HomeMy WebLinkAbout9A - Jordan Well
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
5+a.: A \ sew~' 1:.0\~~bl'
J -elite 6f~ IJ... vel { fIJ r~
:t;lJ.~~
REVIEWED BY:
SUBJECT:
APRIL 3, 2000
9A .
BUD OSMUNDSON, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS I
CITY ENGINEER
FRANK BOYLES, CITY MANAGER
CONSIDER APPROVAL OF PROPOSAL TO RETAIN A
CONSULTING ENGINEER IN PREPARATION FOR
DEVELOPMENT OF A JORDAN WELL ON THE WEST
SIDE OF PRIOR LAKE
DATE:
AGENDA #:
PREPARED BY:
DISCUSSION:
HISTORY
M :',OC10
The city has been working with the Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources on a new city production well since 1997.
The city currently has three wells that are pumping from the
Prairie Du Chien Jordan Acquifer. The DNR has not allowed
the city to drill an additional Jordan Acquifer well due to the
concerns by various agencies that the pumping from this
aquifer would have a detrimental affect on the Savage Fen
wetland complex. The City had an engineer for this project
but the budget was completely utilized in attempting to
convince the permitting agencies to allow the city to drill an
additional Jordan or Mount Simon Hinkley well within our
existing well field.
D~ S\\\~\~ \\\-
For the past three years, the DNR has been attempting to
convince Savage, Shakopee, and Prior Lake to utilize the
Franconian-Ironton-Galesville Acquifer (FIG) as an
alternative source of water to the Jordan Acquifer. The
other source of water, the Mount Simon Hinkley Acquifer,
the deepest of the three has been protected from any new
well construction by State statute since 1988. The City of
Savage has spent a considerable amout of money and time
on ground water modeling and looking for alternatives to the
Jordan Acquifer as a source of water.
The FIG Aquifer mayor may not perform adequately as a
city water supply well. Savage has done extensive testing of
the FIG and the pumping rates are low and the draw-down is
considerable in this aquifer. Typically a good Jordan well
can be expected to produce 1,000 gallons per minute
16200~ekoocAve. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
(GPM). The highest production rate we are aware of for a
FIG well is 750 GPM (the Mdewakanton Sioux well).
Savage has performed testing and modeling which shows
that only one FIG well would be productive in the entire City
of Savage and that well would be only marginally productive.
Letters to and from the DNR and other general information
regarding wells and these issues are attached.
The city has been growing for the past three years and is
now at least three years behind in providing firm well
capacity for its population. The attached chart shows the
total water pumped plus the average and maximum daily
water demand for each five year period since 1980. As you
can see, the water pumped and the average daily demand
on our system has more than doubled since 1980. The city
has done a commendable job in trying to conserve water
and will be required to do more in the water conservation
area in the future. However, as the city continues to grow,
we do need another well on-line as soon as possible to meet
the water demand.
Over the last few months, the DNR has worked with other
agencies who, like us, are involved in the Southwest Metro
Groundwater Work Group and have done more groundwater
modeling and study of the impact Jordan wells have on the
Savage Fen complex. Now they have come to the
conclusion that if the city were to drill a Jordan Aquifer well
on the west side of Prior Lake, there may be no detrimental
impact to the Savage Fen. Staff met with representatives of
the DNR on March 15th and they have indicated that a
Jordan well on the west side of the lake would be allowed
with the stipulation that an observation well to monitor the
water level in the Jordan Acquifer also be supplied by the
city (cost estimated at $10,000.00). This may be done with
an existing well or an abandoned well in a newly developed
area or the city may have to drill this observation well.
ISSUES
The city's Comprehensive Water Supply Plan has always
shown an additional well outside of the existing well field.
The city has an existing sixteen inch trunk water line
adjacent to County Road 82 near the Glynwater area which
could provide the capacity for a well in this area. The
geology would have to be studied and the appropriate land
acquired prior to beginning the construction of Well NO.6.
WELL6AG.DOC
ALTERNATIVES:
RECOMMENDED
MOTION:
WELL6AG.DOC
. -.-' -
The alternatives to drilling a Jordan well on the west side of
the lake is to continue to try to get special permission to drill
a Mount Simon Hinkley Well in our existing well field.
