The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutDENALI VIEW General Information (15) PLATTING BOARD AUGUST 6, 1997 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON S-10054 DENALI VIEW SUBDIVISION (INCLUDES TERRASAT REPORT) August 1, 1997 Municipality of Anchorage Platting Commission Attn. Margaret O'Brien RE: WATER RESOURCES SURROUNDING THE PROPOSED DENALI VIEW SUBDIVISION, PETERS CREEK, ALASKA (S-10054 Additional Packet) Dear: Ms. O'Brien Members of the Chugiak Community Council retained TERRASAT INC. on July 17, 1997 to evaluate existing data pertinent to the water resources for the area in and around the proposed Denali View Subdivision. The July 17 presentation of reports to the community, dated June 4 and June 18, heightened concern among council members and citizens that the proposed subdivision may impact existing water resources. These impacts range from reducing already limited water supplies to the potential for increasing the nitrate contamination problems being experienced by the existing homeowners of this TERRASAT INC. has evaluated the following data to form an opinion of the local geological and hydrogeological settings, and how they correspond to public concerns: · Stereo aerial photographs, · Well logs from three adjacent subdivisions, · Nitrate tests and a recent Bristol Environmental Services Corporation study on the local nitrates, · A 1997 Bristol Environmental Services Corporation report on a pump test conducted within the subdivision, · Anecdotal data from citizens living in the neighborhoods surrounding the proposed Denali View Subdivision. · Page 2 Augu~ 1,1997 AIR PHOTOS ;md WELL LOGS Aerial photographs from 1964 show the area in the first stages of development, with only a few roads and houses. The photographs show that the proposed subdivision appears to be at the edge of a glacial meltwater channel. The main meltwater channel fill is comprised of smaller erosional channels. The smaller channels resulted in the formation of erosional terraces. The glacial meltwater channel is parallel to the major fracture system in the area. Ground water recharge to this channel is most likely from the hillside farther to the west. Recharge to the bedrock is most likely at the sediment/rock interface at the base of the meltwater channel. The proposed subdivision is located on the northwest side of the second terrace (FIGURE 1). Wells completed in the shallow aquifer most likely get water at the sediment/rock interface. Water pumped by wells in the rock may enter the fractures from shallow sources such as the meltwater channel. The water may also be recharged from more distal sources and have higher head. This second group of wells may have flowing water at the surface. Well logs confirm that a significant layer of sand and gravel overlies the bedrock in most places within and surrounding the proposed subdivision. Instances of wells pumping water from fractures connected to shallow and deep sources are both encountered. A comparison of the ground surface elevation with the bedrock elevation indicates a general increase in sediment thickness with a decrease in elevation (FIGURES 2-5). NITRATE DATA A visual inspection of the nitrate level data provided in a 1997 Bristol Environmental Services Corporation report show increasing or stable trends in I7 of 22 wells for which multiple data are available. This suggests that nitrates are a potential future coneem for nearly 80% of the area well owners. TERRASAT INC. became aware of several dye tests performed on septic systems in the Scimitar Subdivision by the DHHS. Information describing the tests was not located during research efforts. However, we did contact a property owner whose drinking water well was affected by dye placed in his septic system. He informed us that a new septic system was installed in order to fix the problem, but quarterly monitoring of the well has confirmed that nitrate levels have not significantly decreased since the installation. This may indicate that there is a different source of the nitrates, the new septic system is not functioning as designed, or the nitrates stay in the ground water system for a long time. Given that there is still a significant nitrate problem, consideration must be taken to evaluate the potential reasons for the continued problem and the potential impacts of additional septic systems in the area. Nitrate levels reported in the June 18 nitrate report were compared to levels in Mid- western United States aquifers. The conclusion drawn was that the average nitrate levels were much higher in these Mid-west states than those surrounding the proposed subdivision. This is probably not a fair comparison as the nitrates in those aquifers are largely from impacts due to agricultural fertilizer as opposed to septic system wastes. · Page 3 August 1, 1997 Septic system waste is a potential threat to human health as it carries harmful bacteria and viruses in addition to the nitrates. WATER RESOURECES TERRASAT INC. reviewed the Bristol Environmental Services Corporation report on water resources for the proposed Denali View subdivision. We have determined that the May 30 pump test was insufficient to stress the adjacent aquifer. Thus, we are unable to determine from the pump test data if there is a hydraulic connection between the gravel/sand (upper) aquifer and the bedrock (lower) aquifer. We believe that the sand/gravel aquifer tapped by the test well is capable of sustaining a long-term pumping rate of up to several gallons per minute. The unconsolidated aquifer exploited by the test well may be sufficient to provide water to several households. We have found no evidence to support a conclusion that new wells in the bedrock aquifer within the proposed subdivision are capable of producing adequate water. We are concerned that the new bedrock wells may become contaminated with nitrates from existing wells and existing septic systems. TERRASAT INC. has reviewed anecdotal data from over 30 residents of Scimitar, Peters Gate, and Chugach Park Subdivisions. Nearly all of these residents provided written documentation of decreasing well yields and increasing nitrate levels over the past several years. This suggests that the bedrock aquifer used by about 80% of the current residents in these three subdivisions does not produce the quantity or quality of water current needed by the community. We conclude from both physical, and anecdotal data, that there is currently a water shortage on this part of the hillside. This shortage would only get worse if more demands are placed on the existing bedrock aquifer. RECOMMENDATIONS TERRASAT INC. believes that more work should be done to help resolve the issues of decreasing long-term water production and increasing nitrate levels in the water supply. We recommend conducting a new pump test on the upper unconsolidated aquifer. This test should be designed to assess the extent to which the upper and lower aquifers are hydraulically connected. An adequate test would most likely take 72 hours of pumping at a rate (greater than the 5.5 GPM pumped during the May 30 pump test) that would produce at least 70% of the aquifer's available drawdown. Nearby bedrock wells should be monitored to determine if there is a hydraulic connection between the aquifers. We also recommend conducting a pump test on the bedrock aquifer within the new subdivision. Pumping during this test should also cause drawdown within the bedrock aquifer of at least 70%. This test would verify the results from the unconsolidated aquifer pump test. 24 hours should be allowed to adequately stress the bedrock aquifer. Wells in the both aquifers within 500 feet of the pumping well should be monitored. 3 · Page 4 Augur1, 1997 TERRASAT INC. believes that the existence of elevated levels of nitrates derived from septic effluent in this subdivision may be a significant threat to public health. We suggest a comprehensive study to determine historical nitrate levels and present conditions. The different aquifers for which nitrates are present should be identified first so that the data can be evaluated properly. Statistical evaluation of the nitrate occurrence should be considered with respect to the depth to bedrock. An opinion can then be formulated as to the risk associated with nitrate occurrence. We believe that these steps are very important in forming an opinion as to the potential health risks that nitrates can pose. TERRASAT INC. believes that both the pump test and nitrate studies should be evaluated before an appropriate decision can be made regarding approval of the proposed Denali View Subdivision. Sincerely, Bill Lawrence Hydrogeologist 4 Z n~ r~ Z 0 Z 0 AUG- 1-97 FRI t3:46 P, 01/05 DIVISION OF MINING AND WATER MANAGEMENT 3601 C ~-~et, Suite # 800 Anchorage, AK 99503 ~~_ AlaSka Department of NATURAL RESOURCES Pho~lc #'S: (907) 2694600 ¢¢tiz~g) (907) 269-8624. (Water) FAX TRANSMITTAL MEMO /"'¥ ~ ~ PHONE: TO: ~, k./ IL)t?L.O,,.,~ ~ SECTION: ~ j,.~4¢.~ FAX #i_(907') 563-1853 (Mining) - - L~(-907) 562-1384. OVater) NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER SHEET; iF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL PAGES, PLEASE CALL THE SENDER AS SOON AS POSSII~LE. C0M2vLENTS; RECEIVED iU6 ~ :!997 MUNIC~ALffY 0¢/~,~/~qAG £ PI. ANNI~i & ZONING OlV1SIC~, ! ~UG- 1-97 FRI 13:46 P, 02/05 MEMORANDUM DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF MINING & WATER MGMT Alaska Hydrologic Survey Gary Prokosch Section Chief THRU: FROM: Roy Ireland ~,~. State of Alaska 3601 C St.. Suite a00 ANCHORAGE AK 99503-5935 DATE: FILE NO; TELEPHONE NO; SUBJECT: July 30, 1997 (907) 269-8639 Fax 662-1384 Scimitar Subdivision I reviewed the letter from Jim Munter regarding the wells at Scimitar Subdivision and the proposed Denali View Subdivision. and have found a few items that bother me. In general, his review is good and as accurate as can be under the circumstances. The principle issue that bothers me is that the well in the sand and gravel aquifer was test pumped, and not the bedrock well. The extent of the sand and gravel aquifer is unknown, end does not show in other logs from the area. (Why other drillers would have skipped it is e myStery to me, unless it is of very limited extent. I Why was the bedrock well, that is more likely to be connected to the surrounding wells, not tested? There is a greater chance that this well, and offier potential new wells, would be connected to the existing wells in the bedrock aquifer, than the well that was pumped. The area is characterized by bedrock wells of varying productivity and static water level. This indicates that there might be several unconnected fracture systems within the bedrock underlaying the area. I am not convinced that existing water right holders would not be affected. Deepening a bedrock well is an arduous task, which may result in failure to produce water if the productive fracture zone does not extend to that particular location in the bedrock. Data are insufficient to attempt to interpret the system(s) of fractures in the area, and the unknown elevations and locations of all wells in the area is a complicating factor. The nitrate interpretation is likewise complex, but it appears to be localized in the northwest quadrant. This may be an expression of some eurficial feature which has found it's way into the groundwater. The source and pathway(e) are undetermined at this time AUG- 1-97 FRI 13:47 P, 03/05 3t3 UG- 1-97 FRI 13:47 P. 04/05 009312 NCKENZIE, CHUClC ~ 0330 $O015-O01-10GCBA 001031 BROOKS, LEONARD H~ 026] 86015-001-10~8AA~-28 009053 ~ILLIAM$, DENNIS OO&D20 KELLY, ROMA 020305 CURRIE, S 002614 ~OELFEL. 002.529 ~EAVER, AL "0560 SB015-001'1008CD '- 0840 88015-001-100. 0298 B8015-001'1{~C88 0180 SB015-O01'lOOAA. O?.Z? $8015-001-100CCA1-32 0682 S8015-001-100C802'26 0503 SGO15-OO1°lODCACI'82 O625 S8015-001-1C0C~A2'31 0600 SGOI5-OOI-lOOACSl-33 0270 SB015-001-100CBSl-37 0185 SB015-001-100A801-64 0285 SB015'001-100C8C2'29 028/* $B015-001'I00CC81'54 0200 SB015o001'100. 0300 $B015'001't00CCC1'58 0061 $0015-001-100CCA5'32 0/~0 $8015-001-100CDS1-66 0655 GG015-001-100C082'6~ 0440 $BQ15-OOI-lOODAC 0]00 SB015-O01-10DCAA~® 036~. $B015-001-100AC¢I-57 013~74 le~[RS &MYERS CDNGT 0215 S~15-001-10008AI-81 011~J.3 ~YER8 &NYERS CONST 0126 $B015-001-t00AC0 01:]807 MYERS, PAUL V 058(] $B015-001-100AC0 009287 ~ATSOfl, 8 005695 slCYLES, GENE 01~8 MYERS. PAUL 010056 8ACtOtAN, LASSE 01~471 FOREMAN~ BILL 005~52 I~:X3OF[N, CHARLES 0173 SS015-001-1000. 0266 S6015-001o100A. 0~9~ S0015-001-1000881-79 OSO0 SB015-OOt-1QO. ot24 SGOIS-OOI-100BGC1-G2 060S SB01B-DOl-IO0. 0605 SS015-001-10~. 0550 Sa015-001.100CAA4-31 015651 TUCKER, MICHAEL DEAN 0~87 58015-001-I00C0~ 001500 EETTTH D 0680 S~015-001-100COC1-61 002552 CALH~N, JOHN/J~Y 0265 SBO15-O01-1~COD 001~1~ MYERS~ PAUL 0~5 SB015-001-100CD01'6~ GR]LLER RB6 PDE$C MAG~U$ON DRILLIng 220 SCIMITAR 1 LO1 B1 SULLIVAN ~ATER ~EL 228 $CIRITAR 1L03 82 A & L DRILLING 228 SCIMITAR I LJO 82 12101/82 LAS 8756 01/05/5~ LAS 4553 05/30185 08/02/73 10106/82 / / 03/29/79 LAS 9680 09/Z~/80 08/01/78 AOL214800 08/09/?7 05102/83 LAS 2,,51 06/21/75 LAS 4185 06/28/85 LAS 4166 0111[/04 05/29/83 08/29/83 11/01/90 LAG 1~8? 02/21/81 LAS 3622 03/11/76 LAS 5067 08/0'~/82 09/16/81 04/03/?7 05129/75 05/Z0/82 03/01/77 08/02/77' 03/01/~ 09/09/81 07113/$1 09/21/78 AOL215470 09/26/83 0~./30/83 LAS 9345 09/01/81 10/16/81 07/06/85 LAS 04/~0/~ LAS 8~,7E 0312~*/8~* LAS 05/15/8~ 03/21/8& LAG 06/01/8~ 08/02/78 09115/88 09/15/88 07/08/82 LAS 1675 05/19/83 LAg 2130( 06/01/82 LAS 72] 06/o3/82 05/25/82 06104/82 06/03/8~ ALASKA DNR/Divfsion of gater // '$CIM~ $ PSESC KEY ffdNER DPTH USGS # 0039~3 TAYLOR, GILL 0061 88013-001-100CCA3-32 001498 MYERS, PAUL 0078 DB015-001-1008C¢I-60 00687~ MAXVELL, SIDNEY F 0111 ~015-O01-10ASCA 011871 FOREMAN, BILL 01Ia 88015-001-10088C1'42 011&&3 MYERS & MYERS CONST 01~6 SB015'O01-1~RCO 00289~ RY~A~ PAUL 0162 0180 SB015'001'1008CA1-77 0185 SBO15-OOl-lOOABD1-6~ ~7.~1 S8015-001-1008602-30 0200 SB015-001-100. 001413 VANOERLUGT. SNEILA 0265 88015-001-1000CC2-63 00141& MYERS, PAUL 0265 SB015-O01-100COO1-62 DRILLER GEG ¢OESC g[LLIAMS JAY DRILL ZZB SCIMITAR 2 L27 82 07/13/81 05/05/82 12/01/82 LAS 875L 08102/78 04/05/85 LAS 932, 06/28/85 LAS 05/20/82 05125/62 flUG- l-g7 FRt 13:48 005693 $1(YLES, gENE 015662 ~OULE, Jttl 0068~ oEa~S, DAVE 001588 ~YERS, PAUL 0Z66 SBO15-OO1-10DA. 0270 SBO15-OOl-lOOCB~l-37 0270 ~E015-001-10D~0 0284 S8015-001-100CC01-5~ 0285 $6015-001-I0ODCC1-65 0587 SD015-001-100~B 0600 S8015-001-100AC81-33 M~GNU$ON ORILL[NG [~B $C[~ZTAR 3 LOZ 83 $ U $ U $ UB $ u U U U U P, 05/05 05/15/8¢ 05/29/75 08/D2/73 08/02/77 06/03/BZ 03/01/77 05/30/85 11/01/90 LAS 13387 09/09/81 09/01/81 09/7~/80 10/16/81 08/09/77 09/21/78 AOL215&70 0&/~0/83 LAS 9345 03/21/8& LAS 8302 06/0W8~ 09/16/81 07/08/82 LAS 1675 05/29/83 03/~/8~ LAS 8850 OS/19/83 LAS 21300 04/03177 09/15/88 09/15/88 03/14/77' AOL209136 09/26/83 06101/82 LAS 7239 08/03/82 05/02/83 LAS 2~51 08/Z9/83 01/12/84 r lG Please do not take away the safe path to our school bus and for bike riding. We do not like riding or walking down the steep narrow hills by the drop offwhen a car comes by. There is no rail or path that is not on the roadway itself. The school bus would be much further away if we could not use the old road into Scimitar~l~ IV E D walk over a mile longer. NAME ADDRESS c'17 Please do not take away the safe path to our school bus and for bike riding. We do not like riding or walking down the steep narrow hills by the drop offwhen a car comes by. There is no rail or path that is not on the roadway itself. The school bus would be much further away if we could not use the old road into Scimitar. It~l~k~h~}'' !Iv I'' LJ walk over a mile longer. NAME ADDRESS :¸18 NS/e, the undersigned, support our neighbors in Scimitar with their concerns about water quantity, we would appreciate their support for our concera about the secondary emergency access provided by the Seika-Kullberg connection. The Seika-Ku berg connect on s critical to ail the residents of the mountain for secondary access. The upper connection from Kullberg to Thornton is critical for pedestrian access. Thi~ original road up the mountain and has been used by the residents as such. The Kullberg-Thornton connection is called the sledding hill and is used by residents from all over this area. It is the sledding activity that keeps the trail open for pedestrian access when the roads are impassable. It is the only pedestrian access up the mountain and allows us and our neighbors in Peters Gate to reach our homes when the road is blocked. By parking down below in Scimitar we can ahvays walk home. It is also the pedestrian route which the children take to catch the School bus or leave the mountain on bikes or walking. There is no provision for children to walk down Chugach Park safely. They would need to share a steep road way with vehicles. Removal of this access, would increase the distance to the School bus stop. The Seika-Kullberg connection has always been the only secondary vehicular access offthis mountain. During the fire on the mountain last year, APD blocked Chugach Park Drive to allow emergency vehicles up the moantain and the Seika-Kullberg access was the only way any resident could get down while evacuating their possessions. John Gross undercut the existing road bed on Chugach Park Drive in the late 80's which has made the need for secondary access offthis mountain even more critic:al. His action caused damage to the road that cannot be repaired. This act on occurred after many of us had purchased our homes and is not our fault. If the Dena[i View Plat is approved please provide for the safety of the residents with a secondary access. NAME ADDRESS XOWe, the undersigned, support our neighbors in Scimitar with their concerns about ,voter qua~ ~C; E I V E D quantity, we would appreciate their support for our concern about the secondary emergency access provided by the Seika-Kullberg connection. ~0~ - 1 1~S7 The Seika-Kullberg connection is critical to all the residents of the mountain for secondary eri~ltc~80,T~C,~:,,~O~t;~ access. The upper connection from Kullberg to Thornton is critical for pedestrian access. T~tl~'~e:~ .ONlY, R3 original road up the mountain and has been used by the residents as such. The Kullberg-Thornton connection is called the sledding hill and is used by residents from all over this area. It is the sledding activity that keeps the trail open for pedestrian access when the roads are impassable. It is the only pedestrian access up the mountain and allows us and our neighbors in Peters Gate to reach our homes when the road is blocked. By parking down below in Scimitar we can always walk home. It is also the pedestrian route which the chiIdren take to catch the School bus or leave the mountain on bikes or walking. There is no provision for children to walk down Chugach Park safely. They would need to share a steep road way with vehicles. Removal of this access, would increase the distance to the School bus stop. The Seika-Kullberg connection has always been the only secondary vehicular access offthis mountain. During the fire on the mountain last year, APD blocked Chugach Park Drive to allow emergency vehicles up the mountain and the Seika-Kullberg access was the only way any resident could get down while evacuating their possessions. John Gross undercut the existing road bed on Chugach Park Drive in the [ate 80's which has made the need for secondary, access offthis mountain even more critical. His action caused damage to the road that cannot be repaired. This action occurred a~er many of us had purchased our homes and is not our fault. If the Denali View Plat is approved please provide for the safety of the residents ~vith a secondary access. We, the undersi3maed, support our neighbors in Scimitar with their concerns about water quality and quantity We would appreciate their support !bt our concern about the secondary ememencv access p~i~ .~i~ iVIED Seika-Kullberg connection ~ ~ ' The Seika-KulIberg connection is critical to all the residents of the mountain tbr secondary ememencv access. The upper connection from Kullberg to Thornton is critical for pedestrian access original road up this mountain and has been used by the residents as such. The Kullbem~Tho~/g~ll~ & connection is called the sledding hill and is used by residents from all over this area. It i~s the sleddinu activity that keeps the trail open for pedestrian access when the roads are impassable. [t is the only pedestrian access up the mountain and allows us and our neighbors in Peters Gate to reach our homes when the road is blocked. By parking down below in Scimitar we can always al: least walk home. It is also the pedestrian route which the children take to catch the School bus or leave the mountain on bikes or walking. There is no provision for children to walk down Chugach Park safely. They would need to walk in the road way sharing a steep hill with vehicles. The Seika-Kullberg connection has always been the only secondary vehicular access offthis mountain. During the fa-e on the mountain last year APD blocked ~hugach Park Drive to allow emergency vehicles up the mountain and the Seika-Kullberg access was the only way any resident could get down while evacuating their possessions. John Gross undercut the existing road bed on Chugach Park Drive in the late 80's which has made the need for secondary access offthis mountain even more critical. His action cau~ critical damage to the road that cannot be repaired. This action occurred after many of us had purchased our homes and is not our fault. If the Denali View Plat is approved please provide for the safety of the residents with a secondary access. If tou look at a map the Seika-Kullberg connection is also the only way offthe mountain for the residents of Se~ t, Sollaret and ~e event of a blocked road on that side of the mountain. i~ ature Add s __ - ,, - ;( ., , // '/ -" ' - May 6, 1997 MM & M Contracting, Inc. P.O. Box 670495 Chugiak, AK 99567 Attention: Paul and Arlene Myers Subject: Denali View Subdivision (Case S-10054) Onsite Wells and Septic Systems FtE G IVED J U L 3 1 1997 Dear Paul and Arlene: At your request I reviewed reports prepared by Bristol Environmenfal Services Corporation which studied the nitrates in the well water on subdivisions surrounding Denali View Subdivision. I also reviewed their report concerning the aquifer test results on two wells recently drilled on lots proposed for the subdivision. In addition, reports and documentation prepared by DHI Consulting Engineers regarding soils on the proposed subdivision and drainage characteristics were also evaluated. The purpose of the review was to determine whether wells and septic systems could be successfully placed on the individual lots without impact to surrounding subdivisions. I have been involved in the development of subdivisions throughout the Anchorage area for the past 17 years. During this time I have also analyzed existing as well as designed and constructed new septic systems and wells for subd/visions as well as individual lots. Many of these systems were in areas similar to the proposed Denali View Subdivision. The documentation prepared to justify the placement of standard septic systems and wells on the lots proposed for Denali View Subdivision is very thorough and presents a strong case. Nitrate levels found on lots surrounding the new subdivision are not significantly out of line with those found in other areas of Anchorage. In addition, the average lot size proposed for the subdivision is much larger than lots where extreme nitrate problems are currently found. The addition of 11 new septic systems should have tittle impact on the nitrate levels found in surrounding wells. Lots in the area with elevated nitrate levels are scattered and in most cases surrounded by lots without elevated rates. The problem would therefore appear to be isolated to the lot with the elevated rate and may be caused by circumstances unique to the lot. In addition, there is no indication the nitrate ctncentrations are increasing in the area. It is difficult therefore to assume the nitrate problem is related to the concentration of septic systems in the area. The relatively large lot size will aid in the treatment of septic effluent. Soil conditions found on the proposed lots are ideal with percolation rates ranging from less than a minute per inch Denali View Subdivision July 31, 1997 Page Two to 4 minutes per inch. In areas with the faster percolation rates a sand filter will be constructed beneath the absorption areas to provide additional treatment to septic effluent before it absorbs in to the surrounding earth formations. If the septic systems are constructed to existing Municipal standards the impact to nitrate levels on surrounding lots should be minimal. Two wells were drilled on the subdivision to determine whether satisfactory mounts of water can be expected for each lot. The report prepared by Bristol Environmental Services discusses the location of the wells and the results from the drilling and flow testing. The results of their testing indicate that the aquifer providing water t0 the majority of the subdivision can be expected to deliver a satisfactory amount of water to each lot for an indefinite period of time. Some of the wells, however, may tap a deep bedrock aquifer and may impact some wells in the area. The report further indicates this impact should not be extreme. In conclusion, a substantial effort has been made to test and document the impact of proposed septic systems on the nitrate levels of surrounding wells. The conclusions reached appear justified in that the addition of 11 new systems constructed to existing standards will have limited impact on the quality of water in the area. Further, sufficient quantities of water are available for the planned development of the subdivision. Bedrock wells may contribute to existing difficulties experienced by some well owners in the area, but not to a great extent. Based on the information available I can see no reason why the subdivision should not be allowed to proceed. Please be advised that my review is based solely on the materials presented to me. I was not actively involved in any of the testing or study of conditions related to the subdivision. Sincerely, Michael E. Anderson, P.E. Municipality of Anchorage P. O. Box 196650 Anohorage, Alaska 99519-6650 (907) 343-42!5 S-10054 Pu ~uA 67J~75 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING - - WEDNESDAY AUGUST 6, 1997~ FIRST CLASS MAIL The Municipality of Anchorage Platting Authority will consider the following: CASE: PETITIONER: ~EQUEST: TOTAL AREA: LOCATION: SITE ADDRESS: CURRENT LEGAL: Scimitar Subdivision, Unit NO.3, Tract 1, Section 10, T15N, R1W, S.M., AK CHUGIAK COMMUNITY COUNCIL S-10054 DENALI VIEW SUBDIVISION Skyline View Corp. To subdivide 1 tract into 11 lots. 37.47 acres West of Sullins Drive and south of Seka Drive. No property address available located within the SE 1/4 of The Platting Board will hold a public hearing on the above matter at 7:30 p.m. Wednesday August 6, 1997, in the Assembly Hall of the Z.J. Loussac Library, 3600 Denali Street, Anchorage, Alaska. The Subdivision Ordinance requires that you be sent notice because your property is within the vicinity of the petition area. This will be the only public hearing before the Board and you are invited to appear. If you would like to comment on the petition this form may be used for your convenience. Mailing Address: Municipality of Anchorage, Community Planning and Development, P.O. Box 196650, Anchorage, Alaska 99519-6650. For more information please call 343-4267. Address: r 3 Municipality of Anchorage P. O. Box 1966B0 Anchorage, Alaska 99519-6650' (907) 343-4215 --- ...... S-10054 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING - - WEDNESDAY AUGUS' '6, 1997 The Municipality of Anchorage Platting Authority will consider the following: CASE: S-10054 DEN3tLI VIEW SUBDIVISION R~QU~ST: To subdivide I tract into 11 lots. TOTAL AREA: 37.47 acres ~.- LOCATION: Wes~ of Sullins Drive and south' of Seka Drive. SITE ADDRESS: No property address available: ' CUR/~ENT LEGAL: scimitar Subdivision, Unit NOt3, Tract 1, located within the SE ;!.14 of~ Section lO, T15N, RIW, a.M., AK ~ ~i. '!~ CHUGIAK COMMUNITY COUNCIL : - ~ The Pl~tting Board will hold a public hearing on the above matter at 7:30 p.m. Wednes August 6, 1997, in the Assembly Hall of the Z.J. Uoussac Library, 3600 Denali Stree~i? Anchorage, Alaska. - ...... ...!~' The Subdivision Ordinance requires that you be sent notice because your proper~y ~ wi~ the vicinity of the petition area. This will be the only public hearing before the Soar and you are invited to appear. If you would like to comment on the ~etition this form may be used for your convenience: Mailing Address: Municipality of Anchorage, Community Planning and Develol~nent, P.O. HOX 196650, Anchorage, Alaska 99519-6650. For more information please call 343-4267. - · U 'i'.' L.g.1 .seript on, '..%:_.. LOb /'s-- ¥ cc!c I EUBD IV~ION-VACATION-VARIANCE/~ES IDENTS~-PLATTI~O BOARD This pattern has repeated to this date. The maximum return we have had since 1988 is 20 gallons per 24 hour period. Usually the well produces 5 to 10 gallons per 24 hour period. We currently have water professionally hauled four times a month. In between these deliveries we haul 55 gallons in a tank in the back of our van. We take water from friends and family on good wells or on city water. We pay approximately S50.00 per month for professionally hauled water. In an attempt to keep our cost Iow and our convemence as high as possible, we conserve our water. We flush the toilets only when necessa~, not after each use, and try to keep it to two flushes a day. We save the water from baths, storing the water in 5 gallon buckets used to flush the toilets. We take baths/showers every other day or go to a friend's house to shower· We do laundry at the laundro- mat. Although we have our own washing machine, one full load of laundry uses 40 gallons of water· Unfortunately, our professional water hauler has re0uired a 500 gallon minimum delivery. Our current holding tank will accommodate 240 gallons. For a considerable amount of money we have been advised to increase our holding capacity to 500 gallons· This will cause a financial strain and a storage(, crunch. We wilt be forced to return to hauling water in the 55 gallon tank in our own car. RapidFa The Premier Fax Software for the Apple Macintosh To: Denali View Sub Margaret O'Brien, - Community Planning and Developm From: Emily M. Davies, Your Company Name ~S~lO ~NINOZ ~ ~N~,~ Fax Phone Number: (907) 688-5590 Date: Mom Aug 27, 1956 · 9:56 PM Transmitting (1) pages, including cover sheet. If there is difficulty with this transmission, please call: (907)688-5590 Note: Dear Ms. O'Brien: Please make sure copies of this letter are delivered to the platting board in time for their review before teh August 6 meeting. Thank you very much, Tony DeGange To the Platting Board: August 1, 1997 I am writing on behalf of the Peter's Gate Subdivision Homeowners Association with regard to the proposed Denali View Subdivision. Let us assure you that we d not oppose the responsible development of the property in question; we do however, object to development in which one individual profits while surrounding neighborhoods pay the real costs of the development in terms of inrr.~ad ha~lth ~tan~ ~nfl financial h~?ard~ Tha rnnrarn~ .¥nrai~ad harain FROM : MMM CONTRACTING PHONE NO. : 6882238 Aug. 01 1997 10:42AM Pi DATE: AUGUST 1, 1997 TO: MARGARET O'BRiAN FROM: AI~I.g~-N MYERS RE: S-10054 DENALI VIEW SUBDIVISION ENGINEERS LETTER - FOR INCLUSION TO PLATTING BOARD YESTERDAY I DI~.UVI~RED A L£T']'E~R FROM MR. ~ ANDF~RSON, AN'DEl{SON ENGINEF,RING FOR INCLUSION TO T}I~ PLATT~O BOARD I. IE I{AS ADVISED ~ THAT ~ DATE ON THE II~.'l-l'I~R IS INCORRECT AND I-lAS SF. ND A NF.W LI~Ti'F~II WITH THE COIIRIiCT DA'IIi. }IE STAR1 ,I~D I~VIEW IN MAY BUT CX)NCII]DED THE liTTER AS OF JULY 31, 1997. FOII,OWING IS TI~ CORRECTI,Y DATF~D I~TTF. R. RECEIVED 6 FROM : MMM CONTRACTING PHONE NO, : 6881-~w~8 ~u9. 01 1907 10:42AM P2 .luly 31, 1997 MM & M Contracting, Inc. P.O. Box 670495 Chugi~, AK 99567 At~cngon: Paul and Arlene Myers Denali View Subdivision (Case $-I0054) Onsito Wells and S~pfie ~ystems Dear Paul and Atleae: At your request I reviewed report~ pr~p~ by Bristol Environment~l $crviC/~s Corporation which studied th~ ~trates in the well water on subdivisions surtoundlng Den~li View Sobdivision. I also r~viewed their ~ concerning the aquifer test results on two wells recently drilled on lots proposed for the subdivision. In addition, reports and docurneatation prepared by DItI Consulting Bngineers regarding soils on the proposed subdivision and drainage charae~ristic~ were also evaluated. Th~ purpos~ of the leview was to d~ermln~, whether wells and septic systems could be succe_,st~lly placed on the individual lots without impa~t to surrounding subdivisions. I have been invoh~iin the devclopmcm of subdivisions throughout the Anchor~,,e ama for the past 17 years. During this time I have also anslyzed existing as well as d~signed and eonst~cted new s6lxic syst~as and wells for subdivisions as w~ll as individual lots. Many of theS~ ~ystgms were in areas similar to thc proposed Donali View Subdivision. The documentation prepared to justify the p ,Iace~ of s~ndard ~l~ie s/gents and wells on the lots proposed for DeasJi View Subdivision is vc~y thorough and presents a sirong case. l~i~rate levels found on lols surrounding tim new subdivision am not significantly out of ~ with tho~ found in other sr~s of Anchorage, In ~ael~tlon, the average lot size proposed for the sulxlivision is much larger than lots wh~re e. xt~m~. ,-,;Ua~ problems are ema'e~tly found, The addition of 11 new septic systems should have little impact on the nitrate levels found in surrounding wells. Lots in the area with elevated niu'sto levels am seartemd and in most eases surrounded by lots without elevated rates. The problem would thex~fo~ Spl~r to be isolstad to fl~ lot with the elevated ram ~ may be caused by circumstances unique to tim lot. In addition, th~m is no indication tim niwam concentrations are ink.using in tbe al~a. It is difficult tire, fore to a.~um¢ thc ni~rar~ p~blwm is r~lal~cl to the consultation of septic systems in the area. The relari~ly largelot size will aid in fl~ h-caiment of ~p~ie effluent. S~il conditions found on the proposed lots a~ ideal with percolation rat~s ranging from less m,., a mint~ pcr inch FRO~ : MPIM CONTRACTING Dcnati ¥i¢w Subdivision July 31, 19~7 Pag~ Two PHONE NO. : 6881238 Aug. 01 1997 10:43AM P3 Two we~lls w~e ~ on th~ subdivision to deteu~e whcflm' ~,_~s¢,.cto~ amotm~ of w~ ~ ~ ~ for ~ lo~ ~e ~n ~ by BfiS~I ~v~n~ ~ices ~scus~ subdix4siofi ~defi~ may ~t so~ we~s propo~ have ~ ac av~able for~pl~n~ ~evelopm~ of~ m~vision- ~ we~ ~y ~bu~ to c~s~g ~fi~ ~x~eo~ by ~ we~ own~ ~ the ~e~ ~t not to a ~ ex~n~ B~ ~low~ to p~. Ple~ ~ ad~ ~h~my m~ ~ b~ solely on &e ~ ~S~ W m~, I w~ not ~vety involv~ ~ my of ~e ~sting ~ study of ~n~fom ~1~ to ~e ~v~on. $1noer~ly. Michel E. Anti.son. P-E. 8 F'ROM ~ MMM CONTRACTING PHONE ~lO.. : 68812~8 Aug. ~}1 1997 10:~-~AM R~ DATI~: AUGUST 1, 1~'27 TO: MARGARET O'BRIAN FROM: APl.~-~.I,I MY~,RS RE: S-10054 DI~NALI VII~W SUBDMSIONI MR, WILLIAMS ATTI!NDANC]~ ~ 19 CilUGIAK COMMUNITY COITNCIL MI~ETING - FOR INCLUSION TO PLATITNt3 BOARD FOI.,LOWING IS THE SIGN IN SI-11;.~..T FOR THE CHUGIAK COMMUNI 1 ~' COUNCrL WHICH SHOWS THAT MR. WILLIAMS DID ATTEND Tiff1FONE 19TH COMMUNITY COUNCIL MEETING WHEN BOTH ~ L_r~'D_ ROL .~_,Y ~ NTrRATlt RF. PORTS WEP. E PP, F. SF_~TED BY SUBDIVIDERS £NGIN'F~ER, THF.~F~ WER]$ MANY MORE AYi'I~NDING THAT DID NOT SIGN IN. FROM : MMM CONTRACTING PHONE NO. : 6881238 Aug. 01 1997 10:45AM P5 FROM : MMM CONTRACTING P~OHE HO. : 6881258 Au~. 01 1997 10:~5AM F~ FROM : MMM CONTRACTING PHONE NO. : 6881238 Aug. 01 1997 10:46AM P? DATE: AUOUST 1, 1997 TO: MARGARET O~RIAN FROM: ARLEEN MYERS RE: S-10054 DENALI VIEW SUBDIVISION PROPOSED USE OF ANECDOLTAL INFORMATION - FOR INCLUSION TO PLATYIN~ BOARD FOLLOWING IS A LETTER FROM MR. & IVIRS. WILLIAk~ AND MR. & MRS. IIUDSON ADVISIIqO NEIOItBORS OF THEIR HYDROIX)iHSTS PLAN FOR l-liS REPORT WtflCtl IS TO INCLUDE A~..C.~TAL INFORMATION. WI~il{OLrl' PROPER SUPERVISION OF ENGINEERS AND QUAL]FIF, D WATER ~ PERSONI~.L THIS INFORMATION IS UNVERII~-r) AND SUBMITTED BY ITNQUALIFIE]%PEOPLE WHO MIGHT UNWITI'INGLY BE IVlXSI~.PI~SEI~G IT. FROtl : MMf,1 CONTRACTING PHONE N~O, : ¢:~B81238 Aug. 81 1999 10:46Ai'4 P8 July 21,199'/ Dear Neighbor, Many of your concerned neighbors are worried about the impact of the proposed Denali View subdivision on both the amount of water available and the quality of this water. Information that the Municipality of Anchorage needs to make a decision is factual data indicating a water problem in the area and the strong possibility that 11 more homes in the area will negatively effect our water situati°n. The developer of the subdivision, Paul Meyers, has presented a repoxt indicating that the new subdivision will not have any impact on our water and nitrate levels, which many elm have concerns about. We have contracted with Terrasat, Inc. to provide an independent ground water investigation for tho surrounding area within SA mile of the proposed subdivision. They will evaluate well yields, evaluate nitrates, map the geology and provide interpretation, evaluate pump test data, drat~ a map showing relative well yields and nitrate con~ntrafifi-n3 a,,,~ p,,,,,ia., a writt .m.. repo~, of their findings, inte~retations and.res.