Laserfiche WebLink
I <br /> i <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br /> I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />I <br />I <br />i <br />! <br />I <br />! <br />I <br />! <br />I~~ <br /> <br />C. Regional Geology <br /> <br />The "leaky aquiclude" is further supported by the inclusion of "reworked till" on p. <br />D-10. Such a formation is very likely to have interbedded coarse layers present. <br />Page D-14 further limits the ability of the aquiclude with the "red coarse till" <br />extending through breaching the fine grained materials. This is also shown .'_m .... <br />Figure D.C.3. <br /> <br />D. Regional Hydrogeology <br /> <br />On pages D-20 through D-25 the presentation and usage of data dealing with the <br />area well search and aquifer usage has the potential to grossly underestimate <br />aquifer usage. The combined response from both the Minnesota Geologic Survey <br />(MGS) and mail survey yielded a total response of 32% of the wells with usable <br />data. It is very possible th_at a large percentage of the unreported/unregistered <br />wells are placed in the water table aquifer. If half of the unreported wells were <br />indeed utilizing the shallow drift water table, the resultant shallow aquifer usage <br />would increase to 35% as compared with the reported value of 4%. <br /> <br />On p. D-25 it is stated that 96% of the water supply wells are protected by till or <br />shale. This figure does not take into account the possibility of a "leaky aquitard" or <br />the possibility of biased well/aquifer usage data. <br /> <br />E. Site Geology <br /> <br />No comments <br /> <br />10 <br /> <br /> <br />