Laserfiche WebLink
Ramsey (1020035) <br />Public Water Supplier: <br />12/15/2017 <br />Date: <br />The DWSMA remains unchanged and reflects the capture zone that would result <br />from the use of a time of travel of 12 years approximately. <br /> <br />Step 11 <br /> Is the WHPA delineation method that was used for the current plan still adequate to <br />address modifications that have been identified in any of the previous steps? <br /> <br />The original model is based on a MODFLOW model developed by the <br /> Yes. <br />consultant for the Tunnel City and Wonewoc Sandstones. It was imported in a <br />recent version of the pre- and post-processor GMS (ver. 10.3). The model runs in <br />MODFLOW 2000 <br /> <br /> No (update the delineation method/model as needed there must be a runnable <br />version of the model in a useable code so results can be validated). <br /> <br /> <br />Step 12 <br /> - Do the existing DWSMA boundaries need to be re-defined? <br /> <br /> The new WHPA has been redefined using an updated version of the 2007 <br /> No. <br />model. It was redefined in the same manner as in 2007by concatenating the capture <br />zone results of 11 scenarios. The 2017 WHPA is still contain within the existing <br />DWSMA <br />. Congratulations you may use the EZ amendment form to document the <br />amended Part 1 and file this worksheet to document the basis for using it. <br /> Yes, the amended WHPA does not extend beyond the current DWSMA boundaries; <br />however the existing DWSMA boundaries can be reduced based on new information <br />such as parcel data. Congratulations you may use the EZ amendment form to document <br />the amended Part 1 and file this worksheet to document the basis for using it. <br /> Yes, the amended WHPA does extend beyond the current DWSMA boundaries. <br />Create a new Part 1 report. <br /> <br /> <br />Step 13 <br /> Does information exist to support an updated DWSMA vulnerability assessment? <br /> No, the geographic extent of the DWSMA is not changing and no new hydrogeologic, <br />chemical or isotopic data exist to justify a change. <br /> <br /> Yes, the geographic extent of the DWSMA is changing and/or new hydrogeologic, <br />chemical or isotopic data exist to justify a change. <br />L-scores were regenerated at wells using the CWI data available in 2017. City wells <br />were analyzed for tritium in 2012 and 2017. Review of the existing geologic <br />information and recent tritium sampling at the city wells did not change the <br />DWSMA vulnerability status around Wells 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. The rising tritium in <br />Well 1 argues for a more protective DWSMA vulnerability rating. Therefore, the <br />DWSMA vulnerability status around Wells 1 and 2 changed from low to moderate. <br /> <br /> <br />8 <br />V1.0 2/2013 <br /> <br />