~ul~(They will also mclud~ ~meedot~ ~T~%~n s--TfZli-~ ~ water proble.m, s you exp~e.nence, th,e tame 0fyear or water usage in your home or surrounding homes..on example would be that your neighbors dug their Well _,deeper and suddenly you can do one load of wash and your well is dry. Teaxauat, Inc. would be interested Ihat your well that produced so many gallons a minute when you bought your home now goes dry after you use 30 gallons to wash laundry. Or the difference you notice in your well now ms compared to when you moved into your house. Terrasat, Inc. wants to include tiffs kind of information in their report since some of the data they will have to base their report on is old. You can call 688-2123 or 688-5621 to have this data picked up. Or the anecdotal infomaation can be faxed to Terrasat at 344-1490. There is a time crunch. The report need to be done by July 30th, so the Municipality can review before the August 6* Platting Board meeting. Your information would need to be .~ ,/~., I ~_.,ccolle~ted by Friday, July.25*. In order to save money members of the ncighborhood are helping to gather the data. What information could be gathered from the Municipality has been /l,t,,~gathered. We are asking that you t~11 out this Information Release form to ~t~" -~athc-r more information. Also, please take a few minutes to write down water problems that you have experienced. It doesn't have to be fancy. But please F~O~I : I'~I'IH COHT~>~qCTIHG PFIOHE NO. : ~;8812~8 Aug. 01 1997 10:4?AH P9 be as detailed as possible. Any information like this that you can give would help reinforce that this area has water problems. We hope that you can help us. There is no guarantee that this report will indicate there are significant water quality and quantity problems. However many of us believe this to be tree. This report is our only chance of making the Mtmicipality seriously consider and evaluate our concerns and hopeti~lly make the decision thai future development must not further compromise our quality of living. This report is being paid for by concerned homeowners - all of them your neighbors. The report will cost $7,000.00 and a member of the community has signed a contract to pay this amount because ho firmly believes thai: we have water Problems and that furore development while we are dependent on our mountain for our water should not happen. Based on the level of interest in this report and in his conversations with eoratnunity homeova~ers he hopes that if homeowners that believe there is a water problem and ca4 afford $250.00, or whatever amotmt you feel you could afford, would contribute. It would be in our best interest. Checks can be made out to Terrasat, Inc.. Calling 688-2123 will also pick up this commitment. Your concerned neighbors 08/01/97 10:45 890? 786 3350 ADM OFC FV/$ ES ~001 To: From: Subject: Maxga.~t O'Bri~ Tony DeGange, Tel. 786-3~-92 Letters Concerning Proposed Denali View Subdivision Please make sure the attached letters arc iucludcd in the packet lhat goes to the platthlg board before the August 6 meeting. Th~,~ you. Call me at 786-3492 if you have questions. RECEIVED ~,tOhI~PALtTY OF ~i PL~J4NNN~ ~- ZONING 08/01/97 10:45 9907 786 3350 ADH OFC FWS ES ~002 To the Platting Board: August l, 1997 I am writing on behalf of the Peter's Gate Subdivision Homeowners Association with regard to the proposed Denali View Subdivision. I.et us assure you that we do not oppose the responsible development of the property in question: we do however, object to development in which one individual profits while surrounding neighborhoods pay thc :¢al costs of the development in terms of increased health, safety and financial hazards. The concerns cxprcssed herein reprcscnt a unanimous vote determined by a legal quorum at a specially convened homeowners' meeting; this letter expresses our concerns about health and safety impacts-'the proposed project would have on road and pedestrian access to over 100 families living on Be~r Mountain. In a May 21 report Margaret O'Brien of the Department of Community Planning and Development outlined the history of the site and surrounding areas. On page 6 under "Traffic circulation' the report states: ~The issue of a secondary access has been raised over the last twenty years and has been raised again with this subdivision. The 1980 approval of Scimitar Subdivision, #3 tracted out the current petition site placed a condition on the plat which read: 'Placing a note on the plat states: When Tract I is further divided a road connection for Solleret Drive and Sullins Dr~ve: Solleret Drive [presumably Seika?] and Kullberg Drive will be made.' ~"~*" Our comment hcrc is that it was certainly the original intent of the MOA to build these roads as they constituted good community planning. An appeal of this condition was granted by the o~vsembly sitting as the Board of Adjustment. A reveiw of records found that public response was overwhelmingly against this road connection primarily because residents of Scimitar Subdivison did not want non-local traffic traveling through their neighborhoods. In 1988 a preliminary plat submitted by the Department of Pubfic Works was approved to provMe a 60 foot wide dedication for a road connection from Kullberg Drive to Seika Drive. The final plat was never recorded and the road was never built. Chugiak Communit Council wrote in opposition to the road connection stating that a 08/01/97 10:46 ~907 786 3350 AI)~ OFC F~S ES ~003 petition had been signed by 62 residents "stating they did not want the access road developed also know as 'Seika Drive Extettsion'.' **** The issue in 1988 was apparently similar to that in 1980- that some residents of Scimitar did not want increased "non-local" traffic through their neighborhood. However Denali View, despite a different name, is part of the original Scimitar plat and hence the increased traffic should be deemed largely 'local' as long as primary access to the mountain continues to be available by Chugach Park Drive (which is a much more direct route up the mountain for most residents). In the event that Chugach Park becomes inaccessible (a not unlikely event), these roads would provide the only .access for as many as 120 families living above Scimitar, including future Denali View residents. We sympathize with Scimitar residents about traffic concerns but are dismayed that they seem perfectly happy to divert increased traffic through other neighborhood8 rather than provide access within their own subdivison for their own subdivision, regardless of the name change. Apparently this is legal but it does not constitute good community planning especially when thc alternative road is substandard and often dangerous with exiting levels of traffic. It should be should be recognized for the NIMBY position it is. It should also be noted that in 1988, according to minutes of a Road Board meeting on July 25, 1988, only residents of the lower portion of the project (Scimitar residents) were notified as to public hearings and actions taken and hence many people potentially impacted by this decision were unaware of it. I therefore question the validity of such decisions. Road connections have been suggested from $olleret Drive to Sullin$ Drive and from Kullberg to Seika Drive. A road meeting municipal standard.~ can nor be made in either of the~'e locations due to the steepness of the grade. Both Traffic Engineering and Department of Public Worl~s concur. **"* With all duc respect our current access roads (parts of Chugach Park Drive and Sullins Drive) don't meet municipal standards either (This is well documented by municipal and Road Board reports); in fact they are significantly worse than the proposed roads. I don't see how on one hand the MOA can approve subdivisions on these mountain sides yet on thc other hand declare roads meeting municipal standards cannot be bnilt. The development of Denali View Subdivision will increase traffic on substandard roads 08/01/97 10:46 ~'907 786 3350 AD~ 0F¢ FWS ES ~004 regardless of where they are located. If roads that meet code cannot be provided, perhaps this is reason to delay or deny further development of such unsuitable properties? A cul-de-sac at the northern end of Kullberg Drive and the driveways can be constructed that will meet the slope standards. However, a connection to Seika Drive to Kullberg would create an unsafe intersection that would exceed maximum slope standards. **"** This latter statement begs the real issue here in that traffic flow to this "proposed Kullberg cul-de-sac that WILL meet standards" would still be directed over roads that exceed maximum slope standards (Chugach Park Drive) in order to get to it if the Seika-Kullberg connection is by- passed. There is no net gain. Not reflected in this report, because of dates involved, is the resolution by the Chugiak Community Council on July 17 favoring the: removal of the Seika-Kullburg and Solleret-Sullins right of ways. That yom was taken at 11 pm after a long discussion with the hydrologist hired by the developer; people who came for ~he road issue had long since gone home, believing the road issue would not make it onto the floor, The vote was 12-14 in favor of the removal, with the two swing votes being the developer and his wife. This does not constitute a mandate by the community. I respectfully submit that it is your responsibility to consider the best good for the community at large- not simply the interests of the developer and a handful of vocal residents adjacent to the project. Thc Se/ca- Kullberg right-of-way currently serves as emergency access for many homes higher up the mountain. Many of us have resorted to driving the trail during ice storms, forest fires (which ia 1996 came within 500 yards of several Peter's Gate homes) or when vehicles are stuck on Chugach Park Drive. A letter on file from Ted Kinney, the Chugiak Road Board representative, supports the maintenanc~ of the right-of-ways in question as in the best interests of the community at large. We support his recommendations- that the potential access be maintained although development of the roads is not necessary at this time- and we vigorously oppose the permanent removal of this future option. It should be noted in the history of this issue that this is the first time the permanent removal of this option is at stake, and it is the first opportunity many of us impacted by such decisions have had the opportunity to comment; if Denali View is developed under the proposed plat future options in this area are foreclosed. 08/01/97 10:47 ~'907 786 3350 AD~ OFC F~S ES ~005 h has been proposed (by the MOA?) to Mr. Myers that as an alternative to a 60 foot road right-of-way he provide a 12 foot easement for a foot/bike path between Kullberg and Seica. However, he is not required nor does he propose to develop or maintain it. It will apparently be moved slightly to border new property lines which may well move it over a drop-off into alders and devil's club; no map of the exact location has been produced and hence the difficulty and cost of developing such a wail cannot be assessed at the present time. Our objections to this arc three-fold: 1) This alternative docs not provide emergency access for cars and emergency vehicles; 2) Chugach Park Estates and Peter's Gate Subdivisions have no school bus service [Because existing road grades are too steep adh do not meet code] and children in these neighborhoods must walk down existing trails to Scimitar to catch the bus. Without a developed and maintained path, children will be unable to use the replacement because 8now and trees will impede them. Many adult residents also use these trash when road conditions prohibit driving up or down the mountain; and 3) with such a vague easement clause we fear that a year from now we'll all be back in front of you as adjacent residents, now accustomed to an undeveloped easement, seek once again to remove this easement as they do not want people walking/biking/riding etc. along their property lines, Given the history of this issue, such a prediction is not unfounded. It is time to lay this issue to rest once and for all with dedicated right-of-ways formally Fried and includcd on all plats. Ia the MOA Community Planning and Development Report 'Trail connections~ Ms. O'Brien writes: under "There is an existing trail that traverses the site in tm east-west direction from the northern terminus of Kullberg Drh, e to Sullins Drive [Thornton Drivel. It is commonly referred to as the sledding trail. The President of the Chugiak Community Council has requestad that easements be provided to retain public access to this trail, this trail is not reflected on the adopted Areawide Trails Plan and tim petitioners have stated the intent ro provide trail easements after the site has been fidly surveyed and a determination can be made of the best location to provide this trail access easement., Again, with all due respect, this is not acceptable. This trail is too important to be left simply to the developer'8 discretion. Without aa adequate trail school children and pedestrians will be forced to walk Sullins Drive in the dark down an icy hill that all of us who live here 08/01/97 10:47 '~907 786 3350 .ADH 0FC FWS ES ~006 have "driven' down sideways or backwards at one time (or more). Without formal inclusion on the proposed plat such a trail will not be made available to publ/c scrutiny and comment; and if for any reason the developer docs not build a suitable trail thcrc is no "post facto' jurisdiction or regulatory authority to requ/re him to do so. This too- casual approach also invites a rcpcat of pitting neighborhood against neighborhood as Denali View landowners ar~ne about the placement of the trail, One possiblity is that the developer be r~uired to develop and maintain (or deed the land the the MOA who would maintain it) a pedestrian access from Sullins [Thomwn Drive] to Solleret along the route intended for that road connection. This would redeuce the distance school children would have to walk to catch the bus. In conclusion, we request that you require that both the $cika-Kullberg and the Sollerct-Sullins [Thornton] right-of-ways be formally included in any development plat for Deanli View and maintained for future development options. The Municipality clearly intended these road connections to eventually be built, which makcs good sense from a community wide perspective. Thank you for your consideration and your support of responsible development in our community- development which safcquards the and safety of all our children, friends and neighbors. health Sincerely yours, Tony D~3ange, President Peter's Gate Subdivsion 08/01/97 10:48 ~/~'907 786 3350 AD~ OFC FWS ES ~007 Mtmicipal/ty o£Aachorage Community Planning and Development P O Box 196650 Anchorage, Alaska 99519-6650 J~y29, 1997 Dear Sirs: I live on lot 22, block 1 of Chugach Park Estates. At closing, in 1979, for thc sale of my house I received a copy of this platt and have always been under the understanding that a second exit/access would be available to me and my family. Please find a copy of that platt enclosed. I feel that this access is critical tbr the resideras in my area. The health and s~ffety of my neighborhood would be greatly impacted. As a facilkator of the Disaster Planning Co,.,,,!ttee for COS, I know only to well wha~ can happen if we do not keep this access available. I feel that it would be poor plmmmg and Y_ed~ short sighted of the planning comm/tte~ to allow this to happcn. Now is the time to exercise foresight aud p!~nning/'or tho future. We are not asl~ing for a new road, only a con6nuec~ ace, s W an ~isting o{d road. The elimination of the road easement would remove an old road and the only second route off the motmtai~ Only last year, a fire on Bear Mountai~ burned for three days. If a total evacuation was necessary that old road could have been used. The mA!, road was closed and countless emergency vehicles went up and down, night and day. In addition, water has been an issue for many neighbors for years. The community wide impact needs to considered from a stand point other ThAn telling people 'they can always dig a deeper well" ffwe were to lose ,eater, I do not feel that the first report dou¢ was nearly detailed or complem enough. Further information n~ds to be obtained to make a fa/r and reasonable decision. Oliver Moore P 0 Box 670732, Ctmgialc, Ahsl~ 99567 Venita Moore (907)688-3298 08/01/97 ~'907 786 3350 ADff OFC FwS ES '3.00' S O0e 33' 16" -- - 150.00' ~ . $OOe,~3,16.W- 177.9~'-- -- -- I 08/0~/97 10:49 '~'907 786 3350 AD~ OFC F~S ES ~009 Dennia Johnson P.O. Box 670795 Chugiak, AK. 99567 Municipality of Anchorage Community Planning and Development P.O. Box 196650 Anchorage, AK 99519-6650 June 20, 1997 Dear Sic. Two issues must be addressed with this subdivision. The adequacy anti impact of the water and the elimination of a road easement These two issues impact the entire enmmUnlty ~uYolmdillg lhe pl'olN~ed development and need to b~ considered. ~ ~liminstion Of a m.,ad easement would ~move an old road and the .only sec~...nd rou~ off the mountain. I have liwxi on Kullberg for almost 15 years _und p6riodically ofillzpd this roadway. As you c, aa see by the ea¢lo~ex[ Platt mat~, the cul-d~ ~a~- ~e cad o,f [~ais. berg stat~s ~paraty mnmr~uad mbc automalically vacated when s~ ~s ax,~oen. was on the Platt when I purchased my lot with th~ e, xp~mlalion of another mute off the mountain. Add~ic~..slly thc only rou~ up ~h¢ momllaia via Sullins is steep and baa no gu~r..d rails The ~n,~,,,~on of any future secondary exit would impact the health md safemy of the ighborhoo¢ · point other than telling people that they can mg unpa~t a~eds to be comida~ f~om a stand a d~perwelt Smc~,y, ~e/--~ Dennis lohn,qolt Corinne Jolmson(/ Lot 21 block 2 Chug-ach Park ' 23 5'-/o Please do not take away the safe path to our school bus and for bike riding. We do not like riding or walking down the steep narrow hills by the drop offwhen a car comes by. There is no rail or path that is not on the roadway itself. The school bus would be much further away if we could not use the old road into ScimitarF~ ~ff~k~rhe~- [v I''' LJ------ ~"~"~ walk over a mile longer. NAME ADDRESS AU6- i 1997 MUNIC;~ALri'h' C,F pL.ANN~'4G & ZONING c24 Please do not take away the safe path to our school bus and for bike riding. We do not like riding or walking down the steep narrow hills by the drop offwhen a car comes by. There is no rail or path that is not on the roadway itself. The school bus would be much further away if we could not use the old road into Scimitar. EIME D walk over a mile longer. NAME ADDRESS AUG- 11997 PLANN~I~'G & ZONING DIVI~ICN \Ve, the undersigned, support our neighbors in Scimitar with their concerns about water quali~_.C~ .~ tV ~ D quantity, we would appreciate their support for our concern about the secondary emergency access provided by the Seika-Kullberg connection. ~U(3- 'i 19S7 The Seika-Kullberg connection is critical to all the residents of the mountain for secondary e~aw c* ~4~,a~ · .' . 7~'~J ~3 n .nSl~L. access. The upper connectton ~om Kullberg to ~omton is crlncal for pedesman access. ~ ~ -~ - ' orig~al road up ~e mounta~ and has been used by the residanm as such. ~e Kullberg-~omton co~ection is called ~e sledd~g hill and is used by residents ~om all over this area. It is the sledd~g activi~ that keeps the ~ail open for pedeswi~ access when the roads ~e ~passable. It is the only pedestrian access up the mountain and allows us mid our neighbors in Peters Gate to reach our homes when the road is blocked. By parking down below in Scimitar we can always walk home. It is also the pedesU'ian route which the children take to catch the School bus or leave the mountain on bikes or walking. There is no provision for children to walk down Chugach Park safely. They would need to share a steep mad way with vehicles. Removal of this access, would increase the distance to the School bus stop. The Seika-Kullberg connection has always been the only secondary vehicular accegs off this mountain. During the £~re on the mountain last year, APD blocked Chugach Park Drive to allow emergency vehicles up the mountain and the Seika-Kullberg access was the only way any resident could get down while evacuating their possessions. John Gross undercut the existing road bed on Chugach Park Drive in the late 80'a xvhich has made the need c~ t :a. His action caused damage to the road that for secondary access off this mountain even more "' cannot be repaired. This action occurred after many of us had purchased our homes and is not our fault. If the Denaii View Plat is approved please provide for the safety of the residents with a secondary access. NAME ADDRESS ,$-/o 0,.;"9' 'We, the undersigned, support our neighbors in Scimitar with their concerns about xvater qua~ ~ quantity, we would appreciate their support for our concern about the secondary emergency access provided by the Seika-Kullberg connection. AU~ The Seika-Kullberg connection is critical to ali the residents of the mountain for secondarv access. The upper connection from Ku berg to Thornton is critical for pedestr an access. T~e .ONIi'~ original road up the mountain and has been used by the residents as such. The Kullberg-Thornton connection is called the sledding hill and is used by residents from all over this area. It is the sledding activity, that keeps the trail open for pedestrian access when the roads are impassable. It is the only pedestrian access up the mountain and allows us and our neighbors in Peters Gate to reach our homes when the road is blocked. By parking down below in Scimitar we can always walk home. It is also the pedestrian route which the children take to catch the School bus or leave the mountain on bikes or walking. There is no provision for children to walk down Chugach Park safely. They would need to share a steep road way with vehicles. Removal of this access, would increase the distance to the School bus stop. The Seika-Kullberg connection has always been the only secondary vehicular access offthis mountain. During the £rre on the mountain last year, APD blocked Chugach Park Drive to allow emergency vehicles up the mountain and the Seika-Kullberg access was the only way any resident could get down while evacuating their possessions. John Gross undercut the existing road bed on Chugach Park Drive in the late 80's which has made the need for secondary access off this mountain even more critical. His action caused damage to the road that cannot be repaired. This action occurred a~er many of us had purchased our homes and is not our fault. If the Dena[i View Plat is approved please provide for the safety of the residents with a secondary access. ' 27 We, the undersi ,gne& support our neighbors in Scimitar with their concerns about water quality and quantity We would appreciate their support for our concern about the secondary emergency access p~l~E [Vi::::: D Seika-Kullberg connection AUG- ]997 The Seika-Kullberg connection is critical to all the residents of the mountain for secondary emergency access. The upper connection from Kullberg to Thornton is critical for pedestrian access. Th~jh~li~i. flh, c~ ,'41{:;~:l^~z_ original road up this mountain and has been used by the residents as such The Kullberg-ThoF"ritt~lt~ & ZONIL~ D,,a~S~2N connection is called the sledding hill and is used by residents from all over this area. It is the sledding activity that keeps the trail open for pedestrian access when the roads are impassable It is the only pedestrian access up the mountain and allows us and our neighbors in Peters Gate to reach our homes when the road is blocked. By parking down below in Scimitar we can always at least walk home. It is also the pedestrian route which the children take to catch the School bus or leave the mountain on bikes or walking. There is no provision for children to walk down Chugach Park safely. They would need to walk in the road way sharing a steep hill with vehicles. The Seika-Kullberg connection has always been the only secondary vehicular access offthis mountain. During the fire on the mountain last year APD blocked Chugach Park Drive to allow emergency vehicles up the mountain and the Seika-Kullberg access was the only way any resident could gei down whi/e evacuating their possessions. John Gross undercut the e.,dsting road bed on Chugach Park Drive in the late 80's which has made the need for secondary access offthis mountain even more critical. His action caused critical damage to the road that cannot be repaired. This action occurred after many of us had purchased our homes and is not our fault. If the Denali View Plat is approved please provide for the safety of the residents wkh a secondary access. If you look at a map the Seika-Kullberg connection is also the only way offthe mountain for the residents of Sci :O, Sollaret and Beldeque in~khe event of a blocked road on that side of the mountain. ~i~ ~ture ~ Addr~s J .... / - U -- hUG- 1-@? FRI 13:48 P, 01/05 DIVISION OF MINING AND WATER MANAGEMENT 3601 C ~treet, Suite # 800 Anchorage, AK 99503 RES( URCES (907) 269-8600(Mining) (90T)269-862~(Wam~ FAX TRANSMITTALMEMO FAX #: s~cnoN: bU,~4r~_ FAX #'.'_(907) 563-1853 (Mining) ~-./.007) 562-1384 (Water) NUMBER OF PAGES ]2gCLUDING COVER SHEET: IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL PAGES, PL.F_ASE CALL THE SENDER AS SOON' AS POSSIIBLE. COMiW~ENTS: RECEIVED AUG- i 1997 MUNIO~ALffY OF ANONO~ PLANN~ & ZONINO DIVISION ~'29 hUG- 1-97 FRI 13:46 P, 02/06 MEMORANDUM DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF MINING & WATER MGMT Alaska Hydrologic Survey ~o: Gary Prokosch Section Chief THRU: FROM: Roy Ireland Hy~oloaist State of Alaska 3601 CSt.. Sulte soo ANCHORAGE AK sssoa.sa35 DATE: FILF. NO: TELEPHONE NO: SUBJECT: July 30, 1997 (907) 269-8639 Fax 562-1384 Scimitar Subdivision I reviewed the letter from Jim Munter regarding the wells at S~imitsr Subdivision and the proposed Denali View Subdivision, end have found e few items that bother me. In general, his review is good and as accurate as can be under the circumstances. The principle issue that bothers me is that the well in the sand and gravel aquifer was test pumped, and not the bedrock well. The extent of the sand and gravel aquifer is unknown, and does not snow in other logs from the area. (Why other drillers would have skipped it is-8 mystery to me, unless it is of very limited extent.) Why waS the bedrock well, that is more likely to be connected to the surrounding wells, not tested? There is · greater chance that this well, end other potential new walls, would be connected to the existing wells in the bedrock aquifer, than the well that was pumped. The ares is characterized by bedrock wells of varying productivity and static water level. This indicates that there might be several unconnected fracture systems within the bedrock underlaying the area. I am not convinced that existing water right holders would not be affected. Deepening a bedrock well is an arduous task, which may result in failure to produce water if the productive fracture zone does not extend to that particular location in the bedrock. Data are insufficient to attempt to interpret the system(s) of fractures in the area, and the unknown elevations end locations of all wells in the area is a complicating factor. The nitrate interpretation is likewise complex, but it appears to be localized in the northwest quadrant. This may be an expression of' some surficiaJ feature which has found it's way into the groundwater. The source end pathway(s) are undetermined at this time r 30 AUG- 1-97 FRI 13:47 ?. 03/05 ~U6- 1-97 FEI 13:47 ALA$~ DNR/DSvis(on of Water // 'S¢IM' $ pUE$C KEY ~NER OPT~ USGS # 001498 MYERS, PAUL .A~ 0075 SRO1S-OOI-IODGCCl-60 002893 RYARA, PAUL '~ 0162 SGO15-OOi-lO~BBA1-7~ 009312 MCKENZIE, CHUCK ~ 0530 SBO15-OO1-10DCBA 001031 o1~290 ~, TIHOT~ L 01~ s8015-001-1098~1-~ 005~0 ~]L~A~S, OENNZS ~ 0900 SB01~-001-1~. 020305 CURATE, S O13095 GRES~¥ STEPHER 002614 UOELFEL, JIM 00~529 ~EAVER, AL 0009 MOMMELL~ JOfl~ # JR 001~15 MYERR, PAUL 006842 PARK$~ ED 0068~ DEAl, S0 DAVE 005904 FO~[ENkN, RILL 001000 LATTII4ORE, ED 00592~ TAYLOR, BILL 0017~0 FAUST~ OON/BRE~IDA 0025~4 GALL, L~RY 009g87 ~ATSON, R 005693 sL'YLES. GENE 013/l~0 MYERS, PAUL 010056 EAOO~AN, LASSE 0t66~9 JOH~SO#, GAY 0054~2 ~30DFIN, C~ARLES '-0840 ~015-001-100. 02gS SB015-O01-10DCDG 0180 SROtS-OOl-1~OAA. O~2T~OI~-OOI-IOOCCAI-SZ 0682 S~O15-OO1-10DCSO2-~& 0503 S8015-001-1~C~-B2 0270 S8015-001-1000981-~7 0185 SB015-O01-100ABOq-~ O~ 50015-001-100C8CZ-29 OZ~ SB015-O01-100CCB1-5~ 0200 S~OqS-O01-10D. 0300 Sa015-001-1~CCCl-58 0061 ~0 S8015-001-1~a1-~ 0655 SaOt5-O01-1000082*~ ~0 ~BQ15-OOl-l~CAC 0]00 SBO15-OOl-10DC~-]I 0213 ~15-001-~1-81 01~ S~tS-OOl-IOOACO 02~ ~ SB015-O01-1~OBBl-~ 0124 S8015-001-10~BBC1-42 0605 ~50 ~015-001-1~&-~1 015651 TUClCER. HICR~EL DEAN 0~87~015-001-I~0000 00150(3 BETTIN 0 0680 S~015-001-10000C1-61 002552 CALH~N, JOHH/J~Y 0Z65 S6015-001-1~0 001~1~ ~YERS~ PAUL 0~5 SB015-O01-100COD1-62 00141~ V~OERLU~T, SNE~ 0~6~ S~01~-O01-10DDCC~-6~ UILLIAI4S JAY DRILL 22R SCIMITAR I LO9 03 A & L DRILLING ~.0 SCIMITAR 1LIO 92 P, 04/05 05/05/SZ 12/01/82 LAS 8756 01/05/83 LAS 05/30/85 00/02/7~ 10/06782 // 03/29/?9 LAS 96~0 09/03/80 00/01/78ADL21~BO0 08/09/7T 05/02/83 LAS 2/,.51 06/~1/75 LAS ¢185 06/28/25 LAS 4166 05/29/85 08/29/&3 11/01/90 LAS 13~87 02/21/81 LAG 3622 05/11/76 LAS S067 08/03/82 09716/81 03/14/TTADLZ09136 04/03/77 051291~ O5/ZO/BZ 0]/01/77 08/02/77 05/01/8~ 09/09/81 0711~/$1 09/21/78 AOL215~70 09/26/83 04/~0/~3 LAS 09/01/81 10/16/81 07/06/85 LAS 04130/~. LAS 8~78 05/24/84 LAG 04/05/85 LAS 9326 05/15/8A 05/21/~. LAS 8302 06/01/84 08/02/78 09/15/~ O?/O8/&Z LAS 1675 05/19/83 LAS 21500 06/01/B2 LAS 7239 06/05/82 05/~5/82 06/0~/82 06/03/82 // 'SCINt $ PDE$C DPT~ USGS # 0061SBOIS-OOI-10OCCA3'32 0078 S$015-001-10080CI-60 0111S~O1S-OOI-qOAGCA 01~/. SE015-001-1008801-42 01~6SSO15-OOl'IOOACO 0162 RGOIS-OOl-lOOBBAl'73 o1~ S~O1S-O01-1000. 0180 R~015-001- IOOAR. 0180 S0015-001-I000CA1-77 0t85 SG015-O01 -I~ABD1-S& 02,00 OEO0 0~00 0200 S~015-001-10eRRA2o28 0213 SB015-001 - 10000A1-81 O227SGOl$-OO1-lODCCA1-32 O263 $GO15-OO1-100EALt-2B 0265 ~8015-001-I~0¢D2-63 026~ S~015-001-1000~01-62 0265 DRILLER RED POESC ~ZLLIAMS JAY DRILL E2E SCIMITAR g L27 ~2 NAGflUROE DRILLING 228 SCIMITAR 1 LO1 81 - SULLIVAN #ATER ~EL ~2~ SCIMITAR 1 LO3 S2'~ A & L DRILLIRG E~8 SCIMITAR S LO~ 83 ~R~NUSON DRILLING 2EB SCIMITAR 3 LO1 R3 MAGIrdRON ORILLI#G 228 SCIMITAR 1 LO6 R1 SKYLE$ DE#E UELL O 22B SCIMITAR 3 LO2 8~ ~LLIVAH ~ATER ~L Z~ SCIMITAR ~ LIO B~ gILLIANS JAY DRILL 22B SCIMITAR 1LI& 60 FOSS ORILLING ~B SCINITAR I LOt B2 SULLIVAN ~ATER NEL 2~ SCIMITAR Z L~ ~2 A & L DRILLING ~ ~CIMITAR 1LIO B2 U]LL~S ~AY DRILL ~ SCZMIT~ I LO7 B1 ~US~DRILL[NG 2~ SCIMITAR ]LI& 01 ~US~ DRILLING ZZB ~IN1TAR ~ L13 Bt 07/13/81 12/01/~ LAS 67~6 06/02/78 O&/30/~ LAS 8~*78 0~/05/85 LAS 9326 02121/81 LAS 3622 06/28/55 LAS BI66 05/Z0/82 01/05/83 LAS 4353 OS/Ot/B& 06/21/7~ LAS 4185 03129/79 LAS ~0 07/06/85 LAS 8~77 03/11/76 LAS 5067 OR/01/7~ ADL21(~800 05/25/82 06/03/82 3 '? RUG- 1-97 FRI 18:48 0270 SBO15-001-10DCG81-37 0270 $0015-001-10090 0284 SB015-001-100CC81'5 0Z85 SB015-001-1~DCC1-6~ 0285 ~B015-001-1~c8c2-29 0285 SB015,001-1~. 0298 SB015-001 - I~CaB 0~0 SB015-O01-1~CBA O~ S~015-001- IOOACCI-S7 0~0 SB015-001~ tOD~C ~95 SB015-001-1~0~1'79 0500 sBo15-~1-1~. 0S0~ SBOl~-001-l~CACt-82 0550 S8015-001- l~C~-~q 05~ SB015-001-10OBCO 05~ S~15-001- I~AC0 0600 SB015-001-10OAC~l*]~ 0625 SB015-001-1~2-$1 0555 SB015-~1-1~C082-66 058~ SB015-001-10OCBOg-56 ~10 ~15-00t-100CBR 0900 S8015-001-I0~. MAaaUSO~ DR[LLXNG 22~ SCIM]TAR] LO9 81 A & L O£[LLING 2ZB SCIMITAR 2 L18 83 $ S S U SB UB $ u U U8 $ U U U P, 05/05 05/1S/84 05/29/75 08/02/7~ 08/02/T7 03/01/77 05/50/85 11/01/90 LAS 15587 09/09/81 09/01/81 09/~/80 10/~6/8t 08/09/77 09/z1/?B ADLZ15~70 0&/'50/83 LAS 9345 05/21/84 LAS 8~02 06/01/8& 09/16/81 07/08/82 LAS 1675 0512918] 03/24/8~ LAS 05/19/8'5 LAS 0&/OS/Tr 09/15/88 09115188 05/1&/77 ADLZ09136 09/26/8'5 06/01/82 L~S 7239 08/03/82 05/02/83 LAS 2451 08/29/83 01/12/8~ ' 33 CASE S- 10054 DENALI VIEW SUBDIVISION VOLUME 2 COMPILATION OF ALL INFORMATION RECEIVED SINCE THE PRINTING OF THE PACKET FOR THE AUGUST 6, 1997 PLATTING BOARD PUBLIC HEARING CASE S-10054 DENALI VIEW SUBDIVISION VOLUME 2 INDEX Hydrology and Nitrate Reports ..................................................... 1 8/6/97 Public Hearing Additional Information ........................... 41 9/3/97 Public Hearing Packet ................................................... 81 Information Received after 9/3/97 ........................................... 175 HYDROLOGY AND NITRATE REPORTS CASE S- 10054 DENALI VIEW SUBDIVISION Final Hydrology and Nitrate Reports prepared by Bristol Environmental Services Corporation and Terrasat, Inc. Bristol Environmental Services Corporation ,4 Subsidiary of Bristol Bay Native Corporation June 11, 1997 Mr. Paul Myers Skyline View Corporation P.O. Box 670351 Chugiak, AK 99567 Re: Project No. 8008YM, Denali View Subd. Hydrology: Aquifer Test Results Dear Paul: This letter transmits a summary of the results of the aquifer test performed at the proposed Denali View Subdivision on May 30-31, 1997, and a review of related hydrogeological information in the area. The purposes of the aquifer test and the hydrogeological review were to determine whether sufficient quantities of water are available for the planned development of the subdivision and whether surrounding well owners would be unduly affected in their ability to obtain water by the proposed development. Hydrogeologic Setting The pumped well taps a sand and gravel aquifer at a depth of 104 to 112 ft. on Lot 9 of the Proposed Denali View Subdivision. A review of well logs in the area shows that most wells obtain water from fractures in a bedrock aquifer. The top of the bedrock aquifer is reportedly encountered at depths ranging from 16 to 158 ft below land surface in the area. The bedrock aquifer consists of low-grade metasedimentary or metaigneous rocks with very low primary permeability and porosity. Reported well depths in the area are up to 680 ft deep. Reported yields from wells tapping the bedrock aquifer are typically less than 10 gallons per minute (gpm), and in some cases provide only marginally-sufficient quantities of water for typical domestic use. Some residents with onsite wells are known to haul water from offsite locations for domestic use because of low wells yields. The extent of the sand and gravel aquifer tapped by the pumped well is not well known. Aquifer Test Setup Two wells have been drilled in the proposed Denali View Subdivision; a 112-ft deep well and a 500-ft deep well. The locations of the wells and are shown on the attached diagram from DHI Consulting Engineers. The 112 ft deep well was pumped at an average rate of 5.5 gpm for 24 hours beginning at 9:58 a.m. Friday May 30, 1997. Water levels were measured in the 500 ft well and in two nearby domestic wells. A suramary of information about the pumping and observation wells is contained in Table 1. P.O. Box 100320, Anchorage, Alaska 99510 201 E. 56~h Street, Suite 301, Anchorage, Alaska 99518 Phone (907) 563-0013; Fax (907) 563-6713 Bristol Environmental Services Corporation A Subsidiary of Bristol Bay Native Corporation TABLE I. WELL INFORMATION SUMMARY WELL REPORTED LOCATION PKEPUMPING AQUIFER MAXIMUM NAME DEPTH WATER LEVEL WATER (FT) (FT BELOW TOC) LEVEL CHANGE LOT 9 112 LOT 9, 76 SAND AND 1.46 FT DROP DENALI VIEW GRAVEL SUBDIVISION (PROPOSED) LOT 12 680 LOT 12, BLK I 437.5 BEDROCK 60 FT RISE SCIMITAR SUBDIVISION LOT 3 500 LOT 3, FLOWING BEDROCK 0.9 FT DROP DENALI VIEW APPROX. 