The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutDENALI VIEW BEdrock surface05/06/98 %¥ED 12:47. FAX 907 786 8200 ~,IOA BLDG SAFETY ~]004 FROM : MMM CONTRACTING (~, ,B,,~8 ~'EP 18',05 FAX PHONE NO. : 6881238 BRISTO! i~X\' ~3ERVI(:ES Ma~. 06 1888 0:3:29PM P1 The DI~J-IS rtmy requLre low nitrate s~ptic systems on lots witlfiu this subdivi, sion when such systems become routinely used as stemdard systems b~ eonformanc~ with Anchorage Municipal Code 15,65.050 ~md 15,65.060 and ~y etbm: provisions of AMC 15.65 that define the conditions raider which file use of low-l~trate systems re. ay be Fmq:hem~ore, such low nilralo systems musl not be considered alternative syslems as' defined.by AMC 15~65.010 (C). T]~s plal note is fro' information purposes only and.can no~ be used to e~brce tho u~e of low-~,fit}'ate sysImn, ~t Ions in De, ali View SubdivNien. S- 10054 DENALI VIEW SUBDMSION APRIL 1, 1998 P.LATTING BOARD MEETING DEPARTMENTAL COMMENTS TERRASAT, INC. COMMENTS RETURNED PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS 03/11/98 ~ED 13:33 FAX 9073434786 DIlllS ENBrlROX'KENTAL SvCS ~]001 MUNICIPALITY OF ANCHORAGE Depa~h~ent of Health and Human Services P.O. Box 1966~0 Anchorage, Alaska 99519-6650 Date: To: From: Subject: March 10, 1998 Zoning and Plaiting, CPD NAa James Cross, P.E. Program Manager, On-Site/Water Quality = S-10054 Denali View Subdivision I have read the Effects of New Wells at Proposed Denali View Subdivision, Peters Creek, Municipality of Anchorage, Alaska by Bristol EnvJxonmental Services Corporation. and have the following Prior to the November 1997 maet/~g of the Anchorage Platting Board, in discussions with Mr. James Munter of Bristol Envkonmental Services Corporation and Mr. Dee Hi of Dee Hi Enginee;~ng, the Department of Health and Human Sm'vices stated its position on what information was needed to satisfy the requirements concerning water availability at the proposed De,~li View Subdivision. The position was that further efforts had to be made to coorrli.~te with local residents additional aquifer tests on the ew, isdug wells within the proposed subdivision. This additional testing was needed to adequately stress the aquifers and to determ{.e the effects of the taking of water fi.om these wells on the existing wells surrounding the proposed subdivision, Even Mr. Munter had stated in a public meeting that the o~ual pumping tests were not sufficient to adequately strmss the aquifers to make this determinatiom This report contains no dam concerning new aquifer tests conducted at this proposed subdivision, so it must be assumed that we]] flow data llsed fdr the models ~.s from the or~nal tests. Shortly after the November, 1997 meeting of the _&~chorage Platting Board, I contacted both Mr. Munter of Bristol Environmental Services Corporation, and Mr. Hi &Dee Hi Engineering to determine if they planned on continuing with the requirements for the proposed subdivision, and was given no definitive ~n~qwer. Since that time, the Department of Health and Human Services has had no information submitted for rev{ow or comment, nor has it been requested to make any detei ,~,inations concerning submittals for review, until th.is report was submitted. Although both the State of Aleska Departments of Natural Resources and Environmental Conservatio~ received advance copies of the above referenced report for review aud comment, the Department of Health and Hnmall Services received no inforruation in advance. In snmmary, there is still inadequate information to determine the effects of the add/t/on of 11 newly producing well.q Within this subdivision on the existing surrounding wells. Adequate flow tests must be conducted on these new wells, and example wells fi:om the multiple bedrock aquifers surround~g the subdivision must be monitored to make this determination. Duc to the concerns of elevated nitrate levels in ground water in this area, the following note shall be placed on the plat: "On-site wastewater systems using nitrate reducing tcchnolog'y may be required to develop lots within this subdivision." O~tobar 10. 1997 A appnee_~te your sincere e~or~s ~n trying to re. solve ~is matt~n S ~erely, ~ Igmff~am Manager On~S~ite W~atar Qual~ Dae Hi, PE, Des Dan Young, CGWP, Term,~,-at, Municipality of Anchorage Department of Health and Human .~ervfces P.O. ~ lg6650 Ar October 10, ~997 Mr. James A. Munter, CGWP Prin~pal Hydrogeologist Brrstol Environmental Services Corpo~aEon P.O_ Box 100320 Anchorage, AK 99510 Dear Mr. Munta~. Thank you for your le'~er of October 8 sluing the preposed detalia of an aquifer te.~ plan forthe well on Lot 3 of the proposed Denali View Subdivision. I wish to make fl~e relieving comments: As I have stated numerous l~nes, I bel{eve the bes~ and mo~ accurate me~od for determining ~e affec'~ (3f the appropriation of water from the proposed Denali View SubdMsfon on the surrounding pmpetUes ~s an aquffer test involving the ax~sti~g surrounding wells. I am no~ prepared to approve rnodeJing concept at this time, for discussions with homeowners and with Dan Young lead me to believe that the possibility of homeowner part~oipaU~n [o useful degree may still occur. ! wal make that dec[sion by Tuesday, Oc[ober 14. 1 have attached commenfs by Dan Young concerning your proposed test, I believe very IfaJe compromise is needsd to conduct a te~t on Lot 3 that i~ agreeable to all padies. ! request thatyou read Mr. Young's comments and respond as soon as possible. I reartze that time is of the essence, and I Will address your c~n~rn~ es quickiy as poss~te. I em convinced that it is possible to ¢=3nduct a test on Lot 3 sometime nex~ week (October 13 through 3. Concem~g your proposal to prepare a model to determine the affects of the well lecak~l on the proposed Lot 9, I Cannot approve this plan at this time. Homeewners should reach e decision early ~n the week as t~ thee participation level, and a meaning~l review of that information will determine the path to follow. Again, I urge you tO read Dan Young's comments concerning this testin~ arid to attempt to reaoh a test design that will be a meanlncj~l c~mpmrnLse and will be acceptable to) all Par'des. l ~ talk to you early next week. and w]ql give you a mere definitive d~-:~is[o~ by Tuesday, Oc~obe~ 14. TO: PLATTING BOARD AUTHORITY FROM: SKYLINE VIEW CORP ORATION RE: DENALI VIEW SUBDIVISION S-10054 DATE: APRIL 1 1998 THE pLrRPOSE IS 'DtlS MEMO IS TO PdiQUEST A CONTINUANCE OF THIS ABOVE REFERENCED MA'ITP;R BASED UPON DISCUSSIONS WITH THE DEPT. OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF ANCHORAGE. THIS CONTINUANCE IS REQUESTED 1N ORDER TO ALLOW DttHS TO REACH A CONCLUSION ON THE QUESTION OF WHETHER OR NOT PLAT APPROVAL HAVE A SUBSTANTIAL EFFECT ON THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD. THE POSTPONEMENT IS REQUESTED TO ENABLE DIB-IS TO DO THE FOLLOWING: 1. BRISTOL ENVIRONMENTAL CORPORATION SUBMITTED A MODELING REPORT DATED FEB. 9, 1998 IN RESPONSE TO THE DIRECTIVES OF THE PLATTING BOARD NOV. 5, 1997 FOR RIiDESIGN. THE DHHS SHALL REVIEW TIlE MODELING REPORT, THE DATA AND ASSUMPTIONS UPON WHICH THE REPORT IS BASED TO DETERMINE IP THERE ARE ANY SUBSTANTIAL OR MATERIAL DEFECTS OR DEFICIENCIES IN THE MODEL WHICH WOULD ALTER THE CONCLUSIONS IN THE MODELING REPORT. IF Dill-IS CONCLUDES TIIAT THERE ARE NO MATERIAL OR SUBSTANTIAL DEFECTS OR DEFICIENCIES 1N THE DATA OR ASSUMPTIONS, THEN THE MODELING REPORT CONCLUSIONS WILL BE DETERMINED TO BE VALID AND DHHS WILL RECOMMEND PLAT APPROVAL. 2. IF DHHS DETERMINES THAT THE DATA AND THE ASSUMPTIONS IN THE MODELING REPORT ARE NOT VALD AND THAT THERE MAY BE SUBSTANTIAL EFFECT ON THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD, DHItS SHALL RECOMMEND DENIAL OF Till5; SUBDIVISION AND SHALL STATE CLEARLY AND CONCISELY EACH AND EVERY REASON FOR SUCH RECOMMENDATION. 3. DHHS AND THE PETITIONERS REPRESENTATIVE SHALL MEET, REVIEW AND DISCUSS THE MODELING REPORT AND THE DATA AND THE ASSUMPTIONS IN A TIMELY FASHION TO PERMIT DItHS TO SUBMIT ITS REPORT PRIOR TO APRIL 17, 1998. DURING THIS PROCESS DHIIS AND THE OWNERS REPRESENTATIVE SHALL DEAL DIRECTLY WITH ONE ANOTHER. PUBLIC COMMENTS CAN BE MADE AT THE CONCLUSION OF DHHS REPORT. 4. DURING THE COURSE OF THIS PROCESS THE IDEA OF WELL TESTING HAS BEEN DISCUSSED EXTENSIVELY. IT IS AGREED THAT NO FURTHER PUMP TESTS WILL BE REQUIRED FOR DHHS TO MAKE ITS DECISION. 5. AS TO THE ISSUE OF NITRATES, THE QUESTION OF A PLAT NOTE WILL BE FURTHER DISCUSSED BY DHHS AND THE OWNERS REPRESENTATIVE. SHOULD DHHS DETERMINE THAT A PLAT NOTE IS APPROPRIATE, THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE WILL BE ABLE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE DRAFTING OF THAT NOTE. WILL BE HEARD ON MAY 6, 1998. / / //~ 6. THIS APPLICATION SKYLII~ VIEW CORPORATION CONCURR: JAMEB/gROSS, PFC/, D~a'tS/'g£ ., /-/omeowners name Address Legal description Dear Mr. Dee High We would like to make our well available for monitoring during your aquifer testing of the Denali View Subdivision. We are concerned that damage may occur.to o. ur woo or pumping system. The following condlUons will be required of the oeve~oper ir he uses this weJJ: 1, . Before the well is used, a qualified pump installer.* mu.st .do.a pressure test of the system. The test results must be recor~e~. L.osts for this task will be the responsibility of the developer. 2. Before the developer uses our well, the q.uallfl~ed .Ins.~ller m..ust evaluate the ele~b;cal system and record the results, in~s mrormaaon must be provided to the homeowner the same day of the test. 3. Tf water service is disconUnued to the house for more ~an 3 h.o. urs.in a,_n_y, one day, the deve oper will be responsible to proviae potag,e, nau~e~ water directly to the house for the ti ,m.e tha.t the.,well,is o,ut of service the developer's expense). As an alterna~ve, the aeve~oper can make arranoeme~ts (at least one week in advance) for our family te ,stay in .,a, heralder the duraUon of time the well is out of service. The developer wm be responsible for the cost of the hotel and meals away from home. 4. Immediately after testing, the developer will be responsible for restoring the well to the same condition as before the aquifer testing. The same qua ified pump nstatler that conduct.ed ~e pressure an.d ,electd.cal .t. ,e.~ts must do work that is done in this.task. ~ ne cond tion or ~ne well Will D~ verified by the installer using the same techniques during the pre-test (see #1 above). 5. Upon well restoration, the developer will be responsible to insure that the well is disinfected, A qualified pump Installer must do ~e disinfe~, on. Disinfection will be done, at a minimpm, by following [ne proceoures described in Groundwater and Wells, 2"° edition, pages 619-623. 6. If any flow tests are conducted from our well, the developer must supply all pumping equipment. 7. Within 48 hours of collecting data from our well, the developer will provide copies Of all data to the homeowner. ! agree to abide by the above condiUons. Developer Date Qualified pump ir~stalier means a person or company that routinely conducts water well pump installations. The installer must be an active member of the Alaska Water Well Association and the National Ground Water Association. IN CONSIDERATION of hold harmless release and other censiderafion described below do hereby al0.eo as follows: FOR AND IN CONSIDEIL&TtON of tho sum of One Dollar ($1:00) and other good and valuable eonsidexafion, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, "Releasers" individually and for their heirs, executors, administrators, successors/n inter, t, trustees and assigns, hereby release and fi . . . have released and do oravet &seharge and hold harmless Bristol Environmental Services Corporation, Jim A Mant~r, DEli Constructing Engineers, Myers, Arleen E. Myers, MM&M Contracting lnc. and Skyline View Inc. and their sa¢,c~ssors and assigns, heirs, persona1 representatives, and vessels fxom all .a.~:ti0_n% ,ca~.u~_s_of. ac.t~on~ snites any ehfims demands, injtwies, damages and complaints aecrued or hereMter to acs:rue, arising out of any and ali aspects of hydrology study, well static level and flow tests for Denali View Subdivision and your well located a~: except for negligence. This H-OLD HARMLESS REI,F~a~SE does not ,and is not intended in any way to affect releasers water rights. understands that this a~eernent is volantary and acknowledge that they have had aa opportunity ob obtaia legal counsel before signing in regard to this HOLD HARMI,~SS RELEASE and further declare that the temps of this/-fOLD HARMLESS RELEASE have boon carefully read and are now fully understood and volunlar/ly accepted for ~e purpose writtea above. This HOLD HARMLESS RELEASE contains the ENTIRE AGRR;~MENT between the parties hereto and the terms oftbe release are contraclual and not a mere reeilal. WITNESS our hands on the dates below written Date Date Wit~e~ Date Date MEMORANDUM DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF MINING & WATER MGMT Alaska Hydrologic Survey TO: Gary Prokosch Sec~on Chief THRU: FROM: Roy Ireiar~d Hydrologist State of Alaska 3801 C St., Suite E00 ANCHORAGE AK esBoa-s935 OATE: FILE NO: TELEPHONE NO: SUBJECT: July 30, 1997 (90?) 269-8639 Fax 562-1384 Scimitar SubdiviSiOn I ~eviewed the letter from Jim Munter regarding the walls 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 es con be under the circumstances. The principle issue that bothers ma 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, and 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,) 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, ~nd 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 em 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 a~ee, 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 surficial feature which has found it's way into the groundwater. The source and pathway(s) are undetermined at this time Mr. Dee High, P.E. 3 4. (pg. 3) (pg. 5) 6. (pg. 6) August 5, 1997 for comparison look for similar wells to the soutK such as Chugach Piark Estates, should trove been completed. The report stated that "there is significant hydranlic s~aratinn between the two aquifers"- This statement could be supported by the ~txate analysis. The word "significant" should be definexL bedrock aquifer may .need ,m, be up to 700 feet aeep !~ oraer to yma ,mantit~es for domestic use · There needs to be a fairland reasonable ~ete~nination of'%nduly affected". When consideri~ file phase 'hm¢luly affected", Alaska State Statmas defines this term as n~ted in the report. However ~s determination lles solely within the Department ~f'Namral Resources (DNR) and should not be implied by other entries. Baaed on communications between DEC and DNR regarding the phrase "unduly affectec~!', the decision must be based on a sound foundation of conclusive information while talcing in to accouat individual site circumstances under condmons which are deemed ~reesonable" interpreted by DNR. While the conclustons por~tyed in thts report may be valid, the information provided within Otis report and tho AnalysiS of Nitrates in the Well Water report do not appear to provide sufficient facts to support the findings. In the best interest of all parties involved and the protection of the area groundwater supplles, made res,-, g any detenni~mtiun that is -o~din tbe Danali V~ew Subdtvtsmn vall require additional information to make sound, responsible decisions, Thank you for Supplying these reports to the DEC for our review. If you have any questions or comments, please call me at 269-7696. Sincerely, Keven Klewen0, P.E. Environmental Engineer RS/KKIG~P:cs~(h:~kev ~n\comlc~'l .wpd) Mr. Dee High, P.E. An_~.