERABILITY ANALYSIS

2. Springs i Rating vulnerability factor:
| All of the area upgradient of the springs should be reviewed for both high | In general, some of the vulnerability factors carry more weight than
and low volume VOC uses. Any upgradient high volume VOC uses would probably i others. Some of the factors also act to mitigate other vulnerability factors.
make the spring source vulnerable to contamination. Geological and travel : The various factors are rated as:
ie time information, if available, may be used to offset the impact of low i
i volume VOC uses, and large communities located upgradient. i 1. Factors that by policy define a source as vulnerable:

i ; 3. Streams and rivers a. population of 3300 or more, or

3

Any high volume VOC uses or large communities on the watershed of a stream b.. previous detection of VOCs in the source;

or river makes that source vulnerable to contamination. Travel time and
dilution of groundwater base flow with surface runoff may be used to offset

2. Factors indicating that a source is probably vulnerable:

the impact of low volume VOC uses on the watershed. ! a. detections of VOCs in the distribution system or other sources, or
Because of the enormous flow of the St. Lawrence River, the procedure for | b. proximity to high volume VOC uses, or
assessing vulnerability of large lakes and reservoirs described below may b.
be more appropriate for protected intakes on that river. i c. proximity to a large community, or

4, Small lakes and reservoirs i d. close proximity of several low volume VOC users, or septic systems;
Lakes and reservoirs are considered small in this context if their minimum i 3. Factors indicating that the source is possibly vulnerable:

water retention time is less than three months, derived by dividing the
minimum volume by the average flow. VOCs would tend to volatilize from the
surface of the reservoir in a matter of weeks, unless inhibited by ice cover

a. proximity to limited low volume VOC uses, or

b. proximity to septic systems or buried fuel tanks (groundwater only),

so a retention time of three months would be a conservative protective y or
barrier. |
‘ c. presence of highly permeable aquifer (groundwater only);
Any high volume VOC uses or large communities on the watershed would make i .
the source vulnerable. Travel time, dilution, retention time and other / 4. Strongly mitigating factors:
ree tee eeavehed may be used to of fset the impact of low volume VOC uses i a. VOCs not detected in more than one source sample, or
5. Large lakes and reservoirs : E b. demonstrated hydrogeological barriers for wells, including evidence of

proper well construction and absence of discharges to other wells;
If no high volume VOC uses or large communities are located within five
miles of the intake, and no low volume VOC uses within one mile, the source
may be considered as invulnerable to VOC contamination. If VOC uses are
located within those distances, travel time and other hydrologic factors
may be used to offset the vulnerability.

i 5. Other mitigating factors:
.
i

a. no VOC detections in other sources, the distribution system and ambient
sources, or

b. appropriate and well-enforced Watershed Rules, or

c. other evidence of hydrological barriers.

ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH MANUAL

NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
OFFICE OF PUBLIC HEALTH

CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH

ITEM NO: PWS 72 DATE: 6/25/90

SUBJECT: Determining Vulnerability To
Contamination By Volatile
Organic Chemicals

TECHNICAL REFERENCE

Page 10 of 11

Collecting information

The LHD should assemble all available information on the system and sources
under review, and document the determination. Attachment 3 js a sample

worksheet for the groundwater sources. Attachment 4 is a sample worksheet for
surface water sources,

If none are available, estimates should be derived from relative time of use,
capacity and population served.

Population of the local municipality, county and other communities should
be obtained from census records or county planning estimates.

The LHD should outline the the watershed of small streams, lakes and
reservoirs, and the recharge area for groundwater sources on a USGS quadrangle.
The LHD should calculate the radius of the area of Proximity for wells and
include it on the map. The LHD should then review office and DEC records for

high and low volume VOC uses in the appropriate areas. The location of any of
these VOC uses should be noted on the map. -

The LHD should also assemble information on source Protection such as
Watershed Rules and Regulations if they exist. Fora well, construction
records, the well log and other geological information should be obtained.

At any point while assembling or reviewing the above information, the LHD
may conclude that sufficient reason exists to determine that the source is
vulnerable to VOC contamination. The LHD can conclude the Process by
documenting the reasons.

be prepared. Available aerial] photographs at a scale of 1 inch to 200 feet could
Any additional VOC uses and ‘contributing factors should

fp
|

ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH MANUAL

NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
OFFICE OF PUBLIC HEALTH |

CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ] SUBJECT: Determining Vulnerability To
Contamination By Volatile
Organic Chemicals E

ITEM NO: PWS 72 DATE: 6/25/90

TECHNICAL REFERENCE
Page 11 of 11

Interpreting vulnerability factors

As noted above, any source with VOC detections or that is in a system with
a population of 3300 or more must by policy be determined to be vulnerable.
However, factors that indicate that a source is Probably or possibly vulnerable
may be offset by mitigating factors. More evidence is needed to discount
"probable" than "possible" factors. The Process of interpreting vulneribility
factors should involve professional Judgement to weigh the degree of risk
associated with the various factors in each particular situation,

For a surface source, initial monitoring may not be reduced, but no
detections in the initial monitoring may be cause for classifying the source
as invulnerable for repeat monitoring requirements. For certain surface
sources, it may be prudent to condition the determination of invulnerability
on the continued absence of VOC detections ina sample taken once every three
or five years.. The sample should represent the most conservative hydrological
conditions, such as during winter with low flow and ice cover. For these cases,
the LHD would determine that the source was invulnerable, but would require
repeat monitoring by State discretion, as described in
Technical Reference PWS 70.

REFERENCES
A. 10 NYCRR, Part 5: Drinking Water Supplies
B. Environmental Health Manual Item, Technical Reference PWS 70, Monitoring

for Volatile Organic Chemicals.

C. Environmental Health Manual Item, Procedure PWS 100, Adoption of Rules and

Regulations for the Protection of Water Supplies.

ATTACHMENT 1
REQUIRED DETERMINATIONS OF VULNERABILITY

OO

Technical Reference pys |
6/25/90 ,
i

System Size Effect on
Population/Service Vulnerability Required Schedule
Connections Determination Monitoring
Fewer than 3300 Optional Groundwater: redu i
ce | By mid-19!
persons, and 150 or initial monitoring if eur 90 t0 be
more services invulnerable
Surface: only reduce | by 1992 to be useful
repeat monitoring
25 to 3299 persons, Required If groundwater

and fewer than 150
services;

or

fewer than 3300
Persons and 15 to 149
services

sources are
vulnerable, initial
monitoring increased
to four quarters

If surface sources are
vulnerable, repeat
monitoring of four
quarters every 5 years
is required

Groundwater sources fF
in Community |

systems by 9/30/90

Groundwater sources # j
in NING systems by |
9/30/9 ‘

Surface sources in i
Community systems i
by 9/30/95 ‘

Surface sources in
NTNC systems by
9/30/96 |

Fewer than 25
persons and fewer
than 15 services

As necessary

If unusually

vulnerable, contact
BPwsP

Anytime

~ 6/25/90

ATTACHMENT 2

DETERMINATION OF VULNERABILITY
ESTIMATE OF THE AREA OF PROXIMITY TO A WELL

It is possible to equate the volume of water pumped by a well over a a given period of time toa
portion of aquifer by the expression:

Ot=phnr’
Where the first term is the volume of pumped water, expressed by,
@ is the average Puinping rate in cubic feet per year
tis the time in years
The second term is the imaginary cylinder of the aquifer, and is expressed by:
P is the porosity of the aquifer
h is the average depth of the aquifer in feet (can use length of well screen)
ris the radius of the cylinder in feet : ’
Solving for r, the equation can be rearranged to:

Qt
phn

r=

Substituting in conversion factors so that Q is expressed in gallons per day and using values
of 5 years for time and .15 for porosity, the equation can be further simplified to:

Q
_ r=. /500 A

The radius, r, can be used to define proximity for low volume VOC uses, It should be combined
with a consideration of upgradient area to assess the impact of high volume VOC uses.

For systems with 150 or more service connections:

AREA OF PROXTHITY TO, AESERS: FOR
7H HIGH AND LOW
fhe weds CIRC OF ACT, a)

PROBABLE DIRECTION OF
SAOUNOMATER FLOM

For systems with fewer than 150 service connections:

> WATERSHED AREA TO ASSESS FOR

AREA OF PROXIMITY TO ASSERS FOR HOGH VOLUME Vor USER.

cere re HIGH AD OW VOLUME
USES (CIACLE OF OTR, 9

+t ee EPS

Eee
Technical Reference PWS 72

raye 1 OL 5

i.
Rn
n
=
Qa
58
B56
oS
ome
oo 71@
3 =. ("S[|aA paqeulmequod pue ‘sazis (punjuadng) azsem
N BSo snopaezey ‘saseq Asegiiiw ‘spjarjupe ‘squeyd Burqejdouqzoaya ‘saiqipioey abeuoys ying ausaios
© of> 40 wnaloujad ‘satuautjau ‘suaanpoud quaalos ‘suozetuqes LejaW :apN{ UL sasn JOA auiN,oA yBtHy) .
> Boa é(Butads 40) | [aM Jo queLpesBdn suasn JOA awnoA yBry Aue asayy aay 8
a e 2S
gMO|} JazeMpuNosH jo uOLZIauLP [esauab s, zeEyK L
. ipayrezze Aqiuixoud Bululwuazap so poyzow aAtqeuuazLy “9
“‘(4ajinbe jo yzdap aBeuaae azewixoudde 03) 3aaj ut Uaauds [ {aM yo YABua, = U
Aep aad suo, {eb ut [Lam wouy abedwnd A, Lep abeuaae = O
(LL2M wosy 3aay UL BDUeISEP) AZLuLXOUd jo snipes = 4
—_ 4
(aaa3) = = X oos/ = 6 oos/=4 S
“AYLWLXOAd JO Raue BULJap 03 4 |zeLNILeD ‘s_LaM 404
ASM JOA OL ALIWIXOUd
€S924n0s 40 S| {aM Aqueau ze pazdazap uaaq sjOQA acy
gwazshs UOLINGLuISIP aYyz UL pazdazap Uaaq SQA aAeH 3
ssaqep Buluoz,uow yst{ ‘paqysazeap you auam SQOA JI 2
éAiddns uazea jo adunos siyz ut pazze3eg NFIG SIOA eAeH “T
pe suse SS A
n
Rn
i)
= -
oo
mes
oon & 3 S
er 7
von gs oa
$23 98%
eee gee
OS € c=
Bo 3 #580
za bees
a8 3 oa
S88 eS
On "S3A VU “WWOILSIIVIS NVLITOd0NLIW GUVONVLS V NI G31Lv907 aOunos SIHL SI
NOILVINdOd ALNNOD ?ALNNOD NI G3Lv907 3O"NOS
FNOLLVINdOd BOVITIA ‘NMOL ‘ALI (A‘L‘O)ENI G3LV907 gounos

(vauv Ivuny NI avoy is3uv3N)ssaucay L33uiS 4N3YN34410 41 ‘30UNOS 40 3WWN 1V907

3qNLiONot 3GALI Lv NISv@ ON 3dAL QatA WYN ON
AVauL 20unos 34VvS 39unos 39unos

?(Qd9)NGOUd Ava XvH

~~ 3 (Qd9)NLdSNOD AVG FAV ~~ (Wd )NGOud AVG 3AV ~~. :@3AuaS Sua I tadns
~~ $30 1AN3S_ ON ~~ :03Au3$ N,dOd ~~ 34va dSNI 1Svt
#(1°A‘O)NOIL¥907 33009 adAL ALND

t3WWN Alddns ~~ 30N NOLLVIS “~~ $309 904d

NOTLVNIWHIL3G ALITIGVYANTNA SOA W3LSAS Y3LVM O1Tand HLIWaH 40 AN3WLUVd30 JLVLS HYOA M3N

voc Vulnerability

Determination for

Surface Sources
Technical Reference PWS 72

Sample Worksheet.
6/25/90

Page 1 of 3
Attachment 4

‘ON saa 2VBYV TIWOILSILVLS NVLITOdOUL3W GUVONVLS V Ni G3LV901 30uNOS SIHL SI

tNOILVINdOd ALNNOD

SNOLLVINdOd JOVTTIA ‘NMOL ‘ALIO

(vauv Tvunu NI voy 1S3uv3N)SSaudav 133u1S

AGALISNOT 30nLilvd NISVd ON adAL REDE WVN
Avaul aounos 34vS a0unos

(dd NLdSNOD AVG FAV ——_—_ 3(WdO)NGOUd AVG 3AV 3Q3AN3S S¥31TddNS
tSZ91AU3S ON 3Q3AU3S N,dOd “—————_ :31va ast isva

3 (1 °A‘D)NOILV9OT 13009 3dAL +ALNNOD

70N NOLLVIS “~~ $3009 90ud

S3WWN AlddfsS

NOILVNIWHAL3G ALITIGVYANTNA SOA WILSAS YSLVM O1TEGNd HLWWFH JO LN3WLUVdIG JLV1S HYOA AGN

meer genre ese ee rp a RC

aLttz ‘awen

4
4
a
7
v
n
iV)
a

a
ra
6
ts)
”
y
E
6
0
vw
»
<

tALNNOD NI G31V901 JO"NOS

(A‘L‘O) NI GaLv901 JouNOS

“LNZY3SS1G 41 ‘39YNOS JO AWN TV9071

30uNnos

3(ad9)NGCud AVO XV

a
bs aizeg 2LUA YaLeaH [2207 Aq uotqeutmuazag =" ¢Z
a.
2 @[qeuaunauL vopneuelay "2
i—4
oO *
o a{qesau [na 8q 03 pautwuazap st Ayddns 4azeM Jo adunos Siyz ‘UOLZeUMOJU} BAOge ayy UO paseg  “[Z
wo
4
7 NOTIVNIWYSL30
2B éSLL@M pauopuege Aq pazsajse Ajsuaape YOU Si MBLAad UapuN [ [aM aYyz 7eY2 UMOYS aq 3} UR “OZ
Ema}
eS épapeas pue pazonizsuod Ajyadoud sem (Butauds uo) {13M ay Fey BIeILpUL spuodau 0g “ET
éS[043U03 pue{ 4ayz0 uo suojzeinBay pue sainy paysuazem Aq pazoazoud ALazenbape adunos ayy sT -“gT
raqluasap ‘sak yf “fT
é4S/xd Suatuueq [eI HoLoaGoupAy sayz0 0g = "9
épazeuysuowap aq suatuueq (ed,bojoaboupAy azenbape uey “GT
91342 ‘aweu :Aq AvAans plats
AVAANS Plats jo azyeq = “HT
taqp4asap ‘sak s~ “ET
ESJOA 07 S[qe4au{NA ad4nos Styz ayeW p_nod yeYyy Padsasqo suoLyzLpuod uayzo Aue a4aM “ZT
(adunos 40) | [aM wou} arueqsip pue uoLzdautp ‘adAy aqpudsap ‘sak 4] IL
, “SOLgt{loey Burdiasas a, 2tyaa pue suorzeys auiloseb pue
Sdoys Juiud se yons suasn (eLosawwod || eUS ‘spaeAyunt pue sdwnp SL UrSBURT ne
; Suauea(> AAP ‘suossaroid yusuodwod 31u043Da,a :apn{ouL sasn JOA auiN[OA o7])
E(Gupuds yo quarpeadn 4o) {1am Jo ‘4 ‘aouezsLp ULYILM sasn DOA SWNLOA MOL, Aue auayz auy = “OT
:(Butuds 4o) | {aM wory aouezsip pue UoLzDaUuLp ‘adAy aq}4dsap ‘sak jy "6

ence PWS 72

Page 3 of 3
Attachment 4 cont.