2 GPM SUBDIVISION (PROPOSED) LOT 1 213 LOT I, BLK 2 27.62 BEDROCK 5.5 FT RISE SCIMITAR SUBDIVISION NOTES: GPM = gallons per minute BLK = Block TOC = top of casing Discharge of the pumped well was measured with an in-line flow meter and checked several times with a 5 gallon bucket and a watch. The meter recorded a total discharge of 7400 gallons during the test, for an average calculated pumping rate of 5.1 gpm. This is within I0 percent of the rate observed several times with a bucket and watch, and the bucket and watch rate is considered to be more accurate than the meter. Discharge was routed through a 300 ft long hose to Hullberg Drive where it was discharged onto the ground. Weather preceding the test had been above freezing and free of significant precipitation for more than one week prior to the test. Light to moderate rain fell during the test. Water Ievels were measured with electric water level sounders. The test pump was installed in the Lot 9 Denali View well and tested for approximately I hour' on May 29. The well yielded I0 gpm during the flow test with 1.2 ft ofdrawdown. The domestic wells (Lot 12 and Lot I) had power disconnected from their pumps on the evening of May 29, 1997, and reconnected on May 31 in order to limit interference from pumping of those wells on the test results. Denali View Hydrology June 11, 1997 Project No. 8008YM Bristol Environmental Services Corporation A &~bsidiary of Bristol Ba), Native Corporation Water level recovery was measured for 26 lu:s after the test pump was shut down on May 31. Results The pumped well showed a maximum drawdown of 1.46 ft during the test. The well recovered after 26 hrs to 0.13 ft of residual drawdown. The water levels rose in both domestic wells monitored during the test, presumably in response to a cessation of pumping in the wells monitored. It was not possible to discern any effects of pumping from the pumped well on the domestic observation wells. The 500-ft flowing artesian well drilled on Lot 3 of Denali View was also monitored. This well was capped with a fitting to allow a hose to extend above the casing to make relative water level measurements. The cap was leaking at an estimated rate of approximately 2 gpm during the test. The water levels rose 0.29 ft during the first four hours of pumping and subsequently fell to 0.37 ft below the original level after 24 hours of pumping. The water level fell an additional 0.54 ft during the following 14.5 hours. The timing of these water level fluctuations does not correlate with pumping from the well on Lot 9. These fluctuations are probably representative of background water level fluctuations in the area or pumping from other wells in the neighborhood, rather than in response to pumping from this test. Data collected during this test showed that there is considerable geologic variability in the area. The aquifer tapped by the pumping well is a sand and gravel aquifer with a substantially higher yield and less drawdown than most surrounding residential wells that tap the bedrock aquifer. The large differences in water levels between the sand and gravel aquifer and bedrock wells indicate that there is significant hydraulic separation between the two aquifers. This hydraulic separation means that water level changes caused by pumping from one aquifer tend to have little or no effect on water levels or water productivity of the other aquifer. Analysis of the aquifer test data fi-om the pumped well using the Jacob straight-line method yielded a transmissivity of 650 ft:/day. None of the observation wells yielded data suitable for determining transmissivity or storativity. Projected Yield of the Sand and Gravel Aquifer The 11 lots in the proposed subdivision would be expected to require an average water demand of 3.8 gpm, assuming typical domestic usage of 500 gallons per day. The aquifer test results show that more that this amount of water can be pumped from the aquifer for one day with minimal drawdown. Calculations of long-term drawdown expected from a well pumping 3.8 gpm indicate that the aquifer should be able to sustain this rate of pumping indefinitely at this site without difficulty. Annual groundwater recharge calculations are useful for providing an independent means of estimating whether long-term yield calculations are reasonable. Long-term average annual precipitation at the Anchorage International Airport is approximately 15 inches/year. This equals Denali View Hydrology June 1 I, 1997 Project No. 800gYM Bristol Environmental Services Corporation ,4 Subsidiary of Bristol Bay Native Corporation approximately 15.3 million gallons of water-equivalent precipitation per year on the 37.47 acre proposed Denali View Subdivision. Assuming that approximately 20 percent of this water contributes to groundwater recharge, this equates to 5.8 gpm of groundwater recharge occurring on the property. Recognizing that groundwater also comes from areas uphill of the subdivision and is available for use, this calculation confirms that a long-term yield estimate of at least 3.8 gpm of groundwater is reasonable. Analysis of the Bedrock Aquifer The drilling log from Lot 3 of the proposed subdivision shows that the sand and g~avel aquifer is not present under the entire subdivision. A bedrock aquifer was encountered at Lot 3 with the driller's reported yield of 6 gpm and a flowing artesian head. The static water level is approximately 4 ft above land surface. A review of available files and conversations with residents in the area demonstrate that some residents have encountered difficulty obtaining adequate quantities of water. Some wells have been deepened, some residents have hauled water to supplement well yields, and some wells have reportedly experienced declines in yields since they were drilled. Reported well depths in the area are highly variable, ranging from 126 ft to 680 fi deep. The well drilled on Lot 3 of the proposed Denali View Subdivision produces more water from bedrock and has a higher static water level than most of the other wells in the area. The closest well to this well is located on Lot 3, Block I of Peter's Gate Subdivision. The Lot 3 Peter's Gate well is similar to the Lot 3 Denali View well, having depth of 480 fi, a reported yield of 10 gpm and a flowing static water level at the time of drilling in 1993. These two wells appear to tap the same fi'acmre or fracture system. Other wells in the area may also tap this fracture system. Several wells near Denali View Subdivision reportedly obtain water l~om depths of 500 to 550 ft. A well on Lot 12, Block 1 of Scimitar Subdivision reportedly began pumping cloudy water on Friday, May 23, shortly after completion of the well on Lot 3 of the proposed Denali View Subdivision. This well was reportedly drilled to a depth of 680 ft, and is located approximately 1600 ft from the Lot 3 Denali View well. It is possible that drilling activity caused temporary turbidity in this well, suggesting that it may be part of the fracture system tapped by the Lot 3 Denali View well. It is also possible that the cloudiness is a coincidence caused by temporary high pumping rates or other causes peculiar to the well. Wells tapping the bedrock aquifer show a wide range of reported yields. In contrast to the higher yielding bedrock wells described above, some wells are chronic low producers. Some residents have reported a concern that a long-term depletion of water in the bedrock aquifer may be occurring, however no systematic study of low producing wells in this area has been performed. The pattern of well deepenings in the area suggests that long-term depletion of the upper portions of the bedrock aquifer may be happening at some locations. Other wells tapping the bedrock aquifer show minimal change from original conditions. ; ~ Denali View Hydrology June 1t, 1997 Project No. 8008YM Bristol Environmental Services Corporation A Subsidia~ o]'Bristol Bay Native Corporation Safe and Adequate Yield A~chorage Municipal Code 21.15.110.B.4.b. requires that new subdivisions must "substantiate the availability ora safe and adequate volume of water for domestic purposes ...". The results of water sampling for nitrates and bacteria is attached. These results, along with information provided above about aquifer yield, provide substantiation of the availability of a safe and adequate volume of water for domestic purposes at the proposed Denali View Subdivision. Effects of Proposed Water Use on Surrounding Wells Some of the wells proposed for Denali View subdivision will probably tap the bedrock aquifer. Existing information indicates that wells tapping the bedrock aquifer may need to be up to 700 ft deep in order to yield sufficient quantities of water for domestic use. These wells may have some effect on some surrounding wells, especially if the reported pattern of decreasing well yields and well deepenings in the area is confirmed and continues. The State of Alaska water rights statute provides useful guidance on whether the effects of the proposed subdivision would have a significant adverse effect on surrounding well owners. Alaska Statute 46.15.050(a) states: Priority of appropriation gives prior right. Priority of appropriation does not include the fight to prevent changes in the condition of water occurrence, such as the increase or decrease of stream flow, or the lowering of the water table, artesian pressure, or water level by later appropriators, if the prior appropriators can reasonably acquire the appropriator's water under the changed conditions. Further, Alaska Statute 46.15.080 (a) (1) states that: The commissioner shall issue a permit if the commissioner finds that rights of a prior appropriator will not be unduly affected... The definition of unduly affected is (l 1 AAC 93.970(38)): "unduly affected" means that a prior appropriator loses the ability to reasonably acquire an adequate quantity of water to fulfill the purposes of the appropriation from the water source from which the water fight is permitted or certificated, except that a prior appropriator has not been unduly affected if water can reasonably be obtained by installing more efficient diversion works for the withdrawal of water or by performing effective routine repair and maintenance of diversion works or water well equipment in order to allow for the full development of the water resource. Alaska Statutes and regulations have been interpreted by the Alaska Department of Natural Resources to mean that if new appropriations cause a decrease in water level, prior appropriators may reasonably be required to deepen their wells in the same aquifer in order to maintain their ability to acquire ,water. "If a prior appropriator has to deepen or re-drill their well into a new Denali View Hydrology June 11, 1997 Project No. 8008YM Bristol Environmental Services Corporation ,4 Subsidiary of Bristol Bay Native Corporation aquifer (source) and they can show proof that a junior appropriator will cause them to deepen or re-drill their well into a ne~v aquifer (source) then the prior appropriator has been unduly affected" (K. Litzen, Alaska Department of Natural Resources, written commun., June 4, 1997). In this area, the available evidence indicates that sufficient water is available for residents in the area to obtain water, however the depth of wells needed to obtain that water may be 700 ft or more, or the wells may need to be fractured by explosive or hydraulic methods to improve yields. Conclusions The aquifer test results and other information reviewed in the vicinity of the proposed Denali View Subdivision show that sufficient quantities of water are available for the planned development of the subdivision. Pumping from the sand and gravel aquifer in the proposed subdivision should have little to no effect on surrounding well owners. Pumping of new bedrock wells in the proposed subdivision may contribute to existing difficulties experienced by some well owners in the area, however the evidence available at this time indicates that surrounding well owners are not likely to be unduly affected by the proposed development. Yields of marginal wells have a high likelihood of being improved by drilling deeper into the bedrock aquifer or fi'acturing the aquifer by explosive or hydraulic methods. Limitations Work for this project was performed, and this report prepared, in accordance with generally accepted professional practices for the nature of the work completed at the same and similar localities at the time the work was performed. This report was prepared for your exclusive use for specific application to the referenced project. This report is not meant to represent a legal opinion and no other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. This report was prepared in part based on information provided or prepared by others and, although we believe these sources to be generally reliable, we are not responsible for the accuracy or completeness of that information. Sincerely, Bristol Environmental Services Corporation Principal Hydrogeologist enos: laboratory reports (5 sheets) Denali View Hydrology June 11, 1997 Project No. 8008YM OBSERVATION & TEST WELL SITES TEST WELLS ,+ -1 ii C H DIT! CONSULTING ENGINEERS CIVIl, · 9U~VkYINO · w.o. 96298 'co,~p. ntt 298CTD2D SCAL£1"--'-300' 0A1£ 6-,3-97 f BLOCK ~ TE~ I A~UIFER TEST PUMP~& WELL LOCATIONS CT&E Environmental services Inc, Laboratory Division I~,,~-~-. --- Laboratory Analysis Report June 03, 1997 Jeff Brownlee Bristol Environmental 210 E. 56th Anchorage, AK 99518 Client Name Bristol Environmental Project ID N/A [972758] Printed June 03, 1997 Enclosed are the analytical results associatedt with the above project. As required by the state of Alaska and the USEPA, a formal Quality Assurance/Quality Control Program is maintained by CT&E. A copy of our Quality Control Manual that outlines this program is available at your request. Except as specifically noted, all statements and data in this report are in cont'ormancc to the provisions set forth in our Quality Assurance Program Plan. If you have any questions regarding this report or if we can be of a~y other assistance, please call your cT&E Project Manager at (907) 562-2343. The following descriptors may be found on your report which will serve to further qualify the data. U - Indicates the compound was analyzed for but not detected. J - Indicates an estimated value that falls below PQL, but is greater than the MDL. B - Indicates the analyte is found in the blank associated with the sample. "- The analyte has exceeded allowable limits. GT - Greater Thau D - Secondary Dilution LT - Less Than : 9 200 W Pot~r Drive. An¢:ho'~mge. AK 99618-1605 -- Tel: t907) 562-2343 Fax: {907) 551-5301 3180 Peger Road, Fa;i~,a;;.~=. AK 99709-$471 -- Tel: (g07) 47¢-8656 Fax: {907} 474-9685 ENVIRONMENTAL FACILITIES IN ALASKA. CALIFORNIA. FLORIOA, ILLINOIS. MARYLAN0, MICHIGAN. MISSOURI. NEW JERSEY, OHIO. WEST :T&£ Ref.# 97275800 l 1lent Name Bristol Er~vironment'a] roject Name/# N/A '.lient $~mple ID Lot 3 'lMrtx Drinking Water Irdm'ed By ,W$1D .ample Remarks: Client FOg Printed Date/Time 06103197 17:02 Collected Date/Time 05131197 [7:15 Received ]Date/Time 06/02197 10:00 Technical Director: Stephen C. Ed~ O.lO0 U 0 0.100 mg/L Slel& &SOO-HOOF 10 max co[/lOOmt- S~t18 922Z~ T&E Ref.# :lient Name roJ~t Name/t/ 'llent Sample ID ~atrix )rdered By 'W$1D ,ample Remark.~: 972758002 Bristol Environmental N/A Lot 9 Drinking Water Client Printed Date/Time 06103197 17:02 CollectedDate/Time 05131197 17:30 Received Date/Time 06102/97 I0:00 Technical Director: Stephen C. l~rle 1.40 0.10On. IL $H18 &5OO-NO3F Limits Date Oete Init 10 max 06/02/9T JBL 06/0Z/97 RaM CT&E Environmental Servlcesl Inc, I aboratoB~' Division ~~.j,r.e,~'~'~'~'~'~'~'~:r~'~'~'ar~', ,rinking Water Analysis Report for Total Coliform Bacteria 2oo w. po~te, ~,~ I Anchorage, AK 99618-1605 INSTRUCTIONS ON REFE. I~E SI~£ BEFORE COL.LECTEVG ~MI'LE Tel: {907) 562-2343 MUST BE COMPLETED BY WA~P-. SUPPLIER ~nnth SA/~.~ TYPE: ~'"~';:': "' Routine Repeat Scruple (for murine sample w~th Inb ~f. no. Special Purpose SAM~L]E LOCATION Collecte~ Water 0 //Trented I Collecte~ Fox: (907) 561-630! TO BE COMPLt= t ~u BY LABORATORY Analysis shows this Water S.~v~PL£ Satisfa~o~ D U~a~s~cto~ Sample over 30 bourn old. resui~ may be 5~ple too long in remit; sample should not be over 48 ho~ old at examination to indicate reticle r~ul~. Ple~¢ s~d Date Received ~ ~e Received [ Analytical Method: '~ Membrzne Filter O MlvIO-MUG * Number of colonies/100 mi. I~' ' ' "'~ Result" Analyst Client flotilied of unsntief, tory results: Dm: T.~c: ____ BACTERIOLOGICAL WATER ANALYSIS RECORD ~MMO-~G Reoult: Total Coliform ~. ColJ Membrane Filler: Direct Count C~ Verification: LTB F~I Colifnrm C. flrma~aa Cohnies/1 O0 mi COLI~IR.~ Coliform/1011 mi Ti=, I-/'. D 0 ~. Member a! tho SOS Greuo gee 4t6 O6fl~e e de Su.eil a~ee) F~xcd "19 CT&E Environmental Services Inc. Laboratory Division Dri~ing Water Analysis Report for Total Colifmm Bacteria zoo w. ~o.., o,~, . Anchorage. AK 99618.1605 RE-LDI~TRUCTIO~ O,VREVER~£$1D£ BEFORJSCOLLECTING S~tIPLE Tehl9OT) 562.2343 · . - Fax'(g07)$61-5301 "~AMPLE DATE: blonsh Repent Sample (for ~utiue sample with lab mr. no. ) S~clnt Purpose 5~LE LOCAT[O~ Collated Treated Water Collected By TO BE COMPLETED BY L.~OKATORY Analysis shows this Water SA,M. PLE to be: Satisfactory 0 Unsafist'actory 0 Sample over ~0 hours old, resul~ ma~ be un.liable 0 Sample too ~o~g m ~ansit: sample shouid no: be over ~8 hours o1~ at examination to indicate reliable r~uhs. P~e~c send a~v sample 91a sp~l delive~ mail. ~le Received ~ [~ Time Received Analrsis Analytical Method: ~ Membrane O MMO-MUG * Number o¢co[onie~[00 mi. ~ Ref. NO. Result* Seal lO A.D.E.C. Aecfl Fh~ .Jun Client notified of unsatisfactory results: C BAc I ~RIOLOGICAL WATER ANALYSIS RECORD fifMO-M~'G Result: Tnt. al Coliform E. COIi [~lembrane Filter: Direct Count ~'~ Colo.~es/lg0 mi Verification: LTB BGB COLIFIRM Fecal Coliform Canfirmatlen Final ~[embrnee ~,ilt~R~qJ'~O Coliform/100 mt TOTRL P. O$ Intentionally left blank '!4 Bristol Environmental Services Corporation .4 Subsidiary of Bristol Bay Native Cor?oration June 18, 1997 Mr. Paul Myers Skyline View Colporation P.O. Box 670351 Chugiak, AK 99567 FILE COPY Re: Project No. 8008YM, Denali View Subd. Hydrology: Analysis of Nitrates in Well Water Dear Mr. Myers: This letter presents the results of our analysis of nitrate data in the vicinity of the proposed Denali View Subdivision. The purpose of this work is to provide infom~ation about nitrate patterns and trends in the area and to suggest activities that may be appropriate to address concerns about possible long-term increases in nitrates in groundwater. Methods and Data Sources We assembled a comprehensive nitrate data set and conducted a systematic review of the data. This report presents summaries of the data in map form, with simple summary statistics, and as time-trend graphs. We compare nitrate concentrations with regulatory limits and nitrate concentrations in other areas as determined from published literature. The study area for this project is shown on the attached map (Figure 1, Nitrate Map, DHI Consulting Engineers, Comp. File 298CRDMP). The study area encompasses parts of Peter's Gate, Chugach Park Estates, and Scimitar Subdivisions. A complete list of data used for this analysis is attached as Table 1. Sources of data used to prepare Table I are: · Municipality of Anchorage, DHHS list of June 15, 1993; · Supplementalinfonnation provided by you; · Information copied from DHHS files by DHI Consulting Engineers; DHI Consulting Engineers also contacted the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, and we are not aware of any additional data within the project area from their files not already contained in the sources listed above. Although our search for data has been relatively comprehensive, additional data may become available that are not currently in public files, and we are available to update our graphs and analyses accordiogly. P.O. Box !00320, Anchorage, Alaska 99510 201 E. 56'h Street, Suite 301, Anchorage, Alaska 99518 Phone (907) 563-0013; Fax (907) 563-6713 Bristol Environmental Services Corporation ~ Sttbsidiat~y of Bristol Bay Native CorDoration Results Table t contains 139 reported nitrate concentrations from wells in the study area. Reported peak values for each lot for which data are available are plotted on Figure 1 and color coded. Figure 2 shows a frequency distribution (a histogram) of the 70 reported peak values that are plotted on Figure 1. The lfistogram (Figure 2) shows that 30 percent of reported peak values are less than or equal to 0.1 mg/L, which is the standard detection limit for nitrate analyses. Data shown in Table 1 and in the figures with a value of "0" were probably originally reported by the laboratories as "not detected" or "below detection limits". Forty four percent of reported peak values are between 0.1 mg/L and 3.0 mg/L, sixteen percent of reported peak values am between 3.0 and 5.0 rog/L, seven percent of reported peak values are between 5.0 and 10.0 rog/L, and three percent of reported peak values are greater than 10 mg/L. The highest reported value is 16.5 mg/L. The maximum contmninant level for drinking water supplies established by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, and adopted by the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation and the Municipality of Anchorage, is 10 mg/L nitrates. A review of Figure 1 shows that the lots with the highest reported nitrate concentrations (greater than 5 mg/L) are scattered throughout Scimitar Subdivision, and are separated by lots with low reported nitrate concentrations. Time-Trend Data. Figure 3 shows all peak nitrate data for each lot plotted according to the time of data collection. The data are very iiregular and there is no obvious trend of increasing or decreasing nitrates with time. The data show that the most frequent sampling in the area occurred during 199t-1993, when the highest reported nitrate values in the project area were identified. We also plotted multiple nitrate data collected at 22 lots over time (Figure 4). These are all the lots for which more than one nitrate analysis is available. A review of the graphs shows irregular patterns of nitrate concentrations. We made a first approximation to quantify the data by calculating the slope of the best-fit straight line through each data set and calculated the average of all the slopes. For this calculation, we excluded Scimitar No. 2: Lot 14, Block 3, because reported nitrate analyses were from two different wells on the lot. We also excluded data for which a collection date was not known; these are the items in Table 1 with a collection date of September 9, 1999 listed. The average slope of the lines was calculated to be 0.29 mg/L/yr. This calculation is based on a relatively sparse data set and may not be representative of actual trends in nitrate concentration at any specific location or in the study area in general. The calculation is useful mainly as a means of quantifying whether the data demonstrate the presence of a clear trend or not. The data do not appear to demonstrate the presence of a clear trend of increasing or decreasing nitrate values in the area. Denati View Ni~ates Analysis June 18, 1907 Project No. 8008YM 0_~-27-1_q97 D HI ONSULTIHG DHI CONSULTING Civil · Surveying 98? 3~4 i383 P.O1 ENGINEERS · Planning August 27, 1997 W.O.: 96298 Mr. Jim Cross Department of Health & Human Services P.O. Box 196650 Anchorage, AK :99519-6650 RE: Denali View Subdivision Post-It'- brand fax transmittal memo 7671 I# of I*~-~, &' Dear Mr. Cross, This "aquifer stress" test that is being proposed by Terrasat will not show the ~rue impact to the aquifer of:well pumping over the long term. Such a test will give us very,little useful information. This must 5e considered before plans are made to conduct more l~esting. There are a number of reasons my concerns. Such a test must be technicall~ sound to produce valid results from which any clear conclusions can be drawn. Controlled pumping is critical. Every well within 1000 feet of the pumped wells must be verifiably,shut,] down for at least 9 to 12 days. This will require absolute compliance by every property owner. This will be difficult if not impossible to accomplish. How is this going to be a~Jdressed? The test will not show the true impact on surrounding wells since it does not address seasonal aquifer recharge that will replenish the aquifer. Recharge is a criticallpart of the equation that would need to be modeled as well. Disparate water: levels show that the wells around Scimitar are not closely h~/draulically connected to the new well on lot 9. The mathematical basis for determining impact on non- hydraulically connected wells requires many simplified assumption that pre, hibit clear conclusions. The technical analysis will also need to demonstrate that a 70% stress level will represent long term aquifer pumping levels. This is very unlikely as evidenced by high w~ter level in the well just east of our 500' bedrock well after years of pumping, This fact will invalidate the test results. I talked with Mr. Young about this test on Friday. His plan is to flow the wells at very high rates for a long enough period to show some effect, however little, on surrour~ding wetis. His conclusion would be that an effect on any surrounding well would then be:an adverse or undue effect on all Iow flow wells in the area (via less water to dilute nitrates). The obvious problem is that nitrates in the area are not currently elevated any where near State Dimond Center Tower, 5th Floor * 800 E. Dirnond Blvd., Suite 3-545 * Anchorage, Alaska 99515 i907) 344-1385 * Fax 344-1383 Bristol Environmental Services Corporation ,4 Subsidiary of Bristol Bay Native Corporation understanding that usable water in the aquifer is currently not being put to beneficial use. This water is also not being accessed by some individual wells because of a lack of fracture connections. These wells need hydrofracturing to access fracture systems more completely. Hydrofracturing of a small percentage of the wells in the area shows promise as standard method to bring the low-producing bedrock wells up to the performance of the large majority of wells that have shown through long-term performance and independent well flow tests to provide adequate quantities of water. Some wells may require hydrofracmring as a routine maintenance operation in this geologic setting. Just like septic drain-fields sometimes require replacing after about 15 years, some wells may need hydrofracmring every 15 or 20 years. Hydrofracmring is less expensive than drain-field replacement. It is a proven successful method for tapping a Iow-yield bedrock aquifer for long-term successful delivery of a safe and adequate amount of water to each and every homeowner. Please let me know if I can provide further information. !'33 Denali View Hydrology: Responses to agency comments August 29, 1997 Project 8008YM-00 FILl COP Y Bristol Environmental Services Corporation A Subsidiary of Brtstol Bay Native Corporation Review of Anecdotal Information The hard data contained in the Terrasat report shows that approximately 90 percent of wells have adequate quantities of water. This contradicts anecdotal claims by residents that there is a water shortage problem in this area. The hard data were criticized at the August 14 meeting at Community Planning as being out of date. At the July 19c~ Community Council meeting, Jim Cross recommended that residents update data records by having flow tests done by an engineer. This recommendation has not been followed. The Terrasat report included no recent test data. Instead, we are left with anecdotal data. We are aware of anecdotal data where people's water problems are traced to pump problems or inadequate storage in the home. Of the three systems tested during 1996 and listed in the Terrasat report, all passed health authority approvals. Our review of available information indicates that a few individual wells have yield problems in this area, however there is no area-wide aquifer depletion occurring. The flowing artesian well drilled at Denali View subdivision provides direct evidence that the aquifer is not depleted. Aquifers experiencing depletion also exhibit long-term declines of water levels in wells tapping the aquifer. The explanation for reported well yield problems at individual wells is that fractures penetrated by these wells are not sufficiently connected to larger and higher yielding fractures in the bedrock aquifer. Some of these wells may always have been Iow producers and some of them may have experienced declining yields with age and use. Possible explanations for declining yields include gradual sealing of well-bore fractures with mineral or organic precipitates. One of the most effective treatments for low-producing bedrock wells is addition of storage and hydrofracturing. Hydrofracturing of wells in this area was pioneered in the late 1980's and is becoming an industry standard method for enhancing yields of low-yield bedrock wells, even when newly drilled. We have reviewed information in the Skyline Drive area of Eagle River where many low-yield wells are found in a similar geologic environment.. We identified 16 wells that have been hydroffaced, all apparently successful. Ten-fold yield improvements have been noted, along with rises in water levels of up to 191 ft. Numerous homeowners have reportedly been satisfied with the effectiveness of the treatment procedure. The table of data in Terrasat's report shows no data regarding hydrofracturing. Of all the anecdotal information about Iow-yield wells, we are only aware of one wells being hydrofraced. The well owner reports no further water problems in the home! The apparent water shortage problem in the area should actually be characterized as a collection of wells that are in need of hydrofracturing, but have not yet had the treatment. Reports of well yield problems appear to conflict with the fact of the flowing artesian well drilled at Denali View Subdivision. This appareitt disparity can only be reconciled by Denali View Hydrology: Responses to agency comments August 29, 1997 Project 8008YM-00 ~ ~ ~ Bristol Environmental Services Corporation A Subsidiary of Bristol Bay Native Corporation flow tests had no reported initial yields. The number of wells showing no change or an increase in flow rate since the well were drilled is almost the same as the number showing a decrease. We have conducted a further analysis of these data which is presented below. (p. 3) The recommendations for additional aquifer testing have serious practical difficulties that are not adequately addressed. A recent article by Gernand and Heidtman (Ground Water, Vol. 35, No. 4, July-August 1997) describes an aquifer test in a similar geologic environment. The findings of this study show that aquifer tests in low yield bedrock aquifers: ,, are rare; · are difficult to test, analyze, and characterize (Gernand and Heidtman (G&H) tested their well for 21 days with numerous dataloggers on 13 observation wells); · are recommended to be done in conjunction with a detailed structural analysis of the bedrock; · require careful evaluation of the goals of the test prior to planning the test. The drawdown response of the G&H aquifer occurred in a radius of influence of only 300 feet. The wells west of Denali View in Scimitar Subdivision exceed even the 500 foot radius proposed by Terrasat from the bedrock well drilled at Denali View Subdivision. We observed approximately 60 feet of water level rise in a domestic well used as an observation well during the May aquifer test. This indicates that some wells are not well connected to bedrock fractures that supply water to other wells. In order to conduct a controlled aquifer test, it would be important to take all pumping wells out of service within 1000 ft of the pumped well for approximately a week to allow water levels to equilibrate. Dataloggers would need to be installed in monitoring wells. The goals of the bedrock aquifer test proposed by Terrasat are not clear. How will the degree of hydraulic connection between the upper and lower aquifers be used to help resolve the issues of (potential) decreasing long-term water production and (potential) increasing nitrate levels? The test program as outlined carries the risk of producing ambiguous hydraulic relationships and uncertain long-term projections for nitrates and water quamity. This would result in prolonged and unproductive processing of data collection, analysis, review, and rebuttal. Material clarification of the issues under discussion may not occur. 9. (p. 4) We do not believe that it is appropriate to suggest that existing levels of nitrates may be a significant threat to public health. Lots adjacent to the proposed subdivision have uniformly low reported nitrate concentrations. Because trends of elevated nitrates are weak and scattered, further studies are unlikely to discover an immediate or serious health risk. Further studies would not add material clarity to the nitrates issues. The existing quantity of data and the analysis of data are sufficient and adequate for reasonable people to recommend approval of this subdivision. Denali View Hydrology: Responses to agency comments August 29, 1997 Project 8008YM-00 /SI FILl COlbY Bristol Environmental Services Corporation ,4 Subsidiary of Bristol Bay Native Corporation 3. (p. 3-top p. 4) Recent work in Ontario indicates that nitrates are the contaminant of concern in areas where septic systems are used. The comparison is fair because the source of the nitrates is not as important as the perspective of how levels of nitrates in Alaska compare to other parts of North America. This allows us to scale management responses in Alaska with management responses taken elsewhere. 4. (p. 3) The conclusion that "the sand/gravel aquifer tapped by the test well is capable of sustaining a long-term pumping rate of up to several gallons per minute" supports the Bristol conclusion that the aquifer should be capahle of sustaining long-term pumping of 3.8 gpm. (p. 3) The statement that "we have found no evidence to support a conclusion that new wells in the bedrock aquifer within the proposed subdivision are capable of producing adequate water" is not supportable. A 500-ft deep flowing artesian well tapping the bedrock aquifer was drilled on the subject property in May, 1997, with a reported yield of 360 gallons per hour. This well has subsequently been flow tested at 0.5 gpm with only 34 inches of drawdown. Projection of potential aquifer yield at this well site indicates that 360 gallons per hour (6 gpm) is conservative. This is a far greater yield than minimum required flows for domestic wells of 0.3 to 0.5 gpm. The table of data in the Terrasat report shows that wells on approximately 90 properties completely surrounding the subject property have functioning wells. Of 31 reported flow tests on these properties, only 3 show yields of less than 0.5 gpm. The average flow test rate is 1.93 gpm. The average age of wells drilled on these properties is 13.8 years. The existence of this large number of wells that have successfully pumped water for many years immediately adjacent to and surrounding the proposed subdivision is strong evidence that the bedrock aquifer within the proposed subdivision is capable of producing adequate water. (p. 3) The statements about decreasing well yields and increasing nitrate levels over the past several years is unsubstantiated without review of the anecdotal information. We examined publicly available nitrate analyses and summarized the results previously. Are there additional nitrate analyses available? Is this statement based on resident's review of the same data set that we reviewed with different "anecdotal" conclusions presented that are repeated but not substantiated here? 7. The conclusion that 80% of current residents do not get "the quantity or quality of water currently needed by the community" is unsupported and inaccurate. It is further stated "that there is currently a water shortage on this part of the hillside". The physical data included in the table of this report show otherwise. Only 10 percent of lots show the presence of more than one well on the lot. Only 10 percent of wells that have been tested show less than 0.5 gpm. In comparing 31 Flow Test Yields with their Initial Yields, 14 show a decrease in yield, 10 show an increase in yield, and two show no change. Five Denali View Hydrology: Responses to agency comments August 29, 1997 Project 8008YM-O0 ! "~ 0 Bristol Environmental Services Corporation A Subsidiary of Bristol Bay .Native Corporation hydraulic separation between the two aquifers. The large difference in water levels between the sand and gravel wells and bedrock wells means that small changes in water levels of the sand and gravel wells caused by pumping are not likely to be transmitted to the bedrock wells. The determination of "unduly affected", as stated, is established by statute, regulation, and practice under the authority of DNR. Other entities may rely on other means of addressing water availability conflicts, however, I am not aware of any other regulatory framework in Alaska that addresses these complex issues. Entities that use other means to address water availability conflicts may contradict established DNR procedures and create greater entanglements. It is not clear why ADEC is reporting on discussions regarding the phrase "unduly affected" and defining the basis for decision-making. Does ADEC have regulatory procedures in this area? 6. We disagree with this comment, and believe that the information presented in the two reports is sufficient to support the findings that have been presented. The proposed development has not been shown to have a significant adverse effect on area groundwater supplies. The proposed lot sizes and development plans compared to surrounding lots results in reasonable protection for groundwater in the area. We also believe that a substantial amount of hydrologic work has been accomplished that supports proceeding with the development and that sound, responsible, and reasonable decisions that adequately address the interests of all parties involved can be made with existing information. However, in order to address the concerns presented, we have undertaken additional hydrologic work to further substantiate that this subdivision merits approval. These findings are presented below. TERRASAT, INC, Letter to Margaret O'Brien, August 1, 1997 Comment i. (p. 1) Anecdotal data from citizens subsequently reviewed do not substantiate an areawide water shortage. They indicate that some wells in the area are inadequate producers of water. Wells and water systems with problems have not been shown to be evaluated by a water supply firm or undergone rehabilitation by additional storage or hydrofracturing. There are many reasons why bedrock well yields may decline over time, including the plugging of borehole fractures by mineral precipitates or iron-bacteria compounds. (p.2, paragraph 2) It is not clear how stable trends in some of the 17 of 22 wells with multiple nitrate data lead to the conclusion that nitrates are of potential concern for nearly 80 percent of area well owners. Stable trends should indicate that levels of concern should be low. Nevertheless, most residents with concerns should be more concerned with developments on or near their lot than with development in some cases over 1000 feet away. Denali View Hydrology: Responses to agency comments August 29, 1997 Project 8008YM-00 ]59 FILE C07¥ Bristol Environmental Services Corporation ,4 Sl~bsidiary of Bristol Bay Native Corporation without encountering bedrock The developer has agreed to a plat note stating that: Nitrate filter septic systems be installed if bedrock is encountered within 8 feet of the bottom of the septic system or as required by the Municipality of Anchorage. This provides an additional two- foot thick buffer of soils beyond the ordinary 6 foot separation distance requirement of MOA codes. The conclusion .that the data do not demonstrate the presence of a clear increasing or decreasing nitrate trend does not suggest that the data are insufficient to draw sound conclusions. If a strong area-wide trend was present, the data collected to data should show it. The absence of a clear trend is a sound conclusion. Any trend that is present therefore must be weak or variable from place to place or both. A pattern has been identified. The pattern is that nitrate trends are weak or spatially variable or both. The conclusion of the work is that this pattern should be expected to continue with the proposed subdivision. Comments 3 and 4 seem to imply that the there is a strong trend of increasing nitrates throughout the neighborhood, we just haven't found it with our limited data. In contrast, the data show that we have been looking, but that a strong trend does not seem to be present. Aquifer Test Results and Hydrogeologic Review. We agree that information on bedrock outcroppings would enhance the report. We have thus far not had an opportunity to map the extent of bedrock outcropping on the property in detail, but could do so should this concern be ongoing. The aquifer test results can be used to project long term aquifer yield, at least in a general sense. The test data allow calculation of a specific yield for the pumped well of 4.1 gallons per minute/foot of drawdown. The pumped well has approximately 28 feet of available drawdown from static conditions. A simple calculation using these values not considering aquifer boundaries would provide a possible well yield of 115 gpm. A similar calculation using the Theis method yields an estimated drawdown of 25 ft after pumping for i00 days at a rate of 50 gpm assuming an effective well radius of 1 foot and an aquifer storativity of 0.0001. This calculation assumes no aquifer boundaries and no recharge. These calculations are more than an order of magnitude higher than the sustainable rate of 3.8 gpm projected in our report. This large difference is the reason why the long-term yield estimate is reasonable considering the geologic uncertainties at the site. Terrasat reviewed the field data and our conclusions and substantiated that the aquifer "is capable of sustaining a long-term pumping rate of up to several gallons per minute." This provides direct support that the estimate is reasonable. I would be pleased to provide copies of the data to ADEC should ADEC wish to confirm this analysis. 