~is of, Nitrates in Well Water · 2. (,pg. 2) August 5, 1997 Specific CommentS Figure 1 should be clearly labeled with all subdivision. Nitrate data collected should be coupled with more information, such as: 1) the type and age of the existing wastcwater disposal systems, :2) the soil classification/typ~ that the soil absorption system (SPAS) was installed in, 3) the vertical separation distance from the lowest point.of t~e SAS to the top of the underlying bedrock, and 4) number of occupants m ~e home. Also, it may have been helpfal to identif~ and list the~existing wells finished in sand and gravel and the wells finished in bedrock along with the current problern~ associated with each. This way, it may I~ possible to view each well individually to determine whether a water availability problem or a poor well exists. 3. (pg. 2) The rel~rt states that "the d~ta do not appear to demonstrate the presence of a clear trend of increasing or decreasing nitrate values tn thc area" and this is stated once again in the conclusions section on page 3. This would suggest that the data is insuff~ciem to draw sound conclusions. 4. (p~. 4) However, a conclusion was made that the Denali View Subdivision should not be expected to have a large effect on existing pa~tems and trends of nitrate concentrations in the area, yet no patterns have been identified. Aquifer/est Results and Hydrologic Review I. (pg. l) From a site in.spection, staff was able to find bedrock outcroppings in the Denall View Subdivision on lots 4, 5, 6, and 7. Information on the bedrock outcroppings should be referenced in this report. 2. (pg. 1/3) 3. (pg. 3) In the statement "The extem of the sand and gravel aquifer tapped by the well is not well known", the phrase "not well known" should be defined. Further, without knowing the extent of the sand and gravel aquifer, along with the irregularity in the depth to be&ock (ground surface to 158 feet b~low land surface), calculating long-term yield estimates would not seem reasonable. There is no mention of other wells finished in the smd and gravel aquifer, if they exist, and there is no comparison of the pumped well with tho~e wells. With bedrock outcroppings within the proposed subdivision, it appears that there is at least one' hydrogeologie beundar:,, to the north of the two test wells. The need to DFA~If. O1~ ENVIlRON~ENTAL CONSEIlVATION DIVISION OF E~O~ D~NG WATER PROG~ 555 CORDOVA S~ET ANCHO~GE, AK 99501 h~://~.stat~a~us/de~hom e~ Mr. Dee High, P.E. Principle DH1 Consulting Engineers Dimond Center ToWer, 5th Floor 800 E. Diamond Blvd., Suite 3-545 Anchorage. Alaska 99515 · August 5, 1997 TONY KNOWLE$, aOV~aNOr. I T~lephone: (907)269-7696 Fax: (907) 269-7655 Subject: Proposed Den,ali View Subdivision, Two Hydrology:Reports Dear MI', High: The Department of'Environmental Conservation (DEC) received th~ report of*he "Analysis of Nitrates in Well Water" and the report of"Aquif~r Test Results" for~the proposed Denali View Subdivision (currently Scimitar Subdivision No. 3, Tract 1) on July 10, 1997. We have completed our review and provide the following comments on each document. General Comments It is the Department's understanding that the purpose of the "Analysis of Nitrates in Well Watea'" report is to provide information about nitrate pa~terns and trends in ',*he area. Then, ffpossible, to suggest activities that may be appropriate to address concerns about:possible long-term increases in niWates in groundwater. The Departments understanding is that the purpose of the "Aquifer Test Results" report was to determhxe whether sufficient quantities 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 development. Based on our review of the noted repmts, it is difficult t~) make a conclusive determinalion on the availability of water and nitrate patterns and trends in the aroa under review. Water availability; problems do mtrrently exist for some of the residents and it is not clear if an into-eased draw from the ground water supply in this m'ea would or would not "unduly" affect the eurrem residents. %;' (Chugach Park Rd.). We are not asking the developer to construct the road, but to leave a ptatted right-of- way between Seika and Kulberg Drives. Mr. Young from Terrasat Inc. will now speak to rite technical issues of the development. Then there will be number of individuals who will speak to their experience. We thank you for you thoughtful attention to these serious matters. Technical presentation: Individual testimony Summary The need for sufficient clean water is fundamental to any community. And yet many residents surrounding the proposed Denali View Subdivision already lack a safe and adequate supply. As a community, we are very concerned that the development of Denali View, as currently proposed, will seriously exacerbate existing problems. Virtually every document submitted by the developer for the project refers to the State code that allows for water levels to decline as long as prior appropriators can reasonably acquire water. If they are so confident there is more than enough water to support the development with minimal impact on surrounding homes, why is this clause repeated like a broken record? And more importantly, who is to decide what is reasonable? Hopefully not the developer. As we said at the beginning, this is not a simple case of NIMBY- Not in my back yard. Serious decision- making issues are at stake which have not been resolved, including but not limited to what constitutes sufficient and reliable data, the process of review and evaluation, the legal and financial responsibilities of developers versus communities and the long term and widespread issues of water quality and quantity. These issues are relevant to development throughout the Anchorage area and we must face them and deal with them directly. They will not go away. In closing, we urge the Platting Board to compel the developers, at the very least, to adequately document the potential impacts so that an informed decision can be made. We are not categorically opposed to this subdivision. We simply ask is that it be developed in a responsible manner to ensure the health, safety and welfare of our community. Moreover, Mr. Cross specifically notes in regard to the actions (i.e. modeling report) taken by the developer to satisl3, the reqoirements concerning water availability in Denali view, '~l'his report contains no data concerning new aquifer tests conducted at this proposed subdivision, so it must be assumed that well flow data used for the models is from the original tests ...... In summary, there is still inadequate information to determine the effects of the addition of 11 newly producing wells within this subdivision on the existing surround wells. Adequate flow test must be conducted on these new wells, and example wells from the multiple bedrock aquifers surrounding the subdivision must be monitored to make this determination." We view the actions of the developer to disregard the initial directives of DHHS and impose their own conditions for approval as a clear circumvention of the public process. Further, we demand to know what justification the DHHS has to reverse its publicly stated position and accept the conditions set forth by the developer, and the findings of the Bristol Environmental Services modeling report. With respect Mr. Cross's letter to James Munter (April 17, 1998, page 18 in the packet) regarding the this report, Mr. Young will testit~ that Mr. Cross's assertion that research and discussions with Dr. Gordon Nelson of the U.S. Geological Survey substantiate the appropriateness of the model for use in this case is~,~ clearly misleading. The only thing Dr. Nelson substantiated was an assumption regarding grid size, and.</~-- this was based on the geology of Turnagain Arm, and everything was a "guess." And although Mr. Cross also found no gross inaccuracies in the data used, he clearly recognized that the amount of data was small, yet could "see no reason to burden the developer with additional expenses to acquire additional data." We fail to understand how Mr. Cross could find the data that were previously inadequate were now sufficient to draw conclusions from the model. This raises the critical issue of where the burden of proof should lie. Homeowners have spent nearly $10,000 trying to ensure accurate and adequate data are used to make an informed decision about Denali View. The undue burden of expense has clcarly fallen on us. If this subdivision is approved, the developer will profit. The community will not. We believe the community will suffer further degradation of our water quality and quantity. The Platting Board and permitting agencies have a responsibility to safeguard the health, safety and welfare of communities under their jurisdiction, not promote the interests of developers at community expense. We have been financially burdened by taking the lead in requiring that necessary and sufficient data be collected and used in the decision making process. Mr. Cross also fails to address the most important question about the impact on the surrounding community. He reiterates the results from the model that show the impact will be minimal, but avoids making the same conclusion. We believe the reason is that the work conducted by the developer can not support such a conclasion. This begs the question: How can the Dept. of Community Planning and Development recommend approval based essentially on supposition? We believe it can not. We further believe the nitrate issue has not been sufficiently addressed with the plat note. If the development is approved and septic systems are installed before completion of the nitrate study, the plat note becomes irrelevant. In view of earlier tests in Scimitar, the nitrate advisories issued to the residents by the MOA, and the remedial actions imposed by DHHS, we argue that DHHS must err on the side of public health and require Denali View be developed with nitrate reduciog septic systems. We also ask that you take a critical look at the existing road access to Kulberg and Thornton. The trail proposed by the developer replaces an existing road be that has been used by the community for 20 years. It is to be replaced with an undeveloped easement on practically impassable terrain. Part of the road connecting Seika to Thornton was tim only outlet for residents of the upper community area during the mountainside fire in the summer of 1996. It is also the only route by which many children in the community are able to get from home to school without walking on a steep, narrow and dangerous road 1. mapping the bedrock and correlate to known areas of high nitrates; 2. stress pump; both wells for 72 hours; 3. 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 4. investigate the possibility of using shared wells in the proposed subdivision. To facilitate this work, the community residents were asked by the developer to sign a 'hold harmless' agreement and participate in the tests to document the effects of the proposed withdrawal on existing wells. Most of us refused because we believed the 'hold harmless' agreement was unreasonable. (Copy attached). In response, we offered an alternate agreement- a standard agreement often used in situations like these by other developers- (see attached copy to Dee High). Our purpose was to obtain a compromise that would for the testing to be conducted while providing some measure of protection to the homeowner. In fact, 24 of 28 homes within the affected area (- I000 ft. radius) agreed to provide the developer access and allow their wells to be tested under these conditions. But we heard nothing more fi.om the developer on the matter. According to their attorney (see brief filed March 20, 1998 fi.om Mr. Jay Durych, Law Office of Dan K. Coffey, P.C.), the developer concluded it would be virtually impossible to conduct the additional testing because it would require over 100 area homeowners to temporarily shut down their wells, and that cost to the applicant of the services and indemnities requested by the existing homeowners as conditions precedent to allowing testing to occur on their properties could easily exceed $300,000. As Mr. Young will testi~y, the requirement that 100 homeowners would have to shut down their wells to obtain adequate data is simple nonsense. And the $300,000 cost of serviees and indemnities is equally absurd. Ail we asked for was assurance that "If you break it, you fix it." The developer was unwilling to make this assurance. Rather than move forward, the developer elected to circumvent the directives outlined by DHHS by submitting a modeling report (Bristol Environmental Services, February 9, 1998) that was designed to substantiate their original findings. Mr. Young will address the technical errors of this effort in detail, but the point must be made that models are only as good as the data on which they are constructed. "Garbage in, garbage out". The fact that the model results are based almost entirely on assumption says a lot about the foundation. This is doing nothing more than assuming what you are trying to prove. We are equally concerned with the actions and position taken on this matter by DHHS. We seriously question the legal basis on which the developer has dictated the terms for subdivision approval and required an agency representative enter into a written agreement binding the agency to these terms (see letter dated April 1, 1998 to the Platting Board fi.om Skyline View Corporation). The terms not only contradict the directives previously set forth by DHHS, but they were imposed and accepted without any participation or comment by the public or other agencies. Mr. Cross, the DHHS On-site Water Quality Program Manager, clearly stated in his October 10, 1997 letter to Mr. Munter (copy attached), "As I have stated numerous times, I believe the best and most accurate method for determining the (e)affects of the appropriation of water fi.om the proposed Denafi View Subdivision on the surrounding properties is an aquifer test involving the existing surrounding wells." Mr. Cross reiterated his position in his March 10, 1998 letter to the MOA Community Planning and Development staff (copy attached). "Even Mr. Munter had stated in a public meeting that the original pumping tests were not sufficient to adequately stress the aquifers to make this determination." 3 Our Position We are not opposed to development per se, provided it is done in a responsible manner. "Responsible" is the operative word. This means working with the current residents to satis$' their concerns and ensure that it does not occur at their expense. We believe Denali View subdivision is not being developed in a responsible manner. Serious questions with widespread and long term consequences have arisen during the dispute over this project we believe must be answered before a rational decision can be made. For example: 1. Whose interests does the Municipality most represent, those ofthe community or the developer? 2. When these interests conflict, what position and role should the Municipality take to resolve the conflict? 3. With who does the burden of proof and cost of the impacts and mitigating measares of the project rest - the developer, city and state agencies or the affected community? 