Technical Refer

6/25/90

aqeg

ALtt3/aweu
3b ysLeaH [220 tAq paujuazaqg “GT

suoyzeue_dxg “pT
tgeveutnauy ~~ aj qeuau[na ——— :aq 03 paujwaazap sy A\ddns uaqeM yo aounos SLY2 ‘uo,ZeWUosuL aAoge ayy UO paseg “ET

. NOTIVNTWESI30

éS[042UCD puke, 49430 4o suoLze[NBay pue sa_ny payssezem Aq pazraqoud Avayenbape adanos ayz st = “ZT

aqpasseg ‘sah yl “IT

esexequ} PUB SasN OA SUNLOA Mol UBEMIEq 338 UOL3NL Ip ‘amLa [aAB47 SB YoNS Suatsueqg | eI}6oLOupAY a4ayy aay “OT

NOTII3108d JOanOS

H

i
|
i
|
i
i
|

1 Reference PWS 7;

Attachment 4 cont.
nica

Page 2 of 3

alzeq/aweu :Aq Aaauns platy

AGAANS platy Jo azeg

Tech
6/25/90

sayequt 03 yoadsau YzLM uoLzeI01{ pue addy aquudsap ‘saX 37 8

(S@eqeploey Burspauas SLILYaA puke suolzezs auL_oseB pue ‘sdoys yulad se yons suasn [eLouauwos || PWS ispaeAyunt
pue sdunp ‘si{ijgpue, 4ay30 {suauealo Aap ‘ss0ssad0ud juauodwod 21,u0133a1a apn_duL sasn awn|oa MO7) é(4aAlLy azuaumey
$$ 947 40 4poauasau ‘aye, abue, e uo ayeqUL ayz 4O aLiw [ YZLM) paysuazeM ayy UO sasn DOA awnLOA Mo, Aue auayz auy L

sayeQUL 09 Yoadsad YZ{M UOLZBD0, puke adAy aquudsap sad yy “9

(“SLL@M pazeutwezuos pue ‘saqts (punjuadns) aqsem snopuezey
‘saseq AseYL{LW ‘splaLjare ‘squetd Buyqejdosqoaya ‘saizi{toey abeuoqs yng WUBALOS 4O WNaLOuzed ‘sajuauLsau ‘suadnpoud
HALOS “Suozedtuqey [eFaW apniUL sasn awn{oA YBLH) E(4aAly aouadMe] “3S a4} 4O JLOAUasad aye, abuey e uo ayequi ayy yo
*LLW Gg ULYZEM) Payssazem ayy UO auoW uo QOE'E JO UOLZe[Ndod YIEM Salz;uNUWOD 4o sasn SOA awn,oA yBty Aue auay? auy S

“ApOALaSad 4O 4O BYR] UL WLZ UOLzUaIa4 WNULULW Jo UOLZELNIL eI YDeIZe S4LoAuasau UO Saye| 404

ISN JOA OL ALIWIXOUd

é9dunos siyz Bulsn suiaqshs 4ayz0 3 paz2ayap uaaq S7QA aaey ’

qwazsAs UOL3NG{43SLP 842 UL pazdaqzap Uaaq SJOA aAey €

isazep Buj4oz,uow 4st, ‘paqaaqap you auam sqQA JT 9

eAtddns 483eM Jo adunos styz uL paysaqap uaaq s30A aAeH

ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH MANUAL

NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH } ITEM NO: PWS 184 DATE: 7/20/93
OFFICE OF PUBLIC HEALTH

CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SUBJECT: Guideline For Conducting
Sanitary Surveys
TECHNICAL REFERENCE

Page 1 of 10

PURPOSE

The purpose of this Technical Reference is to Provide guidance as to what
must ‘be’ included in a Sanitary Survey of a Public Water System. This guidance
incorporates the findings and recommendations of the 1991 Ad Hoc Sanitary Survey
Committee, as well as the guidance and recommendations as established by the
U.S. EPA for the Total Coliform Rule and the Surface Water Treatment Rule.

POLICY

Sanitary Surveys at Public Water Systems are to be conducted at a frequency
based on the type of water system (Procedure PWS 180), and whether or not the
system is in compliance with the requirements of Part 5, State Sanitary Code.

IMPLEMENTATION

The Sanitary Survey will be conducted, at the frequency stated in Procedure
PWS 180, using form DOH 164, previously called the GEN 200, for all systems,
except permitted noncommunity systems. If there are significant changes in the
system since the previously performed Sanitary -Survey, or if a new system comes

on line, Forms DOH 1022, DOH 1033 or DOH 3380, as applicable, must be used in
addition to the DOH 164. :

CONDUCTING THE SURVEY

The Sanitary Survey consists of three phases, planning for the survey,
conducting the survey, and compilation of the survey final report. The
pertinent components of each of these phases are delineated as follows:

1. ‘Planning the Sur

A review of recent past sanitary surveys and correspondence pertaining
to the water system is the necessary first step. Particular attention
should be given to operational problems, violations and subsequent
enforcement actions, water quality analysis results, and any changes in the
system since the last survey. This initial background should enable the
surveyor. to become familiar with the system's past and present problems.

The system's monitoring records should be reviewed for compliance with
the monitoring, reporting and maximum contaminant level requirements of
Part 5 of the State Sanitary Code.

ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH MANUAL

NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH JiDEEM NO: PWS 184 DATE: 7/20/93

OFFICE OF PUBLIC HEALTH
CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH

SUBJECT: Guideline For Conducting

Sanitary Surveys .
TECHNICAL REFERENCE

Page 2 of 10

The pre-survey data review should generate a list of items to check
in the field, and a list of questions about the system. It will also help
to plan the format of the survey and to estimate how much time it may take.
The next step is to make the initial contact with the system operator to
establish the survey date(s) and time. Any records, files or people that
will be needed during the survey should be requested ahead of -time.

Conducting the Survey

The on-site portion of the survey is the most important and will
involve interviewing those in charge of operating/managing the water
system, as well as other technical people. The survey will also review all
major system components from sources and treatments to the distribution
system. Use the appropriate Sanitary Survey form so that all major
components and aspects of the system are thoroughly reviewed. As the survey
progresses, any deficiencies that are observed should be brought to the
attention of the water system operator and the problem and the corrective
measures should be discussed.

Consideration should be given to the competency of the operator(s),
whether there is adequate testing and quality control equipment and
instruments, the adequacy and maintenance of system operation records and~
the necessity of surveillance sampling.

Specific components of the system that should be reviewed are:

a. Source

1) Description: based on field observations and discussion with the
operator, a general review of the watershed should be included.

2) Sources of contamination within the watershed or sensitive areas
surrounding wells or well fields should be identified. Not only
should this be determined by physically touring and observing the
watershed and its daily uses, but the surveyor should also actively
question the water system operator/manager about adverse and
potentially adverse activities in the watershed.

3) Source Construction
a) Surface Intakes

1. Is the source adequate in quantity?

ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH | MANUAL

OFFICE OF PUBLIC HEALTH

“NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH | ITEM NO: PWS 184 DATE: 7/20/93

CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH

SUBJECT: Guideline For Conducting
Sanitary Surveys

TECHNICAL REFERENCE

Page 3 of 10

b)

c)

6.

Is the best quality site or location in that source being
. used?

‘Is the intake protected from icing problems if appropriate?

Is the intake screened to prevent entry of debris, and are
screens maintained? -

Is animal activity controlled within the immediate vicinity
of the intake? 4

Is there a raw water sampling tap?

Infiltration Galleries

Is the source adequate. in quantity?

J.

2. Is the best quality source being used?

3. Is the lid over the gallery watertight and locked?

4. Is the collector in sound condition and maintained as
necessary? ,

5. Is there a raw water sampling tap?

Springs

1. Is the source adequate in quantity?

2. Is there adequate protection around the spring such as
fencing to control the area within 200 feet?

3. Is the spring constructed to best capture the spring flow
and exclude surface water infiltration?

4. Are there drains to divert surface water from the vicinity
of the spring?

5. Is the collection structure of sound construction with no
leaks or cracks? =

6. Is there a screened overflow and drain pipe?
Is the supply intake located above the floor and screened?

8. Is there a raw water sampling tap?

ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH MANUAL

OFFICE OF PUBLIC HEALTH

CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SUBJECT: Guideline For Conducting
Sanitary Surveys

NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH J ITEM NO: PWS 184 DATE: 7/20/93 |

TECHNICAL REFERENCE
Page 4 of 10

d) Catchment -and Cistern
1. Is source adequate in quantity?
2. Is the cistern of adequate size?

3. Is the catchment area protected from potential
contamination?

4. Is the catchment drain properly screened?

5. Is the catchment area and cistern of sound construction and
in good condition?

6. Is catchment constructed of approved non-toxic,
non-leaching material?

7. Is there a raw water tap?
e) Pumps, Pumphouses, and Controls

1. Are all intake pumps, booster pumps, and other pumps of
sufficient capacity?

2. Are all pumps and controls operational and maintained
properly?

3. Are check valves, blow off valves, water meters and other
appurtenances operated and maintained properly?

4. Is emergency power backup with automatic start-up provided
and does it work (try it)?

5. Are underground compartments and suction wells waterproof?

6. Is the interior and exterior of the pumphouse in good
structural condition and properly maintained?

7. Are there any safety hazards (electrical or mechanical) in
the pumphouse?

8. Is the pumphouse locked and otherwise protected against
vandalism?

9. Are water production records maintained at the pumphouse?

f) Transmission Mains

ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH MANUAL

NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH | ITEM NO: PWS 184 DATE: 7/20/93

CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SUBJECT: Guideline For Conducting

OFFICE OF PUBLIC HEALTH

Sanitary Surveys
TECHNICAL REFERENCE

Page 5 of 10

Which source do they serve?

What is their size: length and diameter?

Are they protected from freezing?

Blowoffs at low points, relief valves at high points?
What is cleaning frequency and method of cleaning?

anno fF WH

Do construction materials meet AWWA or equivalent
standards?

4) Treatment
a) Disinfection:
1. Is the disinfection equipment and disinfectant appropriate?
2. Are there back-up disinfection units on line?

3. Is there auxiliary power with automatic start up in case
of a power outage?

4. Is there an adequate quantity of disinfectant on hand and
is it properly stored?

5. Is there automatic switch over equipment when cylinders
expire?

6. Are critical spare parts on hand to repair disinfection
equipment?

7. Is disinfectant feed proportional to water flow?

8. Are daily records kept of disinfectant residual near the
first customer from which to calculate CTs?

9. Are production records kept from which to determine CTs?

10. Are CTs acceptable based on the level of treatment
provided?

11. Is a disinfectant residual maintained in. the distribution
system?

12. Are adequate safety precautions followed, including design?

ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH MANUAL

NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH | ITEM NO: PWS 184 DATE: 7/20/93

OFFICE OF PUBLIC HEALTH

CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SUBJECT: Guideline For Conducting

TECHNICAL REFERENCE

Sanitary Surveys

Page 6 of 10

b).

c)

d).

f)

9)

h)

Chemical Feed .

1. What is the treatment objective?

2. Where is the chemical feed located?
3. Is there adequate storage?

4. Are dust control/safety precautions procedures in place?
Aerators

1. What is the treatment objective?
Rapid Mix

1. What type of units are installed?
2. What chemical is used?

3. Is there proper mixing?
Flocculation

1. What type of units are installed?
2. What is the energy gradient?

3. Is there adequate detention time?
Clarification

1. What type of clarifier is installed?
2. Is there adequate detention time?
3. Is there short circuiting?

4. Is there floc carryover?

Filters

1., What type of filters are installed?
2. Is the backwash adequate?

