The URL can be used to link to this page

2007-1519-Minutes for Meeting March 20,2007 Recorded 9/24/2007TES COUNTY FICIAL RECOR NANCYUBLANKENSH POFC UNTY C ERKDS CjZ ■ COMMISSIONERS JOURNAL 007 1519 111111111f 89/14/20010;10;10 PM 20II1111111111111p 07 _iSiB Do not remove this page from original document. Deschutes County Clerk Certificate Page If this instrument is being re-recorded, please complete the following statement, in accordance with ORS 205.244: Re-recorded to correct [give reason] previously recorded in Book or as Fee Number and Page w ~ C3 Deschutes County Board of Commissioners 1300 NW Wall St., Bend, OR 97701-1960 (541) 388-6570 - Fax (541) 385-3202 - www.deschutes.ora MINUTES OF PUBLIC HEARING DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 2007 La Pine High School Auditorium, La Pine, Oregon Present were Commissioners Michael M. Daly, Dennis R. Luke and Tammy Baney. Also present were Dave Kanner, County Administrator; Barbara Rich, Tom Anderson, Peter Gutowsky, Sandy Ringer, Dan Haldeman and Todd Cleveland, Community Development Department; Laurie Craghead, Legal Counsel; Dan Peddycord, Health Department; Connie Thomas, Commissioners' Office; and approximately 500 citizens, including several representatives of the media. The purpose of the meeting was to take public testimony and answer questions and concerns of the public regarding a proposed local rule for groundwater and on- site septic systems in southern Deschutes County. Prior to the beginning of the meeting, Commissioner Baney reminded members of the audience to sign up to testify; cards are available in the front lobby. Commissioner Baney brought the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. She reminded the audience that if they wish to testify, they need to fill out a sign-in card. Time for individual testimony will be limited to five minutes so that everyone might have an opportunity to ask questions or share their comments. There are approximately eighty people signed up to testify and the meeting has to conclude by 9 p.m. She asked that those who wish to state what someone said previously please merely give their name and confirm that they agree with the previous testimony. This will become part of the record. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding La Pine Groundwater Issues Tuesday, March 20, 2007 Page 1 of 44 Pages She stated that the Commissioners will not be making a decision at this time; this is a fact-finding hearing to learn more about the issue. She added that they would first begin with answering the questions asked at last week's public hearing since there was not enough time to address them at that time. The questions received today might be answered tonight if time allows, or the Board will read and post their answers on the County website. Jason Churchill will then be allowed to finish his presentation at this time; he will be allowed fifteen minutes. (Applause from the audience) Commissioner Baney said anyone who testifies will need to give their name and address. People can ask a question during their five minutes or can merely offer comments or suggestions. AUDIENCE MEMBER (unidentified): Can we ask a question of staff if we have a specific question? BANEY: That is perfectly acceptable and, in fact, staff should have most of the answers available. Tom Anderson introduced himself, along with other members of his department; also introduced were Dan Peddycord, Health Department Director; Laurie Craghead, Legal Counsel; and the County Administrator, Dave Kanner. Barbara Rich indicated she had submitted all of the comments submitted at the last hearing, and also e-mails and letters received since the last hearing. Dave Kanner read the questions at this time. (The questions are included as an exhibit to these minutes) KANNER: Was the real estate data or the DEQ synoptic data used in the model? BARBARA RICH: The real estate data that was collected and compiled by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality was used as a screening tool; and the DEQ synoptic data was actually incorporated into the model itself. minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding La Pine Groundwater Issues Tuesday, March 20, 2007 Page 2 of 44 Pages KANNER: What if new development is required to use nitrate-reducing systems? What effect does this have? RICH: If only new development is required to use the nitrate-reducing systems, that means we are only tackling about 25% of the problem, because the existing development is by and large the largest contributor to nitrate and other pollutants in the groundwater. KANNER: Why do all areas need upgrades or retrofits? Why is all of southern Deschutes County included in the affected area? RICH: Because all of the development in southern Deschutes County is affecting the groundwater. KANNER: Have you read the State reports on whether these newer systems work, because the State report says they don't work as expected? RICH: I wrote the State report and it says that some systems do not work as expected, particularly when they are not maintained according to manufacturers' specifications. (Audience member yelling off microphone - unintelligible) KANNER: Since the County is listing nitrogen-reducing systems, is the County recommending systems? How does a system get on the County's list of nitrogen- reducing systems? Is the County willing to reimburse for potential loss? Is the County putting itself at risk of being sued for damages? RICH: I can answer the first two questions as technical questions. The County is not listing the nitrogen-reducing systems per se other than taking the existing list of approved systems as approved by the DEQ and further evaluating those systems to Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding La Pine Groundwater Issues Tuesday, March 20, 2007 Page 3 of 44 Pages see if they can actually reduce nitrogen. And the way that a manufacturer actually gets onto the County's list is first being approved by the DEQ and then they have to demonstrate that they also have nitrogen-reducing capabilities. KANNER: I believe our legal counsel can answer the question regarding the legal risks. CRAGHEAD: These questions are similar to questions regarding this situation's relationship with Measure 37. There is no relationship between Measure 37 and this Rule. Measure 37 has a particular, specific exemption for public health and safety regulations; and this is a public health and safety regulation. Therefore, there would not be any Measure 37 and, in my opinion, any damages that the County would be liable for. However, I am the legal counsel for the County and need to do the typical lawyer caveat and say, you need to confirm anything I say with your own legal counsel. KANNER: Are you willing to consider alternates other than the Orenco system; are there any other green systems being considered? RICH: The Orenco system is one of four systems that are currently listed as nitrogen- reducing systems; the others are the X-20, the Consolidated Treatment Systems multi-flow envirol guard system - which is two different systems - and the re- circulating gravel filter. KANNER: Is the property owner allowed to choose the system they use on their property. RICH: Certainly. KANNER: If one has a low-pressure system that is five to ten years old with a concrete tank, what kind of upgrade do you think would be required? RICH: That can depend on the location in which the property is located - the area - because different areas have different environmental sensitivities based on their iviinuies or boara of uommissioners' Public Hearing regarding La Pine Groundwater Issues Tuesday, March 20, 2007 Page 4 of 44 Pages proximity to rivers, the depth to groundwater, the chemistry of the groundwater, and the density of development. So the upgrade may change, and also it may depend on the condition of the system itself and the manner in which the site has been developed. If the site is very heavily developed with a lot of outbuildings, it can make it very tight to get in a system, so this could change how a system is upgraded. In general, the upgrade could include any one of the systems that I mentioned previously. KANNER: Why is there such a large discrepancy in the cost of the systems and retrofits? RICH: The range of costs that are listed is due to the range in site characteristics from one location to another. As I said previously, sites differ by age of the development, how much the lot has been encumbered by buildings, etc. The variation in cost can depend on much has to be done to that site in order to get it upgraded, and how difficult the upgrade actually is. It also varies because the homeowner has a choice in the type of system that is being installed, and different systems cost different amounts. KANNER: Has the County investigated the financial stability of the companies that manufacture these systems? RICH: The County does not do that during the listing process for these systems, because the DEQ does the listing process. I'm not aware that the DEQ does a financial investigation of the companies. The two companies of the proprietary products that are currently on the market have been in the business for twenty to thirty years, so I think they have exhibited a fairly stable financial standing. KANNER: Who and what are not affected by the proposed Rule? RICH: The affected area for the proposed Rule is the area between Sunriver and southern Deschutes County, those areas that are outside of existing sewer districts. iviinutes of board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding La Pine Groundwater Issues Tuesday, March 20, 2007 Page 5 of 44 Pages KANNER: What happens when the retrofit needs to be upgraded for viral or other contamination? Are the retrofits going to need to be upgraded? RICH: One of the reasons that staff has proposed that there be a 24-inch separation between the drain field and groundwater is to ensure that bacteria and other contaminants are removed in the drain field, as they are currently in our standard pressure distribution and sand filter systems. As long as you maintain that natural soil, a lot of these contaminants are also reduced, based on emerging research. BANEY: We're going to go ahead and make sure we have the first three folks on the hot seats down here, up front. We have Martha Bowman, Judy Kester and Jim, and Mike Wynne. Judy Kester indicated she won't speak. KANNER: Are commercial properties exempt from the Rule? Why don't businesses have to comply? And have any sewage treatment plants been checked for nitrates? RICH: Any commercial facilities that produce less than 2,500 gallons of flow per day would fall under this Rule. Any commercial facilities that exceed this flow amount would then be under the permitting authority of DEQ. In terms of sewage treatment plants, under DEQ permitting, they do have to monitor the effluent quality and groundwater quality. KANNER: Does Klamath County have to follow this requirement? RICH: This is a Deschutes County Rule, so it wouldn't apply in Klamath County. How long before the grandfathered systems have to be upgraded, and will the cost be the same? Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding La Pine Groundwater Issues Tuesday, March 20, 2007 Page 6 of 44 Pages RICH: The proposed Rule has a ten-year time frame in which people would upgrade their systems. I believe the question is referring to systems that are in the ground now. That would be the same ten-year time frame for upgrading those systems, with the same cost scenarios and financial incentives, etc. KANNER: Are we going to have to pay for permits for the upgrades? Is there a reduced permit cost or waiver? RICH: I don't know that I'm the best person to answer that question. TOM ANDERSON: We are, in fact, putting our budget together, and it has acknowledged a proposed Rule. So if the Rule should pass - and that is an "if'- we have built in a reduced permit rate for the retrofit costs. This is subject to the Board of Commissioners' approval as part of the budgeting approval process. We do intend to subsidize that permitting process. A permit is, in fact, required under State law, so we can't get around that. But in regard to cost, we intend to build in a reduced cost for that. KANNER: Could individuals install composting toilets in lieu of the upgrade? Would the installation of a composting or incinerating toilet be an alternative? RICH: Composting toilets are currently allowed under DEQ rules, so certainly someone could install one now. One of the issues that would need to be considered in using a composting toilet is that they can easily be replaced with a flush toilet. And if that happens in the future, how would we deal with the nitrogen loading that would occur if the change-out does occur. KANNER: What is going to happen to the areas that have a blanket septic feasibility? RICH: The proposed Rule would apply to all future and existing development. The blanket feasibility areas would be considered future development under the proposed Rule. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding La Pine Groundwater Issues Tuesday, March 20, 2007 Page 7 of 44 Pages KANNER: Are State Revolving Loan funds available to help with on-site systems? ANDERSON: If anyone picked up the financial assistance white paper that is out front, that I talked about last week, State Revolving Funds are mentioned in that. The financial assistance package is just that - a discussion document at this point, subject to passage of the Local Rule. If the Local Rule does pass, we do intend to have that as part of the mix. The way that State Revolving Loan Funds work is that the County would borrow the money and pass it on in some form of assistance to homeowners. KANNER: Can I receive $3,750 from Elkhorn Development now, even if the proposed Rule is not adopted? ANDERSON: That program is in existence now and people can receive rebates. That is a program that is run by Pahlisch Homes, not by the County. They have control over how long that might be available. They are doing that under a different section of County Code involving pollution credits required for development in the New Neighborhood. So, presumably that program would continuation for some duration at any rate, regardless of whether the Rule passes. KANNER: As a follow-up, how much money does the County have to contribute to these upgrades and retrofits? ANDERSON: That is also included in the financial assistance discussion paper that I spoke about last week. We estimate that eventually we will have in the neigh hood of $35 million to provide in assistance packages. That will come in over time as the new neighborhood is developed and as land sells in the New Neighborhood. KANNER: This goes to the next questions regarding land in the Newberry Neighborhood. Most of that money has not yet been received, but we do anticipate another $30 million coming in from that land sale. I don't speak for the Board of Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding La Pine Groundwater Issues Tuesday, March 20, 2007 Page 8 of 44 Pages Commissioners, but I have heard them say in various meetings that they would like to use that money to help offset the cost of the retrofits and upgrades. What is the recourse for low income or fixed income, elderly residents who already have to choose between heating their homes and buying medications? ANDERSON: The County Board has made it clear that their priority in using that financial assistance is to help those who are least able to pay for these. One of the programs outlined in that proposed package involves something called a cost deferral program, where the County in this case would step in and fund 100% of the retrofit with no obligation of the homeowner to pay it back until the property sells at some point down the road. So, included in that would be financial assistance for operations and maintenance, where the County could do it different ways, but presumably would contract to have that service done for those who have little or no ability to pay. Bottom line, there is contemplated in the financial assistance a means to help people do the retrofit with no cost obligation on their part. KANNER: Are the proposed loans personal loans or home mortgages? ANDERSON: We haven't gotten to that level of detail in terms of how the financial assistance could work. There are a range of different options that would be geared towards the income level and the ability of those folks to pay. A conventional loan of some kind similar to a mortgage certainly could be one of the options in that range. KANNER: Is the maintenance fee monthly or yearly? RICH: We have reported the estimated operation and maintenance costs on both a monthly basis and a yearly basis. It depends on the maintenance provider on how they charge. Some providers charge on a monthly basis, but some may charge on a yearly basis. KANNER: Does the maintenance fee include monthly monitoring of nitrate being discharged, and are current systems, instead of well water, being checked for nitrate. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding La Pine Groundwater Issues Tuesday, March 20, 2007 Page 9 of 44 Pages RICH: The maintenance fee typical charge of the $200 to $400 that you've heard quoted does not include monthly monitoring for nitrate in the discharge, because that would add probably $30 to $40 per month to that maintenance fee. The DEQ has not required monthly or even annual monitoring on these systems. The current systems that we use now - the standard pressure distribution and the sand filter systems - were studied intensively during the La Pine national demonstration project, so we have a very good idea of the quantity of nitrate, nitrogen and other contaminants that they discharge. The findings of the project are corroborated by other findings from other demonstration projects and other studies nationwide. KANNER: What does maintenance include? RICH; Maintenance is basically the care and keeping of the system, kind of like when you maintain your car. It's an annual tune-up to make sure the moving parts are still moving appropriately, and that the pumping electrical parts are still operational. It's the preventive maintenance to make sure that the system survives for its design life. KANNER: Does the system have to be hooked up to a phone line? RICH: Different systems have different capabilities. This is part of the educational information that we need to get out to property owners about the different systems. There is one system right now that does have a phone line tie-in, so it can call out when there is an issue. It can also report out if the system needs to be tweaked. The other systems that are currently available do not call out. So, it differs from system to system. KANNER: Why not put in a sewer system and be done with it? And has tying into other sewer systems in the area been considered? RICH: The sewering issue was discussed during the regional problem solving project that began in 1996. At that time we considered, and actually acted on, expanding the Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding La Pine Groundwater Issues Tuesday, March 20, 2007 Page 10 of 44 Pages Oregon Water Wonderland sewer and the La Pine Sewer District. In the rest of the rural area at that time, the public participation said to please not create new sewer systems in the rural area. KANNER: Why did the County allow lots that could not pass pump to a common sand filter, handling seven lots within 110 feet of a home's well and 200 feet of the Deschutes River. This was not in the County plan in 2001. RICH: I'm not aware of a series of lots that pump to a common sand filter. There are lots that pump to individual sand filters on separate lots, but not to a common sand filter because that would indeed be a sewer system. We would have had to go through the land use planning process for that. So I'm not sure that I can speak to the particulars of that question. KANNER: Has a cluster system been looked into, and are there going to be provisions made for discussion of cluster systems? RICH: The Community Development Department in its fiscal year 2007-08 work plan has committed to initiating a work plan to look at the feasibility of using sewers outside the urban growth boundary and city limits in the south Deschutes County area. We will also look at those high water table areas because typically the easement issue in the previous question, and some of these other cluster system questions, are largely spurred by development in high water table areas. Comments and chatter from audience. Not intelligible. KANNER: A River Meadows sanitary sewer test well showed 57 to 78 rags per liter in the test well in September 2006. How can you justify failure to monitor this sewer system? RICH: The sewer system is permitted and is under the authority of the DEQ, and so the Community Development Department does not have the authority to ensure that Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding La Pine Groundwater Issues Tuesday, March 20, 2007 Page 11 of 44 Pages these systems are monitored and working to standard. I can't really speak to why they are finding such elevated levels of nitrate in their wells. KANNER: Does the 12,000 platted lots include all lots or tax lots, for instance my tax lot is one acre made up of two half-acre platted lots. Does it also take into consideration the many hundreds of lots platted in obviously un-buildable wetlands. ANDERSON: I'm not sure exactly what the question is getting at by "it" - does "it take into account". I can assume that means the prediction model of future nitrate levels. There have been different runs of that model. The one that was used to project the variable treatment standards, for instance, over the ten-year period in the proposed Rule did not take into account lots with high water, which would include lots in the wetlands. Since then we have done additional runs of the model that do include high water lots. So we have run it both ways. Hopefully that addresses the question. KANNER: Why has this issue not been disclosed at time of sale? ANDERSON: Well, we have no regulatory authority over what a Realtor or a property seller discloses. One thing we have done is make information available as best we can, and presumably this would come up as a disclosure item. If the Local Rule should pass, there will be an automatic flag placed on the Assessor's system so that the need for the retrofit is disclosed. That would show up in a title report. Once the retrofit has been done, the flag goes away. KANNER: Do the people conducting the study for this proposal stand to gain financially if it passes? ANDERSON: I'm not sure who they mean by the "people". If they mean County staff, I can say emphatically "no". If they mean U.S.G.S., same answer. From my perspective those are the ones that have been doing the work leading up to this. We have no other outside or private groups that have been involved in staff's work in developing the Rule. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding La Pine Groundwater Issues Tuesday, March 20, 2007 Page 12 of 44 Pages KANNER: Was there an emergency declaration made in 2002 regarding nitrates? ANDERSON: I'm not aware of any. KANNER: What kind of future public meetings will there be? BANEY: We don't know yet. We are here tonight and we want to see how tonight goes and see how much testimony we are actually able to take. That's the extent of it. We don't have a decision. We could be here next week if we don't - Man from audience, interrupting - unintelligible. BANEY: I'm sorry, sir, we're actually a team here tonight. We'll do the best that we can to get your comments - Man from audience again - unintelligible. KANNER: We are almost done with the questions. BANEY: We are doing the questions right now. If you want to speak I'd be happy to get you a sheet. Man from audience - unintelligible. BANEY: Thank you very much. We are doing the questions right now. We do have it on our calendars next week to be here from 6 to 9 p.m. If we don't have folks that want us to come back, of course we won't. But that would be the answer. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding La Pine Groundwater Issues Tuesday, March 20, 2007 Page 13 of 44 Pages KANNER: I'd like to clarify, these were questions that were submitted by you all last week that we didn't get to. We are trying to make sure we answer all of them. There are only a few more. Why not have a moratorium on building? ANDERSON: At this point we are trying to avoid that. A moratorium on all building permits is something that is a very serious action, and it is typically done when a management area is declared by DEQ, where any additional development is precluded in an emergency situation. Right now we believe we have a solution that could avoid a moratorium, so that's why one has not been declared. LUKE: Coming from the homebuilding industry, there is a state law that if a local jurisdiction puts on a moratorium they have to have a way to take the moratorium off. This means you'd be going right through this study again with a timeline to take the moratorium off. So a moratorium can only be a short time period, because local government is required to take it off at some point. KANNER: Who makes the decision on this proposed Rule? ANDERSON: The Board of County Commissioners. KANNER: Who is responsible for replanting and repaving after the new systems are installed? We have shrubs, trees, paved paths, sprinkler systems and patios. ANDERSON: That would be part of the overall cost of either the installation or the retrofit. If they are asking the question in terms of the financial assistance package, we haven't gotten to that level of detail in how those monies would be distributed. KANNER: What happened to the suggestion provided by the advisory committee to research this so-called septic nitrate problem. We heard they had other ideas. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding La Pine Groundwater Issues Tuesday, March 20, 2007 Page 14 of 44 Pages ANDERSON: It's acknowledged that there was not a unanimous recommendation from the advisory committee. I know that there are some members of that committee who are part of the audience who will be offering testimony to you. It is probably best for them to explain what their ideas may be, coming from them rather from me trying to interpret or summarize what those other ideas might be. KANNER: Last question. What part of La Pine has been tested? ANDERSON: If they mean tested in terms of the well, as Barbara (Rich) described last week, there were different types of wells that were included in the data gathering. We have maps on our website - I don't know if we brought any tonight - you could access the website or come to one of our offices. They show where all the test wells are. BANEY: Thank you. And I'd really like to thank staff and everyone for their questions. Now we are going to turn it over to Jason Churchill, who has asked for fifteen minutes. (Applause from audience.) JASON CHURCHILL: Good evening, and thank you for the opportunity to talk tonight. My name is Jason Churchill, and I have ten years of experience as a water quality regulator for the State of California. I have a PhD in biochemistry and molecular biology. My research in that field has been published in a number of scientific publications. I currently work in the government relations department of Orenco Systems. (See documentation which is attached as Exhibit A.) I'm here tonight because I don't believe that the Deschutes County Commissioners and the citizens have all the facts that are needed to come to an informed decision about how to best deal with nitrate in La Pine's groundwater. (Audience applause.) I'm here to offer those facts even though it is not in Orenco's financial interest to do so. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding La Pine Groundwater Issues Tuesday, March 20, 2007 Page 15 of 44 Pages Orenco's wastewater treatment systems have been approved for use here in the County, so it is actually in our financial interest to step aside and let the proposed Rule move forward. If I was really saying what I am saying in order to make money, I would probably have just stayed home. But I am here to offer some important facts because for the past twenty-five years the owners and employees of Orenco have watched small communities all over the United States spend way too much money on wastewater systems and wastewater solutions. We see this happening time and again, and feel a moral obligation and an obligation to our profession of wastewater engineering to give communities accurate data so that they can make sound decisions based on sound science, even when it is not in our financial interest to do so. Last month the Bend Bulletin reported that it could cost as much as $63 million to safeguard La Pine's water supply from nitrate pollution. It could be that La Pine has a $63 million nitrate problem. It could also be that solutions are available that would be considerably less costly. I think more time is needed to explore other alternatives. (Applause from audience.) I believe there is a false sense of urgency to find an immediate solution, and this false sense of urgency stems from a lack of good information. So here are some facts I'd like to share with you. It's been applied that strict limits on septic system discharges are necessary to comply with the federal drinking water standard of 10 ml per liter, nitrate-nitrogen. In fact the federal government has no authority to require that single family residential septic systems be regulated to meet the drinking water standard. Nor has the federal government, to my knowledge, applied any pressure to require regulation of single family septic systems in the south County, or anywhere else for that matter. The County appears to be acting on its own initiative. There is, therefore, time to consider additional information to find the right solution for the community. It has also been applied that strict limits on septic system discharge are necessary to comply with the State groundwater quality standard for nitrate. That standard, set at 10 ml per liter nitrate is contained in Oregon Administrative Rule 340.040.0020. Paragraph 4 of that section states only that this standard will, "be Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding La Pine Groundwater Issues Tuesday, March 20, 2007 Page 16 of 44 Pages used by the department and the public to evaluate the significance of a particular contaminant concentration, and will trigger necessary regulatory action". "Necessary regulatory action" is not defined under that regulation. To my knowledge, the State DEQ has not formally completed a departmental evaluation of nitrate levels in south Deschutes County; nor has it threatened to take immediate regulatory action if the County does not immediately adopt the Local Rule. The public and Commissioners have been given incorrect information about the State groundwater nitrate standard. It is not correct and needs to be corrected. The following statement appears on page 11 of the County staff report for the Local Rule. "The Oregon DEQ establishes groundwater quality protection standards in OAR 340.040." That part is correct. "This Rule sets the water quality standard for nitrate as in groundwater at 70% of the drinking water standard, or 7 ml per liter." That part is not correct. "The proposed Rule is designed to maintain compliance with this standard on average in south Deschutes County." Contrary to that statement, the 7 ml per liter level is not a water quality standard at all. Therefore, there is no need to comply with it by adoption of a Local Rule. 7 ml per liter is simply an action level and has only one consequence. It triggers a declaration of a groundwater management area. That just means that the DEQ must appoint an advisory committee - a local committee - made up of affected citizens and other interested parties as well as regulators - to examine the problem and develop an action plan. The committee may then make recommendations to the DEQ for a Local Rule, but the groundwater management area committee has no authority to dictate any corrective measures. It is an advisory body only. Declaration of a groundwater management area is not something to be avoided; it is something that the County should welcome. But in any case, the DEQ has indicated - and this was in a letter from the DEQ's Eastern Administrator Joanie Hammond - that it currently does not have adequate resources to develop specific geographic rules for south Deschutes County. That is one of the reasons "that the County decided to propose to the Board of Commissioners a local Ordinance that regulates onsite systems in south Deschutes County. It is evident that the County is not responding to any threatened action by either state or federal authorities. Why, then, is there such a sense of urgency to adopt a proposed Local Rule? I also was interested in a statement that Mr. Anderson made. I believe he was saying that when a groundwater management area is declared, that there is a danger that a building moratorium or septic moratorium is also declared. To my knowledge, that section of the state regulations has no bearing on a moratorium. A Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding La Pine Groundwater Issues Tuesday, March 20, 2007 Page 17 of 44 Pages moratorium, I believe Ms. Rich said last week, is based on Oregon Revised Statutes, which I've looked at, and that simply leaves the discretion to the Environmental Quality Commission to declare a moratorium based on a number of criteria. They need to have thirty days' advance public notice before declaring a moratorium. I'm not aware that they have declared any intention to do so. Regarding supposed nitrate health risks, the County has posted on its website a memo that includes the following assertion. "There is no question that ingested nitrate is an enormous and key factor in met hemoglobin anemia (blue baby syndrome)." That assertion is demonstrably false. There is substantial doubt among medical experts that drinking water nitrate is a critical factor in blue baby syndrome. I have an attachment to my testimony here, with numerous statements published in medical and public health literature to that effect. There is virtually no verifiable evidence that drinking water nitrate causes blue baby syndrome, and it is widely acknowledged by the medical profession that bacterial or viral contamination which results in gastrointestinal disturbance is the likely cause. That is because gastrointestinal inflammation can lead to a dramatic spike in nitrate and nitrite produced within the baby's own body. It is well documented by numerous medical reports that infants with diarrhea, which is characteristic of gastrointestinal inflammation, can develop blue baby syndrome without any exposure to drinking water nitrate. These and other medical facts lead the National Research Council, which is an arm of the National Academy of Sciences that advised the federal government on technical issues, in a 1995 report on nitrate toxicity they concluded, "infection is the major contributor to met hemoglobin anemia from nitrate exposure. The incremental contribution of drinking water is negligible." The County has also distributed a fact sheet entitled, "Deschutes County Health Effects Information" which states, "Thanks to the EPA standard, blue baby syndrome caused by drinking water is uncommon and rarely fatal". It's true that drinking water related blue baby syndrome is extremely rare - in fact, it has virtually disappeared from the United States and Western Europe since the 1960's. Most cases are fairly mild, with few clinical symptoms other than bluefish or brownish skin discoloration. The condition is rapidly reversed in most cases with medical treatment, and there are usually no permanent health consequences except in rare cases. Fatalities do occur in about 7 to 8% of the cases. I've attached as attachment B in my testimony information from medical and pubic health literature regarding the extreme rarity of blue baby syndrome, the rarity of fatalities or permanent injury. But it cannot be argued that the virtual disappearance of blue baby syndrome is thanks to the EPA drinking water standard, since groundwater nitrate concentrations have generally been increasing Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding La Pine Groundwater Issues Tuesday, March 20, 2007 Page 18 of 44 Pages in the United States, and private wells that exceed the drinking water standard are still extensively used in this country. Some information on that is in attachment C. A number of factors may be contributing to the decline of met hemoglobin anemia, but the decline correlates most closely with substantial improvements in well construction and well sighting - in other words, setbacks; and no longer putting wells in next to barnyards or cesspools and stockyards, etc. The decline correlates most closely with substantial improvements with well construction and well sighting practices which have reduced the potential for fecal contamination of wells. I recommend that the Deschutes County Public Health Department contact, as I have, the State Department of Human Services Office of Disease Prevention and Epidemiology for statistics regarding the incidence of blue baby syndrome in Oregon. The infant health statistics analyst that I spoke to wasn't aware of any incidents. In fact, I had to explain to him what blue baby syndrome is. (Audience applause) He asked me if it was a common problem nationwide. In regard to other public health dangers from drinking water nitrate such as cancer, diabetes, miscarriage, those are also disputed. For example, the County's fact sheet acknowledges, "there has been some signs of the potential link between high nitrate in drinking water and gastrointestinal cancer. However, this association is controversial and has not been firmly supported by research. Because of these facts, it is not appropriate to view nitrate levels above 10 ml per liter as a possible risk for cancer." That accurately represents what the literature consensus is about the supposed increase risk of cancer associated with drinking water nitrate. I've included excerpts in attachment D from articles published by numerous experts showing that evidence is similarly weak for any supposed links between drinking water nitrate and other health effects. There is no public health crisis from nitrates in south Deschutes County, so there is no valid reason for the sense of urgency. It has also been stated that groundwater nitrate levels in South County are increasing and will exceed the drinking water standard over wide areas in 20 to 50 years. But this conclusion is based almost exclusively on nitrate modeling conducted by the U.S.G.S. Modeling can be a useful predictive tool, but only if the assumptions on which the model is built are accurate. My own analysis reveals that nitrate levels have remained virtually unchanged throughout the South County Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding La Pine Groundwater Issues Tuesday, March 20, 2007 Page 19 of 44 Pages from at least 1989 to the present time. This analysis is based on actual well data, not modeling. (Audience applause.) More than 1,700 nitrate measurements have been conducted from residential wells all over the South County over a period spanning 17 years, including about 1,400 samples collected under the real estate transfer program and 200 samples collected in 2000 by DEQ as part of the 2000 synoptic survey, and 100 samples collected by DEQ in 1995. Neither the average concentration nor the number of hot spot wells has changed over time. This existing well data is not consistent with the premise that nitrate plumes are growing significantly more concentrated, penetrating deeper into the aquifer, or expanding over greater areas. No effort has been made to statistically analyze this well data and bring it to the attention of the public or the full attention of the Commissioners. To my knowledge, no effort has been made to have this data statistically analyzed to determine if it supports the claim that nitrate levels are slowly rising with time and will eventually exceed the drinking water standard over large sub areas. The cost of a third party statistical analysis of the existing well data would be minimal, especially compared with the $5 million already spent on modeling studies and demonstration projects, and the tens of millions of dollars to implement the Local Rule. Another problem with the U.S.G.S. modeling is that it assumes that the observed pattern of nitrate hotspots reflect solely aquifer scale nitrogen loading and dispersion. The modeling doesn't consider evidence that nitrate hotspots may, to a significant extent, reflect localized conditions due to failing or inadequate septic systems, drain fields and wells. Such faulty septic systems and wells are probably quite common in some parts of south Deschutes County. I would bring forward as evidence for that, I believe Ms. Rich mentioned that they found probably 350 steel wells that are probably past their expiration date, and there is a good probability those are leaking. I submit that there are probably a lot more leaky septic tanks than that. There are probably a lot of wells that aren't even sealed or aren't properly sealed. A lot of the wells that came up as hotspots were very shallow wells. Many of those were open within ten feet of the top of the water table. So it's not surprising that if you pull water from right near the water table, near a septic system, that you are going to get nitrate in there. That doesn't necessarily mean that there is an aquifer scale plume; it may be a localized thing. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding La Pine Groundwater Issues Tuesday, March 20, 2007 Page 20 of 44 Pages For example, it is notable that one of the worst clusters of hotspot wells is located within a two-block stretch of Pine Forest Road near Burgess Road in an area of older homes with wells with open intervals less than ten feet below the water table are common. I think I have about 23 seconds left - I'm getting to my conclusion, could I have just another minute to finish? (Chatter from audience.) Investigating a condition of septic systems, drain fields and wells in the worst problem areas can lead to less costly solutions to groundwater nitrate than what is being proposed under the Local Rule. There are many more problems with the U.S.G.S. groundwater modeling that the local rule is relying upon; I've listed some of those problems in attachment E. And in conclusion, I want to be clear that I am not arguing for a change in the federal drinking water standard or the state groundwater quality standard for nitrate. I'm not arguing that Deschutes County should do nothing about the nitrate in the groundwater, either. I am questioning whether the proposed limits on on-site septic system discharges are necessary to comply with the water quality standards. I'm not aware of a mandate at the federal or the state level. I am questioning whether there is an imminent public health crisis that demands immediate action, particularly when it is widely recognized by medical authorities that the federal drinking water standard is conservatively low. I am questioning whether the current low percentage of hotspot wells - and there is only something like 4% of wells that exceed 7 parts per million, based upon what I've seen - reflects an area-wide problem rather than a chiefly more localized problem with faulty septic systems and drain fields, and shallow or inadequate wells. I am questioning whether 17 years of existing well nitrate data is consistent with the idea that nitrate plumes are growing more concentrated, penetrating more deeply and wider into the aquifer so that large sub areas will exceed water quality standards as predicted. I am questioning whether the Local Rule is the most cost- effective solution, and I am questioning the speed at which the County is moving forward without adequate analysis. In adopting drinking water standards like the nitrate standard, the EPA is required to conduct a health risks analysis and compare the cost of implementing the proposed standard with the expected health benefits. Here in Deschutes County the cost of implementing the proposed Local Rule will be extremely high. It is reasonable to expect that Deschutes County will conduct a full and objective cost-benefit analysis in considering the proposed Local Rule. Because there is no imminent health risk to the citizens of south Deschutes County, I urge the County to slow down, provide citizens with clear, factual, science-based information, and carefully explore the full range of possible solutions to Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding La Pine Groundwater Issues Tuesday, March 20, 2007 Page 21 of 44 Pages groundwater nitrate issues. In some neighborhoods, one of those solutions might be nitrogen reducing wastewater treatment products like my company manufactures. In that case, we'll be more than happy to sell it. But we only want to be selling it for those homes that truly need it. Thank you for your attention and your time. (Audience applause, cheering.) (Documentation turned in by Conrad Ruel which is attached marked as Exhibit B. He did not speak.) At this time, CDD handed in documentation which is attached as Exhibit C and Exhibit D.) BANEY: Thank you Jason. We are going to go ahead and take our testimony, and again, we have five minutes per person. If you have a questions, we will answer that again. Commissioner Baney called Dave Gillette to come down. She already had previously called Martha Bauman and Jim Kester to be on board to speak after Jason Churchill. MARTHA BAUMAN: I am Martha Bauman and I am a spokesperson for Pine Crest Neighborhood. I want to thank you for coming here an meeting with us, your constituents. My question to you is why has our democracy been taken out of the equation in the nitrate, Local Rule issues? (See attached documentation marked as Exhibit E.) BANEY: Thank you very much. (Unknown man from audience stated Ms. Bauman asked what he wanted to ask.) Commissioner Baney called Judy Forsythe and Debbie McQuary to come down. JIM KESTER: First of all, I want to echo the statements by Mr. Churchill. I want to thank him for coming tonight. I am going to refer to a document which is titled the Staff Report dated 2/28/07, under Appendix A, titled public meetings and events. The first item Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding La Pine Groundwater Issues Tuesday, March 20, 2007 Page 22 of 44 Pages listed occurred 5/13/03, last thing that is listed occurred 12/20/06. None of those include the County Commissioners meeting with their constituents on this issue. All items listed are staff members making presentations or talking to the community. The front page of Appendix A, upcoming events list last weeks meeting and tonight's meeting. My question is when were those two meetings put on your agenda? BANEY: I do not know the exact date. I can get that to you. I am hearing February 28tH KESTER: That is after the last item listed. Is it fair to assume on my part that the County Commissioners were going to vote on this prior to taking any public testimony? LUKE: Our staff was working on an agreement with the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) in getting their position. We needed to wait until that agreement was finished before coming down to take public testimony. We take public testimony on a lot of different issues. This is a very important one and we would not have voted without coming down and having a meeting. That is why we are here and that is why we have one scheduled for next week if we can not finish tonight. BANEY: We do not have it on our work sessions or on our agenda to make a decision. We have to make sure that we are able to be available to come somewhere. It was actually February 14th that we made it available on our calendars to be here and then staff worked to make sure the auditorium and all of that happens. KESTER: Thank you. BANEY: Thank you. Commissioner Baney called JoAnne Nelson to comedown. ivimutes of board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding La Pine Groundwater Issues Tuesday, March 20, 2007 Page 23 of 44 Pages DAVE GILLETTE: My name is Dave Gillette; I live at Ponderosa Pines. I have an article that refutes the immediate danger of nitrates and blue baby syndrome. (See attached document marked as Exhibit F.) One of the questions asked last meeting was the question of going to a deeper aquifer. That is a possible fix for the nitrate problem in the water. The answer from staff was that it was illegal and the other answer was that the water was bad. In Ponderosa Pines our wells are down below 400 feet deep and we do not have to add anything. We do no have nitrate problems or anything else. If cluster systems for wells in this area would be cheaper than a cluster system for sewer, then that might be an answer. My question is why is it illegal, and why did they say the water was bad? One other question is why did the map color change in the last 2 weeks that affected Ponderosa Pines? Part of it was light green, now it is all white. RICH: There are actually three aquifers and the majority of south Deschutes County is underlain by the shallow oxic aquifer. That is then underlying by the anoxic aquifer or the low oxygen aquifer. This low oxygen aquifer has a lot of iron in it and that has the poor taste and acidic problems with it. The deeper aquifer even than that is the basalt aquifer that you can tap into at the edges of the La Pine sub basin and this is the aquifer that Ponderosa Pines taps into. It is not available on an economic basis for the rest of the are because the basalt dips below the mid basin sediments. The map issue was based on a glitch that we found in the data. We wanted to make sure that we had the correct data. (Laughing from the audience) TOM ANDERSON: Here is an honest answer to that specific question. We have been telling people in Ponderosa Pines that being on the fringe area generally with the variable standards that they would in all likely hood only have to meet the minimum reduction standard, that is the 30%. When we produced that map for distribution, I saw on that may that half of Ponderosa Pines was in the mid standard. I questioned staff on that and they said we had to draw the line somewhere and that it was not as precise as they would like it to be. I said if we can't say matter of factly for Ponderosa Pines, being Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding La Pine Groundwater Issues Tuesday, March 20, 2007 Page 24 of 44 Pages isolated as it is, that that line should be half meet one standard and half meet another standard, then let's not say it at all. Therefore, the whole thing was made white so the entire subdivision is now under that map and under that Rule would only have to meet the minimum standard. (Yelling from audience.) BANEY: Let's try and keep our comments down here so we can get them on the record. GILLETTE: I have just one more comment. What would the cost of the cheapest septic system be? BANEY: We will get on to Judy's question and we will add that to public testimony to answer. JUDY FORSYTHE: Good evening, my name is Judy Forsythe and I am a resident of South County. Commissioner Baney called the next person, Patrick Murphy to come down. FORSYTHE: To date, we have been having a lot of trouble getting the same answer from the CDD staff . We keep getting conflicting information from them. A lot of research has gone in to these meetings from our standpoint. We are not going to blindly entrust the care and custody of our well being to CDD's power or their latitudes of choice. It is evident, from what we are hearing, that the choices they are making for South County are not our choices. We feel they have failed in the leadership role assigned to them by the Commissioners for the people of Deschutes County. We have not heard anything yet that gives us confidence in the reports that we are receiving from them. We would encourage our Commissioner's to set aside any final determination on this until we all have more figures. Last week Mr. Daly said there was no pressure to pass this initiative at any time but the ordinance we received said that time was of the essence. I remain confused. We, the people of South County, are looking for leadership we can trust Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding La Pine Groundwater Issues Tuesday, March 20, 2007 Page 25 of 44 Pages and leadership that will act upon accomplishments. You, the Commissioner's and we, the residents of South County deserve some answers. We deserve to see the finished product. We do not have any facts. BANEY: Thank you, Judy. Commissioner Baney called Pam Cosmo to come down. DEBBIE MCQUARY: Good evening, my name is Debbie McQuary. I am a resident of South County and I would like to present to the Board signatures of over 2400 people opposed to this Local Rule. (See attached document marked as Exhibit G.) (Applause from the audience) BANEY: Thank you very much, that is a lot of work. Commissioner Baney called Sunny Rounds to come down. JO ANNE NELSON: My name is Jo Anne Nelson and you can call me a professional skeptic. She then read her statement. (See attached documentation marked as Exhibit H.) Because of the number of questions, I do not expect oral answers tonight, I left my address on the bottom of the sheet and you can write to us. BANEY: Thank you very much. Commissioner Baney called Robert Shotwell to come down. Mr. Shotwell said he would give up his time. She next called Ted Scholer. PATRICK MURPHY: Commissioners, my name is Patrick Murphy and I am a resident of South County. I would like to thank you, as most people have, for taking the time to hear our concerns about the proposals for the groundwater and septic system in this County. I wish to assure you emphatically, that I do not know anyone who is not concerned Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding La Pine Groundwater Issues Tuesday, March 20, 2007 Page 26 of 44 Pages over this issue. I further do not know anyone who would not want to prevent ground water contamination and pollution. Unless I have a complete misunderstanding about this issue and the proposals that you intend to vote upon soon, there seems to be serious social and technical concerns to be addressed. Up front, I think you would be making a mistake and a disservice to the community for this proposal being voted upon without these issues being very carefully reconsidered. There is time to address them as there is no absolute emergency. As I understand, this proposal has been in the works for many years. Which is commendable for advance planning but it is not commendable that the issue has only just come to a head without public input and other alternatives being investigated than the ones I understand as being proposed. This part of the County has many residents with insufficient income to support this proposal. We may be very well poor cousins to the Bend area but that is no reason to treat us recklessly. My own research says the cost of these systems that you propose are excessive, unnecessary, and of questionable benefit. This proposal does not come close to addressing the issue of carbon fuels sustainability. These expensive systems are dependent on constant dependable electrical supplies, large cost for maintenance, and the system has a relatively short life span. If there is a power outage then the system becomes useless and it is expensive to put it up again. This leads me to the question of whether you are aware of this resource depletion and you have not answered the question about the proposed bio generating plant that uses 186,000 gallons per day. We realize this whole situation is the result of past actions that you must deal with. If you truly have the welfare of all the residents concerned, you would do more homework and enlist the cooperation of the people that would be affected rather than the pronouncement of do it our way or else. BANEY: Thank you very much. Commissioner Baney called Tony Borba. Mr. Borba said his question was answered. She then called Nancy Sprauer to come down. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding La Pine Groundwater Issues Tuesday, March 20, 2007 Page 27 of 44 Pages PAMELA COSMO: I am Pamela Cosmo. (Ms. Cosmo handed in her statement. See attached documentation marked as Exhibit I.) BANEY: Let's all stand up for a minute, stretch, and say hi to your neighbor. After a few minutes Commissioner Baney called the meeting to order. She called Wanda VanNata to come down. (See attached Exhibit J, dropped off by William Hause and Exhibit K, dropped off by Glenn & Eugena Barnhill. Exhibits only, did not speak.) SUNNI ROUNDS: My name is Sunni Rounds and I am being assisted by Gayla Hayes and Judy Forsythe. We want to make a presentation regarding different facts. (See attached documentation marked as Exhibit L) BANEY: Thank you ladies. Commissioner Baney next called Gil Sprauer and Diane Shufelberger to come down. TED SCHOLER: Good evening Commissioners and fellow citizens of South County. My name is Ted Scholer; I am a 20 year resident of South County. I have been involved in this process since the beginning of the South County Regional Problem Solving process. I made a statement that if you can prove to me scientifically, that we are in fact polluting our ground water, I will be the first one on your bandwagon. I am not a scientist, but I have enough background to know in science you prepare or formulate hypothesis, then go about putting equal weight on proving and disproving. Another word for hypothesis is model. I only see the County Staff trying to prove and support their hypothesis. I see no work in disproving the hypothesis which to me is scientific protocol. I have done statistical work and I know you can make statistics say anything you want them to say. I am concerned about taking of public rights, especially in terms of the red lots. Not the ones in wetlands, but the ones that are in high water Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding La Pine Groundwater Issues Tuesday, March 20, 2007 Page 28 of 44 Pages table. I want to stand in record of not supporting the stamps proposal at this point. The red lots are those lots that are usually adjacent to rivers that have higher water tables than other areas. At this point the County stamp is saying you can't develop those. I proposed at the last advisory committee to allow people who owned a red lot to buy across the street from them a lot that would be a holding area for a septic system. I was told that is not possible. Why are we in such a rush to do this? Why can't we wait until we have full information, have more studies, be able to look at red lots, or other things the County says they want to study in the future. We need time to make the right decision. I am upset a portion of the Local Rule was enacted last July 1 st in an emergency procedure by the County which didn't allow for study or public input. I'm a realtor and didn't find out about it until late August or September when I asked County staff why people were saying to me "why can't we have standard systems anymore"? Then, County staff came down and presented that to us 3 months after it had been enacted. We had no prior knowledge of that. Thank you. BANEY: Thank you Ted. The next person is Keith Shuffelberger, please. KEITH SHUFFELBERGER: I will give my time up for my wife. BANEY: Thank you. Commissioner Baney called Ed Criss to come down. NANCY SPRAUER: Thank you for being here and taking our comments. My name is Nancy Sprauer and I just have a statement to read. Only 3 people in this entire County have a vote to implement the Local Rule. As a Commissioner, I would hate to vote in favor of the Local Rule with inconclusive, incomplete information, knowing the tremendous financial burden this vote would cause the citizens of South County. The cost to upgrade our septic systems seems to be the constant in the groundwater problem, or is it a problem? The science prompting this drastic, costly solution seems to lack substance that the average person can understand. You can show us Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding La Pine Groundwater Issues Tuesday, March 20, 2007 Page 29 of 44 Pages all the grafts, charts, use blue baby, miscarriage and cancer words. There has been no specific proof shown to us of these charges. Thank you very much. BANEY: Thank you very much. Commissioner Baney called Karen Gillette to come down. GIL SPRAUER: My name is Gil Sprauer and the first we heard about this was in our tax statement last November. That was the 1St "official" notice. This envelope is info I have gathered since this process in November. I was gone for 2 months and missed the last meeting. It doesn't look like anything has changed. You can't get a straight answer from anybody in the County. There is nothing black and white and they can't tell you it cost $5.00 because they don't know. Al Gore invented the internet and Al Gore has told everybody lately that you are going to die from global warming because the glaciers are going to melt and you are going to drown. So, we do not need to worry about it. It is about time that the County starts feeding us facts instead of emotional fertilizer. I am sick and tired of it. BANEY: Thank you very much. Commissioner Baney called Vern Walter and Liz Harmon to come down. DIANE SHUFFELBERGER: My name is Diane Shuffelberger and I am a senior advocate for this area. I am well aware of the impact this is going to have on them. I agree that most of us will not be here by the time we have to do anything. There's a lot of finances that have not been covered in their financial hypothesis of their cost. There is maintenance and removal. In one of Ms. Rich's... La Pine National Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Demonstration Project, field test program description, under homeowner's education the La Pine project team noted that there appeared to be unwillingness among homeowners to be informed consumers. My statement to Ms. Rich is, she totally unaccepted that there could be another hypothesis besides hers. I feel this should be delayed or halted until all we get all of the facts. People are skeptical of Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding La Pine Groundwater Issues Tuesday, March 20, 2007 Page 30 of 44 Pages government, they are distrustful of government, and it is up to you people to prove that you are trustworthy. Thank everyone for coming. BANEY: I do want to say thank you to everyone because it is tough to sit here and everyone is doing a great job of being respectful to one another. I understand it is an emotional issue. Commissioner Baney called Barbara Schroder to come down. ED CRISS: Thank you. My name is Ed Criss and I am a resident of Wild River. I have been here for about two years and am relatively new to the culture here. I am very impressed with my neighbors because the last person just told you about your staff having a certain attitude about the people down here. I think you can tell that the everyday person down here is well educated enough to understand that this is a major issue and that there are a whole lot of parts to it and some of it has not come through very honestly. I am here tonight to talk about your public policy. As a person who came from the outside from down in the wine country, I understand when County says no growth and when City says we are going to develop in the urban development area. There is no growth in the County. I like where I am now; I am a health care professional and I first got interested when I heard about the medical literature being touted. It was not reproducible in the medical literature. I read reports and most of it was not being represented correctly. It was being represented by opinions by the people making the statements, it is not in the medical literature. There is nothing conclusive that is there. We do have some things to be suspicious about, to be sure. What I have a problem with in the public arena is quite simple. I went to all meetings and workshops we had. This is the type of literature (showed a stack) I need to get up to speed. I have got to thank Dan Holdeman for getting this to me in a timely fashion. We have not had timely responses for other requests, if any. I understand about 80% of what I am reading and a lot of it does not make since as to how fast we have to make these changes. We do not have that information to make that decision. The County staff is making that decision for us, why? Because we have not been involved in this process whatsoever. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding La Pine Groundwater Issues Tuesday, March 20, 2007 Page 31 of 44 Pages I live in Wild River. Last week I heard that all of our affluent goes into the river water so none of it is getting to the aquifer down here. So if the river does not have any problems, then does Wild River really have a problem with producing anything that is going into this pollution that you are talking about? I don't think it can be proven. We do not even have the river study complete. Why are we even involved in this process? Up to two weeks ago the folks in Wild River thought they were exempt. ANDERSON; Wild River has never been exempt. BANEY: Thank you. Commissioner Baney called Larry Walker to come down. VERN WALTER: Hi, I am Vern Walter and I would like to talk a little about computer modeling. It is a dangerous tool to use. I would like to read a sentence from this application, the civilization optimization method which is the methodology being used by the computer model. "There have been relatively few attempts to apply these techniques to ground water quality issues associated with management of decentralized water, waste water treatment systems." Few attempts. That sentence raises flags. To me we are a beta test site and we do not want to be a beta test site to work out problems. It does not say there have been few attempts with great success, is just says few attempts. I have made a few attempts to make money in the stock market. Based on that, would the Commissioners give me their life savings to invest? You are asking us to invest in the project based on a few attempts. On computer models... there is an article in the Bulletin that says it better than I can. It is about PacifiCorp and the California Energy Commission. (Read from news article marked as Exhibit M.) What we are asking the Commissioners it to slow this process down. Do more testing give 6 months, verify data, and turn over to a third party to review. This is a project that cost millions and millions of dollars so we want to get it right. If you turn it over to a third party and it is confirmed, you can move ahead with Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding La Pine Groundwater Issues Tuesday, March 20, 2007 Page 32 of 44 Pages confidence. If it is not confirmed, the Commissioners will get a great thanks for saving us from a nightmare. Take your time and get it right. BANEY: Thank you very much. Commissioner Baney called Cara Tapken to come down. LIZ HARMON: Liz Harmon; I live in La Pine. How many of you here are going to have to use this new septic system? None. LUKE: If you are asking us how many are on a septic tank... You do not know. If further study in different parts of the County, there is the opportunity to do that. Unfortunately the City wants to put a sewer system in where my septic is and they only want to charge me $20,000.00 plus hook up. HARMON: Good. To CDD, how many choices do we have of septic systems? There are at least two systems in place here in La Pine. Why haven't we been told about them and why are you proud about those systems that you have chosen for us. You have not said a word to us, we do not know. To the audience, how many here got a notice of this proposed mandatory system in your property taxes last November. BANEY: Thank you Liz. Commissioner Baney called George Morrice to come down. BARBARA SCHRODER: My name is Barbara Schroder; I live in Newberry Estates. Last week there was a comment made that there was a large nitrate problem in Rhode Island. My sister and her husband live in West Warwick, RI and I spoke with them this last week and they were unaware of the problem, and they were going to check into it. The question earlier was, was there an emergency declaration made in 2002 and Mr. Anderson said he was not aware of it. I understand on the County Webpage that there was one made. My question is this, why wasn't this disclosed to buyers Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding La Pine Groundwater Issues Tuesday, March 20, 2007 Page 33 of 44 Pages in South County after this emergency was declared. We purchased our property in 2004 and built a home and were required to put in a new septic system. Now this septic system will not be acceptable. I would say as an emergency, any potential buyer should have been informed at the time they purchased the property. I am not the only person who has purchase a home since then and they are not very happy that this was not disclosed to them. Thank you for listening to us and we hope you will consider this in your decision. ANDERSON: The question that I was asked when I spoke at the start was, was there a nitrate emergency declared in 2002. In 2002 this Board passed Transfer Development Credit or TDC Code, which was an earlier version of requirements placed on developers in the New Neighborhood. It had to do with the old plan on transferring development from the rural County into the receiving area in the New Neighborhood. That Code was passed under emergency clause. It only had to do with the New Neighborhood, not a nitrate issue. LARRY WALKER: My name is Larry Walker; I live out near the State Park. (Read his statement marked as Exhibit U.) BANEY: Thank you very much Larry. Commissioner Baney called Alice Reintenbaugh and Neil Henderson to come down. Neil called something from the audience and did not come down. Commissioner Baney then called Dennis Davis to come down. CARA TAPKEN: My name is Cara Tapken; I live here in La Pine. Seven years ago I bought my property. Every time I buy a piece of property I request a water report. My water report from 7 years ago until now has not changed. I have talked with 117 people who live in our area, theirs has not changed either. All of use have less than 1 part per million of this nitrate. So, there is not an issue in our area. So, the extra cost is a concern. Whose hand is lining whose' pocket? Show me the nitrates, because I have none. Thank you very much. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding La Pine Groundwater Issues Tuesday, March 20, 2007 Page 34 of 44 Pages BANEY: Thank you. Commissioner Baney called Jerry Criss to come down. GEORGE MORRIS: Thank you, my name is George Morris and I am the Vice President of the La Pine Chamber of Commerce. I would like to ask the Commission to delay implementing the Local Rule at this time. Considering the severity of the consequences of enacting the Local Rule, it seems to be prudent risk management not to implement it at this time. Adoption of the Local Rule would create a financial hardship on the sector of our population that can afford it the least. Because of my position in the Chamber, I talk with a lot of business leaders. Last week a mortgage banker said if the Local Rule becomes adopted, people will loose their homes. To me that was an expert opinion. I am only saying this to consider it but, delaying the Local Rule could minimize the potential consequences of legal recourse by the people. Legal recourse would be a drain on the people of this area. Delaying the Local Rule would allow the time for thorough evaluation and verification of the scientific research behind the groundwater protection project. A high standard of accuracy should be upheld before embarking on a project of this scope and magnitude. From the information that I have been able to ascertain, the second part of the model won't be done until May. The river study won't be finished for 12 months, is what I have been told. Delaying the implementation of the Local Rule would allow us the time to look at the feasibility of alternative proposals and time to work out the kinks in the financial assistance program. Considering the breadth, scope, magnitude, risks, severity of consequences, and impact on the citizens of southern Deschutes County, I would strongly ask the Commissioners to delay actions on this for 18 months to 2 years. Finally, as a member of the Chamber of Commerce, I have been authorized by the Chamber of Commerce to inform the Commissioners that at the February 2007 Board meeting we passed a unanimous resolution asking the County Commissioners to delay the Local Rule for approximately 18 months. I would to express my gratitude to the Commissioners for allowing me to testify this evening. Thank you very much. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding La Pine Groundwater Issues Tuesday, March 20, 2007 Page 35 of 44 Pages BANEY: Thank you George. Commissioner Baney called Donald Poland to come down. ALICE PETERSON REINTENBAUGH: My name is Alice Peterson Reitenbaugh and I live in Newberry Estates. I have been a resident of La Pine for 21 years. My greatest fear is the quality of life that we have had here is disappearing. I know many of you that have been here 10 years or more have seen dramatic changes, a lot of them good. How many can afford what is happening now? Our land values have gone from $8,000 - 10,000 per acre to over $120,000 per acre. What is driving that? The money. What is that going to do for us who are the working poor, or the retired, or the limited income? Our water quality was mandated for years by the County, by our zoning. When I did the census in 2000, I talked to many long time builders and land owners in the area. Our zoning used to be 20 acre, forest rural, and vacation. Then it dropped down to 5, now it is down to 1 and permanent dwellings. That is great. Now what have we got in La Pine? We have 10 to 15 houses on 1 acre. That just scary. Even more than nitrates, what worries me is how much water are we going to have left period? More people taking out a limited supply of water, my guess is we are probably going to run out of ground water before we have to worry about the nitrates. We have got to go back to the basics. Our zoning was there for a reason. I really believe that people that came before us saw the value of what this land had to offer. Why can't we respect that and put the dollar signs aside and protect our quality of life. Do we all have to have "progress"? Is it really progress when you have to worry about how fast the cars are speeding by on the new paved road outside? Those in Newberry Estates know that we banded together and we stopped the change that they were going to force $8,000 per owner mandating this road condition. If you moved here, you moved for a rural feel. The Newberry paper reported on that opinion poll that was sent out. They said that the majority of La Pineians wanted a small town feel. That was wrong. If you go back and go look at the paper, the majority of the La Pine people wanted a rural lifestyle. In my book, there is a big difference between a rural lifestyle and a small town feel. The difference is if you can jump from your porch to your neighbor's porch. The bottom line is, I enjoy the quality of life, and Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding La Pine Groundwater Issues Tuesday, March 20, 2007 Page 36 of 44 Pages I enjoy the clean air and the clean water. You can't keep it that way if you keep crowding people. I think our basics need to go back to limiting of the building. BANEY: Thank you Alice. We are going to stand up just one more time. After a few minutes she called the meeting to order. Commissioner Baney called Daniel Hancock to come down. DENNIS DAVIS: My name is Dennis Davis and I am a resident of South County. I first found out about this process in late 2006. I do not understand where the notice was to us in the tax bill, but we did not see it. As we found out about this process I did a quick internet search and after several hours, I was able to find three things that Mr. Churchill confirmed for me. Number one is there is not federal drinking water standard for private wells. Number two is the state standards address a process to identify potential ground water problem areas and then address possible solutions for that. Number three is I could not find any medical data that named nitrates as harmful. I found a lot of medical confusion about what nitrates do and what they do not do. My question is what is our hurry to impose this Rule? I don't believe we have all the data and I don't believe we are ready yet to understand if there is a real problem, and if we have to do what you are proposing to do in order to solve it. I do know in order to solve the drinking water problem, if you consider nitrates a problem, is a very simple solution. For less than $500.00 you can put a reverse osmosis filtering system on your tap water in your house and it takes out all of the nitrates. I am originally from Baker City and I spent 10 years in Las Vegas where the water is intolerable. Everyone down there uses reverse osmosis to remove all of the contaminants and bad flavor out of the water. In addition, I was a little bit upset with this Rule because last April we were given a permit for a new septic system for our new house. I was not told about any proposed upgrades or nitrate or anything else. We put in a good septic system and I am concerned we may have to do something else with that now. The lot I bought was with the well going to the lower aquifer and the water tasted terrible. It cost me $675.00 for a filtering system to take all the taste out of the water. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding La Pine Groundwater Issues Tuesday, March 20, 2007 Page 37 of 44 Pages The last thing is the groundwater model. In 30 years as an engineer I go back to the saying that there are lies, damn lies, and statistics. Whenever we run an engineering model, we require a sensitivity test on that model. You change the perimeters around the model to see what the outcome is. If you get fluctuating outcomes, it tells you the model is not very good and not very predictive. I would like to see some sensitivity analysis run to assure us it predicts something. In your proposed Rule you say in there who would have to retrofit and you use the term authorization notice. Can you tell me what that means? DAN HALDEMAN: Authorization notices that DEQ regulates are if someone upgrades, such as enlarge their house, they have to apply for authorization to see if their septic system can handle that. DAVIS: Thank you very much for listening to us today. BANEY: Thank you. Commissioner Baney called John Boyle to come down. JERRY CRISS: My name is Jerry Criss and I am a resident of La Pine. Good citizens of South County, Commissioners and Staff, I stand here tonight as I feel there is a great injustice about to be bestowed on the citizens of Deschutes County. I want the Commissioners to understand that I will show them the same respect that Staff has shown citizens of South County, which is none. I want you to realize how your Staff has represented the County on the ground water issue. I am for clean water. I depend on clean water to pursue my interests. If there is going to be a nitrate problem, let's come up with multiple solutions that make since and apply them in a way that does not put 6,000 homeowners in financial peril. I have attended all but one of the so called public meetings and workshops conducted by the County Staff and during those meetings conducted by your Staff, I have never seen more disrespect shown towards individuals who are citizens of this County than that of your County Staff. It was as if every question was a personal attack on their intelligence or their character. Their arrogance increased Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding La Pine Groundwater Issues Tuesday, March 20, 2007 Page 38 of 44 Pages as our questions became more detailed. As we learned more about the issues confronting us and we had even more questions, their answers became more convoluted. There answers went in circles and it became apparent they did not have all the answers. I have an example of just one way of a misleading answer to a question regarding the State Revolving Fund. (See attached document marked as Exhibit N.) I find it interesting that a member of your Staff should state in a recent news article that they were seeking funding for the groundwater issue from the State Revolving Fund. I contacted Elizabeth Hutchinson, who is a funding project officer about whether they had been contacted about the possibility of helping with the funding of our problem here in South County. Her reply was "yes' but it was between 2 and 4 years ago by Mr. Roger Everett, Director of Environmental Health Division. I asked what interest rate the State Revolving Fund charges a public agency. The rate for a twenty year loan is actually 3.22%. Tom Anderson said they would charge 6% for the money. I have a questions for Mr. Luke. At the end of our hearing last week I introduced myself and we had a simple conversation. You said this is not a South County issue but a Deschutes County issue. Could you explain on that statement, please? LUKE: What people drink in their water is up to them. If the nitrates start to get into the Little Deschutes and then into the Big Deschutes, then they are going to affect the water quality of the river from my standpoint which affects Bend, Redmond, Madras, and all the way down. When I say it is a Deschutes County problem and not just a South County problem, I mean it is a problem for all the residents of Deschutes County to try and solve. That gets back to the funding. How much does the County step up and fund this? There are two pieces to this. One, do you implement the Rule? Second, if you implement the Rule, how do you pay for it? There is money there, how do you distribute it? That is a very big question. It is a problem that all the residents in this County need to work together to solve. CRISS: Thank you and I would be glad to offer my services. I want to thank Jason Churchill for presentation and applaud his courage, convictions, and his integrity. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding La Pine Groundwater Issues Tuesday, March 20, 2007 Page 39 of 44 Pages BANEY: Thank you. Commissioner Baney then called Glen Clark to come down. DONALD POLAND: My name is Donald Poland; I am a resident here in La Pine. I have a question for the council, my question is why are they in such a rush to enforce this project that they come with on us instead of going out and studying up on sewage filtering plants? There are other little communities within 300 miles of here that have set them up over the past 15 years and they seem to be working fine. Nobody mentioned this or even brought it up. You said last week that you did not have the land for one thing but you turn around and say you have land that you need to sell. Another thing is if our area is so bad, why don't we have the federal government and the Governor in this so we can declare this a disaster area? Thank you. LUKE: After what I have seen, the way the federal government reacts, I don't think I would want them here. BANEY: Thank you. Commissioner Baney called Darren Kerlin to come down. DANIL HANCOCK: My name is Danil Hancock. I moved to South County 10 years ago and am a retired as scientist. He then submitted his information. (See attached document marked as Exhibit T.) BANEY: Thank you. Commissioner Baney called Vic Russell to come down. JOHN BOYLE: My name is John Boyle and I have lived here for 18 years. I have been in a number of fights and some of them have been political. I ran for County Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding La Pine Groundwater Issues Tuesday, March 20, 2007 Page 40 of 44 Pages Commissioner four times and the last time I got 20,000 votes, I did not spend a dollar. I have some people that listen to me. What I would like to say is everything is politics. I wanted the County Commissioners to be five people from five districts and wanted La Pine to be one of them. I wanted La Pine to incorporate. It has not happened to the way I would like to see it. If it did, this would not be happening. This is kind of bulldozing over us. There is a solution to this and I would like them to know that the venue to solve this is a recall. They are elected officials and represent us and better listen to us. I would like to here from others beside Barbara Rich. I would like the County Commissioners to give $20,000 each year after they pass this to help those who can't afford it. I would like to see La Pine become a new county with other towns and we could pave the roads. One day there might be a class action suit for health reasons. I think you should listen to La Pine. BANEY: Thank you John. I need to stop calling folks as time is running out. GLEN CLARK: My name is Glen Clark and I have been here in La Pine for 37 years. I had my water checked and it was .5 % nitrates in 1974. It is 1.7% now (parts per million) and I am wondering why. I know why. It is from waste from our septic tanks. Barbara Rich said if we maintain our tanks, it will put out less nitrates. The new system has to be maintained (See attached document marked as Exhibit O.) If you over saturate your system you will put out more nitrates, even the new systems put out nitrates. The electrical ones percolate so it travels faster. How do we get nitrates in the water, the wells are not cased right. The well casings need to be drilled with a larger hole down through the two layers of clay, add bentonite with a sleeve so no cave in, then the rest of the well needs to be drilled. You put bentonite, which is a clay, between the casing and the sleeve, and then you pull the sleeve out. That is a guaranteed seal. I talked with the USGS fellows and they are not doing that on their test holes. The top layer will slough off in the casing. I have seen this a lot, well drillers drill holes and put a couple of sacks in there, and they call it sealed. There is no guarantee that it is sealed against the clay layers. We have 2 clay layers about our water table that is good drinking water here in La Pine. I have drilled some hand wells so I know the clay is there. You are not going to leak nitrates into our water system unless it is leaking into the well casings. Thank you for your time. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding La Pine Groundwater Issues Tuesday, March 20, 2007 Page 41 of 44 Pages BANEY: Thank you very much. DARREL KERLIN: I would like to give photos to Staff. (See attached photos marked as Exhibit P.) My name is Darrel Kerlin and I have been a property owner for 26 years. I built a home 10 years ago and had a royal experience with environmental health. It was solved by DEQ and I understand environmental health and DEQ still have misunderstanding between each other. That may be one of the reasons we are having a lot of problems down here. I was going to ask questions of Staff if you have family in this area and that was already answered. I have some suggestions. It was mentioned that $30 to $35 million dollars of property available to market to help finance this program. I would like to see how long it takes to get the $30 or $35 million dollars. Is that something like this place I call Georgetown up here. If you get the money, take the interest and subsidize the people who really have well problems and need to upgrade their septic systems. This way you will always have the money and will solve problems where people really need the help. You will also be doing a lot of good for the citizens. Why is it just us? Why can't we look a little farter north? It starts south of us and continues all the way on up. We are not willing to be subjected to being different people down here. We are not different, we are citizens of Deschutes County and we pay taxes. What I am getting down here is nothing but a bunch of double talk. Some that you can't understand because some ladies don't know how to speak on the phone and they don't apologize for it either. BANEY: Please be kind. I understand that you may have.....please, thank, you. KERLIN: I firmly believe that if you are going to put this Local Rule on us, Local Rule should mean just what it says, local. We should have above board say about what is going on, not a decision made by 3 individuals that sit in an office down town. I have a lot of respect for one of them that I have met and I have seen him do an awful lot of good in this County. I expect him to do an awful lot more good. I appreciate your time and I appreciate the effort you are putting in and I would definitely appreciate it if you would give us time to figure out a better way. Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding La Pine Groundwater Issues Tuesday, March 20, 2007 Page 42 of 44 Pages BANEY: Thank you very much. VIC RUSSELL: My name is Vic Russell and I am a long time resident of La Pine. I am not going to have time to get through all my information but what I am asking for is a minimum of 12 to 18 months after the model is back in May and after the river study is back in 12 months. (Mr. Russell read parts from his handouts marked as Exhibit Q.) BANEY: Show of hands to come back next week. Same time, same place. Being no further items to come before the Board, Commissioner Baney adjourned the meeting at 9: 00 p.m. DATED this 20th Day of March 2007 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. ATTEST: Recording Secretary Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding La Pine Groundwater Issues Tuesday, March 20, 2007 Page 43 of 44 Pages Attachments Exhibit A: Comments from Jason Churchill Exhibit B: Comments from Conrad Ruel - did not speak Exhibit C: Documentation turned in by CDD Exhibit D: Documentation turned in by CDD Exhibit E: Comments from Martha Bauman Exhibit F: Documentation from Dave Gillette Exhibit G: Documentation from Debbie McQuary Exhibit H: Comments from Jo Anne Nelson Exhibit I: Comments from Pamela Cosmo Exhibit J: Letter from William House - did not speak Exhibit K: Letter from Glenn & Eugena Barnhill - did not speak Exhibit L: Comments from Sunni Rounds Exhibit M: Article from Vern Walter Exhibit N: Documentation from Jerry Criss Exhibit O: Documentation from Glen Clark Exhibit P: Photos from Darrel Kerlin Exhibit Q: Documentation from Vic Russell Exhibit R: Letter from Keith Harms - did not speak Exhibit S: Letter from George Morrice Exhibit T: Comments from Danil Hancock Exhibit U: Comments from Larry Walker Exhibit V: Sign in Sheet Minutes of Board of Commissioners' Public Hearing regarding La Pine Groundwater Issues Tuesday, March 20, 2007 Page 44 of 44 Pages 1 . Deschutes County Public Hearing Testimony March 21, 2007 Proposed Local Rule for Onsite Septic System Nitrogen Management Submitted by Jason Churchill, Ph.D.,Orenco Systemso, Inc. My name is Jason Churchill. I have ten years experience as a water quality regulator for the State of California. I have a PhD in Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. My research in that field has been published in a number of scientific publications. I currently work in the Government Relations Department at Orenco Systems. I'm here tonight because I do not believe that the Deschutes County Commissioners and citizens have all the facts needed to come to an informed decision about how best to deal with nitrate in LaPine's groundwater. I'm here to offer those facts, even though it's not in Orenco's financial interests to do so. Orenco's wastewater treatment systems have been approved for use here in the county, so it's in our financial interest to step aside and let the proposed Local Rule move forward. But I'm here to offer some important facts because, for the past 25 years, the owners and employees of Orenco have watched small communities all over the United States spend way too much money on wastewater systems and wastewater solutions. We see this happening time and again. And we feel a moral obligation and an obligation to our profession - the profession of wastewater engineering - to give communities accurate data, so that they can make sound decisions, based on sound science. Even when it's not in our financial interest to do so. Last month, the Bend Bulletin reported that it could cost as much as $63 million to safeguard La Pine's water supply from nitrate pollution. It could be that La Pine has a $63 million nitrate problem. It could also be that solutions are available that would be considerably less costly. More time is needed to explore other alternatives. I believe there is a false sense of urgency to find an immediate solution. And this false sense of urgency stems from a lack of good information: I - It has been implied that strict limits on septic system discharges are necessary to comply with the federal drinking water standard of 10 mg/L nitrate-N. In fact, the federal government has no authority - none - to require that single-family residential septic systems be regulated to meet the drinking water standard. Nor has the federal government applied any pressure to require regulation of single-family septic systems in the south County, or anywhere else for that matter. The County appears to be acting on its own initiative. There is therefore time to consider additional information and find the right solution for the community. 2; It has also been implied that strict limits on septic system discharges are necessary to comply with the state groundwater quality standard for nitrate. The standard, set at 10 Orenco Systems Incorporated 814 AIRWAY AVENUE SUTHERLIN, OREGON 97479 TOLL FREE: (800) 348-9843 TELEPHONE: (541) 459-4449 FACSIMILE: (541) 459-2884 WEB SITE: www.orenco.com BOCC Public Hearing #2 March 20, 2007 Groundwater Issues - La Pine Exhibit --A Public Hearing Testimony Proposed Local Rule Page 2 mg/L nitrate-N, is contained in OAR 340-040-0020. Paragraph 4 of that section states only that this standard, "will be used by the Department and the public to evaluate the significance of a particular contaminant concentration, and will trigger necessary regulatory action." "Necessary regulatory action" is not defined under the regulation. To my knowledge, the State DEQ has not completed a departmental evaluation of nitrate levels in south Deschutes County, nor has it threatened to take immediate regulatory action if the County does not immediately adopt a Local Rule. The public and Commissioners have been given information about the State groundwater nitrate standard that is not correct, and needs to be corrected. The following statement appears on page 11 of the County Staff Report: "The Oregon DEQ establishes groundwater quality protection standards in OAR 340-040. This rule sets the water quality standard for nitrate as N in groundwater at 70% of the drinking water standard, or 7 mg/L. The proposed rule is designed to maintain compliance with this standard on average in south Deschutes County." Contrary to that statement, the 7 mg/L level is not a "water quality standard" at all, therefore there is no need to "comply" with it by adoption of a Local Rule. 7 mg/L is simply an "action level" that has only one consequence - it triggers declaration of a Groundwater Management Area (GWMA). This simply means that the DEQ must appoint an advisory Committee, made up of affected citizens and other interested parties, to examine the problem and develop an "Action Plan." The Committee may then make recommendations to the DEQ for a local rule. But the GWMA Committee has no authority to dictate any corrective measures. Declaration of a GWMA is not something to be "avoided." It is something that the County should welcome. In any case, the DEQ has indicated (in a letter from DEQ Eastern Region Administrator Joni Hammond) that, it "currently does not have adequate resources to develop specific geographic rules for South Deschutes County," and "that is one of the reasons the county decided to propose to the Board of Commissioners a local ordinance regulating onsite systems in South Deschutes County." It is evident that the County is not responding to any threatened action by either State or Federal authorities. Why, then, is there such a sense of urgency to adopt the proposed Local Rule? 3. Regarding supposed nitrate health risks the County has posted on its Web site a memo that includes the following assertion: there is no question that ingested nitrate is an enormous and key factor in methemoglobinemia ["blue-baby syndrome"]." That assertion is demonstrably false. There is substantial doubt among medical experts that drinking-water nitrate is a critical factor in blue-baby syndrome. I have included, as Attachment A, numerous statements published in the medical and public health literature to that effect. There is virtually no verifiable evidence that drinking-water nitrate causes blue baby syndrome. It is now widely acknowledged by the medical profession that bacterial or viral contamination, with resultant Public Hearing Testimony Proposed Local Rule Page 3 gastrointestinal disturbance, is the likely cause. That's because gastrointestinal inflammation in an infant can lead to a dramatic spike in nitrate and nitrite produced within the baby's own body. It is well documented by numerous medical reports that infants with diarrhea (which is characteristic of gastrointestinal inflammation) can develop blue-baby syndrome without any exposure to drinking-water nitrate. These and other medical facts led the National Research Council, in a 1995 report on nitrate toxicity, to conclude "Infection is the major contributor to methemoglobinemia from nitrate exposure; the incremental contribution of drinking water is negligible." The County has also distributed a fact sheet entitled "Deschutes County Health Effects Information," which states, "Thanks to the EPA standard, `blue-baby syndrome' caused by drinking water is uncommon and rarely fatal." It is true that drinking-water-related blue-baby syndrome is extremely rare - in fact it has virtually disappeared in United States and Western Europe since the 1960s. Most cases are fairly mild, with few clinical symptoms other than bluish or brownish skin discoloration. The condition is rapidly reversed in most cases with medical treatment, and there are no permanent health consequences except in rare cases. Fatalities occur in about 7-8% of the cases. I have included, as Attachment B, information from the medical and public health literature regarding the extreme rarity of blue-baby syndrome and the rarity of fatalities or permanent injuries. But it can not be argued that the virtual disappearance of blue-baby syndrome is "thanks to the EPA drinking- water standard," since groundwater nitrate concentrations have generally been increasing, and private wells that exceed the drinking-water standard are still extensively used in this country. (See Attachment C.) A number of factors may be contributing to the decline of methemoglobinemia, but the decline correlates most closely with substantial improvements in well construction and well-siting practices, which have reduced the potential for fecal contamination of wells. I recommend that the Deschutes County Public Health Department contact, as I have, the State Department of Human Services, Office of Disease Prevention and Epidemiology, for statistics regarding the incidence of blue-baby syndrome in Oregon. The infant health statistics analyst wasn't aware of any incidents - in fact, I had to explain to him what blue-baby syndrome is. In regards to other public health dangers from drinking water nitrates, such as cancer, miscarriages, and diabetes, those are also disputed. For example, the County's fact sheet acknowledges: "There have been some signs of a potential link between high nitrates in drinking water and gastrointestinal cancer. However, this association between elevated nitrate levels and cancer is controversial and has not been firmly supported by Public Hearing Testimony Proposed Local Rule Page 4 research. Because of these facts it is not appropriate to view nitrate levels above 10 milligrams per liter as a possible riskfor cancer. [Emphasis added.] I have included excerpts (Attachment D) from published articles by numerous experts showing that evidence is similarly weak for any supposed links between drinking water nitrate and other health effects. There is no public health crisis from nitrates in south Deschutes County - again, there is no valid reason for the sense of urgency. 4. It has also been stated that groundwater nitrate levels in the South County are increasing and will exceed the drinking water standard over wide areas in 20 to 50 years. But this conclusion is based almost exclusively on nitrate modeling conducted by the USGS. Modeling can be a useful predictive tool, but only if the assumptions on which the model is built are accurate. My own analysis reveals that nitrate levels have remained virtually unchanged throughout the South County from at least 1989 to the present. This analysis is based on actual data, not modeling. More than 1,700 nitrate measurements have been conducted from residential wells all over the South County over a period spanning 17 years. Neither the average concentration, or the number of hotspot wells, has changed over that time. This existing well data is not consistent with the premise that nitrate plumes are growing significantly more concentrated, penetrating deeper into the aquifer, or expanding over greater areas. No effort has been made to statistically analyze this well data and bring it to the attention of the public, or to the full attention of the Commissioners. To my knowledge no effort has been made to have this data statistically analyzed to determine whether it supports the claim that nitrate levels are slowly rising with time and will eventually "exceed the drinking water standard over large subareas." The cost of a third-party statistical analysis of the existing well data would be minimal, especially compared to the $5 million dollars already spent on modeling studies and demonstration projects, and the tens of millions of dollars to implement the Local Rule. 5. Another problem with the USGS modeling is that it assumes that the observed pattern of nitrate hotspots reflects solely aquifer-scale nitrogen loading and dispersion. The modeling doesn't consider evidence that nitrate hotspots may, to a significant extent, reflect localized conditions due to failing or inadequate septic systems, drainfields, and wells. Such faulty septic systems and wells are probably quite common in some parts of south Deschutes County. For example, it is notable that one of the worst clusters of hotspot wells is located within a two block stretch of Pine Forest Road near Burgess Road, in an area where older homes with wells screened less than ten feet below the water table are common. It should not be surprising that many wells in that neighborhood are hotspots, since they will intercept wastewater before it has adequate opportunity to disperse into the deeper aquifer layers. Public Hearing Testimony Proposed Local Rule Page 5 Investigating the condition of septic systems, drainfields, or wells in the worst problem areas could lead to less costly solutions to groundwater nitrate than that proposed by the Local Rule. There are many more problems with the USGS groundwater modeling that the Local Rule is relying upon. I've listed some of those other problems in Attachment E. In Conclusion I want to be clear that I am not arguing for a change in the federal drinking-water standard or the State groundwater quality standard for nitrate. Nor am I arguing that Deschutes County should do nothing about the nitrates in its groundwater. I am questioning whether the proposed limits on onsite septic system discharges are necessary to comply with water quality standards. I am questioning whether there is an imminent public health crisis that demands immediate action, particularly when it is widely recognized by medical authorities that the federal drinking water standard is conservatively low. I am questioning whether the current low percentage of hotspot wells reflects an area-wide problem or, chiefly, more localized problems with faulty septic systems and drainfields, and shallow or inadequate wells. I am questioning whether 17 years of existing well nitrate data is consistent with the idea that nitrate plumes are growing more concentrated, and penetrating deeper and wider into the aquifer so that large subareas will exceed water quality standards. I am questioning whether the Local Rule is the most cost-effective solution. And I am questioning the speed at which the County is moving forward, without adequate analysis. In adopting drinking-water standards like the nitrate standard, the EPA is required to conduct a health-risks analysis and compare the costs of implementing the proposed standard with the expected health benefits. Here in Deschutes County, the cost of implementing the proposed Local Rule will be extremely high. It is reasonable to expect that Deschutes County will conduct a full and objective cost/benefit analysis when considering the proposed Local Rule. Because there is no imminent health risk to the citizens of south Deschutes County, I urge the county to slow down; provide citizens with clear, factual, science-based information; and carefully explore the full range of possible solutions to groundwater nitrate issues. In some neighborhoods, one of those solutions will likely be the nitrogen-reducing wastewater treatment product my company manufactures, and in that case, we'll be more than happy to sell it. We just want to sell it for those home sites where it's really needed. Thank you for your attention and your time. Public Hearing Testimony Proposed Local Rule Page 6 I would like to submit my testimony to the commissioners for their records. And I have extra copies available, for members of the audience. ATTACHMENT A Relationship Between Nitrates and Methemoglobinemia Disputed For more than a decade, medical and public health experts have disputed the notion that drinking-water nitrate is the primary cause of infant methemoglobinemia ("blue-baby syndrome"): "Infection is the major contributor to methemoglobinemia from nitrate exposure; the incremental contribution of drinking water is negligible." (Page 49, National Research Council*, 1995. Subcommittee on Nitrate and Nitrite in Drinking Water. Nitrate and Nitrite in Drinking Water. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. Emphasis added.) "Examination of the literature suggests that a number of authors are starting to question the simple association between nitrate and infant methemoglobinemia " (Fewtrell L, 2004. "Drinking water nitrate, methemoglobinemia, and global burden of disease: a discussion." Environ Health Perspect 112: 1371-1373.) "Studies that have examined the relationship between nitrate levels in drinking water and [methemoglobin] levels in infants have produced mixed results The few experimental studies are largely negative." (Ward MH, deKok TM, Levallois P, Brender J, Gulis G, Nolan BT, VanDerslice J., 2005. "Workgroup report: drinking-water nitrate and health - recent findings and research needs." Environ Health Perspect 113 (11): 1607-1614.) "Exposure to even high levels of exogenous nitrates in drinking water is insufficient, by itself, to cause methemoglobinemia." <The author then points out that additional factors are critical for the condition to occur.> "All available evidence points to diarrhea, gastrointestinal inflammation, or infection as the critical factors.... These factors have now been proven to cause severe methemoglobinemia without exposure to exogenous nitrates from water or food. The available evidence suggests that exogenous nitrates from drinking water have the potential to exacerbate, but not cause, methemoglobinemia." (Avery AA, 2001. "Cause of methemoglobinemia: illness versus nitrate exposure." Correspondence. Environ Health Perspect 109: A12.) "There are literally dozens of reported infantile methemoglobinemia cases associated with diarrhea without exposure to nitrate-contaminated water." (Avery AA, 1999. "Infantile methemoglobinemia: reexamining the role of drinking water nitrates." Environ Health Perspect 107: 583-586.) "Enteric infections, potentially caused by fecal bacteria contamination in wells, may lead to the endogenous production [internal synthesis] of nitrite, as evident by numerous published reports of infants with diarrhea and methemoglobinemia but no apparent exposure to exogenous [methemoglobin] -forming agents." (Ward et al.) "It is now apparent that the synergistic effect of the high bacteria content of the well water was necessary to produce the infant methemoglobinemia. In every well-documented case involving this disease, high nitrate content of water was accompanied by high bacteria content." (Parsons ML, 1977. "Current research suggests the nitrate standard in drinking water is too low." JEnviron Health 40 (3): 140-142.) "Increased endogenous [internal] synthesis of nitrate, as reported. in animals with induced infections and inflammatory reactions, was also observed in humans. Infections and non- specific diarrhea played a role in the increased endogenous synthesis of nitrate." (Page 10. World Health Organization, 2003. "Nitrate and Nitrite in Drinking-Water: Background Document. for. Development of WHO Guidelines for Drinking-Water Quality.") "Complicating matters is the existence of methemoglobinemia in infants without exposure to water that contains elevated nitrate levels or any apparent exogenous nitrate or nitrite exposure." (Manassaram DM, Backer LC, Moll DM, 2006. "A review of nitrates in drinking water: maternal exposure and adverse reproductive and developmental outcomes." Environ Health Perspect 114 (3): 320-327.) The fact is, in every well-documented blue-baby syndrome case report in the literature associated with high-nitrate well water, some other suspicious factor (diarrhea, bacterial contamination, or methemogl6bin-inducing chemical exposures other than nitrate) was also identified. The real question is no longer whether drinking-water nitrate is the primary cause of blue-baby syndrome (it is now generally acknowledged that it cannot be), but whether it can even contribute significantly to the severity of the condition. ATTACHMENT B Excerpts from The Medical and Public Health Literature Regarding the Extreme Rarity of Methemoglobinemia, and Infrequency of Permanent Injuries or Fatalities "In the U.S., reports of new cases fell off steadily through the early 1950s, without any corrective action having knowingly been taken. Today, the disease has all but disappeared." (Smith RP, 2000. "What makes my baby blue?" Dartmouth Medicine. Retrieved from website http://`dartmed.dartmouth.edu/summer00/html/what_makes_my_baby_blue.shtml on March 12, 2007.) "Reports of infantile methemoglobinemia linked to contaminated drinking water are now virtually non-existent in the Unites States, with only two cases reported since the mid- 1960s." (Avery, op. cit.) "Public health officials have been concerned for over 50 years about a connection between high levels of nitrate in drinking water and methemoglobinemia, also known as blue-baby syndrome Although methemoglobinemia is very rare, the EPA standard for public drinking water was set at 10 mg/L to protect the susceptible infant population." (Page 12, Southern Willamette Valley Groundwater Management Area Action Plan, August 2006.) "Very few cases of methemoglobinemia are reported in the U.S." (Weyer P, 2001. "Nitrate in drinking water and human health." A review prepared for the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign Agriculture Safety and Health Conference held in March 2001. Retrieved from website http://www.cheec.uiowa.edu/nitrate/health.html on March 13, 2007.) "Methemoglobinemia generally manifests with few clinical signs other than cyanosis [bluish-gray or brown discoloration]." (Greer FR, Shannon M, 2005. "Infant methemoglobinemia: the role of dietary nitrate in food and water." Pediatrics 116(3):784- 786.) "Treatments are available that rapidly reverse the methaemoglobinaemia, and there is no subsequent disability following recovery. Fatalities are rare." (L'hirondel J, L'hirondel J-L, 2002. Nitrate and man: toxic, harmless, or beneficial? Wallingford, Oxfordshire, UK: CABI Publishing.) "If found early, acquired methemoglobinemia can be easily treated with no side effects. After treatment with methylene blue the patient can expect a full recovery." Health A to Z, article "Methemoglobinemia." Retrieved from the website - http ://www.healthatoz. com/healthato z/Atoz/common/standard/transfonn. j sp?requestURI=/he althatoz/Atoz/ency/methemoglobinemia.jsp on March 16, 2007. ATTACHMENT C The High Prevalence of Nitrates in Drinking Water Here are excerpts from the literature demonstrating that drinking water nitrate pollution has been increasing, and that drinking water exceeding the 10 mg/L federal standard for nitrate-N is still extensively ingested in the United States, even though cases of methemoglobinemia have all but disappeared: "Nitrate pollution of drinking water is known to be increasing." (Fewtrell, op. cit. ) "An estimated 2 million household water supplies may fail to meet the federal standard. Based on current birth rates approximately 40,000 infants < 6 months of age are expected to be living in homes that have nitrate-contaminated water supplies." (Knobeloch L, Salna B, Hogan A, Postle J, Anderson H, 2000. "Blue babies and nitrate contaminated water." Environ Health Perspect 108 (7): 675-678.) "The increasing use of artificial fertilizers, the disposal of wastes (particularly from animal farming), and changes in land use are the main factors responsible for the progressive increase in nitrate levels in groundwater supplies over the last 20 years." (WHO background document, op. cit.) "An estimated 22% of domestic wells in agricultural regions of the United States exceed the nitrate [drinking water standard]. It is likely that significant numbers of infants are given water containing > 10 mg/L nitrate-N." (Ward et al., op. cit.) "The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimated in 1990 that 66,000 infants are exposed annually in the United States to drinking water that exceeds the federal standard of 10 ppm nitrate-N." (Avery, op. cit. ) ATTACHMENT D Relationship Between Nitrates and Other Health Effects Disputed Numerous statements in the professional medical and public health literature show that the evidence for harmful health effects of drinking-water nitrate at the concentrations normally encountered in private wells is very weak. No convincing and reproducible effect has ever been demonstrated. Here are some representative statements (emphasis added): this association between elevated nitrate levels and cancer is controversial and has not been firmly supported by research." Deschutes County Health Effects Information, "Nitrate," op. cit.) "The subcommittee concludes that the incremental contribution of nitrate and nitrite from drinking water in the United States to total nitrate and nitrite exposure is negligible and unlikely to contribute to human cancer risk." (National Research Council, op. cit.) "The weight of evidence is strongly against there being an association between nitrite and nitrate exposure in humans and the risk of cancer." World Health Organization, 2004. Guidelines for Drinking Water Quality, 3rd Ed. Retrieved from the website http://www.who.int/water sanitation health/dM//gdwg3/en/print html on March 16, 2007. "The current literature does not provide sufficient evidence of a causal relationship between exposure to nitrates in drinking water and adverse reproductive effects." (Manassaram DM, Backer LC, Moll DM, 2006. "A review of nitrates in drinking water: maternal exposure and adverse reproductive and developmental outcomes." Environ Health Perspect 114 (3): 320- 327.) These authors also state, "Epidemiologic evidence for increased risk for adverse reproductive and developmental outcomes in humans from exposure to nitrate in drinking water is sparse and suggestive at best." (Emphasis added.) ATTACHMENT E Some Problems with the USGS Modeling Conclusions 1. The USGS has relied almost exclusively on modeling in reaching the conclusion that groundwater nitrate levels in the South County are increasing and will exceed the drinking water standard over wide areas in 20 to 50 years. Modeling can be a useful predictive tool IF the assumptions on which the model is structured are accurate, and IF the input hydrogeologic and nitrate concentration are accurate and reflect the actual field conditions. But modeling is not the only source of information that should be considered. There is a wealth of existing nitrate concentration data from residential wells in south Deschutes County, dating back more than 17 years. It is important to analyze that data, which includes over 1,400 samples collected through the "Real Estate Transfer" program, about 100 samples collected during a 1995 DEQ residential well survey, and about 200 samples collected during a 2000 DEQ survey. This data should be analyzed to determine whether it is consistent with the premise that nitrate plumes are growing significantly more concentrated, penetrating deeper into the aquifer, or expanding over greater areas. No effort has been made to bring this well data to the attention of the public, or to the full attention of the Commissioners. To my knowledge no effort has been made to have this data statistically analyzed to determine whether it supports the claim that nitrate levels are slowly rising with time and will eventually "exceed the drinking water standard over large subareas." My own analysis reveals that nitrate levels have remained virtually unchanged throughout the South County from at least 1989 to the present. Neither the average concentration, or the number of hotspot wells, has changed over that time. There have always been a small percentage of isolated hotspot wells, and that picture has not changed. A model simulation could easily be run to simulate how the distribution of nitrate concentrations would have been expected to change over four-year increments between 1989 and the present. The simulated results could be compared with the existing well data to validate the model's accuracy. To my knowledge, this has not been done. I have discussed this deficiency with USGS personnel. They responded that they are not confident that Real Estate Transfer data and 1995 survey data is reliable [personal communication]. However, as someone with over six years of laboratory experience, who has conducted literally thousands of nitrate analyses, I can attest that it is highly unlikely that a sufficient number of analyses were faulty that it would have had a significant effect on the data overall, considering that there is a pool of over 1,700 data points. Nitrate is a dissolved constituent that is not volatile or highly reactive. It is very unlikely that the sample collection or analytical methods would significantly affect the data. $5 million dollars has been spent on modeling studies and wastewater treatment technology demonstrations under the La Pine National Onsite Demonstration Project. The Local Rule will cost tens of millions of dollars to implement. The cost of a 3rd party statistical analysis of the existing well data would be trivial. But to my knowledge, no effort has been made (except my own) to analyze the wealth of existing residential well nitrate data and see if it is consistent with the assumptions of the model. 2. To our knowledge, the model does not account for the possibility that observed nitrate "hotspots" may actually reflect septic system and/or well "failure points," i.e., spots where individual systems or clusters of systems with septic tanks or drainfields that are not properly designed, built, or installed, or are not properly functioning; or that have wells that are not properly constructed or sealed. Leaky septic systems may deliver nitrate-containing waste directly to nearby downgradient wells, without adequate soil dispersal and treatment. Similarly, wells that are not properly sealed or with cracked casings are prone to contamination because they may allow a direct path for wastewater to enter the well from shallow soil layers before it is sufficiently treated in the soil and dispersed in the aquifer. Such faulty septic systems and wells are probably quite common in south Deschutes County. These potential problems illustrate why it is so critical that onsite systems be designed, built and installed according to stringent watertightness standards and why wells must be built according to appropriate construction standards. We believe that the observed pattern of nitrate hotspots in La Pine may be consistent with septic system and/or well failure points, and this possibility should be carefully investigated. If this theory is correct, then the groundwater modeling study may have been calibrated based on a set of hydrogeological assumptions that do not accurately reflect actual conditions. This potential weakness of the model also reinforces the importance of re-surveying well-water nitrate levels in the La Pine area, to validate the model's predictions. Moreover, my analysis of over 200 wells included in the DEQ 2000 survey shows that a large number of hotspot wells are open to the aquifer less than ten feet below the top of the water table. Out of 171 wells for which well information was available, 44 are open less than 10 feet below the top of the water table; out of 26 wells with nitrate-N concentrations exceeding 2 mg/L, 13 are amongst these wells with open intervals less than 10 feet below the water table. It should not be surprising that wells that are open at the water table should have elevated nitrate levels. This is not necessarily indicative of an aquifer-scale problem, but more likely an indication that many wells in the area were not drilled deep enough. A model is simply an attempt, based on a set of starting assumptions, to explain an observed data pattern and predict how that pattern will change in the future. It does not necessarily mean that the starting assumptions are entirely correct or that the model will accurately predict future trends. Models may need to be adjusted if additional information is discovered that calls for modifying the starting assumptions - for example, if other previously- unrecognized factors are identified that influence the phenomenon being modeled, or if the model's predictions are not borne out by actual test data. Groundwater models are typically "calibrated" by comparing simulated pollutant concentrations with observed concentrations, then adjusting input hydrogeological parameters (assumptions) as necessary, and re-running the simulation until a satisfactory "fit" is obtained. In other words, the model inputs are constrained to best match the predictions. There is a potential danger of circular reasoning in that. The validity of the model and its starting assumptions can ultimately be verified only by its predictive power, that is, its accuracy at predicting future trends under particular conditions. 4. The nitrogen discharge limits being considered under the proposed Local Rule were developed from the USGS model, based on an allowable maximum nitrate-nitrogen concentration in the shallow aquifer of 7 mg/L. That constraint was chosen to match the State's "Action Level" under OAR 340-40-0090 (see #3, above). The public has not been informed that under OAR 340-40-0090, the only "Action" triggered by the 7 mg/L level is appointment of a advisory committee (A Groundwater Management Area Committee). Since the State's actual Maximum Measurable Level is 10 mg/L, not 7 mg/L, it is completely inappropriate to use 7 mg/L as if it were an actual water quality standard. Furthermore, a value of 3 mg/L nitrate-nitrogen was reportedly used as a deep aquifer constraint for the model. This number was apparently selected arbitrarily. The model should be run again using 10 mg/L nitrate-nitrogen as the maximum allowable level. Recommended nitrogen reduction requirements under the proposed Local Rule should be recalculated based on the corrected modeling. Nitrate (N03-N) Concentration in Residential Wells, 1989-2006 70.00 60.00 H 50.00 a~ 3 40.00 0 c 30.00 - ■ 1st period L IL ■ 2nd period 20.00 3rd period - ■ 4th period 10.00- 0.00 Ln ~O N M Ln ~ 00 Ln V) N r+ Ln O N N N Ln i N N03-N Range (mg/L) o ~ 1 n Source: Southern Deschutes County Real Estate Transfer Data (1989-2006) Well sampling data was gathered between 1989 and 2006. Throughout the 17-year sampling period, nitrate concentrations remained consistent. Of a total of 1394 samples, only 4.0% had more than 7 mg/L nitrate, and only 1.2% had more than 10 mg/L nitrate. S V) C to > o _c E-c c J Ln' C E = L E Ln 2 N . tD C11 O~ i a.+ II II II C U C O U /'N Z 1 M G 0 OQ Z N \ o ~ 00 O L ~ O~ 0 0 O O ~ O !E ou 'Q O Vl O . L ) Y N N 3 rl t a~ C O E a L m A 'O O d CL Z U m W N ,--4 I\ Lf) L O LO It It N N't N H Z to M•00 Q Ln M Ln Ln H 0 0 0 0 0 W O M tO Cn C7 -d NLn a X CO N N Q m Ln r to _q r1 N J 0 O 1: Nt O N +-4 O O E O ri A 7 \ J M CO M 't M Cf 4 M O G) O E N A J Ln . 1 rn M C6 C; , r4 N N r r4' O N A J M 00 Ln r-I a+ \ p) 3 E 00 U T4 A J N 43) 0 Cl) C tm 3 E O U N A J (D 0) 00 \ co n co Ln C O) 7 E O U N A (.0 M O Ln a.+ t0 O) N t0 = M M M N O U M P 0\1 \ N n O t0 A M N \ O \ \ N \ A N \ O y .d .i N rI = a0+ a0+ a0+ M M O1 M I~ 0 fA\ N ~ O 00 tp O 41 .i .y N \ m \ \ \ M O .y N \ D .-I rt ~ N O a.+NM~r N r-I O 4 I Z Q W 0) M H Z n O U J H O PUBLIC TESTIMONY BEFORE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AT LA PINE HIGH SCHOOL AUDITORIUM ON 3-20-07 RE: LOCAL RULE PROPOSAL TESTIMONY OF: CONRAD RUEL (17219 BAKERSFIELD RD.) POB 3668, SUNRIVER, OR. 97707 I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE THE FOLLOWING POINTS: 1 I SUPPORT CLEAN WATER AND A CLEAN ENVIRONMENT 2. I DO NOT CHALLENGE THE SCIENCE BEHIND THE NITRATE CLEAN-UP. HOWEVER, BECAUSE OF THE HIGH COSTS AND FUTURE IMPLICATIONS, THE SCIENCE SHOULD BE VERIFIED BY A NEUTRAL, THIRD PARTY 3. If THE COMMISSIONERS DECIDE TO MOVE FORWARD, SOMETHING SHOULD BE DONE TO MITIGATE THE IMPACT ON SINGLE. FAMILY RESIDENCES THAT HAVE A SATISFACTORILY WORKING SEPTIC SYSTEM, UNDER CURRENT STANDARDS.. 4. IF THIS PROJECT MUST MOVE FORWARD, THE COUNTY SHOULD ASSIST THESE NEIBORHOODS IN STUDYING THE FEASIBILITY OF A LARGE SCALE SEWER SYSTEM THAT WOULD INCLUDE ALL NEIGHBORHOODS FROM THE KLAMATH COUNTY LINE TO SUNRIVER.. A WELL ENGINEERED SEWER SYSTEM, FINANCED WITH BONDS OVER 20-30 YRS, MAKES MORE SENSE THAN A "HELTER-SKELTER" FIX IT YOURSELF PROGRAM, THAT WILL COST MILLIONS AND MAY NOT WORK. SINCERELY, G~ CONRAD RUEL 593-7493 BOCC Public Hearing #2 March 20, 2007 Groundwater Issues - La Pine Exhibit BOCC Public Hearing #2 March 20, 2007 Barbara Rich Groundwater Issues - La Pine Exhibit 'rom: Tom Anderson ant: Thursday, March 15, 2007 5:08 PM To: Barbara Rich Subject: FW: South Deschutes County local rule re: installation of new septic systems -----Original Message---- From: Mike Daly Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 10:08 AM To: 'janlandau@comcast.net'; Board Cc: Tom Anderson Subject: RE: South Deschutes County local rule re: installation of new septic systems Mrs. Landau, The USGS a federal agency, in co-operation with Oregon DEQ and Deschutes County have been looking at this issue for a long time. I have been a Commissioner over 6 years and the study started long before I came on board. This is not something that has happened overnight. We as Commissioners have to make the final decision on whether to impose a local rule and I will assure you we do not take that task lightly. We will educate ourselves as best we can, take public testimony and look at all of the possibilities before making the decision. Thank you for your comments. Michael M. Daly Deschutes County Commissioner 1300 NW Wall St., Ste. 200 Bend, Or. 97701 11-388-6569 ,ell 541-948-7591 Fax 541-385-3202 -----Original Message----- From: janlandau@comcast.net [mailto:janlandau@comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 4:00 PM To: Board Subject: South Deschutes County local rule re: installation of new septic systems Dear Commissioners, My husband and I own a home and property in Wild River, a subdivision west of the Wickiup Junction area. We recently learned of the possibility, or probability, of a new county requirement, in which homeowners in south Deschutes county, would have to install different septic systems or additions to current systems, in order to prevent the addition of nitrates into the Deschutes River system. We were unable to attend the Tuesday evening meeting at La Pine High, but our homeowner's association, of which Ed Criss is a member, had a meeting and invited Ed to attend and provide us with information. We attended that meeting and received some very good information, and would like to ask that you do just a couple of things, if possible. First, we understand that testing of the river is still on-going, and before adopting any new regulations, we'd ask that you wait until you have that information and can make comparators prior to enacting any local rule. Secondly, we'd ask that you direct your staff to provide you with all of the available and currently used technologies to offset this problem. We understand that other states and counties are already dealing with this same sort of issue, and according to Ed, there are many more available septic systems and perhaps even local sewage systems which may be of ;e to smaller neighborhoods such as Wild River, or others. Also, we'd ask you to put off any final decision or regulation until staff has had the opportunity to provide you with updated information on the financial demographics of the affected constituents, and also has had a chance to look into various options you might adopt at the same time to help pay for the costs of these systems to your constituents. Perhaps a fund could be established and contributions organized from grants and other sources, even a single cent tax on water usage in the county, to help offset the costs for the many south Deschutes County familes who are poor, or working class, with incomes under, say, $60,000 per year, using a sliding scale. s Even Mr Criss acknowledges that we all need to do our part to keep the river system clean, and if in fact, there's measurable, and increasingly measurable pollution, then we all need to work to stop it. However, apparently staff has been aware of the problem for many years, and it seems they've really done a very poor job of notifying the affected constituents. Very poor. To offset the poor staff performance by allowing yourselves time to have the latest and best information about various aspects of this project seems only fair to you. Unfortunately, you are the point people for the way your staff performs, and in this case in many ways, they seem to be setting you up for perhaps a not very good decision which surely, even if it is good, will go to court, and for being not just the bearer of bad tidings, but once again being big brother with nothing to offer in the way of assistance. Please take your time making any decisions, and please ask for updated information and wait until it is available, not just about any current water testing but about currently available technologies and ways of assisting financially. Thank you for your attention to this. Good luck Jan and Rubin Landau 53464 Kokanee, La Pine OR 97739 541-536-8711 Jan Landau 3745 NW Hayes Ave Corvallis OR 97330 541-752-4601 Barbara Rich om: Tom Anderson nt: Thursday, March 15, 2007 5:08 PM o: Barbara Rich Subject: FW: South Deschutes County local rule re: installation of new septic systems -----Original Message----- From: Mike Daly Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 10:08 AM To: 'janlandau@comcast. net; Board Cc: Tom Anderson Subject: RE: South Deschutes County local rule re: installation of new septic systems Mrs. Landau, The USGS a federal agency, in co-operation with Oregon DEQ and Deschutes County have been looking at this issue for a long time. I have been a Commissioner over 6 years and the study started long before I came on board. This is not something that has happened overnight. We as Commissioners have to make the final decision on whether to impose a local rule and I will assure you we do not take that task lightly. We will educate ourselves as best we can, take public testimony and look at all of the possibilities before making the decision. Thank you for your comments. Michael M. Daly Deschutes County Commissioner 1300 NW Wall St., Ste. 200 Bend, Or. 97701 1-388-6569 ell 541-948-7591 Fax 541-385-3202 -----Original Message----- From: janlandau@comcast.net [mailto:janlandau@comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 4:00 PM To: Board Subject: South Deschutes County local rule re: installation of new septic systems Dear Commissioners, My husband and I own a home and property in Wild River, a subdivision west of the Wickiup Junction area. We recently learned of the possibility, or probability, of a new county requirement, in which homeowners in south Deschutes county, would have to install different septic systems or additions to current systems, in order to prevent the addition of nitrates into the Deschutes River system. We were unable to attend the Tuesday evening meeting at La Pine High, but our homeowner's association, of which Ed Criss is a member, had a meeting and invited Ed to attend and provide us with information. We attended that meeting and received some very good information, and would like to ask that you do just a couple of things, if possible. First, we understand that testing of the river is still on-going, and before adopting any new regulations, we'd ask that you wait until you have that information and can make comparators prior to enacting any local rule. Secondly, we'd ask that you direct your staff to provide you with all of the available and currently used technologies to offset this problem. We understand that other states and counties are already dealing with this same sort of issue, and ccording to Ed, there are many more available septic systems and perhaps even local sewage systems which may be of 40e to smaller neighborhoods such as Wild River, or others. Also, we'd ask you to put off any final decision or regulation until staff has had the opportunity to provide you with updated information on the financial demographics of the affected constituents, and also has had a chance to look into various options you might adopt at the same time to help pay for the costs of these systems to your constituents. Perhaps a fund could be established and contributions organized from grants and other sources, even a single cent tax on water usage in the county, to help offset the costs for the many south Deschutes County familes who are poor, or working class, with incomes under, say, $60,000 per year, using a sliding scale. • Even Mr Criss acknowledges that we all need to do our part to keep the river system clean, and if in fact, there's measurable, and increasingly measurable pollution, then we all need to work to stop it. However, apparently staff has been aware of the problem for many years, and it seems they've really done a very poor job of notifying the affected constituents. Very poor. To offset the poor staff performance by allowing yourselves time to have the latest and best information about various aspects of this project seems only fair to you. Unfortunately, you are the point people for the way your staff performs, and in this case in many ways, they seem to be setting you up for perhaps a not very good decision which surely, even if it is good, will go to court, and for being not just the bearer of bad tidings, but once again being big brother with nothing to offer in the way of assistance. Please take your time making any decisions, and please ask for updated information and wait until it is available, not just about any current water testing but about currently available technologies and ways of assisting financially. Thank you for your attention to this. Good luck Jan and Rubin Landau 53464 Kokanee, La Pine OR 97739 541-536-8711 Jan Landau 3745 NW Hayes Ave Corvallis OR 97330 541-752-4601 is 0 Page 1 of 2 Barbara Rich From: Tom Anderson Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 5:55 PM To: Barbara Rich Subject: FW: LAPINE From: Tammy Baney Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 4:06 PM To: 'Calvin McClure'; Board; Tom Anderson; Dave Kanner Cc: stories@ktvz.com; foxtv; news@bendbulletin.com Subject: RE: LAPINE Hi Calvin- Thank you for your email and for sharing your concerns about the meeting on Tuesday. I am copying our Community Development Director so that your comments will be made part of the public record. Next weeks meeting will consist of answering the remaining written questions and taking public testimony. I do hope that you will take advantage of this opportunity and share your thoughts with us Tuesday night. In Partnership, AMLmmy Baney eschutes County Commissioner Office: 541 388-6567 Cell: 541 419-2233 From: Calvin McClure [mailto:cnrpro7l@msn.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 11:34 AM To: Board Cc: stories@ktvz.com; foxtv; news@bendbulletin.com Subject: LAPINE I WANT YOU ALL TO KNOW THAT I WAS NOT PLEASED WITH THE "HEARING" THAT YOU ATTENDED/GAVE/DOMINATED IN LA PINE ON WEDNESDAY MARCH 13, 2007. TELLING THE CITIZENS OF LA PINE THAT THEY WERE GOING TO HAVE TO BEHAVE LIKE PROFESSIONALS WAS TOTALLY UNCALLED FOR. WE ARE NOT "PROS" WE ARE LOYAL HARD WORKING TAX PAYERS THAT VOTE. WE DID NOT COME TO THAT MEETING TO BE LECTURED TO, WE CAME THERE TO EXPRESS OUR THOUGHTS AND OPINIONS ABOUT THE SUBJECT OF THE PROPOSED RULE CHANGE. I THINK THAT ALL THREE OF YOU OWE A PUBLIC APOLOGY TO THE PEOPLE OF SOUTH DESCHUTES COUNTY. A LARGE NUMBER OF US CAME AND LEFT BECAUSE IT WAS TOO OVERCROWDED AND OBVIOUS THAT WE WERE NOT GOING TO BE HEARD. YOUR SPEAKER ALSO MADE A MAJOR MISTAKE WHEN • HE SAID THAT WE WERE GOING TO BE ALLOWED TO ASK "QUESTIONS" AFTER THE PRESENTATION. YOU JEST. THE ONLY PRESENTATION THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN AT THAT "HEARING" WAS ONE THAT 3/19/2007 Page 2 of 2 DEFINED THE SUBJECT THAT YOU WERE THERE TO "HEAR" OUR THOUGHTS ON, BE THEY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS OR OUTRAGE. IF YOU THINK THAT WE ARE NOT INFORMED ON THE SUBJECT THEN YOU SHOULD DIRECT ALL COUNTY DEPARTMENTS TO PREPARE AND COORDINAI~ A PUBLIC EDUCATION CAMPAIGN, AND YOU SHOULD CANCEL ALL FURTHER "HEARINGS" UNTIL THEY HAVE ACCOMPLISHED THAT TASK. I SINCERELY HOPE THAT YOUR MANNERS AND YOUR INTENT WILL HAVE IMPROVED BEFORE THE NEXT MEETING • • 3/19/2007 Barbara Rich 00 o om: Tom Anderson nt: Thursday, March 15, 2007 5:56 PM : Barbara Rich Subject: FW: South Deschutes County local rule re: installation of new septic systems -----Original Message----- From: Tammy Baney Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 4:36 PM To: 'janlandau@comcast. net'; Board Cc: Tom Anderson; Dave Kanner Subject: RE: South Deschutes County local rule re: installation of new septic systems Hi Jan and Ruben- Thank you for taking the time to share your concerns. I have copied our Community Development Director so that your questions will be added to the record. Please know that our upcoming meeting agenda will be to finish answering the written questions from this week and then take public testimony. I hope you will take advantage of this opportunity and speak with us Tuesday. In Partnership, Tammy Baney Deschutes County Commissioner Office: 541 388-6567 Cell: 541 419-2233 Original Message----- om: janlandau@comcast.net [mailto:janlandau@comcast.netj Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 4:00 PM To: Board Subject: South Deschutes County local rule re: installation of new septic systems Dear Commissioners, My husband and I own a home and property in Wild River, a subdivision west of the Wickiup Junction area. We recently learned of the possibility, or probability, of a new county requirement, in which homeowners in south Deschutes county, would have to install different septic systems or additions to current systems, in order to prevent the addition of nitrates into the Deschutes River system. We were unable to attend the Tuesday evening meeting at La Pine High, but our homeowner's association, of which Ed Criss is a member, had a meeting and invited Ed to attend and provide us with information. We attended that meeting and received some very good information, and would like to ask that you do just a couple of things, if possible. First, we understand that testing of the river is still on-going, and before adopting any new regulations, we'd ask that you wait until you have that information and can make comparators prior to enacting any local rule. Secondly, we'd ask that you direct your staff to provide you with all of the available and currently used technologies to offset this problem. We understand that other states and counties are already dealing with this same sort of issue, and according to Ed, there are many more available septic systems and perhaps even local sewage systems which may be of use to smaller neighborhoods such as Wild River, or others. Also, we'd ask you to put off any final decision or regulation until staff has had the opportunity to provide you with updated information on the financial demographics of the affected constituents, and also has had a chance to look into various de tions you might adopt at the same time to help pay for the costs of these systems to your constituents. Perhaps a fund uId be established and contributions organized from grants and other sources, even a single cent tax on water usage in county, to help offset the costs for the many south Deschutes County familes who are poor, or working class, with incomes under, say, $60,000 per year, using a sliding scale. Even Mr Criss acknowledges that we all need to do our part to keep the river system clean, and if in fact, there's measurable, and increasingly measurable pollution, then we all need to work to stop it. However, apparently staff has been aware of the problem for many years, and it seems they've really done a very poor job of notifying the affected constituents. Very poor. To offset the poor staff performance by allowing yourselves time to have the latest and best is information about various aspects of this project seems only fair to you. Unfortunately, you are the point people for the way your staff performs, and in this case in many ways, they seem to be setting you up for perhaps a not very good decision which surely, even if it is good, will go to court, and for being not just the bearer of bad tidings, but once again being big brother with nothing to offer in the way of assistance. Please take your time making any decisions, and please ask for updated information and wait until it is available, not just about any current water testing but about currently available technologies and ways of assisting financially. Thank you for your attention to this. Good luck Jan and Rubin Landau 53464 Kokanee, La Pine OR 97739 541-536-8711 Jan Landau 3745 NW Hayes Ave Corvallis OR 97330 541-752-4601 • 0 Pagel of 2 Barbara Rich - From: Tom Anderson Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 5:38 PM To: Board Cc: Barbara Rich Subject: FW: SOUTH COUNTY WATER SAFETY Commissioners--FYI, I'm not sure if you saw this. Barbara's answers to Robert Ray are attached below. Tom From: Barbara Rich Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 2:16 PM To: 'autopartsmart@msn.com' Cc: Tom Anderson Subject: RE: SOUTH COUNTY WATER SAFETY There are responses below in blue to your questions. Sincerely, Barbara J. Rich, REHS Deschutes County Env. Health 0 17 NW Lafayette Ave. Bend, OR 97701 541-617-4713 FAX 541-385-1764 BarbaraR@co.deschutes.or.us www.deschutes.org/cdd/ use "Quick Links" to the Groundwater Protection Project From: AUTO PARTS MART Owner [mailto:autopartsmart@msn.