Hydrogeologic Observations at the Proposed Greenview Landfill Site and Vicinity   

By Tony Fleming, LPG and Terry West, PhD,Geological and Engineering Consultant   

April 30, 2008

Introduction

Greenview Landfill is a 91-acre municipal solid waste (MSW) disposal unit proposed to be sited on approximately 194 acres (the facility) in the north half of section 4, T18N, R7W (Mill Creek Twp), in Fountain County, Indiana.  The landfill was initially proposed in 1991 and was denied an operating permit in 1995 because the county already had an existing facility in operation sufficient to handle locally-generated MSW.  That facility subsequently closed and the application for Greenview was re-submitted in 2007.  A 2005 settlement reached between the original applicant and IDEM allowed applicant to use much of the original 1991 application in lieu of a new site investigation.  Although the applicant likes to point out that the hydrogeology of the site has not changed in the intervening time, what has changed is the data available to interpret it: the site surroundings have experienced a considerable amount of new ex-urban development since 1991 (figure 1), resulting in a corresponding increase in both the number and quality of water-well records available for the surroundings.   In addition, an electronic, on-line water-well database has been instituted by the state, resulting in both easier access and better organization of new and existing records.  Unfortunately, applicant has basically resubmitted static interpretations of the site hydrogeology from 1991, and has made little effort to utilize newly available well-record data to enhance the understanding of the local and regional hydrogeologic setting of the site.  As it turns out, doing so raises new questions about the suitability of the site that are not addressed in either the 1991 ATEC hydrogeology report or in the recently submitted application materials.   

This report was prepared for Concerned Citizens of Fountain County.  The observations presented herein are based on: 1) review and evaluation of the piezometer borings, cross sections, piezometric surface and vertical gradients at the site made by both the previous (ATEC, 1991) and current (2007) landfill consultants; 2) review of applicant’s supplemental hydrogeologic report, and supplemental hydrogeologic work plan; 3) evaluation of water well records within a roughly 36- square mile area centered on the landfill (hereafter referred to as the “greater site vicinity”); 4) evaluation of the regional glacial setting, probable depositional history, and local geomorphology, as determined from existing Indiana Geological Survey (IGS), IDNR-Division of Water (IDNR), and US Geological Survey (USGS) reports, geologic maps, and topographic maps; 5) visual inspection of the site surroundings by West, and a survey of the site surroundings and residences within a two-mile radius by local residents; 6) familiarity by Fleming with the glacial geology and hydrogeology of western Indiana, derived from several projects undertaken at the Indiana Geological Survey and thereafter; and 7) 329 IAC Article 10.

This brief report of observations is intended to call attention to several issues that were identified during our review and appear not to have been addressed either by applicant or by IDEM in their review comments.  Applicant may claim that some of these topics are “excluded” by the settlement agreement, yet this does not mean that they will simply go away because the applicant or state do not choose to pursue them.  These issues are presented below, and include: 1) several neighboring wells, including a school well, are located within 1,000 feet of the fill boundary; the school well, and potentially others, are less than 600 feet away; 2) a body of complexly interbedded sand, silt, clay, and coarse organic sediment is present in the shallow subsurface beneath the site and extends a significant distance north and west of the boundary.  Data from both on and off site indicate this complex is permeable, saturated, exhibits complicated internal facies relations, and is at places in direct contact—and thus has local hydraulic continuity—with the underlying aquifer of significance.  According to the definitions provided by the regulation, this complex actually constitutes the uppermost aquifer at the site; 3) the site overlies an aquifer of significance—a widespread gravel unit that is the source of water for a significant majority of wells within one to one and a half miles downgradient of the site; 4) the till confining unit below the site exhibits properties that indicate it is fractured or otherwise contains enhanced secondary permeability, perhaps resulting from other, currently undetected large sand bodies similar to the one described in the ATEC investigation and related to the shallow complex mentioned above in item #2; and 5) the site lies within a ground-water recharge area for the aquifer of significance.