3. We looked for wells as suggested and found none. 4. It is not clear how "the nitrate analysis" supports the statemem. "Significant" in this instance means that typical aquifer 'tests are too short-term for defining the degree of Denali View Hydrology: Responses to agency comments August 29, 1997 Project 8008YM-00 I 5 Bristol Environmental Services Corporation A Subsidiary of Bristol Bay Native Corporation August 29, 1997 Mr. Paul Myers Skyline View Corporation P.O. Box 670351 Chugiak, AK 99567 FILE COFY Re: Comments in Response to ADNR, ADEC, and Terrasat reviews Dear Mr. Myers: Following are comments in response to reviews of our previous reports on the hydrology of the Denali View Subdivision area. ADNR memo to Gary Prokosch, July 30, 1997 Responses to comments: The sand and gravel well was test pumped because DHHS was more concerned with well impacts from the southwest area of the subdivision. We tried to drill and test pump the area that was most likely to cause problems. It was unexpected to encounter a sand and gravel aquifer at that location. It is of limited areal extent, and is not present where other wells tap bedrock. The bedrock well is located more than 500 feet from wells in Scimitar that people are concerned about. We would not expect to see any response in an aquifer test of a few days duration. See subsequent comments on the feasibility of aquifer testing, and a letter from me dated August 22, 1997 to Gary Prokosch on the subject of aquifer testing. ADEC letter to DHI Consulting Engineers, August 5, 1997 Responses to general comments: None. Responses tospecific commenB: Analysis of Nitrates in Well Water No comment. This comment identifies a concern that soils may not be suitable for on-site development or that shallow bedrock may result in unsafe development of on-site systems. A bedrock outcropping on the property (see below) further illustrates this concern. Since this review, we have provided soil logs to ADEC to document the suitability of soils for on-site development. We have also reviewed other data regarding the thickness of soils on the property. One well encountered bedrock at a depth below ground surface of 64 feet and another well on the property was drilled through 110 feet of unconsolid~tted material P.O. Box 100320, Anchorage, Alaska 99510 201 E. 56* Avenue, Suite 301, Anchorage, Alaska 99518 Phone (907) 563-0013; Fax (907) 563-6713 Bristol Environmental Services Corporation A Subsidiary of Bristol Bay Native Corporation believe that the information provided on this case demonstrates that preliminary plat approval is warranted. lames A, Munter, CGWP Principal Hydrogeologist Letter to S. A. Selkregg August 29, 1997 Project 8008YM-00 FILl Bristol Environmental Services Corporation A Subsidiary of Bristol Bay Native Corporation shortages. Where water storage improvements alone are not sufficient, hydrofracturing is the solution. Other than the successful hydrofracmring case mentioned above, none of the people reporting water shortage problems have tried hydrofracmring to solve their problems. You comment that you have a "lack of information regarding groundwater availability" and "a lack of comprehensive hydro-geological information for this area". In my experience, the amount of information gathered specifically for this project exceeds information collected for similar plats, and is adequate to make a decision on this plat. I am enclosing a letter from Dee High to Jim Cross that describes serious technical deficiencies with the proposed 72 hour aquifer test. We will work with the Municipality to see if these technical deficiencies can be overcome, so that additional information can be obtained prior to final plat approval. Concerning your specific recommendations for redesign and further work: · We have provided substantive soil and bedrock information to ADEC and that mapping bedrock to correlate to known areas of high nitrates is no longer warranted. The detailed design of the pumping test needs to be worked on before such a test can be determined to be technically feasible. We recommend this be made a condition of preliminary plat approval. Wells experiencing water shortage problems should provide third party documentation of well adequacy and the results of well or water system rehabilitation work to correct inadequacies. · The applicant has agreed to develop multi-lot water systems in consultation with agencies. This can be made a condition of preliminary plat approval. Our work on this project has: Identified two aquifers on the proposed subdivision that are capable of producing water for the proposed subdivision. The identification of these aquifers and their relative abundance of water helps the surrounding neighborhood address their water shortage problems by offering hope that adequate groundwater is available if properly developed. Identified the potential effectiveness of storage and hydrofracturing as routine methods to improve well yields and solve water shortage problems in surrounding neighborhoods. These two results should allow the platting authority to find that the plat "promotes the public health, safety, and welfare" and is consistent with the goals of the comprehensive plan. We are part of the solution instead of part of the problem. One of the physical development needs of the municipal area is to in-fill developments with responsibly-planned subdivisions. We !55 Letter to S. A. Selkregg August 29, 1997 Project 8008YM-00 August 29, 1997 Bristol Environmental Services Corporation A Subsidiary of Bristol Bay Native Corporation Ms. Sheila Ann Selkregg, Director Community Planning and Development Municipality of Anchorage P.O: Box 196650 Anchorage, AK 99519-6650 RE: Denali View Subdivision (S-10054) Dear Ms. Selkregg: FILE COPY I am in receipt of your departments recommendations dated September 3, 1997, and attached documents as distributed at your front counter this morning. I am providing this supplemental information for your use and for inclusion in the packet for the Platting Board. We agree that the applicant has worked diligently and cooperatively with agencies and the community to address important issues. We disagree that insufficient information is available to approve this subdivision. The applicant has conducted a pumping test, asking cooperation of every adjacent property owner. Only two were willing to cooperate. We have met all municipal requirements. Many of the objections to this subdivision are not founded on sound factual information and have the effect of drawing this process out for an extended period of time. We have responded to all of the substantive comments and request a staff and Board action for preliminary plat approval. Your packet contains letters from the Alaska Departments of Environmental Conservation and Natural Resources and Terrasat, Inc., commenting on the hydmgeological reports completed in June. Attached are detailed responses to those comments. We agree that water is a crkical issue in the neighborhood, and that water shortages occur at some properties in the neighborhood. We also agree that these water shortages should not be ignored. We have reviewed large quantities of technical and anecdotal information about water shortages in this area. The solution to these water shortages is for problem water systems to be evaluated by a water supply firm and solutions be implemented that would include additional water storage capacity or well hydrofracturing. These are proven effective methods. I have come to this conclusion after I5 years of experience evaluating wells and groundwater conditions in the Eagle River/Peters Creek area and after reviewing recent data in a similar area in Eagle River where 16 properties have been successfully hydrofractured. This technique is largely untried in Scimitar subdivision. Only three properties in the' whole Scimitar area are known to have been hydrofractared. There is one letter in the packet from a person reporting a water shortage and, after hydrofracturing and installing a holding tank, they state they have no more problems! Redesign of ~he subdivision and further testing is not the solution to these water P.O. Box 100320, Anchorage, Alaska 99510 201 E. 56th Avenue, Suite 301, Anchorage, Alaska 99518 Phone (907) 563-0013; Fax (907) 563-6713 !54 08-28-1997 D HI ONSULTIHG i FAX MEMORANDUM TO: Comrn~nity Planning & De?elopment DATE:August 28, 111997 FAX NO.:::~C/,~- /--('~.2L C~ W.O. NO.: 96298. A~ENTION: Margaret O'Brien NO. OF PAGES: 1 SU~E~: ~Denali View Subd. ~.~i.. ~ ~ FOR YOUR INFORMATION: MESSAGE: Margaret, I understadd that the CP & D has or intends to withdrawn its "recommendations of approval" for this project. Will you f~ me a liStS of xhose secUons of Title 21 or other codes that w don't mee~ along ~ith an explanation of exactly what the problem is. ~1 n~ed this information as' soon as possible. Dee, SENT BY: ~ee High DHI CONSULTING ENGINEERS ~ E- OI~OND ~VO. SUrE 3-545 ANCHORAGE, AK 9S51~ PH: ;~7) ~-13~ FA~ TOTAL ~-25-1997 01:32PM 6881238 P.05 08-25-1997 OI:31PM 6881238 !51 P. B4 I'll'IH ('ihNINi:II;:I]r,I~ I.)IdllllF HFI, : ~J:JR12;~l~ R~I. 2,5 ~997 ~13:4.~P1'1 P;'~ 0B-25-1997 01:3~PM GBB123B !50 P. 03 08-25-1997 01: ~gPM 68812Z~8 P.O~ ISRO~'I : HHH Qr]NTRPICTI~ PHONE 1,10, : 6881~"']8 Rug. 25 1997 B~i:3SPH PI ~-25-1997 Oi:2BPH 6881238 P, 01 TO: Comtnenity Planning & l)evelol~nen! The Platling Board FROM: SIo,lino Vivw Corp, DATE: Augl~st 25, 1997 SUBJECT: Denali View Subdivision (S.I0054) Many letters, petitions and public notlees have been ;eet in lo your office regaling Demli View Subdivision, Several have been sent by the same property omters and families, The following spreadsheet was prepped to clarity, how many ~-openy owuers have ro~ponded and to which issue they addressed. The infom~aOon was taken from the three packels prepared for the Platting Bo~d for the August 6th Homing by Surf. We have tried to identify families residing at one property a~ld listed them as one properly O.I~,OF 183 PBOI~EIlI!I~;~qIN SCIMITAR SUBDIVISION, CHUGACtt PAR.K ESTATE8 & · PE'II~S OAT~ SUBDIVISION OIqLY ,14 I~RQPERTY OWNER$ HAVE WRITTEN IN AND EXPRESED CONCERNS REGARDING WATER Q1JANITY & QUALITY 1~ 'it W }lAVE WRITTEN IN AND EXPRESSED CONCERNS RF, OARD1NO SECONDARY ROAD EASEMENT & 13 OF THESE FOR A TRAIL EASEMENT $1.1~.IIOI'EII.'I'Y OWNEll8 HAVE WRITTEN IN AND DO NOT WANT ANY ROAD ;IIASEMENT BUT DO WANT A TRAIL 'EASEMENT FROM SEIKA TO KULLBI~RG As you c*n see there iS actually very few properties that have water quality and quantity concerns or that wish to have a mm) easement. The large amount of p~er work in rite I~cketz is ~ misleacb'ng and is generaled by a yep/small portion oflhe residents. We have already agreed to a trail easement and have satisfied all other Municipality of Anchmage requirements, We feel that this subdivision should recclve your recommendation for prelirainp_ny sppreval without furth~r delay. !,17 To the best of my knowledge, Denali View Subdivision meets every standard of Title 21 and Title 15. I'd appreciate Staff's recommendation of approval for this Subdivision at the upcoming hearing. Very truly yours, DHI Consulting Engineer~? Dee High, Principal ~ cc: Gall High, DHI Munter, BSE Myers, Owner Cross, DHHS Prokosch, DNR 298ds26t.ltr DHI CONSULTING ENGINEERS Civil · Surveying · Planning Ms. Sheila Ann Selkregg Community Planning & Development P.O. Box 196650 Anchorage, Alaska 99519-6650 RE: Denali View Subdivision August26, 1997 W.O.: 96298 FILE 80P¥ Dear Ms. Selkregg, Enclosed is a letter from the Arlene Myers (Developer) to Community Planning and Development. Arlene analyzed all the responses received by the Department as of the printing of the last packet. In summary, of the 183 property owners, 14 (7.6%) responded concerning the water issue. From the size of the packet, it would appear that there is a serious water shortage in the area and that there is a large Community out cry for Community water. The public record shows that fewer than 10% of the property owners are experiencing water problems and less than that have experienced water shortages that are below the Municipal standards. Their is a small number of very active property owners who are trying to make the water issue much large than it really is. When you finally get a copy of Mr. Young's report based on "hearsay" information, this fact will once again be substantiated. Ninety two percent (92%) of the Community is not concerned enough with water to even write an opinion. Solutions to the so called water problem is not more testing. Solutions are: Reduce the risk of the new home owners drilling dry wells by using the two well that are currently drilled to serve two or more lots. If each well serves three lots, we have reduce the risk of dry or Iow flow wells by 55%. In addition, it will reduce the risk of adverse impact to adjacent property owners. Current Iow flow wells need to be hydrofractured. The data shows that this is reasonable solution both in terms of cost and results. Mr. Munter has an independent study shows hydrofractureto be a 95% solution for Iow flow wells in similar geology in Eagle River. The issue of Iow flow wells in this area has ceased to exist. Hydrofracture works when done correctly! Dimond Center Tower, 5th Floor · 800 E. Dimond Blvd., Suite 3-545 · Anchorage, Alaska 99515 (907) 344-1385 · Fax 344-1383 AUG-27-I997 DATE: TO: THRU: FROM: SUI~-ECT: 08:16 TRAFFIC ENGINEERING g87 ~43 8488 P.01 MUNICIPALITY OF ANCHORAGE Deparanent of Public Works Traffic Engineering Division MEMORANDUM August 26, 1997 Margaret O'Bden Ronald L. Thiel, P.E., Associate Truffle Eugineer Ted Garten, Traffic Enginccr/ng Teclmician Blatn/ng Board Case S-10054 for thc Meeting of September 3, 1997 PubltcWotks S-10054 Denali View Subdivision Traffic Engineering does eot object to the Kultberg Drive-~Seika Drive connection, however we feel that the limited benefits that will be gained do not make it mandatory. tg Po~t-I~ Fax Note 7671 TOTAL P.01 SCHROEDER L88C SCH73LZ L2 SCh~WIGER L1 ~I~T~ #1 L!9 B2 IMITAR #1 L2 B2 SCIMIT~-R ~! L! Bi SCIMITAR ~1 L1 B2 SCIMITAR ~1 L!0 B2~ SCIMITA~ ~1 L10 B2~ SCIMITAR ~1 L14 B2 SCIMITAR #1 L15 B2 SCIMIT3~-R ,~! L19 B2 SCIMIT~-~ ~1 L19 B2 SCIMIT~ #1 L2 SCIMITAR ~1 L3 SCIMITAR ~! L3 B3 SCIMITAR Mi L3 SCIMITAR #1 L3 SCIMITAR ~1 L5 SCIMITAR #1 L5 Bi SCIMITAR #1 L5 B1 SCIMITAR #1 L5 SCIMITAR #1 L6 SCIMITAR ~1 L6 B2 SCIMITAR #1 L7 B3 SCIMITAR #1 L7 B3 SCIMITAR #1 L7 B3 SCIMITAR #1 L7 B3 SCIMITAR 01 L8 B~ '~MITAR #1 L8 B3 =dIMIT3LR #1 L8 B3 SCIMITAR #1 L8 B3 ~CIMITAR #1 L8 B3 3CIMITA_R #1 L8 B3 8CIMITA_R #1 L8 B3 ~CIMITAR #1 L8 B3 ECIMITA-R #1 L8 B3 8CIMITA_R #1 L8 B3 EC~MITA_R #1 L8 B3~' ~CIMITAR #1 L9 B2 ~CIMITAR ~1 L9 B3 ECIMITAR #1 L9 B3 ~CIMITA_~ #2 Llt B3 ~CIMITA_R #2 L13 B3~ ~CIMITAR #2 L13 B3 ~CIMITA_~ #2 L14 B3~. ~CIMITAR ~2 L!4 B3 ~CIMIT~ ~2 L19 B3~ ~CIMITAR #2 L19 B~ ~CIMITA~ ~2 L22 B2 ~CIMIT~R ~2 L23 B2 ~CIMIT~R ~2 L24 B2 ~CIMITAR ~2 L25 B2 ~CIMITAR ~2 L26 B2 "IMITA_R ~2 L27 .IMIT~ ~2 L27 B2 ~CIMITA_~ ~2 L27 B2 ~CIMITAR ~2 L27 B2 ~CIMITAR ~2 L27 B2 ~CIMITAR ~2 L27 B 05006118 05025224 05115350 05113227 05113210 05113208 05113209 05113218 05113218 05113222 05113223 05113227 05113227 05113210 05113237 05113237 05113237 05113237 05113204 05113204 05113204 05113235 05113203 05113214 05113233 05113233 05113233 05113233 05113216 05113232 05113232 05113232 05113232 05113232 05113232 05113232 05113232 05113232 05113232 05113217 05113231 05113231 05113267 05113265 05113265 05113264 05113264 05113259 05113259 05113240 05113241 05113242 05113243 05113244 05113245 05113245 05113245 05113245 05113245 05113245 3.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.54 4.10 0.00 3.00 3 .20 3 .70 0.00 0.49 0.50 4.20 6.90 7.20 7.57 6.59 3.00 7.80 7.8O 1.50 4.40 2.70 3,00 3.10 3.40 3.06 6.00 !4 . 70 !5.30 0.00 0.00 16.50 !4.20 !5.00 12.70 12.50 13.50 5.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 15.00 0.60 3.50 2.30 0.24 0.79 0.30 3.50 3 4O 5 5O 8 O0 8 10 0 O0 0 O0 0 O0 Ol/Ol/Ol 05/27/88 10/03/90 03/13/89 04/28/93 NO DYE. 04/17/92 0 TC 03/26/92 0 TC 03/26/92 0 TC 04/27/93 05/29/92 0 TC 03/20/92 0 TC 11/29/90 02/27/92 0 TC 02/28/92 0 TC 03/20/92 0 TC 10/16/92 01/21/93 04/23/93 2 OB, 09/09/88 03/02/92 02/26/92 0 TC 07/21/8~g--- 04/01/92 0 TC 02/28/92 0 TC 02/27/92 03/02/92 0 TC 03/20/92 0 TC 04/27/93 06/01/92 02/24/92 02/27/92 03/02/92 03/17/92 04/01/92 10/16/92 07/01/92 05/27/93 01/21/93 03/15/93 05/04/93 02/16/92 02/16/92 0 TC 02/26/92 0 TC 02/28/92 0 TC 02/24/83 03/03/82 0A/07/92 o9/18/91 04/24/92 0 TC Oi/O1/Oi 02/26/92 0 TC 12/22/88 02/26/92 0 TC 02/26/92 0 TC 12/05/89 12/30/91 01/06/92 01/15/92 01/19/92 01/23/92 DYE POS. 5/29 0 TC 3 TC W/90 OB RHOD}~M!NE WI? iN TREN TC ONLY 0 TC CHLORiN TC ONLY _.T~TTC OB/TC, 21 TC W/32 OB, DYE P 4 OB TNTC TC/OB DYE POS. 0 TC; WELL ~2 0 TC/N 0 TC 8 Tc w/o 3 20 TC W/OB 0 TC CHLORINATED !/! TC ONLY 8 TC W/OB TC ONLY 0 TC CHLORiN JUL-28-9? MON 12:57 Status of our well at Lot 3, Block 1, Scimitar #3 Dave and Jill Crowley 19932 Seika Drive Chugiak, AK 99567 688-0414 We moved into our house in September, 1995. The previous owner, Richard Kraus, had never had a shortage of water in the 6 years he had lived here, but did mention that other people in the area were beginning to have problems. We had no problems until about June 20, 1996 when our well went dry for about i week. After that we were more conservative with water use. (We had hauled our OWn in Fairbanks so we knew how.) We had no further problems until this past May, when we again ran out of water for about 1 week, beginning around May 16th. Because this occurred before the test well was pumped in Denali View, and had haDpened about the same time as last year, we attributed the shoztage to a seasonal fluctuation in the water table. We assumed that snow melt in the mountains was the source of most water in our aquifer, especially because we seem to have had so little rain in the spring during the 2 years we'we lived here. · - RapidFax TMs Fax was sent using FAXcil~.tate The Premier Fax Software for the Apple Macintosh To: - Terrasat, Inc. From: Emily M. Davies, Your Company Name Fax Phone Number: (907) 688-5590 Date: Mon, Aug27, 1956 · 2:04 PM Transmitting (1) pages, including cover sheet. If there is difficulty with this transmission, please call: (907)688-5590 Note: To: Hydrologist From: Todd and Jennifer Carlson lot 3, block 1, Peter's Gate Subdivision Re: Denali View Hydrology Report When our well was drilled in the summer of 1993 it produced 10-14 gallons per minute according to Mr. Bill Sullivan (well driller). It was artesian. Until Friday, May 23, 1997 water volume had never been a concern in household. On that date a well was drilled across the street from our home. On Sunday, May 25, 1997 our pump burned out. It was our understanding that a pump should have lasted ten years, our lasted four years. It is our opinion that because our pump burned out less than 48 hours after the well was drilled that it is too coincidental for the two not to be related. We believe that the pump out because the new well caused the water table to drop below our pump. In addition upon returning from a vacation during the month of July we noticed a significant amount of silt in our water reservoirs. A thick layer exists in the water storage areas of our toilets adn our bath water is cloudy. While our house sitter filled our spa she reported noticing that the water became cloudy after it was about half full. It holds approximately 375 gallons. At this time there is a silt layer so thick in the spa that my daughter was able to write her name in it. We have never experienced this porblem before. WATER ISSUES FOR LOT 14, BLOCK 1, SCIMITAR #3 In the last four years we have seen a decrease in the amount of water our well produces. We purchased the house in July of 1991, and our well flow rate tested at 38 gallons per hour. This was adequate water for our family of four. During the winter of '91/'92 our pump failed, but we had no other water problems that winter. Our first problems with inadequate water quantity started during the early spring of 1993. What we have experienced is a low producing welI (100 gallons of water during 24 hours) during the spring with a good recovery of water during the summer. Our well first went dry May '95 for a period of five days. The flow returned and we had adequate water during the summer. The well has continued to go dry during the spring(April or May) each year since; this spring we went dry twice for a total of 3 V2 weeks. But now the production of water has not returned to its original amount during the summer. Since I996 we have had water delivered at the rate of appr. 300 gallons a week. We have also experienced the length of time with a dry well increasing each year. From personal observation I have observed that the well flow decreases when the temperature drops below 25 degrees in the winter. ! 4 0 07/26/97 SAT 08:01 F.432 987 694 2955 CHUGIAK/EAGLE RVR BR ~001 Water Log for .19677 Belduque Ct., Chugiak, Alaska (Lot '15 Block 1, Scimitar Subdivision) . as of July 25, 1997 June 4, 1982: Well depth: 265 feet Well Tested et 15-20 GPM November 1987: Purchased house Well Tested at 15 GPM December 24, 1988: Well went dry. Began hauling water 20 gallons at a time. There was no water delivery system in place at that time, January 10, 1989: Well returned 15 gallons per 24 hour pedod. May 1989: Well return increased to 20 gallons per 24 hour pedod. December 1989: Well return dropped to 5 to 10 gallons per 24 hour period February 1990: Well return increased to 15 to 20 gallons per 24 hour period. This pattern has repeated to this date. The maximum return we have had since 1988 is 20 gallons per 24 hour period, Usualty the well produces 5 to 10 gallons per 24 hour pedod. We ourrently have water professionally hauled four times a month. In between these deliveries we haul 55 gallons in a tank in the back of our van. We take water from friends and family on good wells or on city water, We pay approximately $50.00 per month for professionally hauled water. In an attempt to keep our cost Iow and our convenience as high as possible, we conserve our water. We flush the toilets only when necessary, not after each use, and try to keep it to two flushes a day. We save the water from baths, storing the water in 5 gallon buckets used to flush the toilets. We take baths/showers every other day or go to a friend's house to shower, We do laundry at the laundro-mat Although we have our own washing machine, one full Icad of laundry uses 40 gallons of water, Unfortunately, our professional water hauler has required a 500 gallon minimum delivery. Our current holding tank will accommodate 240 gallons, For a considerable amount of money we have been advised to increase our holding capacity to 500 gallons. This will cause a financial strain and a storage crunch, We wi[I be forced return to hauling water in the 55 gallon tank in our own car. JUL~2~-'9? ~.4:~J. [D~P, CO I<UPA~UK DEULPI'~T TEL NQ:907~3,~566 ~301 July 25,1997 Documentation of Water Supply for Residentia! Water W?I~ Located on Lot 9 Block 1., Peter's Gate Estates My name is Meg Kremer and I am a Senior Geologist with an expertise in fluvial sedimentology. I have worked in Alaska with Arco Alaska, Inc. for 14 1/2 years. I am writing at the request of my friend and ex-neighbor Ms. Emily Davies. She requested that I send you a chronology of our water well performance for use in your evaluation of the local groundwater hydrology. The following is a chronology of our water well history located on Lot 9 , Block 1 Peter's Gate Estates. My husband and I hired Mr. Bill Sullivan of Chugiak, Ak. to drill our water well in approximately June, 1983. At that time Bill was the driller of the majority of water wells in the Chugach Park Estates and Peter's Gate Estates subdivisions. I recall Mr. Sullivan was incredulous when he drilled our well. He hit an artesian well which had water shooting initially ~30' in the air. The total depth was 75' which he deepened to 85'. Water was running down the roughed in driveway and I remember driving up when Bill pulled his hard hat off and told me" I've never seen anything like this yet. This is the best ." t filed for water rights on this artesian well on June 7, 1984. The water rights certificate was approved August 7th, 1984 ( LAS 1780) in my name (Marguerite C. IQemer). We ( the Stearns/Kremer Family) lived at 25005 Sierra Mesa Circle ( lot 9 blk. 1) for 11 years. Over several winters, the well head casing would blow off and we would have water again streaming down our driveway until we could secure the cap. I remember this being the case up until at least 1992. We never had any problem with water supply and in fact never even had a downhole pump in the wellbore. It was artesian. During July, 1993 the Carlson's drilled a well behind our home ( to the northwest) . We concurrently were in the process of selling our home to the current residents , Brian and Lynda Maxwell. In September of 1993 or there abouts we had our well and septic tested as required by the Municipality of Anchorage in order to sell our home. The engineer we hired turned the front outdoor faucet on to establish a flow rate and it was flowing so well he told me ' I left !38 Larry and Annette Smith Lot 16 Block 1 Scimitar We moved back into our house after being gone from the state the beginning of 1992, We soon started to experience water quantity problems and could not keep our two 80 gallon holding tanks full. We dug deeper in March 1993. We went from 250 feet to 500 feet. Our neighbors across the street started to experience water problems. For many months of the year they were dry. They dug deeper in June 1996. We star[ed to have water problems December 1996. There were times when we might get only 20 gallons a day and also times our well would be dry for 5 to 6 days at a time. The water flow is better now but we still experience times when we can't get any water from the well such as the end of May and beginning of June. Often the well only produces 50 gallons or so a day. ~36 ~]002 Mary a~d Jeff Williams We moved into our house Dec 1991, Well depth 305 feet. Our neighbor across the street went from about 250 feet to 500 feet March 1993. Our well slowed production starting September 1994. By January 1't, 1995 our well was completely dry. We hauled water and melted snow. Water came back May 13~", 1995. Again the well slowed production in the fail and by January I't 1996 our well was again dry. We hauled water bm by June 13~ oux well was still dry. It had been a winter with little snow and deep ground freeze. The well digger went to 400 feet and still had not found water. At 500 feet the well produced about 1/3 a gallon per minute. We stopped at 550 feet with the well producing V2 a gallon per minute. We had no problems during the w/nter although might only use less than 30 gallons a day several days of the week. Our neighbors have experienced problems after we dug deeper. May 28, 1997 1 watered my flower beds, nmning the water for about 1 ¼ hours and the well went dry. The well did recover within hours. Thc water before it went dry and right after the water came back had a sulfur nasty smell to it. Anymore when I use about 40 gallon~ or more the water gets the sulfur smell to it. This was the same time the wells were being dug in the Denali View subdivision. 26 97 1 l:4Ba Eagle Rivep 5apth Station !33 ll:47a EaGle River Eanth Station 8S454S2 p. 2 ! ?8 October 2, 1996 MM & M Contracting P.O. Box 670495 Chugiak, AK 99567 Attention: Paul or Arlene Meyers Subject: Lot 12, Block 1, Scimitar Subdivision¢"~¢~ Well Flow Test Dear Paul and Arlene: A flow test was performed on the well serving the house on the subject lot on September 29, 1996, The test began at 12:58 P.M. with a measured flow of 4 gallons per minute. This flow continued until 1:50 when a measurement of 3,5 gallons per minute was observed, The flow then began to slowly drop until at 3:58 it was measured at 1.375 gallons per minute. After 4 hours the flow was measured at I gallon per minute and the well had produced over 500 total gallons. - ..... The test continued with measurements taken on a regular basis until 10:31 P.M. when the test was discontinued. At that time the well had produced in excess of 740 gallons and the flow had stabilized between .5 and ,6 gallons per minute. The pump in the well ran continuously for a period of nearly 10 hours. I t would appear from the results obtained during the test the well is now producing in excess of .5 gallons per minute which exceeds the minimum requirements for a three bedroom single family home of .324 gallons per minute. Sincerely, Michael E, Anderson, P,E. ! ? 5 July 24, 1997 Terraest, Inc. This letter is In reference to Lot 23 BIk 1 Chuga~h Park Estates. Our tot is located next to the proposed Denall View Subdivision, We h~tve 2 wells on our property. The first well was drilled with e water pmdL~"tion of 4 gel, per hour. The second well was drilled with a water produoflon of 10 gal per hour, We elected to hyclrofrac the second well end see if we could get the water produ~on higher so that we COuld build our home. The well was hydrofractured on 11-6-93, S & S Engine- erlng did a well recovery test and the results were 36.0 gal/hour on 11-18-93. We h~ve a 1200 gal, holding tank under the house so that we don't have a water problem in the home, I hope that this Information le helpful, Sincerely, Dolores 8tantorf Dennis 8tantorf P.O. Box 670931 Chugiak, Ak. 99567 688-4210 July 27. 1997 Ma-. & Mrs. Jeff Willisms P.O. Box 774396 Chugiak. Ak. 99567 Re: Water Problems at Lot 5 BLk. 1 Scinfitar Subd. #3 Deur Mary & Jeff;, The well for my residence was fir/lied on 104)1-83 by Magauson drilling. The well is 308 ft. deep and produced 2 gallon per tmnute. Kathy ~md I bought our house in Mamh of 1987 aud lind a flow test dOne on it on March 13, 1997. Thc well w~ ceffified by S&S Engineering as prod~,C4ng 3.6 O.P.M. We bog,an having problem, aster quantity, with OUr well in the early t 990's about the same time M.O.A. advised th,at we had a nitrate problem. M.O.A_ tests showed tlmt our well had a nitrate concentration afover 7 p.p.m. The water quamity problem has progresS/rely golXen worse ove~ the years and bega~ in years of average to above average saowfall, while a recem nitrate test on oUr well showed improvement, 4.8 p.p.m. We are mrrently getting approx. 70 gallons a day or approx..04 gallons per minute. We have a 600 + semi-lmn.sparent plastic holding tau.k that our well pump, l~ll,ll~['~i ~tO ~e~ m'o hours. The production of the well was measured over a 2 1/2 day period when we were on vacation July 14, 15, a~td 16~. Therefore, the .04 figure is a pretty accurate indicator of the productivity of t~is well. We feel a major reason for the fleclining productivity of our a~d our neighbor's ,~Als i~ the over um~ of ~e aq~ in ~s gm. The 1~ few ym., ~th ~low ~erage ~ipi~tion h~ e~ ~e proble~ bm my nei~m ~fl ~ff were ~v~g water proble~ ~om ~e ~m low ~i~fion ~s. ~ >~. ~ ~er 100 ~ch~ of m~. ~e ~no~c ~ve~ ~ ~ late 1980's ~us new hou~ in Ch~ Pa~ Emtes ia ~cular on Kffi~g ~. ~d S~ns ~ve ~ve. ~ ~ ~ion, had mo~ of a ~men~ ~t. M~r L. ~ ! 