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 10:05 AM To: Board Subject: SOUTH COUNTY WATER SAFETY Robert Ray P.O. Box 1258 La Pine, OR 97739 I appreciate your appearance last night in La Pine. You'll have to forgive the unruly 10%, some of us wanted some informed answers to questions that we all had and still have. Here are some of the questions I still have and would like addressed: .Permitting, are we going to have to pay for permits for the upgrades? Some people have just installed sand filters and I having just built a house paid for a permit for a system that I was told was adequate at the time of installation. Reduced cost for upgrades? Waiver? Moratorium on future permits until a 3/19/2007 Page 2 of 2 solution is approved. • [The county has identified at least $35 million in assets and financial resources that can be used towards solving the groundwater protection problem. The concepts you provided are good ideas for the Community Development Department to work on for the financial assistance programs and I will include your ideas for targeting these resources towards property owners that have just installed systems in the record and in our working file for the financial assistance programs.] Composting toilets. Could individuals install composting toilets in lieu of the upgrade. The U.S. Forest Service is using a system in the Waldo Lake area. Would the installation of a composting or incinerating toilet be an alternative. [Composting toilets are an effective way of removing nitrogen from wastewater. Under current rule, however, propoerty owners can easily replace composting toilets with flush toilets. In order to reduce nitrogen over the long term, we need a mechanism that ensures that the composting toilet system remains in place, or if replaced with a flush toilet, is then connected to a nitrogen reducing wastewater treatment systems. Any ideas on how to make this work are welcome.] North Lake County, Klamath County Have there been any U.S.G.S. studies in the bordering areas to show nitrate migration into the aquifer we are using. If yes what is the Board of Commissioners doing to protect us from this migration? If you haven't addressed this problem why? The population increase has occurred in that area as well as La Pine. [The USGS study presented at the meeting on Tuesday night included northern Klamath County. I know that there are discussions about the issue that will be taking place shortly in Klamath County. If the proposed rule is adopted, Deschutes County could certainly cooperate with Klamath County in groundwater protection efforts. Northern Lake County is in a different watershed from the Deschutes River (called the Goose and Summer Lakes watershed) and was not included in the USGS study of the region because of this hydrologic separation.] What kind of nitrate load is being put into the aquifer, water shed from the three golf courses in the • south county area? We were advised that private golf courses are self regulating, unfortunately that doesn't tell me of the amount of nitrates going into the water from these private entities and if nitrates are a problem perhaps self regulation is not the answer any longer. We need those figures to determine if we need to as a group protect ourselves and those down stream of any future danger in increased nitrate loads. My family is on the river nearly every weekend in kayaks and there is a noticeable algae bloom after Quail Run and Crosswater, not so much in Sunriver and I attribute that to the presence of a larger marsh area in that location. You can rest assured I'll be sampling the waters in those areas this summer. [Because there is little or no regulation on golf courses, we do not have a way of knowing the nitrogen load from these activities. The groundwater monitoring data we have received from Crosswater does not show any nitrate in the monitoring wells for this golf course. The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality is scheduled to complete the Total Maximum Daily Load in 2007. Bonnie Lamb is the coordinator for this effort and can give you more information on the TMDL effort and may be interested in hearing your observations about the river's quality. Basic information about the TMDL program for the Upper Deschutes Basin is available at: http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/TMDLs/deschutes.htm. Because you are on the river frequently, you might be interested in the DEQ's Volunteer Monitoring program. More information on this program is available at: http://www.deq.state.or.us/lab/wqm/volmonitoring.html • 3/19/2007 Barbara Rich Steve Wert [stevewert@mac.com] Friday, March 16, 2007 2:14 PM 4*0nT: : Barbara Rich; Catherine Morrow; Peter Gutowsky Subject: Fwd: LETTER TO COUNTY COMMISSIONERS > DEAR BOARD OF DESCHUTES COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, > TODAY, I NOTICED THAT A LIST OF TAC COMMITTEE MEMBERS ARE LISTED ON > DESCHUTES COUNTY'S WEBSITE. (SEE ATTACHMENT). PLEASE UNDERSTAND THAT > CATHERINE MORROW, BARBARA RICH, AND PETER GUTOWSKY CONDUCTED THE > MEETINGS BUT ARE NOT LISTED AS MEMBERS OF THE TAC IN THE WEBSITE. THE > ORIGINAL LIST IS ENCLOSED WHICH SHOWS ALL OF THE MEMBERS WHICH INCLUDE > COUNTY EMPLOYEES. THE COUNTY SET THE AGENDA AND TOOK LITTLE IF ANY > ADVICE FROM US. THEY WANTED OUR APPROVAL FOR THEIR PLAN. THEY DID > NOT WANT SUGGESTIONS OF HOW TO MAKE THE PLAN BETTER FIT SOUTH COUNTY. > THE STAFF HAS KNOW FOR A VERY LONG TIME WHAT THEY WANTED. IT IS A > REZONE OF SOUTH COUNTY AND AT THE SAME TIME THEY ARE ADDRESSING > NITRATES. IT IS A DOUBLE AGENDA ONLY THE REZONING IS NOT MENTIONED > VERY MUCH. > SOME OF US ON THE COMMITTEE DO NOT AGREE WITH MANY OF THE ELEMENTS OF > THE PLAN AND I WANT TO GO ON RECORD AS SAYING I DO NOT WANT TO BE A > PARTY TO ANY ACTIONS THAT TAKE PROPERTY RIGHTS AWAY FROM CITIZENS IN > SOUTH COUNTY. I THINK THIS IS AN ILLEGAL ACT AND DO NOT WANT TO BE A F ARTY TO THIS ACTION. I HAVE SENT YOU TWO LETTERS OUTLINING MY OSITION AND HAVE NO INTEREST IN TAKING CLAIM TO THE PLAN THE COUNTY > HAS PRESENTED. IT IS NOT THE RIGHT ONE FOR SOUTH > COUNTY. SOUTH COUNTY PEOPLE DO NOT WANT IT. > I RESPECTFULLY ASK THAT ALL MEMBERS OF THE TAC BE LISTED AND LET IT BE > KNOW THAT THE PLAN WE WERE REVIEWING WAS THE COUNTY PLAN AND THAT I > VOTE AGAINST IT. IF THE COUNTY GETS SUED FOR TAKING PROPERTY, I WANT > YOU AND EVERYONE ELSE TO KNOW THAT I WAS NOT IN FAVOR OF THE PLAN > FROM THE BEGINNING IN 2005 WHEN THE TAC COMMITTEE FIRST FORMED. > ALSO PEDDCORD'S LETTER IS VERY POOR. IT IS A PERSONAL ATTACK ON JASON > CHURCHILL AND MYSELF. THE LETTER DOES NOT PROVIDE PROOF. MR > PEDDYCORD DOES NOT HAVE THE IMPORTANT NEW MEDICAL FINDINGS. HIS > DOCUMENT IS IN ERROR. I RECOMMEND THAT HIS LETTER BE REMOVED FROM > THE WEBSITE. > THANK YOU. > RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, > STEVE WERT 0 ~EO STgT~ C~ y2 • n 0 ;~~qC PpOZEO~ ~ Reply to Attn Of. OWW-134 Sunni Rounds P.O. Box 3154 La Pine, OR 97739 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION 10 1200 Sixth Avenue Seattle, WA 98101 1 „R MAR 1 3 2007 MAR 19 2007 Dt.3"CH RTES Com -Y ( Re: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Grant Number X5-96007801 Dear Sir or Madam: Thank you for you letter concerning the above referenced grant to Deschutes County. A large part of EPA's mission is accomplished by awarding extramural funds to other organizations to conduct environmental programs and special projects. Therefore, we have an obligation to ensure that these funds are being utilized as intended and in accordance with approved project work plans. Before addressing your individual component concerns, we would like to provide some general background on grants, grantee responsibilities and EPA's role in the grant process. Various Federal statutes authorize EPA to carry out specific environmental • activities. Many of these statutes specify whether the activities may be accomplished in- house by EPA staff or by funding to outside parties. The Federal government awards extramural funds in one of two ways, either through a contract or through an assistance agreement. It is important to note the difference between these two. funding mechanisms. When EPA awards a contract it is for the direct benefit or use of the Federal Government. However, when EPA awards an assistance agreement,,the principal purpose is for the recipient to accomplish a public purpose authorized by Federal statute. 'EPA's role in assistance agreements is to monitor grants to ensure that grantees are making progress toward their objectives and, at the end of the project period, to ensure that recipients have provided all financial and technical reports before closing out the grant. In this instance, EPA awarded an assistance agreement to Deschutes County to protect groundwater resources in the Upper Deschutes Basin. The County proposed a work plan to carry out activities they believe will help protect this vital sole source aquifer that supplies drinking water to approximately 18,000 people. EPA reviewed and approved their work plan in May 2005, and the County began work on completing the work plan components in July 2005. Once we approved the County's work plan, including their overall goals for the project and their proposed plan for how they would achieve these goals, the County has the flexibility to make changes to their proposed tasks as long as they stay within the original goals of the grant. As you probably noted, Sections IV. and V. of the work plan lay out the role of Deschutes County and EPA in this grant agreement. The Joint Evaluation Performance section specifies that the County will report progress on work plan commitments. The Roles and Responsibilities of EPA • section specifically notes that EPA will have no substantial role in how the :work plan tasks are accomplished. 2 Over the last year and a half the County has provided EPA with Quarterly Reports • that detail the progress they have made completing the work plan components. To date all necessary reports have been received and EPA believes that the County has made satisfactory progress on completing the required work plan components and is in compliance with all grant requirements. Therefore, EPA believes there is no further action for us to take at this time. Thank you for your interest in this grant and EPA's role in the grant process. We want to assure you that we take our responsibility to ensure appropriate use of grant funds very seriously. To this end, we have had contact with both Senator Wyden's office and Deschutes County Department of Community Development to inform them of your concerns. We encourage you to follow-up directly with the appropriate County officials. Enclosed is EPA's Response to your individual component concerns. If you feel that we have not fully addressed or responded to your concerns, please contact Tracy ' Chellis of my- staff at (206)553-6326, or via e-mail at chellis.tracy@epa.gov for further information or clarification. Sincerel , Michael F. Gearhear , Director • Office of Water and Watersheds Enclosure: EPA's Response to Concerns Regarding Grant Number X5-96007801 cc: Deschutes County Commissioner Mike Daley Deschutes County Commissioner Dennis Luke Deschutes County Commissioner Tammy Baney Tom Anderson, Deschutes County Community Development Department Catherine Morrow, Deschutes County Community Development Department Mike Dugan, Deschutes County District Attorney David Blair, U.S. Senator Ron Wyden's Office 40 • EPA's Response to Concerns Regarding Grant Number X5-96007801 Concern: Component 1, Task B, General Sub-tasks, Bullet #4 Alleged non-compliance: Rather than undertaking the calculations as stated, CDD has chosen to take the position that all onsite systems must be retrofitted. (Attachments 2-5) EPA's Response: EPA does not consider this an item that we would review under the grant agreement; however, as stated in the March 2006, Protection of Groundwater Resources Quarterly Report: "The County's technical advisory committee agreed that existing wastewater treatment systems in the study area should meet the individual management area nitrogen loading performance specified by the NLMM. The technical advisory committee further agreed that any new development occurring in the study area should employ the best technology available for maximum nitrogen reduction. The committee also specified that each property owner should contribute to the groundwater protection solution; meaning that, while the NLMM indicates that the overall nitrogen reduction goals can be met by a smaller number of systems achieving greater reduction levels, the average performance standard indicated by the NLMM is more equitable when applied to the entire population and increases the types of treatment technologies that can be used to achieve nitrogen reduction." • Based on this information, it appears that the County calculated the total number of systems needing to be retrofitted based on the NLMM, but the technical advisory committee decided that all property owner should contribute to the groundwater protection by retrofitting their systems. Concern 2: Component 1, Task F, General Sub-tasks, Bullet #1 and Component 2, Task H, General Sub-tasks, Bullet #1 Alleged non-compliance: (paraphrased) All materials related to the project are not included on website. EPA's Response: In your "Alleged non-compliance" you reference a report that appears to be funded under another grant. Because this is a work product from another grant, the County would have no obligation to include this report as a work plan requirement for this current grant. You also reference a draft USGS report that is not yet available. In most cases, it would be inappropriate to include a draft report that has not undergone peer-review on a public website. For your concern regarding the Technical Advisory Committee minutes, I would refer you to the following website: http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/go/obiectid/70469A86-BDBD-57C1-9CD541 E610EDEED6/index cfm If you look at the right hand side of the page under the "How were the Local Rule ideas developed?" section there is a link to the Advisory Committee. If you follow this link to the "Technical Advisory Committee" page and scroll to the bottom of the page you will find links • to "Meeting Minutes" and other notes from these meetings. Concern 3: Component 2 Narrative • Alleged non-compliance: (paraphrased) Deschutes County has failed to garner the support of area residents. EPA's Response: The section of the work plan that you quote is a general statement that the County hopes to achieve in order to implement the overall groundwater protection program. This overall goal statement is not a specific task that the County reports progress on to EPA. The County reports progress on the individual Component Tasks, such as Task F of Component 1 and Tasks B and C of Component 2 which outline public outreach, community involvement, public workshops and property owner/public education materials. These tasks have all been properly reported on to EPA through the County's Quarterly Progress Reports. . Concern 4: Component 2, Task B, General Sub-Tasks, Bullet #4. Alleged non-compliance: (paraphrased) The County has not incorporated recommendations from advisory committees into staff reports. Also concerned that meeting minutes are not available. EPA's Response: EPA does not consider this an item that we would review under the grant agreement, however per the. County's March, September and December 2006 Quarterly Reports, advisory committee recommendations were incorporated into reports and into public information materials. • For meeting minute concerns, please see EPA's response to Concern 2. Concern 5: Component 2, Task G, General Sub-tasks, Bullet #1 Alleged non-compliance: (paraphrased) The County has not released publicly or contacted property owners of the sites selected for inclusion in the proposed program. EPA's Response: There is no requirement in this sub-task that the County contact individual property owners that their site has been selected. Furthermore, it appears the County is not identifying individual sites, they are only proposing annual goals for retrofits or replacements that may or may not be included in the proposed draft rule. Concern 6: Comment on Component 2, Task H EPA's Response: EPA has no response to this comment because it does not address a specific component task that the County is required to fulfill under the grant. Concern 7: EPA has a policy of requiring a Cost-Benefit Analysis before implementing any program that may have an adverse financial impact on the inhabitants of an area. EPA's Response: EPA performs a cost-benefit analysis for new national regulations that EPA is proposing. That is not the case here because it is the county that is considering proposing a rule • within its jurisdiction and authorities. 2 Pagel of 3 Barbara Rich .From: Tom Anderson Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 9:54 AM To: Barbara Rich Subject: FW: septic systems From: Dave Kanner Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 8:29 AM To: Tom Anderson Subject: FW: septic systems From: Pam & Pat [mailto:sunrise3@coinet.com] Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2007 12:48 PM To: Board Subject: septic systems Dear County Commissioners Luke, Daly, Clarno, & Baney, • I am writing to give you some additional information regarding why I find it unacceptable to make mandatory any septic system that is dependant on electricity to work. I was also extremly dismayed to hear Barbara Rush advise to "get a generator" to protect from service interuptions or "catastrophic failure" of the proposed system. Counties need to make rather long term plans for the future. Actually, I do applaud your efforts in this regard. It is this system that I object to. The country is facing two problems that make electrical pumping systems unsustainable: 1) the fact that both oil and natural gas are depleting while the demand is increasing. This will lead to inevitable large increases in the cost of fuel and natural gas, thereby increasing the cost of electricity substantially. 2) the fact that the deregulation of the electrical grid in this country will lead as well to higher costs as well as interruption of service to areas of the country. I am including an article that begins to detail this problem. 3) getting a generator to suppliment the power grid is not going to be viable if gas goes to $5 or $7 per gallon in the next ten years. Please consider the following: • January 4, 2006 0800 PST (FTW) - With the eagerness and drive of a baseball player on steroids, the largest 3/19/2007 Page 2 of 3 financial powerhouses in the nation have been gobbling up publicly owned utilities since George W. Bush signed the new energy bill last fall. It is not just that ownership of these life-essential services is bei concentrated in a few rich and unregulated hands - it is the identities of the owners that should make wo about what's coming. If the writing on this wall got any clearer, you'd need to buy a box of popcorn and si down for the horror show. Best get a blanket and some long johns first. Since the passage of America's most recent energy bill on August 8th, many public utilities have been acquired by some of the wealthiest people on the planet. With the loss of public regulation that came with the repeal of the Public Utility Company Holding Act as part of that measure, these "cash cows," to which tens of millions of people make monthly payments, are being converted into liquid giants that can be used to acquire other utility companies, or to trade ever-diminishing energy resources for profit. There is no rationing by government yet, only the rationing of the "free markets." That's only until the wheels come off and Peak Oil and Gas trigger uprisings and "civil unrest" (I absolutely detest that term - the word is "riot," and it is not solved by a quick second or third mortgage). Only then will government step in, and then only to try and prop up the facade of a sustainable paradigm of infinite growth. Instead of maintaining the grid for as long as possible, these amalgamating giants will now accelerate its demise. What is about to happen is the living embodiment of a statement made by a Dutch economist at a Paris Peak Oil conference in the spring of 2003: "It may not be profitable to slow decline."1 No more will utilities invest ratepayers' money in extra capacity for the 20-year drought, the 50-year heat wave or the 100-year cold snap. Instead, every ounce of extra capacity will be sold off, under-maintained, or discontinued to maximize cash on hand for the next buyout or LBO. Ratepayer money will be used for benefit of shareholders, not ratepayers. When it comes time to decide whether to make a handsome profit* keep people warm, there won't even be a debate. These privately owned giants will be able to arbitrage energy to the highest bidder. They will be able to buy other, smaller entities just as the major oil companies have been doing for decades, adding the smaller companies' reserves and net profits onto their price/earnings (P/E) ratios. The grid will not disappear suddenly, as if someone had thrown a switch. It will behave exactly the way energy supplies behave. Just as the world will never fully run out of oil or gas, it will have to make do with less and less. It will be a protracted death, full of agonies, full of fits and starts, and it will happen sporadically, with the weakest regions being the first to suffer. The onset of this terminal illness is becoming apparent this winter. No more do utilities have as a primary mandate the protection of the poor and weak. No more will they prioritize the equal distribution of access to reasonably priced services. Instead, as Peak Oil and Gas worsen, they must focus their attention on providing energy only to corporations that make and sell things, or to those rich enough to pay prices that increase faster than necessary. Their cash will be used to purchase ever-larger chunks of market share as energy prices exceed the reach of the public. Employees be damned. Families be damned. What we are watching is the start of a bidding war over diminishing energy resources. But the bidding will only make matters worse. It will accelerate the inevitable collapse, make it harder, and wreak needless harm on millions of people. The man who has stepped onto center stage in this ominous limelight is none other than Mayo Shattuck, III - the man who, as head of the Alex. Brown unit of Deutschebank, knew and approved of massive insider trad' in United Airlines stock just before September 11th, 2001. He has just shepherded the largest single utih merger in American history in an $11 billion deal that will create the largest utility company in the 3/19/2007 Page 3 of 3 nation, with a market capitalization of $28 billion. The new company, formed from Constellation Energy Group and Florida Power and Light, will operate in many states - and thus remain exempt from state regulation. 'Pook into it for yourselves. Regards, Pamela Cosmo La Pine 0 3/19/2007 Page 1 of 3 Barbara Rich From: Tom Anderson Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 9:54 AM To: Barbara Rich Subject: FW: {Disarmed} septic systems Attachments: spacer.gif From: Dave Kanner Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 8:29 AM To: Tom Anderson Subject: FW: {Disarmed} septic systems From: Pam & Pat [mailto:sunrise3@coinet.com] Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2007 1:12 PM To: Board Subject: {Disarmed} septic systems War Commissioners, In an effort to help you understand my further objections to this proposed system, I am forwarding just one of many, many financial projections that predict a meltdown in real estate prices presently and in the near future. To make a system mandatory for individual citizens in this financial climate is simply unconscienable. When there is a glut of real estate on the market, who is going to buy anything in south Deschutes County? I know that had I known about this before I bought, I sure wouldn't have! Pam Cosmo La Pine REUTERS -,.W Print this article Close this window Top investor sees U.S. property Ocrash 3/19/2007 Page 2 of 3 A Wed Mar 14, 2007 12:59PM EDT By Elif Kaban • MOSCOW (Reuters) - Commodities investment guru Jim Rogers stepped into the U.S. subprime fray on Wednesday, predicting a real estate crash that would trigger defaults and spread contagion to emerging markets. "You can't believe how bad it's going to get before it gets any better," the prominent U.S. fund manager told Reuters by telephone from New York. "It's going to be a disaster for many people who don't have a clue about what happens when a real estate bubble pops. "It is going to be a huge mess," said Rogers, who has put his $15 million belle epoque mansion on Manhattan's Upper West Side on the market and is planning to move to Asia. Worries about losses in the U.S. mortgage market have sent stock prices falling in Asia and Europe, with shares in financial services companies falling the most. Some investors fear the problems of lenders who make subprime is loans to people with weak credit histories are spreading to mainstream financial firms and will worsen the U.S. housing slowdown. "Real estate prices will go down 40-50 percent in bubble areas. There will be massive defaults. This time it'll be worse because we haven't had this kind of speculative buying in U.S. history," Rogers said. "When markets turn from bubble to reality, a lot of people get burned." The fund manager, who co-founded the Quantum Fund with billionaire investor George Soros in the 1970s and has focused on commodities since 1998, said the crisis would spread to emerging markets which he said now faced a prolonged bear run. "When you have a financial crisis, it reverberates in other financial markets, especially in those with speculative excess," he said. "Right now, there is huge speculative excess in emerging markets around the world. There will be a lot of money coming out of emerging markets. • "I've sold out of emerging markets except for China," said Rogers, 3/19/2007 MI- long a prominent China bull. ~ven in China, the world's fastest expanding economy, Rogers said stocks were overvalued and could go down 30-40 percent. But he added: "China is one of the few countries in the world where I'm willing to sit out a 30-40 percent decline." The last stock market bubble to burst was the dot-com craze which sparked a crash from March 2000 to October 2002. When the last bubble burst in Japan, said Rogers, stock prices went down 85 percent despite the country's high savings rate and huge balance of payment surplus. "This is the end of the liquidity party," said Rogers. "Some emerging markets will go down 80 percent, some will go down 50 percent. Some will most probably collapse." © Reuters 2006. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content, including by caching, framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters and the Reuters sphere logo are registered trademarks and trademarks of the Reuters group of companies around the world. Reuters journalists are subject to the Reuters Editorial Handbook which requires fair presentation and disclosure of relevant rests. LoginMenuo ; doWeatherFrameo ; function revSciPixel() { DM-cat ("reuters.com.dart > ");DM_tago ; } revSciPixel(); C7 Page 3 of 3 3/19/2007 Page 1 of 2 Barbara Rich From: Tom Anderson Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 9:56 AM To: Barbara Rich Subject: FW: LAPINE HEARING From: Dave Kanner Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 9:04 AM To: Tom Anderson Subject: FW: LAPINE HEARING From: Calvin McClure [mailto:cnrpro7l@msn.com] Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2007 1:33 PM To: Board Cc: news@bendbuIletin.com Subject: LAPINE HEARING &oposed Local Rule for Onsite Wastewater Treatment stems in the area referred to as La Pine in the southern part of Deschutes County In order to make an informed decision about this proposal; I formally would like to submit the following question, or comment to the hearings board for due consideration. As the county is doing the evaluation of the systems and are developing the short list of recommended systems is the county going to indemnify me, as the user, against failure of the recommended system manufacturer to stay in business and/or be finacially able to provide the ongoing support of the recommended system? If the answer to the above is; 1. Yes, to what extent is the county willing to reimburse me for any potential loss? 2. No, is the county potentially putting itself and my tax dollars at risk of being sued for damages? Has the county done any investigations into the financial statement's of ALL companies involved. As you can imagine for a major purchase like you are recommending the soundness of the manufacturers's business is an important if not paramount consideration. If the answer to the above is; 1. Yes, what were the results. 2. NO, Why haven't you? s I could not find any information on the Deschutes County wed site telling me which systems are going to be ommended, I can't be more specific. Lots of info on the systems tested but none on those recommended. r is the user going to be allowed make that choice? 3/19/2007 Page 2 of 2 I can't make an informed decision on what to say (yes or no ) until I have this information, so please reconsider the schedule of all "hearings" Please enter this into the public hearing records of the associated proposal. CnR • • 3/19/2007 Pagel of 2 Barbara Rich From: Tom Anderson Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 9:57 AM To: Barbara Rich Subject: FW: south Deschutes County From: Dave Kanner Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 9:05 AM To: Tom Anderson Subject: FW: south Deschutes County From: Calvin McClure [mailto:cnrpro7l@msn.com] Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2007 1:44 PM To: Board Cc: news@bendbuIletin.com Subject: south Deschutes County Ws uld you please direct all Deschutes County departments to stop refering to the La Pine area of south county South Deschutes County. As if we were a different county. The idea that we are a different county could catch on and introduce a whole new set of problems. Question: What is the process involved in the formation of a new county? Answer. The process is generally outlined by statutes, many of which have been in place without change since 1930. While there is a general outline, if the petition and vote is successful, much will end up being resolved through a negotiation and transition process with the new county. Discussion: ORS Ch. 202 outlines the process for formation of new counties. 1 will simply highlight the guidance the statutes provide: Petition Process to Election 1. ORS 202.020 requires that a petition to form a new county must be signed by a majority of the electors of the territory proposed for the new county. After the signatures are validated by the County Clerk the petition will come to the Board of Commissioners. ORS 202.030 requires that the Board make findings that both the proposed and 101maining counties meet the assessed value, area and population requirements of the Constitution. Oregon Constitution Article XV, Section 6 specifies that a county must 3/19/2007 Page 2 of 2 have a minimum area equal to or greater than 400 square miles and a population equal to or greater than 1200 inhabitants. It says nothing about assessed value. I have • researched earlier constitutions and statutes and can only locate one reference to an assessed valuation requirement. The 1930 Oregon Code, Section 26-201 required a new county have an assessed value of not less than $2 million. Upon making the necessary findings, the Board calls for an election on the next available election date. It will be held for the electors registered within the territory of the proposed new county. Thank You Cal CnR • • 3/19/2007 Page 1 of 2 Barbara Rich From: Barbara Rich Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 10:40 AM To: 'Neal Henderson' Cc: Board Subject: RE: La Pine groundwater Dear Neal, I have inserted a couple responses below. Sincerely, Barbara Rich, REHS Deschutes County Env. Health 117 NW Lafayette Ave. Bend, OR 97701 541-617-4713 FAX 541-385-1764 BarbaraR@co.deschutes.or.us www.deschutes.org/cdd/ use "Quick Links" to the Groundwater Protection Project r ~ L_J From: Neal Henderson [mailto:easymca@earthlink.net] Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 6:26 PM To: Barbara Rich Cc: Board Subject: La Pine groundwater Barbara Sorry to be a continued bother, so I'll be short. Re: retrofit options: The recirc gravel filter seems iffy. There are none here and I have not,so far, been able to find the materials locally to build one. The above ground Orenco system occasionally has frozen here and failed. Not a good thing in the middle of winter. That leaves us one workable system, Consolidated. [We just received a cost estimate for the recirculating gravel filter based on locally available components. We inquired of a local designer and a couple installers for the cost estimates. There are none installed in Deschutes County so far on residences because the DEQ changed the rules in 2005 to allow the County to issue permits for these systems. This is a common technology used elsewhere in the nation and the DEQ rule amendment in 2005 reflects that and makes another roven technology available for homeowners.] glad the proposed rule gives us all 10 Years to retrofit... maybe the county and the DEQ will catch up to reality and allow 3/19/2007 Page 2 of 2 systems that are cost effective, available, and actually work. Again, why do you need to reinvent the wheel, when every state I have contacted allows all the EPA ETV systems? • The testing has already been done, the results are verified. Its as if the county would ask every car manufacturer to apply and reverify their smog control standards. ITS ALREADY BEEN DONE! [Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 340-071--0345 requires that the Alternative Treatment Technology seeking approval in Oregon be certified by NSF International. This is a state rule by which the county must abide. Therefore, the county may only issue permits for systems that have been approved for use in Oregon by DEQ. The only review above and beyond the state listing procedures that the County undertakes is to verify the Alternative Treatment Technology's nitrogen reduction capabilities because not all ATTs are capable of reducing nitrogen.] Please do not hide behind the usual circular and self contradictory logic. If the bureaucracy is the problem, then fix it. You, the commissioners and all county and state employees are paid by and are employees of the citizens. Time you started working them Neal Henderson J J 3/19/2007 Page 1 of 4 Barbara Rich From: Barbara Rich Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 11:29 AM To: 'AUTO PARTS MART Owner' Cc: 'BAGGETT. Robert@deq. state. or. us (E-mail)' Subject: RE: {Disarmed) Re: SOUTH COUNTY WATER SAFETY Dear Robert, The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality issued the permit for the La Pine Special Sewer District because it is a facility with flows larger than 2,500 gallons per day. Therefore, the DEQ receives the monitoring data for this operation. They should be able to provide the data to you upon request. We do not have copies, nor do we normally receive copies, of this data in our records. I have cc'd Bob Baggett with the Bend DEQ office so that you have his contact information. Sincerely, Barbara Rich, REHS Deschutes County Env. Health 117 NW Lafayette Ave. Bend, OR 97701 41-617-4713 AX 541-385-1764 *B-,arbara R @co.deschutes.or.us www.deschutes.org/cdd/ use "Quick Links" to the Groundwater Protection Project From: AUTO PARTS MART Owner [mailto:autopartsmart@msn.com] Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 11:19 AM To: Barbara Rich Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: SOUTH COUNTY WATER SAFETY Barb, what are/is the previous/most current data for the Lapine Special Sewer District leach field? Does it currently meet the same standard as the proposed units. This is a simple question does it meet the proposed standard right now? I am not asking about intergovernmental agreements. Right now today, yesterday, tomorrow does it meet the proposed standard without any additional filtration? Original Message From: Barbara Rich To: AUTO PARTS MART Owner Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 9:54 AM Subject: RE: {Disarmed) Re: SOUTH COUNTY WATER SAFETY •I Dear Robert, Thank you for your comments. I will include them in the record for the Board of County Commissioners. In terms of your questions I have responded below. Sincerely, 3/19/2007 Page 2 of 4 Barbara Rich, REHS Deschutes County Env. Health 117 NW Lafayette Ave. Bend, OR 97701 541-617-4713 FAX 541-385-1764 BarbaraR@co.deschutes.or.us www.deschutes.org/cdd/ use "Quick Links" to the Groundwater Protection Project From: AUTO PARTS MART Owner [mailto:autopartsmart@msn.com] Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 3:12 PM To: Barbara Rich Subject: {Disarmed} Re: SOUTH COUNTY WATER SAFETY Barb, Thank you for your rapid response. I guess it's time for the County to step in and investigate the nitrogen loads on the area golf courses and parks. I feel it is only responsible to investigate the nitrogen load and give us a projected view of the possible adverse toxins that may be present or flowing into the aquifer. What does the nitrogen bloom look like in the area surrounding the La Pine Special Sewer Districts leach field? Are they going to be required to update to filtration systems? If not why? • [The La Pine Special Sewer District has installed additional monitoring wells to ensure that they are keeping track of what is happening in the groundwater more accurately than they could with their previous well network. The DEQ and Deschutes County have drafted an intergovernmental agreement that specifies that all wastewater systems in the region, including those that DEQ has permitting authority for (like the sewer district) meet the nitrogen loading limits, just like individual residences.] I feel it is the Counties responsibility to represent us in any negotiations with Klamath County in insuring our safe drinking water. In for a penny in for a pound. Any decisions on a timetable for the (south county should also include the same timetable for Klamath. Will the the U.S.G.S. be able to use Bonnie Lambs figures to make any projections on nitrate flow into the aquifer with her figures? I see that you mentioned Crosswater, since it is a relatively new development do you have any figures or monitoring wells in or around Sunriver?, Quail Run? [The USGS has used DEQ's data in the past and the DEQ has used USGS data. Deschutes County Environmental Health doesn't have any data on Sunriver or Quail Run. I can't say that the data doesn't exist, I just don't know where it is if it does exist. I do know that the USGS and the DEQ have done extensive work to make sure that all existing data is included in the groundwater investigations.] Thank you, Robert Ray Original Message From: Barbara Rich To: autopartsmarttccD-msn.com • Cc: Tom Anderson Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 2:15 PM Subject: RE: SOUTH COUNTY WATER SAFETY 3/19/2007 Page 3 of 4 • There are responses below in blue to your questions. Sincerely, Barbara J. Rich, REHS Deschutes County Env. Health 117 NW Lafayette Ave. Bend, OR 97701 541-617-4713 FAX 541-385-1764 Barbara R(cDco.deschutes.or.us www.deschutes.org/cdd/ use "Quick Links" to the Groundwater Protection Project From: AUTO PARTS MART Owner [mailto:autopartsmart@msn.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 10:05 AM To: Board Subject: SOUTH COUNTY WATER SAFETY Robert Ray P.O. Box 1258 La Pine, OR 97739 • I appreciate your appearance last night in La Pine. You'll have to forgive the unruly 10%, some of us wanted some informed answers to questions that we all had and still have. Here are some of the questions I still have and would like addressed: Permitting, are we going to have to pay for permits for the upgrades? Some people have just installed sand filters and I having just built a house paid for a permit for a system that I was told was adequate at the time of installation. Reduced cost for upgrades? Waiver? Moratorium on future permits until a solution is approved. [The county has identified at least $35 million in assets and financial resources that can be used towards solving the groundwater protection problem. The concepts you provided are good ideas for the Community Development Department to work on for the financial assistance programs and I will include your ideas for targeting these resources towards property owners that have just installed systems in the record and in our working file for the financial assistance programs.] Composting toilets. Could individuals install composting toilets in lieu of the upgrade. The U.S. Forest Service is using a system in the Waldo Lake area. Would the installation of a composting or incinerating toilet be an alternative. [Composting toilets are an effective way of removing nitrogen from wastewater. Under current rule, however, propoerty owners can easily replace composting toilets with flush toilets. In order to reduce nitrogen over the long term, we need a mechanism that ensures that the composting toilet system remains in place, or if replaced with a flush toilet, is then connected to a nitrogen reducing wastewater treatment systems. Any ideas on how to make this • work are welcome.] North Lake County, Klamath County Have there been any U.S.G.S. studies in the bordering areas to show nitrate migration into the aquifer we are using. If yes what is the Board of Commissioners 3/19/2007 Page 4 of 4 doing to protect us from this migration? If you haven't addressed this problem why? The population increase has occurred in that area as well as La Pine. • [The USGS study presented at the meeting on Tuesday night included northern Klamath County. I know that there are discussions about the issue that will be taking place shortly in Klamath County. If the proposed rule is adopted, Deschutes County could certainly cooperate with Klamath County in groundwater protection efforts. Northern Lake County is in a different watershed from the Deschutes River (called the Goose and Summer Lakes watershed) and was not included in the USGS study of the region because of this hydrologic separation.] What kind of nitrate load is being put into the aquifer, water shed from the three golf courses in the south county area? We were advised that private golf courses are self regulating, unfortunately that doesn't tell me of the amount of nitrates going into the water from these private entities and if nitrates are a problem perhaps self regulation is not the answer any longer. We need those figures to determine if we need to as a group protect ourselves and those down stream of any future danger in increased nitrate loads. My family is on the river nearly every weekend in kayaks and there is a noticeable algae bloom after Quail Run and Crosswater, not so much in Sunriver and I attribute that to the presence of a larger marsh area in that location. You can rest assured I'll be sampling the waters in those areas this summer. [Because there is little or no regulation on golf courses, we do not have a way of knowing the nitrogen load from these activities. The groundwater monitoring data we have received from Crosswater does not show any nitrate in the monitoring wells for this golf course. The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality is scheduled to complete the Total Maximum Daily Load in 2007. Bonnie Lamb is the coordinator for this effort and can give you more information on the TMDL effort and may be interested in hearing your observations about the river's quality. Basic information about the TMDL program for the Upper Deschutes Basin is available at: MailScanner has detected a possible fraud attempt from "www.deq state or us" claiming to be http://www.degstate.or.us/wg/TMDLs/deschutes.htm. Because you are on the river frequently, you might be interested in the DEQ's Volunteer Monitoring program. More information on this program is available at: • http://w ww.deq.state or us/lab/wqm/volmonitoring htm] • 3/19/2007 Barbara Rich 0 r om: Barbara Rich nt: Monday, March 19, 2007 12:18 PM o: 'joann@gogouldrealty.com' Subject: RE: JoAnn Gould Dear JoAnn, The area affected by the proposed rule is the south county area between Sunriver and the Klamath County border. The blanket feasibility areas would also be affected by the proposed rule in that those properties would need to install nitrogen reducing systems and protect the groundwater like every other property in the region. Sincerely, Barbara Rich, REHS Deschutes County Env. Health 117 NW Lafayette Ave. Bend, OR 97701 541-617-4713 FAX 541-385-1764 BarbaraR@co.deschutes.or.us www.deschutes.org/cdd/ use "Quick Links" to the Groundwater Protection Project -----Original Message----- From: joann@gogouldrealty.com [mailto:joann@gogouldrealty.com] Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 3:43 PM 0 : Barbara Rich bject: JoAnn Gould Barbara, Thank you for the information on 16766 Shadow Ct. I have a question to ask you. I know south of Sunriver has some areas that are in the floodplain zone. Will these be the only areas required to put in the new Renco units? Or is all south county required to upgrade to this unit? What is going to happen with the areas that were consider to have a blanket septic feasibility? Thank you for your help in this matter. Sincerely, JoAnn Gould - Principal Broker Gould & Associates Realty 541-536-2900 office www.gogouldrealty.com 0 Page 1 of 2 Barbara Rich From: Tom Anderson Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 1:38 PM To: Barbara Rich Subject: FW: Community Hearing for March 20, 2007 - Proposed Class Action Lawsuit From: Dave Kanner Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 10:00 AM To: Tom Anderson Subject: FW: Community Hearing for March 20, 2007 - Proposed Class Action Lawsuit From: Sara Smith [mailto:ssmith97701@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 9:21 AM To: Mike Daly Cc: Dennis Luke; Tammy Baney; Board Subject: Community Hearing for March 20, 2007 - Proposed Class Action Lawsuit 0ard members, This email is to serve as notice that the citizens of the La Pine area will stand as one under a unified Class Action Lawsuit. Unless further discussion will be entered into, past the Community Hearing set for tomorrow, and the Proposed Local Rule set aside until further testing and community envolvement can occur we will be forced to proceed with our legal filing in regards to this issue. We will begin releasing statements to the community and press alike to inform them of this action after the close of tomorrows meeting; should no outreach be made by board members to the community. We will NOT stand by and watch our rights as citizens of Deschutes County and the United States be pushed to the side. That is one of the advantages of being in this country, we have a rigth to legal action when our rights are being ignored by those who were "elected" to uphold them. Any by "elected" we fully intend on further utilizing our rights of recall dependent upon individual council member acceptance of the issues and understanding of community feelings. In any case, think this through very long and hard as we will be able to tie up ANY plan you have of moving forward on this case for many years to come with our appeals. For us, this is of little monetary consequence as we will only spend very little with the amount of individuals that have joined our fight. For the County this case could possibly bankrupt you. The choice is yours. We respectfully request an immediate response TODAY! ep e Community Class Action Group 3/19/2007 Page 2 of 2 • • Bored stiff? Loosen up... Download and play hundreds of games for free on Yahoo! Games. 3/19/2007 • 1816 SW Forest Ridge Avenue Bend, Oregon 97702 March 19, 2007 RE Eli/ED BY. Barbara Rich Senior Environmental Planner MAR 2 0 2007 Deschutes County Planning Department 117 N.W. Lafayette AvenueElIVER ©RY; Bend, Oregon 97701 _ Re: Proposed Local Rule for Nitrate Reducing Septic Systems Dear Ms. Rich: As a professional biologist and a resident of Bend, I would like to voice my support for the proposed rule on the use of nitrate reducing septic systems for the south county area. I believe that requiring such systems is essential in maintaining the quality of drinking water in the area, as well as preserving the water quality of the Little Deschutes and Big Deschutes rivers. The county has done a commendable job in conducting a scientifically robust study • to evaluate the current nitrate levels in wells, and the projected levels in the near future. Now that this problem has been clearly identified and quantified, it would be irresponsible for county staff not to take immediate action to rectify this situation. Although there is a financial cost to area residents for upgrading their current septic systems, county staff has already been pursuing a number of loan and grant opportunities to help offset any costs to landowners. With such financial options available, the proposed rule should not be rejected based upon the costs of the new septic systems. I would like to emphasize that the proposed rule is of long-term benefit to existing and future residents of southern Deschutes County, and to all Deschutes residents who enjoy and cherish the unpolluted rivers and aquifer of our area. It is of vital importance that county staff implements this rule to protect the water quality for current and future generations of Deschutes county. Sincerely, Christina Veverka • Page 2 of 2 You, our commissioners, and, we the residents of South County, deserve answers and we deserve them now . If the CDD cannot give us the answers, then we wait! It's that simple. We are not trying to rush the CDD staff; we • earnestly desire to see the finished product, not assumptions and predictions. The CDD has been trying to get the Commissioners to sign this initiative for the past 4 weeks in the midst of mistakes, illusion, misunderstandings, false impressions and errors. Has the CDD gone back and included the Red Lots that Mike Daly and Tammy Baney told them to include? Has the wording been changed to reflect, "this is not a'done' deal?" 'Considerable effort and resources...'. doesn't mean the CDD has an adequate answer for the potentially devastating financial burden that is going to face South County, and that 'carrot' isn't enough to make us turn away from the fact -_we don't have any facts! Even the Resolution NO. 2007-023 states the performance standards for existing on -site wastewater treatment systems shall be a minimum VARIABLE standard determined by the Nitrate Loading Management Model. That means it is something apt to vary, it is changeable, not true to type, a quantity that may assume a succession of values. This is too volatile for our pocket-books, too unpredictable, too temperamental, erratic and unstable I would hope you are skeptical as well. You said last Tuesday evening that this is a learning time for you, as well. Did you hear anything that convinced you beyond a shadow of a doubt that this is the best possible solution for South County and the County as a whole? Did you understand the presentation given last week? If you did, then we need you to make the presentation this week, without the help of the CDD or USGS. This issue will continue to be charged until we are given data we can trust. We implore the Board of Commissioners to delay any action until such time as CDD has finally completed all its final reports and again brings its findings before the citizens who will be impacted by this proposed legislation, the citizens of South County. • We urge our Commissioners to hold the CDD to the highest ethical standards possible CDD should have nothing to hide, everything should be laid on the table and above reproach That is data we will consider. This is what the citizens of South County call for and insist on. Nothing short of this outcome will diffuse this show-down, and give South County residents cause us to re-evaluate or reconsider our position of total opposition to Local Rule. Respectfully submitted, Ken and Judy Forsythe • 3/20/2007 Page 1 of 2 Barbara Rich From: Tom Anderson Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 10:36 AM To: Barbara Rich Subject: FW: LaPine Local Rule Meeting, March 20th From: Dave Kanner Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 10:08 AM To: Tom Anderson Subject: FW: LaPine Local Rule Meeting, March 20th From: judybug7669@peoplepc.com [mailto:judybug7669@peoplepc.com] Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 7:32 PM To: Board Cc: Mike Daly; Tammy Baney; Dennis Luke Subject: LaPine Local Rule Meeting, March 20th 019-07 Good evening, Commissioners: We, in LaPine, will continue to challenge CDD's findings as they relate to the proposed Local Rule. Nothing, to date, reinforces their findings, nor is the staff capable of giving the same answer two times in a row. So much research has been done in preparing for the three meetings you promised here in LaPine, and we feel it would be negligible, if not gross negligence for the Board of Commissioners not to honor their initial commitment of three meetings, March 13, 20 and 27th at the Hiah School. We are not going to rollover and entrust the 'care and custody' of our well-being to CDD's power of free decision or latitudes of choice. It is evident their choices are not our choices. We feel they have failed in the leadership role assigned them by and for the people of Deschutes County and we are not going to give them a blank check and let them fill in when, and if they come up with conclusive, unalterable, irrefutable, binding final figures. Again, why aren't you our commissioners, insisting this be set aside until the binding, final figures are in and made public? How can you consider signing an ordinance just because the CDD 'says they have invested considerable effort and resources in....'? Last week Mike Daly was heard to say there is no pressure to pass this initiative at this time. Then, the ordinance itself says, '..time is of the essence...'. Would you give the county your blank check and let them fill it in for you? The CDD says the County will continue to develop and identify new programs.... and therefore the Board of County Commissioners should adopt the Local Rule. & That is not what we elected you to dol You said you would serve the people of Deschutes County. We are looking for leadership we can trust and leadership that will act upon accomplishments. CDD has not revealed, disclosed or proven accomplishments; they have exhibited assumptions and models. 3/20/2007 3116107 Revised • NITRATE REDUCTION PROJECT PROPOSAL FOR SOUTHERN DESCHUTES COUNTY Project Description Deschutes County is proposing a $30-60MM project to upgrade all existing septic systems in Southern Deschutes County. This proposal describes a viable alternative - exporting most of the gray water containing nitrates to Northern Deschutes and Crook Counties for use by the farming communities. This project includes constructing pipelines and pumping stations to collect gray wastewater from existing sewage treatment plants and local septic systems in Southern Deschutes County and transferring the gray wastewater to a storage lagoon in Northern Deschutes County to be blended in with irrigation water from the Upper Deschutes and the Wickiup Reservoir during peak summer months. Estimates of daily wastewater volumes range from 2 to 3 million gallons or 6 to 9 acre feet per day. Other sources of surplus gray water in the future could originate from Sunriver, LaPine, Bend and other local treatment facilities. This results in exporting between 2,190 Acre Feet per year to 3,285 Acre Feet per year to Northern Deschutes County. Costs Difficult to measure until a detailed feasibility study is completed. Transferring gray water by a pipeline parallel to natural gas or high voltage transmission corridors may be viable. Gray water • transmission line would extend north of Bend. Cooperation with many governmental, utility, and environmental groups is essential during the feasibility study. Benefits • Eliminates nitrate intrusion problem in Southern Deschutes County allowing for improved drinking water. • Exporting 2,200 + Acre Feet of water per year could reduce ground water table in low-lying Southern Deschutes County private lands. • Allows most vacant lots to be buildable, increasing property tax revenue to county and local agencies. • Expands the marketability of affordable housing in Southern Deschutes County. • Eliminates all nitrate transfers to the Little and Upper Deschutes Rivers, reducing green vegetation stream reductions. • Allows for an increase winter stream flow on the Upper Deschutes, reducing bank erosion and increasing fish habitat. Bend's Mirror Pond would not be a major problem area for silt buildup. Submitted by . Carl Jansen, Spring River 593-2777 Jake Keller, Oregon Water Wonderland #2 Page 1 of 1 Barbara Rich From: Tom Anderson Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 2:58 PM To: Barbara Rich Subject: FW: HANDOUTS FOR NEXT WEEK'S MEETING IN LA PINE From: Dave Kanner Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 12:33 PM To: Tom Anderson; Dennis Luke; Mike Daly; Tammy Baney Subject: HANDOUTS FOR NEXT WEEK'S MEETING IN LA PINE If you have a junk mail filter on your e-mail, you might not have received this due to the spam in the subject line. Dave From: judybug7669@peoplepc.com [mailto:judybug7669@peoplepc.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 11:42 PM To: Board Subject: {Spam?} HANDOUTS FOR NEXT WEEK'S MEETING IN LA PINE 014-07 Commissioner Baney, So many folks last evening did not receive the handouts as the CDD staff only brought about 100 copies. We anticipate the same size group next Tuesday the 20th and we are requesting that the CDD staff bring between 800- 1000 copies of the materials they handed out last evening. Every resident should have these in their hands, especially now that the map they handed out has changed. Did you notice that, Tammy? There are several significant changes, pay particular attention to Ponderosa Pines out Burgess. Compare it to the map the CDD handed the commissioners on 2-28-07 when they asked you to approve the Local Rule; it is not the same. By the way, Tammy, there is a whole section out by Vandevert we heard from today who had no knowledge whatsoever of Local Rule, and that it totally involves them, as well. It is not just us way down South here who were in the dark, here is another neighborhood that is in shock. I guess I remain skeptical about how much public notice was purposively given and yet so many were totally unaware of Local rule prior to January, 2007. The information may have been given, in one form or another, but was it understood? Have a good week! Thank you again for coming and I look forward to seeing you next Tuesday in LaPine. Judy Forsythe • 3/20/2007 Pagel of 3 Barbara Rich From: Tom Anderson Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 7:57 AM To: Barbara Rich Cc: Dave Kanner Subject: FW: La Pine Ground Water Remedies and Reinvestment. Barb, this is not directly related to the proposed Local Rule, but let's be safe and put it in the record anyway. Thanks. From: Becky McElrath Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 7:34 AM To: Tom Anderson Subject: FW: La Pine Ground Water Remedies and Reinvestment. Hi Tom- This email came through the cdd-webmaster address. I thought I should pass it along to you. 0 Rebecca McElrath enior Web Application Developer Deschutes County Community Development Department (541) 317-3125 beckyw@co.deschutes.or.us http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd From: WILLIAM MYRA HAUSE [mailto:billhause56@msn.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 12:43 AM To: Tammy Baney Cc: Mike Daly; Dennis Luke; _admin; cdd-webmaster Subject: La Pine Ground Water Remedies and Reinvestment. Dear Commissioner Baney, During the 17 + years that I have continuously resided on my 2 acre lot in South Vandevert Acres in South Deschutes County; 5 miles south of Sunriver and 12 miles north of La Pine, I have been made aware by residents in the La Pine area of a high ground water (also labeled white water; undrinkable and also unusable for septic disposal systems) problem which has rendered the purchased lots UNINHABITABLE! Specifically, too many "buyers" who purchased their land in "good faith" from disreputable and dishonest sellers have discovered after purchase that these lots were unsuitable for building or habitation per county 0,evelopment and housing codes because of the inability to construct safe drinking water wells, public water and septic systems due to contaminated ground water. Private real estate property sellers. realtors, brokers and agents along with developers in southern Deschutes County have knowingly and willingly failed, denied or 3/20/2007 Page 2 of 3 refused to disclose the water quality problems to trusting buyers of limited financial resources. In some cases I am told that the sellers, brokers and developers actually lied about the existence of a drinking water and/or septic problem! Undoubtedly, many individuals; developers and realtors among them; will invoke caveat emptor ("let the buyer beware') rationalization in shirking their responsibilities to the buyers and community-at-large which suffers collateral and peripheral damage resulting from neighborhood or adjoining high ground water. But, it should be noted that over the past three or four decades that legislatures and courts have virtually rejected and overturned the seller protector caveat emptor as a defense, and, in fact, no longer recognize this antiquated unethical and dishonest phrase as an acceptable or enforceable defense. I am most certain that you and the other commissioners and staff are aware that under Oregon law, the seller has a legal duty to disclose all known information. As a general rule, a seller is legally required to deliver a property disclosure or disclaimer form. The buyer then has five or seven business days, depending on the form used, to revoke his offer based on the information provided. A seller can be held liable for any intentional misinformation or omissions on these forms, i.e.; that the land is unsuitable for habitation and/or or not buildable due to the unavailability of safe drinking water or waste water disposal systems. I have to also wonder if the County Community Development Division and those Title Companies were possibly not adequately diligent, forthcoming or alert of the problem at the time of these fraudulent real property sales were being processed( ? Commissioner Baney, I ask that you please indulge my reiteration of two examples of this intentional fraud, unethical practices and outright dishonesty in this unconscionable and unscrupulous business practice within the real estate business community; 1. A La Pine area woman advised just recently that she is a current victim of a seller's refusal to disclose a water quality problem to her in the real estate property sales contract. The seller did not merely fail to disclose but flatly refused to do so! She now lives on the property in a single wide mobile home without safe drinking water nor waste water disposal facilities being available. 2. In the autumn of 1998, I visited a La Pine Real Estate office with the intention of purchasing acreage there on behalf of my son. When I inquired of possible ground water problems in La Pine and general rural area, the realtor informed me that no such problem existed! I was already aware of the problem but asked the question as I was told that not all lots were so infected. Frankly, the realtor lied to me by not disclosing the truthful facts! Finally, I am not unmindful that the situation cannot be forcibly remedied through lawsuits, accusations and demands for restitution, penalties and retribution. Unfortunately, for the pursuance of justice, I fear on the behalf of the "bilked" buyers that the statutes of limitations have expired; although that is a matter for the courts and civil litigators to decide. Many of the most deceptive, dishonest and unethical (business without a community conscience to quote my wife, Myra S. Hause, coining of the phrase in 1998), have taken their ill- gotten profits and fled the area therefore offer the following suggestions to correct a wrongful and capricious act( s ) by the seller( s 1. I reiterate my 1998 suggestion that a community well (or wells) be constructed; to his great credit, Dennis Luke during his first term as a county commissioner did reportedly arrange for such an industrial-sized to be donated to La Pine but for reasons still unclear, the residents rejected the well as unfeasible to their • needs; 3/20/2007 Page 3 of 3 2. The construction of a water purification facility and a sewage disposal plant; with a sizable or majority &f the costs defrayed by government and foundation grants or low-interest, long-term loans. 3. The reinvestment of county land sales in South Deschutes County (the projected new bio-mass facility on county land in the La Pine proximity) for the development of safe drinking water resources and a sewage disposal system. • 3/20/2007 Pagel of 2 Barbara Rich From: Tom Anderson Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 5:22 PM To: 'Vic Russell'; 'stevewert@mac.com' Cc: Board; Barbara Rich Subject: RE: TAC Committee Membership Vic and Steve, In a-mails to the Board, you both expressed concern over the representation of the Technical Advisory Committee, specifically that CDD staff members had been excluded from the latest posting on our website as members. Let me give you my personal assurance that there was no ulterior motive in misleading anyone about the TAC. The most recent posting is accurate and reflects the code language on its make-up. The earlier listing you saw was basically a distribution list for those involved in the TAC (members and staf). I apologize for that confusion. I have attached the code language below. You will note in the code that the original intent of the committee was to advise specifically on the TDC program. Over time, as discussion of the proposed Local Rule grew more intense, committee members naturally wanted to discuss it. Staff understood this and did not try to keep discussion limited to the TDC/PRC program. This may be why some members had different interpretations on the TAC's role and mission. 11.12.040. TDC Advisory Committee. A. Purpose. The TDC Advisory Committee is an advisory committee whose purpose is to assist staff in implementing the TDC program and to recommend to staff the means to accomplish the goals of Regional Problem Solving, insofar as the transfer of development credits from the Sending Area to the Receiving Area are concerned. B. Duties. The committee will advise staff in evaluating the TDC program for record keeping accuracy, determine if program goals are being met, consider whether any changes to the TDC allocation criteria in the Sending Area or TDC requirements in the Receiving Area are advisable, or if any other revisions to the program are warranted. The committee may assist the County in determining which TDC options to exercise. C. Committee member terms. Committee members will be selected by staff based on the knowledge and expertise that each member may contribute to the development of the TDC Program. One-half the initial members shall serve for one year and one-half shall serve for two years. Thereafter, members shall serve two-year terms. Members may be requested to serve additional terms. Staff shall report the membership of the TDC Advisory Committee to the Board of County Commissioners on an annual basis. D. Committee members. The TDC Advisory Committee may include a representative from each of the following organizations, agencies or professions: 1. The International Society of Appraisers or an Oregon State Certified Appraiser; • 2. A firm established for the purpose of real estate development or the representation of development interests; 3. An individual with recognized expertise in hydrology or ground water; 3/20/2007 Page 2 of 2 4. An individual with recognized expertise in big game wildlife management; 5. The Community Solutions Team for Central Oregon; • 6. An individual who resides in the designated Sending Area; 7. A member of the La Pine Community Action Team; 8. The Deschutes County Community Development Department Director or designee as an ex officio member. 