Potable Water Wells In the Vicinity of the Site

The information submitted by applicant in Binder I, tab 17 identifies 14 wells in or near the one-mile site radius, and 7 wells within a quarter-mile radius (figure 2)1.  The information, as submitted, omits the records of at least 3 additional wells, all located within a quarter mile radius: Chuck Davenport well #2, located at the SE corner of the site (shown as #15 on figure 2; IDNR well ID #400338); Jack Downs (property now owned by Fred Downs), located directly west of the site on the west side of CR 200E (#16 on figure 2; IDNR well ID #249002); and Scott’s Prairie Church School well (#17 on figure 2; IDNR well ID #400342), located within a few tens of feet of the north site boundary.   The Davenport and school wells are developed in the main gravel unit that forms the aquifer of significance beneath the site.  The Downs well is developed in sandstone.

The number of well records available in the IDNR database does not reflect the actual number of wells near the site.   For example, the survey of dwellings and well sites in figure 1 indicates there are potentially 105 well sites within a two-mile radius, as compared to 21 well records identified by the applicant.  There are at least 9 dwellings or other known well sites within or less than 250 feet outside of the half-mile radius for which no well records are on file with IDNR: Dockins place, Stockdale residence, Davenport residence, Spragg residence, Smith residence, Cook residence, Kinderman residence, Ireland residence, and Jack White north well.  The wells for the Dockins place, and probably the Smith residence, are reported in Watkins and Jordan (1965) and are noted on applicant’s map as #’s 11 and 14.  Because there is no public water supply system in this area, it is virtually certain that all of these dwellings are served by individual wells.  The Dockins place and Davenport residence are within a quarter mile of the site boundary.

________________________________________________________________________

1-in order to maintain consistency and avoid confusion in well numbering, figure 2 is a modified version of applicant’s 2007 water-well map and keeps the same well-numbering scheme.  Wells 1-14 appear on the original map, and their records are in the application; wells 15-21 and the landfill borings were added to the map during this review.  The records of wells 15-21 appear in the appendix, along with a table identifying each well number with its IDNR ID#

According to 329 IAC 10-16-11, the minimum setback required between the fill boundary and a school well is one-half mile.   The setback from Scott’s Prairie Church School well (well ID #400342) is clearly much less than a half mile, as the well is located within a few tens of feet of the landfill property boundary.  Under the same section of the regulation, the setback from a domestic well is 600 feet, if the applicant can demonstrate that the travel time of ground-water from the waste boundary to the well is not less than 5 years, or a well testing program is in place; otherwise the setback is 1,000 feet.  It is unclear if either of these conditions is addressed in the application.  According to the site drawings submitted with the application (e.g., drawing 4.1), the setback of the waste boundary appears to be less than 1,000 feet from: the Davenport #2 well (record #400338); Flint well (#150260, plus a second shallow (27’) well at this location reported by Watkins and Jordan (1965) and mentioned in the ATEC report); Downs well (#249002); Paul Mitchell well (#3483); Paul Michell Jr well (#379782); Gene Stockdale residence (no well record); and very close to 1,000 feet for the Jack White home well (#143933).  The same site drawings suggest that the Davenport #2, Downs, and Flint wells may also be less than, or very close to, the 600 foot setback.

A Widespread Shallow Permeable Zone is Present Beneath the Site

Most of the site borings indicate the presence of a shallow zone of granular units that are frequently interbedded with silt, clay, and some peat and other organics (c.f., borings AR-3, AR-8, and AR-14).  The character varies considerably across the site, with the most robust thicknesses and cleanest sands typically, though not exclusively, occurring north and west.  The ATEC borings and 1991 report (page 37), for example, describe a thick shallow sand deposit in the NW part of the site, interbedded with stringers and layers of cohesive material, whose top lies at about 678 feet and extends “to at least 633 feet”: in other words, it appears to be physically coalesced with and hydraulically connected to the main aquifer of significance beneath the site, whose top is defined by applicant to lie between 631 and 637 feet in the deeper site borings.  As described below, it seems highly probable that the shallow sand units observed in borings elsewhere at the site are hydraulically connected to the large shallow sand unit in the NW part of the site.