2 3 Bristol Environmental Services Corporation ,4 Subsidial), of Bristol Bay Native Corporation Comparison to Other Areas. A recent report by Ray mid Schock (1996) provides a summary of nitrate concentrations in wells in the United States and Canada. A study by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in 1990 projected that 2.4 percent of the nation's rural wells had nitrates above the drinking water standard of 10 mg/L. Midwestern States have been found to have higher percentages of high- nitrate wells. A statistically-designed study of 648 wells in Iowa found that 18.3 percent of wells exceeded the nitrate standard. · A study of 240 wells using stratified random sampling in Illinois found that 17.5 percent of wells exceeded the nitrate standard. · Two studies in Kansas found nitrates in excess of the nitrate standard in 14 to 28 percent of the wells studied. · Nine percent of 725 wells in a Minnesota study exceeded tire nitrate standard. · Nineteen percent of wells in a Missouri study of 226 wells exceeded the nitrate standard. A compilation of 5826 nitrate analyses from domestic, irrigation, pnblic, monitoring, and stock watering wells in Nebraska showed that 20.6 of the wells contained nitrates above the standard. · Approximately 13 percent of nearly 1300 wells in Ontario were found to exceed the nitrate standard. These examples indicate that nitrates are significantly higher in other areas of the United States and Canada where higher percentages of wells exceed the nitrate standard compared to the Denali View Subdivision study area. Conclusions A review of nitrate data in the project area shows that lots showing elevated nitrates are scattered, and are mixed with lots that do not report elevated nitrates. Nearly one-third of all lots in the project area have reported nitrate values at or below detection limits for nitrates. Ninety-seven percent of the lots sampled in the study area have nitrate concentrations below the drinking water standard; three percent of lots have reported nitrate values that exceed the drinking water standard. The time-trend data collected during the past nine years do not demonstrate the presence of a clear trend of increasing or decreasing nitrate values in the area. Denali View Nitrates Analysis June 18, 1997 Pro ect No. 8008YM Bristol Environmental Services Corporation A Subsidiary of Bristol Bay Native Co~oration Considering the scattered pattern of elevated nitrates aud the absence of a strong indication of rapidly increasing nitrate concentrations over significant portions of the study area, the following activities may be warranted: · Further evaluation of site-specific factors that may contribute to elevated nitrates at some lots. This could include reworking problem wells or upgrading problem septic systems. Additional data collection and evaluation. More long-term time-trend data and sampling of wells on lots for which no data are available would help determine the degree of nitrate problems in the area. Area-wide reduction of nitrate sources in the area. This could include control of any animal manure sources in the area (if any), voluntary lawn and garden fertilizer reduction, and gradual introduction of Iow-nitrate producing septic systems. Currently, low-nitrate septic systems are considered innovative systems in Anchorage and are not approved for general use. · Development of public utilities. The proposed development of Denali View Subdivision is consistent with surrouuding land development patterns. Typical lot sizes in surrounding subdivisions are under 1.5 acres, compared to an average lot size of 3.3 acres in Denali View Subdivision. On-site development with wells and septic systems in surrounding developments may have contributed to scattered occurrences of elevated nitrates in those areas. The degree of nitrate problems in the study area with or without development of Denali View Subdivision are low enough that they may be manageable for the long term with site-specific well or septic system modification, data collection and analysis, and nitrate source reduction. As a result of tire relatively large lot sizes, the size of the development relative to surrounding developments, and similar geologic conditions in the area, the proposed Denali View Subdivision should not be expected to have a large effect on existing patterns and trends of nitrate concentrations in the area. Limitations Work for this project was performed, and this report prepared, in accordance with generally accepted professional practices for the nature of the work completed at the same and similar localities at the time the work was performed. This report was prepared for your exclusive use for specific application to the refereuced project. This report is not meant to represent a legal opinion and no other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. Denali View Nitrates Analysis June 18, 1997 Project No. 8008YM Mr. Dee High, P.E. 3 4. (pg. 3) 5. (pg. 5) August 5, 1997 6. (~g, 6) look for similar wells t~ the south, such ~s Cb~gaeh P~ark Estates, for compsrison should have been completed, i The report stated that "there is significant hydraulic s~aration between the two aquifers". This statement could be supported by the ~traXe analysis. The xvord "significant" should b~ defined. According to this r~porl, "Existing information indicaites thai wells tapping the be&ock aquifer may need to be up to 700 feet d~p i4 o,der to eld stffficient deteamination of "unduly affected'. When eonsiaerkig the pnese "unamy affected", Alaska State Statutes defines this term ns n~ted in the report. However this determination lies solely within the I~pai~ment ~Nam.,al Resources (DNR) and should not be implied by other entities. Based on communications between DEC and DNR regarding thc phrase "unduly affeciedi', the decision must be based on a suund fovadation of conclusive i~fformafi0n while mk4ng in to account mdivxdual site ctrcureatmces ~nder conditions which a~e deemed "reasonable" as interpreted by DNR. while the conclusions portrayed in this report may be valid, the hfformafion provided witi~ this mpon and thc A,,~i~is of Nitrates in the Wall Wal~ report do not appear to provide su.ffieient facts to support the findings. In the be~t interest of all pa.",ies involved and the protection of the area grotmdwater supplies, any determination thaIis made regarding the Denali View Subdivision will require additional information to make sound, responsible decisions. Thank you for supplying these reports to the DEC for o~ review. If you have any ques6ons or oomments, please call me at 269-7696. Keven Kleweno, P.E. Environmental l~ngineer RS/K.KK/DP:c~'h:~cev e~\comtcb 1 .wpd) Intentionally left blank DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DRINKING WATER PROGRAM 555 cORDOVA b-I'KEET ANCHORAGE, AK 99501 http ://w~-.state~ak.us/d ec/hom eJhtm Mr. Dee High, P.E. Principle Dill Consui~ing Engineers Dimond Center Tower, 5th Floor 800 E. Diamond Blvd., Suite 3-545 Anchorage, Alaska 99515 · Augast 5, 1997 Proposed Denali View Subdivision, Two Hyckolol~':Reports ToNY KNOV~-E$, GOVERNOR ~elephone: (907}269-7696 Fax: (907) 26%7655 De~r Mr. High: ent of Environmental Conservation (DEC) re, c~ivcd thn report of the "Analysis of The Departm ~ Denali View Nitrates m Well Water" and the report of "Aquifer Test Results" for :the proposed Subdivision (currently Scintitar SubdivisionNo. 3, Tra~t 1) on July 10, 1997. We have compl~ed our review and provide the following comments on ench document. General Comments It is the Department s understanding that the purpose of the Analysts of]q~wates m Well Water report is to provide [nformatlon about nitrate patterns and trends in the area. Then, if possible, to suggest activities tha~ may be appropriate to address concerns aboutlpossible long-term inci~ases in nitrates in groundwater. The Deparmaenls understanding is that the purpose of the "Aquifer Test Results" report was to determine whether sufficient quantifies of water are available for the planned development of the subdivision. Also, whether surrounding well owners would be unduly affected in their ability to. ..~ · obtain water by the proposed d~velopment. :;: :; ..; . Bsscd on our review of the noted reports, it is difficult t~ make a conclusive determination on the. availability of water and nitrate patterns andlxends in thc area under re. view. Water availability... :. problems do currently exist for some of the residents and it is not clear if an increased draw from the ground water supply in this asea would or would not "unduly" affect the current residents. Mr. Dee High, P.E. 2 August 5, 1997 An~n_~dy~is of Nitrates in Well Water Specific Comments Figure 1 should be clearly labeled with all subdivision. Nitrate data collected should bc coupled with more in~, ormation, such as: 1) the type and age of the exSsting wastewater disposal syst~ns, 2) the soil classification/type that the soil absorption system (S~S) was installed in, 3) th* vertical stparation distanc~ from the lowest point of.l~e SAS to the top of the underlying bedrock, and 4) number of occupants in ~e home. ' Also, it may have been helpful to ideutif~ and list tl-t~ existing wells finished in md and gravel end the welis finished in bedrock along with the current problems associated with each. This way, it may be possible to view ~ach well individually to determine whether a water availability problem or a poor well odsts. 3. (pg. 2) The report states that '~e data do not ~ppear to demonstrate the presence of a clear trend of increasing or decr~sing nitric v~lues ha thc area" and this is stated once again in the conclusions section on page 3. ThiS would suggest that the dasa is insufficient to draw sound conclusions. 4. (pg. 4) However, a conclusion was made that the Dcnali View Subdivision should not bo expected to have a large effect on existing pauems and trends of nltrate conceuuations in the anna, y~ no pattcn'm have ~ iden~fle& p, quffer Test Results and Hydrologic Review From a site in.~pecfion, staff was able to find bedrock outcroppings in the Dcnali ¥icw Sulxtlvision on lot~ 4, 5, 6, and 7. Information on the b~rock outcroppings should be referenced in this report. 3. (pg. 3) In the statement "The extcnt of the sand and gravel aquifer tapped by the well not well known", the phrase "not well lmovm' should be defined. Further, without knowing the extent of the sand and glavel aquifer, along with the irregularity in the depth to beclmck (ground suff~e t~ 158 fe~ bolow land surface), calculat;-E long-te~m yield estimate~ would not s~m reasonable. There is no mention of other wells finished in the sand md gravel aquifer, if they exist, and there is no comparison of the pumped well with thom wells. With bedrock outcroppings within the proposed subdivision, it appears that thru is at least one' hydrogeologic b~undary to the north of the two test wells. Thc need to 1-97 FRI 13:47 P. 04/05 015662 50ULE, JIM 0270 $8015-001-10080 002893 RyARA, PAUL ~1~ 0162 08015-001-1008~1'73 0093~2 MCKENZIE, CSUC[ ~C 0330 00015-001-100C8A 001031 SROOKS, LEON/~J~ H~ 0263 S9015-001-[008AR3-20 020t0~ OURRIE, s o1~ GREOORY STEPHEN 002614 WOELFSL, JIM 000976 TURNBULL~ GREG 0364 00015-001-100A0CI-57 011/~3 ~YERS &MYERS CONST 012&SBOI~-OOI-IOOACO 01~807 N'tERS, PAUL V 0580 SB015-OOt-100ACD 0173 00015-001-1000. 0266 S0015-001o100A. 0~95 S0015-001-1000661-79 0500 00015-001-I00. 012~ SB015-001-1000001-42 0605 S8015-001-10o- 0605 SB015-001-100. 12/01782 LAS 8756 01/05/8~ LAS 4535 05/30/85 08/02/73 10/06/g2 / / 09/23/80 08/29/67, 08/03/82 09/16/81 04/03/7? 05/29/7~ 05/20/82 09/09/81 09126/83 07/06/85 LAS 8~,77 04/30/8Z* LAS 8478 05/15/8~ 03/21/84 LAS 8302 08/02/78 09/15/88 06/04/02 06/03/82 0180 SB015-O01-10060Al-r? 0155~6 FIELDHOUS~, ~IKE 0200 SS015-001-1000AA2-28 013AT& ~ffERS & NYERS CONST 0213 SB015-~1-10000A1-81 0~3 NELS~, DAVID/J~ OZZ7 08015-001-100CCA1-3~ 001&13 VA~DERLUGT, SHEI~ 0265 SB015-009-1~0CC2-63 O0141A ~YERS, PAUL 0268 08015-001-1~C001-62 DRILLER REG POESS S TAGS DOC LAS # WILLIAMS JAY DRILL 220 $CZHITAR 2 L27 0~ S 07/13/01 ~LRGNUSON DRILLING 2~B SC[MITA~ 3 L15 eq S 06/0&/82 MAG~U$O# ORILLIgG 2~B SCIMITAR 3 L14 01 $ 05/25/6~ 14AGNU$ON DRILLING 226 SCIMITAR 3 L13 01 U 06/03/02 AUG- 1-97 FRI 13:48 P, 05/05 02~ SBOq~-OOl-lDOCBC2-29 0285 SgOIS-OOI-l~D. 0298 "'76 AUG- 1-97 FRI 13:46 P, 02/05 MEMORANDUM DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF MINING & WATER MGMT Alaska Hydrologic Survey TO Gary Prokosch Becfio~ Chief THRU: FROM: Roy Ireland (~,~. Hydrologist State of Alaska 3603 C ST., Suite 800 ANCHORAGE AK 99503-5935 DATE: FiLE NO: TELEPHONE NO: 6UBJECT: July 30, 1997 (907) 269-8639 Fax 562-1384 Scimitar Subdivision I reviewed the (attar from Jim Munter regarding the wells at Scimitar Subdivision and the proposed Denali View Subdivision. end have found a few items that bother me. In general, his review is good and as accurate s6 can be under the circumstances. The principle issue that bothers me is that the welt in the sand and gravel aquifer was test pumped, and not the bedrock well, The extent of the sand and gravel aquifer is unknown, 6nd does nOt show in other logs from the area. (Why other drillers would have skipped it is a mystery to me, unless it is of very limited extent.) Why waS the bedrock well, that is more likely to be connected to the surrounding wells, not tested? There is a greater chance that this well, and other potential new wells, would be connected to the existing wells in the bedrock aquifer, than the well that was pumped. The area is characterized by bedrock wells of varying productivity and static water level. This indicates that there might be several unconnected fracture systems within the bedrock underlaying the area. I Bm net convinced that existing water right holders would not be affected. Deepening a bedrock well ia an arduous task, which may result in failure to produce water if the productive fracture zone does not extend to that particular location in the bedrock. Data are insufficient to attempt to interpret the system(s) of fractures in the area, and the unknown elevations and locations of ell wails in the area is a complicating factor. The nitrate interpretation is likewise complex, but it appears to be localized in the northwest quadrant. This may be an expression of some surficial feature which has found it's way into the groundwater. The sou¢oe end pathway(s) are undetermined at this time AUG- 1-97 FRI 13:47 P, 03/05 '47+39 We. the undersigned, support our neighbors in Scimitar with their concerns about water quality and quantity We would appreciate their support for our concern about the secondary emergency access p~iJ~E Seika-Kullberg connection The Seika-Kullberg connection is critical to all the residents of the mountain for seconda~ emergency access The upper connection from Kullberg to Thornton is critical for pedestrian access original road up this mountain and has been used by the residents as such. The Kullberg-ThoFlk~i~l~ & connection is called the sledding hiIl and is used by residents from all over this area. It is the sledding actwity that keeps the trait open for pedestrian access when the roads are impassable It is the only pedestrian access up the mounta n and a ows us and our neighbors in Peters Gate to reach our homes when the road is blocked By parking down below in Scimitar we can always at east walk home It is also the pedestrian route which the children take to catch the School bus or leave the mountain on bikes or walking. There is no provision for children to walk down Chugach Park safely They would need to walk in the road way sharing a steep hill with vehicles. The Seika-Kullberg connection has always been the only secondary vehicular access offthis mountain. During the fire on the mountain last year APD blocked Chugach Park Drive to allow emergency vehicles up the mountain and the Seika-Kullber.o_ access was the only way any resident could get down while evacuating their possessions. John Gross undercut the e,,dsting road bed on Chugach Park Drive in the late 80's which has made the need for secondary access offthis mountain even more critical. His action causo:l critical damage to the road that cannot be repaired. This action occurred a~er many of us had purchased our homes and is not our fault. If the Denali View Plat is approved please provide for the safety of the residents with a secondary access. If you look at a map the Seika-Kullberg connection is also the only way offthe mountain for the residents of a' Sollaret and Beldeque?~.he event of a blocked road on that side of the mountain. rare ~-~"/~/ Address J ~ ., aUG- 1-97 FRI 13:46 P, 01/05 DIVISION OF MINING AND WATER MANAGEMENT 3601 C ~eet, Suite # 800 Anchorage, AK99503 FILE COPY RES( URCES1 Phone #'S: (907) 2694600 (M~Zug) (907) 269-862a (Water) FAX T~NSMITTAL MEMO TO: . ~, ~¥F-~.~ PHOi'¢E: . F~,x#~ compeer: N.~ ~c,~_~,;~5- SECTION: ~ )/z'~.~ FAX ~90~ 5634853 (M~g) - ' ~907) 562-1384 ~ater) NbkMBEK OF PAGES INCLUDING COVER SHEET: tF YOU DO NOT KECEIVE ALL PAGES, PLEASE CALL THE SENDER AS SOON AS POSS~LE. COMMENTS: F, EVISED (10/95~ "72 RECEIVED AUG-: I997 X~'e, the undersigned, support our neighbors in Scimitar with their concerns about water quantity, we would appreciate their suppo~ for our concern about the secondary emergency access provided by the Seika-Kullberg connecdon. ,~U~- 1987 The Seika-Kullberg connection is critical to all the residents of the mountain for secondary access. The upper connection from Kinlberg to Thornton is critical for pedestrian access. Thi~ original road up the mountain and has been used bythe residents as such. The Kullberg-Thomton connection is called the sledding hill and is used by residents from all over this area. It is the sledding activity that keeps the trail open for pedestrian access when the roads are impassable. Ir is the only pedestrian access up the mountain and allows us and our neighbors in Peters Gate to reach our homes when the road is blocked. By parking down below in Scimitar we can ahvays walk home. It is also the pedestrian route which the children take to catch ~he School bus or leave the mountain on bikes or walking. There is no provision for children to walk down Chugach Park safely. They would need to share a steep road way with vehicles. Removal of this access, would increase the distance to the School bus stop. The Seika-Kullberg connection has always been the ooly secondary, vehicular access offthis mountain. During the fire on the mountain last year, APD blocked Chugach Park Drive to allow emergency vehicles up the mountain and the Seika-Kullberg access was the only way any resident could get down while evacuating their possessions. John Gross undercut the existing road bed on Chugach Park Drive in the late 80's which has made the need for secondary access offth:s mountain even more c 't', aL His action caused damage to the road that cannot be repaired. This action occurred after many of us had purchased our homes and is not our fault. If the Denali View Plat is approved please provide for the safety of the residents with a secondary, access. NAME ADDRESS 0,.f"9' NVe, the undersigned, support our neighbors in Scimitar with their concerns about water qua~ ~ quantity, we would appreciate their support for our concern about the secondary emergency access provined by the Seika-Kullberg connection. AUG The Seika-Kullberg connection is critical to ail the residents of the mountain for secondary access. The upper connectton fi.om Kullberg to Thornton Is crmcal for pedestrian access. T~lf~ ~'~e original road up the mountain and has been used by the residents as such. The KulIberg-Thornton connection is called the sledding hill and is used by residents from all over this area. It is the sledding activity that keeps the trail open for pedestrian access when the roads are impassable. It is the only pedestrian access up the mountain and allows us and our neighbors in Peters Gate to reach our homes when the road is blocked. By parking down below in Scimitar we can always walk home It is also the pedestrian route which the children take to catch the School bus or leave the mountain on bikes or walking. There is no provision for children to walk down Chugach Park safely. They would need to share a steep road way with vehicles. Removal of this access, would increase the distance to the School bus stop. The Seika-Kullberg connection has always been the only secondary vehicular access off this moumain. During the fire on the mountain last year, APD blocked Chugach Park Drive to allow emergency ve~icles up the mountain and the Seika-Kultberg access was the only way any resident could get down while evacuating their possessions. John Gross undercut the existing road bed on Chugach Park Drive in the late 80's which has made the need for secondary access off this mountain even more critical. His action caused damage to the road that cannot be repaired. This action occurred after many of us had purchased our homes and is not our fault. If the Denali View Plat is approved please provide for the safety of the residents with a secondary access. ; 7 0 Please do not take away the safe path to our school bus and for bike riding. We do not like riding or walking down the steep narrow hills by the drop off when a car comes by. There is no rail or path that is not on the roadway itself. The school bus would be much further away if we could not use the old road into Scimitar~l~l~ ~k~he~ [ V r._ i. walk over a mile longer. NAME ADDRESS AU,S- i 1997 ~JNIGIPN. fTY ~,F PLANN~IG & ZONING DIVISION Please do not take away the safe path to our school bus and for bike riding, We do not like riding or walking down the steep narrow hills by the drop off when a car comes by. There is no raiI or path that is not on the roadway itself. The school bus would be much further away if we could not use the old road into Scimitar. lt~k~h~ walk over a mile longer, NAME ADDRESS ?<T> >' " 0S/01/97 10:47 990 36 3350 ADM OFC FWS ES ~]006 F L[ Ct PY have "driven" down sideways or backwaxds at one time (or more). Without formal inclusion on the proposed plat such a trail will not be made available to public scrutiny and comment; and if for any reason the developer docs not build a suitable trail there is no ~post facto' jurisdiction or regulatory authority to require him to do so. This too- casual approach also invites a rcpcat of pitting neighborhood against neighborhood as Denali View landowners argue about the placement of the trail, One possihlity is that the developer be required to develop and maintain (or deed the land the the MOA who would maintain it) a pedestrian access from Sullins [Thornton Drive] to Solleret along the route intended for that road connection. This would redeuce the distance school children would have to walk to catch the bus. In conclusion, we request that you require that bo~ the Seika-Kullberg and the Sollcrct-Sallins [Thornton] right-of-ways he formally included any development plat for Deanli View and maintained for future development options. The Municipality clearly intended these road connections to eventually bo built, which makes good sense from a community wide perspective. Thank you for your consideration and your support of responsible development in our community- development which safequards and safety of all our children, friends and neighbors. Sinc.~rely yours, Tony DeGange, President Peter' s Gate Subdivsion thc hcaith · " E3 08/01/97 10:48 ~'90~ 8 5350 AD~ OFC FWS ES ~007 Municipality of Anchorage Commu~W Plamxing and Development P O Box 196650 Anchorage, Alaska 995194650 July 29, 1997 Dear Sirs: I live on lot 22, block 1 of Chuganh Park Bstates. At closing, m 1979, for the sale of my house I received a copy of this platt and have always been under the understanding that a second exit/access would be available to me and my family. Please find a copy of that platt enclosed. 1 f~el that this access is critical 1bt the residents in my area. The health and safety of my neighborhood would be greatly impacted. As a facilitator of the Disaster Plasming Committee for CC$, I know only to well what can happen i/'we do not keep this access available. I feel that it wo~ld be poor planning and ~ short sighted of the planning committee to allow this to happen. Now is the time to exercise foresight ~ pl~ing fol' the future. We are not asking for a new road, only a continued access to an existing old road. The elimination o£the road easement would remove an old x'oad and the only second route off the mouma~ Only last year, a fire on Bear Mountain burned for three days. If a total evacuation was necessa,'y that old road could have bccn used. The main road was dosed and countless emergency vehicles want up and down, n/ght and day. In addition, water hasbeen anissue for many ncighbors for years. TI~ coanuunitywide impaet needs to considered from a stand point other th~. telling people "they can always dig a deeper well" ffwe were to lose water. I do not feel that the first report doue was neatly detailed or complete enough. Further information new, ds to be obtained to make a fair and reasonable decision. Oliver Moore P O Box 670732, Chugiak, Alaska 99567 venita Moore (907)688-3298 08/01/97 10:46 ~9~ '86 3350 ADR OFC F~S E5 ~004 FiLE COPY regardless of where they are located, if roads that meet code cannot be provided, perhaps this i5 reason to delay or deny further development of such unsuitable properties? A cul-de-sac at the northern end of Kullberg Drive and the driveways can be constructed that will meet the sloI~e standards. However, a connection to Seika Drive to Kullberg would create an un,'afe intersection that would exceed maximum slope standards. ***** This latter statement begs the real issue here in that traffic flow [o this "proposed Kullberg cul-de-sac that WILL meet standards" would still be directed over roads that exceed maximum slope standards (Chugach Park Drive) in order to get to it if thc Seika-Kullberg connection is by- passed. There is no net gain. Not reflected in this report, because of dates involved, is thc resolution by the Chugiak Community Council on luly 17 favoring the removai of the Seika-Kullburg and $ollerei-Sullin5 right of ways. That vote was taken at i1 pm after a long discussion with the hydrologist b/xed by the developer; people who came for the road issue had long since gone home, believing thc road issue would not make it onto the floor, The vote was 12-14 in favor of the removal, with the two swing votes being the developer and his wife. This does not constitute a mandate by the community. I respectfully submit ~hat it is your responsibility to consider the best good for the community at large- not simply the interests of the developer and a handful of vocal residents adjacent to the project. Thc Scica- Kullberg right-of-way currently serves as emergency access for many homes higher up thc mountain. Many of us have resorted to driving the trail during ice storms, forest fires (which in 1996 came with/n 500 yards of several Peter's Gate homes) or when vehicles are stuck on Chugach Park Drive. A letter on file from Ted Kinney, the Chugiak Road Board representative, supports the maintcnanc~ of the right-of-ways in question as in the best interests of the community at large. We support his recommendations- that the potential access be maintained although development of the roads is not necessary at this time- and we vigorously oppose the permanent removal of this future option. It should be noted in the history of this issue that this is the first time the permanent removal of this option is at stake, and it is the first opportunity many of us impacted by such decisions have had the opportunity to comment; if Danali View is developed under the proposed plat future options in this area are foreclosed. 08/01/97 10:47 '~907 J 3350 AD~ OFC FWS ES ~005 F LE COPY It has been proposed (by thc MOA?) to Mr. Myers that as an alternative to a 60 foot road tight-of-way he provide a 12 foot easement for a foot/bike path between Kullberg and Seica. However, he is not required nor does he propose to develop or maintain it. It will apparently be moved slightly to border new property lines which may well move it over a drop-off into alders and devil's club; no map of the exact location has been produced and hence the difficulty and cost of developing such a trail cannot be assessed at the present time. Our objections to this arc three-fold: 1) This alternative does not provide emergency access for cars and emergency vehicles; 2) Chugach Park Estates and Peter's Gate Subdivisions have no school bus service [Because existing road grades are too steep ado do not meet code] and children in these neighborhoods must walk down existing trails to Scimitar to catch the bus. Without a developed and maintained path, children will be unable to use the replaccmcnt because snow and trees will impede them. Many adult residents also use these trails when road conditions prohibit driving up or down the mountain; and 3) with such a vague easement clause we fear that a year from now we'll all be back in front of you as adjacent residents, now accustomed to an undeveloped easement, seek once again to remove this easement as they do not want people walking/biking/riding cfc. along their property lines. Oiven the history of this issue, such a prediction is not unfounded. It is time to lay this issue to rest once and for all with dedicated right-of-ways formally filed and incladed on all plats. Itt the MOA Community Planning and Development Report under 'Trail connections" Ms. O'Brien writes: "There is an existtng trail that traverses the site in ~zn em't-west direction from the northern terminus of Kullberg Drive to Sullins Drive [Thornton Drivel. It is commonly referred to as the sledding trail The President of the Chugiak Community Council has requested that easements be provided to retain public access to this trail this trail is not reflected on the adopted Areawid~ Trails Plan and th~ petitioners have stated the intent to provide trail easements after the site has been fidly surveyed and a determination can be made of the best location to provide this trail access easement." Again, with all due respect, this is not acceptable. This trail is too important to be left simply to the developer's discretion. Without an adequate trail school children and pedestrians will be forced to walk Sullins Drive in the dark down an icy hill that all of us who live here Water Quantity and Quarry cominued referring to DeaaU View'Subdiv~a Pre~nt Water Problems Name Ad~lr~s Telcp~ne ~3. 54. "~t~ ,0'¥"~ '~ cl ~ 55. 56. 57, 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 65. 72. t Water Quantity and Quality continue~t referring to Denali View Subdivision Present Water Problems ~ame Address ., 87. 88. . 89. ..91. . 92. .. 93. 95. .. 97, ~ 98. 99. We the tmders]gned are opposed to the Present and Future development of t~e p~at of laad currentty referred to as Denali View unh] the issues of Water Quanti~y and Ware ^" plan °f h°w these issues will be dealt with in the future is developed, r hnmatY are studied and a Master 4, 5. 9, 119 Page 2 Address Telephone# 35." 36. 38, 39. I'll !' fl~lllV I TERRASAT, INC. rll. t u[ 9200 LakeOtisParkwev2nd Floor Anchorage, Alaska 99507 907 344 9370 Fax: 907 344 1490 Ge°logical COnsulting * Environmental Restoration · Regulatory Compliance August 25, 1997 Jim Cross Municipality of Anchorage Department of Health and Human Resources 810 'L' Street Anchorage, AK 99501 AUG 2 5 ~7 Subject: Denali View Subdivision, Summary of Conditions Reported by Surrounding Homeowners Dear Mr. Cross: We have evaluated reports by homeowners from the Scimitar and Peters Gate Street Subdivision. The summary of that information is on the attached figure. We conclude from reviewing their work that many of people in the Scimitar Subdivision adjacent to the proposed Denali View Subdivision haul water at one time or another during the year if not through out the year. We believe the Scimitar Subdivision water supply is marginal based on the homeowner information. We conclude that any impact to their water supply would make living conditions worse for them. Any reduction in their water supply would most likely cause less dilution of existing nitrates and thus an increase in ground water nitrate levels. If the Denali View Subdivision contributes more nitrates to the ground water and that ground water recharges the rock fractures that residents in the Scimitar and Peters Gate Subdivision use, then the nitrate problem would likely increase. We recommend further testing be done specifically to determine if an impact will occur from new waterusers in the Denali View Subdivision and what impact that will have on the surrounding community. If you have any questions please feel free to call. Dan Young Certified Professional Geologist DY:asd Your Company Name - (gOT) 688-5590 - Created: Monday, August 27, 1955 o.$4 PM - Page 5 of 5 our children, beginning September 2 and continuing if Denali View Subdivision is approved? This circumstance supports our contention that the road access issue needs to be formally resolved before approval of the plat and not left to the discretion of the developer. In conclusion, given the significance of many of the conflicts in this case, I very strongly oppose any plan to approve the preliminary plat for Denali View, contingent upon completing further pump tests etc. Such an action would end the public process and conscribe the ability for citizens to comment and review decisions that may have serious impacts on their neighborhoods. Given that serious policy issues are at stake, this would set a very dangerous precedent. Water, road access and procedural issues must be resolved before the public process is closed and before the development is approved. Thank you for your serious consideration of these matters. I would be happy to discuss them further at any time. Sincerely yours, Emily M. Davies P.O. Box 671264 Chugiak, AK 99567 907-699-5590 CC. The Platting Board Margaret O'Brien, CP&D (fax) Jerry Weaver, CP&D (fax) Elaine Christian, DHHS (fax) Jim Cross, DHHS (fax) Kevin Klewauo, ADEC (fax) Gary Prokosch, DNR (fax) Sharon Minsch, Community Council FILE COPY August 25, 1997 Municipality of Anchorage Platting Commission Attn. Margaret O'Brien ~t)G 2 5 19S7 PROPOSED DENALI VIEW SUBDIVISION, PETERS CREEK, ALASKA Dear: Ms. O'Brien Please find the attached letter to Mr. Jim Cross and our evaluation of data provided by the homeowners. Sincerely, Bill Lawrence Hydrogeologist Your Company Name - (~UT) 688-5590 - Created: Monday, August 27, 1956 ..,:33 PM - Page 3 of $ Returning to Mr. High's letter, he wrote: "By working with the appropriate Departments of the Municipality, the Myers (owners) have clearly demonstrated, throngh "systematic evaluation", that the problem is not the lack of water, water quality or the effect of one well on another." Yet at a meeting on July 20 in Mr. Jim Cro~_s's office, all parties- including Mr~ Hio~h ~ Jim Munter- agreed that the well .rtllmp tests conducted by Rristol Environmental were "inadequate" to conclude whether sufficient wa[er eaki~s for the entire subdivion in_the long run. and whether surrounding wells will not be adversely impacted. Mr. High's statement regarding Mr. Cross's request that homeowners provide flow and nitrate tests of their wells is misleading (Paragraph 2, line I and paragraph 2, lines 6-7). I was at both community council meetings in question; Mr. Cross did request any riow and nitrate data available, noting it would be very helpful in the assessment of this project. A formal water riow and nitrate test, conducted by a 'professional' hydrologist, costs around $400 per household. I am sure Mr. Cross would be the first to admit he has no authority to insist or require such expenditures. Ironically many homeowners did consider conducting these tests and obtaining this information. But because: t) we were not confident that our interests would be justly represented within the Municipality; and 2) we were not certain how the data would be used; and 3) many of us have experienced responses ranging from cool to openly dismissive from staff members involved in this project, we chose the alternative of hiring a hydrologist who was capable of interpreting the data and representing us on the "professional" level. Again I assert that this should not have been necessary if city employees had been conscientious about doing their jobs. Other comments regarding Mr. High's letter: Paragraph 2; line 2: 1 never heard Mr. Young (the homeowner's hydrologist) direct anyone not to provide flow rate and nitrate information flow rate and nitrate; quite the opposite, he solicited any and all existing available information. With respect to Paragraph 3, line 1, I'm not clear what "position" Mr. High refers to. I understand 'the homeowner's' position to be that the developer should be required to provide adequate information to assure residents that there is sufficient water for the proposed subdivision and that current residents' water quality and quantity will not be adversely impacted by the development of Denali View. This position is supported by applicable codes and laws. Furthermore, it is our position that the developer to date has not provided this 'adequate information'- or "real data", to use Mr. Your Company Name - (9~ ~) 688-$590 - Created: Monday, August 27, 1956 ~:34 PH - Page 4 of $ High's own words. Mr. High himself concurred a day after writing this letter that the "hard factual data" provided on behalf of his client was "inadequate" Io conclude that a long term supply of clean water exists for the proposed subdivsion and surrounding neighhborhoods. Furthermore, the homeowners' position is supported by an independent hydrology report and by two state agencies, D.E.C. and D.N.R. Therefore Mr. High's assertion that we should be required to conduct flow data and nitrate tests to support our position is ludicrous, It also raises serious questions about public process and burden of proof which should be clarified immediately. I believe the controversy is well documented in other correspondance. My question is: How will the Munleipality deal with conflicting opinions from two professional hydrologists? Will the Municipality require definitive data to resolve the conflict. And who is responsible for paying for obtaining this information. ~LO a d Issues: Another controversial issue associated Denali View is road and trail access up Bear Mountain. Some residents of Scimitar Subdivision have petitioned to exclude right-of-ways for a Seika-Kullberg road connection, but residents in Chugach Park Estates and Peter's Gate Subd. strongly desire the right-of-way to be dedicated to leave future options open. ~'e are supported in this by Ted Kinney, our Road Board representative. Another road/trail access issue involves the upper Kullberg-Sullins trail, which is used by pedestrians and school children needing to get to bus stops in Scimitar Subd. (Chugach Park Estates and Peter's Gate Subd. have no school bus service because of narrow steep roads.) Within the last week or so trees have been felled and "No Trespassing" signs posted along the Seica-Kullberg and Kullberg-Sullins trails. I question the legality of this act- prohibiting access along historical roadbeds and traditional trails when no significant modification to the property has been (or will imminently be) accomplished. But regardless of the legality, this is an example of the kind of behavior which has eroded trust in Mr. Myers' good faith and concern for community welfare. School starts in a week and a half. Given we have no school bus service in Chugach Park Estates and Peter's Gate Subdivisions, how does Mr. Myers propose the children on the mountain get to their bus stop in Scimitar? By walking an additional two miles along narrow dangerous roads? Judging from his actions Mr. Myers does not propose any solution. Therefore, the question reverts to you: How does the Municipality propose to safequard !!4 Your Company Name ~ (9u7) 688-5590 - Created: Monday, August 27, 1956 ~,,~3 PM - Page 1 of 5 Dr. Sheila Ann Selkregg, Director Community Planning and Development P.O. Box 196650 Anchorage, AK 99519-6650 August 24,1997 Dear Dr. Selkregg: I an] writing with regard to the proposed Denali View Subdivision in the Peter's Creek area. I have concerns about the decision making process in general, and specific concerns about water and road/access issues, Public Process I became involved with this project as an interested citizen; I wish to encourage and support the M.O.A. and State agencies in making pro-active, rather than re-active, decisions regarding responsible development in our community. I can appreciate that you and your staff frequently encounter citizen groups opposed to one action or another and that you must discount "NIMBY" opinions as a matter of course. However, in this case I believe there are fundamental principles of due process and responsibility involved which need to be addressed. Specifically I wonder: 1. Whose interests does the Municipality most represent, community interests or those of individuals (in this case developers desiring to make a profit)? 