Besides being very difficult to get this permission, the Mount
Simon Hinkley water can contain high levels of radon and/or
radium which require treatment. Furthermore, the Mount
Simon Hinkley well would be approximately 30 to 40% more
expensive than a Jordan well due to the deeper drilling.
Another alternative would be to drill a FIG well which also
has its liabilities. As previously stated, it is a very poor
producing aquifer and we may not achieve the desired flow
from it. The FIG well would also cost more than a Jordan
well.
Staff recommends that we move forward with the Jordan
well on the west side of the lake. The first step would be to
hire a consultant who would study the geology and
determine the appropriate area for a new well. The
estimated cost of the engineering, well construction, and
pumphouse construction of a new well can be up to
$600,000.00 as identified in the City's Capital Improvement
Program. The attached sheet shows the proposed schedule
if we move forward at this time. With this schedule the well
would not be providing water to our residents until summer
of 2001.,
7"":1.- \ (.\!
<:...--' V\._
The alternatives are as follows:
,I:".' ", ./
i"
i (
i' '1( fl'--?
/'1, /"
~ I,) p, 0/" i
I I ',t,.~,
I
1. Direct Staff to solicit' engineering proposals for the
development of a new Jordan well on the west side of
the lake and bring a recommendation for consultant
selection back to the City Council at its earliest
convenience.
2. Direct Staff to investigate other water sources.
Alternative No 1.
REVIEWED BY:
T
J..1'..L~LL '-'I '-"'-'..AI.~'-" . - ~_'__ ______0_
5'YI\. 1/3 /q 97
The race for water
For five southwestern suburbs in the Twin
Cities area, the race to drill deeper into the
ground for water is drawing the attention of
state offICials and may be an early sign of a
metrowide problem. Growth projections show
the five suburbs, which already have 42
municipal wells and plan to drm 25 more, will
have a 67 percent pcpulatkin increase by
2020. But state officials, concerned that the
existing wells are draining nearby wetlands
and streams, are worried that simp.lY drilling
deeper may cause even more environmental
problems and that the cities have done 6tt1e
to conserve water.
1.200 ft.
1.000
800
600
40Q
200
II Wells
Sea level 0
-200
By 2020, five cities - Shakopee, prior Lake, Savage, .
Bwnsville and Lakeville- wBI see big increases in popula-
tion lUld in the total amounts that their wells can pump.
Population
(in thousands)
200
...... 150
. .........100
~'~j
, '-:--.~ 50
'SO I '70 I '90 2020 0
'SO '80
1950 '60 '70 'SO . '90 2000 '10 '20
[3 Aquifers: R~k formations with
interconnected pores and fractures that
can readily transmit water. They recharge
<frcftn precipitation that soaks into the
.. "'. 'di~~.or frol11. streams, lakes
. Confining layers:
less saturated,
less permeable
rock formations
that retard water
movement
i.."~~J'\ aquifers.
Note: Illustration
is representational of actual location
of aquifers and has been exaggerated vertically
by approximately 15 times.
Sources: Minoesota Geological Survey. Metropolitan Council, U.s. Census
WATER from. B1.
.
.o!
Minnesota Department of Natural Resp.l:ll:fes .
/i';'l r r.,,~
r/ II LL,~ is} r: .
)()(l L~fay"lt(' R(l~Jr @ <<S' 1/ (IIi ">
. - - _. , . , I.' ",
SLPa\lI.\linnCS(lla))I)).-l()~ r F~8 l!J I/:I_~
CJ 10 ~/I.'iJ
&Y~~:::f!l
February 17, 2000
Tom Roushar
Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates
2335 West Highway 36
St. Paul, MN 55113
Dear Mr. Roushar:
RE: Additional Jordan Well, City of Prior Lake
Recently, you contacted me concerning the expansion of Prior Lake's water supply
system. You were wondering whether a Jordan aquifer well located west ofthe
buried glacial valley would be acceptable (Attachment A). From my review ofthe
available data and in consultation with DNR's Regional and Area Hydrologists and
other hydrogeologists in Waters' Ground Water Unit, I'v.e detennined that a Jordan
aquifer well in the area indicated on your map would be an acceptable alternative
provided that suitable water level observation wells can be found or drilled on both
sides of the buried valley so that the aquifer can be monitored closely. Infonnation
obtained during the course of placement and pumping from this site can then be used
to determine whether further withdrawal from the Jordan west of the buried glacial
valley would be acceptable. Please note that your inquiry does not constitute a
formal request by the City and, therefore,this response is only for your infonnation
in determining the City's next steps.
