Laserfiche WebLink
Ramsey (1020035) <br />Public Water Supplier: <br />12/15/2017 <br />Date: <br /> <br />Other high-capacity wells within 1.5 miles of the DWSMA, used in the 2007 delineation, <br />have increased or decreased their pumping rate. In addition, some wells were not used in <br />the previous delineation. All high capacity wells within 1.5 miles of the DWSMA were <br />included in the new model well file and pumping rates were updated to reflect the average <br />2012 2016 pumping rates. This new well file was used in the model to estimate the new <br />capture zone. <br /> <br />As depicted in Figure 1a, the new capture zone is not very different from the old one for <br />Wells 3, 5, 6, and 7. The pumping rates used in the delineation have increased in Well 4 <br />and decreased in Well 8 since the previous delineation. As a result, the predicted capture <br />zone is larger for Well 4 and smaller for Well 8. <br /> <br />A smaller capture zone was delineated for Wells 1 and 2 (Figure 1b). Wells 1 and 2 are in a <br />separate well field east of Wells 3 through 8. They were not delineated with the model used <br />in 2007 but were delineated using a different model under a previous plan (Robertson, <br />2001). Despite the differences that were noted above, the new capture zones are still <br />contained by the existing DWSMAs (Figures 1a and 1b). <br /> <br /> <br />Step 4 <br /> - Using the information assembled in the previous steps, is there information <br />documenting either 1) new hydrogeologic flow boundaries or 2) changes to the hydrogeologic <br />flow boundaries that were included in the current WHPA delineation that are significant enough <br />to require re-delineating the WHPA? <br /> No <br />Yes (Describe the changes to the hydrogeologic flow boundaries that have been <br />identified. Examples include re-interpretations of aquifer geometry, hydraulic <br />connections to surface water features or recharge.) <br /> <br />Step 5 <br /> Has there been a change in the ambient groundwater flow field, either due to hydrologic <br />conditions, addition of new data or re-interpretation of old data? <br /> No <br />Yes (Describe the change.) <br /> <br />Step 6 <br /> Does the previous WHPA delineation need to be modified to include either or both of <br />the following? (check as needed) <br /> Fracture flow delineation component (For example, has borehole geophysical work <br />identified specific flow horizons in a fractured aquifer, or were secondary porosity <br />conditions not addressed in the previous delineation according to the current standards?) <br /> Surface water contribution area (For example, has monitoring data showed that a <br />suspected hydrologic feature is not functioning as a flow boundary or was the need for a <br />conjunctive delineation not considered in the previous delineation?) <br />5 <br />V1.0 2/2013 <br /> <br />