In this connection, boring AR-13, as shown on the site cross sections, is inconsistent with the boring log that was made at the time of drilling.  The former shows no granular material, whereas the boring log indicates that, from 20-27 feet, there was no recovery (attributed to a rock or gravel plugging the spoon), loss of drilling fluid, and water coming into the hole.  The geologist on site at the time of the boring believes a transmissive zone is present at this depth, based on the comments in the boring log (Appendix B of the supplemental hydrogeologic report).  The site cross-section, however, shows this interval as “silty clay”—highly unlikely, given the conditions described by the site geologist.

The pattern of persistent shallow granular units is consistent with well records from the site vicinity, especially north and west (downgradient) of the site, where a conspicuous shallow, saturated, transmissive zone is widely present (figure 2).  These records report not only a robust shallow sand unit (with some gravel), but they provide a compelling indication of a substantial buried peat bog associated with the granular units.  The records contain descriptions such as “sand and wood” and “clay, peat, and heavy water”; some of the drillers, who are not a group normally known for their descriptive prose, made comments such as “edge of a peat bog” and the like.  This is true, for example, for the Davenport #2 well (well ID 400338) near the southeast corner of the site.  Fibrous peat is also described in some of the landfill borings from the same horizon.  Fibric peat is well known to be quite permeable (e.g., Boelter, 1965, 1969; Rycroft and others, 1975).  Substantial thicknesses of shallow sand and/or gravel are also reported from wells north and west of the site, notably at the Scotts Prairie Church School well (ID #400342) adjacent to the north side of the site, where virtually the entire section down to 86 feet is reported as either peat bog or sand and gravel, and at Steam Corner, where one well (ID#277009) reports most of the interval from the surface down to 50 feet as “sand and trees”. 

The shallow sand/peat complex almost certainly represents one or more late Wisconsin meltwater channels that drained the edge of the Lake Michigan lobe and were partially filled by outwash before becoming partly or completely impounded (possibly by Erie Lobe ice advancing from the east).  The resulting shallow lacustrine environment that subsequently developed produced peat bogs in still waters while also conducting sediment-laden meltwater debouching from melting ice.  The resulting sediment assemblages, which include various combinations of sand, silt, clay, and organics, as well as till-like debris flows derived from melting ice nearby, undoubtedly are characterized by complicated facies relations that cause rapid local transitions between the different types of sediment.  In terms of their impact on local ground-water flow patterns, these sediments very likely produce an anastomosing system of relatively transmissive materials (sand and peat) in complex facies relations with less permeable silt and clay.  Since the bulk of this complex appears to extend in a downgradient (westerly) direction from the site, it forms a potentially significant, though largely unexplored and poorly characterized, conduit for contaminants to exit the site.  Because the base of the complex appears to be in or nearly in direct physical contact with the main gravel aquifer at places in the site vicinity, there is a real possibility that it acts as a conduit for direct ground-water recharge to the water-supply aquifer.  This concept is strongly supported by the vertical gradients documented in the 1991 ATEC report between the main (deep) aquifer and the shallow granular units: the report (p. 42) specifically states that the much lesser gradient (0.1) observed toward the northwest part of the site was likely caused by the minimal thickness of fine-grained material between the two permeable zones. 

The regulation (329 IAC 10-2-197) defines "Uppermost aquifer system" as “the geologic formation nearest the natural ground surface within the facility boundary of a solid waste land disposal facility that is an aquifer as well as lower aquifers that are hydraulically interconnected with the uppermost aquifer”, while section 12 defines “aquifer” as “a consolidated or unconsolidated geologic formation or group of formations or a portion of a formation, that is hydraulically interconnected and that has the ability to receive, store, or transmit water to wells, springs, or other surface water bodies”.   Based on its elevation, the shallow sand/peat complex may well be hydraulically connected to both Prairie Creek tributaries and to the wetlands south of the fill area.  The ATEC report (page 53-54) speculated on such a connection, suggesting that a granular zone observed in their boring 25 could be connected to the tributary on the south side of the site.  Considering the proximity to the modern land surface of the much more robust granular and organic units reported along the north side of the site in the Scott’s Prairie Church School well (well ID #400342) and in ATEC borings 1, 10, and 26, it seems entirely plausible that the shallow complex is also hydraulically connected, at least locally, to the northern tributary of Prairie Creek as well.  The definitions provided by the regulation do not depend on the aquifer being a source of well water, though as page 52 of the ATEC report notes, at least one well proximal to the downgradient side of the site was developed in a granular unit within this interval.  The report speculated that the well is no longer used, but no proof is offered.  In any event, the combination of hydrogeologic features outlined above certainly argues that the shallow granular/peat zone actually constitutes the “uppermost aquifer system” at this site; moreover, the appearance of thick sections of granular materials in this complex in at least three locations—thick enough to potentially breach the till confining unit—casts considerable doubt on assertions made in the application that there is no evidence of any hydraulic connection between the upper and lower granular zones in or near this site.  How many other localized places are there where granular units associated with the shallow sand/peat complex abruptly thicken to the point where they may coalesce with the lower (elev. 631-637’) aquifer?