3. What type of media is used?
Distribution System

ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH MANUAL

NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH | ITEM NO: PWS 184 DATE: 7/20/93
OFFICE OF PUBLIC HEALTH

CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SUBJECT: Guideline For Conducting
Sanitary Surveys
TECHNICAL REFERENCE

Page 7 of 10

1. Are other treatment processes appropriate?

2. Are pumps, chemical feeders, and other mechanical equipment
in good condition and properly maintained?

3. Are controls and instrumentation adequate?
4. Are accurate records maintained?

5. Are adequate supplies of chemical on hand and properly
stored?

6. Are adequate safety devices available and precautions
observed?

5) Systems granted "filtration avoidance"

The on-site inspection must indicate whether the watershed
protection program and disinfection treatment process are
adequately designed and maintained.

The on-site inspection must include:

a) A review of the watershed control program. Is the watershed
control program effective?

b) A review of the physical condition of the source intake. Is
the source intake adequately protected?

c) A review of the system's equipment maintenance program and an
insepction of the disinfection equipment for physical
deterioration. Is.there a low probability for failure of th
disinfection process? _ :

d) A review of operating procedures. Is the system being operated
properly?

e) A review of data records. Are all tests being conducted and
recorded properly? Is disinfection being effectively
practiced.

f) What if any improvements are needed in the equipment, system
maintenance and operation, or data collection?
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH MANUAL

NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH | ITEM NO: PWS 184 DATE: 7/20/93
OFFICE OF PUBLIC HEALTH

CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SUBJECT: Guideline For Conducting

Sanitary Surveys

TECHNICAL REFERENCE

Page 8 of 10

= — =

6) Storage
; a) Gravity
1. Are storage reservoirs covered?.
2. Are overflow lines, vents, drainlines, or cleanout pipes
turned downward and screened?.
3. Are reservoirs inspected regularly?
4. (Is there sufficient pressure throughout the system? :
5. Are coatings in good repair and acceptable for potable
water contact?
6. Is the tank watertight and locked?
7. Is the reservoir isolated from the system?
8. Is there adequate safety equipment?
9. Is the site fenced, locked, protected against vandalism?
10. Is the storage reservoir disinfected after repairs?
11. Is there a scheduled program for cleaning?

b) Hydropneumatic

1.

a PF Ww

Is the storage capacity adequate?

Are instruments, controls, and equipment adequate?

Is the interior and exterior surfaces in good condition?
Is there adequate pressure throughout the system?

Is the pump cycle rate acceptable?

7) Cross Connections

a) Is the system free of known uncontrolled cross connections?

b) Is there a program for the annual testing of backflow prevention
devices?

ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH MANUAL

| NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH | ITEM NO: PWS 184 DATE: 7/20/93
OFFICE OF PUBLIC HEALTH |

CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH | SUBJECT: Guideline For Conducting |
| Sanitary Surveys ‘
| TECHNICAL REFERENCE
Page 9 of 10
c) Are backflow prevention devices installed at all appropriate

locations?

8) Distribution System

a)

b)

c)
d)

Are proper pressures and flows maintained, especially fire
flows?

Is an up-to-date map maintained showing all pipe sizes and valve
locations?

Do construction materials meet AWWA or equivalent standards?
Are al] services metered and are meters read?

Are blowoffs and relief valves installed where required?

Are replacement parts available?

Are mains protected from freezing?

Is there an adequate maintenance program?

= Is there evidence of leakage in the system?

= Is there a pressure testing program?

= Is there a regular flushing program?

= Are valves and hydrants regularly exercises and maintained?

= Are AWWA standards for disinfection followed after all
repairs?

= Describe the corrosion control program.

= Is the system interconnected with other systems?

When the survey is completed, it is always preferable to briefly summarize
the survey with the operator(s) and management. The main findings of the
survey should be reviewed so it is clear that there are not

=o

ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH MANUAL

NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH | ITEM NO: PWS 184 DATE: 7/20/93
OFFICE OF PUBLIC HEALTH

CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SUBJECT: Guideline For Conducting
Sanitary Surveys

TECHNICAL REFERENCE
Page 10 of 10

misunderstandings about findings/conclusions.
3. Reporting the Survey

. A final report of the survey should be completed within 45 days to
formally notify the system of the findings. Since the report may be used
for future compliance actions and inspections, it should include as a
minimum: -1) the date of the survey; 2) who was present during the survey;
3) the findings of the survey; 4) the recommended improvements to identified
problems; and 5) the dates for completion of any improvements.

REFERENCES

EHM Procedure PWS 180 ~ Sanitary Surveys of Public Water Supplies

Form DOH 164 - Public Water System Sanitary Survey

Form DOH 1022 ~ Small Water System Sanitary Survey ~ Ground
Water Sources .

Form DOH 1033 - Sanitary Survey Public Water System

Form DOH 3380 - Sanitary Survey - Springs, Surface Sources,

Additional Treatments.

Part 76 ~ Public Health Administrative Tribunal

Appendix E
Wellhead Protection Program Delineation

: NEW YORK STATE
| WELLHEAD PROTECTION PROGRAM

SUBMITTAL
To
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
IN
APPLICATION FOR IMPLEMENTATION FUNDS

NEW YORK STATE
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
DIVISION OF WATER
ALBANY, NY

SEPTEMBER 1990

3.1.1. Introduction

The comprehensive New York State Groundwater
Management Program, developed in the early
1980's and published in revised and final
documents in 1986 (for Long Island) and 1987
(for Upstate), recommended key policies and
program initiatives endorsing geographictargeting
and critical area protection. These concepts were
forerunners of the Safe Drinking Water Act's
Wellhead Protection Program. Significant pro-
gress has been made in different aspects of
geographic targeting of programs and in different
parts of New York State. New York acknow-
ledges these accomplishments as an integral part
of its overall Wellhead Protection Program.

Delineation determines geographic areas for
which different levels of groundwater protection
activities are to be instituted. The Wellhead
Protection Program in New York State is intended
to accomplish a wider recognition of targeting
objectives by all levels of government, by citizens
in general, and to begin an evolutionary process
toward improved targeting and protective
Program implementation.

The basic wellhead protection delineation
approach in New York State recognizes aquifers
as the fundamental geographic unit for targeting
Management efforts. This approach must be
modified where aquifers are broad regional
systems (DEC considers this case to occur only
on Long Island), or where aquifers are not well
characterized (considered to be the case for
bedrock aquifers, in general). Elsewhere, the
unconsolidated aquifers of New York tend to be
of limited areal extent and they generally include
the important recharge areas within their
boundaries. These unconsolidated aquifers also
are the source of the large majority of
groundwater-derived public water supply systems.

ELI

The New York State Wellhead Protection Program
proposes that unconsolidated aquifer boundaries
(the land surface overlying the aquifer) serve as
the baseline definition for the overall wellhead
protection area (WHPA). For the baseline
definition, both confined and unconfined
unconsolidated aquifers are grouped together.
Revisions are allowable based on site-specific
evaluations. This aquifer boundary approach is.
Proposed to be modified on Long Island and for
wells in bedrock aquifers as described in Section
3.2. For all public water supply wells, specific
Proposed WHPA delineation policies are
described in Section 3.2.

The aquifer boundary approach for the overall
WHPA has several distinct advantages. It takes
advantage of considerable recent and ongoing
work in mapping and detailed assessments of
aquifer boundaries. Incorporating this work
directly into the Wellhead Protection Program
provides a practical way for more effective
targeting to move forward rapidly rather than
being constrained by the need to perform
modeling to delineate protection areas.

The aquifer approach also encompasses other
non-public wells and potential future well sites,
and places major focus on the high-ylelding
groundwater resources which are most important
and most vuinerable. This last aspect is
considered very important in the education
component of wellhead protection, both for local
Officials and for the general public.

Wellhead protection area delineation is an
evolutionary process. The first need for
refinement is the further subdivision of the total
wellhead protection area, as required for
differentiated management objectives. A second
area for potential refinement is delineation of the
overall WHPA in the Glacial Aquifer on Long
Island and in bedrock aquifers. Issues related to
these topics are reviewed in both Sections 3.2
and 3.3. Flexibility for refinement or revision is
very important due to the wide variability in

hydrogeologic settings, data availability, and local
degree of contamination threat in New York State.

Advisory committee and work group input into the
original comprehensive GroundwaterManagement
Program was substantial. The basic concept of
geographic targeting was set forth in that
program. The groups included:

«Federal Agencies (EPA, USGS)

«State Agencies (DEC, DOH, DOT,
Agriculture & Markets, Energy Office,
Geological Survey)

< — Comell University

« County Agencies (Health, Planning)

<« Associations (Conference of Mayors,
American Water Works Association,
Business Council)

«Citizen Groups (NRDC, League of Women
Voters)

DEC reconvened most of the original contributors
into an advisory committee to assist in guiding
the Wellhead Protection Program, with particular
emphasis on delineation issues. Added to the
original group have. been:

< — State Agencies (Department of State)
«County Agencies (a wider range of county

participants)

«Regional Agencies and Commissions
(additional planning and _ legislative
commissions)

<« Associations (Association of Towns,
American Water Resources Association)

The new group, the Wellhead Protection Advisory
Committee, has also included additional partic-
ipation from the U.S. Geological Survey and DEC
geological staff.

The delineation approach proposed in this
submittal was recommended by the DEC
Groundwater Management Section (responsible
for developing the program) and agreed to by the
Wellhead Protection Advisory Committee
(members listed in front of submittal), The
delineation approach directly conforms with the
policies in the formally adopted Upstate New York
Groundwater Management Program and Long
island Groundwater Management Program.

The DEC has also established a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) with the DOH concerning
the development of the Wellhead Protection
Program. Additional MOU’s will be developed as
needed to institutionalize interagency working
arrangements.

To support the technical needs of DEC and of
local governments in carrying out and refining
delineations, DEC plans to convene an ongoing
Delineation Technical Workgroup consisting of
geologists and groundwater management staff of
DEC, DOH, State Geological Survey, USGS, and
local governments. This group would consider
revisions or improvements in the overall
delineation approach, and would essentially be
concemed with hydrogeologic aspects of the
Program rather than administration or
contamination source control. The mission of this
group Is to provide recommendations to the DEC
Staff responsible for the overall Wellhead
Protection Program. It will be convened upon
EPA approval of New York State's submittal and
will meet on at least a semi-annual basis or as
needed.

Local authorities involved in wellhead protection
May vary, as discussed elsewhere in this
submittal. Therefore, uniform _ institutional
Processes at the local level will not be proposed
across the entire state. Local agencies may act
according to their own needs and authority.
However, in all cases where Watershed Rules and
Regulations are utilized as the local wellhead
Protection approach, the existing requirements of
the New York State Department of Health (DOH)
will be foliowed. Similarly, for all new wells, the
institutional requirements of the New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation’s
(DEC) Water Supply Permit Program will apply.

The proposed responsibility for Initiating refine-
ments of the baseline delineations described in
this submittal will depend upon the regulatory
approach adopted. Delineation refinements to be
incorporated in Watershed Rules and Regulations
approaches will be Initiated and performed by
water purveyors. Delineation refinements to be
incorporated in county, town, village or city
ordinances (including local public health ordinanc-
es) will be initiated and performed by the corre-
sponding political authority. Delineation refine-
Ments to be incorporated in state-level regulatory
programs will be performed by DEC. _

In practice, most local activities will involve coor-
dination with the State DEC and DOH. Each
Department routinely reviews local activities to
ensure that there are no conflicts with respect to
policies and procedures and advises on the
availability of technical information for delineation
Purposes. The overall coordination for aspects
specifically related to the WHPP is the responsibil-
ity of DEC.

Other institutions, particularly the U.S. Geological
Survey and Comell and other universities, may be
involved in special projects or case studies, as
coordinated by DEC.

3.2. Delineation Criteria, Thresholds
-2nd Methods

3.2.1. Background - Existing
-Geographic Targeting

The existing, and still evolving, geographic target-
ing framework for groundwater protection pro-
vides a priority system for managing risks to
groundwater. Following Is a brief summary:

«< fi -

S.NYCRR Part 703

Ambient water quality standards and guide-
lines apply to all Class GA (fresh)
groundwaters. Class GA groundwaters are
defined as having best use as a source of
drinking water and must meet New York
State's drinking water standards In addition
to the ambient standards. State manage-
ment programs use this framework for

-17-

protection of all fresh groundwaters in New
York State, .

<  Unconsolidated Aquifers

Mapping of unconsolidated aquifers has
progressed significantly including State-
defined primary and principal aquifers
which are subsets of the unconsolidated
aquifers. Site-specific detailed mapping is
still in progress.

Primary and principal aquifers are generally
similar geologically (both are highly produc-
tive unconsolidated deposits); primary
aquifers are those which have large popula-
tions using them as drinking water sources.
Primary aquifers have high priority for
mapping additional hydrogeologic data
through the DEC/USGS cooperative pro-
gram, and in special Long Island programs.

These delineations are used In the process
for siting new waste disposal facllities.

+ Long Island Hydrogeologic Zones

Eight hydrogeologic zones have been
delineated, covering all of Long Island.
Three of these together comprise the Deep
Flow Recharge Area. Management pro-
gram Initiatives (@.g., hazardous substance
storage) are based on this Deep Flow Re-
charge Area.

+ Special Groundwater Protection Ar-

Nine Special Groundwater Protection Areas
have been delineated within the Deep Flow
Recharge Area in both Nassau and Suffolk
Counties and are currently the subject of a
planning project by the Long Island Region-
al Planning Board.

+ Other Geographic Targeting _Ap-
roaches
Suffolk County has specifically defined

"Water Supply Sensitive Areas" which in-
clude zones 500 feet downgradient to 1,500

feet upgradient of public wells in the Upper
Glacial Aquifer.

Watershed Rules and Regulations are
promulgated by the NYS Department of
Health upon initiation by local water pur-
veyors. These include delineations of
Protection management zones for public
water supply wells. The WRR delineations
do not conflict with the wellhead protection
area delineation policies proposed in this
submittal.