4. What process or procedures are used to determine that information sobmitted for a project meets the necessary and sufficient conditions for approval? The latter two questions, burden of proof and adequate data, form the basis of our testimony tonight. We contend tbat the responsibility for documenting the potential impacts- the burden of proof- lies with the developer. The history of this project speaks for itselfi Histor,2 Community members first questioned the plans for Denali View at the Chugiak Community Council meeting on July 17, 1997. At that meeting, Mr. Munter of Bristol Environmental Services presented the results of the hydrology and nitrate reports he prepared for the developers. Many serious questions were raised by the public about the adequacy of these studies. However, after that meeting Mr. Jim Cross of DHHS asserted he would accept the Bristol Environmental report and recommend the project be approved unless information to the contrary was brought forward. Because of concern that Mr. Munter's report was based on limited data and faulty analysis, tbe residents ofthrec subdivisions surrounding the Denali View site retained the services of Mr. Young (Ten'asat Inc.) to conduct an iudependent hydrology study to confirm or challenge Mr. Munter's conclusions. We were essentially forced to bire our own professional hydrologist because the MOA's representatives fi.om the DHHS either would not, or could not, impartially evaluate the scientific validity of these studies. Community concern was great enough that a total of 41 households contributed to retaining the services of Ten'asat Inc. Following Mr. Young's review of the developers' well test data, as well the independent reviews by the DEC and DNR, it became evident to the DHHS the initial study failed to adequately characterize the availability of water in the area and the impact of possibly 11 additional wells on the surrounding neighborbood (See ADNR memorandum dated Joly 30, 1997 from Roy lreland, Hydrologist to Gary Prokosch, Section Chief, and ADEC letter dated August 5, 1997 fi.om Kevin Kleweno, P.E., Environmental Engineer to Dee High, P.E., Principle, DHI Consulting Engineers). These reviews formed the basis for the DHHS recommendations to the Platting Board on Sept. 3, 1997 that the plat be returned for redesign to address: May6, 1998 Dear Members of the Platting Board: The homeowners fi.om the Peter's Creek area are here this evening to testify regarding the proposed Deaali View subdivision. We are not here as individuals, single family homeowners, developers, real estate agents or landlords. We are here as a community. A community with a shared concern about the future of the area in which we live. As most of you know, and all of you will hear, this is largely an issue of water. Many of us have it, some of us don't. But we all share the responsibility of easuring that each and every family has access to a dependable supply of potable water. A shortage of potable water is not just an inconvenience. It is a health, safety, welfare and financial problem because it affects the property value of the entire community. The people fi'om Scimitar that will testify tonight are unanimous in this view, to the point of attempting to bring municipal water into the subdivision, despite a cost of more than $20,000 per household. Oar neighbors fi.om Peters Gate and Chugach Park Estates support our concerns. Contrary to the developers contention that we want the government to "fix the problem", the people of Scimitar have been more than willing to pay for the luxury of a dependable supply of water. But in the interim, we also want to protect the very limited amount that remains. Unfortunately, we believe the developers of Denali View do not share this view. Their intention is to profit. Our objective tonight is to demonstrate that the water quantity and quality issue goes beyond the few vocal opponents that have been vilified in letters to this board and the agencies involved in this process. The anecdotal information that has been disputed and so easily dismissed is not anecdotal when you don't have enough water to flush the toilet, take a shower, or do the laundry. We intend to show that the community seeks only a proper accounting of the potential impacts of this project, and that we have been far more reasonable than the developers have suggested in seeking this information. Our view of the developers "trust me" conclusion that the project will have a negligible impact on the surrounding area is more than a NIMBY- "Not in My Back Yard" position. It is based on what we know is disputable technical evidence, and our personal experience with dry wells and elevated nitrates. The efforts by the developers representatives to minimize the existing problems are simply in direct conflict with the facts as we know them. Finally, we will show that not only have the developers attempted to circumvent the public process, but the municipality itself, specifically the DHHS, has accommodated this effort and washed its hands of the issue by reversing position on the requirement(s) for adequate testing and documentation. Anchorage Municipal Cede 21.75.010 states: The platting authority may approve a preliminary or final plat only if it finds that the plat .... Promotes the public health, safety and welfare. Mitigates the effects of incompatibilities between the land uses or residential densities in the subdivision and the land uses and residential densities in the surrounding neighborhood, including but not limited to visual, noise, traffic and environmental effects; We submit that Denali View subdivision, as presently proposed, fails to meet these criteria and that the Platting Board can not, in good conscience, approve the petitioners request without resolving existing problems and questions. Because there are several new members of the platting board who may not be familiar with the Denali View proposal, we would like to present a brief summary of our position and the community and municipal involvement with the proposed project. Then Mr. Dan Young, senior hydrologist at Terrasat Inc., will present a professional assessment of the current situation and a critique of the data put forward by the developers. Following Mr. Young, individuals will testify about water problems and other pertinent experiences relevant to this project. We will then close with a summary of our presentation. 4. Did the model ran correctly and converge? Although the initial run of the model showed a percent discrepancy of-29.95, a subsequent run of the model with more iterations brought this discrepancy down to less that 2 percent, which is quite acceptable. 5. Do the results show an undue affect on the sun:ounding subdivisions? The results from this model show that the impact on adjoining subdivisions will be minimal. The amount of draw down predicted by this model at the boundaries of the proposed subdivision will be just a few feet, which is less thm~ the predicted seasonal fluctuation in the aquifer(s). I conclude that this model sufficiently indicates the availability of an adequate volume of water for domestic purposes for the proposed subdivision. The following comments address the issue of nitrates: Ingestion of excessive amounts of nitrate can cause adverse health effects in very young infants and susceptible adults. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established a maximum acceptable level, kmown as the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL), for nitrate in public drinking water supplies. This level is 10 millign'ams per liter (rog/I)--often expressed as 10 parts per million (ppm)--measured on the basis of the nitrogen content of nitrate. This standard of 10 ppm nitrate-nitrogen was set to prevent the occun'ence of infant methemoglobinemia with a reasonable margin of safety. o Data available to the Department of Health and Human Services shows elevated nitrate levels in certain drinking water wells located in subdivisions adjacent to the proposed Denali View subdivision. Two wells in the surrounding subdivisions have levels in excess of the EPA MCL; another five have nitrate levels of 5 to 10 ppm. On-site wastewater disposal systems may be a contributing source of nitrates to wells with elevated nitrate levels. Residents of neighboring subdivisions are concerned that future development may raise nitrate levels through reduction in water flow and increased nitrate loading within the aquifers supplying the wells within these subdivisions. At present there is no data available to predict future trends in drinking water well nitrate levels. A study to examine trends in nitrate levels throughout the Municipality of Anchorage is in progn'ess; the results of this study should be available in phases over the next 24 months. o The Department of Health and Human Services has been studying and testing low-nitrate- emitting wastewater disposal systems for the past two years. Initial results indicate high efficiency and reliability. However, these immvative systems have not been approved for general use within the Municipality at tlfis time; the testing phase will be completed in the fall of 1998. ~ Should trend analysis and mapping demonstrate increasing nitrate levels, it may be judicious for the protection of public health to require use of low-nitrate-emitting wastewater disposal systems for new and replacement systems in this area in the future. The Department of Health and Human Services recommends the following note be placed on the plat: "Nitrate reducing septic systems may be required by the Department of Health and Human Services for the development of lots within this subdivision." Department of Health anti ttuman Services P.O. Box 196680 Anchorage, Alaska 99819-6680 Date: April 24, 1998 To: Zoning and Platting, CPD From:,~ ~. ~'~es Cross, PE, ero~'am Manager, On-Site/Water Quality ,{5 Bruce Chandler, MD, MPH, Medical Officer Subject: Request for cormnents on the proposed Denali View Subdivision. I have reviewed additional information submitted on this proposed subdivision including a Modflow groundwater model performed by Bhstol Environmental Services, Inc. I discussed this model in depth with Mr. Gordon Nelson of the U. S. Geological Society. Mi'. Nelson was recommended to me by, among others, Mr. Dan Young of Terrasat, Inc., who has reviewed the lrydrological work done on this subdivision for the sun'ounding homeowners. Mr. James Munter of Bristol Environmental Services, Inc. stated that he could think of no other hydrologist more qualified to review this work.. My review of the information submitted by Bristol Environmental Services, Inc. involved addressing the following questions: 1. Was the model appropriate for use in an area with the geological attributes of Denali View Subdivision? The answer to this question is yes. Research and discussions with Mr. Gordon Nelson show that this model was appropriately used. The USGS uses this model in bedrock aquifers, and I found no reason to question this usage. 2. Was the data used in the model adequate and accurate? I found no gross inaccuracies in the data used, and, although the amount of data was small, I see no reason to burden the developer with additional expenses to acquire additional data. The model appears conservative in some areas. For example recharge data was not used, and the use of recharge data would have decreased the amount of draw down predicted by the model. 3. Were the assumptions used for the model reasonable? I found no reasons to question the assumptions used for the model. The size and boundary conditions of the model seem appropriate. The model could have been run with a smaller value for transmissivity, but a halving of this value would not cause a large change in the model resnlts. MUNICIPALITY OF ANCHORAGE Department of Health and Human Services P.O. Box 196650 Anchorage, Alaska 99519-6650 Date: April 24, 1998 To: Zoning and Platting, CPD From:///t~/~gn~es Cross, PE, Program Manager, On-Site/Water Quality : ~/'~VBruce Chandler, MD, MPH, Medical Officer Subject: Request for comments on the proposed Denali View Subdivision. I have reviewed additional infmxnation submitted on this proposed subdivision including a Modflow groundwater model performed by Bristol Environmental Services, Inc. I discussed this model in depth with Mr. Gordon Nelson of the U. S. Geological Society. Mr. Nelson was recommended to me by, among others, Mr. Dan Young of Ten'asat, Inc., who has reviewed the hydrological work done on this subdivision for the surrounding homeowners. Mr. James Munter of Bristol Environmental Services, Inc. stated that he could think of no other hydrologist more qualified to review this work.. My review of the information submitted by Bristol Environmental Services, Inc. involved addressing the following questions: 1. Was the model appropriate for use in an area with the geological attributes of Denali View Subdivision? The answer to this question is yes. Research and discussions with Mr. Gordon Nelson show that this model was appropriately used. The USGS uses this model in bedrock aquifers, and I found no reason to question this usage. 2. Was the data used in the model adequate and accurate? I found no gross inaccuracies in the data used, and, although the amount of data was smaI1, I see no reason to burden the developer with additional expenses to acquire additional data. The model appears conservative in some areas. For example recharge data was not used, and the use of recharge data would have decreased the amount of draw down predicted by the model. 3. Were the assumptions used for the model reasonable? I found no reasons to question the assumptions used for the model. The size and boundary conditions of the model seem appropriate. The model could have been run with a smaller value for transmissivity, but a halving of this value would not cause a large change in the model results. 4. Did the model run correctly and converge? Although the initial run of the model showed a percent discrepancy of-29.95, a subsequent run of the model with more iterations brought this discrepancy down to less that 2 percent, which is quite acceptable. 5. Do the results show an undue affect on the sun'ounding subdivisions? The results from this model show that the impact on adjoining subdivisions will be minimal. The amount of draw down predicted by this model at the boundaries of the proposed subdivision will be just a few feet, which is less than the predicted seasonal fluctuation in the aquifer(s). I conclude that this model sufficiently indicates the availability of an adequate volume of water for domestic purposes for the proposed subdivision. The following comments address the issue of nitrates: · Ingestion of excessive amounts of nitrate can cause adverse health effects in very young infants and susceptible adults. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established a maximum acceptable level, known as the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL), for nitrate in public drinking water supplies. This level is 10 milligrams per liter (rog/I)--often expressed as 10 parts per million (ppm)~-measured on the basis of the nitrogen content of nitrate. This standard of 10 ppm nitrate-nitrogen was set to prevent the occurrence of infant methemoglobinemia with a reasonable margin of safety. · Data available to the Department of Health and Human Services shows elevated nitrate levels in certain drinking water wells located in subdivisions adjacent to the proposed Denali View subdivision. Two wells in the sun'ounding subdivisions have levels in excess of the EPA MCL; another five have nitrate levels of 5 to 10 ppm. · On-site wastewater disposal systems may be a contributing source of nitrates to wells with elevated nitrate levels. · Residents of neighboring subdivisions are concerned that future development may raise nitrate levels through reduction in water flow and increased nitrate loading within the aquifers supplying the wells within these subdivisions. · At present there is no data available to predict future trends in drinking water well nitrate levels. A study to examine trends in nitrate levels throughout the Municipality of Anchorage is in progress; the results of this study should be available in phases over the next 24 months. · The Department of Health and Human Services has been studying and testing low-nitrate- emitting wastewater disposal systems for the past two years. Initial results indicate high efficiency and reliability. However, these innovative systems have not been approved for general use within the Municipality at this time; the testing phase will be completed in the fall of 1998. · Should trend analysis and mapping demonstrate increasing nitrate levels, it may be judicious for the protection of public health to require use of low-nitrate-emitting wastewater disposal systems for new and replacement systems in this area in the future. · The Department of Health and Human Services recommends the following note be placed on the plat: "Nitrate reducing septic systems may be required by the Department of Health and Human Services for thc development of lots within this subdivision." MUNICIPALITY OF ANCHORAGE Department of Health anti Hmnan Services P.O. Box 196650 Anchorage, Alaska 99519-6650 Date: May 6, 1998 To; Zoning and Platting, CPD From: James Cross, PE, Program Manager, On-Site/Water Quality Bruce Chandler, MD, MPH, Medical Officer Subject: Request for comments on the proposed Denali View Subdivision. I have reviewed additional information submitted on this proposed subdivision including a Modflow groundwater model performed by Bhstol Environmental Services, Inc. I discussed this model in depth with Mr. Gordon Nelson of the U. S. Geological Society. Mr. Nelson was recommended to me by, among otbers, Mr. Dan Young of Ten'asat, Inc., who has reviewed the hydrological work done on this subdivision ibr the surrounding homeowners. Mr. James Munter of Bristol Environmental Services, Inc. stated that he could think of no other hydrologist more qualified to review this work.. My review of the information submitted by Bristol Envirmunental Services, Inc. involved addressing the following questions: 1. Was the model appropriate for use in an area with the geological attributes of Denali View Subdivision? The answer to this question is yes. Research and discussions with Mr. Gordon Nelson show that this model was appropriately used. The USGS uses this model in bedrock aquifers, and I found no reason to question this usage. 2. Was the data used in the model adequate and accurate? I found no gross inaccuracies in the data used, and, although the amount of data was small, I see no reason to burden the developer with additional expenses to acquire additional data. The model appears conservative in some areas. For example recharge data was not used, and the use of recharge data would have decreased the amount of draw down predicted by the model. 3. Were the assumptions used for the model reasonable? I found no reasons to question the assumptions used for the model. The size and boundary conditions of the model seem appropriate. The model could have been run with a smaller value for transmissivity, but a halving of this value would not cause a large change in the model results. 4. Did the model run correctly and converge? Although the initial mn of the model showed a percent discrepancy of H29.95, a subsequent run of the model with more iterations brought this discrepancy down to less that 2 percent, which is quite acceptable. 5. Do the results show an undue affect on the sun'ounding subdivisions? The results from this model show that the impact on adjoining subdivisions will be minimal. The amount of draw down predicted by this model at the boundaries of the proposed subdivision will be just a few feet, which is less than the predicted seasonal fluctuation in the aquifer(s). I conclude that this model sufficiently indicates the availability of an adequate volume of water for domestic purposes for the proposed subdivision. The following comments address the issue of nitrates: Ingestion of excessive amounts of nitrate can cause adverse health effects in very young infants and susceptible adults. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established a maximum acceptable level, known as the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL), for nitrate in public drinking water supplies. This level is 10 milligrams per liter (mg/1)--often expressed as 10 parts per million (ppm)--measured on the basis of the nitrogen content of nitrate. This standard of 10 ppm nitratemitrogen was set to prevent the occurrence of infant methemoglobinemia with a reasonable margin of safety. · Data available to the Depm'tment of Health and Human Services shows elevated nitrate levels in certain drinking water wells located in subdivisions adjacent to the proposed Denali View subdivision. Two wells in the surrounding subdivisions have levels in excess of the EPA MCL; another five have nitrate levels of 5 to 10 ppm. · On-site wastewater disposal systems may be a contributing source of nitrates to wells with elevated nitrate levels. · Residents of neighboring subdivisions are concerned that future development may raise nitrate levels tlu'ough reduction in water flow and increased nitrate loading within the aqnifers supplying the wells within these snbdivisions. · At present there is no data available to predict future trends in drinking water well nitrate levels. A study to examine trends in nitrate levels throughout the Municipality of Anchorage is in progress; the results of this study should be available in phases over the next 24 months. · The Department of Health and Human Services has been studying and testing low-nitrate- emitting wastewater disposal systems for the past two years. Initial results indicate high efficiency and reliability. However, these innovative systems have not been approved for general use within the Municipality at this time; the testing phase will be completed in the fall of 1998. · Should trend analysis and mapping demonstrate increasing nitrate levels, it may be judicious for the protection of public health to require use of low-nitrate-emitting wastewater disposal systems for new and replacement systems in this area in the future. · The Department of Health and Human Services recommends the following note be placed on the plat: "Nitrate reducing septic systems may be required by the Department of Health and Human Services for the development of lots within this subdivision." MUNICIPALITY OF ANCHORAGE Department of Health and Human Services P.O. Box 196650 Anchorage, Alaska 99519-6650 Date: May 6, 1998 To: Zoning mhd Platting, CPD From: ~' -- ~ es Cross, PE, Program Manager, On-Site Water ualit . S~ubj ect:l ~ N°te c°ncerning the proposed Denali View SubdQiv,s~Yn. I would like to revise the recommended plat note for this subdivision to read: The DHHS may require low nitrate septic systems on lots wittfin this subdivision when such systems become routinely used as standard systems in conformance with Anchorage Municipal Code (AMC) Chapter 15.65, Wastewater Disposal Regulations, governing the regulation of low-nitrate systems that are not considered alternative systems as defined by AMC 15.65.010.C. This plat note is not intended for enforcement issues, but is intended for information purposes only. Rick Mystrom, Mayor M · · "lle~ umc pm ty of Anchor , e Department of Health and Human Services 825 "L" Street P.O. Box 196650 Anchorage, Alaska 99519-6650 October 10, 1997 Mr. James A. Munter, CGWP Principal Hydrogeologist Bristol Environmental Services Corporation P.O. Box 100320 Anchorage, AK 99510 Dear Mr. Munter: Thank you 'For your letter of October 8 stating the proposed details of an aquifer test plan for the well on Lot 3 of the proposed Denali View Subdivision. I wish to make the following comments: As I have stated numerous times, I believe the best and most accurate method for determining the affects of the appropriation of water from the proposed Denali View Subdivision on the surrounding properties is an aquifer test involving the existing surrounding wells. I am not prepared to approve a modeling concept at this time, for discussions with homeowners and with Dan Young lead me to believe that the possibility of homeowner participation to a useful degree may still occur. I will make that decision by Tuesday, October 14. I have attached comments by Dan Young concerning your proposed test. I believe very little compromise is needed to conduct a test on Lot 3 that is agreeable to all parties. I request that you read Mr. Young's comments and respond as soon as possible. I realize that time is of the essence, and I will address your concerns as quickly as possible. I am convinced that it is possible to conduct a test on Lot 3 sometime next week (October 13 through 17). Concerning your proposal to prepare a model to determine the affects of the well located on the proposed Lot 9, I cannot approve this plan at this time. Homeowners should reach a decision early in the week as to their participation level, and a meaningful review of that information will determine the path to fellow. Again, I urge you to read Dan Young's comments concerning this testing and to attempt to reach a test design that will be a meaningful compromise and will be acceptable to all padies. I will talk to you early next week, and will give you a more definitive decision by Tuesday, October 14. James A. Munter, CGWP October 10, 1997 A appreciate your sincere efforts in trying to resolve this matter. Sincerely, James Cross, PE Program Manager On-Site Water Quality Dee Hi, PE, Dee Hi Consulting Engineers [)an Young, CGWP, Terrasat, Inc. 05/06/98 ~¥ED 12;43 FAX 907 786 8200 ~IOA BLDG SAFETY ~005 05/06/98 WED 12:43 FAX 907 786 8200 ~fOA BLDG SAFETY ~006 (15/06/98 I~ED 12:44 FAX 907 786 8200 ~IOA BLDG SAFETY ~oo7 05/06/98 ]I'ED 12:44 FAX 907 786 8200 ~IOA BLDG SAFETY ~]008 08/06/98 WED 12;44 FAX 907 786 8200 hiOA BLDG SAFETY ~009 too[~ 0~/06/98 WED 12:44 FAX 0o7 786 8200 H0A BLDG SAFETY 281un~, 1992 ~]010 Dan Bole~ Municipality of ,~chm~a~e De]?~a~ent of health &ttvman Services Bnvironmcn~al Se.r~ic~ Divi~on ~ Slz~e.t, ~Ro~m 5fid AnrJ~oragc, AK 99519-6650 1~: Se. mi~r Geoc~s~ Dear Mr. Bol~s: ~nclo~:l pL_,~se fimi a copy of rite maps ~par~l by D~ Yo~g. ~. Yo~g ~ple~ ~e maps ~ ~10~o ~d h~ ~c ofi~ ~ Mm, We wi~ fle~v~ ~e o~s ~ you ~on ~ ~m ~ ~y 7. . I a~lo~ ~r ~e ~ay ~ ~mpM~g ~s ~, Bus~ M~ 05/08/98 WED 12:45 FAX 907 786 8200 MOA BLDG SAFETY ~011 WELL DATA $CIMITER SUBDIVISION LOCATION PID WELL BEDROCK CASING PERF. NO3 WATER DEPTH DEPTH DEPTH DEPTH LEVEL w'L1 D1 #1 L5 Bi #1 L6 Bi #1 w" L7 BI #1 L1 B1 #3 L2 Bi #3 L3 B1 #3 / L4 Bi #3 L5 B1 #3 L6 B1 #3 L7 B1 #3 L8 B1 #3 L9 B1 #3 L10A Bi #3 LllA B1 #3 L12 B1 #3 L13 Bi #3 L14 B1 #3 L15 B1 L15 BI #3 051-132-08 051-132-04 051-132-03 051-132-02 051-132-68 051-132-69 051-132-70 051-132-.71 051-132-.72 051-132-73 051-132-74 051-3.32-75 051-132-76 051-132-89 051-132-90 051-132-91 051-132-80 051-132-81 051-132-82 051-132-83 78' Gravel 78' 40-43' 67' 74-76' 172' Unk, Unk. Unk. 3.0 164' 9/88 162' Gravel 162' None 3.7 136' 6/9]. 240' Gravel[ 240' None ND 25' 2188 545' 93' 93' None ND 125' 3188 580' 92' 92' None 0,41 131' 11/89 No well log for this parcel. 408' 80' 81' None 3.6 86' 8/87 308' 74' 75' None 149' 387' 75' 75' None 0,2 Unk. 10/90 304' 75' 75' None Unk. 550' 158' 158' None Unk. 587' 112' 117' None ND 164' 6/91 767' 178' 180' 164- ND 143' 171' 4/88 465' 164' 170' 135-7 Unk. 165-70' 680' 170' 170' None Unk, 285' 143' 143' None 1,0 247' 6/91 550' 120' 158' None 0.16 380' 8/87 285' 143' 143' None 56' 280' 33' 33' None 120' 05/06/98 WED 12:4§ FAX 907 786 8200 ~[OA BLDG SAFETY Page 2 Scimitar Well Data LOCATION PID WELL BEDROCK CASING PREF. NO3 DEPTH DEPTH DEPTH DEPTH WATER LEVEL L2 B2 #1 051-132-10 No well data. L3 B2 #1 051-132-11 111' 111' 111' None ?L4 B2 #1 051-132-].2 200' 74' 75' 60-74' Well #2 600' 59' 61' None L7 B2 #1 051-132-15 200' 90' 93' 70-6' L8 B2 #1 051-132-16 200' 94' 94' None L9 B2 #1 051-132-17 263' 92' 92' None L10 B2 #1 051-132-18 No well data. L12 B2 #1 051-132-20 No well[ data. L14 B2 #1 051-132-22 No well data. L15 B2 #1 05].-132-23 900' 139' 160' 136' New well permit 9/89 no well log rece~.ved. L19 B2 #1 051-132-27 300' 213' 213' 207-11' Old well 800' deep abandoned. L20 B2 #1 051-132-28 212' Gravel 212' None L21 B2 #1 051-132-29 285' ].87' Unk, None L22 B2 #2 051-132-40 284' ].54' 154 145-7 ' L23 B2 #2 051-132-41 200' 162' 164 None L24 B2 #2 051-132-42 L25 B2 #2 051-132-43 ~26 B2 #2 051-132-44 L27 B2 #2 051-132-45 House sales in 1/83 L28 B2 #2 051-132-46 L29 B2 #2 051-132-47 300' 157' Unk None 80' Gr~vel 80' 55,80' 180' 85' 100' 65-7' (3.9 7/90) 61' Gravel 61' None & 12/89 well Chlorinated. 440' 50 53' None 655, 51 5~.' None ND 1/89 11/90 0.24 11/87 0.3 12/88 3.2 6/91 5,5 12/89 80' 62' 72' Unk. 90' 193' 180' 135' 109' 155' 150' Unk. 65' 25' 27' 640' 0~/o6/08 ~¥ED 12:45 FAX 007 786 8200 MOA BLDG SAFETY ~o13 Page 4 Scimitar Well Data LOCATION PID WELL BEDROCK CASING PERF, NO3 DEPTH DEPTH DEPTH DEPTH WATER LEVEL L1 B3 #3 051-132-84 126' Unk. 60' None ?'L2 B3 #3 051-132-85 266' 60' 61' 40-5' (0.47 7/87) /'L3 B3 #3 051-132-86 500' 45' 72' 45-70' L4 B3 #3 051-132-87 285' 40' 44' None L10 S4 #2 051-132-56 180' 12' 20' None 0.28 ].0/90 10' 37' 32' 50' 60' 0S/06/98 ]¥ED i2:45 FAX 907 786 8200 ~iOA BLDG SAFETY ~014 Page 3 Scimitar Well Data LOCATION PID WELL BEDROCK CASING PERF, NO3 DEPTH DEPTH DEPTH DEPTH WATER LEVEL L31 B2 #2 051-132-49 440' 34' 39' None L33 B2 #2 051-132-51 300' 6,5' 20' None L36 B2 #2 05].-132-54 364' 101' 108' None L37 B2 #2 05].-132-55 No well data. ~/L1 B2 #3 051~134-01 213' 16' 28' None L2 B2 #3 051-134-02 173' ].6' Unk. None ND 10/89 L1 ]33 #1 051-132-39 150' 99' 100' 95-100' L2 B3 #1 051-132-38 600' 94' 96' None L3 B3 #1 051-132-37 124' 124' ~24' 77-80' /L5 ~3 #1 051-132-35 270' Unk. 104~ Unk. 1.5 7/88 ~L7 B3 #1 051-132-33 305' 37' Unk. 44-8' ~L8 B3 #1 051-132-32 330' 116' 116' Well pluged at -70' draws from 70' L9 B3 #1 051-132-31 430' 141 141' Well #2 370' 136 136' L10 Lll B3 #2 L12 B3 #2 L13 B3 #2 L14 B3 #2 B3 #1 051-132-30 400' 101 Two well~ serve this property. 051-132-67 228' 117' 1].7' 051-132-66 051--132-65 Well #2 051.~132-64 L15 B3 #2 051-132-63 Well #2 L16 B3 #2 051--132-62 682 503 75' 400 68' 250 80' 320 57' 625 99~ 400 87' L17 B3 #2 051-132-61 No well Data. 94 75 69 80 60 Unk, 90' 70-115' only. None 75-85' ND 130-6' 1/92 None Unk. 40-6' 60-75' Abandoned None None None Unk, None Art. 300 ' 14' 93' 97' Dry 76' 81' 30' 220' 128' 240' 190' 122' 440' 40' Unk. Dry Unk. 100' L19 B3 #2 051--132-59 185' 130'? 120' None 3,5 9/91 05/08/98 ~¥ED 12:46 FAX 907 786 8200 BIOA BLDG SAFETY ~]01S WELL DATA MARIE ESTATES LOCATION PID WELL BEDROCK CAS~[NG PERF. NO3 DEPTH DEPTH DEPTH DEPTH WATER LEVEL N%~LOt 1 051-111-34 Lot 2 051-111-35 ~ Lot 3 051-111-36 Lot 4 051-111-37 Lot 5 051-111-33 S:.'~ Lot 6 051-111-32 /Lot 7 051-111-31 Lot 9 051-111-29 Lot 12B 051-111-71 Lot 12C 051-111-72 226' Class 207' 178 129 80' 239 238 243 Class Gravel 226' None 'C' Well Gravel 107' None (5,Z 5/90) Gravel 178' None Gravel 129' None ~ravel 80' None Gr~vel 239' None Gravel 238' None Gravel 243~ None 'C' Well 2.0 4/89 4.2 5/91 155' 150' 60' 35' 50' 205' 210' 05/06/98 ]¥ED 12:46 FAX 907 786 8200 ~iOA BLDG SAFETY ~016 WELL DATA CHUGACH PARK ESTATES LOCATION PID WELL BEDROCK CASING PERF. NO3 WATER DEPTH DEPTH DEPTH DEPTH LEVEL L4 B1 051-471-01 Well #2 Well #3 051-481-48 051-481-47 051-48]_-46 051--48].-44 051--48].-43 460 600 247 224' 225' 242' 243' 247' 247' Gravel 288' 302' 302' Gravel 286' Gravel 277' 218' 222' None ND None ND None 9/91 L? B1 288 None 30 GPM L8 Bi 302' Unk. 50 ~PM L9 B1 286' None 30 GPM ~- Lll B1 278' None 0,8 30 GPM 2/90 L12 B1 360' 194- 200' L13 B1 051-48].-42 320' 195' Unk. 174- 180' L14 B1 051-481-41 520' 164' 167' 155- 161' /-L15 Bi 051-48].-40 300' 193' 190' 174- Casing 3' above bedrock. 180' L16 Bi 051-481-39 360' 203' 204' None L19 B1 051-48].-36 No well data. ~L20 B1 051--481-35 215' Gravel 215' Non~ 0,96 12/90 L21 B1 051-481.