It is interesting that neither the ATEC report or the more recent submissions make any mention of the probable relationship of the shallow granular units observed in site borings to those reported in surrounding well records—nor of the existence of buried organic deposits—despite the claim in the supplemental hydrogeologic report that the earlier ATEC report provides a “detailed” description of regional hydrogeology.  Instead, all of these units are referred to as “isolated” and “random”.  We do not understand the use of these terms in this context, especially “random”, which implies “by chance”.  The granular units do not occur randomly.  They are there because they are part of a depositional system in which they exist in complex facies relations with other kinds of sediment, and they largely occur within a well-defined interval, both on- and off-site.  The presence of this shallow complex is one of the major features evident from subsurface information at and near the site, and its existence should not be terribly surprising given the interlobate glacial setting of the region where the site is situated—a setting specifically mentioned in the ATEC report.

The Site Overlies A Regional Aquifer of Significance

Virtually all of the deeper site borings (both rounds of drilling, 1991 and 2007) encountered a “widespread” (ATEC term) gravel unit at depths ranging from 631 to 637 feet, which constitutes an “aquifer of significance” as defined under 329-IAC-10-2-13.  Many wells in the surrounding area are developed in this gravel, including a substantial majority within the one-mile radius of the site.  The gravel may lie along a pre-Wisconsin paleosurface: it locally coincides with color changes of fine-grained units from gray above to green below, as reported in some water well records and some of the on-site borings, which probably indicates a paleosol.  The paleosurface is rolling and probably has been truncated locally by subsequent ice advance(s), both of which may explain the irregular thickness, distribution, and altitude of the gravel unit.

Interestingly, the second paragraph of page 4 of the supplemental hydrogeologic work plan (Appendix A of the Supplemental Hydrogeological Site Investigation) claims that “No single regional aquifer system is identified in the published literature.  Based on available information, an aquifer of significance …does not appear to exist beneath the proposed Greenview Landfill site”.  Both of these assertions are wrong, and the second assertion is contradicted by item E (page 6) of the geology enclosure submitted by applicant in response to IDEM’s review, which cites the 1991 ATEC report as clearly stating that such an aquifer does exist beneath the site. 

First, it is unclear what is meant by “single regional aquifer system”, but in the standard definition, an “aquifer system” means a group of permeable units locally separated by less-permeable units, and which are locally in hydraulic communication.  This perfectly defines the bedrock in the site vicinity, and probably the lower glacial gravel as well.  Numerous Division of Water and Indiana Geological Survey reports describe virtually identical subsurface situations in the state as “aquifer systems”.  Moreover, there clearly is continuity of water levels in both the bedrock and the lower gravel because, when plotted on a map, each exhibits a rather well-defined piezometric surface that corresponds broadly with surface topography.  This can be seen in figure 2, which shows the water levels reported in the aquifer of significance.   Based on these observations, the meaning of the term “single regional aquifer system” in the consultant’s report is a mystery, but it evidently is something different from the definition of “aquifer system” that is widely used in hydrogeologic reports throughout the state of Indiana. 

Second, the lower gravel unit beneath the site meets the regulatory definition of an aquifer of significance (329 IAC 10-2-13), specifically clause (c):

 (c) An aquifer that is described in subsection (a)(1) is an aquifer of significance if the following criteria are met:

(1) The aquifer is below and extends beyond the solid waste boundary.