The NYS Solid Waste. Management
Program, in 6 NYCRR Part 360, has defined
“public water supply wellhead area" as the
surface and subsurface area between a
public water supply well or wellfield and the
99% theoretical maximum extent of the
stabilized cone of depression of that well or
wellfield considering all fiow system
boundaries and seasonal fluctuations. New
landfills are banned in these areas, in
addition to all primary and principal
aquifers in the Upstate area. Special
provisions are defined in law for Long
Island siting. As with the Watershed Rules
and Regulations, there is no conflict in
terminology between the Part 360 public
water supply wellhead area and the overall
wellhead protection area proposed in this
submittal. The overall protection area
Includes, and is larger than, the Part 360
wellhead Itself. For landfill siting, Part 360
regulations will prevail. Part: 360
determinations are made only for proposed
landfill siting cases.

Other setback requirements have been
utilized in various state or local

* management programs. When used, such

as for pesticides (e.g., aldicarb) or septic
tanks, the setbacks apply to all wells, public
or private. As with the other targeting
approaches, such setbacks do not conflict
with the proposed wellhead protection area
policies.

«Well Construction Specifications

Direct protection of the wellhead Itself is
achieved through adoption of construction
specifications and standards. These are
administered by the New York State
Department of Health and follow the
"Recommended Standards for Water
Works" (NYS Health Department Bulletin
#42, 1982). They apply to public water
supply wells.

3.2.2. Wellhead Protection Area
Delineation Objectives

The USEPA guidance for development of
wellhead protection programs (Guidance for
Applicants for State Wellhead Protection Program
Assistance Funds under the Safe Drinking Water
Act, EPA 440/6-87-011) contains the expectation
that proposed programs will. be designed to
provide protection from three types of threats:
direct introduction of contaminants in the
immediate well area, microbial contaminants, and
chemical contaminants. The first is dealt with
through well construction and completion
standards to be applied at the wellhead itself.
The second is managed by delineating a zone to
keep potential sources sufficiently distant from the
well to allow die-off of the microorganisms.
Establishing a minimum distance by measurement
or by time-of-travel is the most common
procedure for delineating areas for protection
against microbial contamination.

To achieve protection against chemical
contamination, EPA suggests three delineation
approaches: delineation of wellfield management
areas, contamination attenuation zones, or
remedial action zones. Since chemicals can
travel long distances, all or part of the recharge
area for a well becomes the zone to be delineated
for protection efforts.

The overall goals of New York State’s delineation
approach are essentially a combination of the
wellfield management and remedial action zone
goals described by EPA.

Wellfield management Is used to define areas
where helghtened levels of protection will be

emphasized. A number of different zones may be
delineated for a single water supply to provide
different levels of management. The management
options may range from selected land use
prohibitions to specialized design specifications,
enhanced facility Inspections, or increased
monitoring and education.

The remedial action area approach excludes high
tisk activities from a specifically defined zone but
still allows them in more distant recharge areas.
This may be refined by varying exclusions in
different zones according to risk or the
importance of the activity. The remedial action
area concept is best applied to new or changing
land uses, whereas wellfield management may be
applied to existing or new land uses.

The contamination attenuation zone approach
described by EPA is difficult to strictly apply due
to limited capabilities to accurately predict
chemical migration and persistence. in addition,
the New York State groundwater standards apply
to all fresh groundwaters, reducing the utllity of an
attenuation zone approach.

3.2.3. Delineation Policy

The underlying objective of delineation Is to use
different degrees of management to control risks
to water supplies. The significant diversity in
geological conditions, aquifer use, and in local
government capabllities across New York State
indicates that the approach to delineation can not
be uniform and rigid for all locations.

The ideal technical goal of wellhead delineation is
to have sufficient knowledge of the hydrogeology
of each public water supply well or wellfield to
allow precise determination of the catchment area
along with accurate times-of-travel for the entire
flow system. Such information is not uniformly
available across the state. New information will
become available unevenly as funding from
various local, state and federal sources Is applied
to specific priority areas.

In this setting, the New York State Wellhead
Protection Program proposes general recognition
of high-yielding aquifers (both confined and
unconfined) as the fundamental wellhead

-19-

protection area units. As described in Section
3.2.4., this policy recognizes that more targeted
delineations will be necessary on Long Island
because it is entirely an aquifer. Also, bedrock
aquifers are not adequately characterized now to
allow this approach; however, most of the major,
high-yielding aquifers in New York are in
unconsolidated deposits. Within the wellhead
Protection area, delineation of an area designated
as the remedial action area is Proposed, as
described in Sectin 3.2.5.

This policy is intended to reinforce public and
management program recognition of the need to
protect high-yielding aquifers. It takes advantage
of considerable past and ongoing work on aquifer
mapping and delineation and will permit further
Progress in communities which have already
delineated aquifer boundaries and protection
areas. These communities may directly proceed
to management implementation or may utilize
available funds on more advanced hydrageologic
evaluations within the WHPA, depending on local
needs and goals. 2

Within this framework, utilization of alternative
delineation approaches (such as time-of-travel) is
allowed and encouraged. in most cases, such
alternative approaches would be applied to
subdividing the WHPA within the unconsolidated
aquifer boundaries for applying different levels of
Management. The WHPA Itself would remain the
area defined by aquifer boundaries. in some
cases, such as for bedrock aquifers, the
alternative approaches may be used to redefine
the WHPA itself. The Department of
Environmental Conservation will be responsible
for providing guidance for such alternative
approaches,

32.4. Wellhead Protection Area
Delineations

The wellhead protection area delineation
approach Is summarized in Table 3.1. It
recognizes that the aquifer system on Long Island
and bedrock aquifers in Upstate New York must
be treated differently than the unconsolidated
aquifers In Upstate. The unconsolidated aquifer
boundaries for the wellhead protection areas are
those delineated on a series of maps titled

TABLE 3.1.
WELLHEAD PROTECTION AREA
DELINEATION SUMMARY

Magothy & Lloyd Aquifers

Wellhead Protection Area
Baseline Delineation

Deep Flow Recharge Area

Glacial Aquifer

Simplified Variable Shape:

1,500 ft. radius upgradient
500 ft. radius downgradient

Unconsolidated Aquifers.

Aquifer Boundaries
(land surface)

Bedrock Aquifers

Fixed Radius: 1,500 ft. radius

“Potential Yields of Wells in Unconsolidated
Aquifers in Upstate New York" by the U.S.
Geological Survey. Specifically, these maps,
distributed for sale by the U.S. Geological Survey,
are as follows:

1. Bugliosi, E.F., et al,, 1988. Potential Yields
of Wells _in_Unconsolidated Aquifers in

rk - H Sh
Water Resources Investigations Report 87-
4274. U.S. Department of the Interior,
Geological Survey, Albany, NY.

2. — Bugliosi, E.F., et al, 1988. Potential Vields
of Wells_in_Unconsolidated Aquifers_in

Sheet. Water Resources Investigations
Report 87-4275, U.S. Department of the
Interior, Geological Survey, Albany, NY.

3. Bugliosi, E.F., et al., 1988. Potential Yields

of _Wells_in_Unconsolidated Aquifers_in

- Adi heet.

Water Resources Investigations Report 87-

4276, U.S. Department of the Interior,
Geological Survey, Albany, NY.

4. Miller, T.S., 1988. Unconsolidated Aquifers
in Upstate New York - Finger Lakes Sheet.

Water Resources Investigations Report 87-
4122, U.S. Department of the Interior,
Geological Survey, Albany, NY.

5. Miller, T.S., 1988. Potential Yields of Wells
in Unconsolidated Aquifers in Upstate New
York - Niagara Sheet.

= Water Resources
Investigations Report 88-4076. US.
Department of the Interior, Geological
Survey, Albany, NY.

The boundaries Illustrated on these maps serve as
the total wellhead protection areas for public
water supplies utilizing those aquifers. in certain
cases, more detalled aquifer boundary maps or
determinations for primary or principal aquifers
(subsets of the full range of unconsolidated
aquifers) have been or will be made by the U.S.
Geological Survey or NYS Department of
Environmental Conservation. These more detailed
boundary determinations will generally supersede
boundaries illustrated on the above referenced

-21-

maps as “revised” delineations of wellhead
protection areas.

Both unconfined and confined unconsolidated
aquifers are included on these maps and both are
included in this definition of the overall wellhead
protection area. ‘

For all public water supplies utilizing groundwater,
the overall wellhead protection area (WHPA)
delineation will be subdivided into two parts. The
innermost zone is referred to as the Remedial
Action Area. The remainder of the WHPA is
referred to as the Wellfield Management Area.
The terminology Is derived from the EPA guidance
referenced earlier. Depending on local
management objectives for groundwater protec-
tion, local hydrogeology, and data availability and
resource availability, the Wellfield Management
Area may be further subdivided. This further
subdivision of the Wellfield Management Area
would be considered a refinement of the
“baseline” delineation. Methodologies, criteria and
thresholds used for such revisions are flexible.
Approaches proposed by local water purveyors
will be evaluated and approved or disapproved
upon submittal to the New York State Department
of Environmental Conservation.

" The term “baseline” delineation, as used in this

submittal, is intended to represent the initial
WHPA delineation advocated by the Department
of Environmental Conservation. The delineation
may be directly utilized in Implementing manage-
ment activities for groundwater protection.
However, if site-specific conditions suggest that
alternative delineations are appropriate (including
the further subdivision of the Wellfield
Management Area already cited), those delin-
eations may be accepted by the Department of
Environmental Conservation. The evolution of
Improved delineation techniques, the growing
availability of hydrogeologic information, and the
longer-term enhancements of groundwater protec-
tlon programs may lead to a redefinition of the
baseline delineations by the Department of
Environmental Conservation.

These baseline delineations apply to public water
supply wells. Applicants for new public water
supply wells may be required to perform

alternative site-specific delineations according to
conditions stipulated through the Water Supply
Permit Program (refer to Chapter 7).

The proposed WHPA delineations are described
according to the following geographic and
hydrogeologic _ settings. They are also
summarized in Table 3.1.

1. HP, in

The boundaries of wellhead protection
areas for public water supplies in
unconsolidated aquifers in Upstate New
York are the land surface boundaries of the
aquifers as illustrated on the five-aquifer
sheet maps for Upstate published and
distributed by the U.S. Geological Survey
(see earlier reference). These boundaries
may be revised in accordance with more
detailed primary and principal aquifer maps
and boundary determinations as approved
by the Department of Environmental
Conservation. The maps provide definition
for both unconfined and confined aquifers.
Revisions of these boundaries may be
made, pending approval by the Department
of Environmental Conservation.

2. — Rationale:

The delineations proposed above are
hydrogeologically-based and are consistent
with the policies and goals of the Upstate
Groundwater Management Programalready
adopted and certified by the Governor of
New York as an element of the New York
State Water Quality Management Plan.

3. Mapping and Case Studies:

Mapping of these areas Is already
completed and published. Case studies
are not considered appropriate, as the
maps have been reviewed and approved by
the U.S. Geological Survey and the
Department of Environmental Conservation
as part of the publication process.

-22-

4 Pi Ws ly Sign!

The large majority of public water supplies
using groundwater, particularly for
municipal and community systems, are
located in unconsolidated aquifers. It is
expected that a significant proportion of
additional future supplies will also tap these
systems.

Bedrock Aquifers - Upstate New York
1. WHPA Definition:

The baseline boundaries of wellhead
protection areas for public water supplies in
bedrock aquifers are fixed radius areas with
a radius of 1,500 feet from the wellhead.
Revisions based on site-specific information
are desirable, with the goals being to
identify and delineate principal recharge
areas. Revisions may be developed,
pending approval by the Department of
Environmental Conservation.

2. — Rationale:

The fixed radius approach for the initial
WHPA Is not based on estimated times-of-
travel or drawdown. It provides a
substantial increase in protection over more
commonly existing protection zones
(typically 100 feet or 200 feet). The
Principal rationale is that the baseline
delineation gives a basis for immediate
action on wellfield management without
requiring expensive site-specific
delineations, Revisions based on local
conditions are encouraged, particularly for
municipal community systems, of which
there are relatively few in the State. The
geographic targeting benefits of uniformly
delineating substantially larger fixed radius
areas for all bedrock wells are very
questionable. Many of the bedrock public
water supply wells are among the approxi-
mately 10,000 non-community public wells
(e.g. isolated public bulldings, roadside
test areas, etc.). There will be little
geographic targeting advantage for
groundwater protection programs if

numerous 3 to 12 square mile WHPA’s (1-2
mile radius) for non-community wells
intersect or nearly intersect across the
State. It must be recognized that all fresh
groundwaters in bedrock aquifers are
classified as GA groundwaters and thus are
already protected by substantial statewide
protection programs which use rigorous
ambient water quality standards in their
design.

3. Mapping and Case Studies:

Mapping will be performed according to the
Phasing priorities described in Section 3.3.
Case studies of fixed radius approaches
are not considered to be of significant
benefit. As proposals for revisions based
on alternative approaches are submitted to
the Department of Environmental
Conservation, they will be evaluated for
potential use as models for comparable
hydrogeologic conditions.

4. i it ffi

Relatively few municipal community
systems utilize bedrock aquifers in New
York State and those that do are generally
with low population dependence. Public
water supplies In bedrock aquifers are
typically non-community wells serving small
numbers of people.

The boundaries of the wellhead protection
area for public water supplies using the
Magothy and Lloyd aquifers are the
boundaries of the Deep Flow Recharge
Area as recognized by the Department of
Environmental Conservation, Refinements
within the overall WHPA may include further
definition of Wellfield Management Areas,
Pending approval by the Department of
Environmental Conservation.