-34 220' Gravel 220' No~%e L22 B1 051-48].-33 290' 201' 206' 116- 122' 190' 240' Dry 148' 149' 173' 163'~. 170~ 142' Unk. 133' 140' 192 ' 150 ' 138' FROM : MMM CONTRACTING PHONE NO. : 6881238 May 4, 1998 ViA HAND DELIVERY Mr. Jerry Weaver i Mmlici.pality of Anchora~3'e Department of Comnlmtlty Plannh'~g and Beveloprt, ent Re: Comments on plat irate, Denali View Snbdivisio~l Dear Mr. Weaver: Ma~. 04 1998 02:52PM P1 Po~t,,lt" Fax Nolo 767~ RECEIVED MAY 1998 Mut~icJpality et AnchoraGe Dept, Health & Human 8ervieea Request. On behalf of the applicant, this letter is to request that lite proposed plat note about lowmitrate septic systems be removed as a condition of plat approval The basis ~br this request is: The plat note would have ~he effect of promoting an overiy~alarmist attitude regardilag nitrattes that is not Wal'ranled by known facts. There is no clear couclusion that such systenls will ever be needed a.t Denali View, No study has been conducted to support their required use, DHHS is ovcr-re~cting lo.nitrate concerns, ' ' The note would have the effect of further lowering property values in the entire area, We have seen 'ndicatmns that lot values are depressed by 30 percent already. The technical case outlil~ed tn the DHHS memo is ixmdequate and we have .not had an opportunity to respond to it. The proposed note appears to go beyond the aulhorities of existing onsite wastewater disposal ordinances, Legal doemnentation has been presented to the Municipality that such a plat note would be illegal, and the municipality has chosen not to :seek. a legs/determinat[oi~ of its own, Even DHIIS admits that this technology is still experimental, Ordinance changes would be required for general application, which is .likely years in'to the fUtUre. Our estimates of system installation costs are triple those of a standard system,' with problematic operation and - maLutenance responsibilities DHHS has not 'tbllowed its signed agreement or proper procedure fll recommending the plat note. Technical case, The memo from DHHS does not adequately account for the following facts: A 1997 report by DHHS concluded that "Consumption of water with less than I0 mg/L nixrale nitrogen poses no identifidd he'alth risk fbr huh'mas of any age," Over 85 percent of nitrate P,O. Box 1003~0, Amchorage, Alaska 9~..qlO 201 E. 56*h Avenue, Suite 301, Anchorage, Alaska 99518 Phone (907) 563.0013; Fax (907) 563.6713 FROM : MMM CONTRACTING PHONE NO. : 6881238 May. 04 1998 02:53PH P8 intake h:l a typical adult comes from natural nitrate content of vegetables. Additional details about nitrates are contained itl excerpted comments by DHHS, the Share of Alaska, and others (see attached),. Of the two reported wells with nitrates over 10 tllg/L; one was replaced by a well reporting 0.6 mg/L n'trate~mtrogen and both wells are more than 600 feet from Denali View Subd vision. DHHS should investigate whether wells wkh elevated nitrates may be perforated at depths shallower than MOA codes allow, Nume~,ous lois closer to Denali View report nitrates below '1 mg/L n' rate nitrogen. The recently completed DHHS-approved Anchorage Hillside nitrate study showed that increases i~ nitrate concemradons, if they occur ar all, tend to be gradual, on the seal{; of ),ears to decades, The f'md/ngs warranted carefi}l long-term Planning rather than an alarmist attitude abou~ nitrates, Il: appears that DB'HS intends to use this plat note as a~ enforcing agent fo,' Iow-nitrate septic systems in the absence of ordLnance anthorities, however enforcement criteria are not clear, The criteria seems to be "should trend analysis and mapping deraonstrate 'ncreasmg nitrate levels", the DHHS may ~equ're low-mtrate systems at their sole discretion using the plat note as the only justification. It is very unclear where these trends au'e going to bo measnred, how strong the trends need to be, What the causes might be, and whether other properties should he subjected to requirements for low nitrate system~. We support fun[er study by the Municipality and the pursuit of orderly policy or ordinance ehauges that apply equally to all property owners in affected areas following due process. Data are available to predict future trends in nitrate levels. These dam were evaluated in our report of JDne 18, 1997, Our analysis of 22 lots surrounding Denali View with multiple reported nitrate values, there is no clear trend of increasing nitrate levels in the area. These data were used to conclude that less-dense developmeut in.adjacent areas would not be expected to have a large effect on existing nitrate patterns and trends. The DHHS has never disagreed with this £mding, however it does not s~em t0 be consistent with their recent comrn e nfs i Process, DHHS promised and offered to work with us on the wording of a pla~ note and we requested that the purpose of the plat note be identified so that we could talk. We never · received a response to this request prior to the issuar~Ce by DltH$ of the recommendation memo of April 24, 1998. We have repeatedly requested :information and dialogue with DHHS and have been met with delays and avoidances of the is~u.es. Although the April 24 memo has the name of Dr. Bruce Chandler, DHHS Medical Officer as an author, it not signed or initialed by him. When asked on May 4, 1998, whether he would sign such a memo with the recommended plat note language, he said that he did not kno~, but wouldhave to make some inquiries, l)enali View Hydrology: P,e. quo~;t to Conmau.nlty Plnnntag M~y 4, 1998 Project 8008YM-00 Page 2 FROM : MMM CONTRACTING PHONE NO. : 6881238 May, 04 1990 02:53PM P3 )ION 15::tS FAX 1907503117.13 BI(]STOI ENV SI,It%ICks 004 Bristol Environmental ' . · Sm v~ces Corporation Conclusion, We believe 1)HHS is promoting an overly-alamist policy regarding nitrates considering the shortage of documentation of harm~l nitrate concentration h well water adjacent to Denali View Subdivision, DHHS has presented ' ' an madequal~ justification tb.a~ has not been subject to appropriate review, We request fl~at the plat be approved without the plat note regarding low nitrate septic systems. If the plat emmet be approved without the plat no[e, we request that the case be relurned to DHHS for resolution in accordance with the signed agreement of April 1, 1998 which states th at; As to the issue of nitrates, the question of a plat note will be t~rther discussed by. DHHS and the owner's representative. Shoald DHHS determine that a plat ~lote is appropriate, the Owner's r ;presentanve will be able to participate in the drafting of that note, (Signed) (Signed) Paul Myers James Cross, PE, DHHS We aPpreeiate your attention to these matters. Sincerely, B~tol Envlromnental Services Corporation Principal Hydrogeologist Attachment (two pages excerpted cormnents about nit,'ares) Cc Paul Myers Dan Coffey Dee High Dmmli View Hydrology: Requcsl to Community Planning Page 3 May 4, 1998 FROM : MMM CONTRACTING PHONE NO. : 6881238 Ma~]. 04 1998 02:54PM P4 Quote~ from nute~ from DepRrlment of E~lvlronmenta! ConservatJo~s file on review &Mr. Th~ quo~lion for nit~to~ ~, "1~ th~ro a nttra~ problem in tho aroaY' ' Quote~ from Art Ronim'us, P,E, Drinking Water Coordinator, ~epartmenl of l~nvlronmenl~l Conservation in his "D~na'li View Notc~ All ~vailablc dal~ on N~fmt~ .teve~s for tho ~istina hom~s h~s b~efi ~lo~ed. (We ha~ tb~ m~p), mvmwm~ th~ d~ s. in my opinion lh~m is not wide ap'mad Nilra~ Bio,nd w~tor oontm~i~tion, ]ndivid~nl hom~s have ~om~ high v~lu~s, bUl ~hero ia not 8 p~em of w,dospro~d hig, Nilral~ valu~, Some of tho data old ~nd som~ rc~nt, Mnl~y ofiheso born~s h~vo been there a long tim~ too. Thcs~ uaw hom~s for D~nali SD m~y b~ r~quirod ~ install Low Nitrst~ tran~ment systems ~hich ~osl ~hout' ~oth~r 13.0go in add[lion to tho usual on.sit~ c;~st. In ~d'lmn thoro ara about 44 ~gistin~ u~dovc]op~d )o~ in the nd jafra. SD which might he required to im~ll thes~ more ~x~sfve systems, and tl~r~ ~s th~ possibilily ~hat all fmure s~7~s o~x'stmg hom~a will have to upgmd~ thoro ~sling s pg; system to a Nara~ r~d~;Jng ~ma~l: system to rote'ye s MOA Health. Car ~fic, ate. 'l'h~ implies.lions a~ subs~ntinl ift.h~re ts to bo s.n ama wide i~tiative to control Nitrai~ levels. Do~s MOA hold the developer tls a hsgh tmatmen, standard compared to oxisOnff and other prop*s~d homes9 Quo~o~ ~om Art ~onlmu~ ~n let,~r to Sharon Mins,h dated Febr~ I0, 199g: Reviewing the graphs Ioei~l:ed in Appendix C, a trend may be indicaiefl by some historical da~ from the older public wa~r systems, Tlmr2 a~ numor0us probl~s with ~inff tho~d~m wilhout doing a mom Jn-d~pth review told analysis of enek result, Tho error induced by ~mplJ.ng, tho use 'of. dittbrent l~boramrios, and the *hange ~n analytienl methods u0nd to de~m0~e the level of nitrnte in a. glven'~amPle are just a. few of tho problem~ ~hnt would have 10 he addressed b~fom a d,finjto "trend" could b~ detem~ined. Before I~e Depaflmeld. or I could ~mre with eorlain~ that' there i~ nn t,pward trend, n. stall,till analytic df ~11 ~t~ would n~d 1o h~ ~mpl~teO, Unfo~unasely, t)~e De~nm~n~ currently doe~ not have the stuffing' or ~nding to eomplole.that ~k, The ~0ureos of nitrat~ are numerous, The moro oommorl sources are fertdl~ors animal ~stos from f~d lois ~td h[nxS, impro~rly trended waste ~er (domestic and ~ondome~tic), and ni~0~ generating plants such .as aldors~ With limi~d knowlodg~ of the near eurf~ Benlogioal ~ndi~ions a~d th~ hydrol~lo~l sy~t~in~ in tho ama of eone~m, it i~ almost l~'npo~ible ~o d~,m,.in~, wt~houL a shadOW of doubt, what ~11 harp*n, There possibility that ~o itupro~r oppli~tion of feni izor m la~s in th~;a~a may have an equ~l or great~ aff~t on ires ~ouro~ woll~ fl~an sopti, systems. B~t, ~ was nuted by Mr. Jam~s W,i~e d~rlng our Deeomber 30~ 1997 meatutg, t[~e Depa~ent do~s no haw th~ r~souroes, at this t/mo, ~ continue an m depth rovlew of this ~bj~t, Quote from 8harm~ Min~ch In memo to Jame~ Welse, Department offF. nviromnentul ~onservation regarding discussion of Art Ronimus and Mr, WaJso's response in caps: I f~ol that w~th your lrobruary 22. 190g le~er regarding tho propose.~d D~nalt View Subdivision noaes~Har,~ a, updated response from DEC to my question. It seem~ appropriate in light of the D~rtments effofls to ~th~r h~fom~ation to te~pond to my questions and your r~cent ~vicw of the D~li Vi~, r~por~, He states ha h~d reviewed your lot.tar, Art told me that, the doetsiOZl h~ your leRor Is mltested and tho outcome will dgpend on what'MOA deeide~ rode, fie indicated that nitrates in D~nali View Is a 20 year awsy problem, FROM : MMM CONTRACTING PHONE NO, : 688i238 Ma~. 04 1998 02:55PM P5 Sfnc~ t~ dy~ te~t tr~v~] lim~ tn ~m~t~r was ~ ~00 ~I in ~ w~k~ flm~ ] d~ not ~ how ~y~ ~an ~el a 20 ~a~ problem .ny longe~, , . , ,. IT WOULD TAK~ ~V~L DY~ TEST~ TI~ROUGHOUT TI~ SCIMITAR SUBDIVISION, AS WF2.L AS O]'}~R SUBDIVIitONS 1N T~ ~EA, TO OBTAIN'A ' ' ",GOOD BNOUGH"~RSTAND~O SUBSURFACE FLOW TRAVEL T~S, IT lS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT T~RE ARE SI~V~L "SAND AND GRAIL AQUIFIERN" AND A "BEDROCK AQ~ER,- EaCa COULD HAVE I !FFER.EN i l ~VEL T~};S, AOA1N, IT TAKES MO~ TH&N O'N~! DY~ TEST 70 TRULY QUANTII~Y AND QUALIFy ~ PROBLEM, TF~ CONCBP'i' ~F "SOt~D 8C~CE" A~ "ADEQUA~ DATA" IS IMPORTA~F, Quo$~ ~om t,ori ~. ~ey~ lPh D, S~t~ ofAl~ka Dept, ofH~altl{ ~ So~/al Se~icos. d~d A'pfl110, 1997 Nllrato Is a normal ~omponent of the human diet, Over 8~% of nitrate in,aka in a typical ~ult comes tho natural ~itrai'¢ cont~m ofv~olables, The co~ibution from dm~kin~ ~tor ms usually quite snlal] (a~ut 3% of real), unless ~e wa~r supply is ~ontamina~d, : · .'My impression ~oIn tho lvnllabl~ tnformatlo ~ wa~ that nit 'a'~ ' ...... contamination, I/ht~tMthl~'l~vol~offe~a oolJfo~ b~t~rit~ ~,;N .... ._.~Y ~rke~o~.f~csl · , · .,~ · ~,,/~.~ ~ ou[zcr marc.er tot maT. Howaver, fe~al coordination in dnnkmg water wo~ d d~fine~y i~o~ase th~ hazaM as~oe/at'~d '~onoomi~nt[y high ni~i~ l~v01s in .drinking wa~r. : Quot~ &om Braes'Chandler, MD, MPH~ M~rligipalJty ofAnohb~go Hoel~ Depa~ment da{~ April 1997 Nitrates in tho e~vjeonnlont . The E~h'a atmo~phc~ is about 7~ ~ro~nt n(tmgen and ~ontain~ about routes ofth~ fii~g~n nva{lal}]~ in th~ cnviro'nm~nt Most of.this fil~ogelt is Jfl th~ form of~le~en~l ~og0n ~, btlt commands of nitrogen and oxygen also ar~ present, Som~ of~ core.lind; am produced by chemt~l reae~o~ in ~e atmosph~r% ~d a. substanti 1 m .a,.~ ~-e.a ' ~ .. , a a...o_.t ...... ~ into the atmospha~ t}om tho tr~sfo~ations lhnt ~wntually leave tho nit.gan in the fo~ of ni~1~ata, NiBate aa~ dissolve tn rain.trot or snow and then can mash streams or ~ound wa~er in ronoffor I . liuman nflrate intake - Nieat~ is a no~a ~omponeni ofthe h~naii diet, Tho major source of nitrates into the human hgdy ia ~lly bed rather t~an ~a~r, ~i~ i~ p~s,nt in MI pl~; vage~blea ara a ma or souro0 of nit'ral~ m ~ dior. Over 85% qf mtca~ mtso m fi. t~ao~ ~ult df,t ooltles ~n the natural nii~le coolant ofvego~bl~s, C~le~, ~latoos; le~oe, m~lons ~bag~, ~pmaoh, and many of tho foot vege~bl~s comHbu~ b6~ ni~ms ~d nit,ires to th~ diet, There has been no il~ifi~nt upw~rg'~M m tho nt~to ~n~nt 0fv~g~la~l~ ~o ~llo/th~ aub~nfiM ino~s that have ocour~ in fe~ii~,r u,,a.,e ~k.. ~. ~ .,~' ~urce~ of ~tram a~ To~.$~ffa such as cured meat prod~cts and oozlain es o " ': , m ' ' ' . . ~p fohoeae to ~ch mea~ (or '~J~) h~ I!o~n ~ded as a cunng lg~nt or pr~so~atlv~. . · . Quo.ts ken'Sharon Mln~ch in h~r testimony baforo th~ ~a~ing Board No~. 