Some Cryptic Aspects of the Crypto Outbreak, Part 2: The best laid schemes of mice and men often go awry

[Updated & edited, YouTube links added, 8/27/13]

Plans?  What plans?

At the August 13, 2013 Council meeting, Baker City Public Works Director Michelle Owen mentioned that "regaining public trust" was one of the thoughts guiding the city's plan to restore safe water service. You may recall that some of that public trust was lost back in November 2011, when the Baker City Council and city residents discovered that Cryptosporidium had first been found in the water supply over a year before, but somehow they were not informed of that fact. The plan to notify the Council of pathogens in our water didn't work out too well and the City has never completely explained what happened. Neither are we aware of any consequences for any city employees involved. Once lost, public trust can be hard to regain, but especially so when that trust is tested repeatedly.

                           Elk Creek Diversion

Last Friday's Baker City Herald article (Experts help determine cause of outbreak 8/23/13) seemed to provide some assurance that the city had a handle on things, with it's two large photos of government scientists and our water specialist in action to help solve the cause of our crypto crisis. Don't worry, everything is under control--look at all that expertise at work! They are doing everything they can to get to the bottom of how such a well managed and protected city watershed could be hit with one of the larger US Cryptosporidium outbreaks in recent years--years in which we focused on the remarkable technological improvements in Cryptosporidium detection while stalling on making decisions about which wonderful water treatment technology we would use to provide us with solutions. Years, I might add, when some didn't always follow, or follow up on the plans.

While we long to look on the bright side, there are reasons to question the rosy picture of effective action and competence presented by the Herald and city staff. Here are some questions they could ask for example:

Why did it take a citizen, me, to get two Councilors interested in going out to see if cattle had been getting into the watershed, if, as we found out later, cattle had been getting into the watershed for at least a few years? Why did City Manager Kee, after I had asked him in an August 11, 2013 email if he would like to go with me to look for cattle sign, tell me on the 13th that "We have walked the drainage a couple of times and have no immediate plans to go back out." Why, after I asked him "Has the city ever found cows in the watershed near Elk Creek?" did he tell me on August 15th that "I don’t know if cows have ever been seen in Elk Creek."? The state and Centers for Disease Control employees took cattle fecal samples on Thursday, August 22, even though the newer ones had apparently been there for a week or more on the 19th, and many others for weeks or years. When were state epidemiologists and Centers for Disease Control employees informed of cattle fecal material from this and previous years being present inside the watershed near the Elk Creek diversion and on upstream? Public Works Director Owen told Councilors at the August 13, 2013 meeting that the state had collected elk fecal samples at Elk Creek, but made no mention of cows or of them collecting fecal material from cattle.

      Relatively recent "cow pies"seen strewn along road near Elk Creek diversion on 8/19/13

Why weren't City Manager Kee, the Councilors, and the citizens of Baker City more aware of the fact  that Public Works Department personnel have known about cows getting into the watershed for over two years? Why didn't we know that the Department of Public works told the state Drinking Water Program on November 18, 2011, less than two weeks after we were told about the crypto in our water supply, that:

In order to better protect the Elk Creek Diversion Intake we will be constructing new fence next spring [Spring of 2012--over a year ago] along the boundaries of the city owned 40 acre parcel. The new fencing will prevent any livestock from entering into the city property. [Emphasis added]

Similarly, why weren't we all, including City Manager Mike Kee, informed early on that the Watershed Management report from March 4, 2013 stated:

Also the City has purchased materials to construct a barb wire fence around 40 acres of City owned land surrounding the Elk Creek Diversion. This fence will provide a barrier for cattle ranging in the close proximity. Currently there is a meandering range allotment fence that extends for miles. This fence protects the Elk Creek Watershed and is in good repair most of the time, but there have been incidents where cattle have found their way to the wrong side of the fence. The new fence will protect the diversion and approximately 1/4 mile ofthe Elk Creek riparian zone from stray cattle. [Emphasis added]

The promised fence was never built. So, given that safe drinking water is of fundamental importance to the healthy functioning and economic prosperity of a city, and given that Public Works knew that cows were regularly trespassing on the watershed around Elk Creek, why wasn't the plan to build that fence in the spring of 2012 followed?  I was told by a person at the state level that "the fencing project was not undertaken due to time/manpower limitations." Well, during that time, our resources in time and manpower were being spent on expanding the irrigation pond at the golf course and on Resort Street under-grounding of utilities. (See the Weekly Reports for the period in question.) Like Marshall McComb, a local resident told me recently: "Holy Cow!"

Sacred cows still near watershed and in wrong pasture a week or more after cows were discovered in watershed.

                 Baker City's well watered golf course

The March 27, 2012 Council meeting discussed a perceived need to change the work on the golf course connection from the $3500 back flow valve agreed upon a year earlier to a $50,000 expansion and sealing of the irrigation pond with associated delivery pipe and other infrastructure. At the meeting, Finance Director Jeanie Dexter reminds the Council that the golf course fund is in a deficit situation to the tune of $52,000 already (assuming $20,000 was going to be spent on a backflow device and $80,000 to be transferred from LAMP fund)), and that even with the $80,000 that the Council could make available to the golf course, there would only be $28,000 in additional funding left from the $80,000 to use for the project.

Why, at that March 27, 2012 Council meeting, after Councilor Roger Coles asked about the backup drinking water well at the golf course, was he told that it had been inoperable for a year? 

Why did much of the Council initially ignore that fact, waiting for the golf course operator to twice insist that he needed it for backup before even thinking about it?  