2. Rationale:

The Deep Flow Recharge Area was
determined to be the most important
overall groundwater protection area for
wells in the Magothy and Lloyd aquifers in
the Long Island Groundwater Management
Program already adopted and certified by
the Governor of New York as an element of
the New York State Water Quality
Management Program. The delineations
have also been adopted in the Suffolk

County Sanitary Code.
3. Mapping and Case Studies:

Mapping of the Deep Flow Recharge Area
is already completed. Additional case
studies are not considered appropriate.

4. if i ni

Most public water in Nassau County is
withdrawn from the Magothy aquifer. The
majority of public water supplies in Suffolk
County are also withdrawn from the
Magothy aquifer. Of those public water
supplies in Suffolk County utilizing the
Glaclal aquifer, approximately half are
located within the Deep Flow Recharge
Area. Thus, these wells are included within
the overall wellhead protection area for the
deeper aquifers.

1. WHPA Definition:

The boundaries of the wellhead protection
area for public water supplies using the
Glacial aquifer are defined as a fixed
variable shape zone with a fixed radius in
the upgradient groundwater flow direction
Of 1,500 feet and a fixed radius in the
downgradient direction of 500 feet.
Revisions may be made, pending approval
by the Department of Environmental
Conservation.

2. Rationale:

Fixed-shape zones are not based on
calculated time-of-travel or drawdown. The
proposed definition is consistent with Water
Supply Sensitive Areas already delineated
by Suffolk County (which contains nearly all
of the Glacial wells on Long island) and for
which enhanced protection programs have
already been implemented in the Suffolk
County Sanitary Code. Approximately half
of the Glacial wells are within the Deep
Flow Recharge Area and are thus protected
within a larger overall: WHPA. Significant
expansion of the WHPA for all Glacial wells
may not provide any reasonable
geographic targeting benefits, as most of
the WHPA's would intersect or nearly
intersect. All fresh groundwaters in the
Glacial aquifer are already covered by
Substantial protection programs which
utilize a rigorous set of ambient water
quality standards.

3. Mapping and Case Studies:

Mapping of the WHPA's for Glacial wells in
Suffolk County has been completed
through the Water Supply Sensitive Area
delineations. For the relatively few Glacial
wells in Nassau County, mapping will be
completed according to the phasing
priorities described in Section 3.3. Case
Studies of fixed-shape delineations are not
Considered to be of significant benefit. As
Proposals for revisions based on alternative
approaches are submitted to the
Department of Environmental Conservation,
they will be evaluated for potential use as
models for other Glacial well delineations.

4. — Public Water i :

As stated previously, approximately one-
fourth of the public water supplies in
Suffolk County are based in Glacial wells
that are outside of the Deep Flow Recharge
Area. If Nassau County is included, only
about one-eighth of the water ‘supply
dependency is from Glacial wells outside of
the Deep Flow Recharge Area.

3.2.5. Remedial Action Areas

For all community public water supply wells,
regardless of setting, a remedial action area will
be delineated within the WHPA. For those supply
wells, the proposed baseline delineation of this
area will be a fixed radius zone of 200 feet radius
from the well. Revisions may be made after
evaluation by the Department of Environmental
Conservation. For non-community public water
supply wells (e.g., isolated public buildings, etc.),
the existing New York State Department of Health
standards for well separations (e.g., from waste
disposal facilities) are to be followed.

The rationale for this baseline delineation is based
upon general observations in the past that such a
zone has been adequate for ‘protection against
microbiological contamination. An alternative
time-of-travel basis for delineating revised
remedial action area boundaries would be to use
a time-of-travel from a minimum of 60-days up to
One year. The 60-day period has been used in
New York State and in many European countries
(USEPA, EPA 440/6-87-010, Guidelines for
Delineation of Wellhead Protection Areas). A one-
year period Is considered conservative. in certain
cases, the site-specific hydrogeology (e.g.,
Confined aquifer conditions or long times-of-travel)
and the nature of existing land uses and
management options may allow remedial action
areas smaller than 200 feet radius.

3.2.6. Potential Refinements and
Summary

Table 3.1 summarizes the baseline delineations for
wellhead protection areas.

Refinements may include:

Subdivision of the Wellfield Management
Area portion of the WHPA, to allow
application of different levels of
management within the WHPA.

Revision of the Remedial Action Area
Portion of the WHPA, according to
alternative methods, including time-of-trave!
or drawdown analysis.

° Revised boundary determinations of the
unconsolidated aquifers in Upstate,
including primary and principal aquifers, or
of the Deep Flow Recharge Area on Long
Island.

. Alternative hydrogeologic determinations of
appropriate WHPA’s in bedrock aquifers or
for wells in the Glacial aquifer on Long
Island.

3.3. Phasing Considerations

The published unconsolidated aquifer maps cited
in the previous section complete the baseline
WHPA déelineations. for all public water supply
wells within those aquifers. The completed
delineation of the Deep Flow Recharge Area on
Long Island has been defined according to road
boundaries. That delineation defines the WHPA
for all public water supply wells in the Magothy
and Loyd aquifers. The baseline WHPA
boundaries for public water supply wells using the
Glacial aquifer in Suffolk County have been
determined by the Suffolk County Department of
Health Services through its Water Supply
Sensitive Area designations.

The remaining baseline =WHPA boundary
determinations that are needed consist of a
relatively small set of Glacial aquifer wells and
public water supply wells in bedrock aquifers,
The phasing priorities for these groups are, in
order:

1. Municipal community wells
2. Non-municipal community wells
3. Non-community public wells.

Within each priority group additional phasing may
be generally ordered by population dependency
with modifications made if there are significant
known or suspected threats to the wells.

lt Is emphasized that the baseline WHPA
delineations for the very large majority of Public
water supply wells (by population served) are
completed. The delineations for the remaining

bedrock wells and Glacial wells will be performed
as resources permit.

3.4. Summary

The baseline wellhead protection area delineations
are considered to be completed through the
Published aquifer maps cited in this chapter.
These cover both confined and unconfined
aquifers and low- and high-yielding aquifers. The
Deep Flow Recharge Area on Long Island has
also been delineated. It is noted that the Deep
Flow Recharge Area on Long Island also includes
many wells using the shallow Glacial aquifer, and
thus provides an added layer of protection.

Refinements (le. delineation of additional sub-
Zones of the overall WHPA) have been completed
in many areas. However, such refinements are
optional. Their evaluation and delineation will be
a goal of future efforts in wellhead protection

CHAPTER 4
SOURCE IDENTIFICATION
4.1. Categories of Potential Groundwater . «Enforcement; tracking compliance;
Ci ination §
~ Targeting education efforts;
4.1.1. Introduction

Potential contamination sources as described in
the federal Safe Drinking Water Act include those
anthropogenic sources, both point and‘nonpoint,
which involve the manufacture, use, storage,
handling, transport, or disposal of toxic and
hazardous substances which may have any
adverse effect on human health, Certain activities
(e.g., mining) may also be considered potential
sources, because they may increase vulnerabllity
to contamination and may be associated with
other activities of concern.

in the broadest sense, potential contamination
sources may include nearly all commercial, and
many governmental and domestic activities. To
be useful in guiding the management of
contamination sources to maximize groundwater
protection benefits, some differentiation or priority
system is needed. :

Priorities are based on the significance of the
source and the intended management application
of the inventory. Source significance is based on
the type of contaminant (mobility in groundwater,
known impacts on public water supplies,
toxicology, pathogenicity), the quantity of the
Contaminant at that location, and the potential of
that source type to release contaminants to
groundwater and impact water supplies.

The management applications of the source
inventory may include:

« Developing local awareness and support for
groundwater protection program adoption;

« Emergency response planning;
«Inspection planning or sequencing;
< Monitoring design;

«Regional and local planning;
< Local land use regulations development; and

< Identifying new program or program improve-
ment needs.

4.1.2. Classification of Sources

Potential contamination sources may be classified
in many ways. The major need for groundwater
Protection Is to provide a structure for collecting
and interpreting data regarding _ existing
contamination sources which is readily useable
in a variety of programs.

The United States Office of Technology
Assistance developed a comprehensive listing of
potential contamination sources, including 33
types within six major groups (Table 4.1). This
Classification has been included in wellhead
protection program guidance manuals prepared
by USEPA. All of these source types occur within
New York State, although mine tallings, mine
waste and mine drainage are less important than
in many other states. Mining (e.g., sand and
gravel) is still considered to be a potential source
in that may be associated with other activities
(fue! usage) that can contaminate groundwater.

The OTA classification in Table 4.1 is endorsed by
the Department of Environmental Conservation as
@ useful structure for collecting data related to
potential contamination sources.

A long-term goal of contamination source
Inventory is to utilize computer geographic
information systems (GIS) to manage and
interpret the data collected. The mapping keys of
GIS methods or other maps will not be required
to explicitly duplicate the OTA classification, as
this would be counterproductive if more efficient

Appendix F
List of Contaminants of Concern

Haloge: solve

bromochloromethane (3)
bromomethane (3)

carbon tetrachloride (1, 3)
chlorobenzene (1, 3)
chloroethane (3)
chloromethane (3)
2-chlorotoluene (3)
4-chlorotoluene (3)
dibromomethane (3)
1,2-dichlorobenzene (1, 3)
1,3-dichlorobenzene (3)
1,4-dichlorobenzene (1, 3)
dichlorodifluoromethane (3)
1,1-dichloroethane (3)
1,2-dichloroethane (1, 3)
1,1-dichloroethene (1, 3)
cis-1,2-dichloroethene (1, 3)
trans-1,2,-dichloroethene (1, 3)
dichloromethane (1,3)
1,2-dichloropropane (3)
1,3-dichloropropane (3)
2,2-dichloropropane (3)
1,1-dichloropropene (3)
cis-1 ,3-dichloropropene(3)
trans-1,3-dichloropropene (3)
hexachlorobutadiene (2, 3)
methylene chloride (1, 3)
1,1,1,2-tetrachloroethane (3)
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane (3)
tetrachloroethene (1, 3)
1,2,3-trichlorobenzene (3)
1,2,4-trichlorobenzene (3)
1,1,1-trichloroethane (1, 3)
1,1,2-trichloroethane (1, 3)
trichloroethene (1, 3)
trichlorofluoromethane (3)
1,2,3-trichloropropane (3)
vinyl chloride (1,3)

List of Contaminants of Concern

Petroleum prod

benzene (1, 3)

bromobenzene (3)

n-butylbenzene (3)

sec-butylbenzene (3)
tert-butylbenzene (3)
cis-1,2-dichlorobenzene (3)
ethyl-teriary-butyl-ether (ETBE) (3, 4)
ethylbenzene (1, 3)

isopropylbenzene (cumene) (3)
4-isopropyltoluene (p-cymene) (2, 3)
methyl-tertiary-butyl-ether (MTBE) (2, 3)
naphthalene (2, 3)

n-propylbenzene (3)

tert-amyl methyl ether (TAME) (3, 4)
toluene (1, 3)

1,2,3-trichlorobenzene (3)
1,2,4-trichlorobenzene (3)
1,2,4-trimethylbenzene (3)
1,3,5-trimethylbenzene (3)

m-xylene (1, 3)

o-xylene (1, 3)

p-xylene (1, 3)

Other Industrial Organics

acrylamide (1,3)
benzo(a)pyrene (3)
2,4-dichlorophenol (2)
2,4-dinitrophenol (2)
2,4-dinitrotoluene (2)
2,6-dinitrotoluene (2)
1,2-diphenylhydrazine (2)
ethylene glycol (3)
epichlorhydrin (1, 3)
hexachlorocyclopentadiene (3)
p-isopropyltoluene (3)
4-nitrophenol (3)

PAHs (benzo(a)pyrene) (1,3)
PCBs (1, 3)

propylene glycol (3)

styrene (1, 3)

2,3,7,8-TCDD (dioxin) (1, 3)
2,4,6-trichlorophenol (2)

Page 1 of 3

I

List of Contaminants of Concern

Pesticides

acetochlor (2, 3)

alachlor ESA (2, 3)

alachlor (1, 3)

aldicarb (2, 3)

aldicarb sulfone (2, 3)

aldicarb sulfoxide (2, 3)

aldrin (2, 3)

atrazine (1, 3)

benfluralin (3)

bromacil (3)

butachlor (3)

carbaryl (3)

carbofuran (1,3)

captan (3)

chlordane (1, 3)

chlorpyrofos (3)

2,4-D (1, 3)

dalapon (1, 3)

daminozide (3)

DCPA mono-acid & di-acid degradates (2,3)
DDE (2, 3)

diazinon (2, 3)
dibromochloropropane (DBCP) (1, 3)
dicamba (3)
1,2-dichloropropane (3)
dieldrin (2, 3)

dinoseb (1, 3)

di(2-ethylhexyl) adipate (1,3)
di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (1,3)
diquat (1, 3)

disulfoton (2, 3)

diuron (2, 3)

endosulfan sulfate (3)
endothall (1,3)

endrin (1, 3)

EPTC (2, 3)

ethofumasate (3)

ethylene dibromide (EDB) (1, 3)
fonofos (2, 3)

glyphosate (1, 3)

heptachlor (1, 3)

heptachlor epoxide (1, 3)
hexachlorobenzene (HCB) (3)
3-hydroxycarbofuran (3)
imidacloprid (3)

isofenphos (3)

lindane (1, 3)

Pesticides (continued)

linuron (2, 3)

mancozeb (3)

maneb (3)

mecoprop dimethylamine (MCPP) (3)
metalaxyl (3)

methyl bromide (2, 3)

methomyl (3)

metolachlor (2, 3)

maethoxychlor (1, 3)

metribuzin (2, 3)

molinate (2, 3)

nitrobenzene (2, 3)

organotins (2, 3)

oxamyl (Vydate) (1, 3)

pendimethalin (3)

pentachlorophenol (3)

pichloram (1, 3)

prometon (2, 3)

propachlor (3)

propoxur (3)

RDX (2, 3)

simazine (1, 3)