Before responding to your inquiry, I reviewed, con'sidered and consulted the
following: .
. Geologic Atlas Scott County, Minnesota, County Atlas Series Map C-1, Plates 5 &
6, 1982. - The general location ofthe site that you identified is west ofa buried
glacial valley and on the opposite side of that feature from the Savage Fen and
other surface water features of concern. This buried glacial valley was incised
through both the Prairie du Chien and Jordan (PduC/J) formations into the
FranconialIrontonlGalesville (FIG). Also, on Plate 6, the directions of ground
water flow in both the PduC/J and FIG aquifers are indicated. Ground water
flow in the PduC/J and the FIG at the requested site is toward the northwest
rather than the north or northeast toward Savage Fen. One note of caution,
however, is that this map is nearly 20 years old and no published update is
available. Therefore, if or when these maps are redone with all the new well
riNR Information: 651-296-6157 · 1-888-646-6367 · TIT: 651-296-5484 · 1-800-657-3929
An Equal OpponunilY Employer
Who Values Diversity
()
Prinled on Recyded Paper Containing a
Minimum of 10% Posl.Q)nsumer Waste
construction data since that time period, the depth and location of the buried
glacial valley and the direction of ground water flow may be adjusted.
. Savage aquifer test data Jan. 1998 and Sept.- Oct. 1998 (unpublished), and an
unpublished well record for a FIG well at the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux
Community (SMSC) - Water levels in wells which were measured during aquifer
tests ofthe PduC, the Jordan and the FIG aquifers plus the as-constructed water
levels in a FIG well at SMSC were plotted and generally confirmed the FIG flow
directions and the PduC/J flow in the vicinity of the Savage Fen as they were
mapped on the County Atlas geologic maps (see first item). Additional water
level data for Jordan wells in Prior Lake and Shakopee have not yet been
analyzed. The results of the Sept. - Oct. 1998, aquifer tests confinn that the
PduC and Jordan aquifers are hydraulically connected to some degree in this
vicinity. This connectivity has been the subject of considerable study and
discussion in the last couple of years. The consensus is that, particularly along
existing or buried valleys, the degree of hydraulic connection between the two
formations/aquifers increases greatly near the edges ofthose valleys. The area
surrounding the Savage Fen, the location of Prior Lake's current Jordan
wellfield, and the proposed location of this new Jordan well are all near valley
edges and thus will likely have a greater hydiaulic connection between the two
formations.
. USGS Open-File Report 96-182, Analysis of Hydrogeologic Properties in the
Prairie du Chien-Jordan Aqllifer. Shalropee Mdewa1n'l'lton Sioll..'l!: Co!!'_'!!u!'ity,
Southeastern Minnesota; USGS Water-Resources Investigations Report 99-4183, .
. Hydraulic Properties ofthe Prairie du Chien- Jordan Aquifer, Shakopee
Mdewakanton Sioux Community, Southeastern Minnesota, 1997, and Prior Lake
Savage Fen Impact Report, Barr, June, 1995 - These documents present the
results of either pumping tests or modeling and vary in their presumptions of the
effect of the sediments in the buried glacial valley on the flow in PduC/J on either
side ofthe valley and, therefore, on the Savage Fen. In my opinion it is likely
that the type of valley fill is quite variable depending upon the volume of flow
through the valley at the time of deposition. With that in mind and with the
direction of flow shown on the available geologic maps, it is my opinion that the
buried glacial valley may constitute more of a boundary to ground water flow in
the PduC/J than a path for uninterrupted flow. Additional mapping of new well
records would potentially verify or disprove this opinion; however, that work has
not been done and I do not know of any plans to do that at this time.