5, 1997: Tho Munl doesn't pro,ct th~, the S~to doesn't pro~=t thcln, nobody profits ~am. ]'hoa~ glut no~a m not · nforo~blo aqd th6y don't ~rk. ' ' , ' DE]PT. OF ENVIRONME1NT/kL CONSERVATION OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER TONY KNOWLES, GOVERNOR 410 Willoughby Ave,, Ste 105 Juneau, AK 99801~1795 PHONE: (907) 465-5065 FAX: (907) 465-5070 http://www.state.ak,us/dec/home.htrn January 28, 1998 MCS97.145 'The Honorable Vic Kohring Alaska House of Representatives Room 421, Capitol Building Juneau, AK 99801 Dear Representative Kohring: I apologize for the delay in responding to your letter of December 22 about potential groundwater contamination in the Peters Creek/Chugiak area. You raise interesting points concerning increased groundwater contamination from on-lot sewage systems and about DEC's role in addressing that growing problem. First and foremost, I appreciate your recognition that proper domestic wastewater treatment and disposal is essential to protecting drinking water supplies and public health. We at DEC also believe that the state should play an active role in ensuring proper sewage management. DEC does not approve conventional on-lot systems; instead DEC has relied upon local governments, private engineers, and public education to ensure compliance. Those systems must comply with certain standards, such as maintaining separation distances from drinking water systems. DEC does approve multi-family systems and non- conventional on-lot systems. In the past, DEC's reviews of proposed subdivisions was a major tool to ensure that property lines were drawn in ways to support on-lot systems, but those reviews were discontinued through legislative budget cuts and disapproval of fees to perform this review. As Alaska's population and land use density have increased, so has the use of on-lot sewage disposal. Approximately 50% of our residents rely on on-lot systems. There are :~ndeed areas of the state where that heavy reliance upon on-lot systems is posing a risk to groundwater. I share your concern that this needs to be addressed but do not agree that stating that DEC has a general duty to address this or "reallocating" resources from other programs are viable or realistic solutions. A solution requires first an analysis of the scope of the problem. Unfortunately, there has never been funding to conduct ambient monitoring of groundwater to ascertain the trends that could confirm whether a problem exists. The Honorable Vic Koln'ing ~4csg?.m 2 January 28, 1998 A solution then requires an assessment of xvhether the current regulatory approach for on~ lot systems is sufficient to protect Alaska's groundwater. As you are well aware, this is an emotional, volatile, and controversial issue among landowners. It brings to a head issues of property rights, privatization of state services, and the role of state and local governments. I was surprised by your letter advocating that DEC take a more active role in scrutinizing the decisions the Municipality of Anchorage takes on these issues. The question of xvho should perform this function is a major policy question and prior legislative direction has been for DEC to delegate and defer to local government. Anchorage is the only community that performs all aspects ora domestic wastewater program. Most local governments do not get involved at all. In recent years, many of your colleagues have strongly advocated that these services be provided by local governments or private engineers rather than the state. That was certainly the reason given by the legislature when it denied fees for subdivision plan reviews. And, Representative Hodgins introduced HB 292 this year to enable a professional engineer to act as a public health authority to inspect or certify on-site systems. For an effective solution, this policy question must be resolved. Finally, a viable solution must include appropriate levels of funding. Over the years, DEC has barely been left with sufficient funds to perform the requisite approvals, let alone undertake broadscale ambient monitoring or oversee decisions made by local governments. Furthermore, the program's general funds have been steadily replaced by program receipts. This means that staff must perform the tasks that the fees support; i.e., plan reviews. The remaining general funds are used predominantly for emergency response to surface sewage discharges. Consequently, I am very pleased that you have taken an interest in this area and would welcome the opportunity to develop a more thorough and effective program which will require a budget increment. I ~vould also like to address two other subjects in your letter: our effbrts in regard to the Chugiak/Peters Creek area described by Ms. Minsch, and current activities underway to help assess, protect or minimize the impacts of contaminants on drinking water sources. First, regarding Ms. Minsch's particular concerns, at the request of the Municipality of Anchorage (MOA) the department did provide comments to the MOA and to the developer of the Denali View Subdivision indicating our concerns with nitrates. We also have shared a plethora of information from our files of subdivisions in the area with the Municipality and with residents of the area. This includes a letter to homeowners in the area from the MOA, dated May 19, 1992. In it, the MOA explains that there have been some elevated nitrates and that certain property owners may be required to improve their wastewater treatment methods. Your letter also suggested that we "re-extend our offer" to the Municipality to assist in developing ordinances that xvould require the Municipality to issue approvals of on-lot septic systems before H:\HOM E\CMILLER\MCS-CTS\MCS9? 14 5 B.DOC The Honorable Vic Kohring Mcs97.~4s 3 Janum7 28, 1998 they can be sold. On several occasions, we have offered this assistance to the Municipality. However, I have been told that Elaine Christian, director of MOA's Health and Human Services Department, is still considering whether or not to take this proposal forward to the Assembly. By copy of this letter to her, I am letting her know of your interest in this topic. Second, we do have underway a number of activities that bear on this issue. These are primarily' funded by federal funds provided through the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996. * DEC is developing a source water protection program. The first steps will be to conduct source water assessments of federally defined public water systemst to delineate the boundaries of the areas providing source waters for public water systems and to identify, to the extent practical, the origins of contaminants in the delineated area. These "contaminant inventories," coupled with the source water boundaries, will be used to determine the susceptibility -- or risk -- of the public water system to future contamination and establish appropriate public health protection measures. All of this information will be shared with the public. i, DEC is developing a Wellhead Protection Program to encourage local conu-nunity involvement in protecting community drinking water wells with gronndwater sources from potential contamination and water quality degradation. Staffis working with other agencies, local governments, and community councils to describe health protections, best xvater management practices, and the proper siting of new wells. Significant public outreach is a component of a successful Wellhead Protection Program, including work shops, technical assistance, public meetings, and informational flyers. I, In November, DEC made a presentation to the Alaska Science and Technology Board, asking that it participate with us on a "Technical Review Committee" for domestic wastewater issues. We initiated this Review Committee to find ways to get to "yes" more expeditiously when alternative technologies are proposed. This Review Committee is planned to be a private-public partnership to provide assistance in reviewing such proposals and suggesting any limitations or trial runs that might be appropriate. * DEC is stepping up its public axvareness effbrts regarding potential problems with septic systems and how they can contaminate drinking water wells if not properly designed, constructed and maintained. The Division of Environmental Health is just completing the first of what we have nicknamed our "septic series" flyers. Copies will be sent to realtors, bankers, engineers, certified installers, the University of Alaska Cooperative Extension, and any other entity that can help share ~ Please note: the state definition of"public water system" differs somewhat from the federal defioition. Federal rules apply only to ~vhat we call Class A and Class B public water systems. Class C water systems are not recogoized as public water systems in the federal laws. Class C water systems generally can be described as serving less than 25 people but more than a single family home. H:\HOME\CMILLERIMCS-m'S\MCS97145B.DOC The Honorable Vic Kohring Mcs97.t4s 4 January 28, 1998 this information with homeowners. The Wellhead Protection Program's outreach will also assist with this effort. · Finally, we are pursuing a $194,000 grant from EPA that will allow the state to provide tectmical assistance, including public education, to improve wastewater treatment services in "poor, rural communities with populations Of 3,000 or fewer..." We are currently exploring with EPA's Region 10 which Alaska communities EPA would consider falling within that description. These efforts will have a positive effect toward keeping our groundwater clean. Unfortunately, however, these federal funds are fairly restricted and cannot be used to undertake groundwater monitoring activities or to design an alternative regulatory approach if it appears that there is a widespread problem. "Watershed" money is not available to us for this purpose. Any such effort would have to be funded from general funds appropriated by the legislature. We would be happy to work with you to define the scope and cost of such a project. '. Again, thank you for your support of proper domestic wastewater treatment and disposal. I look forward to working with you to analyze the scope of the problem; assess whether the current regulatory approach is sufficient; reach agreement on a single policy position; and to obtain funding increments. Let me know if you'd like to pursue these ideas. Sincerely, Michele Brown Commissioner CC~ Elaine Christian, Director, Health and Human Services, MOA Sharon Minsch, RE/MAX of Eagle River, Inc. H:\HOM E\CMILLER\MCS-CTS\MCS9? 14 5 B.DOC Rick Mystrom, Mayor Mtm cipal ty of nchorag¢ Department of Health and Human Services 825 "L" Street P.O. Box 196650 Anchorage, Alaska 99519-6650 February 6, 1998 Ms. Sharon Minsch 16600 Centerfield Drive #201 Eagle River, Alaska 99577 Dear Ms. Minsch: As a follow up to our conversation on the phone the other day I have attached a copy of the Draft memo written to me by Marc Little in an effort to answer some of the questions I posed to him. '['he memo will not be finalized since Mr. Little no longer works for the Municipality. I expect this will answer your freedom of information request dated January 24, 1998. As I stated on the phone, Phase II of the nitratE; study has been delayed for several reasons, all of which are my doing and no one else's. I had requested answers to my questions as well as copies of all studies referenced in the Phase I report prior to my being willing to move forward with Phase II. I had also asked staff provide me with a detailed, written scope of work for Phase il. I have requested that this scope of work be reviewed and approved by AVVVVU General Manager, Municipal Medical Officer and the On-Site Technical Advisory Board prior to my approving any contract. Finally, I have asked staff to review the funding for this project to ensure the scope of work is consistent with the requirements of the funding, the work will be done within the allowable time frame and that funding sources are aware of our intention to proceed with Phase II. There is no effor[ to withhold information, I simply have not had my questions answered nor have I had the opportunity to review all of the materials. As Department Director, I am unwilling to proceed with any effort which I do not believe has been well thought out, well documented and will produce something of value. As a steward of this funding it is my responsibility to ensure the dollars are appropriately spent. Moving forward without a well-developed scope of work is not in the best interest of the Municipality, the taxpayers, or the grantors. There is no intent on the part of Municipality to avoid anything - I believe I fully explained the delay in the previous paragraph. I would like to add that even if the funding were at risk, which it is not, I would not proceed with a project just the funding were at risk, which it is not, I would not proceed with a project just because I have money. The Department has made a concerted effort to focus it's mission, goals, and efforts so that each labor furthers our mission, has a direct relationship to the health of our community and each dollar is put to the best use. Finally, I do believe there is an acceptable reason to delay this project and it is my decision. Phase II of the nitrate study will mow.· forward when the scope of work has been reviewed and approved by the Municipal Medical Officer, the On- Site Technical Review Board (of which you are a member) and the AWVVU General Manager. I believe the process I have outlined for Phase II will ensure a better product for all that are concerned about our water quality. I will be attending the February meeting of the On-Site 'Technical Review Board and will answer any of your questions at that time. I would also invite you to contact me any time you have a concern or question that staff are not able to address. I realize you are frustrated by the delay and I can assure you I am equally frustrated. However, I believe spending the time early in the process will produce a better product and save further frustration. I look forward to seeing you next week. Sincerely, cc: Dan Kendall Ted Carlson Mark Premo Howard Holton Rick Mystrom, Mayor _tL. ,:v' ' ~. Department of Health and Numan Services 825 "L" Street P.O. Box 196650 Anchorage, Alaska 99519-6650 April 28, 1998 The Law Offices of Mr. Dan K. Coffey 207 East Northern Lights Boulevard Suite 200 Anchorage, Air,, 99503 Dear Mr. Coffey: I have included with this letter nitrate data relented to in the memo to Corrmmnity Planning and Development fi'om Dr. Bruce Chandler and me dated April 24, 1998. These data, from files at the Department of Health and Human Services, have all previously been given to Mr. Myers of Skyline Vie~v Corporation, or his engineer Mr. Dee High (DHI Consulting Engineers), or his hydrologist Mr. James Munter (Bristol Environmental Services Corporation). A map (DHI Consulting Engineers comp. file #298CRDMP dated 6-12-97) submitted to this office by Skyline View Corporation of the proposed Denali View Subdivisiou and the existing surrounding subdivisions used these same data. The basic reasoning for the plat note is also outlined in the memo to Community Plamfing and Development from Dr. Bruce Chandler and me dated April 24, 1998. Mr. Myers has a copy of this memo, and I have attached an additional copy for your convenience. I hope that this infmrnation satisfies your request. If you have any additional questions please contact me. .Sinc~ly, ///~ I)'rogram Manager On-Site Water Quality cc: Elaine Christian, Director, DHHS Lura Morgan, Ph.D., Manager, Environmental Services Rick Mystrom, Mayor Department of Health and Human Services 825 "L" Street P.O, Box 196650 Anchorage, Alaska 99519-6650 April 28, 1998 The Law Offices of Mr. Dan 1<2. Coffey 207 East Northern Lights Boulevard Suite 200 Anchorage, AK 99503 Dear Ivlr. Coffey: I have included with this letter nitrate data referred to in the memo to Community Plmming and Development from Dr. Bruce Chandler and me dated April 24, 1998. These data, from files at the Department of Health and Human Services, have all previously been given to Mr. Myers of Skyline View Corporation, or his engineer Mr. Dee High (DHI Consulting Engineers), or his hydrologist Mr. James Munter (Bristol Environmental Services Corporation). A map (/)HI Consulting Engineers comp. file #298CRDMP dated 6-12-97) submitted to this office by Skyline View Corporation of the proposed Denali View Subdivision and the existing surrounding subdivisions nsed these same data. The basic reasoning for the plat note is also outlined in the memo to Community Plmming and Development fi'om Dr. Bruce Chandler and me dated April 24, 1998. Mr. Myers has a copy of this memo, and I have attached an additional copy for your convenience. I hope that this information satisfies your request. If you have any additional questions please contact me. J~ne~ Cross, PE J cc: Elaine Christian, Director, DHHS Lura Morgan, Ph.D., Manager, Environmental Services FROH : MMM CONTRACTING PHONE NO. : 6881238 Apr, 06 1998 10:34AM Pi April 6, 1998 'Mr, Jim Cross Depai~ment of Health & Human Services 825 "L" Street An,borage, AK 99501 RE: Denali View Subdivision Nitrale Note Post-Fl' Pax Note 767t Ic '! Fax ~ "; Dear.Mr. Cross; At our meeting with Elaine Christian and you on April 4, 1998, we discussed removal of your recommendation for the nitrate plat note attachment. All of our information aud experts have come to the conclusion there is no definite trend of increase of nitrates in this area. We hope we have all relevant information at this time from your department, and request that you provide any pertinent information you have to our hydrogeologlst and Skyline 'View Corporation as soon as possible. We also discussed nitrate issues and asked you what your department's nitrate level of c0neem is. If there is an official number for nitrate levels in your department or if they arc concerned at any level, the States level of concern is at 5. As time is