Appendix A

Minutes
Source Water Assessment Plan Advisory Committee Meeting
November 4, 1998

John Barnes	Wyoming State Engineer's Office
Floyd Field	Wyoming Association of Rural Water Systems
Larry Meuli	City/County Health Department
Kevin Frederick	Dept. of Environmental Quality/Water Quality Division
Gus Lopez	City/County Health Department
John Geidt	US Environmental Protection Agency, Region VIII
Myron Brooks	US Geological Survey
Rick Schuler	US Bureau of Land Management
Jim VanDorn	Cheyenne Board of Public Utilities
Brian Mark	Dept. of Environmental Quality/Water Quality Division
Larry Robinson	Dept. of Environmental Quality/Water Quality Division
Mike Hackett	Wyoming Water Development Commission
Carol Stearns	Wyoming Association of Municipalities
Jeff Lundberg	Wyoming Ag-Business

Following the opening comments, the deadline for the Wyoming SWAP review and approval process was discussed. Since Wyoming's Source Water Assessment Plan (SWAP) must be submitted to EPA Region VIII by February 6, 1999, the draft needs to be completed by the first week in December. A 45-day public review and comment period is required prior to presenting the SWAP to the Water and Waste Advisory Board on January 18, 1999. The Guidance must be signed by the Water Quality Division Administrator prior to be submitted to the EPA.

Kevin then provided the location of the Nebraska SWAP that is available over the Internet: http://www.deq.state.ne.us/ Kevin noted that because of similarities between the Nebraska and Wyoming, rural areas, that Wyoming's SWAP may be similar in some ways to Nebraska's SWAP.

The first topic discussed was the final review of the prioritization sheet for ranking public water systems (PWSs) for Source Water Assessments.

Floyd Field noted that the definition of 'undeveloped' and 'urban and industrialized' should be defined to determine the difference when performing the ranking in Section II.

Rick Schuler said that grazing and timber cutting would be an example of uses on undeveloped lands.

Kevin noted that Forest Service and National Parks would not likely change in land use in the future. It was concluded that examples of land uses would be included under II. to help define these terms.

Such as the following:
1) 'undeveloped Forest Service and National Park lands' would probably fall under undeveloped headwaters with no evidence of future development
2) 'Privately owned lands' are probably more prone to future development.

Next, the 'Ability to Pay' in Section III was discussed. Brian Mark noted that the SRF Funding intended use plan (IUP) ranks the public water systems receiving State Revolving Funds based upon public health and compliance considerations. Most of the municipalities have annual median household incomes (AMHI) above 70%., therefore, it was suggested that the graduations or ranges in the 'Ability to Pay' category are adjusted. It had been proposed that the privately-owned systems will be awarded 3 points.

Mike Hackett said that of the approximately 100 projects that are being funding most have an AMHI between 70 -90% of the state AMHI. Mike also said that most of the privately owned systems may likely be in the less than 50% category, such as, trailer parks, etc..

Myron Brooks asked whether the vulnerability ranking in 1.A. would tend to heavily favor this category.

Floyd Field said that since the public water systems are sampling water at intake to distribution system every 3 to 5 year; therefore, the 5 year interval for chemical contaminants is reasonable.

Larry Robinson described the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (SRF) Programs.

The Community Support Branch of DEQ will be under the direction of Brian Mark. Approximately $80 million with the State Fund Match is available for low interest loans to help fund the capital improvements for public drinking water systems. Capacity development requires the demonstration of financial, technical, and managerial capabilities. Source water assessments are an important part of demonstrating technical capabilities. The deadline for completing the draft capacity development regulations for the Water and Waste Advisory Board on January 18, 1999. The deadline for the final regulations is Oct. 1, 1999 and a potential sanction or penalty may be incurred if the deadline is not meet.

The results of the source water assessments will be important in determining the needed improvements or to the implementation of preventive measures to insure the quality and adequacy of the water from public water systems. 4 % or about $.5 million of the annual Drinking Water SRF money is available for administering the program.

John Giedt also recommended that Wyoming may consider that loan funding in the SRF Program should only be available to public water systems that are wanting to have source water assessments completed.

Brian Mark said the PWS's ability to meet capacity development requirements must be acceptable to be eligible for SRF funding. The PWS's compliance with Consumer Confidence Reporting may also be a consideration for determining the eligibility for funding.

John Giedt talked about performing susceptibility assessments. The EPA susceptibility assessment document (SAD) has finally been completed. He discussed how the susceptibility needs to address both (inter issues - 'how states will perform statewide ranking of public water systems') and (intra-'how each PWS ranks particular contaminant sources'.)

The document discusses some simple ways of how states can breakout susceptibility rankings for particular water systems:

High Susceptibility                    Low Susceptibility
By Type of Water Supply:
Surface Water Systems                  Groundwater Systems
Groundwater-unconfined aquifers        Groundwater-confined aquifers

By Type of Contaminants Sources and          
Type of System:
Transient Public Water Systems-        Transient Public Water Systems-
Contaminants with acute health         Toxic contaminants  - SOCs, etc.
effects - pathogenic