9. Staff may select additional members as it deems appropriate. (Ord. 2006-016 § 1, 2006; Ord. 2003-033 § 1, 2003; Ord. 2002-010 § 1, 2002) Both of you also expressed concern over the posting of the Dan Peddycord/State DHS letters regarding nitrates on our website. We did that for the sole (and important) reason that it was the latest information we had from people who know more than us on this important aspect of the discussion regarding the proposed Local Rule. It is also a public document. However, I fully recognize that because of the context in which they were written, specifically in response to your letter Steve, that there are personal references that CDD staff, as well as you, would prefer not to be in them. I have therefore asked Dan Peddycord to produce substitute documentation that deletes any reference to individuals. It is important that the County Health Department and the State DHS provide their official input on nitrates, but personal references are inappropriate. As soon as we receive the new documentation, we will replace the Peddycord/DHS letters that are there now. I have confirmed this intent with the Board and they support it. I look forward to continuing to work with you both as we continue discussions of the proposed Rule. Tom Tom Anderson Director Deschutes County Community Development 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, OR. 97701 541/385-1704 541/385-1764 (fax) Tom-Anderson@co.deschutes.or.us From: Vic Russell [mailto:VicR@vicrussellconstruction.com] Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 2:58 PM To: Tom Anderson; Board Subject: TAC Committee Membership Tom- I see on the Counties Web Site the membership has omitted the counties staff. I find as each day goes by a new and perplexing development in your department. I'm still determined to do my part in trying to build trust in our community and between our community and Deschutes County. I'm asking you and our commissioners to help do your part. Please let me know where you stand on this issue. Sincerely Vic Russell • 3/20/2007 Page 1 of 2 Barbara Rich From: Tom Anderson Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 4:30 PM To: Barbara Rich Subject: FW: LaPine proposed home rule From: Tammy Baney Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 4:21 PM To: 'Calvin McClure'; Board Cc: news@ bendbu I letin.com; Tom Anderson Subject: RE: LaPine proposed home rule Hi Cal- Thank you for your email; I am copying our Community Development Director in order to have your questions added to the record. I look forward to seeing you tomorrow night. In Partnership, Tammy Baney Deschutes County Commissioner face: 541 388-6567 IRWIL 541 419-2233 From: Calvin McClure [mailto:cnrpro7l@msn.com] Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 1:32 PM To: Board Cc: news@bendbulietin.com Subject: LaPine proposed home rule Proposed Local Rule for Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems in the area referred to as La Pine in the southern part of Deschutes County In order to make an informed decision about this proposal; I formally would like to submit the following questions, or comments to the hearings board for due consideration. Re: Proposed Local Rule for Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems in South,Deschutes County Affected Area: • SOUTH DESCHUTES COUNTY: The proposed Local Rule will apply to those unsewered areas . between Sunriver and the Klamath County border, an area formally defined as those unsewered areas of Townships 19, 20, 21, and 22 and Ranges 9, 10 and 11. 3/19/2007 Page 2 of 2 I have no idea what the affected area means. South Deschutes County refers to an area that I have been told encompasses a huge officially undefined area in the southern part of Deschutes County. • I can't find anyplace on the county wed site that shows the boundaries of the Townships and Ranges mentioned. Is a map hidden some place that I am missing. The explanation on the figure that is attached to the proposed home rule does not mention any township or range. I cannot make an informed decision on what to say (yes or no) until I have this information, so please reconsider the schedule of all "hearings". Please enter this into the public hearing records of the associated proposal. Cal McClure L 3/19/2007 Page 1 of 2 Barbara Rich From: Tom Anderson Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 2:09 PM To: Barbara Rich Subject: FW: LaPine Septic Prblm: how about a (-$2000 & -$150/year) per toilet solution? From: Dave Kanner Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 2:02 PM To: Tom Anderson Subject: FW: LaPine Septic Prblm: how about a ($2000 & -$150/year) per toilet solution? From: Ron Sharbaugh [mailto:rsharbaugh@coinet.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 1:56 PM To: Board Cc: rsharbaugh@coinet.com; mhewitt@e2powered.com Subject: LaPine Septic Prblm: how about a ($2000 & -$150/year) per toilet solution? V ar Board Members- I attended last weeks meeting, and was extemely dismayed that no composting toilet/gray water solution was on the approved list from the technical advisory committee. I consider this reason enough to vote down the proposed draft at this time. I contacted Mike Hewitt, owner of E2 Powered in Bend the local distributor of ht~://www.sun-mar.com/ brand of composting toilets, and the following information is from a conversation with him. With a composting toilet, you have to add a scoop of peat moss for every a "number 2". The toilet requires a vent, and a fan is used to circulate air via the vent. Additionally, the toilet must be kept a temp above 50 degrees F - so a small heater is needed to ensure this. For Mike and his wife, after every 3 to 4 months of use the toilet created -1 cubic foot of human compost. The peat and the electricity is where Mike estimated a $150/year expense. Mike was saying the toilet he used cost $1800 - so I added a fudge factor for installation. I do not know what the technical committee will approve for disposal of the human compost - but at least it is very light so I would think disposal costs could be kept very low. To me, this looks like a viable alternative to the $20,000 upgrade and $1500/year system - assuming the home owners want it. The installation of composting toilets should mean that septic system can be downgraded to gray water systems - so the need for the huge septic tanks disappears - a big cost savings down the road (I would think). Thank you for your time reading this email, again I urge you VOTE DOWN the proposed draft at least until this class of system becomes "code approved" in Deschutes county (when Mike tried to install a composting toilet/gray water system, the county forced him to put in a full septic system and afterwards said "you can install a composting toilet now if you want"). I don't believe the current solutions are being allowed to take advantage of current technology for this problem - 0d this terribly impacts my cost of living. rsharbaugh@coinet.com Ron Sharbaugh 3/20/2007 Page 2 of 2 53522 Brookie Way LaPine, OR 97739 541/536-2883 • PS: if you look at the web site, you will see that the sun-mar brand is approved by the National Sanitation Foundation. PPS: This past year, Mike saw a run on these toilets being used over in the camp sherman area. • J 3/20/2007 Page 1 of 2 Barbara Rich From: Tom Anderson Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 2:11 PM To: Barbara Rich Subject: FW: From: Dave Kanner Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 2:07 PM To. Tom Anderson Subject: FW.• From: Donald Habener[mai/to:kokaneee@msn.com] Sent: Sunday, March 18, 200710:16 PM To., Board Subject. {Spam?} • Deschutes County Board of Commissioners Mike Daly Dennis Luke Tammy Baney Sirs & Madam First, I am writing in regard to the proposed "Local Rule" which has already affected me. Last year in July my contractor applied for a building permit for construction of my new home. CDD would not issue a permit unless I installed the new system at a cost of 512,900.00 + 5800.00 for maintenance for two years. Instead of $4,500.00 for a standard septic. At the meeting in LaPine on March 13 I submitted a question: "If the local rule has not been approved why was I forced to install this system now? "Mr. Anderson was supposed to answer the question but responded with some political jargon, after all it's not his money. I still do not know the reasoning behind CCD forcing people to install this system before the RULE is approved. Only that they can. .Second, I live in Ponderosa pines which is West of LaPine. The data presented at the meeting was gathered in the LaPine corridor, I saw nothing that indicated that Ponderosa 3/20/2007 Page 2 of 2 Pines was the source of the nitrates in LaPine. Third, The USGS data was promulgated on a model of some 30+ years and I am unclear on how the USGS can base their finding on a hnoothetical historical water table. There is no data prior to the 1990's. It was invented to fit the predetermined outcome by CDD. Instead of "shot gunning" the entire South county population the CDD should be doing the work to find out specifically who and where the source of the nitrate is coming from and spending the time to make those with old leaking metal tanks install modern systems. If I remember correctly the CDD has received close to a million dollars for this research which could have been better spent. In conclusion I believe the CDD stands to gain financial gain and a great deal of prestige if they can cram this down the throat of the South county residents. They care nothing of the financial burden place on the taxpayer. They say there will be "low interest loans". How does that help if a person can't afford another payment? Maybe they should quit taking their medication, or quit driving, maybe start eating dog food or just stop eating? Did you notice how many senior citizens there were at the meeting? If this "Rule" is approved without further study the County commissioners who approve it will have a short political career. • P.S. I would like to suggest that at the next meeting the questions submitted by the residents be read verbatim NOT paraphrased. Thank you. Donald N. Habener 15375 Ponderosa Loop Ponderosa Pines LaPine, OR 97739 536-8097 • 3/20/2007 Comments, Statements and Suggestions Submitted March 13, 2007 These are transcribed verbatim from the half-sheets handed in on March 13, 2007. Any editing is noted in [brackets]. 1. Why can't funding be secured through monies from the Oregon Lottery? This is a perpetuating fund - much of the monies taken in are not accounted for. 2. Move to strike USGS statement of "nitrate in aquifer is caused by septic system" unless they can prove with 100% scientific certainty this is mis-information and untruthful. 3. Scientific State in water level and well testing and ownership. 4. Do you expect us to vote for you next term? 5. The warranty on the proposed system will be void if the property owners: 1 - wash more than 2 loads of laundry on any day - no bleach! 2 - hose of or clean or attempt to fix any minor problem with the system 3 - take a vacation for more than 48 hours of unuse and not contact the "authorized service" to start back up or shut down the system - all with a service each time of course! 6. I would like to see a show of hands of how many people in this room have had their wells monitored or tested by the people doing the studies. 7. Please have the people present raise their hands if they received a notice in their tax statement. Please send out notices to all homeowners directly. 8. I am very disappointed in this meeting - a lot of people worked hard to get the community here to have questions answered - most of the time was taken up by staff - they should have come prepared to answer questions. 9. Most technical information not understandable. Nine year old sand filter is good enough. 10. If this rule is adopted it will devalue every property in the area. You will not be able to sell unless you offer a credit to the buyer to compensate for the system. Measure 37 was past [sic] to stop this. There needs to be a legal problem at the time the rule is adopted. Not a problem 20 years in the future. Oregon allows a homeowner to do all construction to your residence including septic. Systems that do not allow owner installation can not be required. Thanks 11. The BLM should not be allowed to sell the land especially for small lots under 5 [acres] like '/-1/2 [acres]. This creates a lot of problems and takes away the charm of La Pine! If you have any power instead of hurting us with your plan work on stopping BLM through the legislators, etc. 12. We have seen standard systems, which I've had for 22 yrs. And still function & pumped twice ...then sand filters were the greatest... with many problems. Now this 20,000 dollar fix... a bandaid is all it is with no guarantees and no end to the fees. Let's do whatever it takes to "sewer" this problem for a permanent fix...6400 homes @ 20,000 dollars is a pretty good start. Don't forget your job description: Government of the people, by the people, & for the people. Thank you (Fix all faulty systems first?) 13. We need more time to look at all the different septic systems. Are you going to give us time? Are you considering different systems? 14. It was state 450 wells were tested. How many of the people in the audience are owners of any of those 450 wells. Page 1 BOCC Public Hearing #2 March 20, 2007 Groundwater Issues - La Pine Exhibit _31:> 15. Why have you allowed the area to have smaller lots? Are [you] worried about not getting the taxes that you want? 16. Why not inspect/replace current septic systems that are causing problems in the "Hot Spots"? 17. Please discuss Exhibit A on [pamphlet]. 18. What are the provisions for the people that will lose their homes if rule should pass? 19. This was not a scientific peer group, they do not speak your language. You wasted our time. Do you geologists think these people are stupid because they do not speak in your geological terms? How many of these terms did you understand before you went to college? Speak in terms folks understand. Shame on you. 20. Would any of you be willing to retire with one of these systems. 21. In July of 20061 ask Barbara Rich why the public wasn't notified of this "rule" she said the meeting were public but no one knew about it! This was done under the table. 22. I have an e-mail that I sent to the commissioners with questions I want to read. Thank you. 23. Why are seniors being run out of La Pine, We do not want to be another [Sunriver] Page 2 Dechutes County Commissioners re:LaPine Groundwater Question:lts my understanding that regarding the proposed local rule for the septic systems in my area that you appointed an advisory committee who suggested upgrade septic systems other than the one proposed.They would do the same job at less expense.Why wasn't this looked into? Also by testing our wells we find in almost every case there isn't a nitrate problem! Seems that this plan of DEQ and USGS is all suppsition. We are finding out our questions regarding the change aren't clearly answered. Statement; Something tells me there is something fishy happening here.So what is the real agenda.ls it all scare tatics?Since this came up all of our research about health hazards have been the exact opposite of DEQ's.ln fact nitrates are good for us.They are in our own bodies. Heard recently that in the 60's it was susposed that nitrates were a problem at ODELL Lake and so the septic systems were shut down.Results: all the fish died!Tum the septics back in working order and the fish came back.Seems that nitrates are controlled by nature.Now we are suspose to fork over big money to stop something natural.) think you commissioners have been fed an untruth and have ran with it.The science isn't complete.Go back to the drawing board and let us determine the best solution.ln the future we are all going to be required to put in sewers!This is needless spending on the consumer budget.LET'S JUST PUT IN SEWERS!!!! Wanda VanNatta A concerned LA Pine resident. • • • 1. The definition of "Maximum Nitrogen Reducing System" in 13.14.020 is an unlawful delegation of the County's legislative power to the Oregon DEQ. The definition requires each applicant to install whatever system the DEQ has determined removes the most nitrogen at the time of permit. This definition essentially delegates to DEQ the ability to amend the County's ordinance to require a different system at any point in the future. Future systems could be significantly more expensive and more difficult to install, and may create other problems not analyzed by the County in this ordinance. This is an unlawful delegation of the County's legislative authority. At such times new systems are developed and approve by DEQ, the County must affirmatively amend its code and consider the costs, benefits and efficacy of each such system before it mandates it use. 2. The decision to adopt this ordinance has a significant impact on land use because it effects facilities that impact rural residential development. It should therefore have been analyzed and adopted pursuant to the post-acknowledgment land use process set forth in ORS 197.610 to 197.625. 0 3. Financial assistance mechanism should be developed and in place before the County imposes the mandate. The staff report notes that there are many low income residents in the area that will be impacted by the substantial expense, and promises to develop additional assistance programs in the future. The residents can't rely on a promise to do something in the future; they need to know now what assistance will be available. The County should not adopt any mandate, at lease as it applies to existing systems until the full assistance program is in place. This comment was photocopied instead of transcribed because of concerns about misreading the submittal. 9C Q "s _ ~I 5L Good Evening Commissioners: I want to thank you for coming here to meet with us, your constituents. My question to you is: Why has "Our Democracy" been taken out of the Equation in the "Nitrate" / "Local Rule" issues? My first knowledge of these issues was late November 2006 when I received a phone call from a friend telling me about them. There was a first Ordinance Declaring an "Emergency" passed April 20, 2002 effective immediately. What prompted this "Emergency Procedure"? A second Ordinance was passed July 1, 2006 under the same conditions. Why weren't we, the people of South Deschutes County NOTIFIED? BOCC Public Hearing #2 March 20, 2007 Groundwater Issues - La Pine Exhibit- C 1 I then hear of the "LOCAL RULE" that you are going to implement on us by the end of December 2006. No notification of this either. What I was hearing, I could not bring myself to believe that this was happening to us. I really thing you stepped way out of bounds and took our DEMOCRACY RIGHTS away from us with the procedure that you took. We are sensible people and would like to be included in DECISIONS that AFFECT OUR LIVES. We surely do not accept the fact that we are being told "THAT WE HAVE TO DO THIS YOUR WAY"! We don't have enough information to make a good decision and neither do you. Since you are our Elected Officials, we feel that you shouldn't be in a hurry to make a decision until all avenues have all been explored. We would appreciate very much for you to slow this decision making process down. This would-allow everyone to obtain much more needed information before making any decisions. Please may we have more time to collect proper data and present it to you before any decision is made by you? May I suggest to you, that you work with us and NOT AGAINST us on these issues and PLEASE LISTEN to what we have to say and take our thoughts seriously. LAST BUT BY NO MEANS LEAST, "PLEASE PUT DEMOCRACY INTO YOUR EQUATION" of these Issues. We think this would the proper thing for you to do. May I have a verbal and written response? Thank you. Martha Bauman Spokesperson for PineCrest Neighborhood Re-examining the Link between Nitrates and "Blue- Baby" Syndrome: A Necessary First Step For Managing Ground Water Quality to Protect Public Health Dr. Allan S. Felsot, Environmental Toxicologist, WSU Perhaps a million dollars will be spent before all is said and done in implementing the Columbia Basin Ground Water Management Area (GWMA) (Tri-City Herald 1998). The GWMA is a coordinated local, state, and federal effort to manage ground water quality in Franklin, Grant, and Adams Counties. It was formed partly in reaction to the EPA proposal to designate the Columbia Plateau as a sole-source aquifer and thus bring increased federal regulation to the region. Focusing on nitrates in well water, GWMA will use the public funding for monitoring, education, and implementation of solutions to reduce contamination. Preventing nitrates from leaching to ground water is ostensibly motivated by the need to protect public health. Nitrates in drinking water have been associated with isolated cases of methemoglobinemia (MHB). Commonly known as "blue-baby" syndrome, MHB affects infants under 6 months of age. The most characteristic symptom is an ashen, bluish (cyanotic) hue to the skin and nails. The most commonly perceived risk factor for MHB is feeding infants powdered formulas diluted with well water containing excessive levels of nitrates. The presence of well water nitrate is commonly attributed to farming practices that have used excessive amounts of synthetic fertilizers over the last thirty years. Given these perceptions, altering agronomic management practices for nitrogen use will logically result in safer water. The problem with this cause-and-effect scenario is that common perception may now be wrong, or at least so out-of-date as to put in place management practices that will fail to provide corresponding benefits in public health. Consider the following statement that appeared in a 1995 report (Nitrate and Nitrite in Drinking Water) from the National Research Council (NRC), the research arm of the National Academy of Sciences (NRC 1995). "Infection is the major contributor to methemoglobinemia from nitrate exposure; the incremental contribution of drinking water is negligible." A bombshell of a statement, indeed, but very important if the GWMA is to implement appropriate solutions for protecting ground water quality that ultimately has tangible public health benefits. The key to appropriate ground water management is buried in the NRC statement and the scientific literature behind it. Based on my review of this literature, I hypothesize that focusing solely on nitrates, as the GWMA plan now seems to do, will not benefit public health. Poorly constructed and located old wells and bacterial contamination are as much a cause of drinking water quality deterioration as are nitrates. I will develop this hypothesis further by reviewing briefly the historical linkage between nitrates and infant MHB, the alternative perspective expounded in the NRC report, and recent ground water monitoring studies useful for guiding the way to effective management that will protect BOCC Public Hearing #2 March 20, 2007 Groundwater Issues - La Pine Exhibit F public health. Historical Concerns about Well Water Nitrates and Public Health Nitrate is one of the few contaminants whose drinking water standard is solely derived from epidemiological studies. But the early studies, which date prior to 1950, were not broad scientific investigations. Rather, they were medical cases reported in the literature. Nevertheless, the current standard, 10 milligrams (mg) of nitrate-nitrogen (N) per liter (L) of water (or 44 mg/L of nitrate ion), was first proposed over 50 years ago, specifically to protect infants from MHB (NRC 1978). Patient case observations by H. H. Comly, a young resident doctor at the University of Iowa, were the first to link infantile MHB with the consumption of well water containing high levels of nitrates (Comly 1945). By the early 1940's, methemoglobin, an aberrant form of the blood protein hemoglobin but lacking the capabability of transporting oxygen, was well known. Methemoglobin is a normal constituent of blood, but its level is kept low by an enzyme that rapidly changes it back into normal hemoglobin. Certain drugs, including those containing nitrate and the related ion, nitrite, were recognized as causing an excessive build up of methemoglobin leading to MHB. As a result, when the hemoglobin levels are too low, the skin and nails turn cyanotic. During the late 1940's several other case reports echoed Comly's experiences (Bosch 1948, Walton 1951). An infant would be brought to an emergency room or clinic. The symptoms were usually the same as described by Comly, a bluish color perhaps with difficulty breathing or general lethargy. A normal color would return upon treatment with methylene blue, a dye that had been known to counteract the symptoms of MHB. The infant was sent home with parental directions to not use the well water. In many cases the water was tested and found to have excessive levels of nitrate. By 1951, enough methemoglobinemia case reports had been published to put together a review (Walton 1951). Seventeen states had reported cases of water-induced infant MHB; no state reported cases when the nitrate-N concentration was less than 10 mg/L. Examination of the data gave validity to Comly's estimation that the upper limit for nitrate-N should be no higher than 10 mg/L. In 1962, the U.S. Public Health Service recommended a nitrate-N limit of 10 mg/L. In 1974, under authority of the Safe Drinking Water Act, the EPA adopted the same standard (Fan 1996). Since first adoption of the nitrate standard, occasional medical case reports have linked nitrates in drinking water with infant MHB (Knotek 1964; Vigil 1965; Miller 1971; Shearer 1972; Super 1981; Johnson 1987). About 2000 cases of MHB with a mortality rate of 10% have been reported worldwide between 1945 and 1990 (Kross et al. 1992). In the U.S., however, cases reported from Minnesota, including deaths, still account for most of the reports. The NRC (1995) found no studies of nitrate-induced MHB since 1990. Water-induced MBH seems rather rare now, but a dearth of cases has been attributed primarily to a lack of reporting requirements, and secondarily to a lack of physician awareness. An Alternative Hypothesis of the Relationship between Nitrates and MHB The 1995 NRC report was a response to a request from the EPA for a review of the current basis of the drinking water standard for nitrate and to determine whether it remained protective of public health. The NRC concluded that limiting infant exposure to nitrate was a sensible public health measure, and given the current toxicological and epidemiological information, the 10 mg/L regulatory standard was adequate. However, the NRC pointed out that bacterial and viral infection, which can manifest as diarrhea, vomiting, and acidosis (abnormally low blood pH), are contributing factors to MHB, suggesting that nitrates are but one of several water quality parameters to consider. What is striking about the historical case reports of MHB associated with nitrates in water, is how often the infants were reported to have diarrhea and sometimes vomiting (Comly 1945, Bosch et al. 1950, Vigil et al. 1965, Shearer et al. 1972, Johnson et al. 1987, Knobeloch et al. 1993). The high nitrate content of water was frequently associated with unacceptable levels of coliform bacterial contamination. Even when bacterial contamination was not reported, the wells were often described as shallow, improperly sealed, dug structures. The well locations were usually near a barnyard, septic system, cesspool, or outhouse (Bosch et al. 1950, Miller 1971). Although no one disputes the hazard of high levels of nitrates to infants, numerous published cases have reported MHB in infants with diarrhea and acidosis but no exposure to water with elevated nitrate levels (Hegesh and Shiloah 1982, Bricker et al. 1983, Dagan et al. 1988, Smith et al. 1988, Lebby et al. 1993, Murray and Christie 1993, Gebara 1994, Hanukoglu and Danon 1996). Other studies, while not reporting whether water was a source of nitrates, have recognized that MHB may be commonly associated with diarrhea and acidosis (Danish 1983, Kay et al. 1990), and sometimes urinary tract infections (Hanukoglu et al. 1983). Other contaminants in water could also lead to MHB, confounding the role of nitrates. For example, a recent case of MHB in a Wisconsin infant was attributed to elevated copper levels (Knobeloch et al. 1993). The infant was symptomatic with vomiting and diarrhea, and the well water contained 10 mg/L nitrate-N after going through a treatment process known as reverse osmosis. Why Would MHB Be Associated with Diarrhea? By the 1960's, when the nitrate drinking water standard was developed, the formation of methemoglobin and the extraordinary susceptibility of infants was well known. Biochemical studies had shown that nitrite, not nitrate, interacted with hemoglobin to produce methemoglobin. Infants were susceptible because they lacked enough of an enzyme that commonly changes the methemoglobin back to its normal, oxygen carrying form. Infants under 6 months old also carried a form of hemoglobin that could be more easily affected by nitrite than older children and adults. Because the infant stomach was not nearly as acid as an adult stomach, nitrate-transforming bacteria thrived and changed the nitrate into nitrite. In addition to formation in the stomach, nitrite is produced from nitrate in the salivary glands. Nitrate moves from the stomach into the small intestine where it is absorbed into the blood. As the blood circulates through the salivary glands, some of the nitrate is changed to nitrite and both ions are secreted into the mouth and are then swallowed again. About 5% of the total ingested nitrate is believed to be converted to nitrite (NRC 1995). Nitrate is not changed to nitrite in the blood. Nitrite tends to pass out of the stomach more slowly than nitrate. It can be slowly absorbed from the intestine, but significant amounts are eliminated in the feces. During infection, however, the intestinal lining becomes irritated and inflamed, causing it to be more leaky to the nitrite. One study has shown that diarrhea speeds up the passage of nitrite from the stomach into the intestine (Witter et al. 1979). Thus, it is probable that digestive tract infections allow a lot more nitrite absorption into the blood than when the intestine is healthy. Another reason that bacterial and viral infections of the digestive or urinary tract could be associated with the onset of MHB is also related to the body's ability to synthesize nitrate and nitrite (Green et al. 1981). If water nitrates are low, about 45% of the total nitrate exposure is due to this endogenous synthesis (NRC 1995). Studies in rodents have shown that bacterial infection causes an increase in nitrate and nitrite synthesis by specialized cells of the immune system (Wagner et al. 1983, Stuehr and Marletta 1985). The newly synthesized nitrite can be excreted into the blood by these cells and thus become available to bind with hemoglobin. Incidence of Bacterial and Nitrate Contamination of Ground Water The flurry of MM case reports in the late 1940's occurred at a time when synthetic mineral nitrogen fertilizers were somewhat of a novelty. Synthetic fertilizer use did not start to increase until the end of the 1950's. Yet, the wells involved in the early MHB cases were highly contaminated with nitrates. Ironically, as annual synthetic fertilizer use increased from about 3 metric tons in 1960 to 10 metric tons by 1980 (Puckett 1995), the number of published MHB reports related to nitrates in well water diminished. Instead, the majority of reports seemed to be making a connection between the coincidence of infant diarrhea and MHB, suggesting that bacterial contamination may be just as important to manage as nitrate content. Two recent ground water monitoring reports emphasize the widespread nature of bacterial contamination. A statewide survey of well water quality in Nebraska showed that 19% of rural wells were contaminated with greater than 10 mg/L nitrate-N, and 15% had bacterial contamination (Gosselin 1997). Wells contaminated with bacteria generally had low nitrate concentrations unless the wells were constructed of brick, concrete or tile rather than the more acceptable PVC plastic or steel. A province-wide survey in Ontario, Canada showed 14% of drinking water wells with nitrate-N above 10 mg/L and 34% with unacceptable bacterial contamination (Goss et al. 1998). Bacterial contamination decreased with increasing distance of a well from feedlots or exercise yards on livestock farms. Monitoring wells installed inside agricultural fields still had significant levels of bacterial and nitrate contamination, which was attributed to application of manure (Rudolph et al. 1998). Lessons Learned Failure to thoroughly understand the nature of a public health problem can lead to failed attempts at management. A survey of newspaper articles indicates that growers tend to be the scapegoats for nitrate contamination and, by association, infantile MHB. Is it unreasonable to assume that the articles may reflect the attitudes of policy makers or at least influence them? Allowing policy to myopically focus on nitrates is causing hazards to be overlooked. Bacterial contamination can lead to infection, acidosis, diarrhea, and vomiting, known risk factors for MHB in infants. Surely, very high levels of nitrates in water are not desirable and increase the risk of MHB, but simply mandating reduced nitrogen inputs is a simplistic solution to a potential public health problem. By focusing only on nitrates, and ignoring potentially widespread bacterial contamination, poor well construction and undesirable locations, the GWMA may mollify the policy makers, but ultimately do little to protect public health. Return to Table of Contents for the October 1998 issue References: Bosch, H. M., A. B. Rosenfield, R. Huston, H. R. Shipman, and F. L. Woodward. 1950. J. Am. Water Works Assoc. 42:161-170. Bricker, T., L. S. Jefferson, and A. A. Mintz. 1983. J. of Pediatrics 102:161. Comly, H. H. 1945. J. Am. Medical Associ. 129:112-116. Dagan, R., F. Zaltastein, and Gorodischer. 1988. Eur. J. Pediatr. 147:87-89. Danish, E. H. 1983. J. of Pediatrics 102:162-161. Fan, A. M., and V. E. Steinberg. 1996. Regulatory Toxicol. and Pharmacol. 23:35-43. Gebara, B. M., and M. G. Goetting. 1994. Clinical Pediatrics 370-373. Goss, M. J., D. A. J. Rudolph, D. L. Barry. 1998. J. Contaminant Hydrology 32:267-293. Gosselin, D. C., J. Headrick, R. Tremblay, X. -H Chen, and S. Summerside. 1997. Ground Water Monitoring and Remediation 17:77-87. Green, L. C., K. R. De Luzuriaga, D. A. Wagner, W. Rand, N.Istfan, V. R. Young, and S. R. Tannenbaum. 1981. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 78:7764-7768. Hanukoglu, A., and P. N. Danon. 1996. J. Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition 23:1- 7. Hegesh, E., and J. Shiloah. 1982. Clinica Chemica Acta 125:107-115. Johnson, C. J., P. A. Bonrud, T. L. Dosch, A. W. Senger, K. A. Busch, D. C. Kilness, and M. R. Meyer. 1987. J. Am. Medical Assoc. 257:2796-2797. Kay, M. A., W. O'Brien, B. Kessler, R. McVie, and E. R. B. McCabe. 1990. Pediatrics 85:589-592. Knobeloch, L., K. Krenz, and H. Anderson. 1993. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) 42:217-219. Knotek, Z., and P. Schmidt. 1964. Pediatrics 78-83. Kross, B. C., A. Ayebo, and L. J. Fuortes. 1992. American Family Physician 46:183-188. Lebby, T., J. J. Roco, and E. L. Arcinue. 1993. Am. J. Emergency Medicine 11:471-472. Miller, L. W. 1971. J. Am. Medical Assoc. 216:1642-1643. Murray, K. F., and D. L. Christie. 1993. Journal of Pediatrics 122:90-92. National Research Council (NRC). 1995. Nitrate and nitrite in drinking water. National Academy Press, Washington D. C.63 pages. Rudolph, D. L., D. A. J. Barry, and M. J. Goss. 1998. J. Contaminant Hydrology 32:295- 311. Shearer, L. A., J. R. Goldsmith, C. Young, O. A. Kearns, and B.R. Tamplin. 1972. American Journal of Public Health 62:1180. Smith, M. A., N. Shah, J. S. Lobel, and W. Hamilton. 1988. Am.J. Pediatric Hematology/Oncology 10:35-38. Stuehr, D. J., and M. A. Marletta. 1985. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 82:7738-7742. Super, M., H. De V. Heese, D. MacKenzie, W. S. Dempster, J.Du Plessis, and J. J. Ferreira. 1981. Water Research 15:1265-1270. Vigil, J., S. Warburton, W. S. Haynes, and L. Kaiser. 1965.Public Health Reports 80:1119-1121. Wagner, D. A., V. R. Young, and S. R. Tannenbaum. 1981. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 80:4518-4521. Walton, G. 1951. Am. J. Public Health 41:986-996. Witter, J. P., S. J. Gatley, and E. Balish. 1979. Science 204:411-413. Return to Table of Contents for the October 1998 issue N 1 ( s X r t J N ^ h M~ , o N a f ~ G in _ ln c ~ N l rn ,A `d E ( ) a O a. N rZ l?r . a -0 -0 L Av~ o o w 3 -0 c N C `J "o ff ~ p ~ , b a . J i a N j D (D ~ c~ 0 Ej ij (0 ~ a 9 ° ww o` como o O O w E N 45) N O _ ~ . . N 6 0) 0 C O w L Z VI h ry C C rr C ) s I n R) y ~ U C C: m . V j O O O N V p { 00 L (D A? c - L L) :3 m 3 J SZ - C CD =3 C .O ~ Y N ~ fl. 41J' A C~ ~ ~ 1J (0 O A N w, 1 ~ G~ J r 'w OL~ T) ~ S xx 75 c~ (D r N4 0 0 C) c c`o E a E c+-i~ io aci ( ° 0 2 c E ~ r 2 ' x . y a, C: OL C: 0) C , ~ ~ N Q> O v) N UJ 4) t: J V ' iCJ c o O ~ ~ c N :r -r- C a~ 4 _ CU • c j o N E y C m E ) co x O )TS Z+ 0 0 O 0) a t0 Z 4k S Q ^ N r i .9 C: c An o o E X- L > O .U N O C U - O (0 ~ • O 2 O 6 N N 'r n 0 CL CD (D O O - d IT O j > V ~ O .C N w C ~ Z U O i - o c cu 0 0 0 U 0).C C U J C t _ N O C -0 . -0 c c -O O o c CL a~UU c am p A 1 ' ~ ~ b ~ O ° A ~ ( a \ ~ `Y N M t f In CO I, c0 Co j r N M I n (D I I- c p O) O N M U') C O 1 - 00 0) O N CLq N -tt ct bA a U oL N ~ O j ~zc7w c ° (n ro a) c p o t c ai o a o n ' o n" o ~ ~ o> N a~pu ~ i ~ s Cr a ~-0 'j) -0 Cl) ~N-0 N2(D m~ E d o -0 C) Op cu C) > o E o N v ' a mL = O Z 'X •O c m u c -o 5 -E -2 C-S m Z°) c d V w c .a (OU T a -lCD a) w Qi L t1 i S o ~ 2 cn C -c y c0 u> d l~ ? ~1 ~ Z5' ` w o o a~ cu r 1 rv i 3 Cr 1~ 1 S- FO LJI v o L 3w r- w o > -0 a ~v i - p~ O ~Q N a lb r rA i t o _3 ~ d R L c0 V C f0 E a) c O O 3 (M w a) y ~ L _ O N a) o cB E o o U °y 1 v c ac OC+. ~ mN-2 c a 0 t ( ' 0 h t d ` t > 2 2 0 -O ~ L 3 - • f, ) 17 /2 a J ` p- - .2 c c c ol: LII ~ ~ 1I ` 'j J E . ° CL a) o LM 00 i~' ca v c } r7 ca E c o 'C O E x ~ L > •U Q) O O m 0 a> 2 O O L N y U Q O O O O O m 0 O N Y Q w O 0 0 C d _ Q a y _0 Z U O c C U J U N f o a~ CCU: c CD N y C cn O C C p 0 O L2 O O O 0 w N u C) c Q cn t , fl 4 uw ~ V^( N 4M NN V ~ `6 ~ 9 T- N M U l) C O I ~ 0 0 O O r N M d' Cfl I ~ c o d ) O r N c o d• I n C O I I. co O O <Z-) iri ~ i~ ~ , ~ R t• (D o o" N ac) °o aL N o o U w V , M U V u M IL v ~ t- ir ca m p a) N V G <r k IK .r -0 75 wp -p C O CU , `4 C J L a N C V V YCfl (II r E C 1o~ao ! W ° o co c" o h oa) o E ~ w f ~ O N r a~ ~ -0 N 0) os, z° , in 'CO (o) v N 0om 72 a) - E a ' a 3~ 0 0 W CL > + lie J- - a O 3 O L oc M M :3 _ R J O cU ~Q cn Er- O c V L L :3 C) CU o a) L O.Z N S o a) c O Td d , r1 o R 1~ 13 , ~ ~ ~0 q V 4- m 4°i m a J N U o ( N {l 1n \ M 4 L a V c ca co a) C O 3 m O ~ t a) a 1 _ . 3 t0 -O L « O O S ~l d 1 r % ' v o c" (2u = to Q lJ 4 C U) '00 1 Q O a>) mu) 2 - V r- CD `l O m e c a) a) c a m y k, j - 1 1 1 y a a) x "1 4 1 _SZ . c y) Z r C: N E ai ca. 2 O X ~ O O V _ C :Q U ~ N O f0 ~~NOp ~ ~ N ~ N 1 Q O m 0 1 cN~ CL Y Q~j a) c O . _ o N 7 ` O lo z U O c c o ~ U O o o U U) u N ~ ~ ! a) C -O C c 'O Q O ~ CD U U c a N v ~ ^v © ~ J ~O ~ o S' ~ O ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ D 0 r IN N M d U) ( D f ~ c o Ic y) O r N M d' t o C p I - 0 0 0-) O r - N C 7 ' IT Ct) (p I l- c o O) o ~ " r' r - N N N N N N N N N N M , ~1 0 0 ( A ID s° N y 6 - r Q ~ M °q "n M 1 tti` ^ " N W w M b" Ln o " ' t P1 ~ d C i~ ( f , , M '1 1 U1 r (D 0 , e ° a w a ~ -2 t c d I~ r C N n T ~ r' N r Q) co a~ N 5. v ~ U) o 11 aa) io 3 a) (0~ o > o o ~ © ~ 0 p O C~ -a ° _o c C. w 2 m co m CD a E > N O L N ID O Z c= 0 0 v a a L) cu 0 N~ Z •C Q = ` C R- 0- v l~ q. v a E a) Q ° o ~ ~ J ~J z~_ in 0 O IV C D > A~,~a a 3a 3 (CDO co (V Vt (n a) D C: E IN C: ~R d: 2 cu = a) m >1 " ,C O` E J N m \ v C: cu v a ~ a c o rn •L- w CD L _ 11 ~ ~ O 0 CU C: CL 0 o ) 2 t V t r ~ N Q _CY) > ocuu) N Y A 4! to e ` LLl - O 0 a, C c a) v c i L V N c Q C O C a V x V 0 .a v h O V n` 1.1 y } Q J I.1 VW! tl2 v. aD oQ,Z m ~ E ~3~oE.x . U O j O O C CJ 'a m r 2 6 .N a) U a0 a) 0 Q O 00 Q ~ h: r9 O = - O m ` ) a3 O O O ( r co ao) - O - 6 O O C C 0 M " CL C O O O O` _a) a) a) i ac i o o" ALJ o .q ~ p d D 0 i a a -C -C a) m ~ ° ~ ► N 4 c o ~ Q rr, ~ R1 n, ~ cd c ` ► Z e c ~ N Ch • cr l (fl t f~ 100 O r N Ch ~ l() t0 ! r r r ~ r r r ~ 9J r r ~ r O N r N N M N N d' lf N N ) C O N ti 00 N CV O N O M N , V V k/ L~ l _ ti d \ I 9 Cr t' J t N \9 ~y C) m 14 72 h ) C) _ C N N E o o 01 , O N j 3 d G r I" r r r N r /v N o o N the Q" aT y ` _ o .a ch o 3v ' cn 0 d C) ~ ~ ~ 7~j 70 CU cD E ~ -w o p m O ? > N O w E N ~ ~ O w \ - p O O C L o , i C C O O u C V U U N o C CL : Yi ci E5 0 O o ~ •C •U C ~ J -0:3 L d •C L V N 3 C O..o. 3 N N 3 o f0 J , I~ 3 r J o . V O co 3 ) ' i-C c°a c X 0 ~ n ca U) 4) z. =3 0 co =cn co 4) •N O C y co d ' O Z N © O . . T 13 CU t3 a i c O o cb d - ~ J E _ y U CU 0 0 y c o a ~ ' V i w E a~mpOCa v ' ino C N O O N C C O C • U O a J q C3 ~ J 4 ci r s. ~ o O c0 N Q rn a rn y y cn _ l J } o O cm-0o~'3 m 0~C g: s Lo N O O C a~ c d E" 0r E ~ ~ z d y ° m~ ~ a~ " ° m z - ; c = • o aim L ^'C O E x o O C ~ U O ~ o 2 o to N o cD O U, 0 CL 0 o rn0 a .C 04 t ! U ' o = .n o m d a Z 00 c C U J L ~'*S C N N N N N _ ` 2:, C fn - 3 0 00 o 76 =Q~ A r © 9 0 0 ® ~ ~ ` ~ ~ © o LLLL a~ 0 z z- i. o n 5n C V) r- N M I n C D 1 ~ 00 O O r N M lf) CD 1- O O O - N M "t U') CD I- QO O O r- N N N N N N N N N N M ` v qW fqcl Y-y O to 0 CY) 05 5 CL (P o co n co as m~ aci 'a O o d G ap N mm co cU aLU o ra 0 0 m m ca o a) a) o E (D a) N N c~C: J a, 0 CL 0,.0 7E -2 CL o 0 > 4 h a E o 1 no c =~S v :s E = - V V N a ~ 0 c m 75 g43 4:4 M CL a3 N d~ oc CD a) E; m 75 m.~T,ooE m v c ~ `u I-- a 0 0 :t CD E a) ,.o 0 Ct E9a) nl+ p 0 co RCN rnN v l~ Q E > O y m a 0.-0 c a) a) d J m c: crn 0 \ vl . o. rn m 1 ur 1 N c CL 0 ~ p) 0) R z,E c Z m _ C a) M C E O E.x r o > c t Ce V) 0 co 'n CU 0 `0 L i N U 2 2 Q co to e a o cC)75- \ I N w Z, o 0) o m ~ Z 0 o = ~ C C U J V y 'N CU N O c c O 0 co O O o `O © n t r. 1, r 0 C) ma~acim/ mss= ► ► v "4a ^:°0 0~rgpO t~ ►c- 3 Fes- `;```S ► ' N ' ° r ► Q I MINIM lC) O CO O O rI~ d LIO !~IOfICA O N!C+)I~t l() C, ti NIO!O - i`- ITS. IrIN.NjNINIC~iCj cli N!Njco l1` v1 ( ~ ` ^ 1 t tic th ~ - L O = m l kf 1 t, ~ 3 C 0 N a I L.. o ari a r\ ~ n r 5 4 ' ~ n ~ -o N ^ s n r 4` tl ` n a a C 42 Q C o 2~ CO) o Cn ~ E ~ o ~ ° F S m m~ o ~ E ) L a) N . a) L p Z v>o.=-C Z tJ ~ L) ~ m ,r te d J Q ? ~ v X .U o 0 0 m Y . ` U 'p o "Cc) a-- a nO Q30 N J a co - E a) A? a = v 1 ,A . v d N w e o b ` u + i C C 3 o ' 4 L C o a) - c.OC m~ m~.Q E - 0 z 3 ° o N y m 4 N n Ll . n in N c rt n ~ N rn a) C = y ' M A ~ 1 ca o Ca) y p m K ) k p , ! L C C1 _J _ t; E 2 a) e p a) ' N CM -5 c C :a Q c > o o h „rd o C, CM 0 -L-- L a ~.X o (a S 3 ~~o Z a cu a), m N E '57< 0 w S" a ~ (o N - J ` m m o 0 0 U) D N U Q L C a) d O m 0 C o a) o 'Fu m l~ V U z L) C C U J 8 t6 V j~ - I N a) v> - v C C p.0 - 0 co v C) 0 0 0 0 U U EL U) !~f a a ^ 4Pl 40 L L L L a) w` ~ . F- (r r I N_ M I n CO OJ 6) Q N M cY In Co ! I ~ . c ri o O) rlT-~ O N, r ( N~N y M cY ININ LO C iN fl 1 NI( - c VI o f ! ' N!NI J MI -4 -14 co c ! O V cD ! c m N a. 7 A% A (n E O + O q~ M T" TO C a~ o a co N C~ Q' o C~ C- 4. 3 0 0 p ~ ~ - ) ip e O Q ~ ~ O N -a N (,o ~ o~~C6 a > a).2 E N a) N a) Q 0 m L Z c ~n c a) 0 cu _ U -E '2 a co p 3~ °0 E a) A Qa) ~r d .S ~ : O 3 . - :3 D o - r s ~ OL ~ U N cu C O c a~ L U n iA L cn s a YY C _N cn d ` l v J ~l O C c > p T U O J t ( ~l in ~p O V c f0 a) C o 3 C 2 y J° y+ p O ` N o ' r Yl C ' a) caw cu _ E o x L q3 C " Nt LL d ' ~ ~ l c- 0) t6 O t0 N n U Q' p c -C u d c ' S i ~ V ( V c m m o co y c °)rno - Z 4 , - G 4 4 ~ . V G \ N~°o~ o ~ ~ 3 ~ A . a (D a~ o c ~ c h ~4 c6 o io O E x A (L) O > U 41~ T O U 1 C (0 O O - , OW 1 .N ~ N ~ O C 0 N Q - ` Z U o U c a J 0 ~ s O -C U a) L N cu a) y.Ti C cn - C c o N c 1 " 7 0 0 0 O -Fu a) U U Q ! 0 ' l- Q ^ `'V Q ^V 1 S Q © d O L L ^ z N M V' U') O ti ap a) O r N M ,t Lo CO f-- 00 O O N Cr) I U) O r- w m O r c- N N N N N N N N N N Co 0 p Vr 4 N m co c N, \0 N (c3:)h~ Nn. v\ .10 oci- (6 L a~ ` . o (L) n J o (o -0 m a~ CO (o QW o ~ c N N t0 (II OOp N p w E b o t N N 'p CA O O t Z C N C :k N •o O N V C , J r N O V U ' C a o p C U c-0 ~T p to a3: Q Op Q. N F+ Q V J w Z C t4 y CL c =7 3 o . a~ c o 0 c M ~ Q. ~ ~ ~ Q ~ tj a~ T m 0 L _ L!. y 1, o ~M~ df C7 C). M E d N r cn 76 -E a) p C 4) J> m ` V to V 1. a c cu U 0 0 3 rn~ N i _j S f~'flU CD: (gyp O m( L o C: CL C: 1 O m C ; I ; L N co V) > o um) U) cmn._Q-3 <y NA O~ rn c c of m m N.~ ~QO.~ d I Z . co c: E a~CD >1 0 VN (D a) oCD Z c cco 'Z' E (D 16 C: c rn o u=) o -8 E U N m N T 2 O' m N ) c, CD 75 p N N- Z- I 0 Z O 4 C (6 O N O U O C C J U N l4 ' to C O C z (ff N w O (o C C~ O C 7 7 Q O 00 (o w UU C Q3 C1 C a fJ O -C -C I r ,h T- I N M~ LO O N O O N M In O r` 00 O O r N M ct I (n (O ti M I O O ~ r ~ ~ r' r" r ~ N N N N N N N N N I N+ M nn c N ~ ~ ~ V SO tV~ ~ N1 ! V ~ N (o O }f L o b a N o C~, on o aai M Q ~o _ -0 75 S J ~ S41, k: 1 i j vc oCU ~ c ~-0 Co Q) r E C~ ~ -o -'ou o ✓ 0 CCU Mr- (co, ~ a, o'5~Z c W r., •`n g v c u a 5 ti V U V Q O c LO C U T l ~I a N° 3 p 0 w ` J R ~,o +zo rnm ~ 14- 'a c (0 N Q Q . t cW . = ma y j Q co Q O y 0 r, J 1 c o 'D -1 t E a 0 0 3_ r a~i E J V V ' ~ c =o L f/1 (6 O CO 4O O q C ^ ~ j rr a C: C ^^11 cy) n^ m 2 Q o 3 a \ 1 2 - o CI) . c C" 0 M E 9 E 1 G1 p c E ! tt x O f~ U O O(M Z l C: c O fII 'aJ CIO 1 O > U ° 0 cu N m o 0 U fl O O O 0 d O m N O = O (6 7 + z U 0 o U 3 a,. 4 r y - C m a~ c o ° D CL O c 5 o o O o UU c a~ ~ nr r r I- I- 3 f- R i 1 v i ' 1 o r ~ r N M 't Lo ° ti ° rn O r r r N r M r t7 r r ° r r` r Oo r rn r O N r N N N M N me' CN LO N (0 IN 04 N N N N N O M vi ICI N~~Ifi I`!~~MI ^ j✓oi "1~. tiz, CD ti) i.~, I llj i i~1 c C) (D C: 1CL ` SIN I -j~ r- , ' r~R, ; k. X~ Q) O V I' _-v c?~ -a U) 0 ~~01 I I I I j I I i I l I w ° c~ i i co Cc, O I ; > g o l i l I I I I I v am) C I I I i ~S 1 C C C CL C: > Q tn.~ Q OIL ryi~I O C v I ! 1= N .a' Q O CID 2 'co -Cc) O U J O o c) l h t c I I~-I I -I 'E,~. S; c E o ° M (D O Ol to +-O rSj ~iI ~1 VAC - to c- I I~ Q C ('3 CT, L i vl , , ~ I ~ ~ - ~ . b r ~"Y ,o~ + ; 1" , I~~, Q \I •rl n~ V , t Q) 0 0), Z 75 - 7-1 r- C _ X ! I -0 m a~ T, .cn a I j ! i i j ! U Qom` L I r :`I O O a) ° t I CJ j o 0:) Co I 4- t Q- N~~ I I ~ I' _ ~ ~ O J I 15 v -0 -0 c O U Iw 'L N co LIB f - I I j_1 c c ORv-Ifn I O _1 I I - - ! - - Q) N O O O i I rJ T - - -..v.~ CV i i~ I e J r, t~ z, I 1 !s V , Cf ' ru 4 v 0 (6 0 'n 'm rf) to c L v i 4. , C N ~ N o a cfl r ) v l f 0 o a~ c co N p N -Oi N d r Pi e lhl' Q L ` '6 U -O Q) ` 7 - 3 v © c4j © _ ~ O w c CD y N t° co a d c c > 0 E N O u ti Cn a ) rno ~"Z : - ,G 4~ J c cn _ c c w Av x o a~ o co W U n ' nf. ~ 0-12 O .C •V C 00 00 ~ a E Q) -4 QA 1~ 1 2 Y V~ Y (n 0 0 0 Q 0) M CL C: C: v Jq v c co z ' n a v -J G co (n L = 0) (0 7Z ZVI J ~ ~=n~~ L ~ N fl O q `~1 l r ~ ~ Al a O ~ ~ J 0 c t0 0) O H o _0 3 rn_ ~ a) J _ N o L I V d y Z _ N co V) ~ c c a ~,~y Y o ` J V cc ~ ~rn 5 o)("n ~ c p a m m IL o l o • c o w : aS> ~ o co . c a a - 2 E N w O £ S ~ x L, CL - R op z O o 1 : 0 c c m po w .C- C E x O O .C 0 0.- > O _T U i i J C V U 2 N O: N N O (n U O N O r 1 0'.2 O C N - V O c O . Z U o ca o 0(.) c L 7 r y o rnL N N c N ~ N y = - O C w j ? Q O 0 o r r =3 o 0 a C) C) O O O N Q i 1 1 ~ /y,~~ If f, J 1 9 I- F- 3 H ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ R O ' t ~ rA~ ' C ` c rt N M t!~ (O t~ 00 O O r N r M to (O - I- 00 O r O N N N N M N d N (n 04 (0 N f- N 00 N O N O M M ~ O \ y + 1 ~ ► 4 t - ` r,) m vi N t m o U) 4) \ s e C) c kr 1 m a i c ) N tv- 'v Vi N w ; a r , Iz - l 5 o O co N ~ s Q ° - ° v o > c , , -0 2 m : 3 ~w 3-0 ° 5 Q ~ o o o p C: 5 o (0 ` n- d 9 C c O N O O O O O O w E 0 N Y ~p N N a 1~ ~p Ct' r- ci Z %1 rx~~ v _f C (D a) I c ° m 0 U V j 0 0 N - J s ` U O v b CL CL Z o0 J v J . E CD ~_4) N = O O - 0 r c m a) • ia.n ~-Q O ~ o o (d to m v M d n OZ L w N c6 d [ v O C ~Nvi 1 ' ' d 1 1 0 75 CL 4 'R o a i e N p " Y l Cr Q © J . v t ) J > m p v Q 1!1 E v c m m c y E o 03m_ wa) _ J E cc) -coo 0 E ` J , C - C c _O ti 6J N V ly Q C O N co N _0 a 0 c m0 r _ J E N. = o m L ~ 'b 91 a ~ z o co_ E w c m y p E X d O d c U O N 0 O N O2 9 •N U c \ a0 O O O O mO O c , C - N . C O ~ O _ • - O N 'n ~ Z U o L & C C U -J IC L m CCU -.0 C on = D c c a O O N c =3 :3 - CL = O O o ffi U U C ® C O O .O C . -C N N O O t s s t a~ a; r J v Q 'J N `O `J w N M V U O c o I O O N M I U.) C O C \i- I , 0 O ti C * n O r ~ - N N N N N N N N N N M I v m Q I C `g Q q m \ co (D a r~ d s , C) L M IP ~ N N D. co o o t r" m~ 41 c r M QO) a) -C L-0 -0-0 75 ow o z a> 3 coo ti ~ fl q S ~ A m t; CO co ' u o EC%3a- o a w c c co m co m c) > E N N y a) ~ F O O O)O ~s Z v C: U) O Y U Y ) V a U 0 N O co O a CL T 'c O O IS U p a 3 o a R c: E r • r • U Z e0 N Q c 2) o 3y~-~2 ~ cco a) C7 % ro~ Co 3 ' . O-w~~m~ r= a~ m m d o h ~ , ~ ~ n N 'Yl sa , PQ A 'A Z T a o c > O J 0 L N R U O d -CL V c co O E Q) a) 0 a) . h R NJ .J O c cl- c) c ; E o a~ w O o, t c ro 0 a) O c O ~ rn m rn y y n d ~ J Q c a>i 2 co co - 0 O a v '2 V d J i ° C a a) Q) a 0 d V n y li J ,v m E rn=cL 0c 15 c d X o %Z ) N O ~ m a U a) ° Z y c c co' E a) co. a O E x L . U ` > O o > v .r , 1 C 0 O D 0 p r 0 O + N N n ` ` N ) N o: O , e S i O c : R O O c L c C C U J U R ' c O (D v Y J n 1 N N t0 w a) w 4--C N- O ' ' O c c v p O a) U U c n cn w ~ rJ r ~ ..,t c ~ t 4 Y a) a> o a~ -C (D k ~ ~ N M ~ ln cO t` 00 rn O r N r M I - V) - tD r-- r 00 r 0) r N N N N M N N tn N Cfl N ti N 00 N 0) N O M IN 0 cu c ° \J C) c y N a 3 E p w a (fl o (D a o O N ft` 75 Y n~ ~ J J %1 3- ~ e ~ o o © ® o o fd C~~O yw(D ~ ~ c : ~ (6 oomcu mo a s > N .O ~ E N W 'O O N L m 0.3 C L Z C c o (D ' ~ TT r ! ~ U l0 U y9 ~ v a1 ~ ~Y . C V.x O~ a) oC a?' 0 \ S M V ~ ' o N c U C ` 3~ pp rl J ` J \ o. y n E 0 nt U A Z3 L , I D O ' C In :3 0 7 m a : C/ J J C > a u 2 n C . 0 ~ 0 _ cn -0 O p p (o cn L iti D , .12 J, AI ''1 . Ve O j a O C> O > cyo v i' ty U c m 0 a) c ° S w O m d1 S + (y/~~ \ O 00 U 0) S ~ ~ ti ) o cu a) ' Q F? u J J 2 ~ ~ - 0 a) t- v o c 0) C, Cc: In a 0) o a) a~ 0) 7 p C ~ -1 im m Ea C to c Y C N '0 oEx a) O > U w D j CD N ; - \ 0 C 2 o ° O i i a cn U n o .o o 00 rn0 a~ C C~ V J r O- L O (0 7 0 d ` JJ Z U O CD c V J J C C L "O C C O p O C , O O 00 ` O In ES r a) a) a) -C-C 3F-~ R E ~j t M ~ 1 4 > o 1 1 + YJ . y ,-2!' C'4 M It In (D ti 00 O O N CO 'It LO CD r 00 r- O O N - N N N M N N (n N (D N 1~ N ao N (A N O M a lv~ G J t~ '1 4 cu CD ~ ~ m 3 1M 11 ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 c ~ N a~ N a , 0) ;f C 3 a .:c 0 fl 0 M ph M ~ P t`~ r ~ ~ t~j Vl h ~ ~2 a) a) c o .a (n o m F- 4 I) ~ J a 7a) 3: O - (n q ® a N (O O N ( tf r' E 0 o -a ~ N 0 N O i N m o E o N ~ y a) N V .O O ~a '7 ~ ~i1 rn O -C Z cu 1~ d - v S U a o in C U V N O V U O m U Q ~ ~ J . ~~a 'p o v. j \ a = cn a 3m0 0 L y a C: . , 'o 3 .L o 5 1 c.o -co wo m o j s o ~S (n ~ic`u n 0 a _ m ~ G y y S d t r Z L 0 m.~ ( n m E v ^ , a C: (D ai o> ~ n1 0 ~t 4r n ~ O U J i c V cO E J cts O o 3 m o ~ _ "j E c 5 ~ al m N m a) M ` J VI v W a Oc a) a) o w 79 o \ 1-9 G, i~Z o cn a) coo r - m a) o -0 o) o (D J C U) CL 0 oz ~ t C: It I _ E m co i C to C Y ~ 0 O E o U O N O ~ ~ (u -6(0 0) "o to U o_ 00 a) O v e Q O Z T O J . - C N OQ a) ~ C ,JJ ~ C7~ M 10 as ~ U I (D L co -0 0 Z3 UU0 a ° 0 6 `P o o a p r ~ ~ a~ a) m m a~ -c- I--~Iz S. ° N N , n • 1 c1 r N c o m <D I 00 ( m lo cc r r (N,4 M t U) • cfl r M m O N r f\L N SV M N dT N N M f~l r 0 00 O O _ . - - - - - - - r._ . . . 4 N. _ N. M _ ~ E ~ A : 1 ~ ~ C t ~ I ~ ~ I V) c 1 M E ► ► ' I ~ CD 0 o - C14 cn Ma n. 7 C 'Fa o 7 N ~ o~ " A ~ AIR MV a 0 0 w 4- c a. ` S 'am ' ~ ~ ! r i r ' n om o m N v t9' ~ (T r Q-o a a) ~ o o w O m H '1, r ~ \1 Q Q 0 0 Ci Q (D Cn •0 m 0 r Q p ` 11 i C C (6 d m cu m c, > 0w E ci C;) O L Z 1 T c, J 114 2 a \ O c 2: rn 4d tw w • m U C V j OU 0 0 C 9 _ y . C V 2- O O L 00 E (D 2 :s -k = O w N 4 \A lzg N 0) ~n c c 3 N:° o m S , a 2 q C4 C Co N _ a ~ v s r.0~~z~. d v ~w ocm~m 0 6-- ' 1A 3 0 3 o m in N C E C) ? 0 O to - rt O b O a' O N w a 2 J,) %j M r ~i ~ C`t c O cu m o N L U c m m E 0 c E a 1 ~j ' V r V 0 O _o m_ y a) ca c o o E i2 o:' d I ► t ~ ' III I I U L ) N v v J' c~ ao ~c 2 o ~ ~v I a ~ 9 ( i ~ `x <U ' e0 .S O m 0 0 ~ 4 , >n V Q w 0 b a 3 - : a S ( "t N m 0 E ' C 0 0 O ° v C c rno m > . 1 l lt IJ t ~ co c c N n a X rn ~ 0 1 L l 0 0 0 0orn m Z CC C15 IP, , w C: Q E a -C C: c D o E x 0 O • > } 0 w c m O ° (D O 1 V1 N U Vl U d co) 0 0 O O C) O 5+ \ C_ N O. w UD O - r' , . -0 m ZU Uo (oo o o w C C U J Mn C r m 0' Y U Y C 0_ ` rn 'O C C "O ~ \ V E 1 O 7 0 0 0 O N ` 0 U U C OL 0 0 0 0 e q m I fy N M tf) CO I~ 00 am O r - N M r 'It - r- (O r- 00 O O N N N N M N ~ N LO N (D N I-- 04 00 04 0)1 N 0 M cr- a (n 4) c N), N a 'I dl v ~ CO ~ ~ C~ iS a 13C ) R 4". r C o ~ api ~ c a • ' r ~ v ~ ~ ~ ~ ' cs-' ~ (s x O co O N ►v ` N V L D_ O c a) c\`' ¢Y 3 - Q p cn N N (D r O c Q w c: C (O CU cu m 1 ~ E N o Z ~ rn : ' O c cn C 4 ) l S 0 C (0 U cc mC: ~i y 4a 7E '2 Q ~ C CL To 0 0 a K a-) Z c V - lo C1 Z in O rn2 c i zoa o a Cu ~ N (D d D _ k J V C/) 5 fn C f/7 L G U C d O c 7 t. 0 > O J N t4 O U m 0 3 o a _ c _ E ads a ; 3 w - 0 N (0 N Om ' •J \T c V ) O y fC p N ~p O N 0 N ~ 4 ~ ---4 u 9- ~ ~ Q > 0 y y co d ] ~ ~ d c u ti c , m US (D o p Z IN) a E N ;C O c V c ' ` C ' , 00) ( xi) z m 4 ~q o z l cu 'E cr y 7 'c O - X p p C O > U N O C p U O ~p d (U O ~ O ~ tA N a J O U p p N 75 O O 1 ~ _ F` C: d Y 'Fu 4) ) (D co C O O r , J U • Ln J fn fA . N N 'a C C p N 7 0 60 2 -Fu Q J / O ® ~l c) NUU ~ fl.N a~ a~ m w Ct N C y~ N o (S 2 N v r N M 'cY LO (O I- O O O N M O ti M O r- O N N N N 1 M 2 N 1 04 (O N t~ N 00 04 O N O M U Q .sk VI) t I \ O a l a Iz l i ~ co d o d" fl 1. m m v c ` ° a 1JJ o ,Q rn o 04 ~ sn M y L o o v, o o S q .~~~~3~ n ECY 3~~0 aw c c cD m ca E N 0 w N w O (u) a) 'O L O 0 .C t z I I ~ 19L (D O c t 0 co a) . ` O U d >,•C = U 2, L O . a) .-°o ti 0. a3 a E°-'a ~ J L Y U IJ a~ Z oZca 3 ~ Q a o T .a L 3 ~ O aoi o m C l C7 a ° a Cl) a~ M U) O c > "p4) ca 0 0 J N w (D V O c~0 E N c a 0 0 3 m_ ~ m O ~ N m o ° O E -O a> c y ' ' ; T 0 - N C~ 0) C 0 Co 4) o , Q O ° m o 3 N o t°o ° c a c a) 4D d - d' 1 r q~ c a E N E .r o 0 Q) o l - a) o) f) . z 41 Lr ~ ID ca C 1---2 -.9 CK3 D :3 C O X ` > O Q~ N O C O U a ~ Do~~~ v y U ~O N O y O O MO 5 d _~.C N X ~ O C: \~b Q - N 3 L 0 U ~ c c o ` J c : rn N a~ c o - O c c ~ O n ~ o'oO o ~ 41 Q ~ !J mUU c Q-> > o d ` ~ X Q w ~.C LL CD 41 M V c0 1~ co (n 0 N co -i c0 1~ r 00 r Q> O N N N N M N "t N ~A N c0 N I- N co N 0) N 0 CO Zzo N N, o , t, to t Q C co cfl O ` ~ i c1 r I C9 4~A~ 1 ~ l ~ ~7 ~ ~ 0 op N c 0. ~ ,x N o a) o c a ~ r o a~ a) 0 - l 43 -~aCim3 0 0 p o n, j~ a R,~ ~ '(o Ea o kr fl-W ° c c o 0 cu m o t r a) O O E N N 4) c " v \ 4 J n 0 m Z a C~ O U (0 U O ' 1 y d d O O V U U CL C \ 1 C„ O a) a :3 0 '0 cn a) R1 T N Q C _C N O ~ O a) cu ! 0 - ; 1 . 75 -0 A A 0 ` W \0 - t } 0 -0 a° 3 oa E N a `b 4 l ao b > 0 N . o c>va N udi l M k ~ 1 n O O u t9 l . O U O d tH m C: N ; ~ ~ y lJ a) cu G O Q) (U N 0 a Cl, 7 5 V t QI r > 0 m fl 3 c is - • 'rn w -2 a ~ o -0 C: 0) 0 L4 E'y.~ 3 0 ~ 0 ~ > W _ x o d rn 0) Z a N o J co E is 57< 'C o E O > > U ' U D C E O cD tOo U O O O O O m 0 7 C' r V C N C'- O - O 0 co L oo o D o j c - U O O C C C cn N C . cn cp a) ~ Ql 2: Z C U -0 C c p 0 0 m o O 7 O O (0 0 Q Cl p w O © cl r' q CL (D Q) a) O N -C -C I~A Tx fn N M "t (O Il- co O N r- M r Lo " (D h co O O N N N N M N ~t N Lo N co N r-- cV co N O) N O M /J VN. i i ( c0 O c ~ ~ 1 ~ V 6 a -cn 3 F O U CO V \ > > R U) z, o ti C .J a) Is? 3 t ^V u 'o a) y N V cu CD y~ V Q O C cu c0 fu p N O w U N a t O aS • m O U cu U ~ p o,a i.S ac CL Cn o E & L- c Z w m CL (n cn cu o c cu a) ' > 0 u -r_ cu > M3' 0 n L n e D a) cu (n -ro V Y .1 d a~ a cu G1 _ . o U c r o l~. A~ V ` < f I v ~ ~ N N ! o c> v U a) > y y 1 ~ O n ! r - t J u i o v _ . v c n3 o 0) E m y J J c _ o j 3 • II ^ yc er W CU m C.. E: O Tj .U ;j V Rll. f oaci~a'~ a~>o~ca d ~ - 4 ► a ~ ✓ s a iu -p = a S t J Y O o~ u? c a E o -,3 CL a) x t5 ca' E 75 c~ a) C? 'C O E X ` s i O > U .L' r O c -0 r cn L) CL O O N O \ R O - O -0 z (01 10 a) O O O U _I R V o ~ c CL o , O O O O o Q) 0 L) 6L u) w ~ TZ .J ~ .C L t N d IQ~ r N c+> ~f c n co Lv O O N M V ' c0 I~ N rn O N M I'! - LO co co 0 ` T - r N N N N N N CV N N V ~ 1 1 Q f` (n 4) G , j 1 G 1 co ° c ~y r~ I G 0) O a N .3 ~ ~ ~ s ti 0 CL O O a) ' O I t ~ CU ~ o o N - 1 V ~ ( N -8 N Nip O ~ co E C) W C,- w E W N Q) N a) $ .~=ft3;Z 0 o s I, J 4 ~ ~ \ , + U f0 U 'X = co U = G A a) U Q O c V -2 O ,U O c L Ilk a w a 3 o O E L ai :E c I Li O Q, o a) 4 c c 4) ° n= y to C 4 ` U c _ Q) n ' o o cu CO Q E SD ~ a) 4) C N J to O U O V C (0 a) C ~ o o 3 rn_E -r- (L) LL ~ ~ ~ •Gr \ N ° ° S c E o o a~ U) C: 0- 0) C: Y 0 .J l c . 0 ~ > O 0 N Q m ~ V 0 . L co a) ` 3 . (.i r- CU O O O O m d ! N N O ~ a rn C. C N 0 Z r ~ fn C Y = fn 'D O O~ X 9 t O > U r _ T .Q U iD U) co p o a>o ~ n N U S2 Q) 0 O O CM CD O Q) = -Q O cu C O 0 O o EZ u o 5 n3 0 ° O U C C J r R v ~ U (n En k m Ty = N _ in "O C C -C O 0 c =3 :3 L >Z D O o 0 a)UU Qai +s a) a) a: aV~ L L L L a) r Y i y 1 G e W H 1- 3 F- ! ( ' 1 1 , ! - ~ ) G l 0 6 i t ry . SA N + 1 . . N M"t Lo O r- 00 O O N M lf) UJ ti aD O O N M A CO I-- 00 O O r r N N N N N 4 N N N N N co _J `~1 T~ r N O d C M 1 V I~% V tid J i. M ~I i , C s 1' -j L 6 o a O a , C h ` h zn Wi t„ _ 7 tl1 ~ ` > ~ cn N , 1 c t CL N C, ~ r n o N cv N 9r a , ~ o c` Q, Qa ~ ~ o ~ I U F- 41 Cj ° ~ tv a ~ . O a - v 4 fl ~ 4 Q E0 ° 9 C~ ° o~ co ° ~I ~ 0 ~I 0 o N a) ~1 r r OLZ L n l CU C p U N U in C C 1~ ~ ~ 1~ ~ y Z e S - . ` w X o ca U ' 1 a O O N C U C-0 Q ` J CL N Q 3 00 d v L E N.~ QL C r to C C J ~ OI ~ W , 1 Y, O U (0 Q 4 J U I a N (n ) a N m d m ,-zz l c Ce o 5 !E5 c13 N "N O O 3 C, .E ` Ji t.~ V J c L E O N O N O d ~ 1k, 3 , s S nI V "1 L+ q W 5 . C E N y w Cc CL C: m En a~ U 0, ° F S h 7:1 , ~ - a 3 Q ) O - v 1 -4 cc a) c ° ' a i \ c nom' ~ z' c z 64 v F ~ V? Lj ~1 ~c co E eD cu } 0 7 'C O E X a) O > U 4= N aOD CO to a) lul) U tZ a) O 2 (O K ' e - (N or~ Z" O N N C _ O 4) c a t ~ (0 a)~ Z U O 1 J U J - 0 Cn U) C c n a) O C C O ~ - . 4 O D o m :3 o0 ° (D r ~ r1 t I- CJ } . m UU = ac a y Q c , Cp ° a ~ ` 0 ~ 1 , t 1 ° o -C w N M In C4 I~ 0p O O N M ct LO CO tl- M O O N CO d CO N Op e~ O T- r- N N CV N N C'4 N N N N M y , . t 1 J 1 N ° = , S'D .M 54 1 1 v Nli~ o a C/) N 3 o v ! '1 th 1' ` M M > > m l t h cL) p (L) 0 o Lc- a)° 7 N p "p C o Q / ~J t v 2 N a m fn O a 0 ~ . co c 9 p- W 0 m cu C) N > _0 . Q 1 ma iw o ' Z m 1) 10 Cl . ~ X v o`o a)i m L N a~.o op at w V ~ ~ w '0 ` w to Q c 5 'a C N'a)'0 \ d ~ o V CU U) 4) d y N O y J o .r n a) 0 LL zr 60 E p 0 o c (L6 o) E ~ . r ~ L i J N \ lr v v) m (D CUp OCO-°' ~ V ~ r ~ X a) w N x cm 0 S; M' E: y O O W a) O n c d t Q .~.N t Q ) 4r Z .Z . i L a c Z ' z ` a E 4a:) 15 --S (D al l: C: mn 0 'c O E X p a) O a) U .r CO L In 0 a- 0 m0 5 c O c i / 1 N OQ. Z' .ai c 4) l Z U p L) v { a J = ~ .C c i ow i N N Q) N w C _ a) w> C N - y p C c a' 0 L a o o O O N C) C) ' f~ O 1 a) aJ aJ O o o o o 5 Y T N m In co r-- co O O N C 7 CY l(7 (p I~ N rn O r N M d Cfl I~ CO O N INI NI N N N!N !NI M m -u ` 1 ~ c~'u c ~ Jo ~,1 M v C° C) ° C c o NO a c 3 io E a- N I 1 cr . M . Q) 1 , a~ o L) 70 a a) = N C L a nI ~ \ ~ D 3~ ( N ~ O O ~ 3 ~ v a a~ °a E CY 3-ovo aw o c c 2omco ca CD v ue F > a) o £ E O Q) CN a ` s 0 0 c o o c c a) ~j tV , ° Al a ka S ' O ` • ( ~ ~ ~ ~ v V p o . Q :a a3 00 a a) , 3 ~ E a Lc U J y IX Do. 0 3 In =3 L o _ ` y v ai s~ . c co a) z~ 3 V) t 0 C: (U $D f\ --4 APS E - T o co Vl N ~ . R L O o Y , 0 o~CU m~ r. ~ . 3 V cn, Q o n3 m ca - C m r Co :t - L a) a) W ~ y ? a •ca° ~ ~ i a ` L AY a ax) rnoc) -SI N m~ c z; o E 57< 'o O > O U y C fl U N O \ '1) 0 (0 c0 O 7. L a O "8 O o z, C_ N 0 C: ~ o a) ~ U C co Cc a ) 03 . s ~ . C O C ) - a) C In co > ~p _ Z 1 C: (n C C "p 'o o 00 o U U a O r Q C o ^ b O p o C a) a) 41) 3 t , ~ 0 f'y iL I SY N r' r( 7 1 r " ' ~ - N M ct t C O ' 0p O 7 N M "T to CO 1~ aD O O r N M rh ~ CO r 00 O O ~ r N N N N N N N N N N M i J a~ d 1~ q V r v C ) e ' i A t Q 1 I o a f tq E N o ° c ao i ' a i a. w 8 0 N Qr- ' 'N 4 a C: CU z; 'n a~ O CD aw ° a o C m co 0 o a i .2 E C) > N Q) N 1J s -0o n V Z ` O U 0 0 O cco _ a co CL 3:z 00 > t J rp • Ea).?o0c CD w Z Q y U "D CM a) QC 3 cn ~ o s; _ °1 w t C 75 CU CL C/ ~ ~ L L W V 75 AD a o c - H M ~ 40 ~n 1 1~ 0 w Co O J N ~ M (D tQ O U J c 0 c° (D c 0 0 0) aw) v p L ` ~ . L C .a L w E l ` L 2 . V, M 0- c o qS U . ~ O ~ o O y _0 0 C c a) w v cc: s C') o , ° - y l c - m E y= C: E ' • , 57< %u 0 m a. 0) 0 i> W 0) z l c ~ o E 0 _C c v, O (S C Y X O a) 0 a) V (0 L co D M L' O O L <n U a 0 a) 0.2 m0 5 _C N ~ a) C O J . O 0 ~ co C) 0 N O C C U J r R •L to m .C w r C in -0 C C -0 O O C = M L 0- 0 0 0 0 f0 mUU c n to ® G r- ~ -C -C uJ . s ~n V 1 t/~ A i- 1 ` s t ►11 . • - N CO T to O ~ 00 0 O , N CO ,I - L.o (o f-- 0 0 O O N c ) cr tC) C O t` - - N 0 4 N N N N N N N c~ v ry h ~ v 1 ~ i/i c V R✓ I ) I A `til ~ l ~A h1 7 ~ 'O ~ ~ ~ Q ~ ' m cri o f ✓ ? N c~ 0' C) a p ,r5 cr j o N Cv R t~ fY A i~ ~h M a) 11 v L of a-- :03 o coo I- 3 a a J °cn co co co ~ Ea° Z o°o E o > o O N N N O O. C (D O m O Z ! i c a) L C U c0 U (D 0 a 3-0 o u E a) d N Z r o cu 0 v i> N ( ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ V S y ~ ~ O 6 co co ~0 a1 ~ 3 3 16- cn ~ ~ a 1 CD Fn cn a) (D E N " ^ tin ' D J N U( m ( 1 E U L U C C W co 0 0 3 0).E= z a~ y S 4 - +Z L / ~ oo - m- O d u: ~J 11L .J ~ C D M v a t; E 2 .~=o o y 3 v J ~ ~ a ~ (n M J i Q ~ C: > o U; cu l t-- Q. 3 A o o', °,rno' d q h c° c a N L c cm t d E ? L W U V ~ t to E 76 C: - m a) N P ~ O L O a C ~ U CO cn O m -0 O 2 °L Oj U n S cn . O O O O CL k4 C O O . _ .-0 O z U O d / r C O J U U R 9 . N N U (CO ° t = ^ N _O C c '0 a 3 O O O ca N U U tom. O / `''J O "J Q Q a f n d ;2 0 f j s c r , _ I f N r7 d c o r_ ao O) O ` N c`•) N t L o C O f_ _ N O~ O N M - Lo C O f~ N m O ` r r N N N N N N N N N N c o 9 .--l c ~c p U c~ CD p 5 Q co 0 L) C' N > > ~i y O N M I ~_0 7C) -I o U) > o ~l e) > CU o , uJ I a p 0 N ~ ~ ~ > N U s~L of G U N 0, CI U C Q N v Q C co O-~ o OQI' a i N N Q N r i.. a) V1 L 3 5 L' 1 C C cII _ C) N -O U N O ~I »c N > a 0 U) I~ c7 V) ! C L- = w a O C Q) (D I a (Q I V 'n v) N a lv C, U U _j V) y ca C) c !o N c! Q d 2, ~ .C ~ N I cu m V CD I d , 0- r; ~ = C) m N (3) ° N ~4 s N m u Cs o~ B C a>~ p u qj PIE O 7 r- C N N I 7 C I) O C Q_ U) CI) C f!i 11S p p c: - E G v aX)• v p tC z1 C N (0 J V) C Y C ~I O ) o C: N U C) ;O N y p ~ V) N, i L7 J 2 O C) a) 0 O p 'p) O I I C O 2,- a) C , -L) N 'C z ~ p~0 cu 0 ~).E O p J C,~fM V1 C p Nic z r- a c - I I On ~ C r p c C C ~ L2. I p 0 C) O I i t N N N N I iU t~ is z o . v cc v 1/1 r ~o v V) t f ( V J C) y N 0 - E 30 d (fl - O ~'1 iT M v V A 0 V m ~ a) a h a) ° Q N G y r W , i L . _ J c m n~ N a; co m 0 W . C C N i ~ w CU O L O CY) y L Z 1 y O C aj m 2 0 c: U) 0 f s o v O . a) 0 (a o cu U U ` t . ' ~ ~ Q. 615 N = U a _ a E' aT0 °O > E Z -C ~ LO V . v .C 75 C', a) T fl = o°~ co 1i I J C, ru ~ O a) o ~U 4 . _ J CD 7W h a) C U) Q~ K 17 I- fl '4`` s~ o w r ° (0 U ED J cu O cc R - J, N . v ° c`o o E a a o v i 0 03v> ~a i CD s ; N ~ t~ r + jr( (U CL C O QI or- (D (D m " J o U : r E N o o 9 J - - v 0 E 7 r c u O E X o V - v m'v m ° , G `T o a) o f 75 c, -2 C N C'- 0 \ z o (D 0- o 0).g CU o- U cu - • E c'u (11) 0, (I ~ ` 4 (1) Z, Z- •c w W c c ~ ° ° _ :3 :3 L C~. C L L N CD 5 ~ - N co f 1 f) r o t - c o O O N c r tf) CO 1- c o O O r N C~ O ti 0o C 3) O I N NN N NN NN N NM 3 N fi C C F~Z r c 1 IZZ v n r \1 6 rn d • ! ~ m g a r m C R, Iy ) `o co o I em u, ~ V, LP 1 c,4 a. I E D o ° c ~ ~ ~ n o ~ ^ d WO 75 a) N C w a T `l am ) 04 o / rn c Z6 c (X _ ~A . a +1 L 0 v U o ! E 4/ f- 1 U - ~l V Q o O .C U "O O C " ~op (D C: w \ E c, '21 Ql (A O rn a) fC T y EL O C •r A u 4 h „ t9 c co O O 4, IZI- co J , :E (D oc Zi 4- r, ' n a ) co o 16 rA ~r 3 N V C fL6 N N C J a)= N fl. 12 -1 , `1 J o V1 44 t7 w ND N ,te ~ 1 ~ L J _ c a c ~2 a) o> o v 5 C V J . r in cn o Q c n d 4 p ~ `v , m a~_ a~ 3 C is ~J > J > a n n ~ o C c m m C: m m ~jj Z U to 7 O C ~ ~ ! t a ~ u) m z a o C: 10 O ? O " X T j .U O O _ -zl 0 ~ V c coop: ~-a ~ 2 2 ~ ~ A o CD C) ~-~N v k o m : Z o °c U S co 0) ^ "O C C 'O Q v~ J O o o ~ ~ O y a r rJ o ~ U U c a. (n p o 0 Q ~ p t w m U'- - C N ) N M "t U') (0 1- M O 0 r r N M r tt~ cp i~ 00 r 0 r O N N N N M N N CV Cfl N ti N 00 N N O M J 00 O M c o L h fs j t tq ° a 0 0' r N r ~ c ~ ~W O 0 m 3 ~ ~ ~ . ~ - ti r m o' N e v U '0 a - o~ ' o cu ~ ~ ~ ll ~ O W 2 3 .O co Q O r r, V N N -0 y 2 (o (0 ~ g C _ C Cl- O > o o w E N N w 4) `l t~v Q (Q O L Z C C as O U ' c w ~ •U O N V c N Y ` ` U O_ T c 7E -0" d -3 CL j w w -o t~- o co CL C: ' ~ m M v J o 0 L fD n. Ly ~ o \ L m cu C e tv Oo Z)a 0 2 , Cu l ) a c 4~1 0% 3 c N d Ji cu M . a R O t U 4 J N d ^ y 3 O d N - 5 (O N N O (0 Y N C O N Y ~ v ^ l . zi N -1 ~ t" I^ V3 O rn a mac; R C O W a) v .2 1 , { C: >0 100) cu p a c c (1) 41) 0) t l~ Y ZZ, 02 ~ C: :2 m S; _ d , Z 1 c ~v . r+ = O y E ' W V z,~ a ~ ax) Z U ` 4. 0 ~ m E a) cv :r .c C: ~ Z 00 O > U i.= CU -0 N p ' O 2 O o N , N ao n U O O 0 a o 0 ) 5 N 1 d a Z U O cn o 0 o U Q) C U J O C cn U N N +r N Y C C .N = -0 'p C d , con c 0 0- 0- O ~ ~ SJ i~ o UU c > t~ `J IU d O o I l O L ~ d A a ^ 4v N C ' t P . of ) 4 ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ O V\ M \N1 ~ I . n V \ N M LO CO fl- co OVI O r -I N - M r LD - (o r 1~- 00 O) O N N N N M 04 ~ N, LO N CO C N, I I` 00 N m C N O , Ih s i Z9 N ! t r'il ! 4 i cn o a> r M ti t s ly 4 `.9 1 , rXJ L yr N O N 4 a l M1 O O N c a H c l N N p N a\ g..aa as R/ C/) 0 3 d J c o a N 2(o O O w a v i m o-WW c c op co mO .I a) O t E O N ` 0 ON ~ ~ m a c O 0 O C ~ a C N O E a) (D 0 (D O U O C ~ O (.c c 'o 'J ~ l D..- a 3 f 00 E A) c r ? J y Z U M > rn 3 j a o, 2 L A~ 4- ` ' V v r J -p c ca a> y n C o 0r- Co .LX 4 tl Q C y R ii ' ' cn O: o y co m ~l r 1 Lr) O .L = C: a) d (0 K 75 C t' co m O w c c> o a to O J w - 1) . Sd? N ~ 1 N jp O U d O o o m_ y (D o c 3 v a ~ CJ J C L v- E S ' n v M CU D C~Ea~~, 0) c a ~ o c c Q c > O Cn N (0 0 = a 3 i G> a • - . r r C s a c ° ono (1) O co m p 111 rC c Q 0 E cn O c d E K J ' 4 .4 W J co a m o rn Z :k EOmY cu a 7 .C O E x O > > O V a) ~ 45 S « cfl 00 co a O a a) O O, cn m N CD ' O O CT O 7 a C T c N~ ~ ~ C © O c0 7 a o 0 ` . 1 a i co a 0 c rn E 0 c- ~ m L y w w o a) + C' .C 0 a c C c a CL V~ O a) U U c a U) © O 4t, 0 O fJ MM , c c l • ~ 1 + ! ! ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ O N M LO CO r- 00 0 0 N M V a : LO - (o r` 00 O - O N N N N M N N to N CO N r` N co N O N O CM ( Q th, / vi rt► J , 00 iii ~ 'y1 ro, ` ~ N M ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ti C~ l (,b o m I 9 I In ' ? (}v ' J ~ y i n ~ i \ ? r M V ~'ai o d In a 3 n O N ~ M ts- p ^ rf1 f~ n r n~ ~ ~ c~ r ~ 1r ka n o > Z3 r. r, r r` r ~ O O ca N v S Y ° o -o o N o c1 l ~l( N N ~ y ~ CD U o c o %J Q0 C6 cu (u 0 1:4 -f O 0 L E C) N N N ~ T' z O p c -c~ V r4 U V cco v X o o L) (D c. c CQ d1 c fl 0 O O V 17 T) C O • a L . L DL V „ N O L :s cu - 1$ 46 , v 1 3 ;a P :2 N t - N y u - - 11 01 2 \ VS LO O N J N p E U m a V c0 + 0 0 3 rn Y aci o 0 _ If 1 S i 1 = S _O Y O ia c o c aci Y o VV S . S' L `S d N -O ) p ~ N Q c~ C -0 m Q > c 2 DA n~ 3 d O v c c N o CL a~ v ~ 2 V) _ d ck, \ i ~C M (D cc z ~ s a o c q j r A c a~'E ~ m .c c: D ^'C O E X O > N C ~ ~ ~ 0 t U (D "0 N O 0 J O CD ' 0 U a 0 O O A C O O mO 3 a c N O O N > d Z U p Q) •C C U J O N ~ -0 N ~ 2 0c_ ,Do 'D c c 0 ~ v G n p ~ n o , p J ~ ~ G ? N U U _c O ,j 1 M n J ct1 ' th LLLL a r cJ n 1' , fIr N r -i N M "t U) CD I- CO 0) 0 N CO LO CD O) O N N M N ~ N LO N CD N ti N CO N O N O M I'll ,V rs , ~ Q l c co a k ' l r J I V) ~ ✓ co - ` u o ~ r 1' O° tU N C > a r ^ ` T r t' t N U > N cr- V C Ci Y U 4 8 ~ ~ O C: O b a J © Q v o , c' S a~ ; - 2 m ad o c c c (6 0 co co m C) N L E O > O = N 1 I Z i C aC--, U (d U r- co 0 C O A` ° = F ` c d N v c~ Q 3 i f d rn a 3 ° O 1 •O L O E 2: 5 v J ,1 ~ d L C _ _ N (D C- O p) N d V J r - c o 4) ° o o = b 0) a~ m 2! l . ~ l ~ o a i m a- ' Cr 9 CO 0 ~ 75 (d a ' d 0~ f 9 1 i i ` ~9 0 O c> ° Q ) m ►n O j (n E - V C N (u N C 0 03m -C a) N -J j -J ti ~ _ r'~ aw E o OE d b V ~ N "JO a) c _ a v y f Ci u , c ~rnaoi rnN4) u, cn Q c> o a i- 9 6 3 vo ~L ~ V ~ L am . f ~l o (u rA m O co: ~ a N co 0 v 7 , . a \ ~1 r _ 'Ci C o~ F-3 n _a) z c ~ w. c m C y VJ C ° E X ~ I O > U C U O C~ J 1 f - 1\ m O) O O ° + N VOi U a ' (n 0 o U) C:) ° 0 J , al - c O .Y O N C -a 19. -0 zoo 3 4 v G O co to • N (p N L-+ = - ~ a c c o U) G il -Al l uj c o o O o@ w CU U c ai a ~ro FO r N M 't LO (0 r` e a) O r- ~ N ~ M ~ v r (n r w f~ r w m O N N N N M N N In N (O N 1~ N ao N O N O M I V) y d "J C) m V) k4- cm ai ac) O c "n N a rJ c - M r, " o a~ c d r !v 4 N p (0 N ^ `t a v 0 A a) 0 3 c N 3 v 3 U Cr ~v 1 ~l N O ~ y ~ tD ECG 3D - (Ou0 aWc cco cu ca M C:j E NO L O co o) : w O O r y c CS i8 U r J y 1 ° j5< 0 o cu J ' q J cn J n z -r 0-40 (2 7E a N a3~ O0 E 0 a D 11.4 -1x :3 o 0) CL c 1 v a) 0 c c o tz - o = 0 ` 0 N a = ~ d (y~ Jo /1 v i a i A) v Y = (c~~ p , y ' J t ry CL O C> N H Ql b : ~J§ f0 O N N ✓ ` J v c co co E a~ c 0 3 Q, 0 a F ^ , E as (Ou -J C4 a O c p ~ ! ~ ~ ~ O O O N O a O fl O ,N 'u SL C a y E .X 'm .9 o a C' ` y ~°-'ao~ ° c z CU E .r C S N C N O 7 o E x ` O > > U ) ` ^ . O O to N n 0 i (D "n U a 0 O ° `1 + n~33 <i as C 04 ~ . _ O _ Q O O p Z U O i / J O Q N N - w c O O a V - p c 5 5 - a> U U c a O w s a r m N t M N © ' r 1 M rl ~v U N M M r~. ft o ff cJ N t M, t Uo cP 1-- co O O r N r M tt U') (0 r-- 00 c rn r- O N ~ N N N M N .t N U7 N Cfl N i` N 00 N 0) N O M C- M ~ ` ~ 1 1 1 0 co c \f r C) ' = J) VI ai o o N a O o a ° a) 1~ W ti ' L (5' ` V +Crj ~ ; C rn n 1t 1 y er1 O ' p a) cu N J` C1~ ? C~ r C lZr S .r (j v LF, L -0 L a) a) cu IZ -%4 4 3 .1 N C l< -a ) 6 -q cn C o cc) a) O ID E d c c m m m o p w E C) V D w c a) Y O S j v i ~ + . N c y a 507< .2 COO ~ r J 9~ C amp°~°= L ~ ? f J 16- CL .0 0 0 CL r U d Z j Q O 'C, C,) M V ; _ AN C~ o m.0 a ~ 3 Q 1 . 1~ w a c m cn m m Lo 1 ~ l Q O X L° :z ~ Ue p C 2 2 L 1z m L \ s Y~ n v b t~ y `^n J 'Q i o J N E \ ~ z L1 , R v m w dl 4, 1~ Ci C '0 0 ~ u cn v ~ C a) G l - -v V ~ nom) qU Q1 0) N 0) N C > N ` \ J J' fl c i m O "o = C a~ . m ~7' N Y m r y a J J r ~ ~ ~ y Q p a v ~ a> x l~ o 0) Z c a E m i w o O = C p X O U N a) ~Op 0 N N to ` 0o~o°'° = - 3 s ue t ~ C N 0 Z -0 - a) p U ~ N p C C 0 J a) L5) - t0 r \ c J 0 0 0 0 0 O w cun) O C: =3 L Q j o o O o C) C) CL b y . .a l oo rl U . cam. + r- 0 6 m X J 12 F- F- N M C D I ~ 00 0 0 M ~ V r l[) cD r- CO M r- 0 N N N N M N "f N In N Cc N I- N co N rn N 0 M 0 `9 ! T \ o l o P , ° M ~n a C~ ~V v cu r ~,D s (Ci ~ o - a ' ~ b ( e ~ 1W o c ° N y 0 ( -0 0 o aUi ~ 7 I 7' n ~ > > a N N ~ C - ~ ` h CN r I ~ r i n+ ~ N O T ai ; -c Qom. a70 ~ m -0 - I c• Y ~ ' ~O ~ { I Q) ~ fn O Q O V ~ 0 tq ~ ~ N O N o o E O Q) N N w ~ (u O t O `~iC (~f ( V } y p U M U Q/ h ii v l V X U O Q) O (0 0 CL ,s J ` v CL y ~ N O uJ ~ E a) . T o 4 E - U y 'a) CML c c I sk d o4 v L r- ca -0 CL ° y (u (n o ' v n L CD 46 C w N Q) (u N m n d ~ 9r v~ y Y E y ) 75 c (n '5. cu a m y O c " p M f .c~ `9 > a O U O cu y d a ~c~`° 0 0 3 ~ _ ~ a~ ~ CL 'u G ~ ~a ~tj ~ N 0 LO E 2 U) q2 -d V J j n D f /1 Q c N 0 o J Q (D y v rn N o Q a.s Q I'~ -0 O - y ~ 2 ~ ~ ~ c c c ~ a) m V J iJ all JQ 1 J L QO E X ca 0 ~ a ~ C6 ~ v p o CL ao) z0 p z ~ ' o E cu - 5'~ o E x O Q) . c _0 CD O ~ a L N p a) 2 o cn a) O ' \ Q- 0 o mo ° 75 Z n O- 0 O i i - (D Z U o r c c O J U U v < Q) i fn y u _ N + O y w 6 C C 6 Q O F o U U Q ~n p er, o V, 0 `0 1 p m a) o m ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ O M S n N M V ( fl f c o 0 0 co "t Lo O r-- co O O N c) "t In C0 00 O O T r 1 041 1 N N N N N N N N N M q I `n 00 a v o co o 1 1 + 1 i , t ~ a~ i _ cd d ai o y N _ E o Q., ON 0 m a~ C > :3 a d" ►C r Ch r > co o N d- . Q o - o (L) a N v ~ ° ai S a y co v N ° , m o a o d -C C Co CU C:) C o -c E o w c, N a) - ~o ~L 0 W C 0 ° r c ~ - r 0 • C j 5< o 4) -2 m L o a) C 0 '2 1 0 0 wt m >y QC: c 3.