of the essence, your immediate written respunse to this matter is requested. erely, Denali View Notes; Art Ronimus, October 27, 1997 I have read through all the reports and spoken to all the "stake holders". Denali View is a proposed Sub-Division (SD), 11 residential lots (1.2 to 7.63 acres) on about 35 acres. The concerns are; potential impact of the septic tank effluent on groundwater Nitrate levels fl'om the new Denali View homes and from existing and new homes in tbe adjacent SD's. (Several hundred acres around tile proposed 35 acres) whether tbere is adequate water for the 11 new homes witbout materially affecting the availability of water for the existing homes. Also a concern about new homes in the adjacent SDs. Is the process that MOA uses to approve SD's favor the developer at the expense of Public Health protection, properly values, etc? ADEC's role is unknown. The level of debate has reached elevated heights of emotions, rhetorical claims, im~uendo, perception, loud and vehement expressions of concern over potential future WQ impacts, questions asking about the integrity of individuals involved in the process, plus others not printable in the record. The MOA SD approval process is quite thorough. The planning and review of the potential SD covers many areas. Decisions about potential impacts of future water and sewer service on the groundwater are made based on the best judgement of the planners, engineers, and hydrologists. All available data on Nitrate levels for the existing homes has been plotted. (We have the map). After reviewing the data, in my opinion there is not wide spread Nitrate ground water contamination. Individual homes have some high values, but there is not a pattern of widespread high Nitrate values. Some of the data is old and some recent. Many of these homes have been there a long time too. These new homes for Denall SD may be required to install Low Nitrate treatment systems which cost about another $3,000 in addition to the usual on-site cost. In addition there are about 44 existing undeveloped lots in tile adjacent SD which might be required to install these more expensive systems, and there is the possibility that all future sales of existing homes will have to upgrade there existing septic system to a Nitrate reducing treatment system to receive a MOA Health Certificate. The implications are substantial if there is to be an area wide initiative to control Nitrate levels. Does the MOA hold the developer to a higher treatment standard as compared to existing and other proposed homes? Denali View Notes; Art Ronimos, October 27, 1997 I have read through all the reports and spoken to all the "stake holders". Denali View is a proposed Sub-Division (SD), 11 residential lots (1.2 to 7.63 acres) on about 35 acres. The concerns are; potential impact of the septic tank effluent on groundwater Nitrate levels from the new Denali View homes and fi'om existing_and new homes in the adjacent SD's. (Several hundred acres around the proposed 35 acres) whether there is adequate water for the I 1 new homes without materially affecting the availability of water for the existing homes. Also a concern aboot new homes in the adjacent SDs. Is the process that MOA uses to approve SD's favor the developer at the expense of Public Health protection, property values, etc? ADEC's role is unknown. The level of debate has reached elevated heights of emotions, rhetorical claims, innuendo, perception, loud and vehement expressions of concern over potential future WQ impacts, questions asking about the integrity of individuals involved in the process, plus others not printable in the record. The MOA SD approval process is quite thorough. The planning and review of the potential SD covers many areas. Decisions about potential impacts of future water and sewer service on the groundwater are made based on the best judgement of the plmmers, engineers, and hydrologists. All available data on Nitrate levels for the existing homes has been plotted. (We have the map). After reviewing the data, in my opinion there is not wide spread Nitrate ground water contamination. Individual homes have some high values, but there is not a pattern of widespread high Nitrate values. Some of the data is old and some recent. Many of these homes have been there a long time too. These new homes for Denali SD may be required to install Low Nitrate treatment systems which cost about another $3,000 in addition to the usual on-site cost. In addition there are about 44 existing undeveloped lots in the adjacent SD which might be required to install these more expensive systems, and there is the possibility that all future sales of existing homes will have to upgrade there existing septic system to a Nitrate reducing treatment system to receive a MOA Health Certificate. The implications are substantial if there is to be an area wide initiative to control Nitrate levels. Does the MOA hold the developer to a higher treatment standard as compared to existing and other proposed homes? Denali View Notes; Art Ronimus, October 27, 1997 I have read through all the reports and spoken to all the "stake holders". Denali View is a proposed Sub-Division (SD), 11 residential lots (1.2 to 7.63 acres) on about 35 acres. The concerns are; potential impact of the septic tank effluent on groundwater Nitrate levels from the new Denali View homes and fi'om existing and new homes in the adjacent SD's. (Several hundred acres around the proposed 35 acres) whether there is adequate water for the 11 new homes without materially affecting the availability of water for the existing homes. Also a concern about new homes in the adjacent SDs. Is the process that MOA uses to approve SD's favor the developer at the expense of Public Health protection, property values, etc? ADEC's role is unknown. The level of debate has reached elevated heights of emotions, rhetorical claims, immendo, perception, loud and vehement expressions of concern over potential future WQ impacts, questions asking about the integrity of individuals involved in the process, plus others not printable in the record. The MOA SD approval process is quite thorough. The planning and review of the potential SD covers many areas. Decisions about potential impacts of l\~ture water and sewer service on the groundwater are made based on the best judgement of the planners, engineers, and hydrologists. All available data on Nitrate levels for the existing homes has been plotted. (We have the map). After reviewing the data, in my opinion there is not wide spread Nitrate ground water contamination. Individual homes have some high values, but there is not a pattern of widespread high Nitrate values. Some of the data is old and some recent. Many of these homes have been there a long time too. These new homes for Denali SD may be required to install Low Nitrate treatment systems which cost about another $3.000 in addition to the usual on-site cost. In addition there are about 44 existing undeveloped lots in the adjacent SD which might be required to install these more expensive systems, and there is the possibility that all future sales of existing homes will have to upgrade there existing septic system to a Nitrate reducing treatment system to receive a MOA Health Certificate. The implications are substantial if there is to be an area wide initiative to control Nitrate levels. Does the MOA hold the developer to a higher treatment standard as compared to existing and other proposed homes? Denali View Notes; Art Ronimus, October 27, 1997 I have read through all the reports and spoken to all tile "stake holders". Denali View is a proposed Sub-Division (SD), 11 residential lots (1.2 to 7.63 acres) on about 35 acres. The concerns are; potential impact of the septic tank effluent on gronndwater Nitrate levels from the new Denali View homes and front existing and new bonres in the adjacent SD's. (Several hundred acres around the proposed 35 acres) whether there is adequate water for the 11 new homes without materially affecting the availability of water for the existing homes. Also a concern about new homes in the adjacent SDs. Is the process that MOA uses to approve SD's favor the developer at the expense of Public Health protection, property values, etc? ADEC's role is unknown. The level of debate has reached elevated heights of emotions, rhetorical claims, innuendo, perception, loud and vehement expressions of concern over potential future WQ impacts, questions asking about the integrity of individuals involved in tile process, plus others not printable in the record. The MOA SD approval process is quite thorough. The planning and review of the potential SD covers many areas. Decisions about potential impacts of future water and sewer service on the groundwater are made based on the best judgement of tbe planners, engineers, and hydrologists. All available data on Nitrate levels for the existing homes has been plotted. (We have the map). After reviewing the data, in my opinion there is not wide spread Nitrate ground water contamination. Individual homes haw.· some high values, but there is not a pattern of widespread high Nitrate values. Some of the data is old and some recent. Many of these homes have been there a long time too. These new homes for Denali SD may be required to install Low Nitrate treatment systems which cost about another $3.000 in addition to the usual on-site cost. In addition there are about 44 existing undeveloped lots in the adjacent SD which might be required to install these more expensive systems, and there is the possibility that all future sales of existing homes will have to upgrade there existing septic system to a Nitrate reducing treatment system to receive a MOA Health Certificate. The implications are substantial if there is to be an area wide initiative to control Nitrate levels. Does the MOA hold the developer to a higher treatment standard as compared to existing nnd other proposed homes? P, 02 TONY KNOWL£$, GOVERNOt] INFECTIOUS DISEASES iMMUNLZATION CHRONIC 0~SeASEE DIA[~ETE$ INJURY CONTROL FAX 582.7802 ~L.l~'v[ O R.~OALXt DATE: April 10, 1997 TO: Catherb.e Schumacher, M,D., M.S.P.H. FROM: Lori A. Feyk, Ph.D. 5UB3EC L Health Implicario~ of Nitrates in Drinkh~g Water The following ts a slzort summary of the Lnformadon obtained from the TOMES data base (thar~ks/'or being patient!) I have more detailed, intorxnadon, including references, if you l~eed it. Just let me .know[ Toxlcit)' Nitrate toxicity is due prim~ily to irs conversion to ~Strite, which oxidizes the Pc(+2) form (~f iron in hemo~Iobin to the Fe(+3) state. This compound (methemoglobin) docs not bind oxygen, resulting in reduced oxygen transport from lungs to tissues. Low levels of methemoglobin occur in normal individuals, Concentrations above 10% methemoglobin (of total hemoglobin) may cause a bluish color to skin and lips (cyanosis), wkile values above 25% lead to weakness, rapid pulse a~d tachypnea.' Death may occur if metbemoglobin values exceed 50-60%. The most sensitive human health endpoint of concern for nitrates is methemoglobinemia in infunts. Conversion of nitrate to nitrite is mostly mediated by bacteria in the gastrointestinal system. Comequently, the risk of methemoglobinemia from Lugesfion of nitrate depends not only on the dose of nitrate, but also on the number and ~'pe of enteric bacteria. Conversion of nitrate to n/trite may occur in the stomach if the pH of tho gastric fluid is Sufficiently high (above pH 5) to pmTnit bacterial growxh. This is of concern m adults with diseases such as acl~orhydria or atrophic gastritis. It is also of concern in irrt'ants, since the infant gastroimestinal system normally ltas a high pH that favors the growth of nitrate*reducing bacteria. Risk is especially high in infants who are exposed to water that is contaminated with bacteria, since this tends to promote high concentrations of bacteria in the stomach and intestines. Catherine Schumacher, M.D., M.S.P.H. April I0, 1997 Page 2 P, 03 Nitrate is a normal component of the htm~an diet. Over 85% of nitrate intake in a typical adult comes from the natural nitrate content of vegetables. The contribution from drinking water is usually quite small (about 2 -3 % of total), m~less the water supply is contam. Jnated. Some adults consuming high levels of vegetables along with water containing Ngh levels of nitrate could receive total doses of nitrate approaching the recommended maximal daily intal~e. The Reference Dose for drinldng water is 10 mg nitrate-nitrogen/L. This level should not be exceeded in drinking water. The number expresses the amount of nitrogen within the nitrate molecale, which is what is typically measured. There is a high degree of co~£tdence in this number, which provides protection for the most sensitive human health endpoint. Calculations were made co~sidering the ingestion of dr{nkh~g water used to prepare infants' formula. Methemoglobinemia has been obsetwed in kff~ts when this level has been exceeded. Cases reported at levels of 11- 20 mg/L nitrate-nitrogen were usually associated with concomitant expoaurc to bacteriologically contan'dnated water or to excess rdn'ate from other sources. Repeated smd[es provide convincing evidence ~hat irffanriJe methemogloblnemla does not occur at drh~Ang water levels of 10 mg nitrate-nitroges or.less. Marker of Fecal Contnmhiation? My impression from the available information was that rtl;rate is not necessarily a m~rker of fecal contamination. I think that ixigh levels of fecal c~lifotm bacteria (E, coli) are a better m~ker for that. However, fecal contamination in drinking wa;er wuuld definkely increase the hazard associated with concomitantly t~igh nitrate levels in drinking water. Carelnogenic Potential Some chemicaB in the class called "nitrosanfnes' are known mammalian carcinogens. A potential pathway for the formation of such chemicals is the nitrosation 0f secondats, amines that are naturally preseut in the diet. The source of the n]troso groap is nkrite, most of wlfich is produced e?.do~enously in humans from nitrate. However, while endogenous exposure to such nitroso compounds appears to be fairly ubiquitous, their relevance to the development of human neoplasia is questionable. To my knowledge, recommended intake levels of nitrate have not been based on this endpoint, and the information surrounding it is much less certain than tMt for i~fant methemoglobinemia. Just wanted to make you aware of the subject. Let me know if you need more info! On nitr~tes, drinking water, m~d human heallh Bruce Chaadlcr, MD, MPH April 1997 Nitrates in the environment The Earth's am~osphere is aborn 78 percent mlrogen and contains about [hree-fi'>urrhs of nitro,eh available in tl~e environmeut. Most o~' d~is niu'o~en is in the Ik~ of e!emenml e~, ~m comFo~ds et'nitrogen md oxygen also are present. Some ot':heae compotmds ae ~roduced by chemical reactions tn t}~e atmosphere, and a substantial amount are rela~ed into the ammsphere ~m ~e combustion of K~ssil ~e!, such as coal anti gasoline. Nitrogen compounds in thc a*~osphere undergo [ransfom~atlons that eventually leave tlxe nitrogen in thc fomq of nitrate. Niwme can dis!mire in rain~cmer or saow and then can reach streruus or groand water in Naturally occ~ng ~rares are a major tsactor {n plaot groxh~}l, They are ~bsorbed by growh~g pl~ts ~d under normal conditions are metabolized rapidly to produce protein. Although occtlr5 namer in driving water, elevated levels in groundwater may result lycra ltulnan activities such ~s overuse of chemical Grtilizers and improper disposal of human and animal wastes. ~ese Fe~ilizers m~d ~aslcs are sources ot'nitrogca-containNg componnds which ,~e eonvc}ied to ~ates m lbo soil. Thc dt7 fcmUzcrs alll~lloniolll stlllht¢ ruxd :tmmonium nimtte, for exmnpb, have a nitrogen content of 21 and 33 percent, respectively, ~}n~le the widely used liquid l~ilize~ ~vdrous m~m~onia, has a nitrogen content of 82 percent. Surveys in midwcstcrn am'iculmca[ s;alcs such as Iowa, Kaosas, aod South Dakota ha~e sl~own that 25% or more of p~vute ',~ ells exceed the drinking ~ater stamdard (I 0 ppm) Gr nitrate nitrogen. In Nebraska, 17% of domesiic x~eilu :md 14% of public supply ~x.e!Is exceed this standard) ~ ~e movement of contmninm~ts in groundwater is a temples process hgluenced by many some of these :~e d~e amount, size. and solubilio' of the cont~inant; the physical, chemical, and microbi¢l chancier of the soil m:d rock; nature ofo~erlying vegetatinn; the dcpdl of ~-oundwater: rate of groundwater flow; and thc amount ofpreclpitation. Microbiological catlt~l~artt~ such tm buctefia :md viruses usually travel a sho~ distance through sandy loam or ctav. bur ma5 mtve! large distances tb~ough coarse saod alld gravel. Chemical contaminants. bei;~g of much smaller size than bacteria or viruses, tend to travel much father in underground aquifers) Once ni~rate is lkma~ed, its movement in sell and its potential tbr conlamination ol'b~ound water depend on sox oral ihctors including the soil characteristics, location antl charactehstics oF the und=rgxound ,.