2007-02-15 twaikoloadevco - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

And what I see as the basic conclusion is they do believe that there has been an increase in nutrients along the coast that may be due to development activity. They do not draw any conclusion as far as biological harm, which is another -. The increase in nutrients is supposed to be a forewarning that there is some biological harm; if nutrients didn’t do anything, nobody would care about nutrients. They made some recommendations. One of them was that, for most of the developments that we had under sampling, they felt that the data was not kept consistently enough to actually determine trends. The two exceptions were Waikoloa and Hokulia. In other words they felt that Waikoloa and Hokulia were the best as far as the monitoring that we have done over time; that they had most reliable monitoring. Second, that they felt that there was inconsistency in the monitoring requirements, and so we needed to make those consistent. Third, they do feel that we need more biological type of assessment rather than strictly the chemical – monitoring. And this came to us – the report in April 2006. It’s one of the things that we need to follow up on as our Department; what I want to do – just so the Commission understands where we are going with this – I want to do a mini conference involving the various private landowners and involving the University. I understand that the people who have done the monitoring are not necessarily in agreement with the conclusions of the report. You know, you don’t want to just go off without hearing what they have to say about it. Given, though, effort that has been made over the decade with all the developments, I think it’s time to sit down and make sure that they -. I am concerned about the fact that the requirements are inconsistent. I think we should have a consistent protocol, that it should be comparable both over time from one location and from one location to the next. This report gives us some concern about the comparability at that. Final thing that I’d like to say is that I would not want to fiddle with the monitoring requirements on this SMA permit. I think this is something that we should be looking at overall. As I started saying, Waikoloa actually, along with Hokulia, seems to have the best monitoring permits; I’d rather us do an overall review of these and try to actually make everybody be basically consistent on what we are doing and on what we are looking for. GRAHAM: Thank you, Mr. Yuen. I’d like to introduce some thoughts of my own as a Commissioner, not as the Chairman, representing only my own experiences and my own reading of this material, if I may at this time. IWASHITA: Mr. Chair, before you did, can I follow up just to clarify my understanding? GRAHAM: Yes. Please do. Commissioner Iwashita. IWASHITA: Based upon what the Director’s – it’s very helpful clarifying all this information. Basically what I understand the Applicants’ position is that we are doing a good job, we are monitoring now, and we will continue to do that because that’s part of what the existing conditions are. Is that correct? BAIL: That’s correct. IWASHITA: Okay. Thank you. And I thank you for doing a good job, good enough for them to use it in this report. EXHIBIT C 6