2. When these interests directly conflict, what role and position will/should the Municpality take? 3. Where does the burden of proof (as to impacts and mitigating measures) lie? A corollary here is who bears the financial burden of documenting such impacts- the developer, city and state agencies or the affected public/homeowners? 4. By what process/procedure is submitted information determined to be adequate, sufficient and/or true? In a letter dated August 19,1997, Mr. Dee High clearly asserts that the burden of proof in the case of Denali View Subdivision rests with the community/homeowners who have questioned the projected impacts and !!1 Your Company Name-(Du~)688~ssg0-Created:Monday, August 27, 1956:~:33PM- Page2of S conclusions provided by Mr Myers and his employees. I strongly disagree with Mr. High. Residents of three subdivisions surrounding Denali View (Scimitar, Chugach Park Estates and Petersgate Subdivision) have spent $7000+ trying to ensure that our concerns are addressed. After the Chugiak Community Council Meeting on July 17, community members hired Terrasat, Inc. to prepare an independent hydrology study because we stongly believed the hydrology and nitrate studies prepared by Mr. Munter for Mr. Myers were biased and inadequate. We ',,,'ere essentially forced into this action because, despite numerous and serious questions raised by the public at the Chugiak Community Council Meeting, Mr. Cross asserted that unless information to the contrary was brought forward he would accept the Bristol Environmental report and recommend the project be approved. It was gratifying that two reviewing state agencies: D.E.C. and D N.R.. independently echoed man)' of the same concerns raised by the "non- professional" public. (I can't help wondering why Mr. Cross didn't identify these areas of concern himself...?) To reiterate, the purpose of hiring a consulting hydrologist was to: a) get a clearer picture of the existing water situation than that provided by Mr. Munter's report; b) to acertain whether our fears of negative impacts were warrented; and c) by seeking "professional expertise" to ensure that our concerns were taken seriously by decision-making authorities. The results of our expenditures is a hydrology report that challenges and/or contradicts many of the conclusions put forward by the developer. It seems to me that we have made our point- that this project deserves more careful scrutiny before being approved. It also raises ethical and legal questions about whether a community should have to pay an independent consultant to represent their interests when we have public (.97?) agencies presumably mandated to safequard exactly these interests? Mr. Cross, in a telephone conversation on August 22, equated our expenditures with those of Mr. Myers, who "has also spent a great deal of money on this process." I contend these expenditures are very different: Mr. Myers anticipates a profit at the end of this and at the very least can write it off as a business expense. We cannot. The question of who is responsible and who pays is a very serious policy issue and needs to be addressed directly and with care~ I am very concerned about the precedent this case sets for future situations. FROM : Mlqld CDHTRACTING PHONE NO. : 6881238 Aug. 25 1997 O~:4~PM P6 FILE COPY Fax Transmittal Cover Sheet To~ From: Emily M. Davies, Your Company Name Fax Phone Number: (907) 688-5590 Transmitting (6) pages, including cover sheet. If there is difficulty with this transmission, please call: (907)688-5590 Note: Associate Plan. Margaret O'Brien, - Community Planning and Developm !iO FROM : HMM Q]NTRACTING PHI]NE NO. : G881238 Aug. 25 19'97 O~:41PM P4 FiLE COPY FRDM : MMM OONTR~CTIN] PHONE NO. : ~88]~8 Aug. 25 !997 0]:42PM P5 FILE COPY FILE FROM : MMM 03NTRRCTlblG pHONE NO. : 6881238 Aug. 25 1997 03:40PM P] FILE COPY FROM : NMM CI]NTF4ACT1NG PHONE NO. : 68B1~8 Aug. 25 ::_997 o]:etPr,1 P2 ['~2¢~.~.. , i. · . ..... .~... TOTAL AR~A: ~7.49 acres O~ SKYLINE VIEW CORPORATION ~rack ! Scimitary #3 & Lot 3OBlock'3 Earl Ra . This is a very large lot subdivision and does not compare with the sm~ller lot subdivisions around it, This subdivision ~13'net have an ~m~a¢~ negative impact o~ problem, l~e have done a hydrology report, ~{e ~ave a~reed to a trail easement, %Jo meet all cuae requirements and this s~bdivision should get preliminBry ~lat approval now. To continue to delay the ~rel'iminary approval will en)y lead to a political circus crea~ed hy a few people. 103 FROM ~ MMM C~NTRACT]NG flL£ IIP I PNONE N~. : 688~238 Au~. 25 1997 05:38PM Pi TO: FROM: DATE: Commontty Plannit~g & 12~volopmenl S~liae View Corp. Aught25,1997 SUBJECT: D~Ii View Subdivision (S.10054) Many letlers, petitions end public notices have been sent in to your off'lee reganiing l)~nMi View Subdivision, Several have been sent by the same property owners and tmiliet. The following apreed,il~ot was prepared to olarify how ma~y prol~rty owners have responded and to which i~ue thuy addressed, The infonnaiio~ w~s tak~ from tbe three 9a~kets prepared fa' the FlaRing Board for ih~ August 6th Heating by Staff. We have i~i~d to identify families residing ai one properVy and listed them as one property O~T 9F 183 PROpIgRI~I,~-,8 Ibl SCIMITAR gUBDIVISION, CFIUGACH PARK F, gTATEg & PETERS GATE SUBDM$1ON ONLY ~4 PROPER'FY OWNERS HAVE WRrl-rEN IN AND EXPRESED COIqCEKNS P..F. J3ARDING WATER QUANITY & QUALITY 1~_ .p_ROI~ERT¥ ,OWNEI~ HAVE WRITTBN IN AND EXPRF~$F.D CONCERNS YiF./JARDING SECONDARY ROAD EASEMENT & 13 OF THESE FOR A TRAIL F.,A,~EMEwr ,~l ~]~OPERTY OWNER~ HAVE WR1TTEN IN AND DO NOT WANT ANY ROAD ~SE1VIFANT BUT DO WANT A TRAIL EASF3/iENT FROM $E1KA TO KULLBERG you ~aa sc~ them is ~uall¥ very few proxies ~ ~ ~gr qufli~ ~d qu~fi~ ~ or ~t ~sh ~ ~ve a ro~ ~ent. ~ lm~ ~o~t of ~ work in ~ p~k~s is v~ misle~ing ~d is g~gm~ by a ve~ ~1 ~Rio~ ortho ~id~is. W~ have alr~d~ ~r~d to a ~ail ~gm~t aM ~ sa~fi~ alt a~ ~id~liw of Aao~m~ r~uirem~. We f~[ ~t ~is s~ivision ~ould ~ive your ~mld~on fm pmlimina~ ~mval Municipality of Anchorage P. O. Box 196650 Anchorage, Alaska 99519-6650 (907) 343-4215 0~l i~ 52 000 FIRST CLASS MAIL S-10054 ) ~ NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING - - WEDNESDAY SEPTEMBER 3, 1997 The Municipality of Anchorage Platting Authority will consider the following: CASE: PETITIONER: REQUEST: TOTAL AREA: LOCATION: SITE ~J~DRESS: S-10054 DEN~J~I VIEW SUBDIVISION Skyline View Corp. To subdivide 1 tract into 11 lots. 37.47 acres West of sullins Drive and south of Seka Drive. No property address available CUPd~ENT LEGAL: Scimitar Subdivision, Unit NO.3, Tract 1, located within the SE 1/4 Section 10, T15N, RIW, S.M., AK CHUGIAK COMMUNITY COUNCIL of The Platting Board will hold a public hearing on the above matter at 7:30 p.m. Wednesday September 3, 1997, in the Assembly Hall of the Z.J. Loussac Library, 3600 Denali Street, Anshorage, Alaska. The Subdivision Ordinance requires that you be sent notice because your property is within the vicinity of the petition area. This will be the only public hearing before the Board and you are invited to appear. If you would like to comment on the petition this form may be used for your convenience. Mailing Address: Municipality Of Anchorage, Community Planning and Development, P.O. Box 196650, Anchorage, Alaska 99519-6650. For more information please call 343-4267. Address: ~ Legal Description: ~% ~7 8%~ 9-- ~..~ S.BDIVISIO -VAC TIO -V I CE/RESIBE TS~- L/ TI s10054 FROM : MHM C]]NTRACTI~ FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: PHONE NO. : BSBl~8 Pug. 25 1997 O~:O~PH P1 Community Planning & D~wlopmcnt & The Platting Board SIO, ti~c View Corp. August 23, 1997 DF2qALI VIEW SUBDIVISION Do to vandalism of the well Iooai~l on Lot 9 and upon advise of our attorney duc to liabiiiby corggras we have posted No Trespassing signs on the property, ~ HI ONSULTING August ~L~,I 19~7 / T~ p~ ~d ~., We Wm w~k wire ~ cm~ W ~y w~b~ ~r 90'7 344 138~ P,01 Bristol Environmental Ser~ic CorPoration '-93 TOTRL P. 01 B8-22-1997 BS:BBPM HI ONSULTING i i Bristol Environmental Service w~ I~w! da~a, SBT 344 1585 P.OZ As Mr. ]k¢lagd noted, the acluife System iii ltlis area is con'~tex. ~ coop~~' Of the ;ommu-i~ ]is impo~ant in ode m obtaiu dam on The possible impa,~ cf obea i View Subdivision on surmundiag we] ow~crs. TI~ appl!r-~s~v, however, caldor pres~ a~ a good,-~,h effort a pr~se~ ~h~ ~ wire a~ ~ m, ob aia The ~eeded daml We believe rt~t tl~ t ~t program is a reasonable approa~ to addressh!& ~ i~ need s~,~'~'~.ly adjud/ca/e tiffs wa~et ~t a~l/catio=. We w~tld appr~A~m you~ Mformat/O~ ~ ¢cm~n~ on wh ~ed~. you believe the propose/prog~n ts sai~able for udicat/oa of ttfis Pl~e let m j~rmes ~. j met, C~WT Paul My~ Lct~z m G. P~k~u:b Augm'~ 22, 1997 know ffl can providel fucC~r i~ffortnation. 08-22-19~ 12: 59WM Corporation Page 2 TOTFIL P.B3 P.~ TOTAL P.O1 August 19, 1997 Mrs. V'aq~da Walker S~retary Cht~fak Community Counc/l P. O. Box 671350 Chugiak, Ak. 99567 Re: Corrections to June 19th Mccting. Dear Mrs. Walker: I do not believe the corrections I made should be rescinded. 1. You presented as fact that it rained 6~, this was stagd by one individual, without any verification. You also stated that the recharging acquifers was not addressed in the results. However you did not include any mspongs that were made. My correction was a sununary of thc question raised and the r~sponse from Mr. Dee High, from Paul Myers and myself which included information wc had previously been told by the hydrologist. If you include statements without tho responses then your minutes are incomplete and could be considered biased. It was brought to the attention of all who attended the meeting that the hydrologist had taken into consideration the rainfall when testing. I do not foci that this correction should be rescinded. If it is rescinded then everything stated should be rescinded'and just the actual transcribed questions & answers from the audio tape should b~ entered into the minutes. 2. Nowhere in Mr. Dee Highs' statement did he state more data is needed for proper conelusion~ to be drawn. Where did you get this from'?. He stated we were open to more data and that we were asking the community for more information, also, that you look at it (referring to reviewing the t~orts) as a eommunfly and bo prepared to come back and talk to us next month. Both your summary and mine should be rescinded and the actual txanscn~at statement from the audio tape should be ent~od.. I feel the minutes should reflect both sides of any discussion. cc: Platting Board HI ONSULTING 987 E~ 1~8] P.O1 RECEIVED AUG 2 5i1997 Municipality of ~ncnorage Dept. Health & Hurna~l~i~Yi~i VAX vmno taN U TO: DHHSDATE:August 22, 11997 FAX NO.: 3~43-~7~'~, W.O. NO.: 96298~ A~ENTION: Jim Cross NO. OF PAGES~ 2~ SUBJEC~:jDenal[ ~iew (In=furling ~bis oov.~ s~*[) I FOR YOUR INFORMATION: Or,al ~a: ~ ~ Mailed ~ Ce~ for Pinup ~ Faed MESSAGe: Jim, ~ I felt the meeting on Wednesday was very productive, Everyone came and hope~lly end,he "hearsay" approach that has been driving the Communities omo{ion on this project. Jim Munte~ met ~th DNR (Prokosch & Ireland on Wednesday a~emodn). They worked Ou[ [he program as noted in the attached letter. Jim review T~is program w~th ADEC (Klewano) today. Kevln also has our soil mpo~ a~d ~ther mformat~o~ that he rewewmg. I believe that both Departments will provide you (on Monday) with lepers supporting this program. Jim Munte~ woutdqike to meet with you first thing Monday to review ~he program a~d get shy comments. Fm forw~rginfl thi~ I~r to D~n Younfl and hopo to meot with him oniM nda~. ~ has ~n tied d~ I assum~ tr~infl Io ~et tho anoedotal reformation ~, Please call }with a ~ime that is convenient for you. [ Thanks : Dee ~ SENT BY: ~ee. . High;~ : DEl CONSULTING ENGINEERS soo E. DI~OND ~VD. SUrE 3-646 ANCHORAGE, AK ~9~1S PH= (907) ~4-13~ FAX: {~TJ DHI CONSULTING ENGINEERS Civil · Surveying · Planning August 19, 1997 W.O.: 96298 Ms. Sheila Ann Selkregg, Director Community Planning and Development P.O. Box 196650 Anchorage, AK 99519-6650 RE: Denali View Subdivision/ Hydrology Dear Ms. Selkregg, At the August 14th Community Planning meeting, a statement was made that "anecdotal information" was relevant in dealing with this issue. By definition, anecdotal means information obtained by "hearsay" rather than by "systematic evaluation". Anctedotal information can help bring attention to a possible problem, however, it cannot be used to determine it in fact there is a problem or the exact nature of a problem. The willingness of the Municipality to accept hearsay information over the "real data" is not only damaging to my client, but is jeopardizing the entire subdivision process. By working with the appropriate Departments of the Municipality, the Myers (owners) have clearly demonstrated, through "systematic evaluation", that the problem is not the lack of water, water quality or the effect of one well on another. Even the homeowners report shows that the lack of water is not as wide spread as the "hearsay" information claims. On June 19 and July 17, Mr. Cross requested the home owners to provided flow and nitrate tests of their well conducted by professional engineers. Their hydrologist directed them not to provide the data. Instead, he provided evaluations and conclusions drawn primarily from hearsay information. Th~ homeowners have not provided any hard facts to support their position. Real test data is needed and the home owner should be required to provided this information if their claims are to be substantiated. Mr. Cross's requests for the homeowners to conduct these tests cannot be ignored or manipulated. (95 Dimond Center Tower, 5th Floor ' 800 E. Dimond Blvd., Suite 3-545 · Anchorage, Alaska 99515 (907) 344-1385 ° Fax 344-1383 Unless there is hard factual data provided by the homeowners to support their position, the Municipality needs stand behind their subdivision process, their rational system of problem evaluation established by each Department and support this project. Very truly yours, cc: Gall High, DHI Myers, Owners (fax) Jim Munter, BSE (fax) Jim Cross, DHHS (fax) Sharon Minsch, Community Council Margarett O'Brien, CP & D (fax) Jerry Weaver, CP & D (fax) Kevin Klewano, ADEC (fax) Gary Prokosch (fax) 298ds14, ltr (fax) 08-06-1997 04:04PM D HI ONSULTING 90? ~44 1~8~ P.02 FILE COPY i FAX MEMORANDUM TO: Camm'unity Plennin, g & Development DATE:August 6, 1 ~)97 FAX NO.: W.O. NO.: 96298, ATTENTIO ~: Marg~aret O'Brien NO. OF 'PAGES: 1 SUBJECT~ )enali View Subd. ~,~u~.o ~h~ co~,~ FOR YOUR INFORMATION: Original Oisposi~lolt: n Mailed n Ceil for Pickup ~ Filed I'l For !Your use 0 Far Rev;ew & Comment [] As Requested [] For Approval; MESSAG,E: Due to the illow number (5) of 8oard members that are going to be praeen~ at tomght me~tLng, the MumClpaht¥ has aske us to consider postponing ou~ case. I understa~n~, that Such a postponement will not jeopardize either our case!or position on, next mbnthS agenda. With that dndersta~ding, the Developer is requesting that S10 be postponed Ko the dext meeting. Thanks, i Dae Hi§h ! SENT BY: I~,ee High; ] DHI CONSULTING ENGINEERS (83 TOTAL ~.0~- 08-11-;t9~? 03=10PP1 D H! 0NSULT~NG ':90? 344 2~8~ P.01 DHI CONSULTING ENGINEERS Civil · Surveying ° Planniflg Augu'st 11, 1997 W.O.: 96298 Ms. Sheila Ann Selkregg, Director Community Planning and' Development P.O. Box 196650 Anchorage, AK 99519-6650 RE: Denali View Subdivision (S-lO054) Dear Ms. Selkregg, This project has been delayed, again, at the request of the Municipality.,The issues surrounding this development are not only important to the Property Owners, Arlene and Paul Myers, they also have far reaching effects on the further development! within the MunicipaliW. We are scheduled to meet at 1:30, August 14th. The issues will be oudined an~l~ discussed in depth so wecan try to reach a consensus on what is needed for the Department to recommend approval of this subdivision. I understand that you have scheduled thirty minutes for this meeting. This is ~ot enough time to adequately address the issues, it is important that you be present. We r~eed to hear exactly what the concerns are and why, It is also important that your hear hO, w we have addressed the issues to date. We are available any time on August 14th. I recommend at least 2 hours for the meeting. ! would appreciate your help in this matter. cc: Myers, Owners Munter, BSE Cross, DHt~S Roes, DPW Garten, Traffic /~'~.~/,~ r uly yours, Dee High, P:E. ~' Principal ~ ;94 Dir~cnd Center Tower, 5th Floor · $00 E. Dimond Blvd., ~uite 3-545 ' Anchorage, Alaska 99515 (90?) 344-1385 · Fax 344-1383 007 $880114 Polo ~.,, ~arr~' ~cFarland ~0~ FILE COPY 08-0~-1997 05:54PM D HI ONSULTING 90? 344 1385 P.O1 DHI i C N.S U L TING .ENGINEERS veying Plannihg FILE COPY AugUstS, 1997 W.O.: 96298 Ms. Margaret C~Bden Community Plal~ning & Development Municipality of ~,nchorage P.O_ Box 196650 Ancflorage, AK i 99519-6650 RE: DenaJi Vibw SubdivisiOn (S-10054) Dear Ms. O'Bri~n, tn reviewing th! Depa~. entS Recomm~endations for approval of the Denali View please note th~!:we are~ln cer~currenceiwith all the reCOmmendations ~xcept item concurrence of Mr. TediGarten Traffic Engineering, we request item 2a be chun, "Providing impripvemen~s for tl~e on property portion of Kullberg Drive ~o a 24 fOo standard." ~ Thornton and Sbllert Drives are constructed to these standards. Please give rneI a call ii, you have any questions. Peul Myer ('"~&'ry. truly yours, DEl ~/~. suiting Engi~!eer$,,,~ PosbltTM b~nd fax transmittaJ memo 7671 ~ubdivJsion, ~a. W/th the ed to read: : rural gravel Dimon& Center ToWer, 5th Floor * 800 E. Dimond Blvd., Suite 3-545 ° Anc~orage, A~aska 99515 (907) 344-1~8~ * Fax 344-1383 q TOTAL P.01 ,, flur~,, acFarland ~m)~ 0~ o7 9? Till' 23:04 FAX ~0~ 6~80114 SERVING FIRE LAKE, CHUGtAK, pETERS CREEK, MIRROR LAKE, THUNDERBIRD HEIGHTS AND EKLUTNA CHUGIAI4 COMMUNITY COUNCIL 18530 OLD GLENN HIGHWAY ~- ...... ~ ~ ..... ' P,O, BOX~0 CHUGIAK, A~S~ 99567 AUG ~ ~ 1997 MEE'i'INO MINUTF-% FROM JUI.Y ~.?, 19q? FILE COPY Call to order: Introductions, Announcements & Correspondence: r>~..~¢x-,d ~ Skylm~ · J::.ead¢ltd $'~ J~ickx 3; Suc l'a~m - Yield 3(d W No,heraLds B.v~'. STE: Approw{ of June 1997 Meeting Minutes: ~9 23:05 i",L~ 90? 6880114 VOTE; Fer FILE COPY Old Business; ! 2¢n~..l~ \'~elv Su'~dl,'tsion od:..itiollal di~c.n,~s',~-,n regard:ngwatcr qunl/ty & q;antity: --State ~equirc'ncnts ent~ l~ok for ~o~,f of adeq~aC w~te? supl,ly --It':he ~ommuniB' t~,:l~ ;he ~a~ards 1o ~uhdir2de primped' arc ~:~ l~,x figh: Io change ~:!1~ ti:tit wdl~ deeper MO'ftO> By Mr. Plfilip Roper ( ".'C Ull?C~e thc der~loFmem of D~ali Xhcw Sub.~ivisitm u;~ on Xh Xq eis asked ff ~XX%%-' ' wha thc'. rcal!~ w. ? ow many hn('e had :m cn~n::er well w..te~? X OTE: For: 31. Opposed: g,.[hs~ined: Y MOTION Y;e,~i X']e'~ Su':dt,'~aio., Sccom~,y ncc~s vi~ ~';k3 t. Kulbe~g MO'lie.n; By BohWllkhr~oa: L;'qtcnd th¢Inccti~$ by [3 nth'~;les 2ndb3'Tcr0'DaY. Vo~c: For. Dm'e !ad by Paul 5f)e~ MOTION B) Gardner C.hh Ehteed 'he a,e~i~ B' 1 > minutes. 2nd b> B~5 Wilkinson. %X)tc ~or - ~ .-.~ ' t'nm:im;m~ MOIIO5 PASSEl) Denali View Subdivision Case S- 10054 9/3/97 Page 6 mapping the bedrock and correlate to known areas of high nitrates; stress pump both wells for 72 hours; monitor more wells above and below the test wells with all reasonable efforts being made to monitor wells on lots abutting the petition site particularly those which have reported experiencing water shortage problems during the initial test pumping, and investigate the possibility of using shared wells in the proposed subdivision. mro C:\MSOFFiCE\WI N WOR D\WORK FILE\PLATTING\97P LA'~10054R3.DOC 37 AUGUST 14, TO: FROM: 1997 COMMU~I1TY PLAN ~*NEqG & DEVELOPMENU' PAUL MYERS SKYLINE VIEW CORP. DENALI VIEW SUBDMSION NO. 1 No. 2 The Chugiak Community Council board members have not taken an impartial stance on this all along making it impossible for promoting a fair and impartial hearing on this plat. They have broken their bylaws continuously. They have created undue political pressures. This subdivision is for 11 lots on 37 1/2 acres, average size of 3.3 acres. The subdivisions on alt sides are one acre lots. This subdivision has low impact on roads and water. Scimitar Subdivision is the same as Skyline area in Eagle River, Hillside/O'Mallcy area, and the same as most other area in the Municipality of Anchorage. You drill for water and usually you will hit sufficient water. In Denali View Subdivision we have done hydrology work that proves we have a better than average chance of good water. No. 3 No. 4 No. 5. People in Scimitar have voted down AWWU water twice. We have voluntarily taken care of the trail issue from Seika to Kullbcrg. We meet all of your zoning & platting requirements, ffyou fecl otherwise please fed free to condem this property for that is what you will be do'rog. Wc appreciate your consideration of this matter. ,: S8 The circle drawn around Denali View demonstrates a 1000 foot radius from the perimeter of Denali View to provide an example of the distances. '2O Bristol Environmental Services Corporation A &tbsidiaty of Bristol Bay Native Corporatio. This report was prepared in part based on information provided or prepared by others and, although we believe these sources to be generally reliable, we are not responsible for the accuracy or completeness of that information. Sincerely, Bristol Environmental Services Corporation James A. Mai~'~, CGWP Principal Hydrogeologist Reference Ray, C., and Schock, S. C., 1996, Comparability of large-scale studies of agricultural chemical contamination of rural private wells: Ground Water Monitoring and Remediation, Volume 16, No. 2, pp 92-102. Denali Viexv Nitrates Analysis June 18. t997 Prqject No 8008YM ZZZZZZZZZ ZZ ZZZ ZZZ~ZZZZZZZZ ZZZZZZZZ ~ZZZZZZ ZZZZ ~-~~~~~a~.-~a~~ [q/15tu] uo!}eJlueouoD Figure 4. Denali View Subdivision Neighborhood Study Area Individual Lot Nitrate Concentration Graphs Scimilar #1: Lot 3 Block 3 Scimitar No. 1: Lot 2, Block 2 Dec-91 Apr-g2 Jul-92 Oc~-92 Jan-g3 May-93 Dele Scimilar No. 1: Lot 10, Block 2 Scimitar No. 2: Lot 13, Block Dec-91 Apr-92 Jul-g2 Oc1-92 Jamg3 May.93 Date Peters Gate: Lot 5, Block Jan-93 Aug,g3 Ma¢-94 Sap-94 Apr*95 Oct-95 May-96' Dec-g6 Scimitar No. 1: Lot 6, Block 1 Jun-gl Jul-g I Sap-91 Nov-9t Dec-gt Feb-92 Apr-9~ Date Scimitar No. 1: Lot 10, Block 3 Scimitar No. 2: Lot 14, Block 3 Mar-g2 Mar-g2 Mar-92 Mar-g2 Mar-g2 Mar-92 Apr-g2 Apr-92 Apr-92 Page 2 of 3 Bristol Environmental Services Project No. 8008YM-00 Figure 4. Denali View Subdivision Neighborhood Study Area Individual Lot Nitrate Concentration Graphs Scimitar ~1o. 1: Lot 5. Block I Scimitar No. 1: Lot 7. Block 3 Aug-87 Dec-88 May-90 Sop-91 Date Jan-93 Jun-94 Oc1-95 Scimitar NO. 1: Lot 8, Block 3 Dec-gl Apr-02 Jut-92 Oct-92 Jan-93 May-g3 Aug-g3 Date Scimitar No. 2: Lot 27, Block 2 Scimitar No. 3: Lot 2, Block 2 Dec~$ May-90 Sep.91 Jan-g3 Jun-g4 Oct-95 Date Dec-91 Apr-g2 JuP92 Oct-92 Jan-g3 May-g3 Dale Scimitar No. 1: Lot 19, Block 2 ,. Scimitar No. 3: Lot 2, Block Scimitar No. 3: Lot 4, Block Aug-87 May-gO Jul-g8 Apr4)1 Page 1 of 3 Bristol Environmental Services Project No. 8008YM-00 Intentionally left blank Figure 4. Denali View Subdivision Neighborhood Study Area Individual Lot Nitrate Concentration Graphs Scimitar No, 2: Lot 19, Block 3 Jul-91 Sap-91 Nov-9~ Dec-gl Feb-g2 Apr-g2 May-g2 Scimitar No. 3: Lot 1, Block 1 Aug~7 De¢-88 May-90 $ep-91 Scimitar No. 2: Lot 26, Block 2 I Scimitar No. 3: Lot 13, Block Jan-93 Jun-g4 Jun-gl Dec-gl Jun~91 Jol~g/ Sap-91 Nov-91 Dec-91 Feb-92 Apr-92 Dale Scimitar No. 3: Lot 2, Block I Scimitar No, 3: Lot 10A, Block 1 Aug.87 Dec.88 May-go Sep-91 Jan-93 Jun-94 Dale Page 3 of 3 Bristol Environmenlal Services Project No. 8008YM-00 6/18/97 · Page 2 AIR PHOTOS and WELL LOGS Augusl 1, 1997 Aerial photographs from i964 show the area in the first stages of development, with only a few roads and houses. The photographs show that the proposed subdivision appears to be at the edge of a glacial meltwater channel. The main meltwater channel £fll is comprised of smaller erosional channels. The smaller channels resulted in the formation of erosional terraces. The glacial meltwater channel is parallel to the major fracture system in the area. Ground water recharge to this channel is most likely from the hi/lside farther to the west. Recharge to the bedrock is most likely at the sediment/rock interface at the base of the meltwater channel. The proposed subdivision is located on the northwest side of the second terrace (FIGURE 1). Wells completed in the shallow aquifer most likely get water at the sediment/rock interface. Water pumped by wells in the rock may enter the fractures from shallow sources such as the meltwater channel. The water may also be recharged from more distal sources and have higher head. This second group of wells may have flowing water at the surface. Well logs confirm that a significant layer of sand and gravel overlies the Bedrock in most places within and surrounding the proposed subdivision. Instances of wells pumping water from fractures connected to shallow and deep sources are both encountered. A comparison of the ground surface elevation with the bedrock elevation indicates a general increase in sediment thickness with a decrease in elevation (FIGURES 2-5). N£1'RATE DATA A visual inspection of the nitrate level data provided in a I997 Bristol Environmental Services Corporation report show increasing or stable trends in 17 of 22 wells for which multiple data are available. This suggests that nitrates are a potential future concern for nearly 80% of the area well owners. TERRASAT INC. became aware of several dye tests performed on septic systems in the Scimitar Subdivision by the DHHS. Information describing the tests was not located during research efforts. However, we did contact a property owner whose drinking water well was affected by dye placed in his septic system. He informed us that a new septic system was installed in order to fix the problem, but quarterly monitoring of the well has confirmed that nitrate levels have not significantly decreased since the installation. This may indicate that there is a different source of the nitrates, the new septic system is not functioning as designed, or the nitrates stay in the ground water system for a long time. Given that there is still a significant nitrate problem, consideration must be taken to evaluate the potential reasons for the continued problem and the potential impacts of additional septic systems in the area. Nitrate levels reported in the June 18 nitrate report were compared to levels in Mid- western United States aquifers. The conclusion drawn was that the average nitrate levels were much higher in these Mid-west states than those surrounding the proposed subdivision. This is probably not a fair comparison as the nitrates in those aquifers are largely from impacts due to agricultural fertilizer as opposed to septic system wastes. '2O August 1, 1997 Municipality of Anchorage Platting Commission Atm. Margaret O'Brien RE: WATER RESOURCES SURROUNDING THE PROPOSED DENALI VIEW SUBDMSION, PETERS CREEK, ALASKA (S-10054 Additional Packet) Dear: Ms. O'Brien Members of the Chugiak Community Council retained TERRASAT INC. on July 17, 1997 to evaluate existing data pertinent to the water resources for the area in and around the proposed Denali View Subdivision. The July 17 presentation of reports to the community, dated June 4 and June 18, heightened concern among council members and citizens that the proposed subdivision may impact existing water resources. These impacts range from reducing already limited water supplies to the potential for increasing the nitrate contamination problems being experienced by the existing homeowners of this TERRASAT INC. has evaluated the following data to form an opinion of the local geological and hydrogeological settings, and how they correspond to public concerns: · Stereo aerial photographs, · Well logs from three adjacent subdivisions, * Nitrate tests and a recent Bristol Environmental Services Corporation study on the local nitrates, · A 1997 Bristol Environmental Services Corporation report on a pump test conducted within the subdivision, · Anecdotal data from citizens living in the neighborhoods surrounding the proposed Denali View Subdivision. · Page 4 Augu~ 1, 1997 TERRASAT INC. believes that the existence of elevated levels of nitrates derived from septic effluent in this subdivision may be a significant threat to public health. We suggest a comprehensive study to determ/ne historical nitrate levels and present conditions. The different aquifers for which nitrates are present should be identified first so that the data can be evaluated properly. Smt/stical evaluation of the nitrate occurrence should be considered with respect to the depth to bedrock. An opinion can then be formulated as to the risk associated with nitrate occurrence. We believe that these steps are very important in forming an opinion as to the potential health risks that nitrates can pose. TERRASAT INC. believes that both the pump test and nitrate studies should be evaluated before an appropriate decision can be made regarding approval of the proposed Denali View Subdivision. Sincerely, Bill Lawrence Hydrogeologist · Page 3 August 1, 1997 Septic system waste is a potential threat to human health as it carries harmful bacteria and viruses in addition to the nitrates. WATER RESOLFRECES TERRASAT INC. reviewed the Bristol Environmental Services Corporation report on water resources for the proposed Denali View subdivision. We have determined that the May 30 pump test was insufficient to stress the adjacent aquifer. Thus, we are unable to determine from the pump test data if there is a hydraulic connection between the gravel/sand (upper) aquifer and the bedrock (lower) aquifer. We believe that the sand/gravel aquifer upped by the test well is capable of sustaining a long-term pumping rate of up to several gallons per minute. The unconsolidated aquifer exploited by the test well may be sufficient to provide water to several households. We have found no evidence to support a conclusion that new wells in the bedrock aquifer within the proposed subdivision are capable of producing adequate water. We are concerned that the new bedrock wells may become contaminated with nitrates from existing wel/s and existing septic systems. TERRASAT INC. has reviewed anecdotal data from over 30 residents of Scimitar, Peters Gate, and Chugach Park Subdivisions. Nearly all of these residents provided written documentation of decreasing well yields and increasing nitrate levels over the past several years. This suggests that the bedrock aquifer used by about 80% of the current residents in these three subdivisions does not produce the quantity or quality of water current needed by the community. We conclude from both physical and anecdotal data, that there is currently a water shortage on this part of the hillside. This shortage would only get worse if more demands are placed on the existing bedrock aquifer. RECOMMENDATIONS TERRASAT INC. believes that more work should be done to help resolve the issues of decreasing long-term water production and increasing nitrate levels in the water supply. We recommend conducting a new pump test on the upper unconsolidated aquifer. This test should be designed to assess the extent to which the upper and lower aquifers are hydraulically connected. An adequate test would most likely take 72 hours of pumping at a rate (greater than the 5.5 GPM pumped during the May 30 pump test) that would produce at least 70% of the aquifer's available drawdown. Nearby bedrock wells should be monitored to determine if there is a hydraulic connection between the aquifers. We also recommend conducting a pump test on the bedrock aquifer within the new subdivision. Pumping during this test should also cause drawdown w/thin the bedrock aquifer of at least 70%. This test would verify the results from the unconsolidated aquifer pump test. 24 hours should be allowed to adequately stress the bedrock aquifer. Wells in the both aquifers within 500 feet of the pumping well should be monitored. Z 0 u.~ 0 Z 0 z 0 Z Z 0 0 0 Intentionally left blank 8/6/97 Public Hearing Additional Information CASE S- 10054 DENALI VIEW SUBDMSION Additional information for the 8/6/97 Platting Board Public Hearing received after the printing of the packet Phone: 688-1236 SKYLINE VIEW CORPORATION P. O. BOX 670351 CHUGIAK, AK. 99567 FILE C6PY Fax: 688~1238 June 13, 1997 Mr. Jen3'Weaver Municipatib'ofAnchorage Community Planning&Development P. O. Box 196650 Anchorage, Ak. 99519-6650 Re: Denali View Subdivision S- 1 O054 Dear Mr. Weaver: In reading the agenda of the Chugiak Community Council we find that you had a meeting w/th Sharon Minsch regarding Denali View SubdMsion. We would like to know what xvas discussed and if Sharon was meeting you as President ofthe Community Council or as an individual. We request any pertinent information regarding this subdMsion plat. We also request copies on a continuing basis of any new information, discussions, phone messages or e-mail that you or any of your staff may have regarding Denali View Subdivision Where did the Platting Board get the misconception that this Subdivision had not been before the Chugiak Community Council? Did this come from Staff? Why didn't Staffmake it clear to the Platting Board that Chug/ak Community Council had discussed this Subdivision and their recommendation was in the packet? Sincerely, Paul Myers ~ President l cc: Margaret O'Brian Phone: 6884236 SKYLINE VIEW CORPORATION P. O. BOX 670351 CHUGIAK, AK. 99567 FILE COPY Fax: 688-1238 June 12,1997 Ms. Margaret O'Brian Municipality of Anchorage Community Planning & Development P. O. Box 196650 Anchorage, Ak. 99519-6650 Re: Denali View Subdivision S-10054 Dear Ms. O'Brian Thursday June 5th I came to your office to pick up a copy of the file. You stated you thought I only wanted some items not the whole file. My request had been for the whole file. You advised that it was too big for your department to handle and would have to go up to printing. I, also, asked for a copy of the resolution the Platting Board members made and voted on at the June 4th meeting. You advised this was not a resolution, but a motion and that a copy of the minutes would not be available for two weeks. I advised that I would like a copy as soon as it is available. On Friday June 6th. I returned and asked for some specific items that we could review while waiting for the complete file, You stated you were preparing the file for the printers, but did make the copies I requested. I picked up copies of the above referenced file on June llth. We request copies of any pertinent information, meetings, discussions, phone calls or e-mail regarding this subdivision on a continuing basis from June 6th, as this is the the date you sent the file up for copying. Sincerely, ? Arleen Myers~ ANDERSONENGINEERING May 6, 1997 MM & M Contracting, Inc. P.O. Box 670495 Chugiak, AK 99567 Attention: Paul and Arlene Myers Ft G iVI D 1997 Subject: Denali View Subdivision (Case S-10054) Onsite Wells and Septic Systems Dear Paul and Arlene: At your request I reviewed reports prepared by Bristol Environmental Services Corporation which studied the nitrates in the well water on subdivisions surrounding Denali View Subdivision. I also reviewed their report concerning the aquifer test results on two wells recently drilled on lots proposed for the subdivision. In addition, reports and documentation prepared by Dill Consulting Engineers regarding soils on the proposed subdivision and drainage characteristics were also evaluated. The purpose of the review was to determine whether wells and septic systems could be successfully placed on the individual lots without impact to surrounding subdivisions. I have been involved in the development of subdivisions throughout the Anchorage area for the past 17 years. During this time I have also analyzed existing as well as designed and constructed new septic systems and wells for subdivisions as well as individual lots. Many of these systems were in areas similar to the proposed Denali View Subdivision. The documentation prepared to justify the placement of standard septic systems and wells on the lots proposed for Denali View Subdivision is very thorough and presents a strong case. Nitrate levels found on lots surrounding the new subdivision are not significantly out of line with those found in other areas of Anchorage. In addition, the average lot size proposed for the subdivision is much larger than lots where extreme nitrate problems ate currently found. The addition of I 1 new septic systems should have little impact on the nitrate levels found in surrounding wells. Lots in the area with elevated nitrate levels are scattered and in most cases surrounded by lots without elevated rates. The problem would therefore appear to be isolated to the lot with the elevated rate and may be caused by circumstances unique to the lot. In addition, there is no indication the nitrate concentrations are increasing in the area. It is difficult therefore to assume the nitrate problem is related to the concentration of septic systems in the area. The relatively large lot size will aid in the treatment of septic effluent. Soil conditions found on the proposed lots are ideal with pemolation rates ranging from less than a minute per inch Phone: 688-1236 SKYLINE VIEW CORPORATION P. O. BOX 670351 CHUGIAK, AK. 99567 FILE Fax: 688-1238 June 13, 1997 Mr. Jerry Weaver Municipality. of Anchorage Community Planning & Development P. O. Box 196650 Anchorage, Ak. 99519-6650 Re: Denali View Subdivision - 2nd Meeting with Chugiak Communib' Council S-10054 Dear Mr. Weaver: We were included on the agenda of the Chugiak Communil3' Council for their meeting on June 19. 