~ ~ oy 2 ~ cr 3 z c ~ Cu - J a r1 S • n Z fl 2 cn e v°~ O b w -o voi N N d ~ ~ ~ ~ C7 ate . w M I~ ~ O ' ~ 1 „ co U) E U) CY) o to 6c do V7) r v 0 v to J f9 0 C C Q V 0 .0 \ u C0 o o E d q j ~ ~ ~ ~ x l U) m ~ Co ar mC~ 0 2 cu cA 2~ = w J) -COU a m Q, a o J h S ~ . 'X Q. o ° Z ( V) a) C ca' E o ca c o E' O O 0 > U m c "C' cu 9 o o N N o U Qo O O o O mO 7 C N 0 - O f9 L d 0 Z U O a) ca o 0 o V J m C C U N to ' N (0 _0 i U4::, Z,C N w 'a c C - d a O 7 0 00 a~ 0 C) O "asst 4; J p r o . el) it,12 m r) ro N M j- Lo CD ti O m O r N r M - r -t r lf) co f-- co m O N I N N IN co IN I "t N N U" CO N N oo N m N O co d1% _ 1 A 9 'n YDIC J 1 CID O _ ~ . V \ \ \ ` \ \ I \ I c m 0 ~ Q C17 ° : ~ ~ G ~ X17 D O O o l\ , ^ It , o o p c - N ' L O 6 ao_ a_0i o Z o~ - 4 . m 8 .2a) 3-0 I— (D ~ ~ 0 z ~ - '7 L ~ a) w _a ~ 2 (D a W C -am r- 9 : c ° a) L N a) ~ a) n tt p 0 0 ) --c o Cl) (n z ls . w o aS a) c• z \ 3 v o co v o a) _ U a O o o •C v c v I L 0 3 Z O Q r , y E .9) C d E Z a k m N O rn ~ ca Q c c > v7 7 O ' J r y w o UY~a ~ 0 n 3 iz~ 9 ~i = ' 3 3 r ~ L - ( __r 1 kj , V' 75 L N v J O~ U N J d V c ca a) O o 3 0).g m i J ` I J q D co a) C Q C 0 x y a) a) t Q ~mo~ Q - 3 ~ " rn ~ 3 Q it = • c c O m V _ ~ E ° a) cm o d ~ d , d a) xo ° U ` ~ < O •c O E X a) O > > O U Q' V° m 0 N ' co 0 cu Qr -6 L '1) O cn N p Q) (n U Q c O O O O rnO V N . Q ~ f_ , l O - O co z U p L 1 a) c m ° a) o U cn c O a) -O c c "o 0 Dooo2~ 0 w a) N ~ 1Nl t r I w HF- 3~~ R I r l I v I , ~ r c \u nl c N M . 't t o ( D r 00 O O r- N M 4 Lo ° ti 00 0) O N M 't U') ° t` w m O r -1 -1 -1-1 N N N N N N N N N N M J 141 f\ AJ I t 1 ~ NS ~ c = © ~ ~ o C14 IL U) o a O U 0) ti CL Cl) e ~ M 0 o c O d r \ r m o a>) N l3` `S cs- dV a w Q a a _ ) n1 aw3a c U) o .2(o m o -0 -a o n d c c 6 o p m ~O m Os EO 0) .L. C) m a) _ C - c V~ U O O O m \ I NA L~ ZO.= U ~ m W>, C, 0 G1 O -W '3 c cp io cn k ` c 2 a t ~ ~ W 0 m n ai N r,~ W ° =wa m cn c a) m d m 9 M - 2 A o ate- o E co kN w ~ a~ i = N ° T ' d m r \ , r w~ U O J U ~ V C m E O) c a A- , ~ \1 J S - E c -0 d E -2 (L) a (D Cl) CA > 0 ~ Q , _71 O m e +Z y G) E N O 0 d v - Z - L <C , CL a) ` m E m 'ac: c o E x Q Z O > U Q) 1 c ~ t C2 N S a m p a O 555 N U c o a c , O O o ° rn 0 : J + 4 C C ~ n o C: ~ J J 1r ► Z U O c :nm o 0 o U ,v ` 3 c c U m ca . 0) C N - a C C D p o D ~ o 00 m a>UU c Qcn rJ r ' o r ~ C v 71 e CY 10 ~ N M 't 0 (0 r- w m F N ~ M ~ d r In (D - f~ • OD 0) O N - N 04 N c) N 4 04 n N 20 04 X N 00 N 0 N 0 M 06 cill 1 AN m C) m i N ~ 0 ' z L N CU ac) a 'C ` 1 ~ o Q ~2 C t"4 M N cn v- T1 N 3 0. ^ ti o o N N p C+- N H t i, N ~ U ~ ° 3 N , d © ~ 9 p O o U 'a ~ N QW W : a O O o co (6 p > N O N D tl y p C r - (6 U c V U V d O C d _ . d zz Q IQU di N a3~ 00 r J aL ~ V V w R T co f1 c C z ` o ~ a = ~ ~ u 4 (u LZ m E Co C: 3 c .~e m tZ m 'i nn o `1S ,l N ^ 1. ~U p 0 ~ U J `~E°'a) 0 0 3~.ra) J w ' " (Ou v ~ J I ~ QE a c 3J a ► ifs ` c _ ~ u ~ . (D Cl) N m Q> w m l 'r ( m o AN G~ 2 c _ - ~ ~j (Q C 0L (n N V) :3 ~O lb L a O , C + C ca E 4) (9 'r- C N C Y C (A O - O L o a) O L > U • T i7 CO p '0 ' A 4 , - r a a) O O w N - . 1 N In U 1L(0 N p o O cl)O Q C N lL75 ' ~ . _ O) C O . - 'p 'O Z U m c o0 c U Qy T C of E Q C C " Co N 5 p ~0 00 0~ © ' V •O r 14 r 'b - ~ o 0 v p V c a- rn , a ; , o 0 0 ° L L -c L N .m , 0:; i - SQ ! 00 44, k 7 w I- I- 3 F- dY . . (a , , C , t ( i r 2S , ti s ''6 ctS (v M d- U) co - 00 0) O ~ - N Ml M - -Tl ~ tf) ~ 00 0) r 0 N ~ N N N M N cr N to N (o N 1-- N 00 N O CD M c r 'J. ~ Q l s 6 S ! co c I r h V ` .~6 I ~ 9 C) t 1 p ~ O) O N d - " , f r! t 4 E 0 CL (d W lu 10 ` V J ~ , N lu O Yom- N im ` ~ w Q~_ va o T u°'i o > U -an rw-~3~ai 0 0 0 8 Q ~ ~ ® Z m Qd o o a) o -r- E CD O (V I O) w t) t13 O Y 70 1 C O O Z y N + ~-O~ UC 2 b Y J - m 2 . „ ~ Q ~O N U C "2 O O n 3 ~ S J a ° ~ =_U , Q om . N ~ ~ ~ 'O CM ~ Lo4 a D . 'r3 c O O) 7 0 imcn o~u a E rn e, o w o 75 fn Z- ca CA ~ M 0) r~ T o m ~ m v1 CS / ' i m a O U J N N «s E V ' c _o o f -J m m m m m Z; 4t _ Z 8 ( C ~ \ ' c o o c ~ c ~ N tna ~ ~ >o U) m Q n l' ` v ' S ~ .S ~ te 3 ~ ~ e N p - a ° ~ c a~ a i °'rn0~ m ~ o 13 ( ~ . J E c)- (D z O C ' ca 4 E O X :3 E O Q) A ) CD O O wo coo ~ N N ~ U Q 0 O lT 0 7 ' N t= "w O O O m O O O 03 O C) O U J ~ O ) N L C tq . (6 N N C tow "O C C "0 Q _m U) O ~o0O2W o r X19 ) m C) C) Q rn r P , J S` 0 I r1 3 . • 3 o c rg l y t ~ N M I to ( D co t T O r N M"t L L O c o ~ O D O O ~ - N M 14 t o ( D 1 l- OD O O ` r ` - - - N N N N N N ( V N N N CO co a) 1- or- C) Z! o oi a) = a 1 v - ~ ~y\ y - - - - - - - - - - - - - O U 0 a~ c a r > =3 ~ o N (3`• Gn w a ° _0 v " 42 0 U ) Q d o l c c co 2 D io m coo - .r O c v N O L o c • - D 0 G N U G Z _ O 0 (D O U U CD •i ~O N z, U G O = i S a cn 0-°O w L. E a~ .o a a) G L E - (DI .2 I : Cc a) QCc: 0)w 4 t , a m 'a C co a) • _ Q t D J a t . O L (A 0 a) ~ . ~ L (D CD E G > O w m E d ° c V G cc 0 O n u ° _o 3 L w co C : Y' L O .r..r a) fII O O N a~ y ) S Q ~ CM s , V T ~ ' Y -2 CU M a) a) Q C) O N N N > a3 p = O ( i C 0 O C C a) 0' a d ` ~ y co cn E o o c co L 57<° z I ° D ' E + . m ° co:.. fn G Y G N ~ 0 . a) 0 > > 0 O U ~5 r. C U - O " a L Ca co O j a) 2 ° L cn CL C) CL) Q O 0) C) 5 O f CV O O Z U O L v. 0 0 C C U O J U R L Mn G 'a o C : _ O o a C a) UU G Qch L ~ m ~ ^ 'V a) r-• Of g T 1 1 , _ ~ ♦ ♦ w ♦ r ~ (:c N m t t Lo (D ~ ti co M O i ~ N ch CD r - Ntrn O I- N iMj"t lLO r l- ooI ~ i o . r ~i - ,r~ r~ -i~-irIN IN ~N INICV INI N~ NININi c) o c9 o (6. CD a cD o -abi c , N p N cz -=i c 0 COL. o. N ao , t~ C- , ^ -T T I f ~ o N a "Cu 3vN© 0 o o ~ a W ~c c BOO a> o E N a~ m C ucu U C d x ; u "D co o C 0 v Q _y w Z 0 II - ~ - i. a) fC N d C o v Q Imo. p C N CO dl .r o O .N ~ N a°i ~ E cn J - co - C J y _ , - I , cv b ~ w T v i v be c`a ~ ~ a> c I J ~ E in ~ID o~ urn S ca .S o = ca ( > o ~ _ _ Q 9 I . 4 CL) Civ c 2 II .1~+ cd .C C Q `fn df y .r O ~ I l d (fl O +-Cb CL C, L) (1) o o cy)Z I - . co I O A > U T ,n cn C U c c a -O RS ~ O N O , d N NT- v7 U 0 N O a O C7 ON > '0;n z o co-: O I I C C C U J ~C CY) C L y N I - - -O C C R 0000?fnl0 C1 Q ~ Lt r 0 , I IC I`, I I I f i I ~ tt lu f- 1- 3 H af m N M c h to cD i~ a0 CA O . N M lfl c 0 t~ [O .O O r- N~M V cf 3 Cb i~ 00 O O N M T'd OL969ESTtbST 9 uaue>l e9Z=TT LO ~T qaj 0 o ~ 9 o c r M ' ► c ~ ~ ~ ~ t'r~ ~l ^ ~~7 tv )m ~ ~ r rs C) C y w N a J h cn 0 j9 CL (6 O Tn t 7.9 oa m ~ ~ a v ~ w o a i O 2 N O` ~ Qt ' C " s cl- v a a a) > m ' o O C 2 ' N T m C ) Q W _O r o a)C O > a) O W E O 41 C" ( y' O O t Z 1 \ C: 4) • ^ ~ U 0 a) O C . N a~-9 00 0 . a- 4) -C C3L R a 0 a 0 N ` C C , = O N a.. a3 a. d tt W a) .0 e 4) (D c E! v 7 Q V O ) N E C c" - 1 v :6 m--4 m 1 NI O L U E J V C a3 4) S. E 0 w _ N m aim °u M c ; E-0 4) a s o c: (31N 0 ' ~ s v s 2 a CD z 0) . d U 4 ~ U) Ca 4>)2W ~ c C13 g po ~~o~ j cL d E "i ce o m d v o) o 0 Z ; Zs O 9 c a E v E o x O > ° . U a l ~ U O O O CC ' O a) O , m N cOA U Q C a) \ ? 7 d O rnO Q CND NQ i a) O Z O O ~ C C J N co N C 4) N y = ( / U a) C a C C -0 Q O ~ o 00 o 5 rJ C) r r~ ~ ~ 4 4) WD j 4) i I N co U Ic fl tic o O~- Nca> r t ocoI c o rn O TN m'; t LoC OP -a DI rn( O T r r r T r T Tjr N N N +N N N NJ NJ N1 N c M I t q q, ' - t a ! Ara 4 'a f4l (o o - \ m rv M v> o a In t 0 _ O-Z 0 O N c a ` n c~ p a) N , N t- Q a g v ` J o N V O ~T J J a ~ Cl- . ~ pozEo o) ~ r 6 5 a . r C C: O C~ U o l v *L V V OU O O C CL V Z j O o c~ a . N a3:6 p0 0 U , u 0) , N a C ` + T r o _0 =3 Q O U -C 2 C r Q v9 ` ° y 'c a tit ° N d d V J = O co (n 4- v) 1 O ti rn (6 p L M l^ N 1 lr~ ;16 O > O tl to O U O J N N N ..I C ` \ \ .4 Ll ' V r", (p @ O U m Q I cn a) 4C 3 N Q > '03) 0 4 r !1 J r~ J , N N 3 ( j 0) o 9 ' ",'A 14 Z-Ij 1c, . =1 E .7~ • o c 5< E l . S a a) ) 1 3 co E p c n L . N 00 O ..J ~ CA cu o L I 2 2 I q~ ^ V U (l U C)- C) O O ° O rno 5 v o N ci / 7 n m p z U O m ti ; N O O O L r+ 1 U J N N ~ V (A (q (d N L . 70 C C O 0 } p C) U) 'ZI e ss a) a) I 74 I ' k Q c ! 1 \ ! Rn W F- H 3 or~ , cv f I ` N _y t- K~ 1 1 , 1 1 N M -,t to (0 00 0) O N CO LO (0 CO 0) O N CO It (f1 (0 f- 00 O O r- r N N N N N N N N N N M q Ctl o- _ rn ! 1 r ~ - I V , 1 1 r) , 114 ' ' ( ~ ~ 1 1 , , co a, CD a N O a y ~ h y \ ~ , o , , E o 2 O O r- c o ~ a ~ ~ L Q N ` N 0 c 0 ~ d o o a ~ . ~ cn Co ~ ~ ~ N E 4 o ca~ CY 3: ° a l:~ LL m o co co ° -Fu a~ ow ~o v>o'~ctz° 2 c C: L) v . xo o o { ) w o i _ co a n' , c L -O 'mil V Q O . v -2 O O a) - L ^ ` L. y QO o aE aw c ~ , -1 d w z~~~ v O ) O :3 p) N ~ 1 o 'c co o CU a) Q v Q CU , = r o , L L Q to v L W cu U) cu ZEE ° ~ o 2 O E (U = Z) 4) L- t 1` ~ ' p bi 4 ) L d y N a) cn.~co w O a -~5 -5 f5 H O J > p UC m y \ L co Q y L) c cu 0 o 3 m_- p o - i c - J a) Cu w o 42 N m 7; ICY, C r, O C y E 0 O a c . c U ° V N ) C) . a ) co -a a m a~ m rn ~ Q > o cuu) a) o :2 a L 3 c co - 9) - ~ c 0 -0 C: a) 0) 0)0 cu - - (0 O C W 1 a U Q) x 0 0 O m cu z I x,11 (o' C i'7 O N c f_n 0 OJ= X 1 0 (D CU m c V O N O O 2 2 Ln a) O O O Q O mC) 5 C 0- ~ O 1 = O co 7 N z V O 0 d 7 ~ ^ O o O U c co ' c (n cn c -0 s co a) L (O. J ~t ~ . yam. Z1.9 (n "0 C c " 01 p 6 z3 o 0 0 ° co m UU c Qcn 0 t 0 1 c S o v G p a 'o o a p o 4 a) O O N r ~ 1 JNN, N ch m (D I~ m O c) ~ t ( D ti 0o m O N (Y ) ~t m O 00 O) O r r N N N N N C,4 N N N N c o IJIV- Q I's INI 9) 1 o M i1 V cn ~ n n . , ' til h ~ _ = d , ~ rn N ° o co - 42 5 c a~~.. t ~ r- r m w C) Q v -0 lu (D w io 0 C=) ad o c 0m~ a >wowE5 N a) t C: CD o 0) O's -_Z Q C om (D -Q M CD CL a U "Ok a o p Q Q q o a~ (D Q b J 1 7~5 C CU (D -a Q ° ~ J m L ( r r 6"j y 3 1 1 (Y ' O W O Q - (n V CO 4) 75 a) E a~ a) m , 4 LU m = N 0~ ~6 m - Z V . d C > "6 t~ N O ( ~ r l J ~1 n e M o t U E J w w L ~ n N ' C 7 = E N Y 1 R c CI-c: ~c o coom o f K ~ ~ V ~ (y N v z o CD Z 0) cn -0 Z , CD cu (U 73 C io -p •y L 3 'rn J v C1 - ` ~ Q, = c a~ a; a; O~ m w r d o ? c Q m E in o c E o 4 I< 0) a ti y ~ . E ; v a . ~ ° 0) Z s p ' 17 i7 ~ ~ y \ C N c E X '9 o _ L O > > L 2 a Qc6 Ln a) c n Q o mo° o. a)N~ o C - Z o p L c) C m 0 N 0 U w C) .C: C U J S a) N = Y) cu (3) U) co ' 0 C = 0 a 0 V - O O p O o00 = Q~ p ~ 409 6 v ~t "O a) Z) - ~ N M cr tf) CO N O c- N C h C h tf~ (O 1~ CO CA r O N N N N Ch CV ct N t f) N O N N ~N 0 N 0 Cl ) i N ~vJ 1 ~ cd o t~ M l ~ZZ p v,N a Na 'A 1 o~° O~ gym` E M r ~ CL rN, L Qa -ate N 6`~ G ~ w ~ ~ m = 0 a~ ll N co (D o ~ ~ J N E O o W c ~ ~ ~ `o `II ,i1 0l v; > m o w E o o (D :2 a a) N -0 0 :E Z = s a r+ .N Oc U co U co o c V O r a U V a) O m \ ti V 0 7E -2 N. a 3 .o d it O O *J L. E aD ° ~ c a a~ w ca o n LLIVN N N c m (D 75 c .2 ° E > L_ 4= .p N co N d ' N `m 0 `7 r f~ a~. °.S ° N o in N 75 u) a) E 0 a- N c> a j ~7 1 rl (C O U E J to N V c co :E Q) C - ~ \ N o o m d J J J al g 41 ` u CL C)) a - ~ o> ~ N v o a N En co n c i -aa) = 'Cl ~ 3 •m ~ h c ti G 70 a, C) 0 O C Q° cn y. 1 Q v Z d E L N o c L b CL CD >1 00 N ~ C Z C N N h C Y = N -o;moEx O > O U = j C v o N o 1 -8 c~On 2 2 LLn a) 1 C) a) Q o rnoo o N O a) C -0 m O d •C C U J U R 'V y N N C cc! a) -pC C V a) 2 a> = N c 0 O ~0 0 0 2 ~ C) C) C: ?N o o, a ~o o r o r a) a) ° r N Cl) LO CO of rn O 0 1 ~ ~ N ch "t ~nlco 1-,co irn o ^IN~chl~r +n c~ co ~irn!o iTININ~NtNIN!N!NIC,\) c~ V) 61 f r \9 ter, ~l S 3 C~ y c U o w a co V B- ° c ° r 142 lL C y 70 ~O G N Q- W O C c I I O Q rp cu m L O O N ~ 7 a 0) 0 CY) G O Z r y, (D (D j} S2 .0 M 0 x _ ° v c v v n.->°.c \ s Q ~C c y ~'~a~3Ornaai r -A-[ IL I c o Q c o coo A ~ if = -a co W COD" n t 1- 2 0 C: v E-' V c cu cm E m c h i .12 y., c v o o N- y G M . a C: c to i 0)75 c)) CD 79 - -0 c -cu a CL p a S_ cm: at~ E cn O C E 2:, 0 R C) 9Z t - ~r cu E ° cD 5 N C Y C U1 O E x O > O U - co m ca -0 Cu 2 a) 2 ma cu w C) a) o - _0 cu C N O N O ' 1 t~ Jt rt { l/ 0).9 C U ._J ` w U) c 'o N w C C") a c c p o (n a s.. CL O O O O O O\ C) C) OL U) 'r f~ '~1 t Q M t !T'IN C~'>!ci ItD.Cp f~iCO X10,^iN1C`7+d"ilC)ICfl~I~-t I c~ ~t ~n i c 7 i i IN _y O 1 J L' Y. I (0 0 ) oaf ! 11 ~r 1 ~ ~a a- i V p , C0 Q t0 rn " ~ , > w a s a N vi- C a) :3 J U) 0WW Y a( U) co co o > m o E o -0 Z. N 'pi ~ C W = ~Z 1 C: (D ' NN } , V I CO cu u c O U_ V N _O t0 CD 0 tb_ ~ $ ( o'aa)i.S EP a a3M 00 4~ L. E C T CL j- a) •C V -i w CO cn > a C a 4.~ , N N P. ca 4, L w. 0 O N ca of c c. 0 N.~ aN .!1 d N Y U t ! cn _O C> O J ` !C7 ~j N d O U - CL J o 3 c'-- Z- a E • v ^ 0 2 C -6 L w cu O O m \ z a) O ~ C -be a) N C O CD C: v b a . Q' O 0 m O1 a) cn u ^J oy (n -L- CL of O) O c .t~ Q/ N o C E 1 'J 14 M L (D o 0)Z ' z' m E s co O C Y ~ OEx • O o -U ~O. C.0 mg co O c6 T o 2 a a (6 L a) ° f j o oao m ° N r e O N C 0 a° Z L) o J tj \ n ~ C C V J U R y .0- C -p L C 4 - Co N ' C N _ " O } O O C C l :3 o o O O- ! r r- s ~ V I!~ o J~ o Q w p m a~ m w ~ r s TIN cam" d to CD r- CC) 0) .O T r t) d tD I- 0 m O T . N i TIT .T IT IT T T~TiT NICV NI i ~ j N s, .~3 4 J~. 5 ~.Lt~ Cfl I~ ~~!O N1NIN NINiNLCO ' i M v!~ Oc i I ~p i l `9 to N's d -so o . t Y rn IN c C:);= Cc" CD O U n r1 ,2 (5 a) C n Q~_ v~'N - Q ti c' O tin o O ; C'u, N T Q 0 O -0 O O Q (p m p y O N N Z7 C1 O O I a~a~I J v ow.UmU 'p o a°i o a r_ I ~ { ' a v c o UM Ci Y is a IBC C ti Sk, N y (Q to d. o O; o (D ca u, a~ E 75 o ova m o'~n N m+'mmd _I' 4n vc~E a a. - - N O oca3 cm_E m w°m v v W sue. .5 E Q rn c J Q c > O N a f v/ v I J? ax) M o m - j c YO 9>1 h f C U N O ' O j N N O Oi N o _o L) CL rno d ~ , .C N J `l r C 3 v Q v (0) U C C O U N Fn- a) CCU: 'D C: 0 -C -C kN TI • ♦ ♦ • D ~C N + CJ T N; M Ct l(7 (O Q.7 O O At LO W T M M N N N N N N N 04 N a) M i ; M ~C 'C 1 V, i~ F C 1 l~ 'Y! m 4 a 11 p C r( 1~ ~ Z) , , Al I M ~ I ri -4 t1p fi o (D Or I R 4 ty m N o , pz, CD Q) C a TZ- ~ r v 5 r <r o N v 4 ~ 1 O 2- a -a -8 , cu 0 (D y U) CL ui :2 c C= CL °Co co mCD > O o E O N C U a) r L O p C ) O all O = I \L .Q C a) _ N C a> ~ v \ ~ y 2 }I ' C O U C X• O U O Q O ( D ~ ~ ~ S 4 4= . , 2 ~ ~ I ` J • qa_ g r( a d d J a Q 3.0 00 Q r . J . ` U tU ~ ~ 0 C) >1 an) CL C -0 (n t r 9 a) o O to (n L N N (n C7 ° Q m N !~i C °J - 1 cu N CL E N C J) ,:Z O r ,4 s ~ ks c Z, rj9 ~f l co N ~p O U E J _ V c N a) c E 0 3: y 2 I tD C CU L ~ ~ 0 CU ~.o E 2 a) z \j V tf ) C 0 co (U ac): 0 I 11 NZ j N N N O d n 2 3 C O au - 1 {il _ 1 ~C a) p o d 4 S v cn i E v7 p c 4, R U P~ cL a ' .y X O 0. a 0 a) P) CT Z d ~ o o " c tS \ c o 0 c o c 7) c: 0 p E N c O > U 0 N O C U C ) \ r O ~ as O ~ t ~o a" i . C I L v 0 0 aa , O O tT j J C N w O - O t L J o Z 0 o c c o V °1 co (u :E Fn ~n C: c a Q - 0 ~ooooco a) L) cL cn c 1Z, Lij (a - N M ~t LO CO 1- QO 0) ' O r. r r N r M r It r (f) r (O r ~ r 00 r O r O N r N N N M N -,t N Lo N O N r--: N m N O N O (•M J ~`'J ih C m m o c r v 0 °i O N a o v d~ i a O U ~A t . n in O ai a o cu 0 y (o cu - E 11 O 0 0 o ~ ca o , > a) a E O N z O a) a) ~i 'v + N O~ U U C x v O O m V O U U C • p O a) C 0 V- C L ° 3 °O L r E ~ d w Z U 5 - - - - - - - - - - - - c): Z ~ c n3 c o io T a M -0 ~ ~ N L r 4 Q U) (D a) E -C t- 5 N cn m c N d ' w / a'f 1 "n O c > O ~ U O J N d 0 ) cu E V C (0 a) C i c) C a) 9 - t C to c~ a) ca O c0 E O N n N Q C a) 0)N 0 Q s " Q .C > O 'n 07 cu a) C N m a) a) p c c Q c" m ~ 0~ S x a a) R~ z0 0) a'' ~ ~ 1• ~ . O te z co E a) cn w C: E x o L x O > O U 1-- >1 O L ~ p O 2 O cA N O ' Lo L) a Q O O O C N • ° ° v / ~9 1 r o m o U O) C O U J L N c C cn - V/ -O C C C O O Q L 0 f t` o cu o 0 o o o a ~ o o ~ p r ~o ~w L a ~ ~ W H H 3 F- ~ R ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 t c , 1 ~ c ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ O / .i . to N I MI' t U) ( fl ti 00 O - N ' -;t U-) (0 co O O N M ~Y U) CO I' 00 O 0') r I r N N N N N N N N N N cM X M ^ ~ m ~ 7 yt- ~p Uo <f q Ac - 1~ n cis c v ib cn < t o a " CD c ~ as N a m ~ ~ n r tn ~ ~ M ~ ~ M cC M ~ as as c a m r ~ n ' , r I\ O- ~ r T,\ s\ as > o N (r C" 04 6 UN 0. 0 o- a) o Vt. 1 3-0 Co q o q ~ ci t~ ~ ~J c, ° Q O o v o ca - ~ o - 0 c . 9 o p (D ca o a > O ~ N N I ~ 4r ? SD) -O F C O y p 0) Z t t % Q- O, ' C 2 113 U fV U o o Q G~ °-3~ ~O r J J J ~ i , C L ~ as .O Q y .S w U ~ ~.1 Os 1 1 lu - 5 as m ai o M V O ~m~ CD z 4a "1 u) M ~O cy 9 ~ M ~ Y ~ 1 d ~ ~ O C > -O to L \ 1 Ln ~o Q U Q) co > 1 ( . V O (t3 N~ N C a t~ I O O ~ tT _ yJ, c o` p to cis N +r o J r JCL .t c ~ o ° el W J h O a) Q cy) m o N N 2 J J , c > m Q 3 a 1-4 -1 . 7:t kj . t; L 0) 0 crs c us = J _ c a W a U f7 h 2 co a) c C fn C Y C cn 16 o x L O > O U Q) > CD cn O N ' (6 -0 O O, N N N `s y (n U Q ~ O O tT O ~ C N O -2:, .N ll~ C p d 1 ° L • ~ 3 O Z U o 3 - 1 ~ J O O O O O) C C U J ' C to O3 N as c fn = 'O C C -0 Q V . U U O Fu s O C T ° G J a o i o a r C) c~ s a 0) a) 0 0) ~ N o O Yi F o 13 o o O I-H 3!-~ cC t ~ ~ (I C14 t \ s t M ~ ~ M r E p N co d' LC5 (o t` OD Ct) O 7 N M I U7 Cfl ti W M O N M ,t in CD r- 00 a7 O r r r r r r- N N N N N N N N N N M 0 N m O Q 1, O N N, 1 v' 1 O O o~ N d C O 9 y 1 1 \ 1 \ ( i E o sz w "0 a o t co o ~ ra o CD cn -o N (0 ~j b 4 '0 ~o c0 0-~ o ° a a m U c° cQ ° > N .O .L. N tv w N crl "0 - c o Y 0 O O L Z ♦ 1 C h c.S v'Fu 0 0 \ iv 01 .e., .x • C N 0 C v o a~ o cts . ~ ♦ G L.. en CL 00 > J v r Q a~ 0 v =3 0 en c aci w C U O L Q CD cn a) m 0) a) 2 c: N- 75 CL w;r 0a M= O J N y \ IA S1 M J V~ , \ - cu C: cu O o CD L aci v O C =0 N ~ cq U) ffi a) 9 S SA, ~ C SC 5 ~ C: CY) Q c , ~ h < ~ v ~bv ~ ^ O >o~U) ~ J~ v ' ~ p 70 C: a) 0 Q ~ ~ J ~ t7) o y ~ d J ~ ~ ~r i ~ ~ lY ~EN:3.2 CL ~ U~ a V \S) at ~ 414 o C,` L) 0i.m~ ° ~ Z -,J ~ ~ ~ v c cu E , tv m ) 'C O E X C) to 0 N C O ) N 2 O Q to ~ 0 c- (L) 0 d O m0 5 0 _C N > O N C \ _ O a L L Z U O d i { 6 C U J So a l a) w c C: =c 0 0 0 o U \ ` o o O o- oUU c not 7m p r ° r ~ ' N a O r p ` ° / - -y W LL-C 0 4 )M £ 9 ~i . a ~ 4 •J4 o a ZVI A ~ : 40 V ► r- N M lf) O 00 O ) O N M ct LO (D ti 0 0 O O N M z t U- ) t9 r- 00 - - C N N N N CV N N N N N Q, \ 01 0 r6 (0 0 ca' ai O° N a ( t1 'n i'? i I ar O O U o . 70 o` ~U) z, o 3 3-0 u) m ° 1o cn 0 fl - - ww 2 D ca co o O 0 > m :F E a 4 m y o - (n c rJ CO U C - V ^ S~ , ~Y ` . V v u U 0 O O c C n 0,40 (L) a'n a3~ op L E N T n 0 c tD 1~ J 4) -0 :3 0 cy) _ ° 0 a) 4 (n cu rn d e 2 a 65 I a E r n 9 ~ to m o Z -M . M - 75 c w .4 •L c> -a a• In N t 1 X M 1 try Y U `~~S `r U Co a) (U E V c (0 O C Q E o (D N x E p c t4 o o O 9 . c a) Q C > O O a) f0 = 0 O~ M ~ a c c t a y ~p CCU cn c a - aC Q'~o0)z 'E ~t Q 46 M :«•C c O E x O O O > C j N f ~ :0 O M N o 2 2 Ln V cn 0 0- a) 0.2 rnO o J _ E N w O - m c , d O U O z L > • ~ c c a) -J w' N C : K -p to cn rn a) O) . ~ y c in - 65 J c c p p c 7 7 :M o O O o N a) L) c c cn pp , v 0 ~ ~ ~ c- Ps 49 J` p , 4 ( ~ r- N M ~ tt) CD T~ O p O O ~ N ~ th d' ~ CO I~ ~ ~ . O r N M ~ Lf) C O ti N O O - r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N N N N N N N N N N M t< r C Cl) d t a) (D c O N d y l! Q .o~ O w~ J 1 U ~ O Q) r~~ ti N a CL 0 75 0, W, a a r r o of o w -0 lu (o as nw_o C: 0 o co cm 100 a) o w E o a) C~ 4- C a) o L Z 1 C m v c J a~ . c ,o aT•c D. co Q3: :5 00 U N 1 E m a~ k L 3 0._ o'er c o ~ Q = 7i• Co 0- p a) m N ~ ~h1~ l : Q in - V ISO y• a 0 C E L'.~ 'V ai ~`1 b cn 16 a) o -CE 5; z5 t0 O t U O J to E VX w (6 C -0 L q a) co ~:f O ca d Z a M CZ 0 c: cu (D -2 ~m a) rnN-2 N cis a) aa) 3 a lJ w p a c c w m i aQ 76 E d L m o c Z w ~ N E a~ o w=. J c: n (n C: L OEaxi 0 o O.r,. (r N c U O co a) 2 0 ~N N Q co U Q a) 0 0.2 rnO 5 O a) N C - C cC, C) Z U = C (3 0 N 0 U 0) c C U J N N C -p ~ a) -2:, 2:,.s N C C p.0 N C 7 O i CL 7 0 0 0 `O CL) C) C: a- C=n3 ui F-- oaf) -ca k (,Nq M~t~Cfl co am)C) CO ',I-ILOQ)r-coIM NINININICViNI~i~IM ~n l J cu Or (D O I C) m (D 0 CL V~ (n E to CIA r c~ N CTIa. \ T Mt. CD n. ~ -o n O a) -06 9 r v Cip 7~5 -o M 2a) ca 0- W C C 0 ICE to co c6 a) > _ N v~ n cu a) 01 .2 cu L) C .2 7E -2 a~ .m 0 a) a) :01 '0 U) ca -0 0 a) t1L/ll sly V p U O Q Q Npp y~ d w Q (n F, lL ~l Q~ J ~ Z d 7 r " v G (Q ID CD F: _0 (U (n 0 00 s O C a) to L _ V D 0 O C1 `J N C y P (v, p O O 'V O J ' - U' LIB 0 L 0 '0 3 rn -E a) d s v c -0 U) a)~°~i>s-°' s y E ° a) v, ~ r Oa _ ca N C V n ? J` Z C) C (0 0 d " cuu) -0 C 0 _0 C CL a) .X 0 O E S rti { _0 a) . Lm m E ca j 0Ex a) o O > O C) C: -6 O N S LO N Oi N 4) O U a 0 O 01 o O - C N O a z v o cn C p C a) -2:~.O u) C_A -0 C C -0. O O N k O O O 0 E m l 0 C) ~ C Q co p 1 I N c) d Lr~ CO ti co m O N M CO i~ CO 6> O` N Lf) I QD I~ CO (O~ I O ~I`-i I^;T `-I-I<-IrININ N;'N' 'IN NIN;NICh Nil ~ e "zo 1 1 f 1 c~ ~ 1 cn _ ~n O c a VI o a B- O O U N N ~ a-0 L o ? a ~ Co Co s l NQ 0) (O o h-0 ` N m r- E ~ ~ 9 o ~ co «i O N > a~ o w E o QII N N 0 4 . _ 0) C D +C. O Z c CO C c 1 V 'X o c o U c O V o C d U Q _ p o a~ .c U C: a C'. Q O Q a U) Ilk A, E a) 0~a°m 0) 0 ~ C C Cc C c co L g a 0 a) ~ cn a. ~ w ~.aco ~ w 3 c rn ; m e a) O o ' J v a) (u m is o Q0 L C co E U a 0 v i o > m c'' L 0 0 y c0 a) «s 4O O o 2 a a) x _ 0)C: a N ~ Q in =>o a a (u - O a C C a~ a) d C s °!O S c a T ' (Q O C d c . QQI E L in c Y co O > > O c .O : Cf) N O ~ 6 p -0 L N U O , . L L L U 0 o o -0 a°rno5 0 5 N Y a) C O • -0 Z m o ~ S O QQS O O O O C C U J m O Ci .L N D Q) ~ 2:'.c in "O C C O O C o o O oR, av K (A N ~ 141 0 _ Y r F 14 i v `4s A n J L t t -C a ID O 1 N) V q 1 J ! i ~ N M d' LC) CO ~ OJ O O N M ~ O ~ a0 D7 r r r N N N N N N N~M O O i N N N M l~ CD 1EL }~y/~~'S c: 1CL '^k y t ~ WWW i rio • f ~ g k E 4 (fY t f IML ¢ ` r r r a ij j S Q s P L7 .yam r O i 1 E f y , VI eL 0 1~J Q f J S 1 R E r p is X73 y s J 60 La (v r ( ) L c: r4 r Li 1 t I I lu 1 f F E rn t ~ ° _d, . In 'w. ? iy aMr ~ • V ` f ~ ~ t EL € 4 1 t t J 6 R s F a LLT _ F~ i a F c: OL tv_ t , s r f r k`]! tI` '67? } 1" s: 1!s- 'S41 I `J • r { Q '69 S I T j}gY L f+ l " 1J d' 1 C C py~~ .y~, ey y ~ tNp C{,~' , l ~yqq O 41 C (0 O 0) N d O O U O a CD o cc N a ° -0 L N N O C N N U cu a) E 0 ~ 'C(Q O O oO j O O - O O = O N .0 :c N C) ~ h E O j L Z C C N U C d N U 0O Q O c Q O N ,U C ~ d v, ° 0 0 Z. (D +Lp. a c U w U) L m 3 j r N C 0 m (D N O 0 ".z CL 7S (D O U E J (n (D V C co C O 3 Q)_E a) L C w = in cu w N _ O O ( _C ; E.2 0 .4 w Y U CL C: r C O.W (p O N i m N m cn .a a C> p 0 tq w a Q 3 o m cm o d E N 0- 0 d o) 0 Z co E -0 'c o •X L O T; p t N C U O 0 O c6 "O m L N O tq N vOi U Q 'O L O Q O mO 5 - 1 O N N ~ C _ O y ` N Q z U O c c N J U U R cn a - O C co a) N C U) C C 'p O y L Q p O 0 0 (0 0 U U c n w O N U p~ ~ X xu fi 1 N cr,. Q LO i(D N N aa) ` L O N N L O. o U O o c ) c CL r ~ cu = w N t r Q L m = ~ m Om t 4v - (D -0 Y(D T as C-: O O > m o N N w a) O O) O ~YZ ^J J C c _ ai a) .x O y S V 0 l0 a C O O O L C L a a ~ a CL w v a) Cc: N y L C u m o N Q c O O U c0 > Q a - V=im w c L m O m N ~L O Q N N CD = N N a1 E _ v T O m J U 1 p V V c co rn o ° L o3 .m -J co c- E w V 1 ~ a o L i~ ca O w m t CC G Q a) 2 N U v c m m ° c c o a) m ' o s ~ O ( 'D L c co ~ T - AA O c ~ c W W F C N C j. c E ` a (D a) - z c o E 0 0 n) 0 .5 L5 > N 4 = c v o J co m o O N a) N O 0 O O)O j ~ TCN~ C O - -0 O N S p { . c c V J 0 3 [A ~ r a) C cn - c c -p OYO ~ ~0000~ v r (v c CL U) C) C 0 3 p 41 Cc 1 ' a • . ~ W S - i i I N C` 7 1, 43, , co ti 41 O 0 ~ - L N M ~ V C O I ~ C O O O N C N ti tr (p c - 00 i O 6 ! O i 1 . -fi r - . - r e - - N N NI NIN INI NI NI NIC 4"I v O O (D C L l 1 O N C: N a ' ° o o c n M n o a> 4- C a r n p ca N 4' a - L ` Q~ 7 5 Q~ i~l s ' 0 C u - r) 0 U) l ECG 3 0~0 a w o c c O io co co o > a> o E O ~ e v,.c c a) U C ~ , r 'X • N .0 m 0 a- ~ J - p o 0 C: 0- 1 G ~a3~o0 ES r y O p~ w -0 a) (C 0 a - c c+ T C: IOU .s p n + A O 2 o a~ d N N N E ~ f` ' c ~ N ~ a a o > ~ m a ~ ICJ M O U J ~ w O ,v L U c ca a> c N 144 0 0 alp J 0 _ ~ N mo o U) i' J Q 0- (m O (O o C C O " Q ~ a) C > O Q N -1 F F n c mo o aa ~ d 3) ~ Q v ~ o C' ~ : Z Q c o • Z' E o iu • - 7 'C O E x O T > O U C U O N O 2 O N N O O ' 0 O o o m _C N C N _ O N p Z U O L c cu C U J U 3 i0 i N N N +C C p s o T Cv to w o c c a cn o o o 0 0 1~ I O q U U c OL o W I-e- 3~a R 1 , N M ;T Lo (D I-- ' Co O O N M , (D f~ 00 O O N M I- LO (D I- M O O r' ~ N N N N N l N l N l 04 N N co N) c = O 11 as CO o r x L r m ai (CV: O a (n E N O a~ (3) a a) p N co N Q ~ ~ a O N O O w a t/) N ya y o(o r E 0 _ C CL 0 c0 ca m ° a) > a) O w E O c o O ~ • Z N A ~ : N C U a3 U O C a3 U C V V 0 a) O N a~`a O o 2.E • I- co a a 00 ` E 4) T) °cmL (D * C: V m ~y CL m~ 'a c M '(D .o Q 5 2 0 N U) ° c°i a cyo Y a~i ) O C L (D O L _d - NC N C S y T • C T ll~ O M O U O J N d a c c 0 0 3 rn_~L m Q) m • a c R1 C c o O m a) O _ ~ m u) 72 ou Q C> `O N N W Q m -0 O a _ c N N ay 0) 0 ~ M . >1 0 cu 2-' E i w o ai C tq C Y C N O U (.0 a (oa O a) 2 O N a) O U Q ~ 'O `O a O mO " N C O N a -0 Z v o cu C V J U t''Q 1 'y y y C -p D ,.C..... w q N z O N a - p O c c C = = L Q O O O O 0 (0 a)UU c a.y -C (D 4) N r N M I d l f) 0 I~ OJ O O r r N co !rIz-I f r'r )iO I~ ~ ~ Ir ~O O t-IN r N IN N iM!c! C lf) ( D DII-- co I67 IO l , I VIN iN I NIN !N:N IM N L\ 0 c ca c a~ co 0 m ~ C 0 ) CL y E N O O U O O Q ) c N a CD o m N CL _ O ai p nc =w N:4:) 3'a cnv Noo to o Q W ° c o m mo > a)owEo -0 c' ~ w o 0) ~ t Z c O U c U c c U O N N U V C ` a v, a~.o op ` L E QI Q C dow 0 0) a) 5, w EL c (a.~ .o °cn ( C o` w. D m m =3 COL 7S a) a C Nw o a y " O~ U O J (A m E v co a c co a~ c o 3 _ w a) m ~Q . m 0 W a V! N O N w0 C E a m o Y m C a ~ c e c CD 0) z rn (6 -0 m C `t 0 CU -0 _ , _ o a 0) C t - 0) 0 aa) Xo~ cu E 15 v x (Q C Y o O j O V > c U N O mma cm o co v Q o cn a) (n o rn 0 7 ~ Q L N Q C ti N O O d Q N O M c J U R U U) c -o o c as m --r- m cn- a c c zs O p 0 O 00 OL (0 m U U c a w L N N O N w WIC-FL•- 3H~" rn1o NIM \ In { o\ k In 14) (D r l c) N CL a . E 0 49 ~ N a O U m o a) c a p = N L a _ a Q. 7 5 ot , L 0 L a) m Co ~ r a o O Q) O ~ E O C\l m Z O y C .5 as- 0 S Cc: V .x 0 0 cis O U CJ J C 0 2!, a C a~~~ = . `m a) Z CL - a U a EL c: mom Q cn L C: co a) L q L D O ( _ d , N to Q 19 I f-B 1 Cl- ° ~waE _ 7 a) I~ cn O C > a 0- , CU U J 10 d {p O E V C (D a) C O o 3 CL . - J (0 C L 0 d+ If E a) n ~ s= O m O a) O ) ~ ~ c_> Q c o n - 3 a . O c c a) a) y d h mQ ~ E U) m c o aa) RoI) Z ~ -)t c c o E O E •X (1) (3) 0 0 r- c S t O o co a co O ° a , (n a) u a- ° (1) C' o o k N Q C_ ~ Y O O c0 : a Q Z U 0 L y c m o as U O C C U J R O fn C a L 'J C A y C cn _ a O a C c O L Q I N Z; 0 0 0 0 a) U U c Q cn , o p © .0 0 ~0 a) a m N i N rl ~ w ~ F- 3 F- ~ v ~ i r N co LO (D I M M O r N M "t LO (D 1- W M O r N M d• Lo (D 1- m m O r r r r r - r r r r N N 04 N N N N N N N M -Sk r 4 ~I N o U) co c t o r ff . C o d N N O O O U o a c ~ Q r Q ) i a > > a _a N a r a a (D : 3 a) -0a U) O aa)) I cn -a Co 0) o. . E d C) o _o c c ca co as o > a)o~Eo a) -C N 0) Cc O _0 -C 4-- 0 O 0) 7 L >Z C U) 2 C cc 0 (n C M U C d 5 0o (D ° c Q , O a ) .S E c 0. m00 a T a) : Ea). c a m0 3 N C) C: C 75 C: Co = .0 O c m a~CDi co L ~ °-m ~ N rTc f d) a) 7S 0 t- _ : - C > "O t1 to N O co U a) J > d (D c cu 0 C 3 a) E a i 0 W c (D o0 -t~ s U) cu C E s a) .4 Tv C O N Y O 1 ,2 M . a) N m ~ Q > 0 LO O (0 ^ C(D p :t-Q N 3 C . ~ _0 Cw a) 0 a) O C ~ d J Q) N O C d, E a a CD X m C) Z, O U N O m Z ~ a ty O co E a~ . c c v ' O E X a) O > U C U - O (0 m N 0) O Q (o N CO (n O rnO co C - O - , C a) . O -Fu _0 z o o U a) l w 0 C C U J zo cn - C-L C > w C (n 7 a- 0 O O 0 0 (6 a) L) C CL U) m L r - F - F - F- X 1 1 r N M l 7 CO t~ - N O O N ~ cri ,I ct t C) (O I t ~ I O O NI N N M [f NINiN lC N ) I C . . r NIN te' IN!N I10 M po N M c 0 O i N a l~ \n 0 a; ' E c0 0 0 a AfN TV r ^ _ a) w -0 N r. ~ a a o ~ voi ~ o o a=)w ~v ~ m a o 0 cv ad 9 oo0CCU: co0 > o o o C') E N z O N ~ ~ 0, L Z c 1, fin C + U CII U O .U 0 = a3 0 C O S = a ~ O ) w aop > Cl . L E wa) .o a a? c V m ~l v ca a C : O :3 a N -0 c N C .0 V w c9 ~ L L D O O CO to d (7 ~ O C a) i Q 1n o a Cc to N p y O N O O E r r, L n O N' cu a o ^y C ' ~i p O O CO O ~ a~ U O J _ E V ~ ~ CL C t0 ~ a) C 0 3 m_ L 0 o a `U1 l t. _ J ~ ~ 1 S) Q qr _ o O a) a) C: CL x 0 l( 't a) n > o Q.~ 0) - co m O a t= c a) o ~o~ c m f d = ~E~t aL(D o01 Z 3 c: .9; t 0 Z'C O E x O I : +_B CO N - -8 2 o cu c to N co - U 2 O ~ C ; co O rn0 C) ~ . O _ a) O C L Z U O a) a_ V o m o 0 oJ V C C s O r l~ r v fn C -O L I C r n = > -a) N O 'D C C O O L a ` O o O O tQ (n o0Uca O o o h a) _c L L L L a) ~ 1~ h` M M ♦ ♦ ♦ ~ - N M "T C fl II- c o m O N M d' M C D I O m O, N C l) q- LC) CO I - 00 O O r r r . - r - r - ~ r N N N N N N CV N N N co A ~ c O c i> m C) c t - ry ( N tZ O E O U a> p cu N a 7 N A w v 3 c Y (D (0 ca nd o > O YO w E 23 N -0 C: (D l J C,) Z z l l c c c Qj N x O C N U C w • V V O O O m . v G v o ` j 0 Nn3no 4) C: Z w C) . c ~ g a) c co cn _o a> > C: cu c.o a0iw t1 N C) t!1 75 N (U w n CT o G>=v (n (n U O a) J O R ` O G c~ c° a~ c N o 0 3 C') .c ' ) _ _ ' J E Y ~ O _ OE o 2 m Y O m C O G c ` O Q C > O N N c iv-o•` a~ 3 6 o c c a) a~ c m 1 m o_ Y ut CU m E y > O C E a N X c t O V O~ O O +T .G Y C C R Z O C C O (0 "D 7 .C O c X Y C) ; O U A U (o L O ~1 O 2 (p a (11 ° Y 2 Q 1 w w cn 0 6- o o 3 C o OF G N w ~ C O O . O i Z U O O U Y c c c C U J O C c v c c -v CO N 0 a o 00 m Cl) C) C) c ° 7 3 t a> a~ m Z 41 WHH 3F- 3 o o~ c7 ~ N M V 0 (0 1- M M C) N M I tf) c0 tl- M M C) N M It LO r` w M O 1 - -I N N N N N N N N N N M a✓ I 9 fA h . ~0 / 1 C ~1\ r~ 'd) M O O L {n °N 1 p fl ( M m p ) N 7 o -a o 14L a q ac a) 2 3 N Q CY o - o ~ a) o w E o ~ o o O) O > Z Uj c cn c N a) in 0 U (6 U S V a) U O O N U C W _ U O N c T2 C ` Q3-0 p0 w Y L o U fl r f0 , o K ~ cv 7 = d O v ~ a) E co 75 0 a > N J N 0 V CU C (0 a) C O O 3_ w a) N J i c L E w C y E 0 a) v ` 2 a) 2) a) m 0 p O+ !?L C (0 ' p O a O c a) a) ~ d W C C: X ~0~,0 U O_ a) p CD aa Z Q C E O C ~ ~ _ 7 O E x c Z a) O > U t ~ A U O ~ O N o) OOO N ~ O 2 M ,o - O a) c O m `C Z U p 4) J U O) •C C a) L ~n cv = m a) w cnO= o 0 0 0 cu a) UU Q(n O O O a Y a) m L a) 7zr LLI N M LO CO r` 00 O O N M O OR CA O r- N M -t U-) O ti co 0) O f N N N N N N N N N N M c o ~ 4 -p O O y s o - ° -0 ~z~ oLU > O C to C U x - O O v 02 . L CL L = ~ Z (7 ~ O ~ d U) c O _0 3 z S' ~ L Q o c - Q ~ >o c O C~ x d U N p 0 C p - a~ o Ln U Q O O CS O .Q -0 , C ~ C C ~ J C O O U U N O LU r i I -9I ~ j l l l , l i i ~ Ali 6~ l~ ~ I i t I I I ! I I I ! ! ~ I , r ~ i I I I ~ COD Q o o'er I I I i ; i ! i CL) ~~~Io©I I ! l l i 'o I o~m o~ (CU mr- i o~Eo i O N ~ ICI i ; D ~z ! U iD U ~ ~ ' I ~ ~ N O f6 I I i I I - Q 2 (Z 4 C L 2 t O o l 't o I : O a ) < ' T 7 _ is a i 3 M rn ~ N (a ld J I I (IJ I I 40 I I f ~ I ~ ~ I I i I i I I I ! j I a u; a> c~ > v ~ 1 `CJ ~ I I I I ; I I I I I I l { l I I ' I' E a Ip 1 I I II ~ 0 p _d I ~ J I I I ! I I , I I j f I I I I ~ ~ I I I I O ~ I r ~ ~ I I I I I I I I I Q I n I I ' I I I I i C Q) a) 1 0 O. O N p c:, l d E I 1 ~ I S Qi I ~ I ' I ' I I I j ' l I I I I ~ j l j i i ~ o 'O l I I iI w ' Y- o E x O 'C U ~ I I ~ I I i I ~ I I I I l I I ; I o 0 " I I I I i I V I I I I j o O I I I I I j I I dJ I I I I I i I I I i 1 ~i y~ ~ ~ l 1 co 0 o i ura i t ff j I I i I I I I I ( o I j I I O I I I ( i I I ~ I - 1 I i rt- I I I ID q) O t I I I I I I I ' o- I LO CD CO 01 ::D - - I ` (6 o o +T ai o N i (L ' . _ O w O U o c I a. N ! II I o cu N Q' oa(.1)Tocu tV) ; I ° I I c:LU C p10 i I ~ > p p E C) I -0 tJi N C (j O C ~ 0) = Z i a) N V c ~ i ( I I C N U pU d O C i. i i I , a ~ = 3z 00 Ull c coo =(D 0 - a) a) 0 O 2 Q N +L+ " a) N N I 1 i rn , m 1 . ~ C: (t) rn 0 CL L' a j 0 3 I j j o cn ° a C E p N +N' N • 18- m v 0 i m j o z' rn E c (D ro a n rn E v~' c y ! i I a U m U N R U C U p p Cl) c -0 C 47- Z - - i - - I - - I i 0 o f x1 L a) O 'C a) 1 O > > U n n ( o Q I 2 O i T N U Q c) I ! (n - a) O Q O O a)O j C N ' O A Z U O c p J U R ' j I ° ! i l ~ U c ` 2) C C Q O n o 00 ! ' - a) (3 U c n~ CD 4) w C6 N M d U 1 (O I-- 00 o) O r N M "I- LO (o f- 00 (m c N M lC) (O I- : co 0 O r r r r{ r r r r r N N! N N N N N N' N N M 0 ~ m m m co o ,i N m N 0 O U m N W a) c a ~ N t M a) ca L rli = v mt-C c 0 a) 4 m N v CO m aW _o ° m m ° 0 0 (D o E N m w O y. _0 c NV U C G1 m v 0 a0 C S Dom=_~~ E m m 0 o ~ A y QL = N 3 L 'a O U N 0- r o U ~ m ~ a 0 m m ° rA " co 0 to a) mmL IT C7 oc~ as mroOII•tONm f E m m aD o ~o~WOE-J CL O o 3 rn E 0 m a 'JED E y m 0 0 m y t: y E.o 0 2 N O Oa N W O) Q> O N N(,Do m c m-0 CL c 0) a~ m co ~ 0) 0 E in O m D. m X V it- O Ra O r. 0 O D1 Z c0 _.E+. M c Y c: N W O g w U a (A m a0 rn0 j 0 Z C N O W _ .0 0 m° Z Z 0 o C;) C c 0 _J m:aacaMwrn vaC,O0 c ==3I-C. 000001 NUU c p.m w mwmcu o ~tL•1r- 3Hlr ro r h rOI v •-INic~l~t~~nlco f I I t Cola) lo!-IN c`)1-,t!!o!.2 t:!Co rnlo!-NIC7l:t!I I Ln ti ooirnlo ~I-~_ -1- --I-IN N NINININ;NINiC'j CO M C O c ~1 L O S \,1 F A c i N CL VVV E _ O U ~ ~ O N a ° O p N N O" N 7 N L Y 3 y~ 0 a cn c ~ ~ ~ ~ a i ca on d o a 00 cu m o ow aEiN O O ~ ) - O) Z c c N N O C C N U Y w+ • U O O O c0 d L U Q T c O N C U C -6 V O a N 3 O O E E c C' I= D d ( V c+0 m O L c m 'a) - 5 = O U M T •Q O (Oi~ N ~ V _ i c a u p C ~ L y L CO d N ~ N C c O y V~ 1 Lo c _ co O c> -O E T 4) U 'z O) J O (fl O c U d V c c0 O N C y O O ..c (D (0 L C C 'p p - N Rf .C p Q) (0 O 0 0) "n CU - a ) a ) a s > 0 CU N Q co C N p o c= N N c ~ n N m v c a . d. UO xU NU O ~ R p c ~ c Z m (o . O 7 'C O E x O C U O L N O p Q O N 0) b ' ~ Q O O O 0 U O O ~ O c N _T O L Z U O C U J (D C L ~ C P a) C co "0 C c '0 O p _ C: 5 :3 L C 0 o :0 O 0 6 u)UU c CL U) N M I- M CO I` M M C) N M It LO (O I- co 0) O N co "t (C) CO fl- 00 O) O . r- N N N N N N N N N N M 0 c 0 O Q)i L CO 0 C>~ o t N o a > O U O > ~ ~ dh .LO. Q. 'a is 0 ° ° M O O y ad co O'.'0 O C C: m O O n3 O (D -C O N °acu (D )wO C) CO L > Z ` C pW' U 0 0 _O m CL L ' ' a L L p o a") .S EC L a~ a~. a) w. Z ° w'c U = Oki c coo j 0 0 J_- co CL G -0 `N -0 N m rn a' O C N cu d N . V Q c0 to - C1 . n N O (D E co vi C Co [L' o c 5; v7 a cII O D U a) J N y C -j.03~_-C h (n a) m ° ° cu C y E. o aj C Y U cu (D (D Z c cu -a ~ CL 0 -0 0) c c a) m d _ C: CM 0 c a- cn a) 0) 0 M d c 0 0 0) Z e~J co 'E c. c a~ is ° c C 'n C : • O E X O a) O w C ° (J - O N a co - L N O Oi to N 0 U a 0 O O a o 0) o O N N C O _ -0 c0 d 7 C m O O O C) r c_~ cn N c C a) >,.c: rn - C C 'p - O O ~LQ 8 ° o o O o -Fu c :3 a~UU c acn F- F- Of rINIMId tOICpII~INIO p !I I i - N M lC) cD GO O r r l r r r 'r r r O^ N M V' Lf') CO I- i rn O I, I I N I N I N I N I N N N N i N 1 N M I~ v ~ O lg i IftN y C co 01 v ) co C 1 (D 0 m Cl) N d O U O o O N ~ C d r Q~ N o a N w p •0 C CU F- N w S a y cl) U tT N C1J (Q -00 o- W 0 C C z 0 c0 M co ° > cp ooE5 CU •C N .O Z m O O : Z C 4.0 w o U t0 c t. 0 N V O N O N S U Q ~O N .C a a w o- 3 o 0 E 0 n 0 .S U d a? w Z w m > y Q. c r 3 o = o ca (D 7 C Cu a) cu 0- C am`a~i~rn ca w d CD ocaNi~mL m 75 •N o c E m o `y -2? z 0- a ~C O t o m J y m N C co + n J 3 ~_E_= f~l1 t0 N m O O c m = v, E a, cn (D Y Q. C O cm r co( O C CA N CA (n N 3 tV 1 Q C ° = m ~ CL -0 c O a) C N N m w CA o L J +.+E wmr CL 0oc E m U a>~, D o cZc v~. a) co O j o a C U N O •L• C6 tD -0 U, U a CO - ~ 0 (V Q 0 CAO 5 O O :L- N ON - y C M o W OO U ~ •G C U J a) i to 'N cc a) w _m ~ C C 'O O 0 ~ O O 00 2 (0 a) 0 0 C tL (n -S ca) 0) a) a m r'iN!M 'ct'~LoiCD t~ _ I I 0)10'- IN IMj[t-ju-)Ico !-iE !~IOI-1N;c)i r 1 Lf> ! V I C6 i C Y) . 'J 1 ~ 17!TT -1~-1NiNINiCVIN,!\;NIN N - t\j 1 M 7 W S a ~4 0 co c o Q 0 (01) ID L C; C) uoi > c c o o -Z3 o ~ > N O 'O L~ O r ' C rn C C O C XD ~ O Q I O 2 V L (n Q ~ ( a E O L a c a~ ~w > cp C O c c+3 a .0 C) C (6 S o zfa~ g)s a~ o a) .Y cc a a a~ m a c y . c~ Q O U Q) (C U C E QJ O O ~-g - a+ c -O m20 ~°0 ~ E M 0 Cc, o c,3 -o < a' o U) to O ~ ~ C C N e:+ C rT O (0 C Q C > E Q C N C _Y C a) 0 N 0 LO C'' in U Q ~ Q) o ~o c Q C N 0 aa) 0v c co 0 0 ~ C C U J Q) ~ C to ~ C C a Q' C 0 0 0 Q) U U c n Q) Q) L f-- I I J~ I ~ I I I I I I l i , I i i I I i ~ j I ~ I, I ~ i I I f,~~~ ~IIi I I ; ~ I I I I j j I 1~ I~I I, I I l i c ,M I~ f (D lo I I ~ i l l { I I I I l i i' I I I i; o,s (ID ~ 0. I i I I I 4 I I ( ail ~nj i I l i; ~ I I I ~ I ! ~ i I I I! I i I I _ i I I j I j I I I ~ a r-I I I i I I i j ~ ► ; a 70! lA f I I i ~ ~I I I ~ I+ I I ! I l i f! l o+ ~ I I oI ll O fp I ) I I I I ' I I~~ I i T I J "Z ~ ~a I 0 >J ~ ~ I I I ~ I I I I' I I I I f c: ~ I I >01>4 I I I ~ ~ I I I •C I . .J I ! I ' ~ w ro l 1, i I ` I I I I I I + + I I ~ I I I f i 1 1 ' cn' Ey ! V I I I ! I I ; I I if r, ~I II! I + i~ I ~ ~ aci a I' i I I I I I i I j !-i- I I I I , I a)I~ 0 i I 1 I I I i + I I I I I ~I~ ! 3~ I i I j j i ~ I f I I ! I I I ! Q) m I I ' ~ I I ~ j ~ Ic d I ( I ~ C ~ I + + ! ~ I I I I ~ + I 1 I I ~ i i I i I ` I I i C C) +z f I I I I I I f i I I I I I I ~ I j I I I I; U) Q) i i I I I I L r ~ I I I I ~ I I I I JI I I I i( I O + al ~I~ a~ c I ± j I I I I ! ~ ~ ~ f j I I I ( I I ~ I I I I i ~ I f l I i I I I l I I+ I I I I i ~ I+ I I I ~ I I I I j I I I I nl I~IgI I I i ! I i I I ~ I I I f I I I I+ I I I I I I I I I I I` I I I I I I I I I I ' i C 0 c~ (1) a) co L (o c o .9 4R M C) d ` v' a ) J E C L c' o - o a i a t , O m F- 3 Y 0 0 ~ r- E 00 o : _ ) 2 D co c~cap 0- LL, a a) o Y E p N w y 0 ' C ° a) C Z _ C ~ O C U r.. C U C V 0 a) O C a; - O O N .C U C , d a 3 n 00 > d L E N .o a) .c V O rn a) n a o , a) Q (0 - O ~ y a y c cn (7 w O C N m a) :3 CD d i ' ° N a) 73 T w C E c Lo d: -4, 1(+~ U J N O V C f0 E a) C rn 0 2 _ Y a) 0 3 E { E ° a) c fl- c 0., o O N Q y . _ ` nv c io -a, 3 rn I C a) a) O ° m m N . c na ~E y E ~ ~ o . ~ s CD o c ~ E a~ 0 E X 6 7 z L a) T 0 O > U Y _ C Q U ID N O a3 p O 0 ) O 0 6 •N a O tn0 5 O _C N ~ a) C O . O a3 7 _ ` ~ ~ Z v o 2 M C C O J O • a) - y C Q ) w C ~ •D C C p o p (n Q D 00- 00 Fu w C U U n L L a) L L F- M r N co - ,t In (D ti 00 O O N (o 'T LO (D ~ 00 0) O N M .4 Lo (D I_ 00 O O ~ - r ~ N N N N N N N N 04 N CO a r of ~ `Y Q 13 V, Q' H l N Mom I 1 l UI , v~ l( ivy o .C,-) Q - co r a) a) c a. w o~ ~N'' ~rrr a) = Cf a o ~~JJ Co C: CU iR N a) fA , Q ~3 U 0 J Q CQJ L) E cu Q w 0 C C _ooFucu oo Jay O a) o E 0 v L yU C -oz O a) a) N U CU U S O fD U C G1 " 'o Q co 0 "o a) 0 N< N w. a- U\ u V V a.r CO 4) > O a S R N a- C C ' N =3 o C O U L i0 Q ° C 1r W C S y CU -0 " -0 En 0 - a) CD N d t1 ' e w L N Co (n CID a) E CD a) CU 0 O co c0 E a) c y 0 0 a) : ~ a) L i s U) a) t0 O O i0 ; v v N C a,c ~ o cn yp v~ „ G 0 a) z kA a) cn Q .s > O N N m a) M CU -0 LL I_- LL U) fit e~ S d in O O C a a) X U O v,^ Ql U a) O Q) 1 N O C Z O (E1 N, r C N C Y C 0 , 0 (D o -r a) U a U O _N 0 SL CU (U r '0 L C a) O L a) y, O U a p o ~ Q 2 mO 3 Q .C N l O d 1 a) Q Z U O L C c N O U o •C C J R b J N C cu a) -C -0 C C 7C). O 0 to J a O O O 2 c0 f. Its r a) C: a cn a) o a) a) 1 1 1. LU f- ~ F- 2 a t ) O~ ~ N M Cl co rl- 00 rn O r N M ct~InlO !~.pjO O `a ~f- - r r!^!^~NIN IN IN IN INIC"i INICl\j , G 0 iv) LF) I I ! I I (6 o ' O C C O C) N m I~. L 1 04 to ~ 0 . O oQ r- o m c o I i tQ >0 I>v p . N I O> N O Co ~ 1- 1 nn Q i I I o Ea o l c c p ~p co c0 I O p p y E O I 0 m Z : N C j $ c d -y p C N U C I V N U OU 0) O c • i s . o 3 0 p a II in (D :3 0 0) N fSi > fl.. C C ~ C (0 N o r O U t0 T.Q j O ~ ~ ~ O to rn L ~ d ' ~ ~ ~ o c ~ ~ d + ~ t0 , N N W N U7 C 0 co S 75 a O , i ! m 4-- (v m p u E --j c ca c O o p l j I ._._..I . I . . C E o .f0 C Q C~~ O o ~ ~ I C> 0 O a) J= 0 A = I I p '4 C N N C m m CO C= m ! I j , i a ° c E : C3 I •x Q> U p CL c o_ 4) p 0) Z { na)~~ - - - - - "0 =1 O E x; i i O > O V - i - I ( ro 0 m 2 a° . Ln Q) U a to o a) O a o m o~ I ~ ; I ~ C N I j 1 I O= 0 0 C! (D n Z U O N i I ! U5 O 0 o o p Q I o Q C) " ct -Cr N as ~ ~ ~Q O I - j N M (O ti 00 O O r r - N M r- r LfJ - tD c- - OD r O> - O N N N N M I 04 V N N co N I~ N 00 1 N 0) O N CO w L -D O r O 03 S 70 C V V/ w w (D N O Q W 0 0 Q 2 > (D E N a) (0 N cO -C O cy) rn - c Z C V V 0 0 0 N U w L _ c L ~ a3r.~ Oo n . E cm, Q) zz =v 4) 0) =3 n c o IO i m m 9 0c d 1 C u, L ~ O 5 c m e m o v J u~i m i i c (U O o 3 O)= , ac i ' t ` 0 N m O~ o O~ m ~ Q 2c~~ m v Q L 3 c _O 20 t c c a) (D m .a r - to N o ' m a L °'~aoI I I z c, 7rU 7 .C O X L N O > U w r r w N Cfl 0 L U N O O, rq Q O (1 O O 7 ~ ~ N . o O L a) c c c U ) V1 •N CO m w m - N a c c O O O c O O 1 O O O O J a) U U C Cl N a) w 1 r~ ~ 1' ~ ` ~ 0 9 1 m Q) W ~ t(( Iv- I Nj M V tI 0r -00 0 Ol - -lc q C D 1 i - - 04 I Mr tC f) Ot -O DI rn1o ~ r r r ~ - r - ce - . - r N N N N N 04 NI N~ N~ NIM y N C 3` ; ~ ~ iK1 d 1 W N N 0 cli a e , E ' O -6 O U a) a a) c cu a) o a>) J N `4 r i Qa)c :3 4- 'o aciw CO) N a 2 m Q~2 ° C~ 0 D cu co ca o J ~1! > m o E o a) O N m O O \ ~ Z V1 p ~ U fu U ° ' , s ~ X (u U C ~4 d a) O C c• ~ ~ 0 'o a N n3~ 00 E a) : am] c . d L CD 2 a N a= O o -h a) N v ~1 (of) 40) N ~ am 7S N C y :e N d N O C> ' w a J N O U E m a E T J c O 3 m ac) of _ c _ w m c `a o p E a) cu Q • w . cu - N m C E. 2 a) w(D Y 4` a C k s G' , i'I A~ t0 ' . cu a) (u O N o a) m a_ a N ciua. a 3 ter. = ~ o o c a) a) m fi cu ~ • c a a) CXD rn a rn o z . cu c ?o 0 E'X ' O O a > } U U CO 0 =,a cD a (u a ~ C O a) O N a) f ; (n 0 a a) 0 O O tT O 0 a) m 7 • a) m O 0 O U a U) T m ~ c N = i a C C Q O o 00` o o ®T - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - a) U U c CL En a) a) a) m w w v N M cr LO 0 O ~ N M - ct - lC ) (O ` f~ 0 6 7 O N M c t CO f~ Op 0 O ` r ` ~ ~ r N N N N N N N N N N M N m d ' o r ~ . c ~N N a t o E CL 1) ICY r O U O N n G~ r c N m ~ . N - 7 L~ 0 O 3 0 ~ ~ O Na - N N a N co (0 9 ( Q w m w N O O N N N w w O _ cd 0 O C c\ C .C N N ~Il 1 O CO V (D V V O d L ' Q •C _'v O o v \ t ..d ~ a3:.Q Op > D:1 5 a _ V J _ . . ~ w C: C o rn .L t mS & : m 1 v o C c L A cn 6 L L ~ w- L? T T N v L Q + 0 E ~ 75 o_mam J m o U O J M d 0 0 ` v 3rn, ~ N im _ w E a ~ i m O m a a cu m h _cyaQ0 CY) (D ~~O~ u ) .3 U) cu a > o 0 :t aN C m . a 0 -,oz 0, a) oc a) a) ~ C D \ C Q N • Eca y O O c C $ 1= cu ) , -v E X O N O O •c > ,r - o L;,- ~0 c n c - 0 . = m` a m- = 0 ) N 2 ° rn U) U CL O O N O z U O d CD C c U O J U Z V7 N C L CU N y O C C a O _ O 00 m mUUcQco t ts~t m 'v h- i- 3 a t 1 -I NM ~t tn U, 00 0) - r co -L nc or l-0 0 0O r N M ~tL n( 0 ~ 00~ rn,O ` r ,r r r r r r r N N N N N~ N N NI NI N,M "I MM -°~a BCD 0 0 0 ~ ~ O. n O N CT v ~ F" ~ - - i O p 10 E p o c 2 l P O W - C C l CD o L E S /J 1 i I O S 07 (D i o ~ t Z 2 C U C U~ ~V O N O ~D I ' O C N c~ _ T a o p yJ L C _ E p L ° v - - - - o a) C'I -0 .2 Q :S m o 0 ro 0 o m co m d o~~v~ # _ N (n cu p cv L-) E a U r ca E N c Q a~ ~1 0 0 3 5 =7- t t I (U to o 0 o ca o (U 3 cn I a> a~ m ~ ~ S ` c> o m Q ro Ni :n ro y Q L 3 v o a ~ a~ o CD E ro olE CL 0 ca E m cv I , ( I I o E x O T O U ) CD w k O Ol O ~ ~c`a-~ CL o y o m -0 ° Z v o m 7` y C ' n I I . to N o D p O D U O Q. N ~ W L~ 3L~Iy Q~ 14 N ~ J . . a Q' K - - LO UD 1l- c0 O ) O r N ch ~ r d' ti' r l (D I~ m O r r ) O N N~M V L7 CD I~ co O O N N N N N N N N N c") T- d OL989ES T •bS T UaUe>f e9Z = T T LO t. t qa j v ~ c N L N o N N d ~ O c U v- (h r - ~ ^ n ° p (1) ca o ai o -cu 3: ' o co m a o cu m : CCU O ° ° ° Y i a > N o E C) O N N ~ ~ o (o c°i V o o S - cu O U C Q. _ V Q O a) a v v a) c: o O o cl) :3 am) . o r- ca J v O~ o y (u v~ 2 d v C7 0c 1~ N\ u Q ~ G1 ~ v, o m E (D (D O c~ d m ~C ~ J o -C !f p co U O J > a~i E V a c co fQ E a) c C 'd j C: m E n m o ca c ;Eo m 0 ac): CO a) (D >o-°m ~ ~ ~ , O = Q C cu C: a) 0 0) mc c: cn J E ` m d E , es q . , CL (D ° Xm O 0 rn ~a z S \ a 0 O - y~ (0 E a ( o -Do 0 E X 0 a) O > V w U O (p -O c6 O 2 2 N a) • O O Q O CD C) C N O W a) c o ~ , = y. Z v 2 o ~ Ln C: -a 0 O fn - c C C "O Q ~ ~ O c :D =3 - O O O O ° Fu a 5 a) U U c: ~ W e ~ ~ ` F- F- ~ H ~ p c \ N M ' I Ln CO f - co O O N M ct O ti CO 07 O t N M ~t 0 (o 1'- 00 O O ' r' - N CV N N N N N N N N M "I lzr , U) Lll k A c Lr ) g co C:) C> C . - c ' M a' a C:) a E O CO O U n Y r% 1 N I r ri y - o m~ a m r c ~ r~ r r ~ ~ f -C L - 1)0: j v ~ 0 O 4 Q O a co ° N 4o 9 a~ o c _ c 0 0 c° cu m o a> O E o 1~ -0 o v' ~ y o a' Z `L N C U ca U L` c7 S o a(u) N V U " _ _ /n~ o Lo ° T'' O O U C ~ CL N Q3~ Op L E ° c: -C: y Z V J a° °'a a 3 ~.L o'er L L .Q (n O j ` L = o c a~'i cu'o i h. M cu rq L E 4p 73 n c,, ID O c° a N y P" Ir V ` L L L U - (u a) U) O U e0 J to v c co m a> c 3-9 ° N m a) m ° 0 0) c C _o y- -M) cn > o a) M -Z a Z L h c io-o aL - c ~ J ? .2 oc o' ~ 1 ;N : E 05 d ~ m o 0 E z ' E ° w - m 'C: O X E O N O > U ° m m p L 2 O , tq N vOj U Q O O Q O rnO C N w O C O - 7 c c c a) U U -0 i N N _w ' - 2 6L, . 'O C C tp O O , A V+ n° O O C-) N o a'UU ~ av' £ ° ~ m ' r P o a v o r 0 c ho o ' w a t .C L L N W 3 d m y ~ ~ ~ i ~ r N M lf') C O 1 ~ 0 0 O O - r N M l C O I ~ O O O ~ - N M N T LO CO I l- m m O r ~ - r r r r r r r N N N N N N N N N N C ~ Nil , m ~pp C)6 0 I r o ~ r m 0 l m N IL O - O U n r ~ n o N te m e. r N ~0" CD L g -0 30: CD m '0 N 0 co , O y 'G y m m r Q- 0, o c C co > O O W N _ o L y Z C: (D 0 ca 0 0 0 1 V .U O m _O m C ' G p.m L c- tr IL y. Q3 m 00 E m a~ = L. V c ~a e t0Q==~ 0 3 ~ S _ r O v m a O 2: 0 (~q C ! . L C m n tl! c0 W ' C! ~ a L ~ O O = O N fII CL W m (D r E m J w R O m V ~ V c ~ t6 m C CD Q. - HmmopO~ a ~ ~ a 3 v . O ~ - O tG Q C> O 1 to m _CD 0 v c c m m C33 MO m J a E £ C ~ X b U O N e O Q " W Z E m m-= m 10 = p E x O > V m a L U (0 ' C3 m N O g m m 0 O O MC ~ y ~ N B D m 0 m 0 p Z v o 0 U M C O 3 Q = V m tow c -0 J+1 fl.O C ~ : r ' :3 OOOom y U U c:. fn W m m N ~O L L L (ll r i , Y ? ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ O i I . I i r ~ ! N ' as ',d- ~ to , (0 n o0 07 ( O rI r{ N r c0 TI -1 ll7 ~ r~ CD t` oO I O ~ O -1--~NI LV N I Ni C+7 I N1 t1 1 m Ln , ti CO Im! O ~ C~1~NiC\~INiN?Nic"~l ltj N o t ~ o a , a N te 7u- L ~ o Z - ( o o ) c a m ~ ~ o > N C" 0- a c - c a a i N m o c c ad w m m CD > a w E o N O F CU O 0) o c,Z i c in p U N U C V j o0 N O p o N .c C a CL oo w v > n 5 , o C o U Y N Q a o N co fn L t~ -C i« 4) i - O C (7 c ' a. ) a) E cn o O U O J U N O C V C N 0 0 3 rn. w -0 ac) 'm A (n OE E°°'rn~ c 3 _ C) ac) N C m Q .S > o m a) co 3 ' c i~ ~ Q ~ p -0 c c m ~ •o, m 1 . sp a.. d E N c E - C: ' L C: Ln O 'C p E X \ w O > U O U O D N N O N O O cn N U y Q O O Q O m O 5 r Q C N ! O= J z o N O -0 U O d L N c ~ U 0 few f c - a~ C o c c co a Q 0 c o 00 io a~ U U c Q 13 " 0 a a; Y 1 + ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ~ C~ t oO ) N M k -t Cn CO ~ 00 M O N M -,t (0 f~ 00 0) O N M It In CO Il- 00 O O r- N N N N N N N 04 N 04 M vd N aw o a c 0 co m cu O N o E o o c O cN Z OX 0 U ` O c-2 3 J ~ a N Q 3 00 > E a) ~ a) c + + N O O c m 3 ~.~o 75 -~s c cu M CL f~ I-f L N (D I 0 w o c ai a~~i m m ~ v as m a~ N E c N O ,p C Q) 7, J LL O c ~ -a a N O co E J a V c 03 C a) C 0 m 0 3 ~ a) N ~ _ J w _ J N N O - C N 2 a) c a m o~ cYi o Q1 0 o 0) > O N ~ Q . L O 2 3 -L- CL N s 0 "O c c a) a? c Q~ O y m d s Q -O c E N ~ cu E . d U N m t O O O O R Z A :3 'C O E X , 0 > O 'U a) t O -o O o J O N U a0 O O 0'.2 m0 5 _ N w O • O 1 O Q Z U O L ` 01 C c V J 4) 10 N C -p Zn- U) ~ + I - CU a) . 1 a a) Z Y C N - _ O C C 'p O O O O UU a ~ I~ c a(n a) , q ~~~0 W F- I- .3 I- ~ ec r- N M V to Il O O O r N M cr l f) C O f ~ O O O r N M d I n O 00 O) 0 r ` - r r r r ~ - r N N N N N N N N N N c e) J o a (D 0 0 a ' 5 D Cr 4 aa aa) o O E O U O -0 o c CL r ~ r ~ N w ~ U ~ ~ n. L N ` 7 ~Raw~-oU)) S ~JOL cn N CD E ° o ~ ~ o o m mm o a>i w 04 ~ 4- 'C: o a,N.~r ~Z C: N O U C U ' C ( Q V U U N O m L CL 00 >t L E G1:' s w 3 cn ~ ao . . > a~ > , O N f0 L O /L d I1 ~ N. CD •N oa) C C: a ~C O CU U O J > E U) 0 3 ~ _ _j . m cu E c L to O c0 ,FO O d F C C Q C ~ C N U . n ~ C) 6 rn ~ v Q .c > o w o 3 - O Q c Co c O~ M m cO .c N IF p L 1' cp c Q ~ E to • 5 0, m ~ 4 s . CL (D x y c c0 t ° Z ~ a) CU C C Y c L u O O C (D O U (B a N O ° " rn N o 0 U Q Q O CD O rn0 N O ' ( ~ O fU ~ a Z U O O M O O D) C C U J N t4 C c C 0 C c O Q C c O L C O O O o f r a a~ UU c in O (V w N M LO c o I O ~tllnCDI1~IN~0 Or NIMci llf)ICOII~ ~j0)!0 NIN NINININ.INN!NINIM N c - O N y cu C (D O O r~ Q) CD d = -O O O a) O ; ; ? d a) 0 a) a o.o co cu H C +O' N -O co N N Z7 co a) to Q W 0 0 0 0 O O U7 O 0 N O I_ O a) c - C14 _"C' N rte. o m .7 C Z C (D a) N U O O co O ~O a) 'V T a) C: d: CD V 0) :3 0 3 ~ ~.ao•Cnm r io n ~.a N I~ 4= o c ai m m V ~Q) :3,0- co N (n E 75 off" `-°a.' 0 c N y C cU 0 U E J N d V c cu 0 0 3 o•E N n .i c _ N N cu 2 O (o = N E 0 O (L) Y C . Oa.. C C)) N Q C> O N w lU a) " CU 0-0 C C (1) a) N cCU C m Q L-' U) G~1 E O C Q. U ~ N 0 cco~>,.E 0 Cz m N N C Y O O (D O T > U N L) LO N O O N a) O U ~cD O 0 Q 0 0) C) O_ a)N~ O d - Z U 0 C co O O 0(_) C J a) in cn 0) cu a) C C p. O O =3 0 0 0 LO (U a>UU c Q- -N 1 r I~-I~- ~FL•-~ a I f I N I m I't I LO I cD 11-_ I d - IN l~l 1 rnlOir-~N ~I~ lf7 cDII~INIO) O I ti - N N iMI~LOICDII- COID~! O ~Iri~ -;r !SIT I N NINININ CNICViN cVlO r- ~ o0 9 `g I t co o , C) y N m O 'm a U o (D o n a) a~ p . ~ p T + p a a O fl o Q) i O E o ~q ~ E o > ° o C) o ( t U p U o co o C: v x o J L U O_ C Q O C V . d N n 3 p 0 C o E a~.o Qs 6 U L, . d Z c~~ C: m a) L Q C p r N O o (n m L M m $D o a) ~ , y © ~ o C Q~ fn C 1 N c N 7 w ~ N 70 Co cu O V In (n J (a U ~~O ~ d CL ~y J O O m L y- O 10- t+ 0 tp (0 O C d p C;) o lz~ I~j lJ ~ ° ~N U ` ( n o O c c ~ Op Cp !(n co .O c C- " ~EL°_ a> E S a I) o ~ z . (U (0 E C: in- c -!X2 70 :3 o c CL) O > T U . 4 (0 N) (BOO ~ tq O 0 U fl O O p O CP ~ O O Q C N aT O O C O L ~ Z v o ~ C C U J l~pl L a~ w c to "6 C C "p o p N n o o O o O , ~ a,UU~n' O _C~ -1 3 U N M d CO I~ co O O r- N M d c0 t~ ao rn O N CO It Lr) O r.- 00 O O r r r e N N N N N N N N N N M o I t~ co c .O LI` ~v C to N c I r •a (vi N o m I a a~ c 1 tom! o -'n 70 _0 'co I~~~I I I O w C C 0 0 M M wp > +U O E ID uJ ~ y N Z I C 2C U U I L S X (0 ' U c ~ ff, V~ U ~ N O (6 CL cn 0- 00 I -1 L E a~ a a~ c• O - U g 'o o Co 0- O (~6 A a>. c - ` a w T) E ca c ~ c L o o s - oa c 6 o U '5 m 'o Q to . c. > MU) C 0) o ~I c a o CIE U M o IZI`~' o a~ m C o E X I o N v L O ` > > v _ I r .p U O~ o I l / (D 'I) om ~ ~ O O, to N I V1 U Q (9 ` 0 0 0 Q C N -0 :2 z m o Q) 'on ~ -0 cD- 00Oo~( i IAN a>UU c a~I I~I01 ~OIO w L 7 III 0/ c,l Q I fi ~II► Ilili 6 ~ I~ I I I ~q, `Irv ► I ~ ' ~ i ~ ! I ~ i I ' ~ 0 ° d I C6 c a, o r Vfl 1 N a CD a E O O U (D ~1 nn o a~ I c a 0 cu=3 ~o aa) N ~ lr y a~ a - O T }T O w " 3 ' c N - ' Q a a p ) • y y cD Q d -o C) a) o E O I ~ - L Z o l p r 10) 00) o V .x O p 0 Cm O U U C ~ _ n O (D T V C -0 " a c (D E a) A? o V L- - • U J r 0 o rn ca n c c a a o a, 5 c cn N 2 cA n m N 1- c`^ cn N N N c t~ On 73 c0 w m ~n m N t J > fC 0 C (D 0 N C 0 3 ",_E NY a) N J .9 C ~Ei E o m _ N i5 m C E O N -in O tm u C - c a c (u o ~ c io -0 3 0, 2 p - c a~ a~ n ) c p o m n s N n- L) y( O o J o c c ( c o~'E ~iu• C p E X O T > O U w C: O O N O O O tq N V7 U a 0 O 0 o 0 0 nO EJ C N a O Ql C O L Z U O - C p O p O U D1 N C -0 to t0 0 r e N .T C cn - "O C O O C 16 ~ o o O o F c ' o C..) C) C n y t L L O d \ r N M -t U7 (D h CO O O r N M to (D 1- co O O r N M lf) O ti CO O O r r r r r r r r r r N N N N 04 N N 04 C \I , M a ' nn l i ' I V 1 (fl O n' 0. ' i C) _ Q CL ' ~ N C) v o p n ~ c o h t a. n ti a) o ~ co ~ N c7- tA ~ d _0 _0 w L Q :03 11 V -=O, a' 3 -0 a) 2 T w Q CL 0 CU > E N O 'qu) Z 0 = l~! C C;) N =p f U (0 % \ J t V x U O a) O m U C o) i .S L p o a i( d C5 ' a ; Q3 Q 00 V J a) T cl a) c 0:: =coo . 3 O. O~~ 3 ~ It r v C O U P O 2 ~ n , y J a) (D u) w U) ~ ~ te' ~1a)a)E v ( a 0- a s O co j to t0 O U - 0 c m m c a) O o 3 m _ a) C ` kr) yr C~Ru a) 0 v u VI Q J C ~ 2 26 Q. co -0 - = - 0 c w a) O ca •C a" 2 m 1 w' E in ~ o ~ c C, ~ ~ t cm aUa) a,a) ti , o 0 n3 E a) cu 7 O x a) 1 O > V _ C U O p (0 (0 O 5 tl O O a)O 75 ,w O p (1) C N Iz O Q Z C) o . c o 0 o U O C C U J O .r lC to f6 a) Y 01 a) C In _0 c C _0 O fA O :3 o o O F r - a) UU c ca- 0 a) a) (D a) w 1 Ln 1 T N co d• LO (0 a0 O T T T N T M T "t (f) T (0 T t'- T T CO O T O N T N N N (h N A N (n N t0 N h N 00 04 O 04 O CM b U cl Q1 7 v V' S s ~-z ~c ,F 1 c c o 1 C m co o 1 ~ jl n 1 ~ `A ' ~a o 04 a h ~ c~ 14 r ~ I E 30 Q cp N M > > a tti s C~ r r ( , N O N N t?~ C Q ° v co ECG 3•v~cu-oo awoC: cL ° o IZlI > a) E N J a 1 ~a~ 0 ~ Y o~ L z ~ c cn in o (0 U J v o 0 o m C U Q- c O E a) (D (n N 7 O .@ ig :3 . o w (0 Cc: U a) 31 ~ L (n 44 l o, a) a) CU W 0 0 ' E U) o C > <n a ' J to O U c M IP t4 E V L f° C CD C H 0 0 3 rn_ L a) w =ooh (D CU to (n Y r ` -1 Y Q O Q o ° ca a) 3 N CL L _ (0 C O U E , d a. a) ax) rn 0 0 m 4 c o Y C z 4) r, E io cu a) 7 C O E C: V x 72 a) w C O p a) N O to N O V ,2mo5° C N O a) c O a z U O d C O CCU: a C O N U o V ` a) in Ln cc: :E w C cu a) C C p O O C 7 7 Y- !Z O o O O m U U CL b O l K 9 s,. / ~ J o ' 1 Cl( , . w F 3 H _ , e ~ - N M u C O ti C 17 O O r ' N M d• 0 CO I - m O O r N M" t u C O I - CO O O N N N N N N N N N M N J ~ , 0 o -2 r M ~ v (D co o ~ rn C) C y O N IL O T CL Co U '00 O N N? d r r J i n N m O Q~ a v °i ~ o~ o m 3 ~ ~ ` - w w rn ° co N mr cx- omCOmo o a i uo o -c E Cl N w N N ~p Z t .2:` y C aj _ N C.) c d1 ° v U CL c l O -6 O O C U a ~ CL n a n o 0 (D =1 r g - c o o C o O 3 W i O y m rn d y :3 CU d V1 N E 3 d / C O a (D O > m ^ C O a V O J W m \ - ' to R3 0 U ` C N O~ N c Q' J - c - E B v U) - CE a) 0) Q) C (D 0 4,: co a) 0 < ag m> ui N Q c om m . Q o~ O vo d 1 [ a c ° m ~ ~ v 15 N M co c Cu q - N !D IT a) 5< , L , o o°0 Z ~ c - (D r c v, E v 0 X 0.- O , O > U N ` A, a o OC r N 3 ~ O N O -Co-- ca O O CTO ` Q C N T O o C (u o o c ) ~ •C C U ..J y CQ a w. N C ~ D c c v Q" O 7 O 00 N p`' - 0 0 ~0C) Q ~ , 4 w cart t- t- 3 1-- cc CD r r ! ` ~ e.0 q zR - ? - I N I M ~f• t o C p t ~ 0 D CT O - N n 'I t t o C D I I - C O t~ 2 4CI N C - t• t o C O t 0 0 O7 O I r , N N N NI N1( 'Ji NI NI N CY) F? D ~ ~ O 1 P n co V v - \9 ~ p \lD 1 t (6 o \ 1 Y J CD CL E o ( n l M a~ p N Y Q a 75 p V1, O ( N a o a~ cp E ~ 0 co co co ° > o £ E O N N N O a ~L ~ O O i in C C f U N U J 0 1 l l O D U Q 0 \ O C O N .C •U = C \ Ilk a 3 op Em.T~oa~C 4 L U I\J ' Q m (D R > , :3.-- o .a-) T (D co Q L C~ ) m w 0 co O C N co L C. ~ 0 L b 'N E ff O L d O y n O C > a O U E) J O t9 V L co E N c C (o C J J E N N N co ~O O (o 7 C L 1 , - 2 Ne g O ( 3 a) . Q .C > O co U N Q L i d . C o C O O d QJ E o K p CL U "Z A C No rn 5 Z co E co E x ~ 1 o O L j O O U Y 4- C Q U O _ a) O O A N C O L L ~ L U O _ O O O N O a 0 O a , a O . c Z U O I I O C O U J t :E _ 0) N y C N - t ' U) o O D C C 'O D o o O ° `o O ~ o o t 0) UU C CL (n , 1 ► q s D o ~ z` ^b r N M ~t l 1) 1 0 I~ 00 O O N c h cF 0 c o i - O M O r N M - -t L o O ti O O O r ` - r N N N N N N N N N N c h CY \ fn 0 % L r\ ~ N ~ 9J N O d o 1 ~ V~ V ~ 1 J ! ~ l t M ( O p L CL / V ~ ' I 1 M N • 1 E 0 V c Q 0) fh r r C M 0) p N cu N d~ - cu 0 (u T Q W 0 cu cu M O N 'O p E O O N O ~a 0) : 0) = O o co 0 L z = ~ , y aj O V ~ ~ e Y p U U O O cu , : ~ r A J o o o 3 ~ a3~ pO aEa)~ = Q _s ..s R y I Gs ~w in a p U rn a c 3 N = ` O O U L (6 ..c - Q ` y 9' V ~p cu cl) 4) N = Q (u - iq w ~ 1 I,e ~ M ~ C _ a In > ' N C% C . O U O E J ` C.1 C (u ~ ~ O ~ y O J o 3 E iu = 2 4- p `o o ~ (u ` J v l~ O- N Y ~ 6 J O 0) a,Iu 0) N s 2 2 a m) n 3 cu 0 v 6 . c a. p a m 9 a y r u- h p n . ~E1z- pC y ~ r, o a~a.°'~2CD Z c u E "O O E x O O > U + 'a) cou C? o ° 5 0)0 o a O N C v O p Q~Z U O L r W' N C S C J M r U) a c c O o D o O o ca- f i9 N L UU c fzco 0 O L O w- -ter-3-CQ) ( h ~ r f i T C l M ' ct L o ( O 0 0 O O T N M ,I. t o m I ~ 00 O T N M Lo CO I ~ ao O T r T T T T { ~ T r T N N N N N N N N N N ( e I I I ,I ~ I I ; I l , I ca l I I ( I; , ° I CO CD I 1 I tl~ Z I2qI I I i I I I i i I I c a y N Imo! I I ( I i i , i j I I~ I i ~ ~ p LZ COI ! pC71 a) (D I j ; I ~ I - I A I oLU ~ I > IU O L 1= O N ~ I i I i ► I j . I I I' I ~_~1-D~ 0 a) .0 m O U -2 4- a~ p O Q I A ` I w - I ~ I W 1. 4_ I I I i I I I N O O~ ~ I Q c~ I a 0 ~ I i I~ ' c • 83 U) i a> i l 0 5 4 p' d p ~y I I I I i d j i -O U ~ J tn. d' f0 O i U C (0 Z 0 O~~~ ~ N i I ° n Ect' oo o a _ ~ 21.x r U i I I ! { v1 I -aI _ I I I I I I i j C: I o r_>oQi~lr 70 a) ? C O ` I N ~ V)~ x Q I ti! - - l ~ I I i I . ys, i I I i I ! i I ! o ~l - .X o _ m U z, U 'i~ - z I~ V7 w i i I o I in, c I I i _ O > m 5 2 I m ~ a) a) 0 Tl ; f l i i ;l I U) U CL L c) O r~0 0 ~ I j ! I ~ I I I ; 0- 0 z~ a I ~ !I I IIII Q) ! l I y c U cc -i a) ~ ~ I m ~I ~ C C -p Q O ~ j ; j ; i l l I I + ( ll ~ , - ; I I ! I ! ! ! I l I~II,I I I I I I I C: CL N N r 4_ © r O O J I ` I ~I ! , I I I I i 0 o or O O v O N p N O~ N O ~ N ~ O t0 F-- , C ~ ~ O ~ CD 3 ~6 0 E d ~ -n a w ° c c Cp ~ o ~ E o -o a> Y o O) O ~ L L Z' U .U O O C O N .y C f0 T cn a C C (d ~ C cn N D O.. C O U L _ co _ -0 to U N M U d =3 a. m -Ln cn a~ - a> a c-' cp N lO N m ~ o U r ca ~ ~ a~ c y J o 3 ~ ~ a~ co (-U 4cl): 0N-.~ Q .c > o ro m 3 t cQ O a c c m m o ~s . m c CI- ° c E E CL v ~'S' m p 0) Z C C in p 7 .C p E X O O ` U O T3 f~ p C ~ U ~ ~ OI N O_ ~ N ~ U ~ ~ tU O O O O) O C n- C N ~ y o - Z U O a) .0 C m OC U J N 'D C C ~ Q p O O O O Fz U U c o- l i - d `0 ~r%, 71t, V)l r ~ O N~ ~I rn .v ~y f ~ ~ ~ I ti U ~ 9 I~ v ~ MI r~l~ v Lo u 3 ~u z ti c 4 yl 3 ~III~i~iIll~-i~i Inl I~ 1 Lol l lZS ;y N (7 -T I Cfl CD r` W I O N C*1 V I~ r m I O 01,989EST-17ST ri~I',III ~reclC"i~ UGJe>] e9Z = i i LO ~T ~7a~ c° i' . 0 in co O U a > c m. n-Qo) 7Z o ° Z CD N N fd ac I=- cy N O_ W 9 O C j 0° m o m c ?:EEc a~ Y rn~'o rn a .3 L ~ 2 c N c 6 ; a U (O L fn 0 . 15 cu 0 c v 1 c Q O O .C U c T o. ,Z3~ 0c Z. - ~Z j o"-C 'o a' Z wo cr -'oD w co (r, O C O N tC d N N O c E C = ga d 2 O U EO J L c~ V C (0 E N C 0 O 3: S_ -C a) c a o o E = O N CMI) N Q > O N N N a) t C13 O = p) Co. N a; cu .S r L 4 E y o ac cu E o m a um' o E'x O _ U C U N O N N N a) O 9 O O m O ~ ''O O C N O C O ~p ~ z f z s O m C C V J U N C N r 'O C C l7 aO O o 00 a ovv r a~ 1~ ! 4 j Q M ts ~ 1 ~ - ; ` ~ - - - ye a C5 -q3\ ' I I i - - i-- - I T I ~ 01 1 - Q ~J ~U a \IJ '44 {~j Q 1 fc) a Or pS' i 4 v 7 ` C r. a~ {il Q-J^ N ..J r7 ~ 1~ r Q n t V. ~ iJ ' l r ~r ' _ L I ~ ! I A l i i m C I~ J ~ C S I j ~ I - A, A x rk , l-V INI N o 41 \ r 1 1 • , N O = f \ 1 o a z h E O O Q (J~ fil l 0 N 1 L o N T, ti a L Q N ~ N J o d O J O O D ~ r Z > Q Q w E Cl N L A 03 -Q W ~ Y O 0) O s Z } 'I fn 0 co 0 S Y \ ' M~ C N 0 C V N O (Q Q3Z 00 r r J ` E~•T) Q~' c V m R> Q c p Z - - - - - - - - - - - - - N c 3NC.Lo~~ C 'J , U Co ~ N Y s ~ t O o (D M cn ~ G) K r' O ~ _ L L Pa d a 73 0 > -0 En zz a) CU _w M L V C (0 \ J O O rn ~ aa) - c 0 N c6 O c E o 0) CY) • v • ~r ` $ ~y ~ ~ 0 c O V Al v Q ~ > O (0 Q w `Z N 1 cl . E ° x m . co a L) a) o 0) a z co E X 7 'C O L O m n Q > 1 1 ,0 ( ; o D 2 2 o 6 0 , cp C) 75 O C N O O C Z 0 O •C C U J m '7 \ ♦ L 41* N D L -`n cn CM N = V% J o2y c cn- - o c c o 0 0 c o L Q r o o0 a CL cn U U 0 c " c J ` ~ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ` ~ l ` ` ~ ri A R ~ C 4 t ) r - M O S S1 - N N _ M 7 dLo ; O c o 0 O ~ N M t L c o r O O O -1 1 7 N N N N N N N N N N M T o f 0 v L1 ti ) c d r. r s- ' C- a ~c 0o o z j I J CIL4 C V _ J 3 a ? c a ~t S N n U 4 p' . Eli n; N , 9, ° '°i m Z J - eA r 1 ! s i 1 j I I i i .J c y ~N S 1J ~ V , ~J N ~ I ~ 1 J A A ' LA N N ► 6 C O ch co c O N CO U a o ca y ° n -0a _ a o aCo o ~ 3 ' 3 m m cn a y -;m E03-a o W C > w o E GO) in pc ~cp~ m V 4 V U O O Q o m Hwy C o rn eo Vii N a C C 'fl o 0 c o ~ ~ a (d .0 a--. V L= w a o C L L L Z CL m 5 N o C _ a ~p O U a) J L O o ~ 6 _E y J v ` N c0 a) om "-O ~.~oocom a~> a p c C rno-C r f9 C Q CD E N x (D d V a) .000) _ m E t IOO -0 'c o E O > U ~ a ~ o a yo U 2 2 a ' 4) a O .10' O CV O O Z v rn _c c N J 1 U VJ C p C C 'a d ~ O O O O o UU c a a) al a~ (U u 3~c (D 4220-1 (0 a N ~ O U N p a) [A l o` ,n O -`ao CO Q q L a) in -0 C ca E r- C - W : 0 as o mow E o " ' rn cu Co cm 0 ~ L Z ` 'cn O C a7 U C J V U a) O m O a Q ~O O .S .U C W a) 3 a) a E E D V N w. ds Z >0 L ' u) C.C: L v ~41 M C: CO r O 0 D m fl.. ~.n R ;r ~y N l ~00) Nlu Vn n) 41 r y z. z~ O C O N m _d a)E b ~g C O > O d J p U J v ca E N c C (II c L ' 0 0 3 a~ ~ W ~ v y m cu o° C ~ E.2 O 2 ca a) 1 / 1 (M T 0) O ca 1 (COD CU C co -O -L- a- 3 Q p o O) C C a) a) C L d W d N c: E a o Z ~J a) E 4) ~ V O E X O >O'U 4? O N O O cn L Q Q) O O c C N w O = ) O tlT N z U O d 7 m CO C U J U } _5n _0 i (u a) 01 a) N c C- V/ 2. Q O OOOocp a) U U Q. (n a) a) ~ m w L d d o a ~ c O L L L N N M ct In O O I C)O!f I< i C 1 ~ I to j CO CO - e-1 I~ ~ 10 I~ j O r NIN I If i NIM VI N Ii ~IC ~.l \l h, f i r_jM N , ~ !p ~ ~ j C I 1 ~Y V CV, 4 ~ ~ ~ lk" m C ) ~ M s c Y) C N a ~ E 0 P p U~ L^ O M 2 =3 N ON, Q3 a ~ 75 ti Q ° ~a N mw (0 w a ~ o. =m ° \ N w C O t N N sll 0 -0 Z Sm CD 0* O) O L Z l~ r ~ocmimv c L) C: Q O, Q, Q J 0- 72 - ° 3 n OO CL L. CL (D 2 Y_ w N 40 z; m > Cl , in - c cu ' to, a) O C: 0 _ O L m A J~ C `A 1 V o . S1 O O to co L d d ~ J S (0 N ocQ_ . U b 1A 3 v ~ m O J \ O U F U) V C (9 (D N C 0 0 3 a~ C y o m_ Y J ~ r E O G (c0 p m E d r to N w C;) Y 0 v ( C a) Cu -oa a yF Q p > O N (A m 3 - d J J c v ems; ' ° ° Q v 2 . (ED ~S ° £ a CL 0) < rn~ N - ( v c N ° C'm Z (u E a) o c . Z; S O E 'X 0 > U D (n C U ( ( ` (p d ca ° N 2 O i Ln N U d~ N O n n o o ° ' Q N ~ y , I l N C O . O O m = d V tA k c a~ U j rn c N m e ` ` N m m O 4f..C N w c c o a c ° ~o000~o ~ o 4 ~ ~ " 0 o N C) U= n- I r ( ` . N M d' (n CO 00 O I O - -I N - I M ' r (O I- - W = O O N Cpl N N M N t N LO N O N I- N O N M N O M "d I x C V4 N ct Q (M~9 `o = 1 (i 9 co o o a ~y `r n 1 ! aj c) d o E ca. t (d k N IT O CD ~ 75 ci -C ll I— , 40 -a- o q O A i u a y (c) f0 ~ o : ~(6 -2 C) (u (o cu o as O O O 0) a r c cn ~ a~ M - \ ' ~'s=~ s 2 ~a~0QOm ~ r i b L O T L Q .Q o o a Y , v ~ .o ~ ~ ~ • m o w v :03 0 c c=u' N = O O c ~ in a 1 9 C A tit l i a CU cn w 4) I ~ A~ e! ate., O fl. - t w !n n ~w 1~ Q N 1Sp O J.` tiff O C C cn co 0 CL lov co o 0 c c0 C" V f~ 0 0 3 _ m ) w ry, ca U) O C CD V y. 2 U .t4 L C 0 c co , N IK - ) 1 C! O C Q d E N_ -0O c E X (6 O CL a) rn L) a, rn R Z i i 7 _ o n c c 3 x O ~ > U v _ C in U In CEO, 75 Q YO C O ,w Q) c - < I _ y Z U O j \ t cn y cc s - r~ r ~V N Y c in "v c c 'p O p L . L C1 "0 -co O O O a~UU c aN f~ W N co I to f~ O 0~ O r - ~ N r M e- d r Cf~ r CO r 1- co r O O N N N CO CN I N 10 N O N ti N p N O N O M M i~ 1 cu a ,9 ( `S 1 1 (D 0 3 M ` o t M A,% C) N d d~ 1n ZCU (1) c CL Q) O O a) O N V__ G 1~ a ~ c ° F- ) -aNm~ ob 00~ J~ aw o -a o c c - c, o co - ~ ca co L O N : C) O.L.. O Q) 0.- L z is C C a) O l a7 C t\ O (D 0 CU o a N a Q o 0 g va a CD -C - Lo o'er C W a) - :3 1 O U f0 O- { : a S U) C " `L) W cu = d y N y O a) O O ^il Y C y. a7 C w y^ 'b V 0 C f10 (13 E J Q G O 3 IT ~E a) i 0. = CD r Q c°) > o CD 'a v m W ~'y ` 3 o N (o 4k3 -u 0) C c a) a) 0, kLl C a f0 C d° y v • f~ Y (1) i ,Z IG c c) d E •X cu = , o 0a)°'~~' co C =o0)z aY Aa - V) C Y - i .:3 O O E X Q) O C U •N O wl (0 N 4) 'O 0i O VOi U a 0 a o 0) o o., CLN o N - a ° c m m ° Z 0 0) C C V_J 0- J v cn c a a) c - o U) o c c a =3 O o O O c- a) U U cu v C a ~J f~- Q ~ w m a) o O I o ~ r J ~ o ~ m a) a) F- F- 3 I- I I 'il `1 S/ r r _ , col~mrno,r-NM~'~ICOI~ I I rl- r rim rI WIC O r Ni(hl~ Lf~ICD ti O,Im!O I rl Ir IN.IN~NININiNIC~ N.NiNIn Q~ Qr QJcu Q G IN N 0 = . ~ ~ Vn M V ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 O ~ " E ~ O 0 0) ac: CIII t 0. . Q - c ° N n C ) a a c a N h I, r- ~ P- P, o> co N Ec- ' : i , ~D~~-a co o ( 0 r Q ° o cry 0 0 N N (0 ° T > _ 0 E ° ~ , 0) (au) O O L Z 3 o ~2w U (p U z C) C U C U ° 0 0 C V ' e - - E 2 l v~ CL d an y a 0 a; a ° ~ C: 0 :3 2 l s - 0 -r: CL cn s, n a w o id (U cn co o C W \1r 14 t N J `p ~ -E. 53 o m a v ~ O J m ~ ,n O U c d v co ° ,L O o 3m_Ya ' J -t6 E C: -0 0 4.1 7~ j4 _ E O N (n Y . ~ ca a ' - N 14 Q 2 Zan ) c3u: Pat O Q7 C 0) Cc: O a'~0rn z illA 6 ~ ~ J ~ C: 2 1 4 v ~ cu E a) 16 'C: O E 4) Z5 J, I O N O U r -6 -Cc) O cn N ~ O to U Q O O ? ~y t- O Q O ~ v C N y 0 ~(v ci C: Z U O ` 0) 0 •C C U O U O3 L 0) N Z, Z C ~ -O C C -2 ° 47 Q O _ O O O O ° -Fu O D U n 1 Z3 4N r t L L N ,4; ~ 0 ' r N M "t Lo (0 I- 00 O O r N M d (O I~ O O O C r N M A Lo CD f-- O O O r r r r r r r r r r I N N N l N N N N N M o l M N ( tA { J r o a a y N O U M r' - ti a) 0. L rte , po O to N _ w v p o >'v1i : , y C 0 m m 3a l- C y a) ad o 9 _ 0 O O 0 0 > 01 a) o w E O C\l a~ O U to o C U " cu 0 O _ y o{ 0 ca 4) XD f U C , Q O N .a C a N a 3- 0 0 y w Z CL.r c U ; O a tD h fl- c c ty ` :3 0 0 cu o c O L y o J'n C9 a) a :3 cn - ~`~`)N°)oE 3 c w ~p c ~ 4' J Z d' o c > 'v cn a 1fJ y„ N N U O N m _j t0 O C E - O a C v c m 0 0 3 m 0 - (0 N (0 O OO . N U) ( c G - o m O O a a) 3 a C~ pJ _ Q C C IT ' 15 O C fl N ) c 'D E \ f a a) • OR 57< 0 (D 0) Z 0 c 9 c * 7 ai ff .C O X C: _2 S O ? U Q) ~ r C a U O N O \ O 0 O ° rn N a O 0) O O C N 0 O - O (U 4) v n Z U O C C C U J U 0) - m to C t3 N y O o :E C 0 rDn = O C C p VI I 0 O 0 C c c- ( =n a)00 ? L.. O a) m a) ll a a ` V T 1 14 41 M ct U) (D r` CO O O N M ~ to CD r 00 O O r- N M ~ to CD r` O O O r- r CV 04 04 N N N 04 N N N M l a' k Dt a Fl M Sr O ► N C•) M vr' ~ h~ Q "J N h o N 1 m 11 (0 ° m o c) O d / IYl h 1 s h N ai C 3 E " O - U N c a CIN :3 O n o o ~+c w 3-0 c vUi 1 D C l C ! c ` 7 a i cn a co 2 cm ~J ~ o d Q o c c 9 0 p cu co O _ c O O N -0 _c (D o m c Z a1 .lJ • C , C ~ a) O a3 U C D S \ . V X O y O CU a a ^S L) c 'p o a i .S I L n o a a 3 0 p w 4 d L N Q O C: - U J - 3 m O O rn o 3 =1 o " a j -a o c as L Ua~ > c. Q 1 r . • e 3 L `u c° ~ F i c i o a a o a o c: E IN a- e6 o c'>a h - M k C4) N . 0 ~ t4 O L U~ J N N cu z V C N a) C w c' 0 o 3 = o .f.+ 5 C a E .w. S Ol a) cu _ ; o 'cq c o'~ o I v a . 0 m (n 72 - Co ° a 3 d 4~ ~ a C - 0 7,0 m m O C) j ..v L J 1 . Cl p~ v co C: 0- r+ d' E o c t LU ,o y p a O mZ a~ ' Q 1 l S ` O c u cu ~c O C Y 'a 7 o X o > O .U ` t r` C U O O a L w Cp a cu . O 2 O O1 - a) cn U Q C) a) L Q O 0 mO ~ v t Q C N O Q) C O n° Z U O d c o c m Co U 0 o J U C ca a) a c c o O C L O O O O (O y Q C) C) c rn c Q a o m m ai m - c. p c0 s ( 3 ~ I rI'N C fl ti O S IN M ti' lnl co t- cm m 0 f IN IMI"t LO I Cil I ` xiCA;O N ININI iNI I N N!N NIM L u /j ( 4n v \ y 'V Q ~ i. i. , 1~ v ( im (V I 0 p ( , M t~ d ~1 i CD o o c k ~ ) t . M , Lr O ~ a) N a COL t (D a n r f- - r r te . 0 (u lb c L) ° > !n > ° ® ^ C:-0 - c 0 % J ~ •v V) 0 ~ '(o a ° o 6 co o > ° o E o a) N r 0 C,) (a Y' c (OU IL 00 m p o ~ a~.~.~ a ° 3 ° 0 et d J ~ J a~ o - Lt di c ° o N a ( n 75 c o c E a o c > o (n U O J (n m O (Q O C L L/ ~ f U C7 r . C E 2 N N Y ^ t-v O ~J 0, - CID ~-0 ~ o 5 ~ a) (n . Q o co w O J 5 1 S < C) . p ~ ° Q a) a d , ~I y E c dC L ° d V a) E R 7 - a) o C C Z UJ U~ co w E cis • 2 ~c x o a t~ y ` O > o v~ ~ 9 r ` I L ° V co -0 cu a) 0 o L A r v Q o rno o I ` i i J a N Q' o O C _ O (U 0 - d kz~ a Z v o 0 i o v sJ ~ T " v a~ ~ 0 6 c c QO fn Cog 0 o o O va C) C) r~ V ~ U ~ U r- i N M 'qT lob CO I- 00 0) O N M It LO CO r• 00 o O N C'7 lt) CO r 00 m o r' r r N CV N N C'4 N N CV CN N CO M , s r N o c0 ~ ~ ` .9 M ' o c a 1!` , N O a) c d ^ a a) p N N 0l a) a o z: ~ w C0 c0 Q o _ : a p co m ° a a~ o E o " c(on 0 0 0) z ` c U U (0 A ~ 1 ` ' J Z Z X C 0 C: d p U Q O (~1 ✓ V 2 40 d (n Q- 3 -0 O O E a) ° Q > se; . L d ~ . O - tC T a) o - C O A C: m T) L r _ = p u - 45 s Jlk 3 ~ ~ a, N4,, N C Cr (n U p J th d to O M . v C ~ ~ E a) C E fl, _ 0 3e 1 W ¢ E 2° y a) C o c o U 1 ' ` C O L Al ! C w - 0 m -s 0 O ° C co: a) a> + o a; ~ ~ Z _ ? ~ao 1 d V ~ F . - tt a ao) (XD 0 o ~ z s V ~ 1 o E a) O > U O (0 O " co a N O , cn N N O O O 0) O z ° O N C °C U a> J ° U ~ ~ V C ~ • N C ( C n _ O C C 'Z7 O p ° o L o D-- 7 ° O O ° a) (5 U ° Q ~ a) a) L C ~ L 4) r V ~ ~ ~ W . j F R 1 t . N co to (o r- 00 O O - N co Lc) O ti co O O N M d LO CO I~ p O O O r N N N N N N N N C ' N Ch ri, h o 4 ~ l( N 1D t m n \ Cl) ~4 y . i cD c O r 3 ° r a) O N a `~1 ~ E o ° ' p M N c Q) S' C'D CU :1 , N N n h 0 j © O awocc~ °~m~caCD N C O w N :Y -0 Z - c a) U 0 m C Z C \ ' C C J Q) in U M U _ U C 1, \ 0 X 0 0 0 U C of U a U •0,2 C ` y L- a3 Q op C a) . CL r ` ~ Z m 0 (D , 7 C ( O O 1 Q) .0 3 • J ~ ~ ~ ~ io .Q ~ ~ .fl ~ ~ O 3 L ci - '6 O 0 O c 0 W 0 •y c) O w f/a L ` - c I ) lu a) 00 p O M O L U J N w V C f0 o 3 Cn : E N j _ E J c: E = fn E.2 2 0) - a~>O cu a - O 70 c c a) an d d C 0) . c 0) 0 -C w, Z Co E .Xca~~ E o i aa c0_°'a o0) z vv) _ (a E c m cU O E X O > O U a) ¢ J U) -0 m N 2 O cn a) C) ID m 0 y e C) ° _C N of > O a) C O 4) n - Z U O V V m 0 O C O U 0) c a U J i fn (`9 N LO. J z 0 C C Q O mUU~a° ~r 1~T fd Qo -C -C - 4 5 o rKNN M s f N Ch Cr O N O O r I N r d LC) I (p OJ O O N I M Cr LCD CL 1~ ! O TIT-1-!-IN N NINININICVIN!N!(VIC) CK) 01. " g o o c a (o o ( n~ 0 o C) CL 0 0 0 U O 4 'Y O a) n c: o 3: co ° 8 0 a v' © fl a° o p 1 m m o C) ~ E 8 ~ J a i _ I,w ° rn ~ z co W U) 'o v <0 'X N U C L O V U O O N t O oo h u v ~ i E a).T.aw ? d w . U . a) 0 0 rn b ` 1 0 m 'o L tt J ~ O O L~ O E w v v> ~ ( v ~ S~ s N (6 to m ~ 1 . ~ m a) (0 Q in m N J ~ ~ ~y{ ~ fn L a) ~ 5 E ' 9 , cw°:12 a1~ o ' ~ i a ca c o O U J E a, (p ` c0 V C (II ~ a) C h i O o 3 0).S= s a) J 0 ` 0 = E 2 a) Y \ + ti `9 \I •R Col- c: 0) N O N a) ( \1/ f t M til a. 0'c ° 3° ~ ~J ~ h c m -0 d L o- a) o 'g, v c °'Q,o v J v m E -~iy _ o ~C IL ax o z C U c (n OEX O > O U w C U O N O - 0 L cu _0 N r O N O O U N U d 0 O aorn05 O v o >,-SN~ 3 . - -0 O O U i ~ c6 o a) o O) C C U J a) cn 'N co O C Q1 a) Z,.S (n O c c -2 o O O O OL F (i C) L) 0 0- cn m a) ~ a) ~ 0 ~ 6 O Im p ~ , O a O O - ~ ~ -C a) w, r r N M rY I n O 0 0 O O ~ - - N M In co ti 0 0 O O r N Lf) C O 1 ~ 0 7 O O e r r r r r r r n r N N N N N N N N N N M g ~ 1 7 1 o ~ i • ° o a~ C a 0 N N O O U w O > > m w _ u0 i O ~ o - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - w ~ ~ a ci aa) N co a) n3 - ° EE o m Cu ° ~ w C\l (D c z c _ iA C U fII U O ~ ~ _ C (u U C O V OU Q O Co Z ( 0 OQ ~O C "a . a :E Op 1 E n V a D C: 3~~. O Cu cu Q . J v •.J L - ~ ~ a) :3 CD CU - E 5 4 4 4-- CO 0) (u T > O i U J m 0 0 > rn. aa) E c 0 w w, U! Co Otv 0 d ~a G E -2 a) C: c o C: CM a~ _o s ° ° w v7 m c m-0.~ Q2 3 O -0 ° a) C : d C U C E E S aa i'xo C i u oEx O > U C U O N O Co 0 M CD q) 2 OL 1 cn U O _ N Q O 0, 0 0_ C_ N > O N C _ O -0 Cu d c C U J U R i Cu N +L.. C C7~ a)wZ>I.S v1= " N O C C 'O O O C o o O- ~p a) U U a v~ 0 p , ` r /Q p q ~ Imo- H 3 1L- ' ~ - N M I n ( D 0 0 O O ~ - - N - M ~ t I n ( - D r - ~ a - o - O - O - r - N - M - ~t t - o - CO I - ~ N - d ) O ll~o 114 0 ~ m M a; o a - - O O 0 ~ O U ~ a. ~ T T T a) co a) p N L -0 Q L 0 - 0 CO c ~ r E C, Q . o O N O O a) w % ~ C 70 v - 0 O Y O V O L Z N c ai (D U N U to V V O O O (0 U C_ O Q) U o " TD o 0 ` p Z O_s - U O p ~ a t C cn ~ L p ~ N o O to U .c0. N C > m Q w L N o -o W 0=~ y ca cn d y a~ 9) c~ - n E to a; m (n U i V O n3 O N C m 2 J - ~ E w ac): NO o cc C E O a) +O+ N Y •C O c M3 O O~ 5 m W ~ N Q m ° o Co p Co a a) a) 0 d v u c a- p Q E y p° c E ^ X O c co E o =3 o 6 . z o > U Y ° ` ca O cv r0 O to N w 2 N w Q a) c p O L U N~ Z p m p O a) J U U O ~ 41 C • a~ (n C: 70 L O C In "0 C C p o p a- O 0 ~p O O a~ U U p CL r N Cl) 't In cD M M O r N M I- LO CO ti 00 O O r N co d• U') CO ti 00 O O r r r r r -1 -1 r r r N N N N N N N N N N M e 0 C) 1 U) co r I - 4 r (Ci p a f4 lr} I 0 a E 3 E w -o U~, ~O > > 3 a n Z` . h m N ~ , a ` p co ( J I p 3.0 0 , l q ~ 4O c v, v N ~ O 9 Q W 0 C = O N N O 10 N N O E O w _ N m-CO Z m \ y U OC C cU0 U C 7 2 Z I I `d V V O N O cm dL~LO-;,•c J V oNa n0 , 3 d 0 ~ s )-T a E v ~ s t~ V . a i C c u a) N cu 2 e U _ O .QO N >,.2 ~ - - V o a,aCU - , 2 d E! " N r o 0 2 c: 5 Q, E 7 5 C > a d o U) 11 N R o E . - V C ~ Q) C O O 3 rn a~ (n 4 `J 0 • _j c E w+ c N ~ a) c>3 0 o ~ d e R ~ cyE2a)v,~ d 3 ~ o m rn < C13) W 0 CI) (n t C m r- , - o. V1 .2 cr, c, co: E N O " ' E E . n1 „ \CJ t x .0 o CL a) U Q) C p, Z P 1 o YO C C ~ V m c6 E a) C Mn (n C Y 0 0 E x o > 0.- 0 U co L O C r cu -0 m O N N a) 2 O V co U 0Z O O a0 rno~~- t 6 CL C: N O w N C I . Q+ Z U O 7 E cc o Q, C C U U AS / to C Q a) 2' o V/ Q C C O O O 00 E M '4 , O Q O a 00 C sZ~ rc ( 0 fj 4 L -r- L L a) W HH 3F-a r ! ~ ~ 1 Q V 1 ~ O ( ~qy [l fl D C t r N M'I L O c o rl - O O O • - N M c t O ti C O 6) O N M I U) m 1 ` m m O r ~ - r r r N N N N N N N N N N M If ® ' t q ~ C- - 4 N I \ cj* l i e I M \ rJ as o _ F . v o m ~ o a l ~ o el l -d v , a h n a~ o n w~ c cf) Q t[ ! pp w N 0 N Q) t6 r Q w C C o (o m O a) a) O:E ~O o 0) al w o I.1 c c _ o co L) 0 Co a) O L ) . - O C C U O -0- m O O a O 3: L E o.