(2) The aquifer is a potable ground water source described in clauses (A) and (B) or is capable of supplying drinking water for properties that are:

(A) within a one (1) mile radius of the solid waste boundary; and

(B) not demonstrably upgradient of the MSWLF unit.

(3) There is no alternative water supply that is available to properties for connection at the time the construction of the MSWLF unit begins.

The main gravel unit beneath this site clearly extends beyond the site boundaries, acts as the source of potable water for the majority of documented wells within the 1 mile radius, and is demonstrably present in many well records downgradient (west) of the site.  One might quibble with the last clause (3), by saying that the bedrock represents an alternative water supply.  However, the evidence generally supports clause (3), because it is not always possible to obtain either the needed quantity or quality of potable water from the bedrock: both the Fountain County Ground-Water Report and well records from the greater site vicinity indicate a number of dry bedrock holes, as well as locally very high levels of sulfate, hardness, and other undesirable constituents in bedrock wells.  It is also interesting to note that in the 75 or so well records available for the greater site vicinity, drillers ALWAYS made a well in the lower gravel when it was present (even if very thin), as opposed to bypassing the unit and proceeding down into rock.  Finally, whether or not one considers the bedrock as an “alternative” source, it clearly is not available to properties for connection at this time, and would entail expensive construction of new, and potentially much deeper, wells (some bedrock wells in the greater site vicinity are 200 or more feet deep).

The Till Confining Unit Below the Site Exhibits Evidence of Enhanced Secondary Permeability

One or more till units overlie the aquifer of significance and separate it at many places from the shallow granular/organic zone described earlier.  At the site, the till is reported to range from less than 10 to more than 60 feet thick.  Most of the till confining unit is probably part of the Wedron Formation of the Lake Michigan lobe (c.f., Gray, 1989); the Lake Michigan lobe advanced into this area from the west, and its deposits thin eastward before being buried by Erie Lobe deposits in the vicinity of Sugar Creek.  At places, the lowermost parts of the till section may be pre-Wisconsin, based on reported green or other gley colors suggestive of a paleosol.  Based on the colors and other attributes listed in the consultant’s boring descriptions and shown in their photographs, the till unit appears to be moist, if not wet, most or all of the way through. 

Both the site borings and local well records indicate a significant hardness associated with this confining unit.  In my experience, such highly overconsolidated tills have very likely been overridden by ice and, therefore, possess the requisite stress field needed for major vertical fractures to develop.  Furthermore, exposures of pre-Wisconsin tills beneath paleosols in Indiana and elsewhere commonly exhibit abundant fractures, presumably caused or accentuated by weathering.  Given the evident moisture in the till, one might reasonably wonder whether a system of fractures, possibly interconnected with thin inter- and intra-till seams of sand and other more permeable zones, is responsible for transmitting ground water in this unit.  The hydrogeologic data, descriptions, and conclusions submitted by the consultant in support of this site make no mention whatsoever of the potential for fractures in the confining unit(s).  Of course, it is well known that interception, detection, and recognition of vertical fractures in vertical boreholes is rather problematic; effective detection of fracture networks typically requires angle drilling or specialized geophysical methods (e.g., Fleming and Taylor, 1988).

The 2nd paragraph on page 4 of the supplemental hydrogeologic report notes that:  “The 1991 Hydrogeologic report also performed Cation Exchange Capacity (CEC) and hydraulic conductivity tests on composite samples from the site. Note that, due to thevery hard soil conditions, some samples could not be collected even though severalmethods (Shelby tubes, California samples, and Dennison core barrels) were attempted. Results of samples that were able to be collected showed a hydraulic conductivity ranging from 6.9 x10-9cm/sec to 1.0 x 10-8cm/sec, while CEC values varied from 4.4 to 13.5 meq/100 grams.” 