1997. Mr. Dee Hi presented the hydrology report and the nitrate report, tie went over the reports quite thoroughly. Mr. Jim Cross from Department of Health and Human Services was, also, their to answer any questions. At the end of the discussion it was decided that Sharon Minsch would have the Federation of Commuity Councils make up numerous copies of the reports for any members who were interested and would have them available at the Eagle River Library or her office on Tuesday morning, June 24th. It was decided to continue this discussion at the next Community Council Meeting scheduled for July 17th. At this time Mr. Dee Hi, Mr. Cross and Mr. Munter would return and the members x;411 have had ample time to review the reports and clarify any futher questions for discussion. Please send this letter to the Platting Board. Sincerely, · resideYn?rsJ cc: Margaret O'Brian Municipality of Anchorage P. O. Box 196650 Anchorage, Alaska 99519-6650 (907) 343-4215 S-100S4 ' ,'~ NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING -- WEDNESDAY AUGUST 6, 1997 The Municipality of Anchorage Platting Authority will consider the following: CASE: S-10054 DENALI VIEW SUBDIVISION PETITIONER: Skyline View Corp. REQUEST: TO subdivide 1 tract into 11 lots. TOTAL AR~A: 37.47 acres LOCATION: West of Sullins Drive and south of Seka Drive. SITE ADDRESS: NO property address available CLTRR~NT LEGAls: Scimitar Subdivision, Unit NO.3, Tract 1, located within the SE 1/4 Section 10, T15N, R1W, S.M., A/( CBUGIAK COMMUNITY COUNCIL FIRST CLASS MAIL of The Platting Board will hold a public hearing on the above matter at 7:30 p.m. Wednesday August 6, 1997, in the Assembly Hall of the Z.J. Loussac Library, 3600 Denali Street, Anchorage, Alaska. The Subdivision Ordinance requires that you be sent notice because your property is within the vicinity of the petition area. This will be the only public hearing before the Board and you are invited to appear. If you would like to comment on the petition this form may be used for your convenience. Mailing Address: Municipality of Anchorage, Community Planning and Development, P.O. Box 196650, Anchorage, Alaska 99519-6650. For more information please call 343-4267. Address: Legal Descript ~on: Denali View Subdivision July 31, 1997 Page Two to 4 minutes per inch. In areas with the faster pemolation rates a sand ~flter will be constructed beneath the absorption areas to provide additional treatment to septic effluent before it absorbs in to the surrounding earth formations. If the septic systems are constructed to existing Mumcipal standards the impact to nitrate levels on surrounding lots should be minimal. Two wells were drilled on the subdivision to determine whether satisfactory amounts of water can be expected for each lot. The report prepared by Bristol Environmental Services discusses the location of the wells and the results from the drilling and flow testing. The results of their testing indicate that the aquifer providing water to the majority of the subdivision can be expected to deliver a satisfactory amount of water to each lot for an indefinite period of time. Some of the wells, however, may tap a deep bedrock aquifer and may impact some wells in the area. The report further indicates this impact should not be extreme. In conclusion, a substantial effort has been made to test and document the impact of proposed septic systems on the nitrate levels of surrounding wells. The conclusions roached appear justified in that the addition of 11 new systems constructed to existing standards will have 1Lmited impact on the quality of water in the area. Further, sufficient quantifies of water are available for the planned development of the subdivision. Bedrock wells may contribute to existing difficulties experienced by some well owners in the area, but not to a great extent. Based on the information available I can see no reason why the subdivision should not be allowed to proceed. Please be advised that my review is based solely on the mater/als presented to me. I was not actively involved in any of the testing or study of conditions rotated to the subdivision. Sincerely, Michael E. Anderson, P.E. R ap idFax This Fax ~,'as sent using FAXcititate The Premier Fax Software for the Apple Macintosh To: Denali View Sub Margaret O'Brien, - Community Planning and Developm From: Emily M. Davies, Your Company Name Fax Phone Number: (907) 688-5590 Date: Mort, Aug 27, 1956 · 9:56 PM Transmitting (1) pages, including cover sheet. If there is difficulty with this transmission, please call: (907)688-5590 Note: Dear Ms. O'Brien: Please make sure copies or this letter are delivered to the platting board in time for their review before teh August 6 meeting. Thank you very much, Tony DeGange To the Platting Board: August 1, 1997 I am writing on behalf of the Peter's Gate Subdivision Homeowners Association with regard to the proposed Denali View Subdivision. Let us assure you that we d not oppose the responsible development of the property in question; we do however, object to development in which one individual profits while surrounding neighborhoods pay the real costs of the development in terms of infra,red hiilth ~lf~n/and ¢in~nri~l hiT~rdi Tha rnnrarn~ aYnra~ad hariin '¸30 Municipality of Anchorage p. O. Box 196650 Anchorage, Alaska ~9519-6650 (907) 343-4215 S-10054 NOTICE OF PUBL'I HEARING - - WEDNESDAY AuGusT 6, 1997 The Municipality of Anchorage Platting Authority will consider the f011owing: CASE: S-10054 DE'NALI VIEW SUBDIVISION ~ ~'' PETITIONER: Skyline View Corp. :~ :~!~ ,~ ~- ~'~ REQUEST: TO suDoivi~e 1 tract into 11 lots. TOTAL AREA: 37.47 acres ~: ~ ~:. ' ~': LOC2%TION: Wes~ of Sullins Drive and' south' of Seka Drive. SITE ADDI{ESS: No property address available CUP,RENT LEGAL: Scimitar Subdivision, Unit NO23, Tract 1, located within the SE 1~4 Section 10, T15N, RIW, a.M., AK CHUGIA]( COM24LrNITY COUNCIL The Pl~tting Board will hold a public hearing on the above matter at 7:30 p.m. August 6, 1997, in the Assembly Ball of the Z J. Loussac Library, 3600 Denali Street, ~..~"~w Anchorage, Alaska .... : .,,.-. The Subdivision Ordinance requires that you be senu notice because your pr0~r~y is wit~.~, the vicinity of the petition area. This will ~ the only public hearing before the Boar~%'. and you are invited to appear. If you would like to co~ent on the petition this form may be used for your convenience. Mailing Address: Municipality of Anchorage, Co,unity Planning and Development, P.O. Box Alaska 99519-6650. For more information please call 343-4267- 196650, Anchorage, This pattern has repeated to this date. The maximum return we have had since 1988 is 20 gallons per 24 hour period. Usually the well produces 5 to 10 gallons per 24 hour period. We currently have water professionally hauled four times a month. In between these deliveries we haul 55 gallons in a tank in the back of our van. We take water from friends and family on good wells or on city water. We pay approximately $50.00 per month for professionally hauled water. in an attempt to keep our cost iow and our convemence as high as possible, we conserve our water. We flush the toilets only when necessary, not after each use, and try to keep it to two flushes a day. We save the water from baths, storing the water in 5 gallon buckets used to flush the toilets We take baths/showers every other day or go to a fr end house to shower· We do laundry at the laundro-' , mat, Although we have our own washing machine, one full load of laundry uses 40 gallons of water. Unfortunately, our professional water hauler has recuired a 500 gallon minimum delivery. Our current holding tank will accommodate 240 gallons. For a considerable amount of money we have been advised to increase our holding capacity to 500 gallons· This will cause a financial strain and a crunch. We will be forced to return to hauling water in the 55 gallon tank in our own car. FROM : MMM CONTRACTING PHONE NO. : 68812J8 July 31, 1997 Aug, 01 1997 10:42AM P2 PAG£ 2/3 FILE COPY lvL~&MCon~ng,~c. P.O. Bo×670495 Chugiak. A/(99567 Attention: Paul and Arlene Myers Denali View Subdivision (Cas~ $-10054) Onsite WelIs and Sep~c Sysle, ms De~r Paul and Arl~e; At your request I mvlewed repons pr~arexi by Bristol Environmental $,rvie~s Corporation which studied the nitrates in the well wat~ on subdivisions sturoundlng Deaaii View $obdivi~ion. I also reviewed their rapozt eoncenting th~ aquifer test results on two wolls recently drilled on lots proposed for the .~ubdiviaiora In addition, reports and documeiltation prepered by DHI Cousulfiag t/ngin~rs ~egax~ling soils on the proposed subdivision and drainage chara~stics were also evaluated. The plirpo~ of the review was to cletormi.e whether wells and septic systoma could be successfully placed on thc individual lots without impact to surrounding subdivisions. I have b~cn invoh, ed in the &velopmem of subdivisions tbrou~out the Anchorage ~ea for the past 17 yearn During this time I have also analyzed existing as well a~ designed and ¢onstmctexl new soptic systems and wells for subdivisions as w~ll as ~ndividual lots. Many of these Systems were tn areas sinfihr to thc proposed De, nail View Subdivision. ' TI~ documemation pz~pai~d to justi~ ~ pl~m~ of s~d ~flc $r~en~ ~d wells on lots ~ f~ D~ View S~Mi~sioa is v~ ~orough ~d p~s~ a s~g case. Nitre Icvcls fo~d on lots s~n~ ~ new su~s~n m~ not gg~fly ~t of ~ ~th ~o~ ~ound ~ o~er m of ~ch~e, ~ ~fion, ~e a~g¢ lot si~ p~p~ f~ su~vision is mob I~ ~ lo~ wh~e ¢~ ~h~c ~b]~ ~ ~fly found. ~¢ ad~fion of 11 new sepfio sys~ ~ld haw ~ ~aa on ~ ~ l~ls found in su~oon~ w~lls. Lots i~ the area with elevated nitrat~ I~vels am ~ait~d and ia most oas~s surrour~l~d by lots without ~levated rams. The Problem would th~fo:~ appear to be isolated to the lot with the ,levat~d rate a~d may b¢ caused by circumstances unique to tl~ lot. I~ addition, ~ is no iud/cation the uiuale concenUations ar~ iacr~sing ia th~ area. It is diffia~lt therofor~ to asSUUl¢ the~ nilrate Problem is rolat~d to th~ con~antrafion of septic syst~rm in thc area. The relatively large lot size will aid in the Ireama~nt of septic effluent, goll conditions found on the proposed lots are ideal with peroolation rates ranging from loss than a minut~ per inch EROM : MMM CONTRACTING PHONE NO. : 6881238 Aug. 01 1991 10:42AM P1 FILE COPY DATE: AUGUST 1, 1997 TO: MARGARET O'BRiAN FROM: ARLEEN MYERS RE: 8-10054 DENALI VIEW SUBDIVISION ENO~INEERS LETTER - FOR INCLUSION TO PLA'i-i'ING BOARD YESTERDAY I D~ 'ERED A I,EY]'ER FROM MR, MIK~ ANDF.,RSON, ANDERSON ENGINF..FAL~NG FOR INCLUSION TO 'I~IE PLATTING BOARD tiE HAS ADVISED ~ THAT THE DATE ON THE Iff~.TTER IS INCORRECT AND ]*]A~ SF. ND A NF.W LE'fi'l~ ~iTH TIlE COKRECT DATE. lie STARTED REVIEW IN MAY BUT CONCLUDED THE I.ETTE, R AS OF IUI.Y 31, 1997. FOI. L,OWING IS THE CORRECT! ,Y DATF.,D LETTER, FROM : MMH CONTRACTING PHONE NO. : 688$239 Aug, 01 1997 $0:44AM P4 DATE: AUGUST 1, 1997 TO: MARGARET O~RIAN FROM: A/~I.~-~N MYER5 RE: S-10054 DENALI VIEW SUBDMSION MR. WILLIAIVIS ATTENDANCE JUNE 19 C}NJOIAK COMMUN~'Y COUNCIL MEETING - FOR INCLUSION TO PLA'Fl'lNG BOARD FOLLOWING IS THE SIGN IN SHEET FOR Th'F. CHUOIAK COIvlMUNrr¥ COUNCIL WHICH SHOWS THAT MR. WILLIAMS DID ATTEND TIlE JUNE 19TH COM!kIIJNITY COIJNCIL MEETnqO WHEN BOTI{ ~ HYD_ ROL _OO_,Y NrI~IATE RF. PORT$ WERE PRESENTED BY SUBDIVIDERS ENGINEER, THERE WERE MANY MORE A1~ENDING THAT DID NOT SIGN IN. FROM : MMM CONTRACTING Dcn'~i/View Subdi¥i~ion July 31, 1997 Page T~,o PHONE NO. : 6881238 Aug. 01 1997 10:43AM P3 FILE COPY ~o 4 m/nute$ ~n~Ct¢ ~fo~ it ~nStm~ ~O wells w~e ~ o~ ~ soUl.sion ~ ~ whe~r ~to~ ~o~ of wa~ ~ ~ ~ fO~ ~ lot. ~e ~n p~p~ by B~stol Env~en~l ~ices discusses ~s~ts of subdivisio~ indefini~ may ~paet p:opo~ have ~ ~av~lable~ot~pl~u~dcv~lopmant of~e su~vision- B~d:~k wel~ ~y ~bu~ to ~s~g ~ m~en~ b}, ~ ~veU oxvn~s ~ th~ ~ but ao~ to a ~ ex.rtL ~d ~low~ to p~. p~ ~ ad~ th~ my ~ ~ b~ ~leiy on ~e m~ p~s~n~ ~ mo, I w~ not ~eveiy involv~ ~ ~)' of ~e testing ~ s~dy of ~a~6o~ ~1~ to ~u su~v~on. Sincerely, Michael E. Anderson, FROM : MMM CONTRACTING PHONE NO. : 6851~_:~8 Aug, 01 l~J~J? 10:45AM P6 FILE COPY ~oo~ FROM : MMM CONTRACTING PHONE NO. : 6881238 Aug. 01 1887 10:45AM P5 FILE gOP¥ FROM : MMF1 CONTRACTING PHONE NO. : 6881238 Au9. 01 1997 10:46Af4 P8 July 21, 1997 Dear Neighbor, Mm~y of your concerned neighbors are worried about the impact of the proposed Denali View subdivision on both the amount of water available and the quality of this water. Information that the Municipality of Anchorage needs to make a decision is factual data fl~dicating a water problem in the area and the strong possibility that 11 more homes in the area will negatively effect our water situation. The developer office subdivision, Paul Meyers, has presented a report indicating that the new subdivision will not have any impac~ on our water and nitrate levels, which many of us have coueems about. Vie have contracted with Terrasat, Inc. to provide an independent ground water investigation for tho surrounding area within IA mile of the proposed subdivision. Taey will evaluate well yields, evaluate nitrates, map flae geology and provide interpretation, evaluate pmnp test data, draft a map showing relative well yields and nitrate, of their findings, interpretations and results ~ will also include ~aneedota_l problems you experience, the time of year or water usage in your home or surrounding homes. An example wmfld be that your neighbors dug fl~eir Well deeper and suddenly you can do one load of wash mid your well is dry. Terrasat, Inc. would be interested that your well fl~at produced so many 8allous a minute when you bought your house now goes dry after you use 30 gallons to wash laundry. Or the difference you notice in your well now as compared to when you moved into your house. Terrasat, Inc. wants to include fids kind of information in their report since some of the data they will have to base their report, on is old. You can call 688-2123 or 688-5621 to have this data picked up. Or the anecdotal infonnation can be faxed to Terrasat at 344-1490. There is a time eranch. The report need to be dOne by July 30th, so the Municipality can rev/ew before the August 6~ Platting Board meeting. Your information would need to be In > save money members of the neighborhood am helping to galher I//~~ the data. What information could be gathered from the Mtmicipality has been ~athered. We are asking that you fill out this Information Release form to gather more information. Also, please take a few minutes to write dow~ water i~ '~'~ problems that you have experienced. It doesn't have to be fancy. But please FROM : MMM CONTRACTING PHONE NO. : 68812~8 Aug. 01 1997 10:46AM P? FILE COPY DATE: AUOUST 1, 1997 TO; MARGARET O~RIAN FROM: ARLEEN MYERS RE: S-10054 DENALI VIEW SUBDIVISION PROPOSED USE OF ANECDOLTAI., INFORMATION - FOR INCLUSION TO pLA~I 1 l~l~' BOARD FOLLOWING IS A LETTF. R FROM MI~. & MRS. WILLIAMS AND IvlR. & MRS. Ii. SON ~S~O ~jGlmORS OF T~m ~ROI~ISTS PL~ FOR ~PORT ~C}I ~ TO ~CL~E ~C~T~ ~~ON. ~TiIO~' pROPER S~ER~SION OF ~O~ERS ~ QU~IP;D WA~R ~ P~SO~Z TI~ ~O~TION IS 1~'~ ~ BY ~QU~,]F~IXPEOP~ ~O ~GHT ~WII'i'iNGLY BE 08/01/~7 10:45 ~07 g 3350 AD~ OFC F~S ES ~00! FILE COPY To: F~om: Subject: Margaret O'Bfien Tony DeGange, Tel. 786-3492 Letters Concerning P:oposed Denali View Subdivision Please make sure the athached letters are i~clud~d/n the packet that goes to the plattlng board before the August 6 meeting. T~an~c you. Call me at 756-3492 if you have questions. AUS- 1 1997 FROM : MMM CONTRACTING PHONE NO. : 6881238 Aug. 01 1997 10:47AM P9 COPY be as detailed as possible. Any information like tiffs that you can give would help reinforce that ibis area has water problems. We hope that you can help tls. There is no guarantee that this report will indicate there are significant water quality and quantity problems. However many of us believe this to be t~ae. This report is our only chance of making the Municipality seriously consider and evaluate our concerns and h?pefi.dly make the decision thai future development must not further compromise our quali~y of living. This report is being paid for by concerned homeowners - all of them your neighbors. The report will cost $7,000.00 and a member of the community has signed a contract to pay tiffs amount because he firmly believes thal we have water problems and that futtrre development while we are dependent on our mountain for our water should not happen. Based on the level of interest in this report and in his conversations with cormnunity homeowners he hopes that if homeowners that believe there is a water problem and cast afford $250.00, or whatever amount you feel you could afford, would contribute. It would be in our best h~tcrest. Checks can be made out to Terrasat, Inc.. Calling 688-2123 will also pick tip this commitment. Your concerned neighbors 08/01/97 10:46 '~'90 16 3350 AD~ OFC F~S ES petition had been signed by 62 residents "stating they did not want the access road developed also know as '$eika Drive Exten.~ion'." **** The issue in 1988 was apparently similar to that in 1980- that some residents of Scimitar did not want increased "non-local" traffic through their neighborhood. However Denali View, despite a different name, is part of the ofiginai Scimitar plat and hence the increased traffic should be deemed largely 'local' as long as primary access to the mountain continnes to be available by Chugach Park Drive (which is a much more direct route up thc mountain for most residents). In the event that Chugach Park becomes inaccessible (a not unlikely event), these roads would provide the only access for as many as 120 families living above Scimitar, including future Denali View residents. We sympathize with Scimitar residents about traffic concerns but are dismayed that they seem perfectly happy to divert increased traffic through other neighborhoods rather than provide access within their own subdivison for their own subdivision, regardless of the name change. Apparently this is legal but it does not constitute good community planning especially when the alternative road is substandard and often dangerous with exiting levels of traffic. It should be should be recognized for the NIMBY position it is. It should also be noted that in 1988, according to minutes of a Road Board meeting on July 25, 1988, only residents of the lower portion of thc project (Scimitar residents) were notified as to public hearings arid actions taken and hence many peOple potentially impacted by this decision were unaware of it. I therefore question the validity of such decisions. Road connections have t~een suggested from $olleret Drive to gulfing Drive and from Kullberg to Seika Drive. A road meeting municipal standards can not be made in either of these locations due to the steepness of the grade. Both Traffic Engineering and Department of Public Works. concur. ***" With all duc respect our current access roads (parts of Chugach Park Drive and Sullins Drive) don't meet municipal standards either (This is well documented by municipal and Road Board reports); in fact they are significantly worse than the proposed roads. I don't sec how on one hand the MOA can approve subdivisions on these mountain sides yet on thc other hand declare roads meeting municipal standards cannot be built. The development of Denali View Subdivision will increase traffic on substandard roads ~]003 COP 08/01/97 10:45 ~'907 · 3350 ADM OFC F~S ES ~002 FiLE COPY To the Platting Board: August l, 1997 I am writing on behalf of the Peter's Gate Subdivision Homeowners Association with regard to the proposed Denali View Subdivision. 1.et as assure you that we do not oppose the responsible development of the property in question; we do however, object to development in which one individllal profits while sulTounding neighborhoods pay the real costs of the development in terms of increased health, safety and financial hazaxds. The concerns expressed herein represent a unanimous vote determined by a legal quorum at a specially convened homeowners' meeting; this letter expresses our concerns about health and safety impacts the proposed project would have on road and pedestrian access to over 100 families living on Bear MountaLu. In a May 21 report Margaret O'Brien of the Department of Community Planning and Development outlined the history of the site and surrounding areas. On page 6 under ~Traffic circulation' the report states: "The issue of a secondary access has been raised over the last twenty years and has been raised again with this subdivision. The 1980 approval of Scimitar Subdivision, t13 tracted out the current petition site placed a condition on the plat which read: 'Placing a note on the plat states: When Tract 1 is Jkrther divided a road connection for Solleret Drive and Sullins Drive: Solleret Drive [presumably Seika?] ami Kullberg Dffve will be made.' **** Our comment here is that it was certainly the original intent of the MOA to build these roads as they cons;3.tuted good community planning. An appeal of this condition was granted by the c~sembly sitting as the Board of Adjustment. A reveiw of records found that public response was overwhelmingly against this road connection primarily because residents of Scimitar Subdivison did not want non-local traffic traveling through their neighborhoods. In 1988 a preliminary plat submitted by the Deparmtent of Public Works was approved to provide a 60 foot wide dedication for a road connection from Kullberg Dr~ve to Seika Drive. The final plat was never recorded and the road was never built. Chugiak Communit Council wrote in opposition to the road connection stating that a , i umc pahty o¥ Anchorage Department of Health and Human Serwces 825"L" Street 93 CERTIFIED M~.I L · 19 David J. & Loretta H. H~i! American Embassy Sox 315 FPO AE 09834 Subject: };otice of Violation, Lot 13, Blk 3, Scimitar Subd. #2 Dear Mr. & Mrs. Hell; This letter is to inform you that the on-site wastewater system serving the subject lot has been determined to be a source of contamination to the potable aquifer serving adjacent properties. As you are aware this department withheld approval of the wastewater system for two weeks pending the outcome of dye tracing. The dye finally appeared following e three week interval. At this time we have confirmed positive dye traces in two wells on Lots 3 and 8, Block 3, Scimitar in April I called your agent, Barbara Roland, and informed her of the situation. She in turn has contacted S&S Engineering to proceed with the necessary soil testing and groundwater monitoring, to install a sand filter absorption system. However, at this time no action has taken place. The continued d~s~harge of sewage effluent to groundwater is a violation of b~th state and municipal codes. Therefore, you are hereby'ordered to discontinue discharge from the septic tank until such time as an appropriate absorption system can be installed. The only acceptable means of preventing continued discharge from the septic tank is to sever the outlet pipe and cap it. Thereafter the tank will need to be pumped on a weekly basis. An inspection wilt be required when the tank outlet is capped. Copies of the weekly pumping r~eipts must be delivered to this office. You have until close of business Wednesday, June 9, 1993, to cap the tank outlet and provided proof of pumping. Failure to comply with this order will result in court action by this department. A copy o~ this order has been sent to your agent and this office will be in contact with her to confirm compliance. look forward to a timely solution to this problem. __ Sincerely, Daniel N. Bolles On-Site Services cc: Barbara Roland, Century 21 Realty Robert Sharer, P.E., S&S Engineering John Smith, P.E., Man8ger On-site Services db/222 Page 6 American Society of Agricultural Engineers. On-~ite Waste Wa r Tr a m n . Proceedings of the Fifth National Symposium on Individual and Community Sewer Systems, December 14-15, 1987. NSF and EPA. Individual Onsite Waste Water Systems. and Third National Conferences. Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Inc. 1977, 1978. Second Arctic Environmental Engineers. ~illside Wastewater Manaaement Plan, Technical Report, 1982 Municipality of Anchorage. ~illside Wastewater ManaGement Plan, February 1982. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Geological Survey. Report 75-105, HydroloGY For Land-Use PlanninG: Area, AnchoraGe, AK, 1975. Qpen Fil~ Hillside U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10. Environmental Impact Statement, Municlpalitv of Anchoraae Sewaae Facilities Expantion, November 1982. db/193 rev. 4/93 Page 3 Public Health Impacts The potential for localized groundwater contamination in the Anchorage and Eagle River hillsides is relatively high. The work performed by USGS (1975) and Arctic Environmental Engineers (1981) indicates a high potential for groundwater contamination exists due to shallow bedrock and groundwater, steep slopes and highly permeable soils. USGS (1975) noted that the estimated daily domestic wastewater discharge rate for the study area alone was 1.2 million gallons. Based on available data the current daily discharge rate for the same area could well exceed 3.6 million gallons. Given such a high loading rate, and data showing bacterial contamination in the Toilsome Hill, Mountain Park Est. and Scimitar subdivisions, it is apparent that negative health impacts already exist. Bacteria Canter, Knox and Fairchild (1988) pointed to highly permeable soils as a major reason for groundwater degradation. Open or gap graded soils permit the passage of biological, inorganic and organic contaminants to bedrock or groundwater virtually unchanged (Gerba; Rahe et al; & Viraraghavan). While adsorption accounts for the majority of bacteria removed temperature, pH, and soil moisture also play key roles. It is possible for bacteria to survive for extended periods in favorable field conditions. The availability of Organic matter seems to be the key in survival beyond a few days. Peterson and Ward noted that some pathogenic enteric bacteria have the "potential of being transported great distances" by virtue of reducing their volume in nutrient poor environments. Thus viable dwarf cells may pass through soil pores which ordinarily would filter out the organism. Nitrate Since nitrate possesses a negative charge it is not readily attracted to soils which also possess a negative charge. As such nitrates are highly mobile in both saturated and unsaturated soils. Nitrate ions can thus move with the groundwater, migrating long distances. Walker et al, indicated the total nitrogen produced by a family of four to be between 70 and 75 pounds annually. They also noted that the "minimum area necessary" to properly attenuate 10 pounds of nitrogen, annually, to less than 10 mg/1 nitrate-nitrogen was 0.5 acres. At that rate the average lot size needed per household is 3.5 acres. As previously noted, many of those areas served by on-site septic systems, have a far greater density. Indeed most lands subdivided prior to the May, 1986, changes to Title 15 permitted development of lots less than one half acre. Hallberg and Hoyer (1982), reviewed over 16,000 test results from northeast Iowa. Their findings noted that while bacterial contamination was random as to well depth and geologic setting, nitrate contamination was significantly and systematically related to geologic settings. Page 2 Other studies have expressed concern over on-site sewer development and the soils' ability to attenuate septic effluent. This was noted in the EPA's review of the Hillside Wastewater Management Plan. EPA's review noted that the Hillside plan did not solve the problem of wastewater disposal on lands judged unsuitable for on-site treatment. It was also observed that the Municipal 'Wet Lands' designations did not agree with the USGS report of 'Water logged' areas. Jones and Stokes Associates, in their review of the Hillside Wastewater Management Plan, reported that 5,840 acres of land were deemed unsuitable for on-site treatment of wastewater. This acreage accounts for 35% of the Anchorage hillside. Considering the push for development in the hillside ares the concerns expressed by EPA would seem to remain valid. The report stated: "land owners are likely to exert strong efforts to demonstrate suitability of some type of innovative system on their property". The report further suggested that development may occur "largely independent of suitability designations." EPA also agreed with the USGS 1975 report in that the likelihood of pollution of surface and ground waters would increase as a result of continued development by on-site wells and sewage disposal. In August 1984, the EPA's Office of Ground Water Protection issued "A Ground Water Protection Strategy for the Environmental Protection Agency". Within the EPA Strategy there is provision made for classification of groundwater. The classifications range from Class I to III. Class I is designated as: "Special Ground Water - ground waters that are highly vulnerable to contamination because of the hydrological characteristics of the areas under which they occur end that are also characterized by either of the following two factors: irreplaceable, in that no reasonable alternative source of drinking water is available to substantial populations, or ecologically vital, in that the aquifer provides the base flow for a particularly sensitive ecological system that, if polluted, would destroy unique habitat." Most of the groundwaters underlying the Anchorage and Eagle River hillsides would fall within this Class I category. These waters are irreplaceable in that no reasonable alternative source of drinking water is available for substantial populations. As such, under EPA's Strategy, these areas require the closest monitoring of development for both private and commercial systems. As of this date the Municipality has yet to address the classification of water resources within its jurisdiction. ' q3 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: June 1, 1993 ~ksL.:., 'i~~1 '~lgg7 On-site Wastewater System Technical Review o~rd D.N. Bolles, On-site Services Nitrate and Bacterial Contamination of Potable Wells Since mid-1987, DHHS has been engaged in compiling information and investigating nitrate contamination in area wells. By 1988 it had become clear that bacterial contamination was also a factor in many of the same areas exhibiting elevated nitrate. Whereas immediate health risks are of prime concern, the data suggests a different approach concerning the way in which we view wastewater disposal. In reviewing USGS data for the past 40 years, the incidence of nitrate and bacterial contamination was found to be very low for the Anchorage area. By way of interviews with segeral federal and state personnel, it became evident that most thought that nitrate contamination was virtually non-existent and only rare isolated cases were known to exist. This was due in part to the wells monitored. Most of these wells are below 400 feet in elevation and thus draw from soil and bedrock aquifers with large recharge areas. This factor could lead to natural attenuation of possible contaminants. Most wells sampled within the Anchorage, Girdwood and Eagle River areas indicate nitrate concentrations average below 1.0 mg/1. It is notable that samples obtained in the mid-to late-1960's for some of the areas which now exhibit nitrate and/or bacterial contamination, indicated isolated wells with elevated nitrate concentrations (USGS 1975 Open Report). At the time of the 1975 USGS report, concern was expressed about future development of the Anchorage and Eagle River hillside areas. The possible contamination of pofable groundwater was of prime concern. The report noted housing density at that time was approximately 100 homes per square mile and expected a maximum density of four to six times that amount when the area fully developed. At the time of the DHHS Huffman DeArmoun investigation the three quarters of a square mile affected had a density of 408 homes (1988 Stock Housing Maps). ~ Q0 C) ~0 O~ II~[~l + !79 CONCLUSIONS · We found that wells in the Scimitar Subdivision have elevated nitrates. · We found many wells that produce so little water that hauling water is necessary. · We found that many homeowners drilled multiple wells. · Available data shows geologic conditions in the proposed Denali View Subdivision are similar to the Scimitar subdivision. The figure titled "Impacted Lots" shows wells currently impacted with nitrates or Iow yield wells that are within a radius of 1000 feet from the proposed Denali View Subdivision. We believe this area is environmentally sensitive and requires special protection. We have offered criteria for developing an aquifer test that would evaluate potential impacted wells. Our opinion is that current testing is insufficient to determine if on-site or off-site impacts will occur. We believe that this testing should be done before any decisions are made regarding development of the proposed Denali View Subdivision. T hope you consider these facts before making an irreversible decision. Sincerely, Dan Young Certified Professional Geologist Letter about the proposed Denali View Subdivision Page 3 · Our interviews with Mr. Dan Boles showed that he ranks Scimitar subdivision as the third worst in the Hunicipality. Water Quantity We have reviewed well logs for more than 100 wells in the Denali View area. · We found that sixteen families are clients of a commercial water hauler. These families live in subdivisions that border the proposed Denali View Subdivision. · Multiple wells have been drilled on fifteen lots in an attempt to find adequate water supplies. Our attached map shows lots that haul water and lots with multiple wells. Hydrogeology We found that eighteen wells are within one thousand feet of the lower production well in the proposed Denali View Subdivision. Some of these wells are completed in bedrock while others are completed in unconsolidated soil (sand and gravel). Static water levels vary by hundreds of feet in this area. We believe that some of these wells may be recharged by the ground water in the proposed Denali View Subdivision. Thus, water use from the proposed Denali View Subdivision could have a significant impact on surrounding water users. Well Test Results The aquifer on the lower part of the proposed Denali View Subdivision was tested at about 3 gallons per minute for 24 hours. We agree with Bristol Environmental that this test shows water is available for this lot. However, we do not believe that this test is adequate to evaluate impacts on other lots within this subdivision or surrounding subdivisions. A second well was tested on the upper part of the proposed Denali View Subdivision. This well is completed in bedrock. The well was pumped at 0.5 gallon per minute for 24 hours, This yielded 720 gallons of water compared with the storage capacity of the well at 734 gallons. · We believe this test is insufficient to evaluate well yield on this lot. · We also believe this test is insufficient to evaluate impacts to surrounding lots. 177 Letter about the proposed Denali View Subdivision ......... Page 2 I TERRASAT, INC. 9200 Lak~ C~is Parkway 2nd floor, A~chorage, A~aska 99507(907) 344-9370 Geological Consulting · Environmental Restoration / Fax: 907 344-~49~ '~-"':~'" '2."'