. Water level observation wells - In a recent phone Conversation with me, you
indicated that there are likely to be existing, unused domestic wells in the Jordan
aquifer which are located east and northeast of the proposed site between -that
site and the Savage Fen area. The DNR would require that observation wells be
in place prior to pumping at the new location. There would need to be at least one
observation well on each side of the buried glacial valley at mutually agreeable
locations.
Since there is a 16" water main within a reasonable distance, little new
infrastructure would need to be constructed. If for some reason this location does not
prove to be a desirable site for further expansion or that use of this new well has to
2
I
---.----------- .-----r...--..----------.....-----..
be restricted, then the inv~stment has been relatively small. Another option at this
site is to design the well so that it could be extended in the FIG or perhaps the Mt.
Simon if things didn't work out.
This option for a new Jordan well location appears to be a good alternative which
could not only meet Prior Lake's immediate supply needs, but also provide
quantitative data on propagation of drawdowns in the Jordan due to pumping ofthe
Jordan. Of course, quantitative data is preferable to system modeling based on
assumptions when making water management decisions.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 651-296-9231.
Sincerely,
DNR Waters
rv-J
~li f ~( L--,1'-'.<e~
Laurel D. Reeves, PG
Hydrogeologist
cc: Frank Boyles, Prior Lake City Manager
Bud Osmundson, Prior Lake Div. of Public WorksICity Engineer
Gary Oberts, MCES
Dale Homuth, DNR Waters
Pat Lynch, DNR W~ters
Jim Japs, DNR Waters
John Line Stine, DNR Waters
3
~~
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Metro Waters - 1200 Warner Road, St. Paul, MN 55106-6793
Telephone: (651) 772-7910 Fax: (651) 772-7977
Novemberl2, 1999
Frank Boyles, City Manager
City of Prior Lake
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E.
Prior Lake, MN 55372-1714
RE: Proposed New Well, City of Prior Lake
Dear Mr. Boyles:
My apologies for taking so long to respond to xour October 4, 1999-letter. As we discussed on the
phone the other day, the questions and issues you bring up relate to opinions of another Unit within
DNR Waters. Because this is a very busy time of the year for that Unit, it took some time to get their
opinions on these issues.
The law that restricts the use of the Mt. Simon/Hinckley aquifer requires that no feasible or practical
aitemative water suppiyexist before the DNK can issue permits for use of water from this aquifer.
Therefore, when you construct your new well, you must show that the FranconialIrontonlGalesville
(FIG) aquifer is not a feasible or practical water source.
The DNR has found that there is sufficient variation of the geologic and hydrogeologic properties
of the FIG aquifer in Scott County to warrant careful consideration of this aquifer for your water
supply. The DNR is unwilling to set any minimum pumping rate or specific capacity in an attempt
to define what is "feasible or practical." We have found that the feasibility of using lower yield
aquifers varies considerably depending on a City's needs. Instead, I propose the following
procedure: 1) If there is agreement during the drilling through the FIG between the City and the
DNR that the FIG will meet th~ City's needs, then the City will develop and utilize the AG. 2) If
there is agreement by both DNR and the City that the FIG is inadequate, then the City continues to
the Mt. Simon/Hinckley aquifer. 3) If the DNR feels that use of the FIG may be feasible and
practical, but the City does not, then the City will need to conduct a FIG aquifer test of a minimum
three days to demonstrate the FIG's parameters.
In any instance, we aslc the City to provide or contribute to the construction of an observation well
in the aquifer they will be using. Since the City of Shakopee is also requesting additional water
usage from the Mt. SimonlHinckley aquifer, they too will be asked to provide such an observation
well. I am advised that one such observation well would be adequate between both cities. If you
want more information on the possible location and specifications for such an observation well,
pleasecontact Laurel Reeves at 651-296-9231.
DNR Information: 651-296-6157 · 1-888-646-6367 · TIY: 651-296-5484 · 1-800-657-3929
An Equal Opportunity Employer
Who Values Diversity
....\ Printed en Recycled Paper Containing a
".... Minimum of 10% Post-Consumer Waste
.
/
I
~/
/
I
,
/
/1'
J
.'
Frank Boyles, City Manager
City of Prior Lake
November12,1999
Page 2
I fully understand that the City has immediate needs for a well that will provide a certain pumping
rate. We will consider the timing of these needs when we work \\lith you in deciding whether use
of the FIG is practical and feasible. However, please be aware that even if we agree that use of the
FIG is not practical and feasible under current conditions, we would expect the City to plan-any
expansions or replacements of its water supply system by considering water sources other than the
Mt. Simon/Hinckley aquifer.
DNR Waters is also concerned about the long-term viability of the Mt. SimonlHinckley aquifer as
a public water supply source, as use from it increases. As you are aware, head levels of this aquifer
have been steadily declining in your area. Therefore, we would urge the city to consider other
supplies in your future planning, such as 1) use of interconnections with neighboring cities, 2)
smaller capacity FIG wells, or 3) use of the Prairie du Chien/Jordan aquifer, if extensive testing
proves that it does not affect the Savage Fen and other valuable surface water resources.
Please do not hesitate to contact me or Pat Lynch, at 651-772-7910, if you have any questions or
concerns abOut this response.
Sincerely,
OJ ;;/~
Dale E. Homuth
Regional Hydrologist
c: Tom Roushar, Bonestroo Rosene Anderlik & Assoc., 2335 West Hwy 36. St. Paul, 55113
Gary Oberts, MCES
John Linc Stine, DNR Waters
Jim laps, DNR Waters
Laurel Reeves, DNR Waters'
Pat Lynch, Area Hydrologist
.
October 4, 1999
Mr. Dale E. Homuth
Regional Hydrologist - Metro Waters
Minnesota Dep1. of Natural Resources
1200 Warner Road
S1. Paul, MN 55106-6793
Re: City of Prior Lake / Well No.6 (City Project No. 97-03)
n__... .. 1_ l.I___ ..&.L.
Ut::dl IVII. nVIIIUlIl.
I am in receipt of your letter dated September 15, 1999. I would like to thank you for the positive
approach outlined in that letter and your willingness to work with the City of Prior Lake. As I explained
during our meeting on August 23, 1999, Well No. 6 is an important project for the City - one that is
critical in order to meet the needs of our growing pop~ation.
During the August 23rd meeting, our consultant, Tom Roushar, made a case for determining the
viability of developing the FIG aquifer by comparing cuttings and resistivity tests with three recent FIG
wells in our area; Savage Well No. 8,Shakopee Well No. 10, and Mdewakaton Sioux Community Well
(Mystic Lake).
Your letter states "however, if in the opinion of our Groundwater Unit, the cuttings do not clearly show
the inadequacy of the FIG, the DNR would require a pump test of the aquifer. As we discussed, I am
unable to give you clear guidance as to what would happen if yields from the FIG turn out to be higher
than expected, but less than the 1,000 gpm rate."
The City of Prior Lake is not opposed to a FIG well. However, we are opposed to a 350 gpm well with
drawdown approaching 200 feet. If the FIG formation is promising, I believe that the City Council would
support an attempt to finish Well No.6 as a FIG well. Prior Lake would like to avoid the additional cost
of a Mt. Simon / Hinckley well and the risk of higher radium levels.
Rather than drilling into the FIG formation and then debate cuttings, resistivity and acceptable yields as
I understand was the case for Savage's Well No.8, I would like to better define the two sentences from
your September 15, 1999 letter now.
J
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (612) 447-4230 / Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
-..------r--...-.------...---
D. Homuth
October 1, 1999
Page 2 of 2
As you know, neither the Savage well, nor the Shakopee well, has significant capacity at an acceptable
drawdown. Our consultant has learned the following regarding the Dakota Community well:
. FIG well with only the bottom 20 feet of the Franconia open
. Good coarse sandstone (55 to 60 feet thick) at the bottom of the Galesville
. Extensive development
.. Test pumped at 750 gpm with 165 feet of drawdown. .
I propose that the Sioux Community FIG well be the basis of the definition for your two undefined
sentences. For a FIG well to be considered viable for Prior Lake, it will have both of the following
characteristics: (1) the presence of a good coarse sandstone layer of approximately 60 feet in
thickness will be used as the criteria to determine whether the FIG formation is to be test pumped; and
(2) A pumping rate of no less than 750 gpm with a specific capacity of approximately 5 gpm per foot of
drawdown will be used as the definition of acceptable yield.
Prior Lake will act in good faith regarding the FIG aquifer. However, public money must be spent
wisely. We cannot spend money to drill a FIG well with very limited capacity. A recent study conducted
for the City of Savage indicates that the FIG aquifer has very limited capacity overall. Only if the FIG
aquifer is found to be markedly better in Prior Lake than it is in Savage should the MnDNR require that
Well No.6 be a FIG well.
Please review the above definition. If you concur, please confirm in writing and we will proceed to the
next step in the approval process. I look forward to hearing your comments. I can be reached directly
at (612) 447-9801.
cc: Sue McDermott
1:\FRANK\LETTERS\99\HOMUTH.DOC
CITY OF PRIOR LAKE
AVERAGE AND MAXIMUM DAILY WATER DEMAND
(IN MILLION GALLONS)
YEAR TOTAL AVERAGE MAXIMUM
WATER DAY DAY
PUMPED
1980 228.1 0.62 --
1985 287.4 0.79 --
1990 345.9 0.95 2.57
1995 407.7 1.12 3.52
1996 466.7 1.28 4.03
1997 446.4 1.22 3.88
1998 474.3 1.30 3.74
1999 503.6 1.38 3.28
.
Q
....
lU
....
La..
....
....
LLI
~
CJ
~
....
....
CI)
....
><
LLI
I
~ ~-~ .
- I ~
~
I
~
I
~
~
I
~
~O~.O~
l~_~_
c
o
;;
!; ~
.",
~-~-~_"o\o\.--t
~-~- I"
I
~
I
i...o~. ~
L~
o
LLI
....
~
....
CI)
CI)
o
a..
o
o
co
-.r
o
o
-.r
('oj
o
:t
~
a:
o
~
I-
I.JJ
li
~
I.JJ
...J
<(
U
V)
a.
o
Q.l~
~\.,
0;:)
...JO
~
\.,.c
00
.;: u
a..
~
....U
00
a.
~E
(}~
Q.l
lL..
>.c
'(i;4JL..
o g '~.2
'C :]
...... c 0.....
C Ill._ Ill.
~~c:O~\()'
OES 1Il0l
"00 "0 "'-
:lNOlll50l
~.!! U._~
"0 Q. >'.51 tl ......
..Q Q.;:l0l
E~"O=-t; Gi
:J--4)Q)c__
E c III ~._ 0
'X'- 5 GJe
OL.U5Ql
E~c'EV)ci.
~g~~JlE
::2 ~ E .3 .!!l
ai5g~\.:s
III ): 0 .Q....
~-V)gcto
g.,g~Il)CQl
L...... -' 0'10- ~
~-=?s:z 5 ~
o~-o e:g 0..
t:cg8.ge
8:.::-.co_Q.
N
~
;:)
01
LL:
~
....
CI)
.....
....
LI.I
3t
WELL NO.6
PROPOSED SCHEDULE
ITEM
Update City Council
Receive Engineering Proposals
Contract Engineer
Study Geology/Select Possible Sites
Prepare Well No.6 Plans & Specs.
Acquire Property
Advertise for Bids for Well Construction
Receive Bids for Well Construction
Award Well Construction Contract
Well Drilling & Development
Prepare Pumphouse Plans & Specifications
Advertise for Bid for Pumphouse Construction
Award Contract for Pump house Construction
Pumphouse Construction
Well On Line
WELL6AG.DOC
----.----------_..---
DATE
April 3, 2000
April 17, 2000
May 1, 2000
May - June, 2000
May - June, 2000
Aug. 1,2000
Aug. 4, 2000
Aug. 25,2000
Sept. 4, 2000
Sept., 2000 - Feb., 2001
Sept. - Nov., 2000
Dec. 1,2000
Jan. 1,2001
Jan.-June, 2001
July, 2001