~ QL c V d (n o r o , 2 ba -44 3 0~ o o -p c N c ~ v s J s , - I N ~ ~ r 3 v T m ~.a~ 0 w 3 :3a~c n v h S V s cu >1 E o m m J- U t4 O V C (U C', 3 c ~ ° o J C i w 0 , 1 V l ~1 C ° o~ v m a) N C E p ~ Y 1 Y a r V l S o . _ to Q C _ a) cu (n It /Q V V 2 cu can) n C o W s C' o~ L ai c 00 d F la W N C 0 ~ r` \Y 1 o a CL C, z U a) p> R Z 1 A E O c - 1 1 N - I ca E a) CD rz- C to C Y CE O N i o 0 O ~ > O U y O O ` U Q (n a) cy~ o O O O N C O Z v o o d w ~ 0 o ~ a), C J U U O) M ~ ~ • a) N C -0 r a) .r w. c O -O C "C "O O 7 O O O -0 M (1) U U C a (1) CJ 4 1 w ( 1 ! O r'•' ~ s a) r l) Q 4 e v r N c ) ' t L o O r - 0 0 O r N M cY C O tl- 00 O O r N M LO (.0 00 O r r r r r r r N N N N N N N N N N M VJ c_ Cf h Q . SL V V ~ r- ~p ~ \ '0 " r tT \ tv ) cc a~ r_ o Nj ."s ~ ~ M o c m voi N a h ~ s ~ O -0 O~ U (D c as n UA O a) c d n r r C\ r r~ ° N G~ a 6" Q- tr c. _ o _o N Q .2 co > E 0 3 ~ lau 0 a W O c c' 0 40/ ` . > E 0 > a~ o m c w N J rn O) p c " Z C tq C U O U c V N V OV a) O C \ o Q'3 z o o E T) Q. L U CD RS ~ _ N w ~c• m C ~ S .n L ~ QCc L <:3 2 2~ E C: ul h ~ ~ nn n t n V) ~ - m a 1 O O> to c0 = O ca N w y u, ~y t 'n ~l E -j v c ( D ° J c E C: '0 ) io N p N U _ O Q) N m r- ,n ~e ~rnN +sy Q .S ° co m cu ~ p a c c a~ a? d s V C _ t r, C fl. o 3 E cn +J c (D >1 0 w A U a) O p - ~ ~ Z J4 V m Z E o to "p .C O E X _ O > O U o ! 0 (0 ~ O ~ O O C O N O N N U Q ( o y c a) p aom05- a p6 N J O C c ~ a~ U . b L N y c p ~ C k a) ~ i C p p fl - O C: =3 =3 " L 7~ AN i c o 0 0 0 F D a> U U V v O r o ~ `1 ° kN 9 , p CI- 0 5 C~ e c L L L L a) Q) ( ~ 06 ( 4 U , ry N M I M CD ti 00 0) O r- N M ~ 0 Co I- W M c - N M ~ ~ CD I- 00 O) O - t- N N N N N N N N N N M After listening to the techno-babble last week, a few questions that weren't addressed came to mind: 1. Has a study of ALL of Deschutes County been made and if not, why not, since every septic system in the county would contribute to an alleged water problem, not just the systems south of Sunriver? 2. The medication diabetics have to take destroys the enzymes in septic systems. How will these proposed changes affect the amount of harmful chemicals released into leach fields by systems owned by people taking medications, even after the expenditure for the new systems, that only remove 1/3 of the nitrates anyway? What about the other 2/3 of the nitrates that these systems don't correct? How will you penalize us for that? 3. Could the supposed nitrate levels have anything to do with the long-term drought conditions in the area, resulting in increased amounts of pine needles dropping to the ground and leaching nitrogen into the ground-water and why were the tests run only in the flood plain area, where natural decomposition of vegetable matter occurs more rapidly? 4.. The model quoted last week showed the geologic strata of the area as pockets of sand and other permeable soil. We live in a volcanic caldera, composed of ash, pumice, larger bands of cinder and basalt. How do your experts explain the appearance of large amounts of sand in the strata? 5. Ms. Rich, when asked about other communities facing the same problems, referred to some places in Long Island and the Florida Keys. Neither of those areas have the same geologic makeup of central Oregon, and their population density has been far higher than ours for many years, so how can they compare to this area? 6. A study by the Cooperative Extension of the University of California, released in 1991, stated that people drinking chlorinated water from municipal water systems were much more likely to develop cancer than those who drink water from private wells. Your study shows that a child drinking water from a well MIGHT develop blue-baby syndrome. How does the possible damage to one child in about 100 years become more important than the health of a community within a 10 to 20 year period? Closing statement: The people in southern Deschutes County have been treated like redheaded stepchildren for years and. we're getting tired of it. Just because we moved here from other areas to get away from political garbage doesn't mean we're uneducated or willing to let some politician step on us. You, the commissioners, claim to have distributed the information you've been trying to feed us. What I read on your web site states that you sent out a little over 10,000 pieces of literature... too little, since the number of property owners is more than four times that number, with not enough information in terms the non-scientist could understand. If you had actually gotten realistic, easy- to-understand facts, not supposition and guesswork to a majority of the homeowners, you might not have had to face so many irate people now. Submitted by: Jo Anne Nelson PO Box 1571 La Pine, OR 97739 BOCC Public Hearing #2 March 20, 2007 Groundwater Issues - La Pine Exhibit t After listening to the techno-babble last week, a few questions that weren't addressed came to mind: 1. Has a study of ALL of Deschutes County been made and if not, why not, since every septic system in the county would contribute to an alleged water problem, not just the systems south of Sunriver? 2. The medication diabetics have to take destroys the enzymes in septic systems. How will these proposed changes affect the amount of harmful chemicals released into leach fields by systems owned by people taking medications, even after the expenditure for the new systems, that only remove 1/3 of the nitrates anyway? What about the other 2/3 of the nitrates that these systems don't correct? How will you penalize us for that? 3. Could the supposed nitrate levels have anything to do with the long-term drought conditions in the area, resulting in increased amounts of pine needles dropping to the ground and leaching nitrogen into the ground-water and why were the tests run only in the flood plain area, where natural decomposition of vegetable matter occurs more rapidly? 4. The model quoted last week showed the geologic strata of the area as pockets of sand and other permeable soil. We live in a volcanic caldera, composed of ash, pumice, larger bands of cinder and basalt. How do your experts explain the appearance of large amounts of sand in the strata? 5. Ms. Rich, when asked about other communities facing the same problems, referred to some places in Long Island and the Florida Keys. Neither of those areas have the same geologic makeup of central Oregon, and their population density has been far higher than ours for many years, so how can they compare to this area? 6. A study by the Cooperative Extension of the University of California, released in 1991, stated that people drinking chlorinated water from municipal water systems were much more likely to develop cancer than those who drink water from private wells. Your study shows that a child drinking water from a well MIGHT develop blue-baby syndrome. How does the possible damage to one child in about 100 years become more important than the health of a community within a 10 to 20 year period? Closing statement: The people in southern Deschutes County have been treated like redheaded stepchildren for years and we're getting tired of it. Just because we moved here from other areas to get away from political garbage doesn't mean we're uneducated or willing to let some politician step on us. You, the commissioners, claim to have distributed the information you've been trying to feed us. What I read on your web site states that you sent out a little over 10,000 pieces of literature... too little, since the number of property owners is more than four times that number, with not enough information in terms the non-scientist could understand. If you had actually gotten realistic, easy- to-understand facts, not supposition and guesswork to a majority of the homeowners, you might not have had to face so many irate people now. Submitted by: Jo Anne Nelson PO Box 1571 La Pine, OR 97739 After listening to the techno-babble last week, a few questions that weren't addressed came to mind: 1. Has a study of ALL of Deschutes County been made and if not, why not, since every septic system in the county would contribute to an alleged water problem, not just the systems south of Sunriver? 2. The medication diabetics have to take destroys the enzymes in septic systems. How will these proposed changes affect the amount of harmful chemicals released into leach fields by systems owned by people taking medications, even after the expenditure for the new systems, that only remove 1/3 of the nitrates anyway? What about the other 2/3 of the nitrates that these systems don't correct? How will you penalize us for that? 3. Could the supposed nitrate levels have anything to do with the long-term drought conditions in the area, resulting in increased amounts of pine needles dropping to the ground and leaching nitrogen into the ground-water and why were the tests run only in the flood plain area, where natural decomposition of vegetable matter occurs more rapidly? 4. The model quoted last week showed the geologic strata of the area as pockets of sand and other permeable soil. We live in a volcanic caldera, composed of ash, pumice, larger bands of cinder and basalt. How do your experts explain the appearance of large amounts of sand in the strata? 5. Ms. Rich, when asked about other communities facing the same problems, referred to some places in Long Island and the Florida Keys. Neither of those areas have the same geologic makeup of central Oregon, and their population density has been far higher than ours for many years, so how can they compare to this area? 6. A study by the Cooperative Extension of the University of California, released in 1991, stated that people drinking chlorinated water from municipal water systems were much more likely to develop cancer than those who drink water from private wells. Your study shows that a child drinking water from a well MIGHT develop blue-baby syndrome. How does the possible damage to one child in about 100 years become more important than the health of a community within a 10 to 20 year period? Closing statement: The people in southern Deschutes County have been treated like redheaded stepchildren for years and we're getting tired of it. Just because we moved here from other areas to get away from political garbage doesn't mean we're uneducated or willing to let some politician step on us. You, the commissioners, claim to have distributed the information you've been trying to feed us. What I read on your web site states that you sent out a little over 10,000 pieces of literature... too little, since the number of property owners is more than four times that number, with not enough information in terms the non-scientist could understand. If you had actually gotten realistic, easy- to-understand facts, not supposition and guesswork to a majority of the homeowners, you might not have had to face so many irate people now. Submitted by: Jo Anne Nelson PO Box 1571 La Pine, OR 97739 After listening to the techno-babble last week, a few questions that weren't addressed came to mind: 1. Has a study of ALL of Deschutes County been made and if not, why not, since every septic system in the county would contribute to an alleged water problem, not just the systems south of Sunriver? 2. The medication diabetics have to take destroys the enzymes in septic systems. How will these proposed changes affect the amount of harmful chemicals released into leach fields by systems owned by people taking medications, even after the expenditure for the new systems, that only remove 1/3 of the nitrates anyway? What about the other 2/3 of the nitrates that these systems don't correct? How will you penalize us for that? 3. Could the supposed nitrate levels have anything to do with the long-term drought conditions in the area, resulting in increased amounts of pine needles dropping to the ground and leaching nitrogen into the ground-water and why were the tests run only in the flood plain area, where natural decomposition of vegetable matter occurs more rapidly? 4. The model quoted last week showed the geologic strata of the area as pockets of sand and other permeable soil. We live in a volcanic caldera, composed of ash, pumice, larger bands of cinder and basalt. How do your experts explain the appearance of large amounts of sand in the strata? 5. Ms. Rich, when asked about other communities facing the same problems, referred to some places in Long Island and the Florida Keys. Neither of those areas have the same geologic makeup of central Oregon, and their population density has been far higher than ours for many years, so how can they compare to this area? 6. A study by the Cooperative Extension of the University of California, released in 1991, stated that people drinking chlorinated water from municipal water systems were much more likely to develop cancer than those who drink water from private wells. Your study shows that a child drinking water from a well MIGHT develop blue-baby syndrome. How does the possible damage to one child in about 100 years become more important than the health of a community within a 10 to 20 year period? Closing statement: The people in southern Deschutes County have been treated like redheaded stepchildren for years and we're getting tired of it. Just because we moved here from other areas to get away from political garbage doesn't mean we're uneducated or willing to let some politician step on us. You, the commissioners, claim to have distributed the information you've been trying to feed us. What I read on your web site states that you sent out a little over 10,000 pieces of literature... too little, since the number of property owners is more than four times that number, with not enough information in terms the non-scientist could understand. If you had actually gotten realistic, easy- to-understand facts, not supposition and guesswork to a majority of the homeowners, you might not have had to face so many irate people now. Submitted by: Jo Anne Nelson PO Box 1571 La Pine, OR 97739 Groundwater Statement to the Deschutes County Commissioners Pamela Cosmo I'm glad that we have the opportunity to provide input into this process of deciding what should be done regarding the groundwater in South Deschutes County. I only wish it had come sooner a*idl. -_r hope. + Gon4-tYJ l,PS Yt~ X W& l~ Last week we were repeatedly admonished to remain "professional" in our demeanor. I found myself to be annoyed at this instruction. I'll tell you why: The word "professional" was used as if it were a synonym for "courteous," "well- mannered," "respectful," or "civil." It isn't. Professional means one who is gainfully employed in a profession. The working class or the retired who used to be considered "professional" are often not treated as equal to professionals. We who have been professionals or who have dealings with professionals, often find that the term has come to mean "those who can rob you with a fountain pen." So, lets not confuse our terms or insult our intelligence. That being said, I will move on,r--~C. I v Like many in this community, I cannot afford to purchase a sand filter and this additional retro-fit. I am living on only my savings. I already bought a new concrete septic system and a new well. I have had them tested, and I am not contaminating anything. Additionally, this year I will be planting native grasses and plants to take advantage of any nitrogen over the drain field. I also have an additional filter on my drinking water. So, there is no health necessity at this time that requires me to buy an outrageously expensive system that requires on-going maintenance and electricity, that does me no good and that I cannot afford. I was additionally dismayed to learn in last week's meeting that in the event of a power failure, we were advised by the Dept. of Environmental Quality to "get a generator" to insure that we could continue to flush our toilets and avoid catastrophic failure of the pumping system. I found that to be outrageous. In my mind, this system is very suspect and unsustainable. Other systems that are passive and do not require electricity to run, or lots of on-going maintenance, and have a relatively longer lifespan are available now. Since the groundwater problems are projected to be acute in about forty years, I am certain that better, more feasible systems will be invented between now and then. Therefore, I will not install this system. Now, the plan proposes that we would have ten years to get into compliance. Take a look at the citizens in this room. I can only assume that the ten years was chosen because in ten years, most of us will either be dead or too feeble or too impoverished to resist. And, for the ones who come after us, it will be too late. The decision will have been made. BOCC Public Hearing 42 March 20, 2007 Groundwater Issues - La Pine Exhibit In ten years, how much will the system cost ? Twice as much? Let's say it costs only half-again as much. That would be maybe $35 or $45 thousand dollars! That's over half as much as I paid for my property in the first place! Let's face it, we are at the beginning of a real estate melt-down of historic proportions that is projected to last for several years. Adding the cost of these additional systems pretty much guarantees that my property will be unmarketable for the foreseeable future. 1 understand that fines would be introduced to enforce my compliance. Liens could be placed on my property to collect those fines. So the dismal prospect ahead, if you pass this proposal, is that eventually I will die, the county will take my land, and everything I have worked for to provide my family with a sustainable home to live on is destroyed. Now, in our system of governance, the people whom we entrust to protect us from this type of tyranny and theft are our elected officials. You are elected by us to represent our interests and you make the decisions for our well being with our input. So, I am asking you to make the right decision regarding this "home rule." Reject it. In its place, have the homeowners test their sites, repair any toxic hot spots, and take advantage of cluster systems, or other alternative individual "green" systems that are out there and are both sustainable and affordable. Or wait until something is invented that will serve us better. Show us that you do represent us and not the developers and grant artists whose eyes are trained on the millions of dollars of our money that this plan would put into their pockets. Thank you. TO: Deschutes County Commissioner Tammy Baney FROM: William (Bill) Hause, MPA DATE: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 RE: La Pine OR "White Water" Dear Commissioner Baney, There will always be those "nay-saying," minimizing individuals who eagerly and cynically choose classic denial over the Truth. But, denying a proven fact or condition does not render uncomfortable facts Untrue! The Truth, unfortunately, will only free some people; it will always alarm, frighten and infuriate others. Since purchasing (1989) and relocating to South Deschutes County in January, 1990 (South Vandevert Acres), I have diligently and respectfully been a good neighbor, loyal friend and vocal advocate to the decent, hard working, friendly and honest people of La Pine and the surrounding area. State Senator Ben Westlund once addressed a campaign letter to me as "Bill Hause, La Pine Working Poor. " It remains unclear whether Ben considered me to be an advocate. for La Pine's working poor population or as a charter member of the working poor constituency. During the 17 + years that I have continuously resided on my 2 acre lot in South Vandevert Acres in South Deschutes County; 5 miles south of Sunriver and 12 miles north of La Pine, I have been made aware by residents in the La Pine area of a high ground water (also labeled white water, undrinkable and also unusable for septic disposal systems) problem which has rendered the purchased lots UNINHABITABLE! Specifically, too many "buyers" who purchased their land in "good faith" from disreputable and dishonest sellers have discovered after purchase that these lots were unsuitable for building or habitation per county development and housing codes because of the inability to construct safe drinking water wells, public water and septic systems due to contaminated ground water. Private real estate property sellers. realtors, brokers and agents along with developers in southern Deschutes County have knowingly and willingly failed, denied or refused to disclose the water quality problems to trusting buyers of limited financial resources. In some cases, I am told that the sellers, brokers and developers actually lied about the existence of a drinking water and/or septic problem! Undoubtedly, many individuals; developers and realtors among them; will invoke caveat emptor ("let the buyer beware') rationalization in shirking their responsibilities to the BOCC Public Hearing #2 March 20, 2007 Groundwater Issues - La Pine Exhibit buyers and community-at-large which suffers collateral and peripheral damage resulting from neighborhood or adjoining high ground water. But, it should be noted that during past three or four decades that legislatures and courts have virtually rejected and overturned the seller protective and irresponsible caveat emptor as a defense, and, in fact, no longer recognize this antiquated unethical and dishonest phrase as an acceptable or enforceable defense. I am most certain that you and the other commissioners and staff are aware that under Oregon law, the seller has a legal duty to disclose all known information. (ORS 93.275, Seller's Property Disclosure Statement) As a general rule, a seller is legally required to deliver a property disclosure or disclaimer form. The buyer then has five or seven business days, depending on the form used, to revoke his offer based on the information provided. A seller can be held liable for any intentional misinformation or omissions on these forms, i.e.; that the land is unsuitable for habitation and/or or not buildable due to the unavailability of safe drinking water or waste water disposal systems. I have to also wonder if the County Community Development Division and those Title Companies were possibly not adequately diligent, forthcoming or alert of the problem at the time of these fraudulent real property sales were being processed( ? Commissioner Baney, I ask that you please indulge my reiteration of two examples of this intentional fraud, unethical practices and outright dishonesty in this unconscionable and unscrupulous business practice within the real estate business community; 1. A La Pine area woman advised just recently that she is a current victim of a seller's refusal to disclose a water quality problem to her in the real estate property sales contract. The seller did not merely fail to disclose but flatly refused to do so! She now lives on the property in a single wide mobile home without safe drinking water nor waste water disposal facilities being available. 2. In the autumn of 1998, I visited a La Pine Real Estate office with the intention of purchasing acreage there on behalf of my son. When I inquired of possible ground water problems in La Pine and general rural area, the realtor informed me that no such problem existed! I was already aware of the problem but asked the question as I was told that not all lots were so infected. Frankly, the realtor lied to me by not disclosing the truthful facts! Finally, I am not unmindful that the situation cannot be forcibly remedied through lawsuits, accusations and demands for restitution, penalties and retribution. Unfortunately, for the pursuance of justice, I fear on the behalf of the "bilked" buyers that the statutes of limitations have expired; although that is a matter for the courts and civil litigators to decide. Many of the most deceptive, dishonest and unethical (business without a community conscience to quote my wife, Myra S. Hause, coining of the phrase in 1998), have taken their ill-gotten profits and fled the area therefore offer the following suggestions to correct a wrongful and capricious act( s ) by the seller( s 1. I reiterate my 1998 suggestion that a community well (or wells) be constructed; to his great credit, Dennis Luke during his first term as a county commissioner did reportedly arrange for such an industrial-sized to be donated to La Pine but for reasons still unclear, the residents rejected the well as unfeasible to their needs; 2. The construction of a water purification facility and a sewage disposal plant; with a sizable or majority of the costs defrayed by government and foundation grants or low- interest, long-term loans. 3. The reinvestment of county land sales in South Deschutes County (the projected new bio-mass facility on county land in the La Pine proximity) for the development of safe drinking water resources and a sewage disposal system. 4. Restitution to the victimized buyers; restitution as defined by Law restores a condition or person( s ) to the state or status that existed BEFORE the perpetuation of a (civil) crime. I urge the County Commissioners to diligently dedicate themselves to a reasonable remedy for those "buyers" victimized by the unethical and unscrupulous bait and switch, non-disclosure misconduct of the "seller( s "A public office is a public trust. " Grover Cleveland, US President; 1885-1889, 1893-1897. William (Bill) Hause, MPA loyal friend, good neighbor and vocal advocate of La Pine. Deschutes County Board of Commissioners Bend, Oregon March 20, 2007 BOCC Public Hearing #2 March 20, 2007 Groundwater Issues - La Pine Exhibit Subject: Proposed Ordinance Related Septic Systems in South Deschutes County Dear Board of Commissioners: My name is Glenn Bamhill and my wife and I have lived in La Pine since 2003. We have been property owners in the La Pine area since the early 1990's. We have followed the County's concerns over the septic systems in the La Pine area since we first purchased property here. The process that is now culminating in a proposed ordinance that would require all septic systems to be upgraded within ten years after the approval of the proposed ordinance by your Commission. I am a retired planner from a large county in California with some 30 years of experience and have through a similar situation related to private septic systems. As a result, I have a number of comments related to Deschutes Countys proposed Ordinance. These are as follows: 1. The County has allowed some ten years to pass since it was believed that the south County had a potential threat to its aquafer. How many permits for new residences have been issued in this time? I would venture to say that hundreds have been issued and now all the owners of these properties face a major financial impact resulting from upgrading each of these systems. The scientific literature, both pro and con, related to septic systems has not significantly changed in the last ten years. Had the County been prudent when they first suspected a problem, the Board of Commissioners could have approved a building moratorium at that time or required that the upgraded systems be installed. That didn't happen and continued building has continued to this day. 2. It is my opinion that your Commission has not been given both sides of this issue. your staff has provided you with scientific literature that supports their position that would call for the proposed ordinance to be inacted. There is a large body of scientific literature that supports a position that is opposite to your staffs position. Additionally, your staff seems to be relying on studies performed by the EPA. Keep in mind the the EPA's tract record on environmental matters is not always one that warrants following. You should ask you staff to thoroughly research and provide your Commission with the available scientific literature that does not support their position. After all, there are millions of dollars at stake here for the residents of the south County. You should have both sides of this issue. If this takes more time, so be it. Ten years have already passed. 3. The staff report provided with the draft ordinance states that the cost of upgrading a septic system vary from $2,000+ to $17,000+. This is an awful large span from low to high. It seems that these figures could be qualified to much better reflect what the actual costs would be. Your staff could work up a number of scenarios that would each reflect accurate costs involved in the potential upgrades. I would request that you direct staff to do this. 4. The satff report discusses the possibility of financial aid for upgrading our septic systems in the La Pine area. The report seems to be very vague in its discussion of possible financial aid -just as it was with the Tuesday, March 20, 2007 America Online: Gabamhill Page: 1 cost of upgrading. Both low interest loans and grants are mentioned as possible means for financial aid. However, the report is very lacking in any discussion of who could get this aid. Is it only the low income that would be offered this aid? If the cost is really any issue, do you think that someone really wants a loan, even if it is low interest, to pay for the upgrade. Such a loan would only result in a higher cost to upgrade a system. F the County proposes to give grants to assist with the upgrades, there should be equal treatment for each land owner that is saddled with this requirement. The financial aid discussion is also based on the County selling property. Until that property is sold, there can be no meaningful discussion of possible financial aid. This seems to be just another area in which the County has avoided the detail needed by those most affected. Until such detail is provided, it is impossible for many of us to comment on the details of the proposal. In conclussion, let me urge your Commission to make sure that you understand both sides of this issue before you pass judgement. This understanding should be based on a thorough knowledge of the scientific literature from both sides, full details of the impacts resulting from the implementation of the proposed ordinance, and the full impacts on the residents of southern Deschutes County. Vry~~our e' Glenn & Eugena Barnhill Tuesday, March 20, 2007 America Online: Gabamhill Page: 2 CONFLICTING STATEMENTS Platted lots: 10,878 platted lots, Jan. 1998, La Pine North: Two Futures, page 2 15,000+ platted lots, Apr. 2002, Regional Problem Solving Report, page 1 9,000 lots, July 28, 2005, Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) minutes, page 1 15,000 lots, Sept. 2005. Getting the "N" out of Groundwater, page 1 12,000 small platted lots, Spring 2006, CDD "Overview" brochure, inside, column 1 10,195 platted lots, 2007, Journal of Hydrology, page 487 12,000 lots, March Staff Report, page 2 Retrofits: 5,689 units, July 28, 2005, TAC minutes attachment Optimization Model Update chart, page 2 4,500 or 7,500 existing, July 28, 2005 TAC minutes, page 4 5,200 existing, Aug. 18, 2005 TAC minutes, page 3 5,600 systems, Nov. 17, 2005, Dave Morgan Q & A 5,400 retrofits, Apr. 11, 2006, TAC feedback attachment 5,800 retrofits, Jan 25, 2007, public questions, page 3 & Bend Bulletin 2/1/07 6,397 retrofits, March 2007, Local Rule Financial Assistance Overview Buildable Lots: 2,679 potential, July 28, 2005, TAC attachment, Optimization Model Update chart, page 2 3,500 vacant, July 28, 2005, TAC minutes, page 1 4,500 + red lots, Aug. 18, 2005, TAC minutes, page 3 2,900 buildable, Nov. 17, 2005, TAC minutes, page 2 Nitrate Loading: 300 tons, July 28, 2005, TAC minutes, page 1 75 tons, Aug. 18, 2005, TAC minutes, page 3 Costs: $6,000 - $16,000, Feb. 2007, Newberry Eagle $2,250 - $18.250, Jan. 2007, Example Retrofit Costs $7,000 - $15,000, Jan. 25, 2007, Public Questions $5,000 - $18,000, Mar. 20, 2007, Local Rule Financial Assistance Overview Sewer Costs: $200 - $280 million ($31,250 - $43,750 per home), Mar. 20, 2007, Local Rule Financial Assistance Overview $19,000 - $28,000, Feb. 2007, Newberry Eagle BOCC Public Hearing #2 March 20, 2007 Groundwater Issues - La Pine Exhibit L- LA PINE NORTH: TWO FUTURES by Deborah A. Howe, Ph.D., AICP Professor of Urban Studies and Planning and , William A. Rabiega, Ph.D. Professor of Urban Studies and Planning January 1998 Center for Urban Studies Portland State University PO Box 751 Portland, OR 97207 (503) 725-4020 (503)725-5199 FAX hhttp://www.upa.pdx.edu/centers.html#CUS PORTLAND STATE UNIVERSITY SUPPORTS EQUAL OPPORT MN IN ADMISSIONS. EDUCATION, AND USE OF FACII.MES. PROHIBri1rIG DISCRII MATION IN THOSE AREAS BASED ON RACE. SEX. SEXUAL ORIENTATION. COLOR. RELIGION. NATIONAL ORIGIN, OR AGE. THIS POLICY IS IN ACCORD WITH STATE AND FEDERAL LAW Produced for the Deschutes County Regional Problem Solving Pilot Project, funded by the Oregon State Legislature to the Oregon Dept of Land Conservation and Development The future scenarios presented in this report reJkct the anaiY i ana. udgment of the authors. Except for the 1990 U.S. Census of Population data. scores and estimates are derived from data provided by Deschutes Counn•. INTRODUCTION Deschutes County has experienced notable population grown during this last decade. The Portland State University Center for Population Research and Census estimates the increase at thirty-five percent (35.0%) between 1990 and 1997. At this rate of growth the population in 1997 computes to 101,193 people, up from 74,958 in 1990. The Deschutes County Coordinated Population Forecast projects 182,353 residents by 2020. Unprecedented demands for public services and infrastructure necessary to accommodate this growth and maintain the quality of life in Deschutes County can be expected. All elements of the natural and built environment will be stressed. All people will feel these effects, whether they live in the county year around, seasonally, or come as tourists. Those with higher incomes will not be able to preserve valued amenities for themselves by individual initiative, and those with low incomes will struggle just to hold on to what they have. These problems will be most acute in the rural areas. On one hand, the forests, rivers, and streams in these places identify these locations among the most attractive for residents and recreationists alike. On the other hand, these places are characterized by unimproved roads, well water for home supply, effluent treatment by septic systems, and multiple interfaces with natural habitats and hazards. The balance between development and environmental quality is most precariously maintained in these situations. This paper provides a vision of how accommodating such high growth may affect one rural residential area of the county, La Pine North. It will first draw a profile of La Pine North as it exists currently. Then, two possible futures for that space and its residents will be depicted. These futures represent the minimal and the most radical responses to the present and intensifying problem of nitrate/nitrogen pollution of ground water in the area. The "Restricted Growth" scenario assumes that the only response to the pollution problem will be the requirement of sand filter septic systems for replacement and new development. The "Buildout" scenario assumes sanitary sewers and piped water. LA PINE NORTH STUDY The La Pine North Study Area includes rural subdivisions and other lands west of US Route 97 between Sunriver and La Pine. The Little Deschutes River runs within its boundaries and the Deschutes River is on its western limit (see Map 1). The United States Census puts the population of the study are at 5,636 in 1990; these 5,636 people lived in 2,261 housing units with 2.49 persons per unit. This does not include seasonal residents. The study area also shows 1,482 vacant units in 1990, most of which are seasonal.. _ homes. Against the base of 3,743 units this resulted in a vacancy rate of forty percent (40.0%). Many of these vacant houses are, in fact. occupied during high tourism seasons. Thus the actual number of people in La Pine North may increase by thousands in those periods. The total number of platted lots in La Pine North is 10,878. With a buildout, single family houses in place on all lots of record, there would be 6,407 occupied units, the remaining 4,271 being seasonal or vacant, assuming the same ratio of occupied to vacant housing as in 1990. No new lots can be platted in the Study Area under current Oregon land use law. All of these were in place as lots of record before the current statewide land conservation and development goals and regulations were established. No changes in boundaries can be made and no new subdivisions can be placed. Environmental Conditions in La Pine North The La Pine North Study Area is zoned rural residential and popularly noted for its natural amenities. Much of the quality of life in the region and its attractiveness as a tourism destination depends on this perception being accurate. Hence issues of wildlife habitat, forest management, air quality, and water quality take on particular significance. Water Quality: Of these environmental considerations, ground water quality and the effluent treatment systems associated with that quality, are most critical. The unusual geology of the La Pine North area results in high ground water tables, in some places within inches of the surface, and relatively shallow water wells. 2 Chapter 23.44. Regional Problem Solving for South Deschutes County 23.44.010. Regional problem solving for South Deschutes County. 23.44.020. Goals. 23.44.030. Strategies. 23.44.040. Map. 23.44.010. Regional problem solving for south Deschutes County. A. Overview. In the 1960's and early 1970's, before statewide planning occurred in Oregon, over 15,000 lots were created in subdivisions platted south of Sunriver. Most of these parcels are less than two acres in size and use on-site septic systems to dispose of sewage. Many of them are located in areas where development is now restricted, such as floodplains, wetlands and areas with a high groundwater table where septic approval is unlikely. Since 1989, Deschutes County has been the fastest growing county in the state on a percentage basis. The rural character, attractive location on or near the Deschutes and Little Deschutes Rivers, and relatively inexpensive land prices in South Deschutes County have led to a burgeoning population. The current estimated population of up to 16,000 residents (over 10,000 permanent) would make this area the second largest city in Oregon east of the Cascades were it incorporated, exceeded only by the city of Bend. Impacts to groundwater, the source of drinking water in this area, air quality, wetlands and mule deer migration and the risks to human life and property from wildfires have increased significantly over time. In 1996, Deschutes County and the Department of Land Conservation and Development recognized that significant consequences could occur from the pattern of development and began a collaborative project known as Regional Problem Solving Project for South Deschutes County. The Regional Problem Solving (RPS) project area encompasses approximately 42 square miles between Sunriver to the north and La Pine to the south, and includes thousands of small-subdivided lots, and some larger parcels, throughout southern Deschutes County. The attached map identifies Study Areas 1, 2 and 3 within the project area. The RPS project area is a landscape with a geologic history that produced sediments of volcanic origin that were deposited in a basin over past eons. These conditions are the result of lava flows from the west (Cascades) and east (Newberry) that periodically dammed and shifted the course of the Deschutes River, creating the La Pine Basin, where the deposition of sediments has occurred, sometimes burying older forests. Volcanic eruptions such as the one at Mt. Mazama (Crater Lake) approximately 6,800 years ago have contributed significantly to the volume of sediment deposited in the basin. The Mt. Mazama eruption is the source of volcanic material that has formed the predominant soil in the area. At an elevation of 4200 feet, the climate in the region is one of cool nighttime temperatures with a short frost-free summer that averages less than 100 days annually and a winter period of five or six months where snow can reside on the ground at any time. The rivers receive significant input from cool spring fed waters. The groundwater is mostly derived from snowmelt in the high Cascades to the west, and is also relatively cool. The development of thousands of small lots in the RPS project area is therefore superimposed upon highly permeable, rapidly draining soils and a high groundwater table with relatively cold-water temperatures. The overwhelming majority of the lots are served by on-site sewage disposal systems (septic systems), including standard drain fields, cap and fill systems, and more recently sand-filter systems. Nitrates, a by-product of septic systems and an indicator of human pathogens, are poorly retained in the fast draining soils and do not easily break down due to the cool groundwater temperature. Chapter 23.44 1 (.04 200_ South County Water Quality Advisory Committee July 28, 2005 Minutes ATTENDANCE: Peter Gutowsky, Catherine Morrow, Dan Haldeman, Christy Morgan, David Morgan, Kate Fitzpatrick, Vicki Allen, Steve Wert, Dan Goodrich, Vic Russell, Bob Lovlien, Bob Baggett, Penny Free, Ted Scholer, and Gary Hughes. 1. INTRODUCTION General introductions were made revealing the group's diverse interest. Representative interests recognized the Deschutes River Conservancy, DEQ, USGS, Pahlisch Homes, Baldwin-Herndon Trust, So. County homeowners, soil science and wastewater specialists, excavator and developers, and real estate experts. 2. DEFINE THE PROBLEM Dan Haldeman, Deschutes County Environmental Health Director summarized the groundwater challenges in the La Pine subbasin. Geologically, the La Pine subbasin is a shallow, unconfined, sole source aquifer. This aquifer provides drinking water (domestic wells) and wastewater disposal for residents living outside the La Pine Unincorporated Urban Area. Typically, onsite wastewater systems using` soil, at 4-feet depth or sand, at 2- feet, can treat onsite wastewater by breaking down most componenets. However, a by product of this breakdown is nitrates and it is nitrates that are the concerns of this work program. Domestic wells are located in a susceptible level of the aquifer. It is this shallow oxic section (2' to 50') that provides clear, cold and productive water. However, it is also the zone that contains nitrates and since it is oxic, nitrates do not denitrify. The Environmental Protection Agency sets the limits for nitrates at 10 mg/L. Health risks can be severe when humans are exposed to nitrates exceeding this level. Historically, a DEQ employee in the 1960s identified the potential for groundwater pollution stemming from septic systems. In 1982, groundwater well tests in the core area of La Pine revealed high levels of nitrates, ranging from 10 mg/L to 40 mg/L. Inevitably, the EPA, DEQ, and Deschutes County funded a sewer system, completed in 1989 to address this particular subarea. The South County is undergrowing rapid population growth (Each of the currently approved septic systems with average flows contributes approximately 59 Ibs of nitrate per year into the aquifer. At buildout, the staff estimates 300 tons of nitrate per year will be delivered into the aquifer. There are approximately 9,000 lots in the La Pine subbasin; 3,500 are vacant. Staff will provide a current inventory based on a GIS inventory performed in mid July. Most of the nitrate plumes are still located in the shallow, upper zone of the aquifer. These plumes have not yet reached drinking water depth. This work program provides a unique opportunity to prevent high levels of nitrates from enter drinking water wells. Question/Comment: Wells, recently tested during home purchasing transactions have not shown even 1 mg/L. a %4 1 I'. !Il {~.;i ~ ..~r'I:r.:ll. •`~'J.`. (.:,'i. ,:f (i 'f;':.C'11 r,:;It_,Il.~r; rJ r HOME SUBSCRIBE CURRENT ISSUE BACK ISSUES REPRINTS INDUSTRY EVENTS KEEP INFORMED ADVERTISE CONTACT US Gdiln 1 I~vb~calkars~ K .J J Getting the Out of round wJater An Oregon project shows how nitrate can be removed at the household level. BY JAMS KEATING SUBSCRIBE The National Community Decentralized Wastewater Demonstration Project, an innovative demonstration project to protect groundwater, is nearing the final report phase. If successful, the demonstration project could have national implications for preventing groundwater contamination from septic systems. This project, which was approved during the Clinton administration, funded studies in Vermont-, Rhode Island-, and La Pine, Deschutes County, OR. I A :C ~ r . v.ywy. y/• ~s ~ ~ ~ NA V ^6MT r , The Oregon Department of rivironmental Quality (DF,Q), in partnership with Deschutes Count), hoped the demonstration project would reduce nitrates from septic systems and pollution to the shallow aquifer common to the area around La Pine. In addition to field-testing the performance of various technologies for removing nitrates from septic systems, DEQ wanted to increase groundwater monitoring and modeling in the La Pine area. The modeling's task: to answer whether or not predicted groundwater contamination in La Pine would adversely affect the Deschutes and Little Deschutes rivers. Deschutes County's community-based Regional Problem Solving Study, and a DEQ study, first recognized the COMMENT problems that could be caused by a projected high ON THIS Components of the Puraflo system. population density in La Pine. The study found nitrate ARTICLE contamination from septic systems already occurring, preliminary predictions, based on computer modeling, indicated nitrate concentration in groundwater could exceed safe drinking water levels (10 mg/I) in 10 to 15 years. Nitrate levels higher than 10 mg/1 may represent a serious health concern for infants, pregnant or nursing women, and the elderly. CREATE A LINK "The issue of removing nitrogen came up because Deschutes County's drinking water aquifer has a shallow, very TO THIS ARTICLE oxygenated water table, which could easily be polluted by nitrates," says project coordinator Barbara Rich. "The ON YOUR SITE nitrate, N02, is oxygenated, which means it stays and accumulates in water, and it can then move through the water table throughout the region. As there's not a lot ol'organic material in our soil, it drains quickly. Excess nitrogen in water can feed algae growth, and drinking water shouldn't contain high levels of nitrogen." Although nitrogen can enter the environment from fertilizers and animal feedlots, Deschutes County's concern was residential sewage. "In our relatively rural area, residents all have septic tanks," she explains. "There are approximately 15,000 platted lots here, 5,000 to 8,000 of which are developed. Some lots have water tables two feet or less below the surface. In many areas, homeowners let their grounds remain natural, with no big lawns, so restricting nitrogen fertilizer has not been our focus. Oregon's Department of Environmental Quality did a http: //www. on si tewater. com/ow_0509_getti ng. html 3/17/2007 uric; of monftoringisampling events in this area, and found 'hot spots' developing. The problem was. the s)-stems in use were not designed to remove nitrates. So, beginning in 1999, in a joint ellitrt between the county and the state, we studied several kinds of systems to see how they took nitrates out." The project also enjoyed federal support, t 1SEPA funded the project, and the US Geological Survey (I ISGS) performed some of the work. "The county was the subcontractor for DEQ; they got proposals from dillcrent companies who designed treatment systems. Each vendor chosen then hired the installers for their sites," Rich explains. "In this small field-test program, 49 properties participated, which were chosen through an application process. Those residents chosen for the project received a new septic system." Construction for the project ranged over several seasons; groundbreaking started in late 2000, with all test sites completed by mid-2002. "Although we weren't able to get a lot of pre-project data, water samples from each of" the 49 properties, and from surrounding properties, were taken before construction began, to measure if the groundwater was affected by nitrates," Rich goes on. "Educating the homeowners was an important component. We encouraged vendors to work with homeowners, to explain the 'dos and don'ts'ol the new systems. Most of these systems can handle normal use, but homeowners were cautioned to not dump a lot.of grease down the drain-but that's normal for any septic system. As for enzymes or additives, most vendors do NOT want those additives put into the septic sy.stem- some can actually be harmful." Each system was allowed to operate one or two months before water monitoring commenced to allow the systems to flush out any debris. "Ideally, there shouldn't be construction debris in the septic system, because that would etlect the quality of treatment. If there's lots of sand in the area, that could clog up the drain." After that period, the systems were tested monthly fur the first year. "Then, it varied; some were tested quarterly, or ever. other month, for the nest two years. Monitoring stopped December 2004; we're working on our final report now," Rich says. t Homeowner comments will be included in the report. " f` tr! "During the selection process, we surveyed residents to learn about their lifestyles, and to encourage feedback Advantex AX-20 finer installation. about the systems installed-" Rich continues. No matter which system the home received, it had the usual alarms- high water alarms, etc. If the process was having trouble, we'd hear about it when we came out to test. Homeowners were preen- up front about any problems they experienced." Not every system was alike. "Differences varied situation to situation and system to System; units were selected by the location, physical constraints of the prop"-, or the environmental needs of the area. Some systems offered just good sand filter replacements; for example, some used fabric, loam cubes, peat-so, when our data is compiled, we'll have good information for those who use sand filters. As for removing nitrogen, the preliminary results ranged from 30% to 95% removal," says Rich. Controls and Creative Processes Of the 49 sites installed, nine were control systems to be used as a basis of comparison. Control systems, which included standard tank mid dispersal fields, pressurized distribution, and sand filters, were sampled at the same rate and schedule as the denitrifi ing systems. http-//www.onsitewater.com/ow_0509 getting.html 3/17/2007 Backfilling the Biokreisel Rotating Biological Contractor Installation. Bio-Microbic's FAST wastewater treatment system. Forty sites received denitril) ing SN stems or designs. w hich included • AdvanTex RX-30, a recirculating textile litter with a shallow gravel-less trench for the soil absorption field. • AdvanTex AX-20 sN stem in Mode 3, a recirculating trickling filter system that uses textile sheets in a pre-labricated and pre-packed container Both systems are produced by Orenco Systems Inc (www orenco com), located in Sutherlin, OR. • Amphidrome system, a sequencing batch reactor for residential use, produced by FR Mahony acid Assoc. Inc., of Rockland, MA (www frrnahony com). • Biokreisel Rotating Biological Contractor, a bowl- shaped unit that encloses a rotating screen. The unit provides aeration, recirculation, and discharge, and is manufactured by Nordbeton North America Inc., of Lake Monroe, FL (www.nordbeton corn). • DYN02 System is a vertical Ilow wetland in a concrete container produced by Reactor Dynamics Inc. of Forest Lake, MN (www. reactordynamics. corn). • EnviroServer 600. manufactured bN MicroSepTec Inc. of Laguna Hills, CA (www.microseptec.com), is a pre-engineered, pre-assembled single fiberglass tank system. The tank is divided into live chambers: a primary settling tank, two chambers that allow aerobic digestion of waste, a clarifier where final settling of suspended solids and clarification of the effluent takes place, and an effluent storage compartment. It 'desired, or required, ultraviolet light can be introduced at this point, for disinfection of the water prior to surface or sub-surface discharge. xf M4 At ✓t x; - ' z • FAST (Fixed Activated Sludge Treatment) A - „S Wastewater Treatment System from Bio-Microbics ti Inc. (www.biomicrobics corn) of Shawnee, KS, r~ tit t j1[~ 6 Y G y in which naturally occurring bacteria break down ' t. organic materials in the wastewater into simple r li` # byproducts like water and carbon dioxide. The unit emploNs a settling chamber and an aeration unit in r7,' A M• its operation: air continuous[)- pumped into the unit ensures the bacteria have access to enough oxygen mid trod. The system operates in both an attached t and suspended growth lashi on. • IDEA BESTEP, from Advanced Environment Systems Inc. of Sparks, NV Wastewater 17 n ia s ' se uencin I- aes - - - • 9 g The Nttrex fitter is under continual development at batch reactor contained within a single tank with Lombardo Assoc. and a second-generation system is the AES equipment installed in it. being developed to reduce total N levels to below 1 • Three innovative trench designs were designed by ppm. Wert and Associates of Bend. OR, to promote denitritication. • The Nayadic system, a forced-aeration treatment process in a housing based on an Imhoff cone design, was produced by Consolidated Treatment Systems Inc. of Franklin, OH (www.consolidatedtreatment com). • The NiteLess System, created by On Site Wastewater Management LLC, of Chern Hill, NJ (vN✓w Oswm coin). is a denitrlf~ ing process installed in a custom-built concrete tank. A nonrecirculating forced aeration process that adds carbon to promote denitrification. http://www.onsitewater.com/ow_0509_getting.htmi 3/17/2007 PHO'T'O: MVC-006F.JPG CAPTION: Components of the Purallo SNstem. • Purallo System, created by Bord na Mona ol'Greensboro, NC, (vNP,,/ 7^,r -u5 is a trickling filter ';)Stem that uses peat in a pre-fabricated and pre-packed container. The Nitrex Procedure Along with 16 other technologies, the la Pine Project evaluated two Nitres Filters. Based on more than a decade of research, this proprieutn patented nitrate-reactive media converts nitrate to inert nitrogen gas (denitrification). The Nitres reactive media --developed by Lombardo Associates Inc. (VANW IOfTlbar oassoclates corn) in Newton, MA-can be contained in a prefabricated tank or, for larger installations, in an engineered excavation. Gravit Leeds the nitrate-contaminated wastewater through the treatment module. For septic tank applications, an oxidative pre-treatment step (achieved with any of the existing oxidative technologies commonly used in wastewater treatment) is required to convert ammonium (NH4+) to nitrate (N03-) before the Nitrex tiller can perform the reductive denitrification step. The nitrate-tree etlluent from the Nitrex tiller is then discharged to a conventional tile bed or receiving water bode. Compared to other technologies, the Nitres filter is passive and essentially maintenance-free, while providing almost 100% nitrate removal in a low cost, easy-to-install process. For a typical residential septic system installation (three- or four-bedroom home) the Nitres filter will cost approximately $3,000 (plus shipping and local installation costs). For wastewater flows exceeding 2,500 gpd, a lined excavation Nitres filter application will cost approsimatel. $4 to $10 gpd, but no additional ongoing operational or maintenance costs are necessary. The Nitres filter is the only known treatment technology to provide virtually complete single-pass nitrate removal (97%+) to produce an effluent quality that meets new stringent surface water discharge criteria for ammonium and nitrate. Overall average removal rates of 97%+ for nitrate (NO3 - ) have been attained, achieving nitrate effluent quality of 0. t mg/I, when water temperatures are above 48°F. As the reactive media is eventually consumed, the Nitrex filter typically must be replaced within 15 to 20 years. For the La Pine National Decentralized Wastewater Demonstration Project, the Nitrex filter was chosen to be evaluated on its capability to protect groundwater from the impacts of an onsite septic system. In one single family residence, the Design Wastewater Flow was 132 gpd and the Wastewater Treatment Process flowed through a septic tank, an ISF, and a Nitrex filter, providing almost complete (94.3% average) removal of nitrate from the smid filter etlluent over the three years it's been in operation. JANIS KEATING is a frequent contributor to Forester Communications publications. OUd - S-eptemheri0clober 2005 RETURN TO TABLE OF Horne Search Subscribe About I News I Advertise I Register I Services I Industry Events CONTENTS Keep Informed Contact Us Current Issue Back Issues ForesterPress I Storm Con c;) FORESTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC. P G. Box 3100 • Santa Barbara. -A 93130 • 805-682-1300 http://www.onsitewater.com/ow_0509 getting.htm) 3/17/2007 Z' c 5 v E 0 ^ 0 N o y U o ^°D_ ° rT u v ~rn A CO 2 C: C y _ 5 U W 3 O - ° ~ao CA G, n m r 3 a o o • ; 41 v - CL 3 ~ N O d l • : r } 1 ~l ~ F l 'F L ~ . A ~ o P y~i C c L1 4 s y 7 a N :O CU 3 I J- .D ° c tz) l o r CD Z' t-~o t- - a t (y s 6~ 1 _a W 2 LL Gl y O L IL L 3 C Y 'i 0 L v ; Q L O O W C ' ' O 3 v a o L y °O v L E Q1 Z L l W Q. C ~ L ro aNi o fd L DD O a1 7 v v OA O. N ro a 7 o c i E C C n L ao v vd- a1 a; GO t04 ` 7 i 7 o 'o, N c U u n C al V 00 C Q 00 N N d v b c E L c N T' E s E c LL y o V E d > 2 (U 0 H U D 0 .2 N i a U a N w ro > N W c c 6 v o ° y N ro .R j~ 3 v -0 3 oO n v C T ro O c aL, ro u N • J y ro oc_o d Y 7 C H 7 40 ro ° v v O bo E U co w L ~ 1O O ro 7 41 L C H pp C O S > Q 7 .]L O -O .C N O L W Y n a1 a o`o p m 7 _C N ~ u al ; y u L y E c v . E t! 0 :3 tr L 7 7 H H 0) ON E .C O L. CL O .L S 3 v a _ v d E L L H C o v v id p N ~ ro C E L E H a; O y y v n 3 o N n u L 7 N y O c y v O y n E0 vii 7 L a N 0 ro G n Vy W C y L L 0 2v 3 N w H ; c w 0 H O --5 E N N C w o y ro co u ~ C O `.Ot 3 > 7 O O N a ~y 7 a o L v w b C7 _O w 3 E °w o a n IG.+ C ro c 'C C v O v ro N N L u w y ° " " > w N L a > y L N - 'C ` OL .10 W W O O 7 N v 0~ V c Y L c x W v -C4 (.L N L r 4 2 5 C C ro . w a w ro co c ° L >~~yy ~o ro L C u 41 C J 8 V O L C,C d) C N L L L Q t y OL O p L I' a G ro Y a y n w L G1 p L O p ° v ro a 0 b o CL "U U Z a E ro N 3 `n u C d a~ E c a o +I O > uEy u ~ L Y 7 w t C d N ? 0 Q E O U L H W C C 3 ° (D O c c 7 41 v o0 V ' a E c" 'v a1 F- ~ V O) a a1 L v 3 c N •7 E oco w ~ o 'E E E roU L > O 00 a0+ ; o G Co 7 v c; 3 d 'u N N t = b O L1 L d a x 'c1 E co v d o L L 2 a w$ O E c 41 y 0. -0 y d 7, -0 vy d N b L ✓0 ~ 'N 7 V 0 0. Q M 7 b: x'a vOi o`o o. Q) c p O E , L O Q) N N N c O E N v w C L n c r 'zi E 3 w V N N E p :c v C L w o h 'O U ° o > W O > a 0 y E c 7 F- ro u c In :3 .2~1 a, ro N Cc > W Ly N N Cull V ro 7 V r- ro C N 4 N J L u u d. c y $ E O O a>i Y 70 C', j b L L 01 V 41 L IOi N L h N t>d r ~p cyp v y 0) n cc y 75 U b O w ar o b L ro L H C N ~ V yj v C 111 y N ~ C ~ G c O u a+ 7 O L ~O ao L a Cu V 00 ro N •Q ro Q O L C d Z N T O_ y N y c O L C ro h rs. w a 0X b 0a ± 'c o v y E E° ~ W W >e Np IA u" L ; V N a+ C C N N O d ° U C ro .h ~ y O O LO -0 a N O' c ro W c L N :3 j L w u V V cc E a N p w N ro O W ,day y O c p 7 O y ro vQ ° p v 7 L c „1 N ro C L N i.1 C G•E d .a „ U d W V .CI ~CC y d C p C: 7 a c C 7 O 3 C C H V n N ; u O; ro p O O L? E u c S « d Y a>i E eo c O u °c_° c y E C a E N o o~p i`y L-'~ u u Li C L= m o y O°O p N N .O .L o id n 0 L u O d N v d 0 12 p o t o1 c .C O p v 3 u L U 3 E H a n CC -5 C CIS = Z L O a v 5 3 w v 3 U v~ .2 Journal of Hydrology (2007) 333, 486- 503 available at www.sciencedirect.com HYDROLOGY SdenceDII-ect t , journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jhydrol t Aquifer-scale controls on the distribution of nitrate and ammonium in ground water near La Pine, Oregon, USA Stephen R. Hinkle J.. Bohlke b, John H. Duff David S. Morgan a, Rodney J. Weick d a US Geological Survey, 10615 SE Cherry Blossom Drive, Portland, OR 97216, USA b US Geological Survey, 431 Notional Center, 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive, Reston, VA 20192, USA US Geological Survey, 439 McKelvey Building, 345 Middlefield Road, Menlo Park, CA 94025, USA d Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, 811 SW Sixth Avenue, Portland, OR 97204, USA Received 21 December 2005; received in revised form 15 September 2006; accepted 19 September 2006 KEYWORDS Summary Geochemical and isotopic tools were applied at aquifer, transect, and subtran- Septic systems; sect scales to provide a framework for understanding sources, transport, and fate of dis- Ground water; solved inorganic N in a sandy aquifer near La Pine, Oregon. N03 is a common Denitrification; contaminant in shallow ground water in this area, whereas high concentrations of NH4- Geochemistry; N (up to 39 mg/L) are present in deep ground water. N concentrations, N/Cl ratios, tra- Ammonium ion cer-based apparent ground-water ages, N isotope data, and hydraulic gradients indicate that septic tank effluent is the primary source of N03. N isotope data, N/Cl and N/C rela- tions, 3H data, and hydraulic considerations point to a natural, sedimentary organic matter source for the high concentrations of NH4, and are inconsistent with an origin as septic tank N. Low recharge rates and flow velocities have largely restricted anthropogenic N03 to iso- lated plumes within several meters of the water table. A variety of geochemical and isoto- pic data indicate that denitrification also affects N03 gradients in the aquifer. Ground water in the La Pine aquifer evolves from oxic to increasingly reduced conditions. Suboxic conditions are achieved after about 15-30 y of transport below the water table. N03 is ' This article is a US Government work and is in the public domain in the USA. Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the US Government. Corresponding author. Fax: +1 503 251 3470. E-mail address: srhinkle@usgs.gov (S.R. Hinkle). 0022-1694/S - see front matter © 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. dor 10. 1016/j.jhydrol.2006.09.013 Aquifer-scale controls on the distribution of nitrate and ammonium 487 denitrified near the oxic/suboxic boundary. Denitrification in the La Pine aquifer is charac- terized well at the aquifer scale with a redox boundary approach that inherently captures spatial variability in the distribution of electron donors. © 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. Introduction Nitrate (NO3) is the most common contaminant in ground water (Spalding and Exner, 1993). Identification of sources of N03, as well as other nitrogen (N) species, has received a tremendous amount of attention, due in part to health concerns regarding N03 ingestion (World Health Organiza- tion, 1996) and to potential ecosystem effects of N loading (Howarth and Marino, 2006). For example, the history and fate of N03 contamination have been carefully evaluated in multidisciplinary local transect studies in areas with agri- cultural sources (e.g. Bohlke and Denver, 1995; Tesoriero et at., 2000; Bohlke et at., 2002; Puckett et at., 2002) and septic tank sources (e.g. Robertson and Cherry, 1992; Wil- helm et at., 1996; Aravena and Robertson, 1998). However, resolution of N sources can be difficult in larger regional studies because of co-occurrence of multiple anthropogenic N sources and uncertainty in N transformation pathways. Furthermore, natural N may be an important but overlooked N source in some aquifers. Thus, identification of natural and anthropogenic N sources, as well as characterization of N geochemistry, remain challenging, particularly in aqui- fer-scale assessments. In this paper, we present results of a multiscale study of N occurrence, loading, transport and fate for a sandy aquifer in Oregon, USA, in which the only significant anthropogenic N source (other than atmospheric loading) was septic tank effluent. The near absence of other anthropogenic N sources provided an opportunity to characterize the impact and point-source nature of septic tank N discharge to the aqui- fer. An important natural N source also was clearly identified and several approaches were used to distinguish between anthropogenic and natural N sources. Multiple lines of evi- dence point to a denitrification pathway for N03 removal from ground water, and a redox boundary approach is pro- posed for conceptualizing aquifer-scale N03 fate. Study area and background Rapid rural-residential development on lots as small as one- half acre (0.2 ha) has occurred in the vicinity of La Pine, Oregon, USA (Fig. 1) since the 1960s. A shallow, sandy aqui- fer serves as both source of drinking water and receptor of septic tank effluent for most residents. Most houses in this semiarid environment are surrounded by semidesert land- scaping, and agricultural activities are almost nonexistent (Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, 1994; Hinkle et at., 2005). Fertilizer use is minimal, and septic tank efflu- ent is the only important anthropogenic source of N to study area ground water (Century West Engineering Corporation, 1982). High concentrations of N03-N (>10 mg/L) became widespread in ground water beneath the town of La Pine by the early 1980s (Century West Engineering Corporation, 1982). Sewering of the core urban area of La Pine has re- duced septic tank effluent loading there. However, most of the surrounding area is unlikely to support centralized sewer or water supply services in the foreseeable future. As of 1999, 5185 rural platted lots had been developed. An- other 5010 developable lots remained in 1999. Hence,/Di! County and State resource managers are in need of an tzx understanding of N03 source, transport and fate in the La Pine area. The work described in this paper arose in re- sponse to these needs, but the results have wider applicability. The La Pine study area lies in Oregon's upper Deschutes Basin (Fig. 1). The area is underlain by as much as 300 m of Quaternary alluvial and lacustrine deposits in a structural basin of Quaternary and Tertiary basalt, andesite, vent deposits, and pyroclastic rocks (Lite and Gannett, 2002). Sand is common in the uppermost 37 m of the aquifer. Dee- per sediment is dominantly fine grained, and includes exten- sive lacustrine deposits. Most ground-water use, and hence our emphasis, is focused in the uppermost 37 m of the aquifer. Rain and snowmett are the primary sources of recharge in the study area. Precipitation ranges from 40 to 50 cm/y over most of the area (Taylor, 1993), falling primarily from November through March. Regional ground-water fluxes from higher-elevation areas enter the study area from the west, and to lesser extents the south and east (Gannett et at., 2001). Ground water discharges to the Deschutes and Little Deschutes Rivers. The water table generally lies within 6 m of land surface, facilitating additional ground water loss via evapotranspiration. Study design and methods Well networks and other data Chemical analyses of ground water from a network of 193 existing (primarily domestic) wells, sampled by Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) in June, 2000, provided an aquifer-scale (640 km2 area of variable thickness) perspective of the distribution of dissolved oxy- gen (Oz) (188 sites), N03 (192 sites), ammonium (NH4) (192 sites), and chloride (Cl) (191 sites). This network is re- ferred to as the ODEQ synoptic network. (The raw data are provided as Supplemental data: supplemental_data_1.xls.) Ground water from a group of 11 existing wells with ele- vated NH4-N (>1 mg/L) was sampled by the US Geological Survey (USGS). These wells were primarily a subset of the ODEQ synoptic network. Samples were analyzed for field parameters; nutrients (N and phosphorus [P] species); non- purgable dissolved organic carbon (DOC); common ions; dis- solved nitrogen (NZ), argon (Ar), and methane (CH4); 615N in NH4; and tritium (3H). These data were used to determine the origin of elevated NH4 concentrations in ground water. This network is referred to as the "elevated-NH4 network". Community Development Department Planning Division Building Safety Division Environmental Health Division 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend Oregon 97701-1925 (541)388-6575 FAX(541)385-1764 http://www.co.deschutes.or.us/cdd/ STAFF REPORT The Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners will hold a Public Hearing on Tuesday, March 13, 2007 at 6:00 P.M. in the La Pine High School Auditorium, to consider the following proposal: PROPOSAL: Adopt a Local Rule to require the use of nitrogen reducing onsite wastewater treatment systems in south Deschutes County to protect the sole source of drinking water and surface waters of the upper Deschutes River watershed. The proposal includes 1. Requiring new development to install systems achieving the maximum nitrogen reduction practicable 2. Requiring existing systems to meet a variable nitrogen reduction standard established by the Nitrate Loading Management Model 3. Complete upgrades to existing systems within 10 years of the date the rule takes effect. Other programs interacting with the proposal include financial assistance programs funded by the sale and development of land within the La Pine Neighborhood Planning Area. These voluntary programs, existing and planned, include Pollution Reduction Credit Rebates, low interest loans, grants, and cost deferral (lien) programs. STAFF: Tom Anderson, Community Development Department Director Dan Haldeman, Environmental Health Director Catherine Morrow, Planning Director Barbara Rich, Senior Environmental Health Planner Peter Gutowsky, Senior Planner Todd Cleveland, Environmental Health Specialist George Read, Management Analyst 1. EXISTING POLICY: OAR 340-071, Onsite Wastewater Treatment System Rules OAR 340-040, Groundwater Quality Protection Deschutes County Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 23.44, Regional Problem Solving Deschutes County Code Chapter 13.08, Onsite sewage disposal and septic systems Deschutes County Code Chapter 11.12, Transferable Development Credit Program BASIC FINDINGS: A. AFFECTED AREA: The areas affected by the proposal are unsewered areas between Sunriver and the Klamath County border, this area is formally defined as those portions of Deschutes County contained in Townships 19, 20, 21, and 22 and Ranges 9, 10 and 11, except those areas within existing sewer districts. Local Rule for Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems in South Deschutes County Pagel of 22 Quality Services Performed With Pride B. AFFECTED USES: Uses affected by the proposal are those uses generating less that 2,500 gallons of residential strength wastewater per day. C. PURPOSE: The goal of the proposed rule is to reduce onsite wastewater treatment system pollutants, particularly nitrogen, discharged to the sole source aquifer in order to maintain and improve public waters in the La Pine basin of the upper Deschutes River Watershed. D. HISTORY AND BACKGROUND: South Deschutes County has been the focus of extensive local, state and federal attention beginning the early 1980's with the identification of significant groundwater impacts from onsite wastewater treatment systems in the La Pine Unincorporated Community. Provided below is a timeline of events related to water quality in the region. 1960's 125-square mile area of La Pine subdivided into over 12,000 lots and 1970's 1982 La Pine Aquifer Study finds high nitrate levels in groundwater underlying the core area of La Pine. 1986 La Pine core area sewered. 