The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutDENALI VIEW General InformationAPR-2?-98 MON 3:31 PM DAN, K. OOFFEY, P,C FAX NO, 907 274 4258 P, 1 THE LAW OFFICES OF DAN K. COFFEIr A I?ROFE~SIONAL CORI?ORATION Phone (907) 274-3585 April 27, 1998 Mr, James Cross, P.E. Municipality of Anchorage Department of Health and Human Services 825 "L" Street Anchorage, Alaska 99501 via facsirn/le to 34&4786 w/th hardcopy mai/ed Re; Request for data supporting plat note on nitrates Municipality of Anchorage Case No, S-10054 (Denali View Subdivision) Our Client Skyline View Corporation Our File No. $449-001 Dear Mr. Cross; As you know, this office represents Skyline View Corporation with regard to that company's application to the Municipality of Ancherage for preliminary plat approval for Denali View Subdivision. It is my understanding that Paul Myers and/or Arlene Myers of Skyline View Corporation, and D~n Coffey of this office, have previously requested that you provide them with the information or data upon which you based your recommendation that Denali View Subdivision's preliminary plat contain a plat note regarding nitrates. The purpose of this letter is merely to reiterate that request. I understand that the Platting Board will be considering this matter at 6:30 p.m. next Wednesd&y, May 6th. Accordingly, I would request that the information referenced above be produced by no later than the close of business on Monday, May 4th. Thank you for your attention and your cooperation in this matter. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, co: P~ul and Arlene Myers MUNICIPALITY OF ANCHORAGE Department of Health and Human Services P.O. Box 196650 Anchorage~ Alaska 99519.-6650 Date: April 27, 1998 To: Elaine Christian, Director, DHHS Thru: Lura Morgan, Ph.D., Manager, Environmental Services Division From: es Cross, PE, Program Manager, On-Site Water Quality Subject: Response to Paul Myers' Fax dated April 22, 1998. I have read and have the following comnrents regarding the fax sent by Mr. Paul Myers to the Mayor on April 22: The April 21st meeting was requested by Mr. Myers to discuss the nitrate issue concerning the proposed Denali View subdivision. Mr. Myers had not been told that this Department had additional nitrate inforn~ation. In fact, Mr. Myers had been told on more that one occasion that the Department had no nitrate information that had not been previously made available to him. It appeared that the main reason for the April 2Pt meeting was to allow Mr. Dan Coffee, a lawyer representing Mr. Myers, to present a legal opinion regarding plat notes, and jurisdictional anthority regarding plat notes. · I have previously responded to Mr. Myers concerning the "political pressure" and accusation that this Depar~tment cannot review scientific data and respond in a timely manner. This is addressed in question #9 in the attached letter to Mr. Myers dated April 24, 1998. This schedule shows the Municipality to be timely and decisive in its actions. · The Department did delay a response to Mr. Myers regarding a proposed plat note concerning this subdivision following the April 21st meeting. The delay was due to the submittal to the Department of Mr. Coffee's legal opinion regarding plat notes, and a review of the opinion by a Municipal attorney. Mi'. Myers was promptly informed of this delay, and its reasons. · Mr. Myers has a copy of my reasoning for reco~nme~rding a plat note regarding nitrate reducing wastewater disposal systems. A copy of that memo is attached. FROM : MMM CONTRACTING PHONE NO, : 6881238 Apr, 08 1998 09:10RM Pi I)ATE: TO: FROM: RE: APRIL 8, 1998 JIM CROSS PAUL MYERS Poet-it' Fax Note 7671 QUESTIONS IN WRITING PER YOUR R. EQtJEST 8, 9, What is DHHS nitrate level of concern? Are the soils in Denali View acceptable for standard septic systems? Do you have any information on increased nitrate trend in Peters Creek? if so please produce it. ls hauling water a leg~fl option for wells wifli nitrates in the Municipality of Anchorage? Is lesting intbrm~ttion of nitrmes in pas~ years reliable? Are property values effected by iofonnation and policy of DHHS? Are you in close contact with Sharon Minsoh7 Does this have too much impact on your deeision..making capabilities? Are you available to discuss these questions and your answers? Could it: be perceived that the inaction and inability of DHHS to make decisions on Denali View is eondemnit~g the property? 'rime is of the essence, your immediate reply is requested, Rick Mystrom, Mayor Mmdcipality of Anchorage Department of Health and Human Services 825 "L" Street P.O. Box 196650 Anchorage, Alaska 99519-6650 April 24, 1998 Mr. Paul Myers Skyline View Corporation P.O. Box 670351 Chugiak, AK 99567 Dear Mr. Myers: I have listed below the responses to your fax dated April 8, 1998. 1. What is DHHS nitrate level of concern? 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 nitrate-nitrogen was set to prevent the occurrence in infant methemoglobinemia with a reasonable margin of safety. Although available scientific data indicates no identified public health risk associated with consumption of water with less than 10 ppm nitrate ~fitrogen, the Department advocates regular monitoring for drinking water wells with levels greater than 5 ppm. 2. Are the soils in Denali View acceptable for standard septic systems? From test information submitted, the soil strata used for on-site wastewater disposal systems within the Denali View subdivision are acceptable for these systems. However, less is known on the geology of the area, and the transport of nitrates from wastewater disposal systems. Should future 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. 3. Do you have any information on increased nitrate trend(s) in Peters Creek? If so, please produce it. I have no data available suitable for statistical analysis or for projection of future trends. 4. Is hauling water a legal option for wells with nitrates in the Municipality of Anchorage? Water storage and hauling is permitted within the Municipality. The projected use of water storage is not justification for subdividing a property, but is allowable for a source on an existing property. 5. Is testing information on nitrates in past years reliable? The available nitrate data at DHHS was either collected by On-Site Services Section Staff of was obtained by the Health Authority Approval (HAA) process. All work for HAA's is done under the supervision and stamp of a registered professional engineer. The Phase I nitrate study in the Anchorage Hillside area verified some existing data, and found the results to be consistent. 6. Are property values effected by information and policy of DHHS? have no information on this topic. 7. Are you in close contact with Sharon Minsch? Does this have too much impact on you decision making capabilities? I usually talk with Sharon Minsch weekly. My contact with her does not affect my decision making at all. 8. Are you available to discuss these questions and answers? Yes 9. Could it be perceived that the inaction and inability of DHHS to make decisions on Denali View is condemning the property? There has not been inaction and inability to make decisions by the DHHS. Following the Platting Board meeting in November of 1997, I contacted both your engineer, Mr. Dee High, and your hydrologist, Mr. James Munter, and asked them how they wished to proceed with this subdivision. I received no response until early March. I then promptly reviewed the information I had been given regarding the Modflow Model done by Mr. Munter, and rejected the submittal, for I had no information on the data or assumptions used in setting up the model. I then met with you, in a timely manner, and agreed to review the model and make a timely determination if the model was appropriate, and if the data and assumptions were acceptable. I did this review, and at first rejected the model. This rejection was timely enough for the model to be run again, reviewed again and accepted by the review deadline. I see no sign in these steps of inaction or the inability of DHHS to make a decision. !~erely, ~ grmn Manager On-Site Water Quality Cc~ Elaine Cbristian, Director, DHHS Lura Morgan, Ph.D., Manager, Enviromnental Services 7 2HALEY 3 13 11 37 3 17 17UNIl 15 11A 31 5 29 15 7 3 7 K i ~L7 I3 21 3 5 9 <BLLANDER LEGEND 11 ~L3 19 ~K FIGURE 1: NITEATE MAP DHI CONSULTING ENGINEEI~S 1%200' 6-12-97