There is ample evidence from the hydrogeologic literature supporting the concept that hydraulic conductivity values derived from remolded samples of fine-grained glacial sediments commonly are meaningless as predictors of in-situ bulk hydraulic conductivity in those same sediments.  Laboratory permeameter data typically underestimate the true hydraulic conductivity by up to several orders of magnitude.  See, for example, data presented in Stephenson and others (1988), Fetter (1994), and references contained therein for a comparison of laboratory-derived and field-derived hydraulic conductivity values taken at the same sites.  It is extraordinarily unlikely that the in-situ hydraulic conductivity of the glacial till below this site is as low as applicant’s remolded values suggest.  As virtually all glacial tills in Indiana do, the one(s) below this site will surely contain an interconnected network of secondary permeability, including, but not limited to, fractures, joints, and sand and gravel lenses of various sizes. 

The paragraph quoted above also cites the great hardness of the sediment.  In my experience, hard consistencies indicate strong overconsolidation, in this case most likely the result of basal tills being overridden by flowing ice, a condition that is highly conducive to the development of vertical or near-vertical fracture systems that extend to considerable depth.  Although relatively few direct studies have been performed on the bulk hydrogeologic properties of tills in Indiana, those that have looked at both the physical and chemical hydrogeology suggest substantial recharge does, in fact, occur and that bulk permeabilities are greater than laboratory results would otherwise suggest.  The till sequence described by Ferguson (1992) and Ferguson and others (1991, 1992) is a great example.  It seems quite likely that the same situation could exist here, and would explain the apparent recharge that is supporting the piezometric high just east of the site, as noted below. Slug tests performed by ATEC in two piezometers screened in the till yielded K values up to 6.2 x 10-7 cm/sec—noticeably greater than the remolded values—but it is unclear from the boring descriptions whether any fractures or other secondary permeability features were observed in the intervals in which these two piezometers were screened.  Given the stated difficulties of extracting intact samples of overconsolidated till beneath this site, it seems doubtful that fractures would have been detected.

The Site Occupies a Ground-Water Recharge Area

Water levels in the aquifer of significance define a prominent piezometric high centered just east of the site, part of which can be seen from the water levels posted in figure 2.  Ground water flows away from this high, southeast toward Sugar Creek Canyon and west-northwest toward Wabash River, both of which are sufficiently entrenched that they physically truncate the lower aquifer (Sugar Creek is a bedrock-walled canyon).  In order for the piezometric high to be present, therefore, ground-water recharge MUST be occurring above it, which means there is leakage down through the till confining unit.

The consultant’s data generally indicate a strong downward hydraulic gradient beneath the site, based on the differential water levels observed in nested piezometers.  The consultant also claims in the supplemental report and in other documents that, based on the responses of water levels in the shallow wells to pumping of the deeper ones in the same nests, that there is no hydraulic connection between the two.  This conclusion does not seem to be supported either by the pump test graphs presented in the last few pages of Appendix F, or by the relationship between the intensity of the vertical gradients versus confining unit thickness as reported by ATEC.  The pump test diagrams show fairly rapid responses (water-level declines) in at least two of the shallow wells when the deeper piezometers were pumped for an hour or less.  One might argue that the declines, which are on the order of 1 to 3 tenths of a foot, are small, but when viewed in the context of the transmission, in less than one hour, of changes in hydraulic head through fractures or other secondary permeability conduits in a till confining unit, they are significant.  And, as described previously, ATEC noted substantial differences in the vertical gradients at two sites, with the much lesser gradient coinciding with the piezometer nest having a very thin and potentially breached confining unit, while the greater gradient corresponded to a much thicker confining unit at the other piezometer site.  This relationship strongly suggests that there is hydraulic continuity between the main aquifer of significance and the shallow granular zone above it, and that recharge to the former is occurring where the latter is thick.  Considering that the greatest thicknesses of the shallow granular/organic zone (and the correspondingly thinnest parts of the till confining unit) are reported along and beyond the north and west (downgradient) sides of the site, it is reasonable to conclude that the main gravel aquifer is receiving the most recharge in those places.