1994 Oregon DEQ finds increasing nitrate levels outside of the La Pine area. 1996 County receives a $157,250 Regional Problem Solving grant from DLCD to identify regional problems and evaluate solutions. 1997 Sewer Feasibility Study found creating or expanding sewers in the study areas to cost between $19,000 and $28,000 per household. A 20-year payback at 3% costs between $1,275 and $2,880 per household per year. This estimate also assumed that the sewage treatment plant site and related land could be purchased at $3,000 per acre. 1998 Water Quality Directives resulting from Regional Problem Solving ■ Continue to study nitrates, well head protection, and alternative sewage disposal systems. ■ Do not build a new sewer system in study areas ■ Reduce residential density to meet the carrying capacity of onsite sewage disposal systems through a market-based Transfer of Development Credit Program ■ Identify areas where existing community sewer systems can be expanded (La Pine Sewer District). ■ Support Oregon Water Wonderland II (OWW2) efforts to upgrade the existing sewage treatment facilities for that subdivision 1999 Oregon DEQ receives $5.5 million grant from US Environmental Protection Agency to study the groundwater, model the aquifer, field test nitrogen reducing onsite systems Local Rule for Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems in South Deschutes County rayc 4 « Deschutes County - La Pine Subbasin Optimization Model Update (July 2005) Management Number Existing Potential Tot. Potential Unbuildable Area of Tax Lots Units Units (1) Units Lots (2) 1 488 112 73 185 304 2 202 116 52 168 36 3 308 96 40 136 173 4 102 78 18 96 6 5 161 89 28 117 44 6 209 98 34 132 78 7 259 96 42 138 122 8 246 88 32 120 128 9 131 53 25 78 53 10 83 30 21 51 36 11 348 164 65 229 126 12 96 37 59 96 10 13 143 84 43 127 16 14 392 71 79 150 242 15 45 31 10 41 4 16 108 57 16 73 40 17 49 34 7 41 8 18 87 33 13 46 41 19 40 13 15 28 13 20 53 24 8 32 21 21 106 60 36 96 8 22 117 76 42 118 0 23 24 22 :Klamath County 19 13 32 2 25 93 73 19 92 0 26 50 40 4 44 6 27 65 20 6 26 39 28 29 20 3 23 6 29 116 59 5 64 52 30 37 25 9 34 3 31 74 53 9 62 13 32 66 46 14 60 6 33 132 100 34 134 0 34 130 101 29 130 0 35 225 129 90 219 8 36 173 97 61 158 1 37 135 83 52 135 0 38 145 94 51 145 1 39 134 74 60 134 0 40 125 68 57 125 0 41 123 77 46 123 0 42 170 115 33 148 0 43 82 56 24 80 0 44 50 34 25 59 0 45 134 105 29 134 0 46 135 102 33 135 0 47 120 86 34 120 0 48 130 89 41 130 0 49 213 170 46 216 1 50 78 61 15 76 0 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 81: 82t 83 84. 85: 7. J 9C 91 92 93 94 95 Totals Footnotes 143 134 142 158 82 91 127 103 126 201 182 134 106 97 57 147 161 56 62 87 191 186 198 86 104 48 54 68 43 95 101 91 125 59 62 71 44 78 49 141 90 61 67 33 112 119 38 37 50 139 18 120 62 68 30 9 29 28 y- r Klamath County Klamath County 4 ti 1 Klamath County. . Klamath County' Klamath 'County ;Klamath,Gounty' ~f<IamatfGounty i Klamatfl.,Gou,, 129 78 Klamath'County sas 97 49 90 47 65 21 69 43 10,640 5,689 47 32 38 32 16 27 47 57 54 65 43 40 45 30 23 30 34 16 23 34 41 44 46 21 28 14 0 37 15 Jx a ~ + 142 133 129 157 75 89 118 101 132 114 184 130 106 97 56 142 153 54 60 84 180 62 166 83 96 44 9 66 43 0 2 10 1 6 2 7 4 1 85 1 3 0 0 0 5 8 3 1 3 11 123 35 5 0 4 0 2 0 M { 52 130 k 48 97 42 89 37 58 19 62 2,679 2 1 2 6 10 8,368 1 1,972 (1) Potential Units take into consideration lot area and zoning for estimating dwelling units (21 Unbuildable Lots represent red lots (depth to gw < 2'); common open space and areas, and roads. South County Water Quality Advisory Committee July 28, 2005 Minutes ATTENDANCE: Peter Gutowsky, Catherine Morrow, Dan Haldeman, Christy Morgan, David Morgan, Kate Fitzpatrick, Vicki Allen, Steve Wert, Dan Goodrich, Vic Russell, Bob Lovlien, Bob Baggett, Penny Free, Ted Scholer, and Gary Hughes. 1. INTRODUCTION General introductions were made revealing the group's diverse interest. Representative interests recognized the Deschutes River Conservancy, DEQ, USGS, Pahlisch Homes, Baldwin-Herndon Trust, So. County homeowners, soil science and wastewater specialists, excavator and developers, and real estate experts. 2. DEFINE THE PROBLEM Dan Haldeman, Deschutes County Environmental Health Director summarized the groundwater challenges in the La Pine subbasin. Geologically, the La Pine subbasin is a shallow, unconfined, sole source aquifer. This aquifer provides drinking water (domestic wells) and wastewater disposal for residents living outside the La Pine Unincorporated Urban Area. Typically, onsite wastewater systems using soil, at 4-feet depth or sand, at 2- feet, can treat onsite wastewater by breaking down most componenets. However, a by product of this breakdown is nitrates and it is nitrates that are the concerns of this work program. Domestic wells are located in a susceptible' level of the aquifer. It is this shallow oxic section (2' to 50') that provides clear, cold and productive water. However, it is also the zone that contains nitrates and since it is'oxic, nitrates do not denitrify. The Environmental Protection Agency sets the limits for nitrates at 10 mg/L. Health risks can be severe when humans are exposed to nitrates exceeding this level. Historically, a DEQ employee in the 1960s identified the potential for groundwater pollution stemming from septic systems. In 1982, groundwater well tests in the core area of La Pine revealed high levels of nitrates, ranging from 10 mg/L to 40 mg/L. Inevitably, the EPA, DEQ, and Deschutes County funded a sewer system, completed in 1989 to addressthis particular subarea. The South County is undergrowing rapid population growth (Each of the currently approved septic systems with average flows contributes approximately 59 Ibs of nitrate per year into the aquifer. At buildout, the staff estimates 300 tons of nitrate per year will be delivered into the aquifer. There are approximately 9,000 lots in the La Pine subbasin; 3,500 are vacant. Staff will provide a current inventory based on a GIS inventory performed in mid July. Most of the nitrate plumes are still located in the shallow, upper zone of the aquifer. These plumes have not yet reached drinking water depth. This work program provides a unique opportunity to prevent high levels of nitrates from enter drinking water wells. Question/Comment: Wells, recently tested during home purchasing transactions have not shown even 1 mg/L. Staff Response: The aquifer in the La Pine subbasin has a slow gradient as well as a low recharge rate. These factors, in combination with the nitrate plumes located in the shallow groundwater, limit domestic well contamination. Question/Comment: When was the La Pine Sewer System completed, and does the USGS modeling take into account that homes in this area, Sunriver, and Deschutes Water Wonderland have sewer systems. Also, is it possible to obtain information about the test wells. Staff Response: The sewer system was completed in 1989. Wells were installed during the La Pine Demonstration Project and the USGS modeling did recognize the properties on centralized wastewater treatment systems. Even with the La Pine sewer system, staff discovered that the groundwater in the La Pine Urban Unincorporated Area shows nitrates ranging from 20 mg/L to 40 mg/L. Question/Comment: Do the wastewater treatment systems in La Pine, Sunriver, and Water Wonderland contributed to the nitrate problem? Staff Response: Probably, DEQ will bring back information on these three systems. 3. ACCOMPLISHMENTS TO DATE'.` A. Regional Problem Solving (RPS) Project Catherine Morrow, Deschutes County Planning Director, summarized the County's RPS project. Initiated in 1996, the RPS project was structured to address i) groundwater' quality; ii) wildlife - largest mule deer migration corridor; iii) wildfire; and iv) County transportation limitations, The legal lots created in the La Pine subbasin occurred before land-use planning was enacted. These plats were not required to,collectively address wastewater treatment, wildlife protections, wildland urban interface, or transportation systems. The RPS program enables local governments to creatively and flexibly meet Statewide Planning goals, that under standard processes would have limited the County's opportunities to address items i-iv above. The RPS program allowed Deschutes County to engage BLM and ultimately, acquire property from them for the purpose of resolving the groundwater challenges associated with onsite wastewater systems. Funded by the State, the RPS project led to surveys, community meetings, and forums. Suggestions that were ultimately rejected by the La Pine community included, i) an emphasis on lower density - - community rejected concept, preferring rural character; ii) creating a sewer district - - community felt it was too expensive; iii) moratorium, if nitrates continued to impact groundwater quality - - community wanted the resolve the water quality. Ultimately, Deschutes County adopted new policies in the Comprehensive Plan recognizing among other elements, the New Neighborhood in La Pine and a transfer of development credit program. It is likely that this work program will require revisiting the County's comprehensive plan policies pertaining to the New Neighborhood and TDC program. 8. Transferable Development Credit (TDC) Program Christy Morgan, Deschutes County Assistant Planner summarized the County's TDC program. In April 2002, Deschutes County adopted comprehensive plan goals and policies that recognized the following, i) preserve water and air quality; ii) wildfire hazards; iii) wildlife habitat; iv) ensuring domestic water derived from groundwater meets safe drinking water standards; v) develop an equitable, market-driven system that reduces impacts on mule deer corridors and areas susceptible groundwater pollution vi) create new neighborhood that sustains economic development and reduces adverse impacts to groundwater in South Deschutes County. There are 2,091 lots that qualify for a TDC. Thus far, 111 lots have been obtained for TDC, with total credits equaling 130, reflecting groundwater and-wildlife corridor values. When TDCs are purchased, a, restrictive covenant is recorded on the property, preventing one from installing an onsite septic system. It is commonly understood, after USGS performed their nitrate, fate', and transport model that the current TDC program will not resolve the groundwater nitrate contamination problem. C. La Pine Demonstration Project Dan Haldeman summarized the $5 million dollar grant and arrangement with DEQ, USGS, and EPA that enabled the County to install and evaluate denitrifying onsite wastewater treatment systems. There were twelve vendors that participated in the program, in addition to the installation of three traditional onsite systems and two innovative trench designs. Seventy-five percent of the installed systems replaced existing systems. The County also installed monitoring wells at the shallowest depths possible. The good news is that the shallow groundwater wells, downstream from the onsite wastewater systems, detected no bacteria. The best denitrifying onsite systems treated nitrates between 4 mg/L to 15 mg/L. The bad news is that downgradient wells picked up nitrates. Only one denitrifying onsite system met all the performance criteria; several however, did meet a majority the criteria. The sand filter systems, assumed to treat nitrates at 30 mg/L, showed levels closer to 50 mg/L, which are more comparable to pressurized and standardized onsite systems. Another important point is the importance of having a robust operation and maintenance system when one installs denitrifying onsite wastewater systems. The County anticipates having private certified maintenance providers fill this role. D. Three Dimensional Groundwater and Nutrient Fate and Transport Model Dave Morgan, USGS hydrogeologist provided a brief overview of USGS' three to four year involvement with Deschutes County in the La Pine subbasin. Recognizing the importance of having detailed information on the La Pine subbasin, the DEQ and Deschutes County approached USGS to analyze the TDC program and denitrification wastewater treatment systems. The problem in this subbasin stem from i) thin, volcanic soils; ii) shallow water tables; iii) homes on septic and individual wells; upper 100' contains most productive aquifers; iv) only half of lots built on; v) area growing rapidly; vi) DEQ monit9oring sampling found areas of high nitrate and ammonium. Components of the groundwater flow and nitrate transport model integrate geology, hydrology, and chemistry. The Little Deschutes and Deschutes Rivers in the La Pine subbasin "gain" water from the aquifer. Groundwater moves slowly - - recharge is low combined with low connectivity. Fifty percent of the nitrate loading in the aquifer occurred prior to 1988. As an example, citing the Burgess Road transect, groundwater wells are currently pulling water that is 30 to 40 years old. Key Questions Is high nitrate in drinking water currently a widespread problem near La Pine? No. Because groundwater moves slowly, most nitrate in the aquifer has not yet reached the depths tapped by most water wells. If not, will nitrate in drinking water become a problem in the future? Yes. Nitrate that is now in the shallow part of the aquifer will move to deeper parts tapped by most wells. Sixty percent of domestic wells are pumping from the vulnerable oxic part of the aquifer (upper 50 feet). 4. FEDERAL EARMARK AND WATER QUALITY COOPERATIVE GRANTS Peter Gutowsky, Deschutes County Senior Planner summarized both grants, the first addressing the groundwater protection program, the other, studying nitrate attenuation from vegetation located in the riparian environment along the Little Deschutesand Deschutes Rivers. Detailed information is provided in the TAC binder. 5. PROJECT OUTLINE GOALS AND EXPECTATIONS Catherine Morrow, Deschutes County Planning Director summarized the Gantt Chart and the six-month work program. In the discussion of the Goals and Objectives of the Committee, several committee members commented that the Goals statement should reflect the importance of private property rights and South County Water Quality Advisory Committee August 18, 2005 Minutes ATTENDANCE: Peter Gutowsky, George Read, Dan Haldeman, Christy Morgan, Todd Cleveland, Barbara Rich, David Morgan, Kristi Otteni, Kate Fitzpatrick, Vicki Allen, Steve Wert, Dick Nichols, Bonnie Lamb, Dan Goodrich, Vic Russell, Bob Baggett, Penny Frey, John Jennings, and Gary Hughes. INTRODUCTION / AGENDA OVERVIEW General introductions were made, including Barbara Rich, currently with DEQ and beginning work with Deschutes County as Project Coordinator for the Groundwater Protection project on September 6, 2005. Barbara's experience includes the La Pine Demonstration Project and assisting USGS with groundwater modeling. Barbara provided an overview of the agenda, including the concept of a "parking lot," a tool to help keep the group on track and capture issues that don't relate to a particular agenda item. Barbara also reminded the group that the September meeting will be devoted largely to brainstorming alternatives/approaches to the South County's groundwater challenges. 2. APPROVE MINUTES By voice vote, the Committee approved the minutes. USGS MODELS Overview Dave Morgan, USGS hydrogeologist summarized USGS groundwater quality models (simulation model and the nitrate loading management model (NLMM)) for the La Pine subbasin. USGS' participates in a federal/state cooperative program. This program allows USGS to assist scientific understanding for resource policy. Information is then use for decision making, however, USGS does not make any recommendations. The study area consists of a portion of the La Pine subbasin, from Sunriver into the northern Klamath County border. The problem in this subbasin stem from i) thin, volcanic soils; ii) shallow water tables; iii) homes on septic and individual wells; upper 100' contains most productive aquifers; iv) only half of lots built on; v) area growing rapidly; vi) DEQ monitoring sampling found areas of high nitrate and ammonium. Components of the groundwater flow and nitrate transport model integrate geology, hydrology, and chemistry. The Little Deschutes and Deschutes Rivers in the La Pine subbasin "gain" water from the aquifer. Groundwater moves slowly - - recharge is low combined with low conductivity. Age dating water samples (chlorofluorocarbon data) help confirm the recharge and connectivity rate. USGS obtained data from DEQ and Deschutes County to differentiate the oxic groundwater (coarse grain sediment) boundary from the suboxic boundary (fine grain sediment). USGS then mapped the thickness in the shallow, oxic portion of the aquifer. Fifty percent of the nitrate loading in the aquifer occurred prior to 1988. As an example, citing the Burgess Road transect, groundwater wells are currently discharging water that is 30 to 40 years old. The age of the water increases with groundwater depth and along the flow path. Lesson learned, i) few domestic wells have nitrate concentrations approaching the state or federal nitrate limits (7 mg/L; 10 mg/L). Domestic wells are pumping (oxic) water, at depths of 40 to 50 feet, that is approximately 40 - 50 years old and older than development in the area. This aged groundwater is not yet subject to high nitrate concentrations. Sixty percent of domestic wells draw water from the oxic portion of the aquifer; ii) Deeper wells are suboxic, where nitrogen is removed naturally (converts to gas - - natural organic carbon helps remove nitrates). However, the groundwater at this level is not as desirable for drinking since it is highly mineralized and contains high amounts of iron. Steve Wert asked if nitrate escapes and whether USGS has some type of balancing sheet. David Morgan responded that the closer the nitrates get to the Deschutes or Little Deschutes River, nitrates are being picked up by the streams. Key Questions Is high nitrate in drinking water currently a widespread problem near La Pine? No. Because groundwater moves slowly, most nitrate in the aquifer has not yet reached the depths tapped by most water wells. This is due to the aquifer's low recharge rate and low hydraulic connectivity. If not, will nitrate in drinking water become a problem in the future? Yes. Nitrate that is now in the shallow part of the aquifer will move to deeper parts tapped by most wells. Sixty percent of domestic wells are pumping from the vulnerable oxic part of the aquifer (upper 50 feet). USGS: (Model #1) 3-D Groundwater Nitrate and Flow Model Dave Morgan discussed the purpose of the simulation model. Simulation models, in this case, simulates movement of water and nitrate through the aquifer. The model represents complex hydro-geologic conditions and chemical reactions. It also predicts changes over time. The simulation models is a mathematical model that incorporates groundwater flow equations, nitrate transport equations and chemical reaction equations. The Simulation model is structured by a grid. Each cell is 500' x 500' x 5' thick. Each layer has 27,600 cells. The full grid has 24 layers (662,400 cells). The simulation model shows i) average nitrate concentrations in each grid; ii) movement of nitrates to adjacent cells or streams; iii) movement to sub-oxic zone. The model simulates growth and development from 1960-1999. The model results were initially compared with measured results in the field (groundwater levels; groundwater discharge to streams: groundwater age; groundwater nitrate concentrations) and then adjusted to fit measured data. The simulation model predicted the effects of future growth and development. It assumed land use and waste disposal patterns (standard/sand filter systems - 46mg/L) would continue under the status quo scenario. Build-out was predicted for 2019 (total of 9,700 homes) based on the historic development rate. The model then forecasted nitrate concentrations from year 2000 to 2139, a point at which nitrate entering the aquifer from septic systems equals the amount being denitrified either through the suboxic zone or the near stream environment and discharged to the streams. A graph showed a nitrate loading line, leveling off 60 to 70 years after build-out, due to the aquifer's low recharge rate and low hydraulic connectivity. The model estimated 75 tons of nitrate entering the aquifer a year, at build-out. The conclusions from the nitrate fate and transport model show that nitrate concentrations increase rapidly in shallow (oxic) parts of the aquifer for 40 to 50 years. Eventually, nitrate amounts in domestic wells would average at least 10 mg/L. USGS: (Model #2) Nitrate Loading Management Model (NLI\AM) The NLMM model (implemented through an Excel spreadsheet) links the simulation model with a technique called "optimization." Optimization modeling is a mathematical technique for solving complex resource allocation problems and in this case, has been adapted for wastewater planning. David Morgan then showed a diagram illustrating how the outcome can be structured to: * maximize development of vacant lots * protect groundwater for safe drinking water standards * protect stream and wildlife resources * consider economic costs In the NLMM model, each management area has two decision variables: i) loading from existing development; and ii) loading from future development. The NLMM model is able to find the best solution - minimum loading reduction for existing and future homes throughout the La Pine Subbasin (all 97 subareas). It essentially determines decision variables (future / existing loading rates) by translating the constraints entered by the user (keep nitrates below 7 mg/L; reduce nitrate discharge to streams). Dave Morgan described the model in great detail. There aria 97 management areas within the La Pine study area and 9,700 potential development urits (5,200 that are existing and 4,500 that could be developed in the future). [Note: Red lots were not included in the analysis]. There are 330 groundwater concentration constraint points (1/2 in the shallow aquifer; 1/2 in the deeper aquifer). Based on the distribution and geographic location of existing and future development, the NLMM model can determine the loading reductions that are required from both (existing and future homes) to keep nitrates below 7 mg/L in the aquifer. Key Questions What should the constraints be? Should nitrate discharges to the Deschutes / Little Deschutes be limited? Should cost factors be included in the NLMM? How should the NLMM management model be used? Dave Morgan Question and Answer Session November 17, 2005 8:00 - 9:00 a.m. Question (1): How long will it take to "solve" the nitrogen loading in the aquifer? It has taken a long time, more than 40 years, to add the nitrate that is presently in the ground-water system. It will also take time for the nitrate to be removed from the aquifer. Nitrate concentrations are reduced by dilution and dispersion as the effluent from on-site systems mixes with fresh ground-water along its flow path. Nitrate is removed from the aquifer if the ground-water flow path carries it into the deeper, sub-oxic part of the aquifer where microbes convert nitrate to nitrogen gas. This process is called denitrification. Nitrate can also be removed from the aquifer if ground- water carries it into the near-stream environment where it can discharge to the stream, be taken up by plants, or converted to nitrogen gas (if the shallow ground water is`sub-oxic). All of these processes can eventually "solve" the nitrate problem, but only if the rate of loading from on-site systems is reduced to a level where the natural process of dilution, denitrification, and discharge to the near-stream environment can keep up. One caveat is that although discharge of nitrate to streams might help solve the ground-water problem, it may also create or worsen a stream water quality problem. The simulation model that has been developed for the aquifer shows that overall nitrate loading will have to reduced by about 60 to 70 percent,from what would occur if all lots were developed with standard on-site technology. It also shows that high nitrate concentrations in the shallow part of the system will persist for years after loading is,;redueed.until the processes listed above can remediate the aquifer. The sooner loading can be reduced, the sooner improvements will be realized and the less likely it will be that high nitrate ground water will reach drinking water wells. Question (2): Can you interrupt the nitrate cycle by pulling contaminated water out of the ground and applying it (irrigation) to vegetation? This type of remediation scheme may not be Viable in the La Pine area. I am not an expert on design of such systems but there are hydrogeologic and regula?:ory constraints that may limit their applicability in this area. First, nitrate from the more than 5,600 individual on-site systems generally occurs as individual plumes of elevated nitrate. A "pump and irrigate" remediation system would have to have many shallow, low-volume extraction wells to capture these plumes-possibly as many as one per on-site system in the area to be remediated. Second, the Oregon Water Resources Department may not consider this an exempt use of ground water. If not, obtaining water rights may be problematic as all new ground-water rights in the upper Deschutes basin currently require mitigation to protect existing surface water rights and instream flows. Question (3): Are There Nitrate Inputs from Other Sources? There may be minor inputs from other sources, but they are small compared to the input from on- site systems. The agricultural lands in the subbasin are almost exclusively pasture or hay and most of it is not irrigated. There is typically very little if any nitrogen added for this land-use. Most residents have chosen natural, low-water use landscaping and there are few lawns. Residential fertilizer application rates are about 1-3 pounds per year per 1,000 square feet of lawn. This compares with 16 pounds of nitrogen discharged to the water table from the typical on-site system. At the recommended lawn application rates, very little of the nitrogen infiltrates below the root zone. Confined animal feeding operations are not present in the subbasin. Waste from low density stock grazing and pets has been found to have little impact on around-water nitrate concentrations (Loehr, 1974; National Research Council, 1978) Our study has concluded that the nitrate loading from on-site systems alone has the potential to cause ground-water nitrate concentrations to become greater that the EPA recommended maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 10 mg/L over large areas of the aquifer. The estimates we used for loading from on-site systems were based on data from the La Pine Demonstration Project for actual septic effluent flows and nitrate concentrations at the many on-site systems that were monitored during the project. These data were found to be consistent with data from other areas published in the literature. If there are other sources of nitrate in the subbasin that contribute significant quantities of nitrate, they will only exacerbate the risk to the drinking water resource. Question (4): Was River Meadows Included in the Model? Yes. However, River Meadows was recognized as not contributing nitrates into the aquifer since it is on a centralized sewer system. Technical Advisory Committee Meeting 4/11/06 Questions from the TAC I . Did the Committee reach consensus on the TAC's direction? 2. Did the committee come to consensus on the issue of red lot development? 3. Will the local rule have an appeal process for a landowner contesting a rule requirement? 4. How many people in the south county live below poverty? (Income test, capacity to pay, length of stay... based on south county demographics) 5. When is the compliance date for the local rule? 6. Who certifies that a system is capable of denitrifying at a certain standard? 7. Can retrofit funds be used / applied to upgrade the systems to nitrogen reduction standards? 8. Failing system scenario - could you sell the "credit" for denitrifying system to an NPA developer? 9. Partnership funds - funds only go to qualified applicants? (income/eligibility test?) 10. Nitrates in Surface water - Why aren't we examining loading to the Little Deschutes & Deschutes Rivers? 11. Local Improvement District - could it be applied to private wastewater treatment systems? 12. PRC - fee, if it works in concert with local rule. Fee OK as long as we're sure the retrofits are implemented 13. The local rule will have a demarcation between DEQ and Deschutes County responsibilities and we need to define which rule takes precedence. 14. Are the new systems complete systems of treatment for nitrate? 15. Is the county going to publish an article in the Newberry Eagle? 16. Cost of PRC is concern because of a desire to maintain affordable housing. 17. Give the power to the 5,800 existing system owners because they have / are generating the credits. 18. Local improvement district - question about how we can change that to achieve our goal. 19. Loan interest loan program - are there opportunities expanded LIDS (CDBG) 20. Why don't we know the cost of a retrofit? 21. When should/are the PRCs implemented? 22. What happens to development patterns/codes/zoning with community wastewater treatment systems? 23. Re: resolution, where does the sewer district fit in? 24. Don't understand numbers ($7,500 vs. $3,000) - difficult to understan3. 25. Is the PRC code adoption a land use decision/process? 26. Should the Planning Commission evaluate the code amendment, not resolution? 'TAC Comments Local Rule Roundtable 1. All facets for solution are there - cart before horse - rewards before retrofits/ include retrofits in local rule, want retrofits before offering other options, don't offer carrot up front parallel timeline for local rule & PRC adoption) 2. Want adequate opportunity to appeal the rule requirements 3. Happy to see use moving forward because of current failing systems 4. Are systems complete treatment of nitrate? 5. sale of TDC lots at county auction - could have developed with current technologies 6. support everyone contributing to the solution 7. Don't want county playing Santa Claus 8. funds from NPA would only go to those meeting income test 9. Income tests are moving target - equitable? T:I C heedhack on 4.,'] 1; 06 Page I of 3 10. income test big task - significant process for county to undertake 11. county doesn't want to have heavy admin cost - potential to contract with P aprty financial institution 12. issue of treating different people differently 13. Nitrate loading on surface water is an issue - is anybody looking at the impacts of Crosswater? 14. There are other values to red lot areas, intact wetlands for protecting water quality in streams and rivers 15. concern about south county statement of poverty - need backup data 16. Use NPA S to help people who need most help (possible income test) IT make sure cost of program spread across broad population (PRC) 18. Local rule good - concerned about paying into fund and allowing development before retrofit is complete 19. Local rule - give enough time for retrofit - 2-tier approach, earlier incentives greater and later incentives go down 20. education process needed 21. don't give funds to people who don't need it 22. later in process - use income test, calibrate incentive to income for carrot 23. Local rule good - what is compliance date? 24. public outreach - flexible to listen to public - compliance date issue 25. continues to recognize new and changing technology - supply and demand create affordability - red lot issue - don't preclude development, don't duplicate DEQ systems 26. appeal process for new technology requirement - test if new technology meets standard 27. (Deschutes County would certify that new systems meet standard) 28. 1 like the rule - integrate fairness, capacity to pay, length of residency 29. not regimented about which technology 30. system fails - repair with retrofit 31. new program failure would require retrofit 32. permit for repair would require retrofit 33. what happens to credit gained through retrofit 34. repair creates credit for sale 35. instead of gift from NPA - create revolving fund from sale of property, properties in sending area that were helped would pay back fund at time of sale (lien) 36. there could be properties that would be so heavily liened that they couldn't pay Pollution reduction credits Roundtable I . PRC code amendments OK acknowledged by LCDC RPS 2. necessary to allow timing for development 3. timing good - not against fee instead of getting retrofit in ground 4. DRC - important to tie development to getting the retrofit in the ground - can't do project until credit in hand 5. agreement with the concepts of PRC 6. agreement but look to make sure no future restrictions - USGS model 7. don't make decisions based on current technology and model that will create restrictions 8. favor PRC - establish proper timing, value baseline - will be variable over time 9. Other issues besides drinking water that may not be focus of this committee - other reasons for nitrate control (impacts to surface water for example) 10. S used for carrot Resolution Roundtable I . cost/credit minimum & variable number of retrofits - will be self-establishing by local rule 3. Sewer District - loan and payback will serve entire NPA 7.W Feedhack on 4.11."06 Page 2 of 3 4. never see solution for what it is but for who we are 5. TDC program - $16,0000/acre 6. only sold about 30% - county provided the rest 7. goal to keep it simple, 34 net developable acres, $71 K/NDA 8. numbers totally unreasonable and unacceptable 9. lot value has changed 10. equity in land should pay for upgrade I I. program is socialism 12. do not agree with raising cost any more than needed 13. "Whereas" re TAC recommendation in resolution 14. concerned about working class people being able to afford to buy 15. re-evaluate numbers 16. start of TDC program - cost of lots 17. Steve Wert says average cost is greater than $7,500 18. what is expected revenue from development 19. new neighborhood shouldn't fund 100% 20. $7500 based on 5400 retrofits 21. with value of property in the NPA 60% discount is a fair price 22. NPA is intended to be used to fix the groundwater 23. except for contractual, neighborhood I & 2 are treated the same 24. development in neighborhood supporting groundwater solution approved by LCDC 25. assumed groundwater problem - agree there is liability / don't agree on amount of cost to NPA 26. affordable housing 27. shouldn't load burden on new neighborhood 28. Land in NPA - purchased and incorporated in La Pine UUC with goal of addressing groundwater issue TAC Consensus Consensus to proceed with Planning Commission work session Agreement on most everything except cost TAC Overall Direction: December Minutes: approved Local Rule: Move fonvard TDC Code Amendment: Move fonvard TDC Code resolutions: Continue discussions with Vic, move fonvard Specific direction: • Compile TAC comments and questions to use to guide further refinement of the program • Move forward through public process. Acknowledge and document that there was discussion and expression of concern over some of the numbers used in the resolution but that those details can be worked out as the proposals move forward. • Begin writing article for Newberry Eagle • Work session with Planning Commission o Provide background/progress to date o Staff recommendation re: how to move forward in terms of public hearing schedule 7AC Feedhack on 4.,'l !,'O6 Page 3 of 3 V 0 ~ x CL LL z ZW F- n ~ - F f c p+ is CL 0. 8INgM ` 9 Y f y~ f n m y • ~ y 3 7 _ Y Srr ~ CC~ Li f LU 1 1111..) I Ix !no fflg~el* I students estion 1:f _ nes Madiion ~stion 2.__-_ Federalist Papers ,stion 3. By Monique Balas The Bulletin have ct:A-ft'11s This week, Nancy Hill is standing guard. The physical science teacher at Mountain View High School must keep vigilant watch over her ninth-graders to avoid any underhanded text messaging during finals week. "It's a constant game of one- upmanship," she said. "It's something we have to watch for constantly." Hill has not caught anyone cheating on exams by using cell phones so far this week, but she has in the past. Stu- dents have become so adept at using their phones to compose text messages that they can put them under their desks and type a note without even look- ing, she said. "There has been cheating, but I'd say it's more of a dis- traction issue," Hill said. in an increasingly digital world, cell phones and other electronic communication de- vices in schools are becoming as prevalent as backpacks and notebooks. But along with their popularity come more ways to misuse them. While errant rings and the prospect of cheating are the biggest problems so far in Bend-La Pine, other school dis- tricts across the nation have faced more pressing issues that have led them to ban cell phones altogether. Wisconsin's largest school district, Milwaukee Public Schools, this week began ban- ning the possession of two- way communication devices such as cell phones and pagers in all of the district's 217 schools. See Cell phones /A6 R ON THE WEB To read area school districts' policies on cell phones and Sisters School District's cyberbullying policy, go to www.bendbulletin.com septic upgrades might be subsidized By Keith Chu The Bulletin New rules to protect the La Pine area's groundwater could cost homeowners less than pre- viously thought, after Deschutes County officials proposed offset- ting some of the expense Wednesday. The rules are an effort to re- duce the prob- lem of nitrates Inside leeching from septic systems • The hazards and entering of nitrates, the region's Page as groundwater. Studies have shown nitrates could contaminate residents' drinking wells and eventually reach the Deschutes and Little Deschutes rivers. To slow contamination, the county has proposed requiring about 5,800 homes to install new, nitrate-neutralizing septic systems. In public meetings, some La Pine residents have complained about the potential- ly pricey upgrades. The county plans to offer La Pine and Sunriver-area residents a package of incentives, includ- ing low-interest loans and grants, with an eye toward eas- ing opposition toward the rules. "We'd have a revolt if we didn't have a deal down there on how to pay for it," Commissioner Dennis Luke said. The total cost of replacing those systems would be in the range of $58 million, Luke and community development de- partment staff estimated Wednesday. But, for the first time, county planners made clear that the county expects to help offset $35 million to $45 million of those costs, mainly by selling county-owned land in La Pine. "The message we obviously haven't been that effective in communicating is we have this asset," said Planning Director Catherine Morrow. .1 ice Nitrates At; 1'~~,>I~~ il~u.ti nl~~~i~ f=. Rener Fullerton Tti~. E7„i',.r.~ DESCHUTES COUNTY GROUNDWATER PROTECTION PROJECT LOCAL RULE FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE OVERVIEW MAJOR ELEMENTS: • Introduction/Policy'lss_ues • Projected Cost of Retrofits • Projected Funds Available • Basic Assistance Mechanisms • Logistical Issues INTRODUCTION/POLICY ISSUES In order to protect drinking water resources in southern Deschutes County, the County is considering adopting a Local Rule governing the type of septic systems allowed in the affected area. The Rule would also require retrofits of existing systems by requiring existing development to meet at least 35% nitrogen reduction (discharge a maximum of 30 mg/L total nitrogen as N) based on the density of development and the vulnerability of the groundwater to contamination. The nitrogen effluent standard for existing systems can vary by area from a minimum of 30 mg/L to a maximum of 10 mg/L or less total nitrogen as N. The Rule as proposed would require all existing systems to be upgraded within 10 years of the date the rule is adopted. The proposal intends to give property owners a fairly long period of time in which to retrofit systems. The Rule will apply to those unsewered areas between Sunriver and the Klamath County border, an area formally defined as those unsewered areas of Townships 19, 20, 21, and 22 and Ranges 9, 10 and 11.` Tri~ It is the County's desire to provide financial-assistance to property owners within the affected area in retrofitting existing systems. According to 2000 census data, over 12% of the population has an income level below the poverty level, as defined by the census, and undertaking a retrofit'of -their septic system, even at the lowest reduction level required, would bb;, very difficult. Further, again according to the 2000 census, over 18% of the area population is 65 or older, most of whom live on a fixed income where absorbingadditional expense would be a significant burden. In addition to the figures above 1 ere exists a significant additional segment of the population where the expense of the required retrofit would represent a serious financial burden. In examining the ability of Deschutes County to assist property owners in the retrofit of existing systems, this report will address the following topics: -Potential cost of retrofits -Existing and future financial resources available -Basic assistance types -Other `logistical Issues Policy Questions for Board/Community: What is funding level intent? • 100% of all costs? • 75% or 50%? • Assistance to low/moderate income households only? • Grants (no payback) at some level acceptable? PROJECTED COST OF RETROFITS Estimated number of retrofits to be done: 6,400'` *Based on up to date issued permits in the affected area. Active and pending permits are included in order to provide a conservative estimate of need. 1) Calculation of estimated cost The tables below reflect two methods of calculating total potential cost of retrofits. Both of the methodologies split the retrofits by 'required reduction' area. The first method averages cost per retrofit between the low and high and of the cost range. The second goes further and, factors in the age of the existing system in projecting the cost of the retrofit (e.g. newer systems will generally be less expensive to rdtr6fit4 d achieve the required level of nitrate reduction. Rough cost approach Lower Cost Upper Cost <10 m /L Number 1685 Lower $7,500 upper $18,000 $12,637,500 $301,330,000 20 mg/L 1613 $7,500 $18,000 $12,097,500 $29,034,000 30 mg/L 3099 $5,000 $10,000 $15,495,000 $30,990,000 Total 6397 $40,230,000 $90,354,000 $6,289 $14,124 $65,292,000 $10,207 Total ave cost Ave cost per system Age related cost approach a 1..- Cost for Newer (1988+1 Cost for Older (<1988) m /L <-IJ00 46 1700+ 1639 Lowci $7,500 -F"-. $18,000 $12,292,500 $828,000 20 m L 127 1486 $7,500 $18,000, $11,145,000 $2,286,000 30 mg/L 150 2949 $5,000 $10,000 $14,745,000 $1,500,000 Total 323 6074 $38,182,500 $4,614,000 $6,286 $14,285 LOlder Youn' er $42,796,500 Cost $6,690 Ave cost per syst- age Total average cost Ave cost per system As shown above, the two methods reflect a wide range of possible total cost, with $65 million at the high end and $43 million at the low end. While based on the logic of the second method we would expect that the cost will be closer to $43 million than $65 million, there is no way of knowing for certain what the costs will be without investigating property specific characteristics and other variables such as the integrity of existing system, the type of new system chosen, and the variability of retrofit costs over time. The costs could further vary over time as new technologies are approved for use in Oregon. (As a point of comparison, the KCM report from 1997 estimated $200 to $280 million to sewer all or part of the study area.) 2) Estimated Time Frame for Retrofits/Cost Expenditure The three tables below show variations on the possible time frame for retrofits. The first table shows an even pace of voluntary retrofits. The second Deschutes County - La Pine Subbasin Optimization Model Update (July 2005) Management Area Number of Tax Lots Existing Units Potential Units (1) Tot. Potential Units Unbuildable Lots (2) 1 488 112 73 185 304 2 202 116 52 168 36 3 308 96 40 136 173 4 102 78 18 96 6 5 161 89 28 117 44 6 209 98 34 132 78 7 259 96 42 138 122 8 246 88 32 120 128 9 131 53 25 78 53 10 83 30 21 51 36 11 348 164 65 229 126 12 96 37 59 96 10 13 143 84 43 127 16 14 392 71 79 150 242 15 45 31 10 41 4 16 108 57 16 73 40 17 49 34 7 41 8 18 87 33 13 46 41 19 40 13 15 28 13 20 53 24 8 32 21 21 106 60 36 96 8 22 117 76 42 118 0 23 22 19 13 32 2 . 2A 14amafhi✓ _ 25 93 73 19 92 0 26 50 40 4 44 6 27 65 20 6 26 39 28 29 20 3 23 6 29 116 59 5 64 52 30 37 25 9 34 3 31 74 53 9 62 13 32 66 46 14 60 6 33 132 100 34 134 0 34 130 101 29 130 0 35 225 129 90 219 8 36 173 97 61 158 1 37 135 83 52 135 0 38 145 94 51 145 1 39 134 74 60 134 0 40 125 68 57 125 0 41 123 77 46 123 0 42 170 115 33 148 0 43 82 56 24 80 0 44 50 34 25 59 0 45 134 105 29 134 0 46 135 102 33 135 0 47 120 86 34 120 0 48 130 89 41 130 0 49 213 170 46 216 1 50 78 61 15 76 0 51 143 52 134 53 142 54 158 55 82 56 91 57 127 58 103 59 126 60 201 61 182 62 134 63 106 64 97 65 57 66 147 67 161 68 56 69 62 70 87 71 191 72 186 73 198 74 86 75 104 76 48 77 54 78 68 79 43 80- Klamath County 81 Klamath'County 82 Xlamath County, `83 ' ;,Klamath County '84. °Warn ath County, 85, ;Klamath County, 86 Klamath County _ $7 ~Klamath!Countyl 88 Klamath County 89 Xlamath.County_ 90 129 :.91 ,Klamath,;Gounty 92 97 93 90 94 65 95 69 Totals 10,640 Footnotes 95 101 91 125 59 62 71 44 78 49 141 90 61 67 33 112 119 38 37 50 139 18 120 62 68 30 9 29 28 t 49 47 21 43 5,689 47 32 38 32 16 27 47 57 54 65 43 40 45 30 23 30 34 16 23 34 41 44 46 21 28 14 0 37 15 142 133 129 157 75 89 118 101 132 114 184 130 106 97 56 142 153 54 60 84 180 62 166 83 96 44 9 66 43 0 2 10 1 6 2 7 4 1 85 1 3 0 0 0 5 8 3 1 3 11 123 35 5 0 4 0 2 0 52 130 2 Wf~ 48 97 1 42 89 2 37 58 6 19 62 10 2,679 8,368 1,972 (1) Potential Units take into consideration lot area and zoning for estimating dwelling units (91 Linhuildable Lots represent red lots (depth to gw < 2'); common open space and areas, and roads. South County Water Quality Advisory Committee July 28, 2005 Minutes ATTENDANCE: Peter Gutowsky, Catherine Morrow, Dan Haldeman, Christy Morgan, David Morgan, Kate Fitzpatrick, Vicki Allen, Steve Wert, Dan Goodrich, Vic Russell, Bob Lovlien, Bob Baggett, Penny Free, Ted Scholer, and Gary Hughes. 1. INTRODUCTION General introductions were made revealing the group's diverse interest. Representative interests recognized the Deschutes River Conservancy, DEQ, USGS, Pahlisch Homes, Baldwin-Herndon Trust, So. County homeowners, soil science and wastewater specialists, excavator and developers, and real estate experts. DEFINE THE PROBLEM Dan Haldeman, Deschutes County Environmental Health Director summarized the groundwater challenges in the La Pine subbasin. Geologically, the La Pine subbasin is a shallow, unconfined, sole source aquifer. This aquifer provides drinking water (domestic wells) and wastewater disposal for residents living outside the La Pine Unincorporated Urban Area. Typically, onsite wastewater systems using soil, at 4-feet depth or sand, at 2- feet, can treat onsite wastewater by breaking down most componenets. However, a by product of this breakdown is nitrates and it is nitrates that are the concerns of this work program. Domestic wells are located in a susceptible level of the aquifer. It is this shallow oxic section (2' to 50') that provides clear, cold and productive water. However, it is also the zone that contains nitrates and since it is oxic, nitrates do not denitrify. The Environmental Protection Agency sets the limits for nitrates at 10 mg/L. Health risks can be severe when humans are exposed to nitrates exceeding this level. Historically, a DEQ employee in the 1960s. identified the potential for groundwater pollution stemming from septic systems. In 1982, groundwater well tests in the core area of La Pine revealed high levels of nitrates, ranging from 10 mg/L to 40 mg/L. Inevitably, the EPA, DEQ, and Deschutes County funded a sewer system, completed in 1989 to address this particular subarea. The South County is undergrowing rapid population growth (Each of the currently approved septic systems with average flows contributes approximately 59 Ibs of nitrate per year into the aquifer. At buildout, the staff estimates 300 tons of nitrate per year will be delivered into the aquifer. There are approximately 9,000 lots in the La Pine subbasin; 3,500 are vacant. Staff will provide a current inventory based on a GIS inventory performed in mid July. Most of the nitrate plumes are still located in the shallow, upper zone of the aquifer. These plumes have not yet reached drinking water depth. This work program provides a unique opportunity to prevent high levels of nitrates from enter drinking water wells. Question/Comment: Wells, recently tested during home purchasing transactions have not shown even 1 mg/L. South County Water Quality Advisory Committee August 18, 2005 Minutes ATTENDANCE: Peter Gutowsky, George Read, Dan Haldeman, Christy Morgan, Todd Cleveland, Barbara Rich, David Morgan, Kristi Otteni, Kate Fitzpatrick, Vicki Allen, Steve Wert, Dick Nichols, Bonnie Lamb, Dan Goodrich, Vic Russell, Bob Baggett, Penny Frey, John Jennings, and Gary Hughes. 1. INTRODUCTION / AGENDA OVERVIEW General introductions were made, including Barbara Rich, currently with DEQ and beginning work with Deschutes County as Project Coordinator for the Groundwater Protection project on September 6, 2005. Barbara's experience includes the La Pine Demonstration Project and assisting USGS with groundwater modeling. Barbara provided an overview of the agenda, including the concept of a "parking lot," a tool to help keep the group on track and capture issues that don't relate to a particular agenda item. Barbara also reminded the group that the September meeting will be devoted largely to brainstorming alternatives/approaches to the South County's groundwater challenges. 2. APPROVE MINUTES By voice vote, the Committee approved the minutes. 3. USGS MODELS Overview Dave Morgan, USGS hydrogeologist summarized USGS groundwater quality models (simulation model and the nitrate loading management model (NLMM)) for the La Pine subbasin. USGS' participates in a federal/state cooperative program. This program allows USGS to assist scientific understanding for resource policy. Information is then use for decision making, however, USGS does not make any recommendations. The study area consists of a portion of the La Pine subbasin, from Sunriver into the northern Klamath County border. The problem in this subbasin stem from i) thin, volcanic soils; ii) shallow water tables; iii) homes on septic and individual wells; upper 100' contains most productive aquifers; iv) only half of lots built on; v) area growing rapidly; vi) DEQ monitoring sampling found areas of high nitrate and ammonium. Components of the groundwater flow and nitrate transport model integrate geology, hydrology, and chemistry. The Little Deschutes and Deschutes Rivers in the La Pine subbasin "gain" water from the aquifer. Groundwater moves slowly - - recharge is low combined with low conductivity. Age dating water samples (chlorofluorocarbon data) help confirm the recharge and connectivity rate. USGS obtained data from DEQ and Deschutes County to differentiate the oxic groundwater (coarse grain sediment) boundary from the suboxic boundary (fine grain sediment). USGS then mapped the thickness in the shallow, oxic portion of the aquifer. Fifty percent of the nitrate loading in the aquifer occurred prior to 1988. As an example, citing the Burgess Road transect, groundwater wells are currently discharging water that is 30 to 40 years old. The age of the water increases with groundwater depth and along the flow path. Lesson learned, i) few domestic wells have nitrate concentrations approaching the state or federal nitrate limits (7 mg/L; 10 mg/L). Domestic wells are pumping (oxic) water, at depths of 40 to 50 feet, that is approximately 40 - 50 years old and older than development in the area. This aged groundwater is not yet subject to high nitrate concentrations. Sixty percent of domestic wells draw water from the oxic portion of the aquifer; ii) Deeper wells are suboxic, where nitrogen is removed naturally (converts to gas - - natural organic carbon helps remove nitrates). However, the groundwater at this level is not as desirable for drinking since it is highly mineralized and contains high amounts of iron. Steve Wert asked if nitrate escapes and whether USGS has some type of balancing sheet. David Morgan responded that the closer the nitrates get to the Deschutes or Little Deschutes River, nitrates are being picked up by the streams. Key Questions Is high nitrate in drinking water currently a widespread problem near La Pine? No. Because groundwater moves slowly, most nitrate in the aquifer has not yet reached the depths tapped by most water wells. This is due to the aquifer's low recharge rate and low hydraulic connectivity. If not, will nitrate in drinking water become a problem in the future? Yes. Nitrate that is now in the shallow part of the aquifer will move to deeper parts tapped by most wells. Sixty percent of domestic wells are pumping from the vulnerable oxic part of the aquifer (upper 50 feet). USGS: (Model #1) 3-D Groundwater Nitrate and Flow Model Dave Morgan discussed the purpose of the simulation model. Simulation models, in this case, simulates movement of water and nitrate through the aquifer. The model represents complex hydro-geologic conditions and chemical reactions. It also predicts changes over time. The simulation models is a mathematical model that incorporates groundwater flow equations, nitrate transport equations and chemical reaction equations. The Simulation model is structured by a grid. Each cell is 500' x 500'x 5' thick. Each layer has 27,600 cells. The full grid has 24 layers (662,400 cells). The simulation model shows i) average nitrate concentrations in each grid; ii) movement of nitrates to adjacent cells or streams; iii) movement to sub-oxic zone. The model simulates growth and development from 1960-1999. The model results were initially compared with measured results in the field (groundwater levels; groundwater discharge to streams: groundwater age; groundwater nitrate concentrations) and then adjusted to fit measured data. The simulation model predicted the effects of future growth and development. It assumed land use and waste disposal patterns (standard/sand filter systems - 46mg/L) would continue under the status quo scenario. Build-out was predicted for 2019 (total of 9,700 homes) based on the historic development rate. The model then forecasted nitrate concentrations from year 2000 to 2139, a point at which nitrate entering the aquifer from septic systems equals the amount being denitrified either through the suboxic zone or the near stream environment and discharged to the streams. A graph showed a nitrate loading line, leveling off 60 to 70 years after build-out, due to the aquifer's low recharge rate and low hydraulic connectivity. The model estimated 75 tons of nitrate entering the aquifer a year, at build-out. The conclusions from the nitrate fate and transport model show that nitrate concentrations increase rapidly in shallow (oxic) parts of the aquifer for 40 to 50 years. Eventually, nitrate amounts in domestic wells would average at least 10 mg/L. USGS: (Model #2) Nitrate Loading Management Model (NLMM) The NLMM model (implemented through an Excel spreadsheet) links the simulation model with a technique called "optimization." Optimization modeling is a mathematical technique for solving complex resource allocation problems and in this case, has been adapted for wastewater planning. David Morgan then showed a diagram illustrating how the outcome can be structured to: * maximize development of vacant lots * protect groundwater for safe drinking water standards * protect stream and wildlife resources * consider economic costs In the NLMM model, each management area has two decision variables: i) loading from existing development; and ii) loading from future development. The NLMM model is able to find the best solution - minimum loading reduction for existing and future homes throughout the La Pine Subbasin (all 97 subareas). It essentially determines decision variables (future / existing loading rates) by translating the constraints entered by the user (keep nitrates below 7 mg/L; reduce nitrate discharge to streams). Dave Morgan described the model in great detail. There are 97 management areas within the La Pine study area and 9,700 potential development units (5,200 that are existing and 4,500 that could be developed in the future). [Note: Red lots were not included in the analysis]. There are 330 groundwater concentration constraint points (1/2 in the shallow aquifer; 1/2 in the deeper aquifer). Based on the distribution and geographic location of existing and future development, the NLMM model can determine the loading reductions that are required from both (existing and future homes) to keep nitrates below 7 mg/L in the aquifer. Kev Questions What should the constraints be? Should nitrate discharges to the Deschutes / Little Deschutes be limited? Should cost factors be included in the NLMM? How should the NLMM management model be used? South County Water Quality Advisory Committee November 17, 2005 Minutes ATTENDANCE: Peter Gutowsky, Steve Miller, George Read, Dan Haldeman, Christy Morgan, Barbara Rich, Bob Lovlien, Steve Wert, Dan Goodrich, Vic Russell, Bob Baggett, Dennis Pahlisch, Tom Anderson, John Jinnings, Dave Morgan, Vickie Allen, and Dick Nichols INTRODUCTION / AGENDA OVERVIEW / MINUTES After general introductions, Barbara Rich provided an overview of the agenda. She thanked the Committee for a productive October meeting and announced that David Morgan was able to run the optimization model, using 2005 building statistics. Rich stated that County staff would be asking the Committee to revisit their October "consensus points" in relation to the optimization model results and staffs suggested alternative. The Committee provided no comment and approved the minutes. OPTIMIZATION MODEL David Morgan, with the USGS provided an overview of the nitrate loading management model (optimization). Why manage nitrates? Groundwater is the dominant drinking water source. Approximately 10,000 people drink water from domestic wells that are less than fifty feet deep on average. High concentrations of nitrates pose a health risk to humans. Groundwater contributes to instream flow of the Little Deschutes and Deschutes River, and increased nitrate concentrations may degrade surface water quality. What can the optimization model do? It supports local decision making for groundwater protection. It computes the "sustainable capacity" of the aquifer to receive nitrate. "Sustainable capacity" is the amount of nitrates that will not cause intolerable risk to the environment or human health. The optimization model computes "sustainable capacity" of ninety-seven individual management areas. It tests the effects of proposed management options (e.g. requiring advanced treatment for new homes and/or existing homes). How does it work? The optimization model is based on the simulation model (3-D model). It was built upon intensive data collection and study conducted during the La Pine National Demonstration Project. It incorporates all the knowledge from geology, hydrology, and chemistry. The optimization model has been calibrated and verified using 1960-1999 data. Nitrate loading capacity depends on geohydrologic and boundary factors. Geohydrologic factors pertain to recharge and permeability (dilution effects). Boundary factors pertain to inflow (from neighborhood areas) and outflow (to suboxic zones or streams). High capacity areas, would have one or more of the following characteristics, 1) high recharge rate; 2) high velocity (permeability); 3) thin oxic zone; 4) nearby streams. Low capacity areas, would have one or more of the following characteristics, 1) low recharge rate; 2) low velocity (permeability); 3) thick oxic zone; 4) not nearby a stream. How have things changed since 1999? Excluding red lots, approximately 1,150 homes have been built, equating to 200 new homes a year. This equates to approximately 23 kg/day (50 Ibs) of nitrates entering the aquifer. There remain approximately 2,900 buildable lots, with buildout projected to Year 2019. The difference in nitrate loading is as follows: Year 1999 Year 2005 Existing Homes: 104 kg/d 127 kg/d Future Homes: 86 kq/d 66 kq/d Total: 190 kg/d 193 kg/d The results indicate that there is a smaller pool of future homes to reduce the percentage of nitrogen loading by 78% (10 mg/L), resulting in more retrofits requiring higher reduction rates (higher standards of treatment) beyond 46 mg/L (conventional system). REAFFIRM NITROGEN REDUCTION REQUIREMENTS Barbara Rich revisited the Committee's consensus points reached last month: 1) 100% New Neighborhood funding goes to retrofitting existing systems; 2) future development must contribute to solution ("Local Rule"); and 3) performance standards (nitrogen reduction) should be the same for existing and future homes. She recognized that staff did its best effort to capture those issues and opened it up for Committee feedback. Over the course of the next ninety minutes the Committee discussed a fixed approach for treating new and existing homes at the same nitrate reduction level versus a variable approach, based on the optimization model. Under the variable approach new homes would treat nitrates using "best available technology," while existing onsite systems would be retrofitted based on various levels of nitrogen reduction required throughout the subbasin. According to the optimization model this will vary from from 30 mg/L to 2 mg/L depending on the hydro-geology and current patterns of housing density. Following a motion from Vic Russell, the Committee unanimously agreed to the following a) All New Neighborhood funds should be targeted at retrofitting existing systems. b) New development installs best available technology (treats to highest standard achievable with currently approved systems). C) The level of treatment for existing development will be based on the Optimization model, which is the science based decision making tool to: South County Water Quality Advisory Committee July 28, 2005 Minutes ATTENDANCE: Peter Gutowsky, Catherine Morrow, Dan Haldeman, Christy Morgan, David Morgan, Kate Fitzpatrick, Vicki Allen, Steve Wert, Dan Goodrich, Vic Russell, Bob Lovlien, Bob Baggett, Penny Free, Ted Scholer, and Gary Hughes. 1. INTRODUCTION General introductions were made revealing the group's diverse interest. Representative interests recognized the Deschutes River Conservancy, DEQ, USGS, Pahlisch Homes, Baldwin-Herndon Trust, So. County homeowners, soil science and wastewater specialists, excavator and developers, and real estate experts. 2. DEFINE THE PROBLEM Dan Haldeman, Deschutes County Environmental Health Director summarized the groundwater challenges in the La Pine subbasin. Geologically, the La Pine subbasin is a shallow, unconfined, sole source aquifer. This aquifer provides drinking water (domestic wells) and wastewater disposal for residents living outside the La Pine Unincorporated Urban Area. Typically, onsite wastewater systems using soil, at 4-feet depth or sand, at 2- feet, can treat onsite wastewater by breaking down most componenets. However, a by product of this breakdown is nitrates and it is nitrates that are the concerns of this work program. Domestic wells are located in a susceptible level of the aquifer. It is this shallow oxic section (2' to 50') that provides clear, cold and productive water. However, it is also the zone that contains nitrates and since it is oxic, nitrates do not denitrify. The Environmental Protection Agency sets the limits for nitrates at 10 mg/L. Health risks can be severe when humans are exposed to nitrates exceeding this level. Historically, a DEQ employee in the 1960s identified the potential for groundwater pollution stemming, from septic systems. In 1982, groundwater well tests in the core area of La Pine revealed high levels of nitrates, ranging from 10 mg/L to 40 mg/L. Inevitably, the EPA, DEQ, and Deschutes County funded a sewer system, completed in 1989 to address this particular subarea. The South County is undergrowing rapid population growth (Each of the currently approved septic systems with average flows contributes approximately 59 Ibs of nitrate per year into the aquifer. At'buildout, the staff estimates 300 tons of nitrate per year will be delivered into the aquifer. There are approximately 9,000 lots in the La Pine subbasin; 3,500 are vacant. Staff will provide a current inventory based on a GIS inventory performed in mid July. Most of the nitrate plumes are still located in the shallow, upper zone of the aquifer. These plumes have not yet reached drinking water depth. This work program provides a unique opportunity to prevent high levels of nitrates from enter drinking water wells. Question/Comment: Wells, recently tested during home purchasing transactions have not shown even 1 mg/L. South County Water Quality Advisory Committee August 18, 2005 Minutes ATTENDANCE: Peter Gutowsky, George Read, Dan Haldeman, Christy Morgan, Todd Cleveland, Barbara Rich, David Morgan, Kristi Otteni, Kate Fitzpatrick, Vicki Allen, Steve Wert, Dick Nichols, Bonnie Lamb, Dan Goodrich, Vic Russell, Bob Baggett, Penny Frey, John Jennings, and Gary Hughes. INTRODUCTION / AGENDA OVERVIEW General introductions were made, including Barbara Rich, currently with DEQ and beginning work with Deschutes County as Project Coordinator for the Groundwater Protection project on September 6, 2005. Barbara's experience includes the La Pine Demonstration Project and assisting USGS with groundwater modeling. Barbara provided an overview of the agenda, including the concept of a "parking lot," a tool to help keep the group on track and capture issues that don't relate to a particular agenda item. Barbara also reminded the group that the September meeting will be devoted largely to brainstorming alternatives/approaches to the South County's groundwater challenges. 2. APPROVE MINUTES By voice vote, the Committee approved the minutes. USGS MODELS Overview Dave Morgan, USGS hydrogeologist summarized USGS groundwater quality models (simulation model and the nitrate loading management model (NLMM)) for the La Pine subbasin. USGS' participates in a federal/state cooperative program. This program allows USGS to assist scientific understanding for resource policy. Information is then use for decision making, however, USGS does not make any recommendations. The study area consists of a portion of the La Pine subbasin, from Sunriver into the northern Klamath County border. The problem in this subbasin stem from i) thin, volcanic soils; ii) shallow water tables; iii) homes on septic and individual wells; upper 100' contains most productive aquifers; iv) only half of lots built on; v) area growing rapidly; vi) DEQ monitoring sampling found areas of high nitrate and ammonium. Components of the groundwater flow and nitrate transport model integrate geology, hydrology, and chemistry. The Little Deschutes and Deschutes Rivers in the La Pine subbasin "gain" water from the aquifer. Groundwater moves slowly - - recharge is low combined with low conductivity. Age dating water samples (chlorofluorocarbon data) help confirm the recharge and connectivity rate. USGS obtained data from DEQ and Deschutes County to differentiate the oxic groundwater (coarse grain sediment) boundary from the suboxic boundary (fine grain sediment). USGS then mapped the thickness in the shallow, oxic portion of the aquifer. Fifty percent of the nitrate loading in the aquifer occurred prior to 1988. As an example, citing the Burgess Road transect, groundwater wells are currently discharging water that is 30 to 40 years old. The age of the water increases with groundwater depth and along the flow path. Lesson learned, i) few domestic wells have nitrate concentrations approaching the state or federal nitrate limits (7 mg/L; 10 mg/L). Domestic wells are pumping (oxic) water, at depths of 40 to 50 feet, that is approximately 40 - 50 years old and older than development in the area. This aged groundwater is not yet subject to high nitrate concentrations. Sixty percent of domestic wells draw water from the oxic portion of the aquifer; ii) Deeper wells are suboxic, where nitrogen is removed naturally (converts to gas - - natural organic carbon helps remove nitrates). However, the groundwater at this level is not as desirable for drinking since it is highly mineralized and contains high amounts of iron. Steve Wert asked if nitrate escapes and whether USGS has some type of balancing sheet. David Morgan responded that the closer the nitrates get to the Deschutes or Little Deschutes River, nitrates are being picked up by the streams. Key Questions Is high nitrate in drinking water currently a widespread problem near La Pine? No. Because groundwater moves slowly, most nitrate in the aquifer has not yet reached the depths tapped by most water wells. This is due to the aquifer's low recharge rate and low hydraulic connectivity. If not, will nitrate in drinking water become a problem in the future? Yes. Nitrate that is now in the shallow part of the aquifer will move to deeper parts tapped by most wells. Sixty percent of domestic wells are pumping from the vulnerable oxic part of the aquifer (upper 50 feet). USGS: (Model #1) 3-D Groundwater Nitrate and Flow Model Dave Morgan discussed the purpose of the simulation model. Simulation models, in this case, simulates movement of water and nitrate through the aquifer. The model represents complex hydro-geologic conditions and chemical reactions. It also predicts changes over time. The simulation models is a mathematical model that incorporates groundwater flow equations, nitrate transport equations and chemical reaction equations. The Simulation model is structured by a grid. Each cell is 500' x 500' x 5' thick. Each layer has 27,600 cells. The full grid has 24 layers (662,400 cells). The simulation model shows i) average nitrate concentrations in each grid; ii) movement of nitrates to adjacent cells or streams; iii) movement to sub-oxic zone. The model simulates growth and development from 1960-1999. The model results were initially compared with measured results in the field (groundwater levels; groundwater discharge to streams: groundwater age; groundwater nitrate concentrations) and then adjusted to fit measured data. The simulation model predicted the effects of future growth and development. It assumed land use and waste disposal patterns (standard/sand filter systems - 46mg/L) would continue under the status quo scenario. Build-out was predicted for 2019 (total of 9,700 homes) based on the historic development rate. The model then forecasted nitrate concentrations from year 2000 to 2139, a point at which nitrate entering the aquifer from septic systems equals the amount being denitrified either through the suboxic zone or the near stream environment and discharged to the streams. A graph showed a nitrate loading line, leveling off 60 to 70 years after build-out, due to the aquifer's low recharge rate and low hydraulic connectivity. The model estimated 75 tons of nitrate entering the aquifer a year, at build-out. The conclusions from the nitrate fate and transport model show that nitrate concentrations increase rapidly in shallow (oxic) parts of the aquifer for 40 to 50 years. Eventually, nitrate amounts in domestic wells would average at least 10 mg/L. USGS: (Model #2) Nitrate Loading Management Model (NLMM) The NLMM model (implemented through an Excel spreadsheet) links the simulation model with a technique called "optimization." Optimization modeling is a mathematical technique for solving complex resource allocation problems and in this case, has been adapted for wastewater planning. David Morgan then showed a diagram illustrating how the outcome can be structured to: * maximize development of vacant lots * protect groundwater for safe drinking water standards * protect stream and wildlife resources * consider economic costs In the NLMM model, each management area has two decision variables: i) loading from existing development; and ii) loading from future development, The NLMM model is able to find the best solution - minimum loading reduction for existing and future homes throughout the La Pine Subbasin (all 97 subareas). It essentially determines decision variables (future / existing loading rates) by translating the constraints entered by the user (keep nitrates below 7 mg/L; reduce nitrate discharge to streams). Dave Morgan described the model in great detail. There are 97 management areas within the La Pine study area and 9,700 potential development units (5,200 that are existing and 4,500 that could be developed in the future). [Note: Red lots were not included in the analysis]. There are 330 groundwater concentration constraint points (1/2 in the shallow aquifer; 1/2 in the deeper aquifer). Based on the distribution and geographic location of existing and future development, the NLMM model can determine the loading reductions that are required from both (existing and future homes) to keep nitrates below 7 mg/L in the aquifer. Key Questions What should the constraints be? Should nitrate discharges to the Deschutes / Little Deschutes be limited? Should cost factors be included in the NLMM? How should the NLMM management model be used? 1Eh1EWFIERRYEAGI-__P_gYTARY?On7 Groundwater Protedon lnfornution from Deschutes County j By Barbara Rich P q ct Coordinator, DeschfAi *nfy,CQD Groundwater Protection Project for South Deschutes County February 2007 Update) what does is coat toprob goo~ quaft? ' Most of the feedback Mbeivad $ far on the ptgmW Lpcttl Ruts has related to the cost of t"radtnq existing systems The cost Is based on several factors, including t. The type of Eiiledng System Standard proesute• or sand Met 4 {ntegMy M the' Exktlng Ii.,ystem ht die septic tank leaking tri rioCt Fa the drein8ead j faaft or note - 3., Property Lacat+on Wow lei., Is the"grouridwatar M the"eras Where tlro property _ Na located.. ' r • . 