Given that Public Works Director Owen then told Council that "the well issue can be worked out through the water fund . . . as opposed to the golf course fund . . . .," Why is that well still inoperable one year and five months later, in the middle of a crisis during which we are discussing trying to find additional clean water sources? (See August 13, 2013 video clip here)

       Water Level Gauge for Inoperable Backup Well at Golf Course

The 2012 Watershed Management Report states:

Diversions used for collection of surface water are monitored by City Personnel on a regular basis throughout the year (weather pennitting) as part of our operations. Several observations were made ofunauthorized entry in the Watershed using trail cameras. This information was then given to the USFS law enforcement officials.

Watershed security remains a high priority and the City may continue to monitor points of entry to identify unauthorized entry by using trail cameras.

Apparently they have the trail camera photos, what do they show?  

We often look to technology to save us while forgetting that the human element plays at least as large a part in how well our systems function as technology. Humans have to follow plans that have been developed to make our technologically enhanced systems function properly, and supervisors, as well as others in the regulatory framework, need to make sure those plans are being followed. In our case, if the plans were followed up on, we might not even be talking about the need for a technologically complex and expensive filtration system for the watershed. 

So here's the plan--it's an old one but has important sections that have not been taken seriously.

In trying to understand this recent, destructive and debilitating crypto problem within our watershed I asked the city for our Watershed Management Plan which is required by state law. I asked for it last week and after I received it I was told by the city that they then had posted it on the city website. I could not easily find it, but I'm sure it is there somewhere. In addition to having requirements, it has interesting historical documents within it, one of which is a 1904 Presidential proclamation establishing our "protected" watershed.

Among other things, the Watershed Management Plan states or requires the following (Emphasis Added):

*The goal of the Baker City Watershed Management Plan is to maintain or improve the present quantity and quality of the raw water of the Watershed, and to ensure the water quality is maintained at or above the level set by the Surface Water Treatment Rule (SWIR) to avoid filtration.

*The City was notified by the Oregon Health Division by a letter dated July 26, 1991, that the City can meet all the criteria for exemption to filtration.

*Big game management will be directed toward maintaining proper herd levels of deer and elk which are compatible with water quality criteria. Animal population will be controlled to not degrade the water quality in the Watershed.

*Livestock: Livestock will not be allowed within the boundaries of the Watershed. Preventative measures will be used if needed to prevent animals from trespassing into the Watershed. 

*No grazing of livestock in the Watershed is permitted.

*If the turbidity is a wide spread or long lasting problem, the system will be switched from surface water to ground water by using one or both of the City's two deep wells which have a combined capacity of approximately 2,800 GPM, which exceeds the water demand in the spring of the year .. the time when the turbidity is most likely to occur. Even during periods of high demand, it is adequate with some rationing. [These two wells are the ASR well, (presently functioning), and the well in the golf course parking lot (hasn't functioned for years).]

*Annual Report   

B) Personnel Education/Experience:(1) Minimum education of key personnel in Watershed Management: 

 (a) Director of Public Works minimum qualifications: Graduation from a four year college or university with specialization in civil engineering and three years of progressive responsible professional experience in public works administration including supervisory capacity; or any combination of experience and education that demonstrates provision of the knowledge, skills, and abilities listed above.   

(b) Water Supervisor minimum qualifications: Five years experience in water maintenance and water and sewer construction work, with one year in a supervisory capacity; certified to Class Two as water treatment operator, water distribution operator, within two years of appointment as supervisor; or any combination of experience and educational training that demonstrates provision of the knowledge, skill, and abilities listed above. 

(c) Water Specialist minimum qualifications: Three years experience in the operation and maintenance of water treatment plant; supplemented by special coursework in water treatment operation; or any combination of education and experience which demonstrates provision of the knowledge, skill, and ability listed above; Water Treatment II Classification or successful certification within one year from date of appointment or within next State of Oregon certification testing cycle.

*An annual written report will be made and submitted to the State of Oregon Health Department with a copy to Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, headquarters, no later than January 15th of each year [Now October 10 per OAR 333-061-0040(1)(E)(B)(i).]. At minimum the report will include the following:

. . . . 

B) Key Individuals & Qualifications: A list of all key individuals responsible for theWatershed. The list will include their education, experience and training relating to theirability to operate the Watershed. 

*[August 1991] MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING between WALLOWA-WHITMAN NATIONAL FOREST and CITY OF BAKER CITY, OREGON

 Zones of Influence: This includes lands adjacent to the Watershed which will affect or be affected by management of the Watershed. Zones of Influence mayor may not drain into the Watershed, but management of the resources and activities in these zones will be done in such a manner as to reflect the standards of management desired within the Watershed.  . . . .

Zones of Influence: A Zone of Influence exists outside the boundaries of the Watershed which could have a substantial impact on the water quality produced within the boundaries of the Watershed. 

The areas designated as Zones of Influence lying within the National Forest boundaries will be managed with Best Management Practices (BMP) and as prescribed in the Watershed Management Plan. No activities will be allowed in the Zones of Influence which will have an adverse impact on the water quality or quantity. Special attention will be given to the use of any herbicides, pesticides, or other chemicals to assure no contamination is allowed to occur which would affect the water quality within the boundary of the Watershed. Also, special attention will be given to any grazing permits given within the Zones of Influence to ensure that livestock will not stray into the Watershed.   . . . .

Nothing in this MOD shall be construed as obligatory of either party to expend funds, nor involve the United States or the City in any contracts or other obligation for future payment of monies in excess of appropriations authorized by law.

Here are some of the Baker City Watershed Management Reports that I have been able to obtain. Note that all appear to be late, most do not include the qualifications of the Director of Public Works and some do not include the qualifications the Water Supervisor, as required by the Baker City Water Management Plan. The 2012 and 2011 reports show that the Public works staff were aware of cattle getting into the watershed and of their unmet plans to build a fence to keep them out. My emails and interactions with the City Manager and Councilors indicate that that they too did not know that cattle were getting into the watershed around the times when testing and Cryptosporidium disease outbreaks showed that cryptosporidium was in the watershed. I do not know whether they knew or didn't know, I only know that they did not indicate to me that they knew. I also do not know whether cattle are the cause of our Cryptosporidium outbreak, and because of the way things were handled, we may never know exactly what the cause was. If the state had known ASAP that fresh cattle fecal material was found in the watershed, they might have been able to get better samples to genotype. Perhaps if the state had returned my call prior to their trip on August 22, they would have asked myself and Councilor Dorrah to show them where the freshest samples were located. Instead, they asked the Herald to tag along to provide PR.

Baker City 2012 Watershed Management Report

Baker City 2011 Watershed Management Report

Baker City 2007 Watershed Management Report

Baker City 2006 Watershed Management Report

I'll add more reports if I can get them, but the last Public Works Director who may have met the requirements for pubic works director laid down in the Watershed Management Plan was probably Dick Fleming, who was asked to resign by City Manager Jerry Gilham in April of 2004. He was after all a professional engineer.

So, the best laid schemes of mice and men will often go awry,
And I know for sure, that there is too, more than meets the eye.
People may pose and politics will play,
But it's often education that saves the day.

"the best laid schemes of mice and men will often go awry" is from To a Mouse, a poem by Robert Burns, 1786, the rest from yours truly.

Perhaps if the city would have published their plans and Annual Watershed Reports on the website earlier and explained them at City Council meetings, some of us would have had a clearer picture of the dangers we faced, and would have asked some relevant questions when they could have made a difference.

I might add that Council priorities play a big part in how things turn out.  We needed attention to basic infrastructure for fundamental priorities, like watershed management, water quality and water treatment for all citizens, but we got Council attention and scarce resources spent on the needs of relatively few golfers and the owners of property around the golf course, as well as to the needs of businesses on Resort Street, and their fans inside and outside of local government, who wanted underground utilities there. They also approved paying off $25,000 of a $61,000, 2002 airport facilities project debt while using $36,256 on "loan" from the equipment and vehicle fund to refinance the rest. The golf course has generally received significant subsidies from the city since the ill-advised creation of the "back nine" about a decade ago, and both the golf course and the under-grounding of utilities on Resort Street have soaked up funding, as well as city worker time and equipment, when we should have been expending those resources on protecting against known threats in the watershed.

Baker City's well watered, and not very well used, golf course as seen in reflection from clubhouse window

Beyond what I've posted previously, above are some of the documents, circumstances, and facts, surrounding the history leading up to our crypto crisis, and it currently is the best I can do. You can use these findings as you will. I have already forgotten some important points, but will add them and the two relevant YouTube Council videos as I can (done).

There is a Council meeting scheduled for Tuesday night at 7 PM (8/27/13), and two state representatives will be there to discuss our options. 

Forgot to add that the state epidemiologist, Emelio De Bess, confirmed late Friday, when I was finally able to talk with him,  that the species of Cryptosporidium found in the human fecal samples was Cryptosporidium parvum, and they were all of the same genotype. They will compare that species and genotype to the species and genotype found in the other fecal samples they have collected so far from water and animals. Hopefully, the cattle fecal samples he collected will be from the younger animals and be in good enough condition for molecular analysis. He wasn't sure if the sample they have from the 913 crypto collected in the water sample from Elk Creek earlier will be in good enough condition to genotype for comparison to the human fecal samples already genotyped because the staining of the slide may have made that impossible. He is hopeful, and did not say what happened to the rest of the sample, if there was any left.
____

Some Cryptic Aspects of the Crypto Outbreak, Part 1

[Edited and updated  8/23/13]
This blog may contain more information about Cryptosporidium than some people want.  If so, skip down to the YouTube videos at the end.  One from Wally Sykes in Wallowa County about a Wolverine, and the other about the activities of the Sheriff in Malheur County.  As usual, if they don't play, click on the title above the video, and it will take you directly to the YouTube video. The previous blog on this subject has also been updated.
__

One of the interesting problems associated with the 1993 Milwaukee, WI, Cryptosporidum outbreak, which affected some 400,000 people directly, was that the actual cause was never determined. Those that studied the epidemic could not come to a definitive conclusion as to whether it was caused by dairy cattle or a sewage issue.

Most of us would like to know the primary cause of disease outbreaks that create such damaging effects to people's health and financial well being, so that we can prevent them from happening in the future. This is certainly here in Baker City, where we face large expenditures necessitated by the state and federal drinking water rules, and where economic losses due to sickness and curtailment of business activity have been large. When the cause remains obscure, correcting such a problem efficiently becomes extremely difficult. If we knew for certain that the problem was caused by mountain goats, elk, cows, (and yes, I've heard "sabotage" offered up) or some other specific agent or event, we could zero in on effective solutions that might save us millions of dollars that would otherwise be directed at prevention associated with unknown causes and for unknown reasons.

As of now, given the available information, the cause of our Crypto outbreak remains a mystery.

I have tried this week to get information from the County Health Department and the Oregon Health Authority about what kinds of tests have been performed on what types of samples in order to help people understand more about the actual cause of our waterborne Cryptosporidium outbreak. Information is hard to come by, at least for me, although it appears that mountain goats are no longer a suspect. Yesterday morning, Alicia Hills from our County Public Health Department, was able to reveal that the tests on mountain goat scat were negative for Cryptosporidium. That, coupled with few crypto oocysts in Goodrich Reservoir, tends to count them out as a significant contributor to any crypto load in the watershed.

Here is the crux of my problem as a citizen blogger trying to get current relevant information: On July 16, 2013, I asked the Oregon Health authority (OHA) for information about a different potential health problem. As of today, they have not answered my questions.

Yesterday I left a message to an OHA person concerning our crypto outbreak, and what kinds of tests have been performed on what types of samples, because the intermediate contact allowed me to leave them a message. I had asked them the same questions on Tuesday. I have not received a return call. I was not able to talk to a person even remotely connected to the Crypto outbreak study until today, and he promised to try to find answers to the questions I asked from some unknown person who is supposed to have some idea about what is going on. Additionally, the state drinking authority contact that used to respond to my questions has gone silent [Seems to be back today! 8/23/13]. Apparently, I'm not a preferred provider of information to the public. If history is a guide. . . .

The city though, has in some cases been responsive (I'm grateful), but trying to get information on the current costs of UV treatment vs filtration remains frustrating, even though people are forming opinions on the choice we should make without adequate information about the current costs to be borne in the long term. Once people commit to an opinion, positions tend to harden, and some will try to defend their opinion regardless of new information. That is why Herald editorials and Herald opinion polls in the middle of a crisis, before adequate information is provided, do not serve the public well. It can though be an effective strategy for advancing a position without regard to the financial welfare of the community.

For review, here are the figures for treatment options from November 22, 2009 (Capital is essentially the cost of the plant, "$M" stands for MILLIONS of dollars, O and M stands for yearly Operation and Maintenance [multiply by $1,000 so 332 means $332,000 yearly O and M costs]):

Table 2. Cost Opinion for LT2ESWTR Compliance Options

Compliance Option          Capital ($M)        O and M ($1,000/yr)            Present Worth ($M)

UV                                         2.3                       13                                           2.5

Ozone                                   4.8                         89                                          5.8

Chlorine Dioxide                    12.7                       74                                          13.6

Membrane Filtration              17.7                       332                                         21.5

Notes:

1. Capital Cost includes Engineering and Services During Construction

2. Oxone and Chlorine Dioxide costs from Formation and Control of DBPs in Drinking

Water, AWWA 1999. Chlorine Dioxide costs include 12-MG contact tank.

3. UV Costs from UV Disinfection Costs for Inactivating Cryptosporidium, JAWWA June

2001

4. Costs updated to June 2009 dollars using ENR 20-city average construction cost index

Assumptions:

Average Annual Flow = 4 mgd

Plant Capacity = 12 mgd

Discount (interest) rate = 6%

Amortization Period = 20 yrs

Engineering and Services During Construction = 25%

Contingency on Capital Costs = 30%

The information available from 2009, as well as the information provided below, would indicate that committing to filtration at this point is ill advised.

Getting back to the cryptic aspects of the crypto outbreak: what kinds of tests have been performed on what types of fecal material and water samples, so that we can understand more about the actual cause of our waterborne Cryptosporidium outbreak? Alicia Hills said that the only test result she had was the negative test for Cryptosporidium in mountain goat scat, and that she did not know what all the samples taken consisted of. She did not know whether the cattle fecal material found near the Elk Creek water supply intake had been tested. After all, no one was aware, or at least admitting, that cattle had been in the watershed until after I asked first Mike Kee, and then Clair Button, to go with me to investigate on August 12--a request that resulted in our August 19th trip to Elk Creek. Given the washed out condition of some of the more recent cattle fecal material found on that date, it is conceivable that some of it was present prior to the August 1 rain event. No one I've talked to thus far has been able to answer the question of whether they have tested the more recent fecal material from cattle in the watershed, and those who should know have not returned my calls.

Without that information, it all remains a mystery.

So I get to poke around the edges in the dark because the state is not responsive. I hate to resort to public records requests, but may have to.

Two Cow Pies up on trail to the east of the water supply diversion at Elk Creek.  They look older than a week, but less than two months old. If modern science can radiocarbon date a dinosaur bone that is millions of years old, one might expect that they can date a cow pie of recent origin?  Maybe it isn't sensitive enough for that.

One can though, do research on the published scientific findings from studies published on the internet. Reading through the findings may be challenging for some, but I encourage everyone to do so. It is not entertainment unless you have a fondness for facts, but it can be enlightening. Here are some of those findings (Direct quotations are in italics with underlining added, all misunderstandings obviously my own):

1)  From Genotyping Cryptosporidium from water to source track fecal contaminationin agricultural watersheds from a Thesis by Norma Jean Ruecker, UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY, JANUARY, 2013. (I rely on this first because it is recent and incorporates information from many previous studies.)

• Species originating from wildlife represented a low risk to human health. 
• Molecular tools exist for effective molecular characterization of Cryptosporidium oocysts in water so as to identify host sources and individual species or genotypes (paraphrased). It is ... important that the molecular tools used for characterizing human isolates are capable of detecting all known species/genotypes of Cryptosporidium. In other words, the ability exists to make decisions about the probable cause of a crypto outbreak, and to differentiate between pathogenic and non pathogenic species and genotypes of Cryptosporidium in your water supply and in fecal samples tested.
• Ultimately, these approaches can be used to characterize sources of fecal pollution in the environment and aid in the development of mitigation strategies focused on reducing the burden of Cryptosporidium in drinking water sources in an effort to protect public health.
• A thorough review of the published surveys of Cryptosporidium in cattle reported prevalence ranges from 0 to 100% with typically higher rates in younger animals compared to older ones.
• With C. parvum being the only cattle-associated species which has been demonstrated to be a significant zoonotic risk to humans [a human pathogen--cause of disease in humans], the knowledge of age dependent prevalence challenges the current understanding of the risk that cattle associated Cryptosporidium spp. pose to public health.
• As C. parvum has been detected in all the major livestock species, it poses the greatest risk for zoonotic transmission to humans. Pre-weaned calves are considered the major animal host for C. parvum and the most likely source of zoonotic cryptosporidiosis. [Although Cryptosporidium parvum does exist in weaned calves. Chris]
• recently as many as 25 species and close to 50 genotypes [of Cryptosporidium] have been described. This information provides a solid framework for assessing public health risks and also allows tracking of the host sources associated with Cryptosporidium contamination in the
  environment.
• The species of high risk to human health were present in only 1.2% of the samples analyzed. This knowledge challenges the LT2ESWTR regulation in the US by providing evidence that the regulation may be overprotective, leading, in some cases, to unnecessary capital expenditures for water utilities. Of the 25 species and ~50 genotypes of Cryptosporidium described, only 2 species, C. hominis and C. parvum, account for 95% of human clinical infections. Only a few other Cryptosporidium species and genotypes account for all other clinical infections in humans. This study demonstrates that although 45% of all the water samples analyzed had Cryptosporidium oocysts detected, only 17% of the samples had species or genotypes detected which have been associated with human infections. Species of Cryptosporidium that are considered to be of high risk to humans: C. hominis and C. parvum. Two others are medium risk and three are low risk. The rest are considered no risk.
• sustained viability [of crypto oocysts] is dependent upon the environmental conditions they are exposed to (i.e., solar UV inactivation, dessication, fermentation). [I would add freezing--see later citation]
• It is a conclusion of this thesis that until improved and more accurate models can be developed, Cryptosporidium monitoring including genotyping is the only reliable way to assess parasite loading in surface water. 
• Hazard identification is considered the central element, or foundational basis, of the risk assessment framework from which the other components are derived. . . . .Simply put, not all Cryptosporidium parasites observed in water are infectious to humans. Even when considering those that are hazardous to humans, a relative level of risk exists (i.e., high, medium, low).
• detection and subsequent molecular characterization of Cryptosporidium oocysts in water can be used to infer potential host sources of fecal pollution impacting water quality within a watershed, an extremely important part of the risk mitigation element of the risk assessment framework. Identifying the sources of pollution contributing to the Cryptosporidium burden allows for the development of watershed protection strategies designed to reduce or mitigate these environmental burdens.
  
• data presented in this thesis suggests that wildlife appear to represent little risk to public health in the development of cryptosporidiosis in humans. In this context, management of wildlife may not be necessary or worthwhile in terms of risk mitigation for some drinking water systems.
• the Water Research Foundation (financially supported by water utility subscribers) initiated a request for proposals entitled: “Selecting and Standardizing the Most Appropriate Cryptosporidium Genotyping Tool for Regulatory Compliance Monitoring”, in 2009, with the intent of developing a validated Cryptosporidium genotyping tool suitable for inclusion into the regulatory water quality monitoring frameworks of the USEPA (LT2ESWTR)
• Regulators of the water industry are likely to remain risk adverse and therefore moving forward, municipal water utilities will continue to challenge regulation through the use of applied science. This will be driven by the need for municipalities to balance fiscal responsibility with public health safety.

2) Giardia Cyst and Cryptosporidium Oocyst Survival in Water, Soil, and Cattle Feces

• Cryptosporidium oocysts were more environmentally resistant. At −4 and 4°C, the oocysts could survive in water and soil for 12 wk but degradation was accelerated at 25°C. Cryptosporidium oocysts also were degraded more rapidly in feces and in soil containing natural microorganisms. [Crypto oocysts survive for over three months in water at 24.8 and 39.2 degrees fahrenheit, as might be expected in frozen and unfrozen water, and under a blanket of snow. Most microorganisms are not going to be very active at 24.8 degrees and so will not be degrading crypto oocysts.]

3) Effects of Low Temperatures on Viability of Cryptosporidium parvum Oocysts

• All mice that received oocysts frozen at -10 [degrees] C   [14 degrees fahrenheit] for 8, 24, and 168 h and those that received oocysts stored at 5 [degrees] C for 168 h had developmental-stage parasites. These findings  demonstrate for the first time that oocysts of C. parvum in water can retain viability and infectivity after freezing and that oocysts survive longer at higher freezing temperatures. [This implies that oocysts may survive at 14 degrees F for some time]
  
  
• In nature, survival of oocysts might be extended beyond the times observed in the present study when water containing minerals or organic material is frozen or when oocysts are frozen at temperatures above -10 [degrees]C  [14 degrees fahrenheit]. Such conditions might be found in areas where, after ground temperatures fall to just below freezing, a layer of snow insulates that surface from much colder air temperatures, enabling oocysts to survive perhaps for weeks or months.

4) Selection and Application of Microbial Source Tracking Tools For Water-Quality Investigations

Cryptosporidium oocysts: 

• Can remain viable for greater than 6 months at 20 degrees Celsius in water (Fayer and others, 2000. 
• In three environmental freshwaters, 0.1% survival over 10 weeks at 25 degrees and higher rates of survival at 4 degrees (Simmons and Sobsey, 2002). 
• Survival and infectivity in freshwater detected after more than 12 weeks (Olson and others 1999).

5) Surface Water Quality--Overland and Near-Surface Transport of Cryptosporidium parvum from Vegetated and Nonvegetated Surfaces

• Livestock, both open range and those in concentrated animal facilities, have been associated with high concentrations of C. parvum. . . . . Infected animals can pass as many as 10 billion oocysts per gram of feces, and a small number of infected animals can produce enough oocysts to potentially contaminate a large water source. [This goes a long way toward explaining how a small amount of infected fecal material from an infected calf in a water supply could contaminate the water around, say, a water supply intake in a small creek.]

6) Cryptosporidiosis of Livestock

• C. parvum, C. andersoni, C. canis, C. felis, C. hominis, and C. suis, have been reported in human infections. [The vast majority by C. parvum and C. hominis]
. . . in order to accurately assess the risk that livestock might pose to humans, molecular-based prevalence studies are necessary. Such studies could help to identify potential source of these organisms causing human infection, and lead to improved control strategies. Greater understanding of the species and genotypes present in animals and the patterns of transmission can improve our ability to control these infections will hopefully result in significant benefits to society in terms of both animal and human health.

7)  Concentrations of Pathogens and Indicators in Animal Feces in the Sydney Watershed

• Pathogen and fecal indicator concentrations were generally higher in domestic animal feces than in wildlife feces. Future studies to quantify potential pathogen risks in drinking-water watersheds should thus focus on quantifying pathogen loads from domestic animals and livestock rather than wildlife.

Lastly: On Cryptosporidium detection limits:

8)  Effects of Time and Watershed Characteristics on the Concentration of Cryptosporidium Oocysts in River Water

• . . .  the detection limit of the analytical method, about 0.1 oocysts per liter; . . . .  

_____

Wallowa Wolverine

__

Corrupt Cops Caught by Their Own Cruiser Camera!!!

AP Article on Incident:

Flight recorders found in deadly UPS plane crash

Sheriff says FBI to probe activist traffic stop

Published: August 14, 2013

By JEFF BARNARD — Associated Press

GRANTS PASS, Ore. —

. . . .

"We are sending all information and recordings that we have (to the FBI) and they will look at it," Sheriff

Brian E. Wolfe told The Associated Press in an email.

"I want to make sure nothing was done wrong," he said.

. . . .

Wolfe acknowledged that two deputies, acting on orders from a supervisor, pulled over Steve Hindi, . . . .

Wolfe said there was no traffic violation or evidence of any other crime.

Deputy Brian Belnap and Deputy Brian Beck were on duty and following orders from their supervisor, Lt. Rob Hunsucker, Wolfe said. There was no probable cause a crime or traffic violation had been committed.

No one has been disciplined or placed on leave, he said.

. . . .

Bobolinks, Bitterroots & Burn Barrels

In This Edition:
[Edited 6/9/11, 5 PM]
- A Seldom Noticed but Locally Somewhat Common Bird--Bobolinks in Richland (Includes short video)

- One of Baker County's Most Interesting and Beautiful Wildflowers--The Oregon Bitterroot

-Burn Barrels Revisited

- Late Addition: Hells Canyon Preservation Council Wolf Action Alert
_____

Bobolinks in Richland


In Baker County, the Bobolink, Dolichonyx oryzivorus (Linnaeus, 1758), is a locally common, but for the most part rare, member of the Blackbird and Oriole family. We live on the western edge of its summer range. It breeds and attempts to raise its young in the taller grasslands and meadows of eastern Oregon, but spends the winter as far south as Argentina, Bolivia and Paraguay, flying up to 12,000 miles in a single year. You'd never know from watching them in their northern breeding grounds that they were strong flyers, as they seem to flutter a bit in a tentative flight. Their song has been described as "a bubbling delirium of ecstatic music. . . ." which you can listen to in the video below.

The bird in the video was one of perhaps three males hopefully breeding in a Timothy hay field at Richland, OR, on June 3rd, 2011. According to ODFW (Oregon Dept. of Fish & Wildlife), "due to land use change and other factors, this grassland bird species is declining in Oregon." One problem it faces is early haying on its chosen nesting grassland. I can tell you that it is not very often seen in any event, but it is also sometimes observed here in the Baker and Bowen Valleys.

Bobolink-Richland, OR-06/03/11



__

The Oregon Bitterroot
Bitterroot along the Snake River Road

Even though Oregon bitterroot (aka bitter root, bitterroot and Lewisia rediviva) is the Montana state flower, and was "discovered" by Lewis and Clark in the Bitterroot Mountains there, one of its currently accepted common names is none-the-less, Oregon Bitterroot. From my first encounter with this white to pink petaled little treasure in Utah some years ago, it has remained one of my favorite spring wildflowers. It is a member of the Purslane Family (Portulacaceae), like, oddly enough, the common annual garden flower, Portulaca, and the weedy small yellow flowered succulent, common purslane.

Yes, the root is said to be bitter, but is rendered palatable by cooking and mixing with meat and/or berries, and some native American tribes treated it as a delicacy. One story alleges that the upper red portion of the root is effective in warding off bears, but you might want to have a back-up plan just in case.

The leaves are long, fleshy and finger-like, and they often wither back into the root by flowering. This is the case in the photo above, but not in the plant just below.
Bitterroot flowering with leaves still present near Seismograph Road.

You may find it growing in sandy terrain in Utah, but most commonly, as here in eastern Oregon, I find it in rocky areas with clay soils. Right now it is blooming on the Snake River Road south east of Richland, near Seismograph Road east south east of Sparta, and there are a few on the rocky clay hills above Forshey Creek along the East Eagle (70) Road. [6/9/11--The Forest Service just allowed the privately owned cows (see below) out on the meadow today, so God help all the wildflowers there!]
Leafless Bitterroot blooming along the Snake River Road

[Added 6/9/11 6 PM]
I was up photographing wildflowers on Forshey Meadows (70 Road to Lily White and East Eagle) today. Blooming flowers included Camas, Swamp onion, White Mules Ears and their crosses with yellow Mules ears, Big-head Clover, Orobanche uniflora, Rock Cresses, Peonies and others. The very few Bitterroot plants that remain were getting ready to bloom at any moment. As I travelled up the Sparta Road to the 70 Road, I passed through cows being herded up onto the public forest land at Forshey Meadows, and when I came back to the meadows after photographing several wildflowers there, some in bloom, some with seed, I found that the cows had arrived to trample and munch the meadow life into oblivion in our late Spring.

Cows trampling and munching the meadow life into oblivion

Privately owned cow having its way on the public's land

Too bad the Forest Service didn't let the wildflowers seed before the cows trampled them and munched the up for someone's private gain.
__

Burn Barrels Revisited

Ann Mehaffy's nicely done and possibly legal burn barrel, May 26, 2011 (Ann Mehaffy is Program Director, Historic Baker City)

When I was growing up in Southern California in the 50s and 60's, that portion of the state was still truly "the land of milk and honey." The landscape just outside of town was covered with citrus groves and even a few vineyards. We even had burn barrels and a few had other others brick structures for burning in the back yards. These were most often referred to as incinerators, which the neighborhoods used to burn trash and yard waste. By the late 60s, the hordes had moved in from the east and were beginning to move in from south of the border. When I flew in on an extra seat on an air force flight in the late 60s, I noticed the smog beginning to envelope a valley that had before been clear. Most of this smog had blown in from points west, like Los Angeles, only to be captured and contained in our valley by the surrounding mountain ranges. Sometime around then, due to deteriorating air quality, the burn barrels and other incinerators were eliminated. The population was just over 63,000 in 1950, but was about 107,000 in 1970. In the late 80s and during he 1990s, I lived part-time in a small rural town in western Utah. Burn barrels and more commonly, open burning, were common sights there. When I moved to mostly unpopulated and rural eastern Oregon, in 1999, I found that people still used burn barrels, and where they had sufficient land, practiced open burning of yard waste and leaves. When I arrived in Baker City in 2004, my neighbors did the same, and it didn't bother me one bit. I didn't see it as "inconsiderate," I saw it as an opportunity in an area of low population density and where the air was still clean enough to do so without causing any lasting harm. If you look carefully, you will still see many burn barrels tucked away on the west side of town, but also in many other neighborhoods as well. Many of my neighbors use burn barrels and/or practice open burning, but most of them did not know about the proposed ordinance until I informed them, and they were against it.

The population in Baker City is now even lower (a bit over 9,800) than when I moved here, and our good air quality, according to DEQ measurements, is actually getting better. Unfortunately, an apparently power hungry and somewhat ill-informed Council, eager to please certain interests, have produced a non-sensical burning ordinance that would make burn barrels useless except for the burning of dioxin polluting paper. The Councilors apparently feel this shows they are "doing something" for the comfortable city dwellers who have moved here from the more urban areas that have been ruined, and for the well-off locals who look down their noses at people who struggle or who simply like to burn their yard waste.

To justify the need for the ordinance, some people I communicate with, especially those on the Council (when I can even get them to acknowledge my existence and e-mails), want to focus on the importance of stopping the burning of household garbage and plastics, which are already banned. The main problem with that argument, obviously, is that the burning of most household garbage is already illegal. Instead of focusing on making the current ordinance enforceable, they have actually produced an ordinance that outlaws the periodic burning of much less harmful yard waste in burn barrels, in favor of the burning of paper, which releases a known carcinogen (among other things), i.e., dioxin.

To be clear about my own preferences, I don't see any public good in allowing the burning of toxics, like large quantities of dioxin producing paper and plastic coated paper, or plastics of any sort, or many other materials found in common household garbage. The EPA has made a good case for not allowing that, and the current ordinance already recognizes those facts (except for paper). What I do have a problem with is an ill thought out, over-reaching, heavy-handed and draconian ordinance which bans less problematic substances being burned in burn barrels, while at the same time promoting the burning of dioxin polluting paper, when there has been almost no attempt to educate people about proper burn barrel construction and ventilation for better burning burn barrels, and other alternatives for disposal of trash (which I have touched on in previous blogs, i.e. recycling and container sharing, etc.).

Here is a summary of the objection to the ordinance (in no particular order):

- The city has provided little low cost locally specific data to justify the ordinance, and the Council has not made much more than personal anecdotes available, even though they should be able to provide more specific information.

- Our air is clean, and has been getting cleaner. Other than enforcement issues with the current ordinance, the proposed ordinance is a solution looking for a problem.

- Most people use their barrels for burning yard debris, not household garbage and trash.  The latter is already banned. See current permit: 

"All Burning: 

* ONLY untreated wood, paper products and yard debris are permitted to be burned
* It is NEVER permissible to burn household garbage (foodstuffs, plastic, metal, diapers, etc.)"

- It seems like the ordinance will punish responsible burners for the crimes of a few. Rather that using the draconian measure of banning the most common, and least problematic use of burn barrels, i,e., burning wood and yard debris, a few measures can be taken first:

a.  Enforce current law with an ordinance that provides for that enforcement.

b.  Make a concerted effort to educate people as to how to construct a burn barrel so that it has the proper ventilation to create a hot and efficient fire, and on the health hazards associated with burning household garbage, including plastics and paper. Also, make sure people understand that they have the legal and very inexpensive option of taking plastics, oil, paper, and many other recyclables to the recycle center, and that they can use leaves and household vegetable waste for mulch and compost. They can take toxics like paint to Ace, and many others, like batteries and contaminated gasoline to the recycle center on Wednesdays. They can make other arrangements such as garbage pickup sharing with neighbors or friends for any other waste that is illegal to burn, like foodstuffs and some plastics.

- Many people affected don't even know about the ordinance. Only two of several I initially spoke with even knew about it. They don't follow city news in the Herald or Record Courier, and they will not respond to Council in any event, because they feel disenfranchised and marginalized. They know that Council doesn't care about their lives and their problems, and that the Council's priorities are aligned with downtown business interests. They will find ways to do what they think they need to do. Despite Councilor Pope's invitation, most users of burn barrels will not show up at next Tuesday's meeting, as he well knows.

- There are several references to the dioxin problems created by burning paper on state and US EPA sites. Mike Kee sent me some links to sites from densely populated eastern states that he apparently didn't read very thoroughly. 

Eg. from a link on one site: http://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/32060.html

It says:

Even burning paper today can release dioxins into the air.

Past generations burned their household trash, but it did not contain plastics, foils, batteries, paper (which is bleached with chlorine) and other materials. Even burning paper today can release dioxins into the air. Burning household trash, whether in an open pit, burn barrel or a wood stove, is illegal, unhealthy, unneighborly and unnecessary.

There are other links available that deal with the paper burning issue.

-Lastly: The Council seems to have an inconsistent standard on toxic pollution. Council defends the 24-7 mercury emissions from Ash Grove (See for example: Ash Grove files suit against EPA’s ruling | Baker City Herald & Ash Grove’s mercury wait continues | Baker City Herald). I understand why they would like to give them time to develop adequate technology to deal with their problem, but the Council then wants to come down hard on residents, many who are low income with few alternatives, without giving them the information and time to adjust their garbage disposal and burning practices.

See: February 8, 2011: Mike Kee & Council Comments on New Proposed Oregon Water Quality Standards.mp4

Here is the description of the video above and some supporting information:

Baker City is a small town of less than 10,000 people in north east Oregon and we are blessed with clean air and clean drinking water. At a time prior to now (May-June 2011), when the Council is supporting an ill-conceived ordinance that would eliminate occasional burning of wood and yard waste in burn barrels, the Council was upset on February 8, 2011, about more stringent proposed water quality rules that would help clean up our waste and agricultural drainage water and which would help protect low income, native, and minority communities dependent on the consumption of fish from those waters.

In his presentation, City Manager Mike Kee misrepresents the rules to an uninformed Council. He states that the old rule was based on "17.5 grams of fish a day that the average Oregonian consumed." According to DEQ, the standard was based on "national consumption data," not Oregon consumption, which was part of the problem. The new rules of 175 grams of fish a day take into account not national, not the "average Oregonian," but Oregon's "susceptible groups", i.e., those mentioned at the end of the last paragraph.

Mayor Dorrah says "They're nuts!" (to much laughter)

Councilor Calder: "Have they heard of catch and release?"

Councilor Bonebrake: "Are they going to require that we eat all this fish?"

Most interestingly, in the case of burn barrels, the Council is supporting an ordinance that bans less harmful burning of wood and yard debris (weeds, and etc.), in favor of allowing ONLY the burning of Dioxin (known carcinogen) producing paper. The fact is that our air quality has been steadily improving for over five years. 

Council is always very protective of business interests and their pollution, but seemingly deaf to the concerns of low income people who cut their "cost of doing business" through occasional burning of yard waste in burn barrels.

Mercury is a potent neurotoxin. 
ODFW has issued a MODERATE mercury level alert for the "Snake River including Brownlee Reservoir (Snake River Zone). This means:


MODERATE MERCURY LEVELS

* Children under 6 should eat no more than one 4-ounce serving every month.
* Women of childbearing age should eat no more than one 8-ounce serving every two weeks. 

* Healthy adults should eat no more than one 8-ounce serving every week.


Many Baker County (along with out of county and out of state) residents eat fish from Brownlee and the Snake River, along with the Tribes downstream.

According to a report by the Oregon Environmental Council:

In Oregon, the major sources of industrial mercury are mercury-added products (such as thermostats, thermometers and fluorescent lamps), point sources (such as power plants that burn coal, commercial and industrial boilers, steel mills, and cement kilns), and abandoned mercury and gold mines. Additional sources of mercury in Oregon include laboratories, dental offices, health care facilities, global emissions, and erosion of native soils. The total amount of mercury released from human sources to air, water, and land in Oregon is estimated at approximately 4,500 pounds annually.

Oregon's two largest source of mercury emissions are the coal-fired power plant at Boardman, emitting an estimated 165 lbs a year, and the Ash Grove cement kiln in the Eastern Oregon town of Durkee, emitting an estimated 2,500 lbs of mercury a year. In 2004, the Ash Grove Cement plant was the third largest source of airborne mercury in the nation.

Council has been very supportive of Ash Grove in their attempts to lower the mercury emission standard for Ash Grove, but they have no qualms about eliminating the occasional use of burn barrels by primarily lower income residents who burn yard wastes (again, burning most garbage is already illegal). Why they would allow the burning of dioxin emitting paper, while disallowing much less toxic yard waste, (actually not proven to be carcinogenic, unlike dioxin.), is beyond me.


Background info:
OPB: DEQ Puts Forward Strict Water Quality Standards
‪

Oregonian: Bills in the Legislature might water down Oregon's tough new limits on toxic water pollution


ODFW: OREGON FISH ADVISORIES

Detailed Oregon DEQ Background, Analysis and Staff Report for Revised Water Quality Rules from June 2, 2011

Changes to the proposed Water Quality Rules in response to lobbying

Previous post on the proposed burn ordinance:

MONDAY, MAY 9, 2011
War on the Poor Escalates--City Ordinance Would Add Restrictions to Burn Barrels (There is a New Burn Fee Too!)

MONDAY, MAY 23, 2011
City Council to Discuss a Revised Burning Ordinance Tomorrow Night
__

HELLS CANYON PRESERVATION COUNCIL WOLF ACTION ALERT

At this time only 17 wolves remain in Oregon.

Over this last year Oregon lost 4 wolves. Two wolves from the Imnaha pack were shot by ODFW (Oregon Dept. of Fish & Wildlife) in response to livestock depredations this spring. Another wolf from the Imnaha pack died after being tranquilized, captured, and radio-collared by ODFW in late winter. A wolf from the Wenaha pack was illegally shot by a poacher last fall.

ODFW confirmed less than a dozen cows lost to wolves since wolves began returning to Oregon. Affected ranchers were financially compensated., yet wildlife officials killed wolves in response to all confirmed livestock losses.

ODFW just announced plans to kill 2 more Imnaha pack wolves.

See more of this article at the link above.