Laserfiche WebLink
Public Water Supplier: Ramsey (1020035) <br />Date: 12/15/2017 <br />Step 3 — Other than changes to the city wells identified above, what information is new since the <br />previous delineation? <br />Chemistry — compare data for select parameters (or standard suite?) for user -specified or <br />standardized time periods (ex., 8 years preceding previous delineation compared with <br />everything since then). Select parameters could be via a checklist like Al's current Arcmap <br />tool. Standard suite could be tritium, stable isotopes and assessment monitoring suite. This <br />may include city wells and a search of the entire DWSMA or DWSMA plus buffer. Could <br />be presented in tabular form as below: <br />Total coliform were absent in all wells. Well 7 and 8 did not have tritium results when the <br />original part 1 was completed in 2007. They were sampled in 2012. Well 7 non vulnerable <br />status was confirmed by the tritium sampling. Well 8 on the other hand went from non - <br />vulnerable to vulnerable because tritium was found at 2.5 TU in the 2012 sample. Wells 1, <br />3, 4, 5, and 6 were resampled and analyzed for tritium in 2017. <br />The 2017 tritium sampling confirmed the vulnerability of Wells 3, 4, 5, and 6. Wells 1 and 2 <br />vulnerability status changed from non -vulnerable to vulnerable because tritium was found <br />at 1.6 TU and 2.4 TU in the 2006 and 2017 Well 1 samples, respectively. <br />Table 2 — Updated Chemistry Information <br />Unique <br />Number <br />Isotope <br />Data/GW Class <br />New detection of SDWA <br />contaminants <br />Previous contaminants no <br />longer detected <br />Geologic <br />Sensitivity <br />Depth <br />Aquifer <br />Geology/Boundary Conditions — identify if any of the following are new since the last Part 1 <br />approval date: <br />List of published reports or studies: e.g. County Geologic Atlas, regional hydrologic <br />studies: <br />Anoka County Geologic Atlas Part A and Part B were published in 2013 and 2016, <br />respectively. The Geologic Atlas does not suggest that flow boundaries need to be <br />reassessed. In addition, no new geologic data was added that suggest a change in the 2007 <br />interpretation of the DWSMA vulnerability. <br />Wells within lmile of DWSMA, (tabular listing with depth/aquifer info for quick <br />assessment) from: <br />Located CWI <br />Unlocated CWI <br />Wells DB (disclosures, maintenance permits) listed by TRS <br />3 <br />V1.0 2/2013 <br />