4 Site Cheractorkalo& yyttet;Is the depth to groundwater, setbacks avatlat>fe etea, 010 5 Operation and Main>sna toe r¢ pulre+nents a. T" of NfNeean RpAwir. n mt t. rj,,- tw o_ P-d. rlnav ?xfgtnq 8pitan TYR rdov r ottanless Fa Sand Filter Yrgh 2 cotcipaettneM oorrcreta " . and alstrabuiort:"-. - nd time do6hR trkesaned in 2002, wah, mwm>d Petitarlm ttuattlog use cabin Systen! (%atttld4h'.~ Fatbt#tt~;¢ ConebB4n Canp'anetala ite.C`a!(tiuoais'krrigood ev44k(~~tiYpGrrngtC`(tpoEbft~llY flee 8t+neard•'. 36% roat6tfon' - d lp meet gtQUtxAVaNer nlGata _ to des dreiitneid 4egause th)traMe iii water tabs. g managemiirit model n~dds. sft C dWwia tJseablo arra ks avattetiis Owner Daclytoed'.Pitip+edy inner befiiiSd tFis lhdstlrtig douse that sW Wav" s to use dice 0610-flo SYS"" hoM room.br 1l sr Mplacernem house the ' WW*dTMehnent'gyslemsfrtG homeownertwe,plarr!edtottheAapart i i Inals atlon PartormenceStandium 78%oAnkm rn electrical CN reduction needed to meet Financtat AasistonWi ..Po1N4Non Rjdtirllon nitrate loading mappgemep{.nlMlat (or tdi Credk (PRC) Rebate $3,750 arm { Operation and M alnt unpe costs: U"36 P"PartY O+rne► Dacialon Property pv"f . , Inc. chooeas to kxstelt Oreno6 System per ~nonth , AX-20 s~"vh adftmsi standard Totedtrrahrlbtlon cost ^npt:'$R~50- drafnfine; batvregW.00o-S1CON- $0.150 FjfW4CW Asslaterice': PRC Rabote of . =$3, 750 . Opsrstlan & WIntsnance Costs 530333 _'perrttan . Tote! !rata/Utkan .Cost $0.?3o~r $!?r1'$0:' , ' ' What other Ttteae cost estima'AM +Ft+~s M tit t>• kinralfsbtd?' tlas4itlwPe: UTA1 taxtOV Powtion R }.r t redlt RkabMtitta (Z3 760) from Pik. m- l ..A Il~walMmw.N lr::, fnlnn .fh- r. l M 7R'1-.avR:tR1:1 nna..l.~.f:a aSeiBt7 addU Batt ,:,too* M7aaC eefein ~ury ._,„5';~w.v~e7?r!, 'NRran7!!~esme'!7~+myemkaia~woarrgr!Rrc~•la?►t },::~ri+~a', 3 Wla;lndudtngd 'lfiaei't►slOars.grantsand;taztt'ed{ts..'ttyouhe.".'. _ !dons forhovr:ad %onW Anar ae► ataneo can be 000lst~+mttthem to f h hy'droppltig there off of tiff a D~3k#" County rlhkm a to dt ntl bgr8 rtwkl rFt~ desr~sutes,or,us, txfax te#3-3851784: ; - groundwgtan pollution problem, itw County contracted wfu ' consttucfilig'siiv ka In the area; These boxes summarize study evrif the curreni'ooeta.estjmated by MsteUers and' ajt Cost ol5swsr Cost o7, An engineering oonsugght report to,the County Proopei that was gp{►tplahld in 1997 estrnated that sawNtitl9WbWdtro't.~Bttietvseelalg,oooend prodP U010 MO rwa'..i.2l.~,._ k• w•re _ can d. per household per year (e; payback Pettod at 3%). Ti OSWtvied that taiid,I& tile' be available at O,b(l S`per cast of:craating newsewel take re,ent irtcreaSea in lh acedunt in' addition to the for constructing the tteatnti tnstatNnB the Pp.- end 1? trartspoitit`'p,seyvega, fhiit! Ct7afge5 for OnQOtnp "T^^." matritenAnce of that tkeiirai exemote. Bend charowa m ,to 3 and tmerit x toms i no consbucting ssw srs7 systMN ea ttte Yohrtlon b tM is OorrsuhaM to study the coat of . ' he Lrtormatbn Onod from that. , g.. a+n Clef tbuIOrs.' f'. ~tasEnl $yabrna under the ~ trr' s C A R r r• a~ to Ihsrb ;;tie ~ ~ttpptiiep thi3t " ~,y►)(EOt?Proved for tine etc fysterrl8itt pesdurtma Countys;'TtK hgflhGtp ~ exitta+p'ttysttasa vxthsa>~ ll ~ from 12.250 and tt991' itaDate (ogsE,pettmatea WsW on n fior+t ohslte'4ystsm.Instatiers and lttibutors,arai the $3,760 robaw E6t.Hom Lang DeveaoPM", Inc.) koe costs on these systems apnpW . , w ~uiir ~ Demdr>,ttretianl rd. n. ;For n»a per Year or the Le Phe Nafq'ixU,: !7 P~02W Of- HEC V~i O L td u N O L C d V c d v n c 13 c a u V 0O u-b 0 A v 6 A w v E `u H w ~'Q c y d t { y 0 O ` Z' C ~7 d € L v y 0 d C ~c C d d E v L C C: L o b o o °o E E S N ~g a c n A •p .n o d y a E u E o c v ~ ° E H E E- o c D E i a O v" d E E O L w E U t4 E E E d n a F o p N ~L ° o o ' o f a U c u o C6 c$ c E 0 0 ~ U o E$ E$ CF o U : oa • • d V d v B ! b I v~ d G c Y c c c d L c (A Q 0 C Y O O V 6 U v I O E v E m o o p ~ v E~ E ; a •~ap+ °1 U n o p`a ry u~i F Y V D~ V S ~ d W ~ •b ~ y 5 8 Yn P ~ C V y~ ~ ~ vv `oL N c Hr cL c° ~ c c ON S ° c r p_ M .0 'A 0) me M~ N L o 'a ~j c o Y o c m Q Ye = t=^~ t. o ~~,25 •K O 'n 10 LU w d In a' n E d 0 E. d v U. O H c p i a d`l'l a~N •u. O u ` 0 . Ly " r s0i x 0 L h Q o Gry Tn 0 O C S! R J O O C CO N O N L V 0 "W O f? 'S •Oppp N f= -o E v p m E n E N C E Y ° O d C V C ~ V N V L N N OO ~ N L m ~ ~ ~ C N C O LL r C p 0 C U € W w C 0 L t~ N "1 N p E 7 ay j 'S N CO2 d M O y N 8 "b i o C C c O c O C O ti N . ? N M C jo. n d VCI N; C L 1 C C C N~ ;c Q O N 0 d O • L p m p 0 j O C in N • W U CP C 01 c u L. to S o E+ U:5 E " - & - SS 5 v O O C N Y' cc m EE :O V C N -Z }j V C r. O C N L E U 0 o LN y O t r O p ° m 0 9 vo 3~ 13 M o A d C0 • W ° D~ 0 3 a o :6 0 •m, c - 9 0 u O 9 Zwu O U C c; Y C a 0 a O 0 c c C o V 4l 0 v ~ou$~d S5No~LS~ v ~ Eo E o I v ° U ~9-» we CEe Ov=E v y N " C v € 6 U O a c N C N Q n ICI M (y [ i7 0 " L Q ° O C '•A v i y c v o U 04 F ~e &A ta c c o € S , a N •0 • y to c t4 d G N Y A 3 A C n . 'a n o O c t c a l` p ~ C 1~ S S •p c v •D U v ° T CL E o o 8 0 c d o - o„ 11t{ W u W rt d FO CL F x Coe O W v G W E N N d o 4. N U. O L• 41 3 C 41 d O c Vf O ~ u a u ao = = O 4) E 41 w „ td x O v W 4J p o Q L. w u 4J O a) + ' 41 O u 0 0 L L. 4J a L. L. 4d 41 0 %A ~ Z to w - E u W N s E A in L ax i C C =0 . +j 4J C C w c v L. s o u c U bA 4- N w °J 1 7- 4J 4J c C C Cd ' .0 d 0 ul %A •x r- E E 4J H •rd U 4J {A w i+ v pip L. ,i y i d IA i V G~ 41 M r- b4 O L J Q O ' N - w O O J Q: E u 3 'O Cdd C - C i fl L •i ~ 0 i W w no ao .t ~ O Z ~ O 41 d a u= o d a L^ d ao i y O ~ 41 ~ 4-1 (d m a ~ ~ 41 N 0 P U LL w; H 4J w s F' - N M ~ Y1 `O O L. U N LA c V O y c b v w a~ D d u o p v c v n v N ~ N II O n 60 C N O O v o$ p E c $ Y ° p d3 A a M C `d d$ c o c ° E E o n p ` C e U d N `u c o c w o o o0 o E'3 ~ ' w - w :j E U Ec &o o N m v a c pip v is t, II ,u n 7 E 'y C O N d d CnY c o 9 A C o G Y o 9 Y eo Y Y O d Ua Z 5'c ~ N~ cc, E o E N~ `_.E a 8' o E 96 a. d 5 i, F Fc o 'v N N C N o ~N -o.pauC €bb ~~~'SN C- Q o d yEyqq e ^ cL W 3 o W u in d E d O 'b a IL N O u _qo~ Y6EN o 00 t C C y 75 C y T 3 C F« G E d w y E c E u E. II vc E LLyjj ppp~~p v N S v' O. L o V H v E€ c a c b c v d d U r~ N r o b c r! V an d ~PPV `o Y o .n t o~ 3 N w C o p C o N L Y L D N « $ m w Y Y Ew yF 01 a c c aC 'S O O_v ye~qp' QQ p _ K ` pp W N O Id N O v go O V O L g .2 p _o E o . C a c o o II c 95 a o° OF L II u c G U v' g ; c U h d D ff F3a pE •p"c S 0 "05 y Y Y~$ YC N d y OF kkd G C S O ~ N 9 5` c M c r H a m O d m c C c O 40 8 € Y S L o M u O w D ` Ys Y C 1 W in W ill `O If n6o dE S w d 0 ~ ~ _ .....p yy..~. . yya.w~r ..vuv uatu l.a t1VLLLt1 UJ .7J.~111.U tilt- LVZ4l1, 't11VYJi'Qlll yCC... .1RC Costs borhood. such, are hard to fiKart~ t7gtttrnow," - AatfiWpapts-at the''Novembci 30th- ..Whey have thte*j~~Q-beibre the cart: I She went-oilfo ex~~k~in'th"at the laud utec,0p vac Ce -iven cutninccit ~zads' drat sh(jilld t?e uric ~is~ f u',rr of T1 1,c, I c, it i'iP ttw Qe-kv £ t ~t+c rtrfi~jhurbo~~d >tiu as *-drt t>~ oeruh r '2 2006, A"iic3i= ci11e cfz~ttge,.tt ~~z 4£,a S G~tziz~tatty", 1~ur asu t« c s~ik. ±irotuttlxva- e ltfOti tci `die-nth hase.J; on the cout, 5 ~ef titaA' use-# r t r of Suin Ritiseil ter problenj the -tic)Roy=from the sale of tnctS'rch,i Rube «~~c~nsl►re~ C't~u5E4 ~tiort, bnCttat~ tp tt<,ped. thv la~t.r a ttq a turd to assist ~r a.hi cast xtj; t ae> r7tt: mile that will It'is not,;riv for t~z wF s#y~ - c . . t , gP tt e t miss ~Itcrs, N,cco>'tting to norh,weIanitratV gfpb } at r'tli ,,ec est poSc4t,k-hearing would used:SCtire taetiCS~t tl~~tng~ ~t se~vets'` bo at tha. Qtra of Jana ; 2007. flowing into otv- drmkikig, water. It's-;goitj Cotarnetits iron rnembLrs of thL pub- to-lifealk our seniors." tic why attended the lei tingxapged from Yarttti~&t~ ~x~ t~,yttnce~ tki3t tie concerns about the cost of the• uii~raeles t~xai ittltfb{b9e f~t~~~t to qws jions abortt tlte.sclenee used to do- 'CommWSibxat~ hcff~i~.Ifle~~t~,~Y►~ cf i~ ~5, eTop fTie ttiodel. availably Cotxtt` st; `adtuitted that Je "It is Way too e, rfy to consi'iler a don fh6w the,fib0c,Sts of 4M III~q deadiuie Ior chingliig the Iocal n&,- tenaRce,.Ye ofits cn t#s6i`la#tor~ k ca> Z. said Alic Rnssoll, La ,_Piiac businessiiioh ittarket isebctngtugst last: and member of the Polhition tteductnn ~t dry ; ~tareha~s c "o s~rz off La P416,- Crept {FRC'j Committee that <<`orkd iZedt f r.-.1 a 4listttr,i};rta~ Imo. wth county staff--Lk, ,~ucSo~alr~~~~ , =rnenti tiwis tor the {t e r r t ,t axw~ -41 Ff, a«1t' aP'utz5xr~5 3sz tltth ,~Lit}tht'.~' ~'schut4s basin; ' l~~tiss~~l ,-t~~t~s~, • a~ske4la#for dectimentation on the con- M)AI. 'w " a e "PUMP itt s l tart ~}N~ls. _~lterrtt~~ ~op~lte ~~~~3t~b°n}a€;Fc `~t{,,~c~t 14 ire cd t rxsrr.d that the county itewr aa.exist t'ittt( #ebf, rg-~ystLqtr With -a F~c}lletp ,t tote' fort} i I to see,ifv svWer h>'iA~.tHe rttstaown tu.xhe rn~f - Qtinno~Go v....1 DOCUMENT °00 Q~Q~r AT TIME OF RECOjjC,jUa DESCHUTES COUNTY GROUNDWATER PROTECTIONPROJECT LOCAL RULE FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE OVERVIEW MAJOR ELEMENTS: • Introduction/Policy Issues Projected' Cost of Retrofits • Projected Funds Available • Basic Assistance Mechanisms • Logistical Issues INTRODUCTION/POLICY ISSUES In order to protect drinking water resources in southern Deschutes County, the County is considering adopting a Local Rule governing the type of septic systems allowed in the affected area. The Rule would also require retrofits of existing systems by requiring existing development to meet at least 35% nitrogen reduction (discharge a maximum of 30 mg/L total nitrogen as N) based on the density of development and the vulnerability of the groundwater to contamination. The nitrogen effluent standard for existing systems can vary by area from a minimum of 30 mg/L to a maximum of 10 mg/L or less total nitrogen as N. The Rule as proposed would require all existing systems to be, upgraded within 10 years of the date the rule is adopted. The proposal intends to give property owners a fairly long period of time in which to retrofit systems. The Rule will apply to those unsewered areas between Sunriver and the Klamath County border, an area formally defined as those unsewered areas of Townships 19, 20, 21, and 22 and Ranges 9, 10 and 11. It is the County's desire to provide financial assistance to property owners within the affected area in retrofitting existing systems. According to 2000`census data, over 12% of the population has an income level below the poverty level, as defined by the census, and undertaking a retrofit of their septic system, even at the lowest reduction level required, would be very difficult. Further, again according to the 2000 census, over 18% of the area population is 65 or older, most of whom live on a fixed income where absorbing additional expense would be a significant burden. In addition to the figures above, there exists a significant additional segment of the population where the expense of the required retrofit would represent a serious financial burden. In examining the ability of Deschutes County to assist property owners in the retrofit of existing systems, this report will address the following topics: -Potential cost of retrofits -Existing and future financial resources available -Basic assistance types -Other logistical Issues Policy Questions for Board/Community: What is funding level intent? • 100% of all costs? • 75% or 50%? • Assistance to low/moderate income households only? • Grants (no payback) at some level acceptable? 2 PROJECTED COST OF RETROFITS Estimated number of retrofits to be done: 6,400* *Based on up to date issued permits in the affected area. Active and pending permits are included in order to provide a conservative estimate of need. 1) Calculation of estimated cost The tables below reflect two methods of calculating total potential cost of retrofits. Both of the methodologies split the retrofits by 'required reduction' area. The first method averages cost per retrofit between the low and high and of the cost range. The second goes further and factors in the age of the existing system in projecting the cost of the retrofit (e.g. newer systems will generally be less expensive to retrofit and achieve the required level of nitrate reduction. Rough cost approach AI.,. Knr L --.r I Innor Lower Cost Upper Cost <10'm /L 1685 $7,500 -r $18,000 $12,637,500 $30,330,000 20 m L 1613 $7,500 $18,000 $12,097,500 $29,034,000 30 mg/L 3099 $5,000 $10,000 $15,495,000 $30,990,000 Total 6397 Sa0,230,000 $90,354,000 $6,289 $14,124 $65,292,000 $10,207 Total ave cost Ave cost per system Age related cost approach <1988 1988+ Lower Upper Cost for Newer (1988+) Cost for Older (<1988) <10-mg/L' 46 1639 $7,500 $18,000 $12,292,500 $828,000 20 m L 127 1486 $7,500 $18,000 $11,145,000 $2,286,000 30 mg/L 150 2949 $5,000 $16,000 $14,745,000 $1,500,000 Total 323 6074 $38,182,500 $4,614,000 $6,286 $14,285 Older Younger $42,796,500 $6, 690 Ave cost per syst- age Total average cost Ave cost per system As shown above, the two methods reflect a wide range of possible total cost, with $65 million at the high end and $43 million at the low end. While based on the logic of the second method we would expect that the cost will be closer to $43 million than $65 million, there is no way of knowing for certain what the costs will be without investigating property specific characteristics and other variables such as the integrity of existing system, the type of new system chosen, and the variability of retrofit costs over time. The costs could further vary over time as new technologies are approved for use in Oregon. (As a point of comparison, the KCM report from 1997 estimated $200 to $280 million to sewer all or part of the study area.) 2) Estimated Time Frame for Retrofits/Cost Expenditure The three tables below show variations on the possible time frame for retrofits. The first table shows an even pace of voluntary retrofits. The second 'I71E NFiWE1FiRRY 1AG t, • FP_ORCARY2(w Groundwater Protedon infomyation from Deschutes Cou* By Barbara Rich Project Coordinator, Deschutes._County CDD Groundwater Protection Proied for South Deschutes County (February 2{x17 Update) 1Whai Cosa is cost tv`protscii muin si'w quenty9' Most of the feedback recehred.ao Won the proposed LoCe Rule has nsteted to tl*" O t.of upgrading exisft systems... The eost is based on severs{ factors, Including.' , 1. The type of Existing System: standard, pressure, or sand Miler -11 2 Inie'q' * Ofthe ExlaiMg Systam;:ls the septic tank leaking of not? la the. drain%w fa" or not? 3. Property cation: Mow'vulnerable is the'grgiuWWMw in the arse iNwsre dte t 10Wty 4. Site CheragWistkM: Whel.1a the depth to pruunCweier :setbacks, avalwDle etas etc? 5.. bpetawh wW Maintenance ns *xements 8.. Typo of Ni 'Von ReduoNp' System Chosen by the Property Owner For exam hens Sre two OoSt v estimates based on fn dom and distnbutora: Exlsftnq$ytpsre tiottombss ExMing8ystsmt~ it6aeftankiMtti" sent! FII* wkk XOWM {MOM oor ew. ; tj,Ao- 30 rt ones (rotpt ao') gtsteMad to 1972 tank and ulw c o tg inO&W in 2(xn , +Sntt mWrtwt seasonal htmtkg.riso cabin Ex i';& $tt -isim t~rtgtaon Components SxL171Fp ayabpl CWt4{gittti ~gfrtpotlanti and Site t cyidttloos ero good aro ow w"#16 ttbineowner t11~tf p0lerdiapy ! Paforn►7ltea SGndsrd: 36% reduction On lobetabit! tot" t" -ft'* +tfr'1 model rNafa. atte Conditlons ittiesE7le aroa Ii, ~vvAPbI* Poc6sWn: P1aPeAyowner dahlM 9le exisikig fwoao"Mst stAf kavea Property otwitsf i d*hJ"fo use thp.ititr~FibSy'"M from rovrrl fortf+a rejYieoement horse the Conmblida6edTMounent Systems M0 tipmedwrw ho Oan d for tttd 00" Perlomitnu tTtaniOiid 78minknum lnst hwan COSea. Insta tad op" with etsc4kal pppiltndi+iat Aly red(rdion needed to meat gmw4watvr nfbabs loading mx(egemeN H~Odbt for * Pinaneisl atisis4ne+v ;POltutbn RieduclorF t. C:(PRC1l'~te;$3.i+b0 . eras. , , r .Opsrstioq M1d costs: 325 38 Property Owtwr Poosi Pre-' q* ovrngr P mordh dtoosea to i,>I"t Fr~cd t3yvtams: tta ti0 AX 20 syssami;rlrh!) addifirMi, ptenderd f Total R>s6Ntsetorr COSt.,Rinps iZ2 ~ $27,260. dralnGrro betiireen$1200~fid"`UDo Firuitctst Assistttrws` PRC {?abate of Opststtori 8 klaiMSnar►ce CostatS30 S35 ` ~'PSF month Total instsl{aNon Coat: i3 "9141,11,260 What other rtnandat t ssktaneg ba tliroliatblt•4 These coat es*rMrig4re based .gO' Werdstirip Pa:" Reduction Credit Redetee($3,750) from Elk t•Wm l.artii:Devetorsment (~upurce krfo~Ftrwtionadt541~65.8.T82.ext 168). Dschutos edditionat,idpas for t>1sjV addd>onaF'Ananaa~ mtaiatprtl i Birbere Rk ;by drapghig them ofrat the Osa+el`K"s Op BsYb~BraRr~da3r~(!ifies.ar,uf, or fa(r loSil.385- tMut M ttFO. eost Corpparlion tMtivssrr 4slny' Oqs IN fM, tte W'mg to16#00Sate onsde wavlmvater tray Wounowletepoltutiori'probiem, the County contractK ;oast UC -lg:sawes 1n, * area. These bokes sumn study.9nd;the dtmbrtt:cdets estimated by kistal{ars a gram ww rax erases. n you nave can be created, pWaK mAxng them to wnty iMflce;Yn l a pine or, ind try i +?taa systae►s arlQ co"trucling sVW" (ent'sytHSgttt, i~ ttAS tlokrUOn b the wiura fit io study the cost of lie the.htforrnatfon gained from than x erleMartCtttsOtldiltor8. Cosl gf S~wrr ' ' CO An engir*adng consutiani report 0 We Couray Pn W Wei oompktod R i-1997 estimated Ovat Cy sevrering WoOd ooat between $19,000 and * $20.i?DO W household or $1275 to $i.M rec be-ava(raple'at sa'ooo per acre and the current nto it ati coat of creating nevrsewers would havb1o prodoat:t tak6 racent inaeoiwin the ptrwmQ*nd into oifwod b aorQUnl ' in 8dditrd( to the capatat Invn strnent Mafnterts cgnstructhty itt9 in4atlnereI plant and in~OaNinp ltat: p~ a£+d;P4MnP stiL~or'a tat, l ' ¢artsp(Xt rtq , 'theta wow~f~e N ~ t)irdrxtst tlferge9 for a opetatlon.and. rtt$tnt~r>ilrloiy'iD[tti~'SOWet'systarnr"`~an•~', avseneilniinnrl e~:nn.dMw .erne , L Cca G co 70 a) z H w J J co w H a~ a N ~ a I r~i O F-•~ ~ O O ~ ° r W~C7W O 4t .V `0 OL 0 Ln U X299.• y~ y4" vCi C ~C'S o (L) ti o o o Y y one °oa~~~ 0 30, b ~bJ°oV xA~3~x~r. CCo 'Coll i:N Cc WCII ' N' 4) En bo 5:L I= as O O X: 6. 0 cl, cd a~ O Q GL bA~ aN O ai ¢ p DC s. N a~ 'LS O O' 7 O x V cn y ai O ap~.+ ~s~' y y a+ O GL i. O n x .O v~ V bq N n U C 1~ y c~ rn r V C G O bA O a~ O vOi O y a~ d I .b1DpYO x~c ova ~°I'S cn~°a°i•oo~o ~z A C O -a C L" ~ y U O O° ~Z CL~ y b-0 a) a C a~i C^_b >U x-~ O~ b C'O acni C sO,.C pb p;, 2 .6vC3 xa~ a o~Op ° 64 CL) a~a o~ o~~aA °'~ao Q o0 ~•v cnov~p0 s.uoi` C3 0 f3 U 3 vUi. Q sV. rV+ 5Q = ~ 2 CL s7 3 o . t~ V U CZ t~ t~ E o Oe . 0c ti '45 p ;t:: y 2 >V U g Nyct ci a~+r ^QN 4..~'dC V °O bJD -0 c`° co o~CO WD bp a oo c~ e'er ai i o o e! 0 Q) 4. O U :3U2 c OOCOOQ a°o o u0000 0+ 0 bpy. i4r E z ~ a c ~ O.O 04 4Oo->o oO a°i~ .OG p 'C N:~~' O . 5 s.2~ py~ CtS Ad V v,~Uys.. . 0 W. I C7b o Uoto' c~U ya 0a0ia0iUO~p E EiiCD L VOC u C', Wdo cd w o^sc~'o o "S r 0. oj a, SIL r,, U, R bID ° ° 2 CL C) a~ b CD EL) Eli 4 C ~ A : "S . %A A -0 6 V %A i~• w C', o ~ "COS ~ G o v 0 c,3 -2 ow 0" W cd a ED o ° V O.~ V o P. cd V) O 0 O-0 E ~ao 0 ) ~~0x,.0U O 8 SALO 2,4 ° O a c E Cd Q cu 0 .0 In Cd r. bZ 42) 4- U O C V cd' y ° c` +-j E L 0 m 0 - 0 r.L E E V1 = c n % wm 0 V z z u H a3 ti Protecting Oregon's Environment About DEQ I Contact DEQ I Search Oregon Department ol -l?k`ii" Fiil111rW21 (,=tl 111, Projects and Programs Publications and Forms Laws !Aid Regulations Public Notices Permits and Licenses Databases DEQ I Divisions Rr-rions I Commission Water Quality Water Quality Improvement Loans DEQ Frome > Water Quality > Loans/Grants > CWSRF Loans > Intro/Overview > Oregon's CWSRF Oregon's Clean Water State Revoiv^ng Fund (CWSRF) The water quality of our State's rivers, streams, lakes and estuaries is an important aspect of Oregon's "livability". Although a lot has been accomplished, there still remains a need for improving the quality of our waters. The Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) Loan Program administered by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) provides low- cost loans for the planning, design and construr-on a variety of projects that address water pollution. The program has recently been refined to better support improvements to water bodies polluted by nonpoint sources of pollution. The loans through the CWSRF program are available to Oregon's public agencies. Public agencies include cities, counties, sanitary districts, soil and water conservation districts, irrigation districts and various special districts. The Department of Environmental Quality is committed to working with Oregon communities to attain and maintain water quality standards. These standards are necessary to protect beneficial uses such as recreation, fish habitat, boating, irrigation and drinking water. Overview Congress established the CWSRF in 1987, to replace the Construction Grants program, which had provided direct grants to communities to complete sewer infrastructure project. In the CWSRF program, Congress appropriates funds to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for the purpose of capitalizing the CWSRF program each year. This appropriation to EPA was $886,759,000 for the 2006 federal fiscal year, and is in turn allocated to all the states and Puerto Rico based on a pre-determined formula. Each state must contribute a minimum matching amount of 20% of this federal grant to the program annually. Oregon's 2006 grant is $9,892,200 which, when combined with the State's required $1,978,440 matching amount and repayments of existing loans, will provide the Oregon program with approximately $57,000,000 of available funds for providing assistance to local communities. As of December 31, 2005 Oregon's CWSRF Loan Program has provided a total of $552,394,151 to Oregon communities since the program's start. During 2003, the program was extensively revised and now provides additional types of loans and varying interest rates. Currently loan terms' can be as long as 20 years with interest rates in the 2-4% range. Loans and Loan Terms There are six different types of loans available within the program. These include traditional planning, design and construction loans. There are also loans available for emergencies, urgent repairs and local community projects. Each of these loan types has different financial terms, and http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/loans/cwsrf.htm BOCC Public Hearing 42 1/24/2007 March 20, 2007 Groundwater Issues - La Pine Exhibit is intended to provide communities with choices when financing water quality improvements. Interest rates are based on the nation's bond buyer's index and fluctuate quarterly. The interest rates of our various loans are substantially discounted from the bond rate. For example, with a quarterly bond rate of 5.0%, the CWSRF interest rates (depending on the type of loan) would range from 1.13% to 3.43%. Loan payback periods vary, ranging from 5 to 20 years. Loans do include an annual loan fee of 0.5% of the outstanding balance. Planning loans are exempt from this fee. Eligible Projects • Water quality related planning or studies - • Septic system repairs • Wastewater reuse • Various nonpoint source best management practices • Storm water control • Riparian or wetland restoration • Wastewater treatment projects • Irrigation improvements • Interim financing for some USDA programs • Major sewer replacement and rehabilitation • Infiltration and inflow correction • Estuary management activities • Others Application f~ , r i The program is continuously open to new applications. The information required by the application is pretty comprehensive. The application and its associated documents provide DEQ with the information needed to understand the need for the project, the project's intention, its environmental benefits, costs and its overall viability. The associated documents might include environmental reviews, land-use compatibility statements and financial reports. Based upon these documents, the DEQ assesses the ability of the applicant to repay the loan and the readiness of the project to proceed. Applications are available by contacting DEQ's regional Project Officers or from DEQ's CWSRF web site. Project Priority List All eligible proposed projects are ranked based upon their application information and entered on the program's Project Priority List. Points are assigned based on specific ranking criteriaz. Newly ranked projects are integrated into the priority list on a regular basis. The Project Priority List itself is incorporated within DEQ's annual Intended Use Plan (IUP)3 which indicates DEQ's proposed use of the funds each year. Project Funding The timing of our loan process is dependent on both DEQ's internal process and the motivation of each applicant. In a best case scenario, applicants could expect to receive funding within six months of applying. That timeframe could double depending on several variables. DEQ's process includes ranking applications, revising our project priority list, updating the intended use plan and allowing the public to comment on that plan. It's the applicant's responsibility to ensure the required information and associated documents are submitted to DEQ. Some documents may take significant lead-time to develop. Upon approval of all application documents, the project is funded if sufficient loan monies are available. If monies are http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/loans/cwsrf.htm 1/24/2007 JERRY CRISS From: "HUTCHISON Elizabeth" <HUTCHISON. Elizabeth @deq. state.or. us> To: "JERRY CRISS" <tlfly44@msn.com> Sent: Monday, March 05, 2007 8:52 AM Subject: RE: Funding for projects, Deschutes County Mr. Criss, My answers (inserted below) pertain only to CWSRF funding. I know less than a Deschutes County citizen would about other sources of funding. Apparently I have not been making it clear in my previous responses: Only a public agency (including tribes) may apply to the state CWSRF loan program for a loan. They must first prove that the project will improve water quality and that they have the resources to repay the loan. Then they must compete with other applicants for loan funds in the quarter in which they wish to sign the agreement. CWSRF borrowers must repay their loans to the state program. We do not permit a default, regardless of whether the intended source of repayment comes through or not. The CWSRF loan program does not loan to a non-government agency. We are not responsible for collection from those who may borrow from them. Elizabeth W. Hutchison Clean Water State Revolving Fund Project Officer Water Quality Specialist Oregon Dept. of Environmental Quality 700 SE Emigrant Ave. Suite 330 Pendleton, OR 97801 direct dial: (541)-278-8681 fax: (541)-278-0168 ---Original Message----- From: JERRY CRISS [mailto:tlfly44@msn.com] Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 10:34 AM To: HUTCHISON Elizabeth Subject: Funding for projects, Deschutes County Ms. Hutchison Thank you for the your response to my last email. I now have some questions about actual funding. 1 Has the County of Deschutes contacted your office seeking information about funding a septic replacement / modify project? If so when and who requested the information. Yes. I'd estimate it was between 2 and 4 years ago. Mr. Roger Everett, Director of the Environmental Health Division. 2 Has the County of Deschutes applied for funds for any other water quality project in the last 10 years? If so how do access that information. 3/5/2007 Not the County itself, within the last 5 years (the time I have been here). If the County had made a preliminary application more than 5 to 15 years ago and not followed up with the final application, that preliminary application would have expired 2 years ago. Of course we have made loans to Cities and Districts within Deschutes County. 3 What is the interest rate the state charges for funds barrowed from the revolving fund? The interest rate varies with the term of the loan (1 to 20 years). Also, those rates change each quarter. The rate on a specific loan depends on the quarter in which the loan agreement is signed. The current rate for a 20 year loan is effectively 3.22% (2.72% base + 0.5% administrative) 4 What is the interest rate the borrowers of the state funds charge the actual individuals barrowing the funds for the various projects? A. The state does not determine the interest rate that a CWSRF borrower could charge to its borrowers, but I would recommend that they add at least their cost of administration and a factor to cover their risk of loan default. B. Please note, no agency within the state has taken advantage of the opportunity, using CWSRF loan funds, to "sponsor" loans to individuals. 5 Does your office have any set policies for the those interest rates and are there accounting procedures that the borrowers of state funds need to follow? (Re: interest rate, see answer above.) The agencies borrowing money through CWSRF do have accounting procedures to to which they must adhere. 6 Can your office please provide me with examples of borrowers who have successfully completed projects with funds provided by the State of Oregon Revolving Fund For Water Quality? I did to see the actual accounting of the funds so that I can have verification of the actual interest rates charged throughout the project. You will not find a single record of an agency borrowing from Oregon CWSRF to then make loans to other entities. There have been none. You are encouraged to scour our web site for related information. For a list of recent projects start at: http //_www.degatate,_or.uJwq/IoansJpro_j_ec- Im. If you wish to see the interest that our program charges to the government agencies that have borrowed from us, it is all loaded in the first repayment installment of the loan. It is calculated as the interest times the time each disbursement of the loan has been held by the borrower. If you truly need more specific information, I can put you in touch with our financial officer, who is currently covering two jobs (A co-worker died.) He is quite busy. Please look at the Intended Use Plan if you still doubt that our loan program is not popular with agencies to then lend to other entities. You may have heard that there have been some loans through the State of Washington CWSRF. Their loan program operates under different regulations than the Oregon CWSRF Program. I would like the answers to come via this email address within 7 working days. Thanks again for help in this matter. 3erry Criss 3/5/2007 P r. Dear, Ms. Hutchison My name is jerry Criss; I am a resident of La Pine, Oregon, we, talked last week about Oregon's Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF). Thanks for the information that you were able to relay during our conversation last week. I would like to verify some of the questions that I asked so that I have a clearer understanding of the eligible projects and what a municipality's role is in the process. of Deschutes County discussed 1. A.Who qualifies for the program and l!.has any agency the possibility of using the (CWSRF) program to help fund a septic replacement project that may be imposed here in the South County? Refer to OAR 340-054 in the C)reoi7t<ttercli~__ tt~ .17t177! http•//arcweb sos state. OF.u511u1c~/QA1~s 1ttlr;~tt 1~~, "40 ' '4 for the basis of how oul State 177111 t~~1 1~_ tit! federal l?t o rail! 11 11117 State !1111 implement it slightly different. ht~t 1e177ai11s ,v ithin ti tct , _ Lllltrellmits). l-tllllnv 111ark the areas from OAR 340-054 that n7t1 crt'om s 7 rjuhhc t1'c171, S hro'lect that -L-_-- addresses reRlacingset7tic s~'stem or H" he sc of_Sa_txlhllc ~~cllc, ~rt~~ect that offers its own loans to property imncr ilt cd'!Ii to 11--~ thktj=_scpti;• s ste17>s ter decommission then? and ccn7nect to an , aaa411c Sc„-cl kjhcre is not_1sell-docull7ented _ - health hazard with the etlrru1t Sehtit SyStcll7S, it i5 u1t1~?~e1~ 111 It tl)c_li~tlj~cl ,.t~tlicl h mat cl high enough to compete for t17e C.'~~ `IZI lorlil-11011ey 1 }7W U1)'1k21'SC 1'Q ire t is ill excerpt from OAR are 111111 1=a11,17~~ Ss"~tl~ ti~ t 1714 1:7 ~ c1t11111~. a~ 1111t1-ILmilt_sourcc pollution and/or a public health h trtltl. i~c~ld~l~ a?!j_i_ i~~_tlt~t c!!lle~~t_~tlull. "340-054-0015 Project Eligibility (1) Apuhlic agency ii- IM crj)y/ i,/) c_[.'11 }k1-loon -fir, ttrr rrr (ult"~, 01 /he cos" folloijngtynes of ~)ro an€112 -olc c ""thee co."'r,y. (`a) Planning fly setil'a,~~N fUt"rll/I1,~. 72rrnj)t)iitl 1'ulita' ' c'arftlt'i%1 0!' C.~r?±tll'i' li?t II K! ;c~iFtt't] nl'OJG'CI.S ll1ChlGhn,~ .S'1! 7-j j)lE'~11C'nLti' U~r(iEll~';: eta, Collector setPel'S` IV Il lired /o C11'lel'1t11C' t~(7Ctl1J7a t11~'i~ r~ ~1~[']' (ti/01fl1'171'CT %lc itl.~ -X11' !a~ N1il _ - serve an area ta'jih a doctm e;7,1ed hetr?th l ccureL- (n) Nunpotnl sutrr•ce control crc~Jn~tr, rc.,11lrtlt It tlt-c'.,.~ c'l?) •rhr.r1rltt'ItiC t~l t/ trEtlultlrt'c'ru V rTlcffc~tt' J ~ to YVater (jualily. (o) F''yndi g of local CY)i'I1i711l6'l1ll__fot1~1.,' /t7 '%t' 31 /1i111717c t `c`ltt ~'.1 (i) clrldr s~ mml)ol/11. source control actil'llies or E',1'Iilt?1'l: t77cliIt!< t'li't'7;1 t'Ut?1'+_ Answer to l.B: Yes 'l vOce 1 Ila,c t1.r\,eled do,,N n toDeschutcs t. oL11 ~ tt}_ pc~11__ci_thcr \\_ith the City of La Pine or DeschtlteS Count both 6117es atthci ,t ,"llest._ 1 lcn ti171c. ,N11en the City or County recognized that a default bya property owner on the loan repayment did not excuse the public agency from repaving the loan to the state. that seemed to contribute to their not pursuing the CWSRF loan any further. I would estimate those inquiries as occurring between 4 and 2.5 years ago. 2. Does repair or placement of septic systems qualify for the (CWRF) program? As noted in the excerpt and explanation in Answer 1. above. it may. 3. Does the municipality have control of the program once funds they are committed, and is there an accounting of the spending by your group, (The State) while the program is in place? The local public agency must handle the funds as specified in its application and as in the loan agreement that it signs before receiving any funds from the loan. The state disburses each portion of the loan funds only against invoices received. The invoice may be a certain amount to set upa reserve for the public agency to dispense individual loans from. as in (o) above Or it may be the sum of amounts actually requested by property owners on a monthly (or other) basis Our accounting does not note the individual property owner's receipt in either case nor would the state accept repayment from the individual property owners The local public agency must act as the loan manager for the local property owners. 4. What are the risks associated with a municipality entering the (CWSRF) program? As noted in 1 B above the local public agency must enter into a loan agreement with the state Once it requests and receives a disbursement it is legally bound to repay that amount plus interest and a small administration fee in semi-annual payments over a term it selects (but must be within 20 years from the final loan disbursement). The loan agreement also requires it to adhere to certain bookkeeping standards. 5. Has any county in the State of Oregon ever applied for the program, for repair or replacement of septic systems? Coos County I believe applied for such a loan but let its application expire without signing a loan agreement. 6. How much money is available for such a project as described above? Possibly millions of dollars in any one year. The availability varies from year to year. and may be nil for a CWSRF loan applicant whose project is rated very low for its expected impact on improving water quality._(The rating is done against a set of criteria and is scrutinized by all the project and financial officers and coordinators in the state program.) Once a loan agreement is signed however, the state is obliged to loan the public agency as much as it wants of the amount in the loan agreement. Thanks again for help, Jerry Criss (541) 536-3581 NEW JERSEY AGi21CUWRAL UKMMEM STATION T, ` T COOPERATIVE RFSEARCH & EXTENSION FS840 Fact sheet For a comprehensive list of our publications visit www.rcre.ru ggers.edu Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems: The Maintenance and Care of Your Septic System Christopher C. Obropta, Ph.D., Extension Specialist in Water Resources & David Berry, Student in Bioresource Engineering Overview: Most homes that are not connected to a public sanitation system use onsite wastewater treatment systems, more commonly known as septic systems. New Jersey is home to over 380,000 septic tanks. This means that over 16% of NJ homes use septic systems. Half of these systems are more than 30 years old, which is the typical lifespan of a tradi- tional. (i.e., concrete) septic tank. Unfortunately, many homeowners using a septic system do not know what it is or how it should be maintained. Proper maintenance and regular pumping are vital to avoiding septic system backups and expensive re- pairs. A failing system is not only unpleasant due to overflow to the ground surface or the plumbing in the home backing-up, but it is a human health risk and a hazard to the environment. - Septic System Tank 4u Leaching Field Figure 1: OWTS Schematic (USEPA, 1991) How it Works: A conventional onsite wastewater treatment system (OWTS) consists of a septic tank and a soil absorp- tion field (See Figure 1). The septic tank removes solids, nutrients, pathogens, and floatable grease and scum from the wastewater through physical partitioning and microbial degradation (See Figure 2). Inspection parts---y ---~~Manhol To addition.1 treatment From house! Ji-~ I-and/ordispersat 'I Effluent Inlet lee Effluent Outlet lee screen i i Figure 2: Septic Tank Schematic (NSFC, 2000) To function properly, the septic tank must receive a consistent flow- The septic tank should be pumped out regularly by a qualified professional to remove excessive amounts of sludge and scum. The fre- quency of pumping is based on the number ofpeople in the household and the size of the septic tank (See Table 1). THE STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW JERSEY RUTGERs COOK COLLEGE BOCC Public Hearing #2 March 20, 2007 Groundwater Issues - La Pine Exhibit ~t es ~ ~ v - a o ~ { vJ o i~ s d 3 y I' t CS I s v ~ tiz 1 d v `ng? i v 3 0 t"1 k O _ I- 3 -a 0 0 r U M1 . ~I ~ III t I ~~l I - The remaining wastewater that leaves the septic tank slowly drains to an absorption field for further purification. A soil absorption field is typically a perforated piping network that lies on a gravel bed (See Figure 3). The seasonal high water table must be at least four feet below the gravel bed to keep the soil from becoming saturated. The soil must remain uncompacted to absorb the wastewater and support the microbial organisms that degrade pollutants. It is important to avoid driving over this area with vehicles or heavy machinery. If the effluent enters directly into the groundwater without being purified in permeable, aerated soil, it may contaX hate both the soil and nearby waterbodies. Home Pretreatment m L e Dispersal Septic Tank Trench Distribution Box/ Soil Absorption ~ Soil Layers Purification l ~ L Ground Water Source: Bouma, 1975. Figure 3: Soil Absorption Field (Bouma et al., 1975) Caring for your OWTS: • Know the age, capacity, and location of the septic tank and drainage field. • Have the system inspected and pumped out by a qualified professional (See Table 1). • Reduce water use and avoid water intensive activities (e.g. running the dishwasher and washing machine simultaneously). • Utilize water-saving appliances. • Do not flush non-degradeable items (cigarettes, diapers, paper towels, cat litter). • Do not pour toxic chemicals including oil-based paints, paint thinner or cleaning products down the drain. • Avoid using a garbage disposal; grease and solids may quickly clog the septic system. • Avoid biological septic tank additives; the use of additives containing yeast, bacteria, en- zymes, and solvents have not been proven to improve septic system performance. • Keep the drainfield clear of trees; plant only grass or short-rooted vegetation over and near your septic system. • Do not drive or park on the drainfield; this will compact the soil, as well as possibly damage the pipes, tank, or other components of the septic system. Table 1: Septic Tank Pumping Schedule (in years) based on Number of Residents and Septic Tank Size (Mancl, 1983) Household size (number of people): Tank size 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (gal) Years 500 5.8 2.6 1.5 1.0 0.7 0.4 0.3 750 9.1 4.2 2.6 1.8 1.3 1.0 0.7 900 11.0 5.2 3.3 2.3 1.7 1.3 1.0 1000 12.4 5.9 3.7 2.6 2.0 1.5 1.2 1250 15.6 7.5 4.8 3.4 2.6 2.0 1.7 1500 18.9 9.1 5.9 4.2 3.3 2.6 2.1 1750 22.1 10.7 6.9 5.0 19 3.1 2.6 2000 25.4 12.4 8.0 5.9 4.5 3.7 3.1 2 Warning Signs of a Failing System: • The septic tank has not been pumped in the last five years. • Toilets and drains are backed-up or not flushing well. • Liquid is ponding over the absorption field. • Unusually lush green vegetation is noticed over the absorption field. Unpleasant odors occur near field. • Effluent or wastewater is seeping into the base- ment. If improperly maintained, septic systems will even- tually clog and stop working. Again, a failing OWTS is a risk to human health and an environmental hazard. The effluent may contaminate drinking water wells and waterbodies with infectious dis- ease-causing organisms and other pollutants. It is imperative that a failing system be repaired as soon as possible to minimize human health risks and degradation of the environment. Unsuitable Locations for Septic Systems: The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) estimates that 2/3 of the land in the country is unsuitable for septic systems (USEPA, 2002). Areas with a high water table, shallow bedrock, steep slope, or impermeable clay soils are unacceptable for a septic system. New Jersey has regulations regarding the allowable dis- tance of septic systems from waterbodies, wetlands, potable wells, buildings, and property lines (See Figure 4). In addition, septic systems may not be appropriate ifyour lot size is small and does not have the proper area for an absorption field. If you are considering installing or replacing an OWTS, con- tact your local health department for information about siting restrictions in your area. Mound System: Mound systems are a common substitute for conven- tional systems when conventional systems fail be- cause the water table is high or the soil is imperme- able. In a mound system, a septic tank first treats the wastewater as in a conventional system. The liquid then flows into a storage compartment, where it is pumped up to an absorption field within a soil mound a few feet above grade. The mound provides an adequate volume of soil to treat the wastewater that exits the perforated pipe network in the leachfield. Mound systems can be acostly option in areas where the appropriate soil media is expensive. Mounding may also be unsightly. when installed in the yard of a house. - - - - } property line 10 feet 20 feet 0-15 feet drainfield septic tank f Figure 4: Example of Septic System Placement (distances vary by municipal code) (NESC, 2001) Alternatives: Alternative technologies do exist for sites-- where. , . conventional systems are not an option or to attain increased pollutant removal efficiencies. These , systems are not the solution for all sites. However, in some instances they can make onsite wastewater treatment possible. Aerobic treatment and sand filters are among the choices to consider for some sites. Other alternatives to improve the life of your system include low-cost filters and baffles. An effluent filter is a screen that reduces the amount of Total Suspended Solids (TSS) in the effluent stream. A reduction in TSS can extend the life ofthe leachfield, which commonly gets clogged and backed-up due to high solid concentrations. Re- moval of solids also facilitates treatment of waste- water by reducing the oxygen demand of the efflu- ent. The reduction can keep the system aerobic, enhancing microbial degradation. The effluent filter can be placed in the septic tank near the outflow, or between the septic tank and the leachfield. Effluent filters are an inexpensive upgrade to a septic tank that can be helpful in protecting your septic system. ,oorest ,oo rest Weu • i Contacts: For more information about septic system/OWTS maintenance and care contact the following entities: Rutgers Cooperative Research & Extension, www. rcre. rutgers. edu • Local Health Departments, www. state. nj. us/heal th/lh/lhdirectory.pdf • New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Homeowners Manual, www.state.nj.usldepldwqlseptiemn.htm • EPA OWTS Manual, www.epa.gov/ORD/NRAML/Pubs/ 625R00008/htm1/625R00008. htm • National Environmental Service Center, www. nesc. wvu. edu/nsfc/ • Association of NJ Environmental Commissions (ANJEC) has a publication entitled, Septic System Management for Good Water, www.anjec.org/pdfs/RP_Septic pdf References: Bouma, J., J.C. Converse, and F.R. Magdoff. 1975. Dosing and resting to improve soil absorption beds. Transactions, American Society of Agri- cultural Engineers, 17:295-298. Mancl, K.M. 1983. Septic Tank Pumping. Agricul- tural Engineering Fact Sheet SW-40. The Penn- sylvania State University Cooperative Exten- sion Service. State College, PA. National Environmental Service Center (NESC). 2001. So now you own a septic system. West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV. National Small Flows Clearinghouse (NSFC). 2000. National Environmental Service Center. West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1991. Manual. Alkmative Wastewater Collection Systems. Technical Report EPA 625/1-91/024. Office of Research and Development. Cincinnati, OH. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2002. Manual: Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems Manual. EPA/625/R-00/008. Office of Research and Development. Cincinnati, OH. © 2005 by Rutgers Cooperative Research & Extension, (NJAES,) Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey. Desktop publishing by Rutgers-Cook College Resource Center Published: January 2005 RUTGERS COOPERATIVE RESEARCH & EXTENSION N.J. AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION RUTGERS, THE STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW JERSEY NEW BRUNSWICK Distributed In cooperation with u.s. Department of Agriculture in furtherance of the Ads of Congress on may 8 and June 30, 1914. Rutgers Cooperative Research G Extension works In agriculture, family and community health sciences, and 4-H youth development. Dr. Karyn Malinowsil. Director of Extension. Rutgers Cooperative Research 6 Extension provides information and educational services to all people without regard to race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Rutgers Cooperative Research G Extension is an Equal opportunity Program Provider and Employer. BOCC Public Hearing #2 Y ` March 20, 2007 Groundwater Issues - La Pine Exhibit DOCUMENT POOR QUALITY AT TIME OF RECORDING DOCUMENT POOR OUALITY AT TIME OF RECORDING DOCUMENT POOR QUALITY AT TIME OF RECORDING A J To: Deschutes County Commission CC----Rep. Gene Whisnant - Sen. Ben Westlund Sen. Ron Wyden Sen. Gordon Smith Rep. Greg Walden Subject: Proposed Alternative Methodology for Addressing Nitrate and Other Pollution From Septic Systems, South County Dear Commissioners: There remains a strong disagreement among the residents of the South County with the County's proposed ordinance and plan to address concerns of nitrate levels in the groundwater in the La Pine area. A cornerstone of this study is a computer model designed to predict nitrate levels in groundwater as a function of time and projected housing density. Based on the output of this model, the County's proposal is as follows:. All septic systems are to be individual, on-site, Nitrogen Removal Systems (NRS). All existing systems are'to be replaced with NRS. All lots designated as "Red Lots" will not be eligible for development. Fundamentally, we believe that the public - and public agencies - make better environmental and natural resource decisions when displayed against one or more reasonable alternatives. In this instance, residents of the South County oppose Deschutes County's proposal, in part, because of the County's adamancy that just one alternative be investigated. The purpose of this memorandum is to request that the County proposal be investigated alongside a community based proposal. It is our opinion that the proposed plan has limitations: • The plan is. moving to final approval by the Board of Commissioners at a rate that precludes careful, in-depth review. • The County plan prevents the use of community or cluster systems. • The plan calls for using individual on-site systems, which are more expensive than cluster systems. At current prices, a complete NRS costs about $15,000425,000 per lot. • The plan uses only individual on-site systems, which makes it cost-prohibitive to upgrade or retrofit systems in the future if other groundwater pollutants are identified. • In 1997 the "KCM study," commissioned by the County, concluded that the cost to sewer South County would be $22,000429,000 per lot (in 1997 dollars). This study was based on sewering the entire South County, which proved to be an unrealistic option but was used to rule out a community-system approach using cluster systems. • Approximately 1,200 Red Lot owners will lose nearly the full value of their land. In rough numbers, the current market value for these lots range from $70,000 to over $500,000 per lot totaling an estimated $100,000,000. • According to the County, the River Nitrate Study will not be complete for another 12 months and the computer model will not be available for review until May. We ask that Deschutes County government investigate an alternative approach containing the following elements. This alternative could then be presented to the public with a comparison of BOCC Public Hearing #2 March 20, 2007 Groundwater Issues - La Pine Exhibit Q costs per household, the relative environmental benefits, and other advantages and disadvantages over time. PROPOSED SOUTH COUNTY CITIZENS ALTERNATIVE: • Use a combination of DEQ-approved individual and cluster systems, depending on site conditions and the particular threat to groundwater. (For example, Oregon Water Wonderland completed a cluster system in 2006 for 1,000 homes at a final cost of $8,400 per lot.) (Sisters Sewer for 1700 homes approximately 9200/lot; "still gathering data") o Proposal is not to put all of South County on a sewer system; it is to identify those specific areas and neighborhoods where there is both evidence of groundwater threat, and where residential density is feasible for creation of a cluster sewage treatment system. o Proposal is to invest in South County facilities and upgrades where necessary to alleviate actual pollution problems. • Remove the constraints of Oregon Land Use Goal 11. (Goal 11 constrains the development of community sewer systems.) . • Allow development of so called Red Lots using approved DEQ on-site systems and/or cluster systems. • At the time of sale, any existing wells and septic systems on a parcel would be evaluated and upgraded to the adopted standards. • Continue to apply DEQ rules and write a Geographic Rule to address the specific challenges of La Pine. (Deschutes County's plan is a Local Rule.) • Discontinue the current County policy of using the Land Use Compatibility Statement to prevent the development of Red Lots. • South County residents hire a hydro-geologist to study the County's groundwater model, to be paid for by the County. South County residents pay for retesting previously sampled wells, to be done in cooperation with USGS. • Use revenue generated from the sale of the New Village properties to help fund implementation of this alternative. Upon completion of a comparative analysis of these two proposals, we propose that final adoption of a geographic rule be approved by a vote of South County residents. Once again, thank you for your time and consideration. . Sincerely, Vic Russell Steve Wert Tim Wert LaPine Senior Center Board LaPine Chamber Board Stu Martinez MAR-20-2007 o 08:39 Theodore P- Kulongosld, Governor Department of Environmen 811 SW Portland, C TTY March 14, 2007 Tom Anderson, Director Deschutes County Community Development Department 117 NW Lafayette Avenue Bend, OR 97701 Dear Mr. Anderson: 1 understand there is some question about DEQ's position on the proposed County Ordinance regarding nitrate, contamination of water from onsite septic systems. This question may stem from a letter from my Eastern Regioi Administrator, Joni Hammond, to Mr. Steve Wert. Ms. Ham mond's letter responded to Mr. Wert's concerns abo the South Deschutes County Groundwater Protection Plan. Mr. Wert had expressed the need for additional time I conduct independent sampling of groundwater wells in the area. He also wants to conduct an independent review the U.S. Geological Survey's nitrate loading management modeL Ms. Hammond stated in her letter to Mr. Wert DEQ encourages the County to allow a reasonable time for Mr. Wert to complete these activities. I support Ms. Hammond's statement and encourage the County to consider allowing additional time prior to adopting the Ordinance. When I addressed DEQ's onsite program annual conference on February 13, 2006, I discussed the proposed Ordinance and how DEQ and Deschutes County are partnering in this effort. I also stated that we are hopeful County will adopt the Ordinance in the near future. I believe we share common goals including collaborating with each other to protect groundwater and surface wal in South Deschutes County. In general, DEQ supports the proposed Ordinance; however, there are several areas the proposed Ordinance that DEQ would have approached differently. These include allowing sewering, engine fills, and easements as tools to be considered. 't'hese differences have been outlined in the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between DEQ and the County, I understand that the MOU has been drafted and is ready signature by both parties, P.02 Avenue 97204-1390 of We support your authority and responsibility to administer the onsite program in Deschutes County and your authority to adapt County Ordinance(s) as appropriate. We also support public process and the right of property owners in South Deschutes County to help determine the fate of groundwater and surface water in their co The public process now underway will determine the future of the proposed Ordinance. We encourage the Coup to fully consider the public feedback and adapt the Ordinance as necessary. The Deschutes County Commissioners, of course, will make the final determination on how to proceed. We remain an active partner with you in protecting the groundwater and surface water in South Deschutes If you have any additional questions or concerns, please contact Joni Hammond at (541) 278.4610. Sincerely, Stephanie Hallock, Director Oregon Department of Environmental Quality i cc, Joni Hammond, DEQ, ER, Pendleton Office I TOTAL P.02 uregon Dpartment of Envuonmentat Quality 811 SW Sixth Avenue Theodore R Kulorgo*k Cvmmor Portland, OR 97204-1390 503-229-5696 TTY 503-229-6993 December 1, 2004 DEPYOP DEC08N Lane Shetterly, Director LAND CO_NjEAV p~J Department of Land Conservation and Development AM D 1J''Ir' 635 Capitol St. NE. suite 150 Salem, OR 97301-2540 RE. Proposed Goal 11 Amendments for Rural Sewer Hookups Dear Mr. Shetterley. The Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) supports the.proposed amendments to Goal 11 and Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) 660-11-0060 regarding sewer service in rural areas. The amendments will help to streamline the process existing homeowners must undergo to conned to existing area-wide sewer systems located outside urban growth boundaries. In many cases this connection also eliminates a public health hazard caused by a failing,septic system that can not be properly repaired due to poor soil and landscape features. 7eelopP w We beleve ments are better sed by well-mas ewater syster erformance-based permits that require ongoing monitoring and maintenance rather than individual septic systems where there is typically no mechanism to ensure ongoing operation and maintenance. ~r1~iiiffila at (503) 229-5588 or myself if you have any questions. Sincerely, Holly Schroeder, Administrator Water Quality Program cc: Doug White, DLCD Pete Dalke, DEQ Northwest Region UMENT POOR QUA~Jfy AT TIME OF RE001401N 1 #4'y~x *A-1 T-F<'vu q aaWMr(y t f4 _zo_°7 Y~ 'Z ~iCJ~- MAR-12-2007 MON 10:44 AM SENATE DEMOCRATIC OFFICE OREGON SPATE SENATE 900 COURT ST NE SALEM, OR 97301 Dear Commissioners, FAX NO. 15033311509 P. 02 BEN W)ESTLUND STATE SENATOR r)1STRIC-r 27 It has come to my attention, as I know it has yours, that the nitrate/groundwater study in south county is creating a continuing dialogue, at ever increasing decibel levels. Some of the conversation has become quite vitriolic. And as I am sure you would agree this is not good for the institution or viability of country government... this is becoming as much of a concern about confidence in our public institutions as it is about public health. I have been working with the Department of Environmental quality to better understand this issue and in particular the safety of south county citizens. Enclosed please find a copy of a missive Greg Aldrich sent me on behalf of Stephanie Hallock, Director of D.E.,, discussing the south county nitrate study... it does not try to minimize the concern, but it does contain good news. The satient sentence reads, and I quote "[At] current building rates, it is projected that groundwater concentrations of Nitrate will exceed 1.0 mg/L [in drinking water] within the next 20 to 50 years." The clear indication here is that we have time... time to make the right decision... time to find a long term solution. I urge you to utilize the advantage of that time to craft the best public policy decision possible. I know as publicly elected officials we often face difficult decisions... and nowhere than in the public arena, is the old saw about "no good deed going unpunished" more true. But please, lets not fall into the trap of another often heard refrain, "I didn't have time to do it right the first time, so I had to do it all over again." We do have time to do it right, the first time. Thank you for allowing this statement to be read into the record. i have confidence you will make the right decision. And please, as always, don't hesitate to call if I can help with any issues or concerns. Down the trail, /945EE;;~ Ben Westiund Oftiee: 9(X) Court St NF S-318, Satern, OR 97301 .-Phone: 503-986-1727 -Fax: 503-986-1011 - sen.benwesrlundfe ~tarc,nr.uti District: 20590 Arrowheod drive, Bend, OR 97701- Phone: 541-383-4444 . Fax: 541-383-3895 3/20/2007 Honorable Commissioners: My family and I are recent transplants to the central Oregon in July of 2005, and to La Pine in July of 2006. 1 can say without a doubt that, if I had heard about this issue back in the fall of 2005 when were looking for our home, I would have had doubts about purchasing in the La Pine area... but now we are here and we are not going anywhere. First I would like to comment on the method that was used to notify property owners of the proposed rule; including a letter in the tax bill. This sounds like it was a good idea but in reality I would wager that more than 50% of the property owners did not receive this notice. I know that I did not receive this notification, because my tax bill does not come to me; it goes to my mortgage company. Second, In the "Citizen Update" dated January 2007 that I found on the county web site it states the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality's Groundwater Management Area actions are triggered when groundwater nitrate levels reach 7 mgV'. What are the possible actions from the DEQ, how would this be different (better or worse) than the proposed rule? Finally, In the presentations and the media it has been stated that the New Neighborhood properties are worth $30 million, given the state of the economy and the housing market in the area, is this really realistic? With the negative press the area is receiving and the increased costs to build in the area dictated by the proposed rule, is the estimation that the build out of the area would be complete by approximately 2019 still accurate? How will passage of the rule affect the market value of my property given that the cost of the upgrades proposed by the rule to be up to $20,000, which is a significant portion of the value of my home. Sincer y: '~VV KeA Harms 15910 Camino De Oro La Pine, OR 97739 BOCC Public Hearing #2 March 20, 2007 Groundwater Issues - La Pine Exhibit_ 12C i,AJ ~ ; , . G~ c_ rVC,T- i viLlrk~ i via f6~t~NT/NCB-- 1C) 2 I' _ i DOCUMENT POOR QUALITY BOCC Public Hearing #2 AT TIME OF RECORDING March 20, 2007 - Groundwater Issues - La Pine Exhibit Deschutes County Board of Commissioners March 20, 2007 1300 NW Wall St. Suite 200 Bend, OR 97701 Subject: Testimony regarding proposed Local Rule requiring landowners to install Nitrate Filtration Systems. From: Danil Hancock, owner 16230 Park Dr.Lapine. Dear Commissioners: On March 17 I shared with you my thoughts on the proposed Local Rule regarding nitrate removal in Southern Deschutes County. In that testimony I mentioned that I am a retired scientist with the ability to critique the modeling efforts that have been done to describe the potential problem. I am now thinking that a much simpler approach would be to assume that the modeling is correct and say "Yes we do have a problem". In ten years or so we will have a potential health problem from nitrates in the drinking water. " Human risk assessment often relies on a "Fail safe" method where in we install may back up systems but still have a probability of the event occurring. We also use the term "Safe in Fail" wherein we assign the probably of the event happening as 1. We plan based on the event happening. The medical issue in So.County definitely requires the "Safe in Fail" solution. What are the methods we have that will fix the medical issue problem? 1. Place a nitrate filter on the INFLUENT. (These are cheap and numerous models are available to view on the internet). 2. Bottled water Program (citizens would have to depend on themselves for the fix). 3. Nitrate removal from the Effluent. (as proposed -very expensive) So if we remove the medical concerns we still have the DEQ concern about the aquifer being contaminated in 10 or more years. Some solutions that may prevent or slow the processes of nitrate migration should be looked at. 1. Filtering the INFLUENT would remove ambient N03 from the effluent of the home. 2. Encouraging a program to upgrade defective septic systems, seal all leaking wells would also reduce nitrate contamination. 3. Encouraging the use of gray water systems such that only toilets use the septic system would reduce and slow down the introduction of Nitrates. 4. Remove all illicit discharges and septic systems. 5. Installing nitrate removal system only at the systems which indicate high N03. Thank you, Danil R. Hancock danilhgcmc.net ph 541.382.1393 BOCC Public Hearing #2 March 20, 2007 Groundwater Issues - La Pine Exhibit Testimony re. "Local Rule" - 3-20-07 Larry J. Walker 16213 Sparks Dr., La Pine 536-5227 First of all I want to commend the commissioners for maintaining their composure and objectivity at last week's public meeting despite the rude behavior and scurrilous remarks of a vocal minority and to thank you for staying the course despite the sometimes hostile and disorderly atmosphere. I also commend the majority of the audience for politely enduring the lengthy and highly technical presentation that dominated the time of the meeting and was largely over the heads of most of the audience. Tonight we have heard from the other side of this volatile issue. I would like to offer a brief perspective of the alleged nitrate problem in South Deschutes County as I understand it, and end with recommendations for consideration by the commissioners. 1. The alleged nitrate problem is a relatively new issue based on questionable data for which the evidence is far from complete. Nitrates are natural substances that are needed by the human body as well as by lawns and other living organisms, not a deadly poison. 2. Nitrate migration is a very slow process that might be a problem in 40 to 50 years, thus not an immediate problem requiring emergency action. 3. The so-called "blue baby syndrome" has been used as a straw man in a quixotic campaign calling for septic upgrades that are at best premature and at worst largely unnecessary. Evidence for the alleged connection between nitrates and this rare phenomenon is far from conclusive. 4. The recommendations of the 5.1 million dollar study are based largely on data from a "model" that we have been shown tonight to be flawed and not supported by physical evidence and valid scientific conclusions. 5. The end result of the recommended "local rule" would impose an economic burden on La Pine residents, especially elderly and retired people on fixed incomes, even after proposed financial aid. This issue has also resulted in a hostile environment that no one wants, due to the understandably angry response of concerned citizens. I propose the following actions for consideration by the county commissioners: 1. Retest the wells that were originally tested in 1995 and retested in 2000, when, contrary to previous predictions, there was no evidence of progression of the nitrate problem. 2. Use assistance funds to help repair as soon as possible the isolated "hot spots" where there is already a problem (due either to high water tables and/or leaking septic systems) and grandfather the rest of the area's septic systems that have already been properly installed according to code and are not in need of repair. 3. Require periodic inspections of existing wells and septic systems to prevent future problems. 4. Apply more restrictive standards as needed for new septic systems for new construction and for existing systems if still deemed necessary when the property is sold. Most properties will have different owners long before the 40-50 year time period. Finally, I urge all parties concerned to avoid hasty overreactions that could prove either unnecessary or inadequate. I also encourage emotional restraint and courtesy by all so that this important issue can be resolved in a rational and orderly manner. BOCC Public Hearing #a, March 2®, 2007 Groundwater Issues - La Pine Exhibit Deschutes County Board of Commissioners Sign-In Sheet NAME ADDRESS CITY/ST/ZIP Tr r-K / v t x 6.e 4 d 40- PI( r ~773f- LQ ~P d~-e-1( ~i S3 ~el 779 AteA-Dat~ 1-Pl t ~3 7 3 1 CtJ u1 130)( rv 77 4 3 ins O 96 Q J W3 "-Soo ~ I N 114 C., F3~ w FBI i. S't P~t,'N ~ 0 2 .9-no 1 t Y i _0e 305' Ce s - ~ y 7 7.~ BOCC Sign-In Sheet - 3/20/07 r 9 L -3OCC r?u6l c*c, aeir'n7 M a.rc A ~o 6rvun dw +e-Tisues Deschutes County Board of Commissioners Sign-In Sheet V v V NAME ADDRESS CITY/ST/ZIP ~~lV VAPCCOI-~~_ ^1 -l 3 q ` " r i S ff ~d i `✓v2 -7 -7 LA, f(- ed ~le_ is ' G ~ z raps P) PlJe 7-17 r Vic n r- 1 b 2 ~ Q U -i J 6~ etl~Qc~111~ s ntt~ 9F OIq RiAwfix 1s o v pG.. L y773 BOCC Sign-In Sheet - 3/20/07 Deschutes County Board of Commissioners Sign-In Sheet 75' BOCC Sign-In Sheet - 3120107 9PO I Deschutes County Board of Commissioners Sign-In Sheet V J NAME ADDRESS CITY/ST/ZIP ic 6c Quarv 14a S hi, R4 1- Rix / D 11/A &Q666 Z 44~~ 9 7;1 -4 9 t A 1 7::I~ _2 tr- 41"I~le ~~7 IW I C- s~- C7, ~A r A)-e- elk T7139 Oa t] kq:~Ra ^ C's, tc 7 . Pit i- 4o )11~4_ 52,q 35 vv\ ea.A.m C,4-> 1-3 7 Lj, 9;7 73 rrt-C p / j4 e 77S BOCC Sign-In Sheet - 3/20/07 Deschutes County Board of Commissioners Sign-In Sheet NAME ADDRESS CITY/ST/ZIP C~D~ X11 9-3-70 b a-34o ~7~ ~r~ o ~~~s Lo ~~9 c L 4e, L f l -t-. t t4_~ '7 ?3 3~10✓ La CQ 9 Z~ V v v BOCC Sign-in Sheet - 3/20/07