~ater Coronations, and climatic conditions. Nitrates arc extremely soluble ill water and can move easily through soil into the drinking water supply. Thc potential tbr ~fitrate conta~ladon et'drinking wate: also depends on the depth and construction of wells. Because nltrares move with the flow of groundwater, the source may bc located at considerabb distance ~om the well. In mm~y cases, thc time needed tbr nitrate to pass through the soil groundwater ts difficult to predict due ',o many variables mdudmg apphcat~oa rate, tl,e soil type, and the depth to the water lib e - iuent~ivmg ~e source of n. trates or' otter chcrmcal contan~iom~ts for an individual tve!l is orS'eh very difficult; comprehensive hydrogeological studies amd monitoring wells to trace the migration of the contamlnant in thc grom~dwater may be necessau', beeatlse ~Ira~es ;md other chemicals may travel great dislances in unde~vater aquifers and groundwater contaJ:tination with nilratcs or off,er che~licals may persist for decades or longer,r' Human nilrate intake Nitrale is a normal comFo~ent ,~f :he human diet. The major source fSf ~,atrates taken into the hulIl~kn body is usually fi>od ralher than water'. Ni~rale is preaent in al} plants; vegembles ',~e a mqior source of Ntrate in thc dict. Over 85% ol'nitrate intake in a U'pical adult diet comes fi'om the ~latural nitrate content of vezetab!es. Cele~% potatoes, lc~lce, melons, cabbage, spinach, and many of the root vegetablcs contribute }3olh ~li[rates and nit~dte8 to thc diet.¢ There has been Ilo slgnificaltt tlpward trend in the ~tra~e content of vegetables to parallel the substantial increases that have occurred in Fe{:fillzer asage. Other major dietmT sources oF nitrate are good-stags such mq cured meat produets and certain types of cheese to which nitrate (or nithte) bas been added as a ct~hlg agent or pretservative,s The cor:tribtttion ~'rom ,.!rlp~king 'aa!er is usually quite small (3% or less) uuless the water supply contains ultrates in elevated concentrxtions. Perso~Is who (!rink water with 10 ppm nitrate nilro~en have on averag6 ~vice :i~o nitrate intake oF those drinking nitrate-free water; al 20 ppm, dail,.~nitrate intake increases ~tpi:rox!mately tl'd'c¢'.t'old.° \'~q~¢re drinking ;varcr is contaminated to a'level or' 50 tllg/1 (5 times t~:c EP.\ .~ faximm'n Contaminai:t Level), it may supply as mtlch as lmi£of the total daily nitrate intake? Infants in the first ge,.,.- moat}is usua[ly eorlsume f'ew vegetables; their prima~.w source ofrdtratc is from water u~cd m the prep~u'at'_'on of foretold. Hunum breast milk is not a significant source nitrate to breast feeding ir~anls. Nitrate toxiciO/ The toxicity of nitrate is due primarily to its ~.xmversion to nitrite; l~_itritc oxidizes tl~e f"e('¢2) lbrm of iron in hemoglobin, the molecule in :l:e red blood cell which distributes oxygen to th': body's cells, to the Fe(+3) state· This compound--methemoglobh~--does r'~ot bind oxygen, resulting in reduced ox?'gen trm~sport from i=ngs to :issues. Low levels ofmethcmoglobin occur in normal individuals. Concentrations above 10% metl:emoglobin may cause a bluish color to skin and lips, while values aboxe 25% lead to weakness, rapid pulse and tachypnea. Untreated, severe methemoglobinemia can result [1l brain damage; death may occur If mcthemoglob'n values exceed. 50-60%. The bureau health risk of greatest concern gOT' nitrates is merhcmoglobincmia ma-ionhl in£ams. Conversion of nitrate to nitr/te is mostly mediated by bactcr/tt in the gaslrointestina! system. Consequently, the r;sk o£mexhe:noglobincmia fi'om ingestion of nitrate depends not only on the dose or' nitrate, but ~.lso on the nmnber ,~nd type ol'vnteric bacteria. Conversiotl oft~itratc to nitrirc may occur in the stomach if the p~{ of thc gastric fluid is sufficie=:ttl¥ high (above pl]{ 5) to petn~t bacrerlal growlh. This is of concern in adults with certain diseases such ~m achlorhydfia ar atrophic gastritis in which acid production in the stomach is redttced. It is ak4o of concern itl inf:mts, since the {nfanl gastrointestinal system normally has a h/ah pli that Favors the growth nitrate-reducing bacteria. Risk is especially high in infimts who m'e exposed to water that is contaminated wiLh bacteria, since this tends to promote high concentrations of bacteria ia stomach and bre:~tlncs, in addkioa, the red blued cells of newborn itff?mts contain fetal hemoglobh], v, hlch is ranch more susceptible to oxidation by nitrite !him is adult hcmog!obin. Med]eama!obinemia in bi;ants under six months oCage is the only illness wNch is clearly caused by the ~tr~e oFdri~ng water with c!cvated ~itratc levels. Thc relationship kenvccn inl~m me~hemoglob~emia and drimUng 'eater conlaining more than 10 mg'l of nitrate ~lrogen was firs: described b 1945. Subsequent epidemiologlcal stmlics have demonslraled a dose dependent relafio~hip between nitrate concemratlon in thc drinklug water and raised methe~Ilog]obhl A comprehe~xsiv¢ stud.v of i~t;ant mcthemoglobincrnia !n ~h¢ United States in thc 1940s and 50s by Walton fmmd that only 2 percent of the cases o{'nJlratc waterqnduced h~,mt methemog!obinemia occtlget~ in association with ~dtralc nilrogen concentrations of 20 nlg/1 or [ess, wi>lc slightly over 80 percent of cases were correlated xvkh nitrate nitrogen concentrations of 51 mgq or ~vatcr. 12 Cases reporled at levels of 11-20 nlg/L nitrate-nitrogen were usually ~sociated x~i~ cnncomit~mt exposure to bacteriologically coalaminated water or to excess nitrate Prom o~er sources. Rcpcatetl studies have shown that inGnt methemo~iobinemia does not occ~ ar drinking water levels at 10 mg mtrate-mlrogen or less." Similarh,. water with nit, ate ,es e!a nommll? po>ca no ask ~o older dmdrcn o~ adults. Fo~ example one sRldy of over 100 illinois c~dren 1-8 >'cat's in age ingesting water ~ ith nitrate ~u'ogen content ranging fi'om 23-204 mg,l ~bund no e!eva~ion in mcfl~emog!obin levels irl thc children and no relationship be¢~een iugesilon of high nitralc water and thc measured methemoglobin level. ~'~ Because ingestion of excessive tin, aunts of nitrate can cause, adverse }lealth e~'ects in very voting' ~,=u s ~xnd :,ubcep '~le adults, the U ~ ted ~Sta es F, iv ronmental Pro ectlon Agency (EPA) ms established a maximum acceptable level, known as thc Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL), tbr nitrate h~ public drir~,k/ng water supplies. This level is 10 milligrams per liter (rog/l)--often expressed ms 10 pm'ts per million (ppnl)--measured on the basis o t' tile t~trogen content of nitrate. Th/s stand~trd of 10 ppm nitrate-:~dtrogen was set to prevent the oecun'ence in i~m~t metl~cmog!oblnemia with ,t reasonable margin of sa/bt)'.13'16 W'rfile associations of nitrate corttrm~ination ofgrotllld water with a mllllber of other health effects (including hypeaen~ion, clinical methemoglobinemia in older children, increased infant mo~aliD', zmd cea:raft ne>.'ous system birth detbcrs) have been reported, only the association ber,veen ground-water contamination by aJmttes and inlhnt :ncthemoglobinemia has been proven.~: IS There have been eot'teen,s that rfitratc-containing compounds might cause cm,,cer or birth dc£ccts. Conclusive I;roc~"of a carcinogenic e'/Tcct in humans ofNtrate compotltlds is currently lacking. The results oFepidemiological studies are contradictory m~d inconck~sive. ~o.::0 The majori~.y ol-' evidence by which nitrate exposure has been associated with an increased cancer Nsk is derived from correlational qmdies which, by the · nature, provide only weak evidence. Ar the present tm~¢, nitrate exposure ill drirJdng water carulot be bnpUcatcd or excluded as a causati,,'e factor lbr certain types ofcanc0, r.2~ Animal data }las nt;t sho\v!~ e ' '~ ' ' ' :' - · . ' . nitrite ingestion Adverse :mimal rcprod ctive ellcc s ul the fom~ of Ncrea,sed tel oss have been rep .> ~ed ..... ~ ~at xx crc 1,000 times and higher thtm the estimated humcm intake. The results of'ep dcm olo,g;cal s~dics to date are cnutradietory ~ inconclusive. At the present t ne, t lci'e h: no ex [dellco to show that ~:uman eXDOSUI'O [O nitrates pltoduces adverse reproductive tll,xl ) nlaL )ns, ' Stllllrllal~¥:'. Nitrates occur namrai!v in air, soil, plants, and groundxvater. 2. F. levated nitrate levels in gh)undwatcr may be the result of human aefivilies such as overase of ckenlica} [b~xiUzcrs and improper disposal of htm]an ~md animal ~vasrcs. 3. l'he delineation of tl:e sources of nitrates in grou[ldwater is o~e~l dirtier]Il, because: · nitrates are smMl molecules which are highly soluble hi water. · nitrates may move great distances fi'olll their point of entry illto an utlderground aquifer. · nitrates conmmimttion in underground aquifers ~Ila)' persist I~1' decades, 4. MerhemoglobNcmia in young inGnts is thc primary human healO~ Esk posed bv consumptJou o~' ni:rare-contalllizlated water. '[his dose.dependent outcome h~ ~een obsetx'cd ' *" oni; mimng ,: otmg iBIanls who consumed water containing more than I0 ln~l nimble nitrogen. 5. Consumption oFwatcr with less than !0 mg/I nitrate nitrogea poses no identiIied health risk Gr humoais of ~n>' age. A met/cam Jomax{ of Preventixe .Mcdic~e 198~; 1:5 [-7. ' We~cnb~2cr DD. - ' ' ...... Nebr~ka Mc~a~ Journal 1993; 7- 4 Salvato ~ ~. gn~onme:md Engiceering 2tld Sanitatbm 4d/cd. , e~v 5 tJlk, Wllev-[ntersc:.cncc, Holmes T, Jcnsen ~., Conway ~. Nitrae contamination of domestlc potable wa~r supp[ie~, a social problem? · .Xmedc~ Jo~]l ofPrc~cmive Mcdiciac 1985:1:5 I-7. Sakato ]E ~. En~wonmentui/nsincermg end Smma[:on, 4th cd. New York, ~ ':', ' ' - · [lo'es 'F, Jcnsen EL, Comt~v JB. · . . ~ a~)-~nre:~c~crice, i992:21g-284. . N~,ra,e ~on[ ~ ~o~ t>ft.lomcsrlc poable wa[er suppl es' a so~,a[ proale n? -ou~M ~.fP. cvcnhve N cdlcllle 1985; _hdve~ C .... . ~sk~p ~[. Ca>'K*II C, e~ ul. A SUrvey ot d~cta~5 nitrate in ',vdl.wutcr usecs, nl,ula~nn h~u~al ,q' Epldcmiology 1984: i ;'32q-350 - 9 WeM'nhurocr DD P~el d~scussion: t .... elevated ni~re ~cvels. Nebraska Me l'cal Journal i 993; I I-2 ~ ccnscquer c~s of .m]ve, s C. lnsMp H. Caygill C et aJ, .'~ iiHIT0y nfdieta]~, hi[rate in we!l-water users. 98~, ,o 224-;;0 lnternalional Jom~a/of t~ HoLmes T. Jcmsen EL, Conwav ~. Ni[rae :ontam{natk,a of donlesfic potable ,vnrer :mpplle?: a social problem? .~e~c~ Jour~ o~ Prevemk e Medicine. 98,,, 1:5 i.,. · KmcNc~dour~i~o:'Prevenfivc?,iedicine )85; :51-7 e~evated r rote Jcve]s Nebraska Medica~ Jtmma/ 1993: I ~ > 14 Cmun GF, Grea~wzse OG. Gund¢rson DH, .¥1edlac:noRlobin levels in yolmg children consumlnz high nhrate water Jn dm Unk~ Sta:cs. hlmrnal~onN Jmn'aal of Epidenliology 198 I; % eme~bmg~m DD. P2ne! discuss$on: heahh consequences: p~mel consellstts of potcntin! he:fidl consequcr, ces of ekva~ed nim~e ;eveLs. Nebraska Medical JOUrnal D93; 11-2 ~ ~oss BC_ Ha lbe~ GrL Brunet DR, et aL ~c nhrutc conlamina~ion of private ~e~l waist in h>~a..American Jcunlal of Public ' ' /I~a~nh 1993; 83: 270-2. ~TWe$ienb~gerDD. P~entia ealthconsetmc,co.*..c, .. . Nebras~ Medlc~ Jol~al 1993; 7-10.'-' ....... ~, o,,)unu-~ar¢r ccnlamlnatloa by ~llIrates ~1 Nebraska. t* Fan .~M. Willhke CC. goak SA. EsMur ['on oflhe n,rate ddnkiag wa er srandar~ ~ith reIkrence to infant methemogk,bNt~ia and potentiai reproductive ~ox/cit~. Regulalol7 Toxicology and Pham;acology 1987;7:135- 148. ~ Tsezou .X, ~mou- ze *. Gourg o :s D, e~ al IlJgh nitrate content m dn~mg ~ater: c;,'togenetic exposed chjl~en..~rhk'es ot'Favironmeatal Health i996;51:458.61. K, .nJmns J .S..al~ng Hi, Ma~ A. et al, N*~a e contmmnat~on of drinking water, evaluation ofgcnotoxic risk 'n num~ poptl]afions, r , , , -nx,o~, nra Heal&Per=pet yes 99 ;9a:189-93. Welsenburgcr DD. Panel discussion: }~euhh consequences: panel ¢ofl~c~istls of potential elevated ~Imte levds. N' · ebrmska Medical Xmmal 1993; ' * consequences or' %ea~nbu~ger DD. P~el di~cussh>n: health consequcncus: panel consensus of potential health consequences of devoted ultmte levels, Nebraska Medical Journal .99~, I1-2 Fan &M. W[Ilhite CC, goc, k SA. Evaluation of the ]ilrate .ir[nk ~ x~a~er *t-,, 1987:7:135~148. ' ~' '""~"J. ,,~gtllatoU/ lOX~coloCy nnd Phamlqcolor, v Fan AM. Steinberg ST. Health ~mphcationx ol'nimltc and nkrilc in drinking 'aatel: an ,palate on rne:llcmo~ob/n~m~a occu~ence and rcproduclive and developmental ~oxiciB,. k. ~.lla.w ~ Tox mo]ogy ai d · -nvno~ental Heakh Peript'cnvea [991; 94: i89-93. Fax Nole 7G71 Phono # DATE: March 25, 1998 TO: Dan Rotb Dept. of Hcaltb& Iluman Services FROM: Paul Myers lu our conversation this date we discussed the Well Permit Number SW920295 for WG Pippel Block 2 Lot 10 in Eagle River. In a discussion with a neighbor of this property belonging to Mr. & Mrs. JeffWilliams. It is being used as a rental and that the hand dug well has not been abandoned and is in use today for water on this site. On the permit under special provisions it states "Abandon Existing Dug Well.". You stated that there is no action you can take on this issue aud it is not Depar~ent Policy to follow up on these permits and enforce permits. You stated people all over the City of Anchorage are digging holes and putting pumps in and using this water. It is not in your powers to enforce water quality and quantity issues. You referred me to Mary Ann Mosely of Code Enforcement, 343-4630. · .... % .. -,; ../<,.... ,., ;~il ~:. ~, MUNICIPALI~. OF ANC ORAGE ; '.:.~' · · - - :'-."" -~' '~.:,' DEPARTMENT OF NEALTH ANO ~ RUMAN ~ SERVICES ~': '. ' ' .~., ~. ..... P.O. BOX 196650 825~."I STREET,", R~M. 502 :.~'. ~'- ..' _( ~:~', ':~<,.:.'{.i~:~ :-.'A ~C ORAGE/ ~, ON-SITE WELL" S~STEM UPGRADE "', PERMIT NUMBER:SW920295 ,. DESIGN ENGINEER:DU~y COMPANY-~ , 'OWNER NAME:RYBARZ EQWARD S OWNER ADDRESS:P. O. BOX 779371;~ :~"- ' , ." : ,,~. EAGLE RIVER~.ALAS~: 9957 .PARCEL ID:05010113 '~ ,.. LEGAL hESCRIPTION: W G PIPPEL NUMBER OF BEDROOMS.'w~2' THIS PERMIT.,~' "THIS PERMIT IS FOR THE CONTRUCTION OF~ ' WELL SYSTEM ' .~' ""~ · .'%- .'::-. '. ..... [.~ · ALL CONSTRUCTION MUST BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH: .- THE ATTACHED APPROVED DES . ' ALL REQUIREMENTS SPECIFIED IN ANC}{6RAGE:,MUNICIPAL"CODE CHAPTERS 15.55 AND 15.65 AND T}{E STATE OF ALAS~'WASTEWATER DISPOSAL , REGULATIONS (18AAC72).AND DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS 18~C80 3. THE FOLLOWING SPECiAL'PROVISIONS "~: SPECIAL P~OVISION ,'1. "ABANDOM EXISTING DUG WELL," ~: RECEIVED BY: ......... .. DATE ISSUED BY:_ .~' DATE ~ISSUED:i9/18792 EXPIRATION. DATE:,? 9/18/93