2,4,5-TP (Silvex) (1, 3)
tetrachloroterephthalic acid (TPCA) (3)
terbacil (2, 3)

terbufos (2, 3)

toxaphene (1, 3)

triazines (& degradation products) (2, 3)
trifluralin (3)

1,2,3-trichloropropane (3)

Metals

antimony (1, 3)
arsenic (1, 3)
barium (1, 3)
beryllium (1, 3)
boron (2)
cadmium (1, 3)
chromium (1, 3)
copper (1, 3)
iron (3)

lead (1, 3)
manganese (2, 3)
mercury (1, 3)
nickel (2, 3)
selenium (1, 3)

Page 2 of 3

pf

ee ee

Metals (continued)
silver (3)

sodium (2, 3)
thallium (1, 3)
vanadium (2, 3)
zine (3)

Nitrate

nitrate (1, 3)
nitrite (1, 3)
nitrate/nitrite (1, 3)

Phosphorus

phosphorus, total (4)
orthophosphate (4)

Catio ions

fluoride (1, 3)
chloride (3)
cyanide (1, 3)
perchlorate (2, 3)
sulfate (2, 3)

Sediments/turbidity

total suspended solids (3)
turbidity (3)

Industri dionucleides

Ra-226 (1, 3)

Ra-228 (1, 3)

gross alpha (1, 3)

beta particle (1, 3)
photon radioactivity (3)
Uranium (2)

Footnotes:
(1) Federally regulated

List of Contaminants of Concern

Enteric viruses

Caliciviruses (2)
Echoviruses (2)
Coxsackieviruses (2)
Adenoviruses (2)

Protozoa

cryptosporidium (1)
giardia (1, 3)

microsporidia (2)
Enteric Bacteria

Aeronomas hydrophila (2)
total coliform (1, 3)

E. coli. (1,3)
Helicobacter pylori (2)
Legionella (1)

Disinfection by-product precursors

total organic carbon (4)
UV254 (4):
THMs (1, 3)

(2) Contaminant Candidate List (or scheduled for federal regulation)

(3) NYS regulated
(4) Not directly regulated

Page 3 of 3

‘ Appendix G
Hypothetical Source Water Assessments

i
41
; 1
'
i
1 |
|
i i
Wye
f .
(es i
i
1 i
i
| i
|

EXAMPLE MAP NOT INCLUDED

SOURCE WATER ASSESSMENT PUBLIC SUMMARY
CITY OF BIGTOWN - PUBLIC DRINKING WATER SYSTEM
REVISED JANUARY 1999

INTRODUCTION

The New York State Department of Health (DOH) is completing assessments of the contaminant threats to all public
drinking water sources. The New York State and Strong County Health Departments have prepared this Source Water
Assessment Public Summary to provide information to support local and state efforts to protect the City of Bigtown’s
public drinking water sources. The information contained in this assessment pertains to the source(s) of water delivered
by the City of Bigtown Water System. The emphasis of this assessment is on “source” (river water) water rather than
“tap” water. Information on tap water quality is available in the City of Bigtown’s Annual Water Supply Statement
which can be obtained from the Bigtown Water Department by calling (555) 555-1233.

WHAT IS THE SOURCE OF YOUR DRINKING WATER?

The source of water for the City of Bigtown is surface water drawn from the Meandering River. An average of 15
million gallons of water is withdrawn from the river per day. The water system serves a population of 100,000
residents. The location of the city’s intake on the Meandering River is shown on the attached map. The map also
depicts the boundaries of the watershed, which is composed of 2,000 square miles and drains to the Meandering River
north of Bigtown. Approximately fifty percent of the watershed area is forested, forty-five percent is used for
agriculture (pasture and crops for dairy), and five percent of the area is developed for residential, commercial or
industrial uses. There are approximately 1,800 farms raising 120,000 cattle in the watershed area. The estimated
population of the Meandering River watershed is 150,000.

WATER QUALITY AND WATER TREATMENT INFORMATION

Water withdrawn from the Meandering River is filtered and disinfected with chlorine prior to distribution to consumers.
Water quality testing performed by the City of Bigtown indicated that results of tap water sampling done in 1997 were
all within the limits set by the DOH. For further information regarding the quality of the system’s finished (tap) water,
please refer to the Annual Water Supply Statement.

EVALUATION OF SIGNIFICANT POTENTIAL SOURCES OF CONTAMINATION

This assessment evaluates contaminants that may enter the water drawn directly from the Meandering River before
treatment. The contaminants addressed in this assessment include those regulated under the federal Safe Drinking
Water Act as well as those which the DOH has determined may present a concern to public health. A description of
the significant potential sources of contamination associated with the Meandering River watershed are provided
below. Each significant potential source of contamination has been analyzed and prioritized (low, medium, and high)
according to its potential to impact the water supply. Potential sources of contamination of medium and high priority
are summarized below. ,

Potential Sources | Contaminants of : Potential Impact to
of Contamination. Concern Description = Source Water Quality —
Treated sewage Pathogens, * Wastewater generated from most homes and businesses in | Medium to high
discharges (see including the watershed is discharged to a municipal sewage
map) Cryptosporidium. collection system.
* Total permitted discharge represents about 1% of the
average flow in the Meandering River; however, during
droughts they could contribute up to 20% of river flow.
Farm animal Pathogens, « Approximately 1,800 farms raise 120,000 cattle or other Medium to high.
manure. including large farm animals.
Cryptosporidium.
Page 1 of 2
Source Water Assessment - City of Bigtown January 1999

NAIMPLEMEN\WPDOCSIKRISTEN\PUBWG\CLEANBIG.WPD

EXAMPLE MAP NOT INCLUDED

As indicated above, treated sewage discharges, farm animal manure, and to a lesser degree, wildlife, are significant |!
sources of pathogens (germs) that can cause waterborne diseases. The combination of filtration and disinfection |)

removes and/or destroys most of these pathogens. A concern remains about Cryptosporidium of which about ninety-
nine percent can be removed by filtration. Although much is unknown about Cryptosporidium it is known to cause
an intestinal disease (cryptosporidiosis) which can be very serious for people with weak immune systems due to
medical treatments, such as chemotherapy, dialysis or organ transplants, and also for people with Crohn’s disease or
HIV infection. People with weakened immune systems should discuss with their health care providers the need to take
extra precautions to minimize the chance for exposure to Cryptosporidium, such as using a certified bottled water or
a specially approved home filter, or boiling tap water.

Watersheds like the Meandering River. with sewage discharges and farm animals are considered higher risk for
containing Cryptosporidium than watersheds without these sources. The occurrence is also is believed to vary
seasonally with weather extremes, such as high precipitation or drought. The method for measuring Cryptosporidium
contamination in water is not always reliable; and it is difficult to know how much is present at any time.

Other potential sources of contamination (and contaminants of concern) that were evaluated as part of the Source Water
Assessment included: agricultural activities (pesticides and nitrates), on-site septic systems (pathogens), waste sites

(leaking small amounts of solvents and metals), and commercial/industrial activities (solvents and petroleum). |!

However, based on an evaluation of these potential contaminant sources, as part of this assessment, the DOH
concluded that they do not pose a significant threat to the drinking water source for the City of Bigtown.

ONGOING WATERSHED PROTECTION ACTIVITIES
Direct discharge of contaminants in this watershed are addressed by state and federal regulations. More diffuse

contamination from farms is being addressed by voluntary cooperation among farmers and government agencies. Local |

groups are also preparing a water management plan to address drinking water and other water quality issues.

SOURCE WATER PROTECTION NEEDS

Based on the evaluation that was completed as part of this Source Water Assessment, the DOH has determined that |,

existing state and local programs should provide adequate protection of this drinking water source. Emphasis should

be placed on the effectiveness of controls for Cryptosporidium. Better understanding of the risks associated with |

Cryptosporidum may result in the need to enhance protection (or treatment).

How TO OBTAIN ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

This Source Water Assessment Public Summary was completed in June 1998. Individuals interested learning more
about this water system and watershed can contact the City of Bigtown at (555)555-1234 or the Strong County Health
Department at (555)555-3344. Additional information can be obtained from the New York State Department of
Health’s Source Water Assessment Program at (518) 458-6793. This document is also available on the DOH’s
“webpage” at WWW.HEALTH.STATE.NY.US (select “Information for Consumers”; “Environmental and
Occupational Health”; “Source Water Assessments”). A Full Length (more detailed version) of this Source Water
Assessment is available for review at the Strong County Health Department and the Strong County Library.

Page 2 of 2
Source Water Assessment - City of Bigtown January 1999

NUMPLEMEN\WPDOCS\KRISTEN\PUBWG\CLEANBIG.WPD

EXAMPLE

MAP NOT INCLUDED
SOURCE WATER ASSESSMENT PUBLIC SUMMARY
VILLAGE OF SMALLTOWN - PUBLIC DRINKING WATER SYSTEM
REVISED JUNE 1998
INTRODUCTION

The New York State Department of Health (DOH) is completing assessments of the contaminant threats
to all public drinking water sources. The New York State and Little County Health Departments have
prepared this Source Water Assessment Public Summary to provide information to support local and state
efforts to protect the Village of Smalltown’s public drinking water sources. The information contained in
this assessment pertains to the sources of water delivered by the Village of Smalltown Water System. The
emphasis of this assessment is on “source” (well/spring) water rather than “tap” water. Informationon tap
water quality is available in the Village of Smalltown’s Annual Water Supply Statement which can be
obtained from the Smalltown Water Department by calling (555) 555-1233.

‘WHAT IS THE SOURCE OF YOUR DRINKING WATER?

The Village of Smalltown water system serves a population of 1,000 residents. The Village of Smalltown
has two sources of drinking water as shown on the attached map: a well located within the village limits
and a spring located on a hillside approximately two miles west of the well. The spring flows constantly
to the water distribution system and provides about 60,000 gallons per day, but somewhat less during
droughts. The well is pumped to provide 50,000 gallons per day.

An investigation performed in 1993 revealed that the spring collection pipes were not adequately sealed
against penetration from water that had flowed across the surface of the land. The collection pipes were
reconstructed to assure that the water entering the pipes had percolated through the ground for some
considerable but unknown distance. To be sure to include any possible sources of contamination, it was
estimated that the spring draws water from an area extending to the top of the hill, as shown on the attached
map. Most of this land is forested and owned by the village. Small sections in private ownership are
cleared for pasture. There are no buildings in the area.

The well is 55 feet deep and draws groundwater from a ten-foot deep layer of sand and gravel called an
aquifer. The land area (approximately two square miles) that contributes water to the well is depicted on
the attached map. This contributory area is composed of land located inside and outside of the village
limits. Within the village, this area is used for residential and commercial activities, although the village
owns and controls the land immediately surrounding the well (a 200 foot minimum radius). The area
outside of the village is composed of mostly agricultural land used to grow com.

WATER QUALITY AND WATER TREATMENT INFORMATION

The water withdrawn from the well and the spring is not disinfected prior to distribution. Water quality
testing performed by the village indicated that results of sampling done in 1997 were all within the limits
set by the DOH. However, sampling of the well did indicate an increase ‘in the levels of nitrate and the
presence of organic solvents, Although detected, both the nitrate and organic solvent levels were within
the state drinking water standards. For further information regarding the quality of the system's finished
(tap) water, please refer to the Annual Water Supply Statement.

Source Water Assessment - Village of Smalltown
N:MMPLEMEN\WPDOCS\KRISTEN\PUBWGICLNSMALL.WPD

June 1998
Page 1 of 3

y
1

t
L
t

EXAMPLE Map Nor INCLUDED
EVALUATION OF SIGNIFICANT POTENTIAL SOURCES OF CONTAMINATION

This assessment evaluates contaminants that may enter the water drawn directly from the well or spring.
The contaminants addressed in this assessment include those regulated under the federal Safe Drinking
Water Act as well as those which the DOH has determined may present a concern to public health. A
description of the significant potential sources of contamination associated with the watershed is provided
below. Each significant potential source of contamination has been analyzed and prioritized (low,
medium, and high) in accordance with their potential to impact the water supply. Potential sources of
contamination of medium and high priority are summarized below.

Gasoline Stations | Petroleum « Two gasoline stations (each with 4 underground Medium

(see map) hydrocarbons and gasoline storage tanks) are located within 500 feet

solvents of the wellhead.

¢ A spill at one gasoline station was controlled and
a remedial action plan is in place.*

On-site septic Pathogens and « Approximately 22 homes and businesses located | Medium
systems nitrates within the contributory area to the well, use septic
systems.

« Four septic systems are within the two year time
of travel to the well. These systems were
installed before modern design standards and
their integrity is unknown.

Sanitary sewers Pathogens and + All of the buildings within the village are Medium
nitrates connected to sanitary sewers which discharge to
the village’s wastewater treatment plant (see
map).

« Sanitary sewers were last tested in 1978 for leaks
and found to be marginally acceptable.

Industrial waste Solvents * An abandoned industrial paint manufacturing Medium
site (see map) facility is located approximately 750 feet from the
wellhead.

+ Low levels of solvents have been detected in
monitoring wells located at the abandoned
facility.*

* No further environmental remediation is being
required at this site.

Agricultural Nitrates and ¢ Fertilizer, a source of nitrate, is used on the

Activities pesticides cropland within the well’s contributory area.*

* Elevated nitrate levels have been observed in the
well.

Medium-High

* References are present in the Full Length Source Water Assessment Report (see below).

The spring is believed to be adequately protected from pathogen contamination since the entry of nearby
surface water has been excluded. Low level concentrations of inorganic chemicals have been detected at
the spring; however, these chemicals are probably the result of naturally occurring minerals.

Because the water from the well is not disinfected, the sanitary sewers and septic systems are potential

Source Water Assessment - Village of Smalltown June 1998
N:\IMPLEMEN\WPDOCS\KRISTEN\PUBWGICLNSMALL.WPD- Page 2 of 3

EXAMPLE MAP NOT INCLUDED
sources of pathogen contamination which could cause waterborne disease. The presence of nitrates in the
well water is suspected to be the result of fertilization of farmland within the assessment area. Septic
systems and over fertilization of lawns may also be contributing to the nitrate levels. The low levels of
organic chemical solvent in the well originated at the nearby abandoned paint manufacturing facility. No
further environmental remediation is being required at the former paint manufacturing site.

Other potential sources of contamination (and contaminants of concern) that were evaluated as part of the
Source Water Assessment of the well included: other commercial activities (solvents and petroleum);
residential activities (pesticide application); naturally occurring minerals; and radioactivity. However,
based on an evaluation of these potential contaminant sources as part of this assessment, the DOH
concluded that they do not pose a significant threat to the Village’s well. No significant sources of
contamination to the spring were identified.

ONGOING WATERSHED PROTECTION ACTIVITIES

The Smalltown aquifer has been added to the State Priority Aquifer List, a statewide list of water quality
information used to determine the need for additional investigation. The nitrate contamination is being
addressed by a voluntary cooperative effort among farmers and government agencies to limit fertilizer
application to the amount that could be used by crops. Pesticides and other potential sources of
contamination are also being addressed under this voluntary cooperative effort. Elevated nitrate levels also
affect private wells located outside of the village. Local groups are in the process of organizing a
aquifer/watershed management plan to address drinking water and other water quality issues.

SOURCE WATER PROTECTION NEEDS

An aquifer protection program should be developed for the Village of Smalltown well. Preferably, the
protection plan should be developed for the entire Smalltown aquifer and the surrounding watershed with
the cooperation of neighboring towns, county and state agencies. For example, the protection program
may include the distribution of education materials, describing fertilizer application and household
chemical storage, use and disposal, to village and town residents. Similar types of materials could also
be provided to area businesses. The integrity of the septic systems and sanitary sewers may also need to
be evaluated. A future federal rule may require the source water to be disinfected prior to distribution.

How To OBTAIN ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
This Source Water Assessment Public Summary was completed in June 1998. Individuals interested in
learning more about this water system and aquifer/watershed can contact the Village of Smalltown at
(555)555-1234 or the Little County Health Department at (555)555-3344. Additional information can be
obtained from the New York State Department of Health’s Source Water Assessment Program at (518)
458-6743. This document is also available on the DOH’s “webpage” at WWW.HEALTH.STATE.NY.US
(select “Information for Consumers”; “Environmental and Occupational Health”; “Source Water
Assessments”). A Full Length (more detailed version) of this Source Water Assessment is available for
review at the Little County Health Department and the Little County Library.

Source Water Assessment - Village of Smalliown June 1998
N.MMPLEMEN\WPDOCS\KRISTEN\PUBWG\CLNSMALL WPD Page 3 of 3

EXAMPLE Map NoT INCLUDED
SOURCE WATER ASSESSMENT PUBLIC SUMMARY
RUMBLING BROOK MOBILE HOME PARK - PUBLIC DRINKING WATER SYSTEM
JUNE 1998

INTRODUCTION

The New York State Department of Health (DOH) is completing assessments of the contaminant threats
to all public drinking water sources. The New York State and Sunny County Health Departments have
prepared this Source Water Assessment Public Summary to provide information to support local and state
efforts to protect the Rumbling Brook Mobile Home Park’s public drinking water source. The information
contained in this assessment pertains to the source of water delivered by the Rumbling Brook Mobile
Home Park water system. The emphasis of this assessment is on “source” (well) water rather than “tap”
water. Information on tap water quality is available in the Rumbling Brook Mobile Home Park's
Consumer Confidence Report on drinking water quality which is prepared annually by the operator of the
mobile home park and posted on the bulletin board located in the management office.

Wuar Is THE SOURCE OF YOUR DRINKING WATER?

The Rumbling Brook Mobile Home Park water system serves a population of 100 residents. The source
of the drinking water is a well located on the northeastern corner of the Property (see attached map). Based
on topography, ground water in the assessment area is believed to flow in a southerly direction.

The well is approximately 40 feet deep and is pumped to provide 20,000 gallons per day. Because there
is no record of its construction, it is unknown at what depth water is withdrawn from the well. The land
area that was assessed as possibly contributing water to the well has been estimated as one mile north,
east, and west (uphill) and 700 feet south (downhill). For the purpose of this source water assessment this
area has been defined as the assessment area and is depicted on the attached map. The land area uphill of
the well is primarily composed of privately owned forested land and a few cleared pasture areas. Rumbling
Brook separates the forested area from the pasture land and flows in a southerly direction approximately
300 feet west of the well. The land area downhill of the well is owned by the mobile home park and is
occupied by thirty mobile home units, and the park’s septic system leach field. Ten mobile home units and
the park’s septic system leachfield are located within the 700 foot radius downhill of the well.

WATER QUALITY AND WATER TREATMENT INFORMATION

The water withdrawn from the well is not disinfected prior to distribution to the homes. Water quality
testing performed by the mobile home park and the DOH in 1997 indicated that the water does not need
to be treated because no contamination was detected above the limits set by the DOH. For further
information regarding the quality of the system’s finished (tap) water, please refer to the Consumer

Confidence Report posted on the bulletin board in the mobile home park management office.

EVALUATION OF SIGNIFICANT POTENTIAL SOURCES OF CONTAMINATION

This assessment evaluates contaminants that may enter the water that is drawn from the well. The
contaminants evaluated in this assessment included those regulated under the federal Safe Drinking Water
Act and those the DOH has determined may present a concern to public health. A review of land uses
located within the assessment area revealed the following possible contaminant sources: mobile home park
septic system leach field, Rumbling Brook, pasture land used for livestock grazing, fuel storage tanks
associated with individual mobile home units, and a nearby oil/gas well. A discussion of each of these
potential contaminant sources is provided below. .

Source Water Assessment - Rumbling Brook Mobile Home Park June 1998
NAIMPLEMEN\WPDOCS\KRISTEN\PUBWG\RUMBLIN.WPD Page 1 of 2

EXAMPLE MAP NOT INCLUDED

The mobile home park’s septic system leach field, a potential source of pathogens (germs), is located
approximately 500 feet south of the well, However, since the septic system is located downgradient
(downhill) of the well it is unlikely to cause contamination of the well. Rumbling Brook, another possible
source of pathogens, is located approximately 300 feet west of the well. Water from the brook may reach
the well because when the well pumps it may draw water from the brook through the ground and into the
well. However, Rumbling Brook does not appear to be a significant source of pathogens or other
contaminants, because there are no sources of sewage in the area that drains to Rumbling Brook, drainage
from pasture lands (including pathogens) within the assessment area are on clay soils and would enter

Rumbling Brook downstream of the well, and the potential for contamination from wildlife appears to be
negligible.

Approximately one-third of the housing units in the mobile home park are heated with fuel oil. Four
aboveground fuel oil tanks (each having a 200-gallon capacity) are located within the source water

Another potential source of petroleum contamination is from an oil/gas exploration well approximately
one mile east of the drinking water well. However, this oil/gas exploration well is not considered a

significant potential source of contamination since a release from the oil/gas well would most likely flow
in a direction parallel to the drinking water well.

residents should be prudent in handling and storage of hazardous substances at the mobile home park
because they could contaminate the water. Hazardous materials should not be stored within a 200 foot

How To OBTAIN ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
This Source Water Assessment Public Summary was completed in June 1998. Individuals interested in

document is also available on the DOH's “webpage” at WWW.HEALTH.STATE.NY,US (select
“Information for Consumers”; “Environmental and Occupational Health”; “Source Water Assessments”).

Source Water Assessment - Rumbling Brook Mobile Home Park June 1998
NAIMPLEMEN\WPDOCS\KRISTEN\PUBWG\RUMBLIN.WPD. Page 2 of 2

Appendix H
Summary of Comments and Responses
on the Public Comment Draft of the SWAP Plan

Summary of Comments and Responses
on the Public Comment Draft of the SWAP Plan

On November 10, 1998, the New York State Department of Health (DOH) issued a public notice
about the availability of the Draft Source Water Assessment Program Plan for public review and
comment. Notice of the public comment period and availability of the Draft Plan was published in
the Business and the Environmentand the State Register and was also posted on the DOH web page.
The Draft Source Water Assessment Program Plan was mailed to approximately 760 people who had
previously expressed an interest in the Source Water Assessment Program. An additional 108 copies
of the Draft Plan were mailed to owners and operators of small public water systems and other
interested parties who attended the New York Rural Water Association Source Water Assessment
Seminars in early November. Also, owners/operators of community public water systems serving
greater than 5000 people were mailed a copy of the Public Summary of the Draft Plan. The public
comment period on the Draft Source Water Assessment Program Plan ran from November 10, 1998
through December 18, 1998. During the public comment period, public hearings were held in
Albany, Rochester and Long Island. Two individual hearing sessions were held at each location, one
in the afternoon and one in the evening.

This summary of comments and responses was developed from testimonies provided at the public
hearings as well as written comments that were submitted to the DOH during the public comment
period. For this summary, similar comments were combined and comments associated with common
topics were grouped together. All comments refer to the November 10, 1998 version of the Draft
Source Water Assessment Program Plan. Revisions to the Plan based on these public comments are
reflected in the November 1999 Final Source Water Assessment Program Plan.

Data Collection

Comment 1

Section 4.1.1. discusses how the DOH will work with local health departments to acquire information
about public water systems. The wording concerning sanitary surveys and vulnerability assessments
is vague.

Response

This section has been modified to clarify how these ongoing activities are integrated into the Source
Water Assessment Program. As stated in Section 4.1.1, all public water systems undergo periodic
sanitary surveys and as stated in Section 4.4.5, sanitary surveys will be updated as part of the effort
to field verify information from other sources (e.g., GIS). We plan to include a periodic verification
of susceptibility as part of the sanitary survey documentation.

Source Water Assessment Program Plan
Summary of Public Comments and Responses Page I of 11

For public water systems that have undergone a source water assessment, the DOH or local health
department will be completing vulnerability determinations for certain contaminants as part of
alternative monitoring requirements as permitted by the Safe Drinking Water Act . However, the
EPA has yet to finalize regulations as to what will be permitted as part of alternative monitoring.

Comment 2

Ninety-four percent of water suppliers who attended the New York Rural Water Association Source
Water Assessment Seminars in November 1998, indicated that they are willing to assist the DOH by
verifying and supplying additional data as well as reviewing draft assessments.

Response _

The DOH welcomes the opportunity to work with water suppliers on the source water assessments.
As indicated in Section 4.2.2, the DOH considers water suppliers as one of the most important
sources of information for the assessments. The Source Water Assessment Program Plan has been

modified to involve owners/operators of public water systems with data verification and other
involved partners.

Comment 3

The DOH should send the draft assessments to water suppliers for their review before they are made
available to the public.

Response

The DOH agrees that involving the water systems and other partners in the review process is a good
idea and involved partners will be provided with an opportunity to verify the data used in the
assessment, as indicated in Sections 4.1.1 and 4.1.2 of the Source Water Assessment Program Plan.

Comment 4
All water suppliers should receive a copy of source water assessments. Assessments for non-

community water systems can be “packaged” by town, aquifer or watershed area as long as the water
system receives an individual assessment as well.

Response

Grouped assessments of non-community water systems will include specific information about each
water system’s susceptibility to contamination within the defined source water assessment area. As
indicated in Section 4.6.2 of the Source Water Assessment Program Plan, all owners/operators of

community water systems will receive a summary which is adequate to support the reporting
requirements of the Consumer Confidence Reports.

Comment 5

The Plan does not have a consistent data collection methodology and use of widely differing data
collection methodologies could lead to questions about the scientific integrity of the data.

Source Water Assessment Program Plan
Summary of Public Comments and Responses Page 2 of 11

Response

As part of the guidance document that will provide assistance to people conducting assessments, a
quality assurance plan will be developed. Also the metadata that will be attached to the GIS
information will let the user know the level of confidence associated with that data set.

Deli i Se: nt A)

Comment 6

The current Department of Environmental Conservation permitting process for new public water
supply wells requires a 200 feet minimum radius protective zone and assessments based on this
criteria may be wholly inadequate.

Response _ a
As indicated in Section 4.2.2 of the Source Water Assessment Program Plan, a minimum delineation
of 500 feet will be used for all public water system supply wells.

Comment 7
All source water areas should be modeled.

Response .

The methodology outlined in the Source Water Assessment Program Plan relies on a simplistic model
to evaluate a public water system’s susceptibility to significant potential sources of contamination
within the defined source water assessmentarea. The DOH can not undertake groundwater or surface
water modeling for each public water system as part of the assessment effort. The informationneeded
for source water modeling is not reasonably available for all systems and initiating such an effort is
beyond the scope of the Source Water Assessment Program. However, as noted in Section 4.2.2. of
the Source Water Assessment Program Plan, professional judgement will be used in evaluating the
hydrogeologically sensitive areas, which may involve the use of analytical models.

Comment 8

A disclaimer or other similar statement should be widely used to indicate that the defined assessment
area is not appropriate for sophisticated protection programs such as land use regulation, land
acquisition, etc.

Response ‘

The DOH acknowledgesthat the proposed methodology for delineating source water assessmentareas
for public water systems where there is little or no information, may not be a suitable basis for
establishing sophisticated protection programs. The text in Section 4.2.1 of the Source Water
Assessment Program Plan has been revised to reflect this concern. As indicated in Section 4.6.1. of
the Plan, the format of the source water assessment will include “a description of the delineation
approach taken, why it was taken, the confidence level associated with how well it represents the
contributory area, and an evaluation of the reliability of the contaminant source inventory, based on

Source Water Assessment Program Plan
Summary of Public Commenis and Responses Page 3 of 11

field verification”. The issue of including qualifiers in the assessments about the delineated source
water assessment area will be raised with the Source Water Protection Coordinating Committee’s
Delineation Issues Working Group during development of the implementation guidance document.

Comment 9

Funding for an expanded delineation process beyond those delineation efforts proposed as being
minimally acceptable in the draft plan should be of immediate public concern, especially in those
areas designated as high priorities under the Source Water Assessment Program and the Department
of Environmental Conservation Unified Watershed Assessment Report (October 1, 1998).

Response

For those public water systems where there is no information to support a more detailed delineation,
the approach outlined in the Source Water Assessment Program Plan will be the basis for the first
iteration of the source water assessment. If, during the assessment process (i.e., contaminant
inventory and susceptibility refinement), the available information indicates the need to support
completing a more detailed delineation, then additional efforts could be undertaken to do so.
Resources, in addition to available Source Water Assessment Program funding, will likely be
necessary to enhance delineations of source water assessment areas that are completed for public
water systems under the Source Water Assessment Program.

contami to.

Comment 10

The contaminant inventory does not take into account potential sources of contamination arising from
accidents associated with railroads, highways and ships.

Response

The category of “Major Transportation Routes: Roads; Railroads; Water Transport Routes; Pipelines”
has been added to Table 2 (“Data Needs to Perform Assessments) under the heading “Contaminant
Inventory”. The source water assessment will include information about the potential of a source
to be affected by a hazardous materials spill, based on available information and professional
judgement. Local input and knowledge of this type of information will be extremely valuable in
finalizing the assessment. Information on transportation routes can also be supplemented locally or
from state GIS coverages. Vulnerability of a specific public water source due to its location near a
major transportationroute will be evaluated in the susceptibility review and refinement phase of the
assessment process. Susceptibility to potential contamination along transportation corridors will be
addressed in the guidance document(s) for completing assessments.

Comment 11

How will the DOH account for sources of contaminants that are not included in the draft Source
Water Assessment Program plan? Specifically, how will contaminants associated with fertilizers or
from activities such as road spraying and land spreading of septage and sewage treatment plant sludge

Source Water Assessment Program Plan
Summary of Public Comments and Responses Page 4 of I]

be evaluated? How will situations due to poor infrastructure which allow contaminants to enter a
system be addressed?

Response

The potential sources of contaminants identified in the draft plan were compiled from existing
databases. Table 2 (Data Needs to Perform Assessments) has been revised to include Biosolid sites
under the heading “Contaminant Inventory.” Sources of fertilizer contamination will also be
evaluated as part of the contaminant inventory (see Table 2). Other sources of contaminants, from
activities such as road spraying, or land spreading of septage, may be evaluated in the “Review and
Refinement” step in the source water assessment process. Issues related contamination of source
water(s) due to infrastructure will be addressed during the initial data gathering effort as part of the
information reviewed from sanitary surveys. Local issues and concerns not previously identified can
be evaluated and integrated into the final assessment.

Comment 12
Underground injection wells are not listed in Table 2 (Data Needs to Perform Assessments).

Response
Underground injection wells have been added to Table 2.

Comment 13

Section 4.3 does not contain a discussion of how the DOH will identify contaminants of concern.
Specifically, how was the list of pesticides in Appendix E chosen? How will agricultural pesticide
use be evaluated?

Response

The pesticides included on the List of Contaminants of Concern in Appendix E (now Appendix F)
were compiled primarily from three existing sources: pesticides federally regulated by the EPA as
drinking water contaminants; pesticides regulated and monitored for by New York State as drinking
water contaminants; and those pesticides that appear on the EPA’s Contaminant Candidate List. The
pesticides on the Contaminant Candidate List were included because of new concern. The criteria
used during the Contaminant Candidate Lists identification process included: chemicals of public
concern; chemicals of international interest and global concern; chemicals of known occurrence;
chemicals of known toxicity; high release chemicals; high production chemicals; pesticides with high
leaching potential/high run-off potential;endocrinedisruptors. In addition, the information presented
in the Department of Environmental Conservation Annual Pesticide Sales and Use Data Report was
reviewed and several additional pesticides with high sales in New York State have been added to the
List of Contaminants of Concern.

To evaluate agricultural pesticide use, the DOH will use many databases which contain relevant
pesticide data. The U.S. Department of Agriculture is a major source for pesticide use data and has
developed databases to provide statistical estimates of fertilizer and pesticide use on crops. The

Source Water Assessment Program Plan
Summary of Public Comments and Responses Page 5 of 11

DOH will also work with the Cornell Cooperative extension, the United States Geological Survey
and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation to determine which pesticides
pose threats to ambient water quality. The DOH will be utilizing all readily available databases,
including those developed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, to complete the assessments. As
noted in Section 5.1.2 of the Source Water Assessment Program Plan, the DOH is working with the
Natural Resource Conservation Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture on a pilot project to
apply the National Agricultural Pesticide Risk Analysis model to two drinking water watersheds in

western New York State. This partnership, as well as others, will provide valuable data on pesticide
use throughout New York State.

Comment 14

MTBE and other additives which may be added to gasoline should also be included on the List of
Contaminants of Concern.

Response

MTBE is included in the List of Contaminants of Concern (which is now Appendix F in the Plan)
under the heading, “Petroleum Products.” Two additional gasoline additives, ethyl-tertiary-butyl-
ether (ETBE) and tert-amyl-methyl-ether (TAME) have also been added to this listing.

Comment 15

ee glycol and ethylene glycol should be specifically identified as a “Contaminants of
oncern”.

Response

Propylene glycol and ethylene glycol have been added to the List of Contaminants of Concern under
the heading of “Other Industrial Organics” of the Source Water Assessment Plan. The List of
Contaminants of concern is now included in Appendix F.

Comment 16
Sources of contamination should be geocoded so they can be located on a GIS map.

Response

The DOH will be primarily using information from the New York State Departmentof Environmental
Conservationregarding possible contaminant sources. Much of this data already exists in the form
of databases that can be accessed using a Geographic Information System (GIS). The DOH and the

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation are committed to reviewing the data to
assure that it is accurate.

Comment 17

When chlorinated water is put on or in the ground, it percolates through the soil and forms
trihalomethanes, which then enter the ground water as recharge.

Source Water Assessment Program Plan

Summary of Public Comments and Responses Page 6 of I

Response

The DOH will compare the levels of trihalomethanesin an individual public water supply wells with
the levels of trihalomethanesin the finished water that are formed through disinfection. Based on this
evaluation, the DOH will review the level of public health concern and determine whether the
contribution of triaholomethanes from the ground water source is significant.

Comment 18
Hundreds of old, buried residential oil tanks may be rusting and leaking, thereby causing
contamination of the groundwater and this threat needs to be addressed.

Response

After several decades of monitoring public water system wells for contaminants that are
representative of fuel oil, there are very few cases where fuel oil contaminants have been detected in
public water supply sources. The majority of these cases are associated with commercial
establishments and not homes. However, Table 4 has been revised to reflect an additional rating of
“medium” due to the potential for groundwater contaminationby petroleum products and halogenated
solvents in areas characterized as “high intensity residential”.

Comment 19
The glossary should be expanded to include the definition of “pesticides” from the Environmental
Conservation Law, to clarify the distinction between these chemicals and others on the Contaminant
Inventory list.

Response
The glossary has been expanded to include a definition of “pesticides” similar to that defined in the
Environmental Conservation Law.

Susceptibility Analysis

Comment 20

Figure 3 in the Source Water Assessment Program Plan needs more detail to be useful. First, only
source water contamination above or approaching the maximum contaminant level should
immediately trigger high source sensitivity. Second, the DOH needs to outline how it will define a
confined aquifer, a lower permeability layer, and an aquifer of high hydraulic conductivity. Sources
with unknown sensitivity should be assigned a medium sensitivity priority unless it can be proven
that there are extenuating circumstances.

Response

Addressing source waters with contamination not above the maximum contaminant level and how
to define a confined aquifer, a lower permeability layer, and an aquifer of high hydraulic conductivity
will be addressed in the guidance document for implementation of the Source Water Assessment
Program. The DOH’s approach to characterizing sensitivity considers that the uncertainties associated

Source Water Assessment Program Plan
Summary of Public Comments and Responses Page 7 of 11

with the absence of information (e.g., no well log) is a valid basis for a more protective estimate of
sensitivity. Furthermore, such data gaps do not allow confirmation of the natural contaminant

protection assumed in the DOH’s susceptibility approach for ground waters with a “medium”
sensitivity.

Comment 21

There should be broad public participation in all aspects of the assessment process. In Section 4.5,
“public input meetings” should be added to the requirements. These meetings should be held in each
watershed to gather comments on the condition of the watershed.

Response

The DOH will develop a guidance document for individuals conducting the assessments, and the
document will include ways to obtain information from people outside of government that are
interested in the source. The amount of public participationin conducting assessments will vary from
source to source depending on the interest local people have in their source of public drinking water
and existing organizational structures for protecting water resources.

Comment 22

There must be a significant amount of publicity and information on the results of the Source Water
Assessment Program once they are available. If the Source Water Assessment Program is to have

a meaningful value, it is essential that a major effort must be made to publicize the results of the
assessments.

Response

Information from the source water assessments is required to be included in the Consumer
Confidence Reports. These reports will be published annually by all community water systems and
will be widely distributed using a variety of methods based on the size of the water system. In
addition, the Source Water Assessment Program guidance document will have other suggested
methods for local entities to use to provide a broader dissemination of the assessment information.

At a minimum, the assessments will be available to the public through the DOH and local Health
Departments.

General Comments

Comment 23

The assessment should provide direction and assistance to a community in carrying out appropriate
follow-up actions. Source water protectionneeds enumerated in the source water assessments should
be adequately described so as to give direction to future source water protection efforts, yet not so
prescriptive as to be perceived as regulatory requirements.

Source Water Assessment Program Plan

Summary of Public Comments and Responses Page 8 of I

Response : : :
The completed source water assessments are designed to guide source water protection planning at

the local level. The contaminant inventory that is completed as part of the assessment procest val
provide specific information about potential contaminant sources of concern and the suscepti a
analysis will provide part of the basis for setting priorities for state and local ee -
involvement of local officials with the Source Water Assessment Program will provide a link to
future community involvement in watershed and source protection.

Comment 24 ae ;
Source Water Assessments should be linked to protection.

aaa Water Assessment Program is a prelude to protection in that the all available a
will be assembled and reviewed to determine where protection of source waters needs to be enhance ls
The Source Water Assessment Program will also have relevance to other state and local po! nition
prevention programs. The Source Water Assessment Program provides another opportunity ° ook
at these issues from a public health aspect and will also provide a mechanism for responding
emerging contaminants of concern, such as MTBE and viruses.

Comment 25 ; ;
Smaller systems need to be given a higher priority on the completion of the assessments.

Response ; oo
The Source Water Assessment Program Plan has been revised to delete the reference indicating that

higher population water systems will have a higher priority.

Comment 26 ;
The! DOH should note in the objectives of the Plan that the Source Water Assessment Program will

benefit systems by providing them with critical information about sources of drinking water.

Response ;
This issue has been addressed in Section 1.3 and Section 3.1 of the Plan.

Comment 27 ;
Long Island has been doing assessment-type work for many years. How will the Source Water

Assessment Program help Long Island?

Response ; : ; ,
Tse Sous Water Assessment Program will provide an opportunity to improve the public’s

i i ic regi d source water protectionneeds. The New
understanding of Long Island’s unique geologic regime an :
York State Department of Environmental Conservation and the DOH plan to work with local partners

Source Water Assessment Program Plan Page 9 of 11
Summary of Public Comments and Responses

to update the ground water protection strategy for Long Island as part of the Unified Watershed
Assessments,

Comment 28

Will the assessments only list items that are resolvable through future funding or will they list all
potential contaminant concerns, even if difficult to solve?

Response

The Source Water Assessment Program will address all Potential contaminants of concernto drinking
water sources. In many cases, the issue of tesolvability goes beyond basic assessment efforts and

Comment 29

The DOH should providemore detail on how monitoring flexibility will result from the Source Water
Assessment Program.

Response

The EPA- approved vulnerability determination protocol (e.g., DOH Technical Reference PWS 72)
will be used for granting waivers for systems serving fewer than 10,000 people. Additional

State procedures, which are based on susceptibility analysis conducted as part of the Source Water
Assessment Program, will be submitted to the EPA for approval.

Comment 30

The Source Water Assessment Program informationis Tequired as part of the Consumer Confidence
reports. However source water assessments are a one-time snapshot of the water supply’s source.

The DOH should ensure that a mechanism exists for updating assessments after their initial
completion.

Response
The portion of the source Water assessment information that will be included in the Consumer

information,

Comment 31

The DOH has not and should work out the details internally on who will be completing the
assessments,

Source Water Assessment Program Plan

‘Summary of Public Comments and Responses Page 10 of 11

een departments will be directly involved with the assessment process, and in many cases
ocal he:

involvement will
the lead agency for conducting the assessments. The extent of other agent inv ve ——
felne i d once the Source Water Assessment Program plan is final. We a ip rate
Wedlcoe it by local partners during the source water assessment process will vary
i en . . . 7
v liondh Oa however, in some cases will be quite extensive.
wi >

Deaton and flooding should not be overlooked when assessing sources of water.
roug

ibili is analysis will
Pech ascemnent includes determining the susceptibility of a source of water, and this ly:

lity.
evaluate whether drought or flood conditions could adversely affect source water quality

eel i nt Program?
foade State have sufficient resources to implement the Source Water Assessme 2

ined i ion 1.4.
teats design is based on the funds budgeted for the program, as outlined in Section

Page 11 of 1
MACLAUDINE\SWAP\SWAPI199.WPD