~[5 ' ReguatoryC0ifi~'~cea [~ , ,7 Members of the Platting Board~ Municipality of Anchorage September 3, 1997 We have completed our review of available data concerning the proposed Denali View Subdivision. We have found several critical problems that we wish to bring to your attention. The issues follow: Nitrate Issues · We found and mapped 16 lots with nitrate levels greater than 3 mg/I. we consider these lots to have elevated nitrate levels. These elevated levels are generally believed to originate from septic system waste. Our attached figure shows the distribution of lots with elevated nitrates. · We found that the Department of Health and Human Services issued two Health Advisories during March of 1992 for lots within the Scimitar Subdivision. One alert was for nitrate levels of 8.1 mg/I with 20 colonies of fecal bacteria per 100 mi. The other was for 15.3 mg/I nitrates and 3 colonies of fecal bacteria per 100 mi. Zero colonies of fecal coliform bacteria are acceptable. · We discovered that the Department of Health and Human Services placed dye in the septic system of lot 13 block 3 #2 of the Scimitar Subdivision during 1993. This dye showed up in two wells within five weeks. These wells were lots 3 and 8, block 3 #1. One of these wells is $ lots away and about 1200 feet. · We interviewed Mr. Dan Boles, formerly with the Department of Health and Human Services. Mr. Boles told us that he had conducted other dye test in the Scimitar Subdivision during 1992 and 1993. Dye was placed in septic systems and also showed up in nearby water wells. Mr. Boles also found bacteria associated with two water wells in this. · We evaluated depth to bedrock in areas around the proposed Denali View Subdivision with elevated nitrates. We found that elevated nitrates generally correlate to areas with depths to bedrock tess than 100 feet. These same conditions have been found in the proposed Denali View Subdivision. · We also found a similar correlation between elevated nitrates and depth to static water level. This same condition occurs in the proposed Denali View Subdivision. · We researched the Municipality's nit5rate database. We found that Scimitar Subdivision has the third worst occurrence of nitrates in the Anchorage database. !78 about the proposed Denali View Subdivision Page Additional Information Received after 9/3/97 CASE S- 10054 DENALI VIEW SUBDIVISION !75 $EP-02-97 TUE 22~22 RL..~X OF E~OLE RIVER FhX NO, 90769R0214 P, 06/06 O~r communRy has gone to great lengLhs and ex~8~ ~o do~n~ what are si~ wa~ o~i~y ~d qu~fi~ i~es for ~ $ci~ resident, T~s it n~ a N~Y isme. Tho~ p~plo do not w~t o~ to have to s~r ~ Um~ l~ve. Mlmtcr 2nd High fi~t told the people of $cimi~- tl~t they just had to drill to 700 feel and they would plenty of watt, WoN logs m excess of 9oo foot show dD, holes. Nosy th~ mggc~t SciraJtar rcsidcnt's just neeci to put in storage and hydro~acture all tltcir wells to solve their problems. The succass rate for hyd~ofractutiog is a 3-4,0005 gamble with a 50/50 clumco of succc~s dcpcndMg on wino you ml~ re. Tlmre are nUmerous situations where it will not work aha is not a~vised. It is nm tried alld title al~ ~ h~,e di~q:rOllS re~l]t~. If you call Hank Warmu on Fish Hatcho~ he will t~ll you that his water tooled bio, ok wh~l his neighbor and friend on glo lot ooxt door hydrofraomrod his well. Affcr .~voral ~-.k chlorination tre. atmonts his well is polluted :and he ic now balding x~at~r, Ho now has no wa~er and is no looser frlonda with neighbor, Senn and PaR'ice Hoolihan in North Bi~chwnod spent a substantial amount of monoy to hydrofiacturo their ~eJ.l to end up wi{l~ 1 ~.'as walor. I know of sevcrol other Ilrkqloccssful auompu to improve the quantiW of wa~ by hydre~actwing. My cxpcricncc to datc ia a 100% f~ilu~ rato with hydmfmctm'hag. Mi'. Mnoicr'~ z~aciux:h has a 100% success rate. it is an improving technology. It is not a prescribed roulh~ maintenance precor. Thcr~ can be ~fim~ and la,~ting im!aacts re.~,.fldng from this prooe~. Approving a prelimina~ pla~ to get this proposed development out of the puOlic process would bo an injusti¢~ to our commumty. We are aware that De~fli View has become a political hot potato Rod eveqton~ want~ it to go away now. Denali View has lak~ up an inerc&'blc amount of time paid for by taxpaycrs to benefit a developers ~tom line. Our community dese.,~c~ as much if not mom consigoratino ~ p~olcctio~ rcgarding thc SE?-02-97 TUE 22:21 RE/MAX OF EAGLE RIVER FAX NO. 90769 ac. P, 05/06 existing road is not a proposed trail to be maintained by ~ ~,el~r~ intentions. It e~ ~d i~ for ~e ~sfe~' of ~e ~ople who liv~ ~ ~e e~re ~. ~] ~ ~v~ ~k~ for ~ a ~OW ~od at ~ -Kul~rg co--on m pro~de for our county's f~e. Wb~ Church P~k Drive ~ ~ mo~n ~ ~ ~ve to b~t~g homes ~t ~ve b~ ~]ilt on top of ~e ~K~rg conn~fion ~ e~- Tbc~ ig no o~er ~ive ~cc~ ~wn ~o m~t~. ~C CIRCULATION: Sta~ slat~ it is doubtful that a road could be consU'agtcd to ~vt MOA standards. We have a MOA plan ami design for a road at this precise 10calion. There are subsmmial i~n~lits to be gamed from pro~e~,ing a ROW at Salm-Kullx'r~t. Maintaining tile existing road alignmant with a ROW age,s at Seika-Kulberg is as important as l~.~in~ining ~lle eY~i~ mad alignment from Seika-Kulberg up to Thornton. Bob of the~ provisions promote ~he safety axxd w~L6~rc ~ ox'iain$ r~sidal* o~ w*ll as the futurv of thc commanil% It se~ml~l a compromiso to give up the 5e, ika-Thom~on ROW request in rcmm for the existing alignment or a new similar one 1)ut in place by the developer. There has nat been a compromise ,,hat provides fo~ the safe~ of this eatiro communk'y. Per 21.75.010.A.4. these conditions proviflc for the proper artangemen! of streets in relation lo existing and proposed m-*et~. 'Puls is confirmed by the previous plating actions that provided a ~:mporary mm around at Kulborg,uherc it is mean t~ ~mcct ~ifli $cika. $oika, Kulbcrg and Soll,*ret were not plaued a~ a~aa end vaeet~ or cul-de-sacs. They are 60 feet vade and meant to continue when *he lasI phase of $eimitar, aka Deaxali View i.q dcvdoped. DEPAIkTM~N'¥ RECOMMENDATIONS: While I agr~ with ~m re~ ~ pla for ~ I ~n mn~a~ ~t ~g ~p~ of 11 ~c ~yst~n~ ~ ~ ~ of clcva~ ~g leve~? Even ~ m~ ~u~ng ~fi~ ~e~ is no ~y to p~ent ~C ~t~ ~em confin~ m ~11~ the b~r~ down ~ ~t imo the wells. ~ su~¢sfiou by D~S to ~t ~ngl ~er~ is a problgm ~fl ~n ~u~ ~te redu~ng ~ is Bet ~1o. ~ th~ ~s ~ in yo~ ~ you ~11 fi~ it ~s~Me to ~ove ~. ~ow ~ffid f~l if k w~ a ~1 ~10u~g to eno ofy~ ~t ~d yo~ nci~bom ~fic ~ ~? ~r pro~lem is ~t ~oils ~at m ~oor or hi~ ~o~ aat~ nn lhe mmm~n but ~ofl~ ~ are m S~fic ~uent mc~ ~ ~e soil tffi it m~ fl~c b~ock ~d flows d~ ~J it ~ i~ ~ h~to ~'s well ~d ~ ~nking wa~i S~S r~e, dsfions do no~ ad~e~ ~e ~e eom nor ~e sabzt~ ~m~fion of effi~ng problem. In a l~aer m Dr. $~lkmgg August 29 from Ivir, Muntcr at Bristol ~vironmm~ ~ fl~at n~ w~e not ~g to ~p~ adj~t ~ o~. ~i~ ~ve sm~ poblicly t~t ~ ~e ~r ~nmct~ ~e f~ who w~e ~d ~uc~ ~u~ ~hc bom ~ul~ ~mcnt ~d How ~o ~ ~mc ~ a rcml~on l~er ii ~ not fo~d like be plans SEP-02-97 TUE 22:21 RL..AX OF EAGLE RIVER FAX NO, 90769~214 P, 04/06 August 29, 1997 TO: Plattiag Board From: Sha~on Minseh SUBJt~CT: ~-10054 Denali Vim, M.v commenls rei,'ardmg Staff' ,~eptember 3 packet E. l.b and ia.fo included BACK(~OUND: While I'be water report was disc~t~ed at the June Chugiak Coromunily Council meeting thca-c w~ no notice the hy&'diogy report would be available at tho m~ting ann no no~iee ia the agent. The ayarologJst was not available To present his report and there we~ only 4 capias of the report available. f'~uncil memher~ did not have I~olica or meet with Ibc hydrnlogi~t until thc Inly m~eting. Based on thc large numbers of pcople attending each of the Platting Board meetings and the large amount at aarret'pondenee received by MOA it ia obvious how many people ore concerned alx~t this devclopmcnL Residents from all 3 adjactlnc ~ubdivisian's misefl over $7,~00 to pay for a hydrologist re.cert. Resiilencs in other subdivisions with elevated niu'ates are following 1his i~ue closely. P, anlden~"s in $otlth .ealchora~e wit~ warm' problems and nitrate eonearn~ are also following this plarling action, All rural development with on-site wells and sepllc~ most be critically cvalualed in Anchorage to pzcvent mishakes that have been nude in the pusc We now know we have the negating of a prable, m with nitrates from. our septics. We know ~at we are expcrianoing water quantity aJ~d quality problcres throughotit MOA. DISCUSSION: The Imils issne has not been resolved. The t~il is the ori~,,,,] road into this arco. huscd mbc thc only way up I}le moun~aln. It has been continuously an~l historically us~l for Inolorized and p~il'ialI acc~s~ ap and do,,vn fi~is llloun~an. Both .Tim ,qampson and .Tack Thornton can rgatlby that this read ak,'cc~ las bce~n in existence and reglgar usc for over 20 years, Both arc long term r~ldonts curr~fly livi~ on the manataia. How can lb: Plauiag Board allow a new haye~ to develop properly and block off ex/.n'tia§ hi.qterieal acce. c~. As i previous r~ident ofth~ area the developer was well awasc of the road acc.'ss ami th~ commmmy's hlSYl~e tl~ of thc road a~ccs~ wbcn he purchased Illo prope~y lasl Deco. mOor. i'~roviding an munarked undeveloped trail that is pro~;~;d to bc rote]lied by I~ell~nL (tholl~h[ the location is unknown) wldlc removing lgsioric road and ~ access is not at:ccptable. The Seika-Kn]berg comleation is the only ~cona,*ry access ~ ~he mounlain for cmcrgency momrizcd and pedeswian ~ off th~ moumain. Tim dcvclop~r is providing aa easemellt only on a steep llcarly impassable secl~on of tbe hill. WIIo will sll~v~ aad mark the ]o~alion ot this new Irai! so the children will no whcro to walk to get ~o i~e bus? How will the community tha~ has to build a new wail know whcrc to put it? With school s~artin~g chiJdren have ~o catch the bun in ScimiTar by walking several miles of dangerous, ~arrow road because the d~veloper has cu~ trccs and posted no trespassiag signs. Is th.is a~on recant to ia:pin: coill]dancc iJI thc d~velop~.lllld his ~ { o~lnioRs? At What polo! will the Signs bC removed and Ibc new eascmeTl! be available? What arc lllc children of this cc~mmunity mppo~d ~ do now? With icc and snow thc roads become cae lane and ve~ hazardous for pcdeswians of any age. SEP-02-97 TUE 22:21 RE/~X OF E~OLE RIVER FAX NO, 90769 0k. P, 03/06 It sce~ns reasonable ~o assume continued development al cu~cn[ d~ity 1~'¢]$ can and ~ c~use tI~ nitxa~ levels to excee~ thc FederaJ ¢.~mdurds for drinking water i~ m.a~y arr~ of Anchorage. M~'. Mua~cr'~ d~cly repolT, brings ou~ ime~atJng points ~hat sl~ould t~ ~criou~ly considc~xt before f~uzh~r steeps -~re t~ken ~o approve any developments with on-site wcIl.~ s~d ~pt~.~ Anchorage needs to implcmeat well head prete, cJion and groundwal~r pro~cction plans IiEI~ORE t~gI¢ is an omergen~ and other subdivisions become as problematic as Scimitar. If we do n~ I~Y aNeugon man} believe I~PA viii come in and do it for ii u~. O~c our wells arc contam~ed it is ngarly imoossibl¢ to clean th~m up. Your concern for protecting our communhy will bo apprceialed. !7! SEP-02-9? TUE 22:20 EAGLE RIVER FaX NO, 907696~214 P, 02/06 August 29. 1997 TO: MOA Plaiting Board FROM: Sharon MLnaeh Re: Nitrate report and comparisons wi~ Denali View I have jnat read," Aa E¥~iuation of Nitrates In Drinking Water and Development O£ A Groundwater Proration Program" ptcpanal by ~rim Munmr ofBris~l Environ~¢nlal. 'l'hereport wa~done for thc Anchorage HillSide are, a. Mr. Munt~r is carrctltly worMng for Mr. M. eye~ on the proposed Denali View Subdivision ta prove Denali View will not impact gcimiatr or Dcoali View with nitrates. Listen below am some of the ~oials brought out in the re~ort ~th eomment~ l wo~ld like to make. Tl~e rcpoxt ~atos that recent data shows a~t~aT~ l~Is in some areas or,he Hillgde arc cleated a~ld discusses gradual increases ia ~itrato leve~s that may be oCCUmag. I have met v~th many professionals both public and private, who are concerned about nitrate l~'vc is inorc~iag in our ~ate regulau:d public water systems as well as oux private drinldng water s3~as regulated by MOA. Tberc appears to be no disa~'eemeat t~t septic systems are a ma~or smsree of ~*t rates as mco~ioned m tho report mad available tcsc,'xrch. TI~ re~ott i~ldicatcs separation distances between welk and septics ~ to pro~ide s~llei~t dilution and prevent ex~ssiv¢ ailrat~ coaCnaLratioas in ~*11 water. MOA, DEC and ptivale eni~eers ex.nixie ~¢ s~araliOll 0islancts ar~ ~) preven! s~ptic sy,M~ms frem contaminaliu~ our drinking water. The r~porl as wall as num~ous studies and protbssionals agt~ nitrale levels ~rearer dlall ,~mg/L arc considered elevated and the resu~ of human activity. Backtxound levels in most areas are considered to be below 3m~L. Seasonal varialions ia aitram levels as a result o£vari~le ~eclmrge rates at differem times of year is anotbor r~dily agread premise referred re ill the reporL I have o~ee heard it said, "dilution ia the solution tO pell~tien, partioularly when il comes to nitra~s!" Thc rcOort desodbc$ how improperb' trta~l w~,wj~er may travel to a nearby well if ~is are In permeable. Bs.~d on field expcni~ ~many local cngincct~, solb that are too permeable cna provide a dirt~:t pipeline to nearby wells for nitrate con.ruination. A aaa-ding ta the repor~ lot,raze ateae ts not a g~ m~cator of ~ fl~i~d of ~cwm~ nR~. ,n~ a~ut ~t l~ge lot siz~ in D~i Vi~ ~ how ~ wffi ~t ~p~ Denali Vi~ i~or ~mitar ~tb ~. Thc report mentions new tcchnolo~ available to provide as muck as a 70% tednctiou in nitrate emisaiens. It mak~ sense that ba~d on what we or~ I~asaing about our community MOA DHPI$ shouJd bc implcmcntlag thc n~,* ~lmoloL~ before there are prehlems, not after. It seems obvious Scimir, ar ha~ ~ problem with elcvatM nitrate ]~vcls..Many agr~ ncw dcvclopmcnt without public svater and ~itratc rcducin§ s~plic systems will impact $ci~aitar as well as Denal~ View. F.?ge~iea¢ ¢ iadi~ares hyOxofractafia~g can provide belier reut~ ~hrou~b tho bedr~'la fraetoras .Car SEP-02-97 ?UE 22:20 RE/N~× OF ERGLE RIVER F~× NO, 9076960 ,, ?,01/06 FAX TRANSMITTAL DELIVERY TO: //~"'~"~"~ ~-~/ ~ ~ / REGARDING: FORM FAX:# THIS i~AX TELECOPY CONSISTS OF ~ PAGES INCLUDING THI£ PAGE. YOU DO NOT P. ECE1X'~ ALL OF TI-irE PAGES TRAT ARE TO gE TRANS'MI'I iED. PLEASE TELEPHONE THIS OFFICE AT (907) §94-4200. IF YOU NEED TO RETURN' FAX TELECOPY TO US, THE FAX TELEPHONE, NUMBER IS (907) 696-0214. 16600 Centerfiel¢l Dr., tr201 ~.....EagleRiver, A[asl(a 99S77. Office; (907) 694-4300 Fax; (907) 696-0214 !S9 Sheila Selkregg August 29, 1997 Page 3 of 3 FILE COPY The Myers have poured tens-of-thousands of dollars into engineering and hydro- geological studies of the proposed site. No scientific evidence has supported the purely personal objections of a few of the neighboring homeowners. The Myers have repeatedly responded to staff requests for information on a good-faith basis, but are concerned that Community Planning and Development is no longer making good-faith requests for information, but is, instead, simply stalling the project in response to political pressure from a few homeowners in the area. The Myers are no longer sure what specific problems prevent staff from recommending approval. They are no longer sure that the problems the staff is attempting to address are within municipal jurisdiction (the state has already indicated approval). The Myers intend to request that the platting board take some action on the Denali View Subdivision on its September 3 meeting, with or without staff approval. The Myers believe they have done everything reasonable within their powers to comply with municipal requirements, such that there is no just cause for withholding staff approval. Very truly yours, McNALL & ASSOCIATES, P.C. H. Frank Cahill HFC/cb Sheila Selkregg August 29, 1997 Page 2 of 2 FILE disposal (generally wells and septic tanks). A few residents that their wells have mn dry under certain circumstances, and slightly elevated nitrate levels (well below legal limits) have been reported. In response to these concerns, the Myers hired Bristol Environmental Services Corporation to evaluate and assess the water supply and quality impact of the proposed subdivision on neighboring wails. After test pumping a well in the proposed Denali View Subdivision, and observing the effect on wells in the surrounding area, Bristol Environmental Services concluded that ample quantities are available for the proposed subdivision, without significant effect on most surrounding homeowners. The report noted that wells of some of the eleven homes in the new subdivision may tap a bedrock aquifer, which could cause some slight decrease in water availability in the neighboring subdivisions which use the bedrock aquifer. The report concluded this will not "unduly affect" the existing homes such that a permit for a water appropriation for the new wells should be denied pursuant to AS 46.15.080(a)(1). It is my understanding that a water survey of the area by Terrasat, Inc. has been completed at the request of local residents, and offered no scientific evidence to dispute this essential finding. Only anecdotal evidence has been offered to refute the Bristol Environmental report. Although Denali View has been presented to the platting board on four prior occasions, but the platting board has not taken a vote on the plat. The Myers have agreed to several postponements in order to respond to requests by staff for additional technical information. Most recently, the Myers understood that staff had indicated its intent to recommend approval of the plat, but you intervened personally and directed staff to recommend yet another postponement. At some point, as I am sure you understand, justice delayed may be justice denied. The Myers are unwilling to stipulate to further postponements of the consideration of this plat. The proposed subdivision will permit only eleven houses to be built; this is just ten more than would be permitted by the existing land use. Of those ten, it is clear that some, at least, will be able to utilize the gravel sand aquifer having no affect on down slope homes. At least one such well has already been drilled on a Denali View lot. There is no reason to believe that others could not be drilled. In short, there is every reason to expect that this new subdivision, comprising nearly forty acres, will result in fewer than nine new wells serving single-family homes, tapping into the bedrock aquifer which might affect down slope homes. !37 William L. McNall H. Frank Cahill Sandra J. Wicks McNall & Associates, P.C. Attorneys 921 West Sixth Avenue Suite 100 Anchorage, Alaska 99501-2044 Telephone (907) 276-2535 Telecopler (907) 279-8527 FILE COPY Franc[ne D. Harbour Of Counsel Thomas Brown Legal Assistant August 29, 1997 Sheila Selkregg, Director Community Planning & Development Municipality of Anchorage 632 West Sixth Avenue Anchorage, AK 99501 Re: Denali View Subdivision Our File No. 10141.04 Dear Ms. Selkregg: This office represents Paul and Arleen Myers, and the Skyline View Corporation, the developers of Denali View Subdivision in the Peters Creek ama of the Municipality of Anchorage. In May 1997, the Myers submitted a preliminary plat application for the subdivision of a 37.47 acre parcel (now described as Unit 3, Tract 1, Seimitar Subdivision) into an 11 lot subdivision to be known as Denali View. The proposed lots will average three acres or more. Following public notice of the proposed subdivision, several residents of subdivisions adjacent to (and generally down slope from) the proposed Denali View Subdivision indicated their disapproval of the proposed subdivision to the platting authority. One of these residents was Sharon Minsch, a real estate agent and homeowner in the area, who serves as President of the Chugiak Community Council. In general, the objections have expressed concern that the proposed development will reduce both water availability and water quality for adjacent homeowners. Essentially all homes in the area are served by on-site water and wastewater 08-27-1997 02:46PM D HI ONSULTING 98? ]4d 1383 P.02 standards. It assumes that the new septic systems will automatically add nitrates into the ground water at levels above the State standards and this position doesn't addJ'ess aquifer recharge. It also assumes that any effect would be undue or adverse, This ~pproach is flawed. Any testing must address the issue of undue impact. The testing program as discussed is only going to lead to more disagreement of the issue since the data will not be conclusive and will allow for a wide range of interpretation. Requesting the Owner to conduct additional, questionable tests is not justifiable. The testing being discussed will produce very little information of any value. There is enough technical data available to determine whether this subdivisior meets the Municipal subdivision standards. Before I can recommend to my Client that he ~pend more money on water testing, I need to know exactly what information is missing, wh~t the basis of your decision is, and what portion of Title 21 or Title 1 5 has not been satisfie~J. How will further testing be technically valid and how it will provide the missing information. What criteria will the Municipality use to evaluate the data? We strongly believe that the solution to the existing Iow production wells in the area is hydrofracture, We invite you to exam ne our information on this technology, t th~nk you will become convinced, as we are, of its effectiveness. Additional testing by my client will not solve the existing water problems. (,~-~truly yours, Dee High, Principal CC: Gait High, DHI Gary Prokosch, DNR Munter, BSE Myers, Owner 298dc26t,l(f !S5 TOTAL P.02 PACKET FOR 9/3/97 PUBLIC HEARING CASE S- 10054 DENALI VIEW SUBDMSION Department recommendation and additional information received for the 9/3/97 Platting Board Public Hearing arranged by date received MUNICIPALITY OF ANCHORAGE MEMORANDUM E.l.b. DATE: September 3, 1997 TO: Platting Board THRU: FRO M: SUBJECT: Sheila Ann Selkregg, Ph.D., Di~r,~cj~, t;~.D, ep_artment of Community Planning and Development .~'r~ Margaret O'Brien, Senior Planner ~'/~ ~ Case S-10054 Denali View Subdivision BACKGROUND: A brief history of this project is in order. The preliminary plat for Denali View Subdivision was submitted for the regularly scheduled May 5, 1997 Platting Board meeting. Due to the large number of cases, two meetings were held in May and Denali View Subdivision was placed on the agenda for May 21, 1997. There were 14 public hearing items on the May 21st agenda. The Board was unable to hear all items in the time allowed by ordinance and postponed four cases to the June 4, 1997 meeting, one of which was Denali View Subdivision. The case was postponed at the June meeting without a date certain. A Notice of Reconsideration was spread by Boardmember Klein to address the following issues: postpone the case to a date certain for the public hearing; allow both the petitioner and the community more time to effectively prepare their cases, and allow the applicant time to complete a nitrate and hydrology study for the area. The applicant completed and forwarded copies of the hydrology report to the Chugiak Community Council, the Municipal DHHS and State ADEC and DNR as requested by the Board. The water report was discussed at both the June and July community council meetings. Following the July meeting, residents from some of the surrounding subdivisions contracted with a hydrologist to have another water study performed. The second water study and comments from state agencies arrived shortly before the scheduled August 6, 1997 public hearing. Denali View Subdivision Case S- 10054 9/3/97 Page 2 Staff became aware that only six Board members would be present at the 8/6/97 meeting and that only five members could hear Denali View Subdivision due to a conflict of interest. The petitioner's representative was notified and informed that there were two alternatives: 1) proceed with the public hearing which would require a positive vote from all five members to approve the subdivision, or 2) postpone the case to the September 3, 1997 meeting. The petitioner postponed the mafter to 9/3/97. A history of the development of the surrounding subdivisions was provided and is included in the main body of the packet. DISCUSSION: Through the analysis of this plat there have been three main issues: (1) water quality and quantity; (2) traffic circulation, and [3) trail connections. Trails: The trails issue has been resolved. The petitioner will provide a trail connection between Seika Drive and Kullberg Drive which will follow the south boundary of proposed Lot 11. There have been requests from neighbors to provide an easement for a trail connection from Seika Drive ~)n the south to Sullins (Thornton) Drive on the north which runs along the common lot line between Lots 6 and 7. This trail is commonly referred to as the sledding trail. This trail is not on the recently adopted Areawide Trails Plan and there is no authority to require that this trail easement be provided. The applicant has stated his intention of maintaining this trail as close to the existing alignment as possible. However, the actual trail alignment will depend upon the final plat design given the need to provide for on~site utilities. The final trail alignment is not known at this time and easements for the trail are proposed to be recorded by document. Staff concurs that this is a reasonable alternative. Traffic circ_ulation: The issue of a secondary access has been raised over the last twenty years and has been raised again with this subdivision. Road connections have been suggested from Solleret Drive to Sullins (Thornton) Drive and from Kullberg Drive to Seika Drive. DenaliView Subdivision Case S-10054 9/3/97 Page 3 The Solleret-Sullins route is steeply sloped and it is doubtful that a road could be constructed to current Municipal standards. The proposed Kullberg-Seika alignment is steeply sloped. There is an outcropping of bedrock that would need to be blasted having possible adverse effects on existing homes and wells in close proximity to the road. Large amounts of £dl would be required to construct the road to municipal standards. Due to the steep grades of Seika Drive, residents park their vehicles at the north end of the turn and walk to their homes in winter. Given the slope, the question has been raised whether fire trucks could use this proposed route in winter. Neither Department of Public Works nor Traffic Engineering are requesting either dedication or construction of a secondary access. Traffic Engineering has stated that there are limited benefits to be gained from requiring this road connection. At the July 17, 1997 Chugiak Community Council meeting a motion was passed not to support a road connection between Seika Drive and Kullberg Drive. Water quality and quantity: Following completion of the two water studies and review by State and Municipal agencies, two meetings have been held to discuss the water issue. On August 14, 1997 a meeting was held to assess the information generated to date. Representatives from both hydrology firms, state and local agencies and members of the public attended the meeting. The hydrology information was presented by the petitioner, concerns were raised regarding the water shortage experienced by some residents in the surrounding area and the adequacy of the pump test was discussed. A follow-up meeting was held 8/20/97 with the hydrologists and technical experts determine what, if any, additional testing or information was needed to address the concerns of the neighbors. Several residents from the community attended this meeting. The outcome of the meeting was to develop a plan that would provide additional information to address neighbor's concems. The plan includes: · mapping the bedrock and correlate to known areas of high nitrates; · stress pump both wells for 72 hours; Page 4 Recent studies have shown that nitrate levels can be predicted with considerable accuracy. Hantzsche and Finnemore (1992) utilized known housing density, the daily discharge rates of household wastes and water recharge availability, in simplified mass balance equations to accurately predict the level of nitrate contamination in three California communities. If the same type of mass balance studies were to be applied in the Anchorage and Eagle River hillsides, a comprehensive development plan could be established. Such a plan would enable development of affected areas while maintaining some assurance of continued potable groundwater. Conclusion: Existing data indicate that an excess of 240 single family homes are currently affected by nitrate and/or bacterial contamination. The areas of contamination have been determined and several proposals have been given to head off further spread of these contaminants. Thus fa'r the response has been to handle each contaminated well on an individual basis. This approach has done little to control the situation as the contamination exists over wide geologic areas. Rather it has resulted in some negative impacts. These impacts are: 1) Although the contamination is an area wide problem, costs to obtain clean water are born solely by the home owner. In one instance a family in Scimitar Subd. paid $20,000 for a dry hole and could not obtain financing for their home. 2) The department has signed off on Health Approvals allowing people to purchase property which, in the near future, may not be marketable. It could be argued that the Municipality bears some liability. An additional property in Scimitar Subd. was unable to obtain refinancing due to elevated nitrate levels. 3) The continued usefulness of existing polluted aquifers, underlying the sixty known subdivisions, is now in question. These areas could face forced public water service. 4) There is a growing threat to public health. In evidence, a well in Toilsome Hill Subd. exhibited no bacteria but had 17 PPM nitrate in 1987. Several other wells in the area also exhibited elevated nitrate levels, some above 10 PPM. One well in Mountain Park Est. #2 exhibited bacteria and nitrate contamination. In October of 1992, the well in Toilsome Hill, exhibited bacteria in numbers too numerous to count. A neighboring well also exhibited some bacterial contamination. In Scimitar Subd. two wells were found to have both nitrate and bacterial contamination. The solution was to treat each property as an individual problem. In February, 1993, a third lot, near Scimitar Subd., exhibited bacteria in its well water. Page 5 The incidence of known nitrate and bacterial contamination should not be treated lightly, as if they were isolated or unrelated. High density, coupled with porous soils overlying shallow bedrock, makes for an extremely fragile environment in which to dispose of wastes and withdraw potable water simultaneously. Contaminated aquifers, in the DeArmoun-Huffman and Delucia-Scimitar areas, now contain bacteria. Residents from these areas are now having to face the consequences of septic contamination. Within DHHS files there exists sufficient evidence to prove contamination of potable aquifers. Those same files further show septic systems which either lack adequate separation to, or were constructed into, groundwater and/or bedrock. The municipality at present still has the opportunity to act on this situation. The solution in some cases may be to provide public or community water and/or sewer; other areas require upgrading offending septic systems or sealing contaminated wells or aquifers. Another possibility would be to identify those areas of shallow bedrock and/or groundwater, there after requiring a manditory sand filter for all septic system installations. I sincerely hope you will encourage the department to take the lead in the development and implementation of a plan to alleviate the negative impacts of on-site sewage disposal in the Anchorage and Eagle River hillsides. References: L.W. Canter and R.C. Knox. Ground Water Oualitv Protection. 1988, Lewis Publishing, Inco, Chelsea, Michigan. N.H. Hantzche and E.J. Finnemore. Predicting Ground-Water Nitrate Nitroaen Impacts. Ground Water Vol 30, Number 4, July/August 1992. T.C. Peterson and R.C. Ward. Bacterial Retention in Soils Journal of Environmental Health, Vol 51, Number 4, April/May 1989. B.H. Keswick and C.P. Gerba. Viruses in Groundwater Environmental Science and Technology, Vol 14, Number 11, November, 1980. R.J. Perkins, Ph.D., Semtic Tanks. Lot Size and Pollution of Water Table Aauifers. Journal of Environmental Health, Vol 45, Number 6, May/June 1984. Denali View Subdivision Case S~ 10054 9/3/97 Page 4 monitor more wells above and below the test wells; investigate the possibility of using shared wells in the proposed subdivision. In a letter dated 8/22/97, Bristol Environmental Services Corporation outlined an aquifer test plan. The applicant responsibilities were outlined as follows: preparing a general aquifer test plan, working with community representatives to work out details of the plan, and inform the community of the test plan; install test pumps, obtain power supplies, and monitor discharge and water levels from the two wells on Denali View for approximately 72 hours of pumping; attempt to obtain suitable wells for observation wells and attempt to obtain representative water level data, and · analyze the data and prepare a report. The letter notes that the "cooperation of the community is important in order to obtain data on the possible impact of Denali View Subdivision on surround well owners." As of this writing, staff has not been informed when or if this plan will be carried out. DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION It is recognized that the petitioner has worked diligently to develop a good subdivision, to meet with the community, to respond to neighbors' concerns and to cooperate with the state and local agencies in the review of this preliminary plat. The R-10/SL zoning would allow a greater density, but the owners' have limited the subdivision to 17 lots. The issues of trail easements and road construction have been resolved with municipal reviewing agencies. A hydrology study has been conducted, test wells drilled and monitored and a report has been distributed and discussed in response to the Board's request. The applicant states that the requirements of AMC 21.15.110 have been met based on the information provided. DenaliViewSubdivision Case S-10054 9/3/97 Page 5 However, AMC 21.75.010 states that the platting authority may approve a preliminary or final plat only if it finds that the plat: · "promotes the public health, safety and welfare," and "furthers the goals and policies of the comprehensive development plan.' One of the goals of the comprehensive plan (AMC 21.05) is to "create a living environment of the highest possible quality based upon comprehensive planning for the population and its growth potential, and addressing the ecological, economic, health, social, public safety and physical development needs of the municipal area." Water is a critical issue for both the proposed subdivision and for the surrounding neighborhood. The subdivision is proposed in an area where there are known water problems. Although the water problems may not have been quantified and have been described as anecdotal evidence, these statements of water shortages cannot be ignored. In particular, at the 8/14/97 meeting a resident whose lot abuts the petition site stated that he experienced a noticeable reduction in water at the time the test wells were being pumped. The submittal requirements of AMC 21.15.110.4.b demonstrating an adequate water source have not been met. At this time it is not known whether the subdivision will develop individual or shared wells. And it is not known ff the subdivision will affect the water supply of residents down slope. Public health, welfare and safety are basic concerns when reviewing a proposed development. A safe, potable and adequate water supply is fundamental to a healthy community. The responsibility for ensuring adequate water is not limited to the boundary of the proposed plat. The responsibility extends to the surrounding area as well. The availability of water is a fundamental need for both Denali View Subdivision and for the neighboring subdivisions. Review of this plat has been difficult due to lack of information regarding ground water availability. Compounding this problem is that both the property owner and the decision makers are confronted with a lack of comprehensive hydro-geological information for this area which is not likely to be developed within the foreseeable future. Every effort should be made to resolve the water issue prior to this plat being approved. Staff supports the Aquifer Test Plan outlined by Bristol Environmental Services Corporation in their 8/22/97 letter. The department recommends that the plat be returned for redesign to address: