2007-02-15 twaikoloadevco - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

between the increase in nutrients, which is documented by these tests, and the possibility that the increase might result in algae blooms? BAIL: Perhaps I’m not understanding your question. I believe that the existing monitoring is designed to detect any nexus between impacts from the existing developments at Waikoloa. That’s why the monitoring is so extensive going from the ground water wells to the anchialine ponds and out to the ocean environment. As stated in our testimony, we don’t believe that additional water quality monitoring is required or that additional biological monitoring is required. And it is our further position as stated in our letter to the Commission that if the Commission is looking at imposing additional conditions beyond those recommended by the Planning Department, that we respectfully be allowed the opportunity to withdraw our request for extension of time. IWASHITA: Thank you. GRAHAM: Other Commissioners? W. YUEN: May I? GRAHAM: Yes, Mr. Yuen. W. YUEN: It’s our position that no further monitoring is required. And based on both the recommendations of Dr. Block (Brock) in his study that no further monitoring is required and the testimony I submitted from another hearing by Dr. Dollar that there is no nexus between development and algae blooms, that kind of monitoring would not lead basically to any show of any nexus between the water quality and the development activities. It is our position, however, that as landowner we are not in favor of any withdraw (withdrawal) of the application for time extension. GRAHAM: Thank you. Mr. Yuen? C. YUEN: I’d like to just give some background on this coastal monitoring data review and what is currently required of Waikoloa – try to put this into some prospective (perspective). All the coastal resorts in West Hawaii have water quality monitoring requirements. So what happens is periodically – depending on the specific wording of the condition – they will send reports in to the Department with a summary and some data, and this has been going on for in the case of Waikoloa 30 years and in cases of some others a shorter period of time. So the Department gets this huge mass of data and reports. What we felt was it was important to try to do an overall review and analysis of this to see if there was a problem, to see whether the monitoring was being done properly, and to see whether there is room for improvement in the data gathering; is there something else we should be looking for. Just to do this overall assessment, we also thought it was important to do it not using the same people who were under contract with the coastal developments; not to cast any aspersions upon them but because they do work for the landowners, there is potential or possibility of a claim of conflict of interest. So the Department commissioned and paid for this coastal monitoring review using our CZM funds, and that’s what you have here. EXHIBIT C 5