Summary and Conclusions

The surface topography of the site defines a complex surface-water divide.  Surface water leaves the site in three directions—south, west, and north—and is likely to reflect similarly complex shallow ground-water flow patterns in the shallow granular/peat complex that appears to underlie and surround these sides of the site.  Whereas the engineering of the site will probably prevent near-term leaks, liners do not last indefinitely.  They degrade over the long term, while leachate collection systems become plugged (often with a “mat” of biological material similar to that found in the walls of septic trenches) and cease to function efficiently.  That, coupled with the “bathtub” design of modern landfills, will eventually cause the leachate to mound, producing outward hydraulic gradients.  When (not if) these changes occur and the landfill eventually leaks, it will be rather challenging to determine the direction of contaminant migration, the location of leachate plumes, or even the preferred permeability paths in the surrounding sediments, given the complexity of the shallow subsurface at and downgradient of the site.  The presence of an anastomosing permeability network in the shallow sand-organic complex, coupled with the position atop a divide, along with strong downward gradients across a probably fractured confining unit, will collectively create a problematic environment for remediation.  The former Noble County landfill southeast of Albion is a good analogue with which IDEM should be familiar.  Given their proximity to the inferred downgradient side(s) of the site, a significant number of wells developed in the lower gravel unit (aquifer of significance) would be at risk in such a scenario, especially given the considerable local thickness of the shallow granular complex and the apparent thinning of the till confining unit between the two in that direction.

References

Boelter, D.H., 1965.  Hydraulic conductivity of peats: Soil Science, v. 100, p. 227-231.

Boelter, D.H., 1969. Physical properties of peat as related to degree of decomposition: Proc. Soil Science Soc. Amer., v. 33, p. 606-609.

Ferguson, V.R., 1992.  Hydrogeology and hydrogeochemistry of fine-grained glacial till, northeast Indiana: unpublished MS thesis, Indiana University Department of Geology and Geophysics, 90 pp.

Ferguson, V.R., Fleming, A.H., Krothe, N.C., and Steen, W.J., 1992. Hydrogeology and hydrogeochemistry of fine grained glacial till, northeastern Indiana: Geol. Soc. Amer. Abst. w. Prog., v. 24(7), p. 302.

Ferguson, V.R., Fleming, A.H., and Krothe, N., 1991. Ground water recharge through glacial deposits, NE Indiana: 36th Annual Midwest Ground Water Conference, Prog. w. Abst., p. 64, Indianapolis, Indiana.

Fetter, C.W. 1994.  Applied Hydrogeology.  Chas. E. Merrill Publishing Co., Columbus, OH.

Gray, H.H., 1989.  Quaternary Geologic Map of Indiana.  Indiana Geological Survey Miscellaneous Map 49, scale 1:500,000.

Rycroft, D.W., Williams, D.J.A., and Ingram, H.A.P., 1975. The transmission of water through peat. II: Field experiments: Jour. Ecology, v. 63, p. 557-568.

Stephenson, D.A., Fleming, A.H., and Mickelson, D.M., 1988. Glacial Deposits, in Back, W. and others, eds., Hydrogeology: Boulder, Colorado, Geological Society of America, The Geology of North America, v. O-2, p. 301-314.

Taylor, R.W., and Fleming, A.H., 1988. Characterizing jointed systems by azimuthal resistivity surveys: Ground Water, v.26(4), pp. 464-474.

Watkins, F.A., Jr., and D.G. Jordan, 1965.  Ground-water resources of west-central Indiana—Preliminary report: Fountain County.  IDNR Division of Water Bulletin 28, 84 pp.

Appendix: Additional Well Records in Site Vicinity Shown in Figure 2

Well Name                 Map #                        IDNR ID #     Comments

Davenport #2              15                                400338            w/in ¼ mile radius?

Downs                              16                                249002            w/in ¼ mile radius

Scott’s Prairie

  Church School          17                                400342            <50’ N of landfill bdry

Staggs                         18                                277009            thick shallow sand/peat

Rutledge                      19                                    3753            water level-main aquifer

Spragg                         20                                377644            water level-main aquifer

Schotts                                    21                                150801            water level-main aquifer

Record of Water Well     Well 15

Indiana Department of Natural Resources

Record of Water Well
Well 16
Indiana Department of Natural Resourc

Record of Water Well
Well 17
Indiana Department of Natural Resources

Record of Water Well
Well 18
Indiana Department of Natural Resources