2007-02-15 twaikoloadevco - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

statement from Steve Dollar that in his opinion – his opinion – based on inadequate science, that the algal infestations on Maui are totally independent of development would be hotly contested by researchers from any number of institutions around the state. So given that, I’m just essentially saying check the source of the information; they are not all equivalent. More specifically, getting to the report that the UH researchers did, they made note that they essentially investigated the water quality monitoring efforts at 13 developments in West Hawaii, and said only three of them actually had enough information where you could develop some sort of trends over time. And certainly Waikoloa is one of them, and they should be commended for that, for having gone beyond what other developments actually should have been doing. Okay, that being said, however, if you go back to the original protocols that were developed in 1992 – and that was by a conference; there is really not a need for a conference; the conference was held in 1992; Consultants such as Steve Dollar were part of that, scientists were part of that, managers were part of the conference. They came up with a number of recommended protocols for water quality and biological monitoring for different developments in West Hawaii. They kind of fall into several different categories: One is classic water quality nutrients – that’s the one that pretty much gets the center of attention – and Waikoloa has been an example on having very good water quality measurements. However, what the water quality measurements are indicating is that there has been degradation of both the anchialine ponds and the near shore coastal waters. And that’s based on the interpretation coming out of the University of Hawaii report. Now you would probably very clearly expect to get a counter interpretation of the data from paid consultants, and I would not be surprised. However, based on what the University of Hawaii is saying, anchialine pond environments – which do not have, interestingly, have any Department of Health water quality standards; they don’t look at them; so the only standards that are available for anchialine ponds are developed by the National Park Service, so that is what the UH report uses – and they say, if you read their report and you look at specific nutrients in there, they are way out of compliance. In one case it was like, for nitrate, 2 to 45 times above the baseline standard acceptable level. So the anchialine ponds – this is from 1991 comparison to 2002, and it’s in the report – have been degraded; and it says the likely sources are irrigation water, waste water, urea-base fertilizer; all human associated kinds of input. With regard to the coastal waters, it’s the same situation. The data says that – and this data collected by Waikoloa – that the near shore coastal waters are being impacted; they are being degraded. You’ve heard statements sort of generalizing that, saying this is sort of setting the stage for problems: For problems of alien algae proliferation, or just even native algae proliferation, for the development of ciguatera, which is a dinoflagellate that grows on limu. And they are also saying this is the beginning of a danger zone. West Hawaii isn’t exempt from what could happen on Maui. Now in terms of the monitoring, what’s going on at Waikoloa? As I said there’s one aspect; it’s nutrient analysis. However, thet protocol in 1992 said there were other kinds of monitoring that should be going on in developments. One very broad and important class has to do with sewage – so looking at things like enterococcus, looking at fecal coliform, clostridium – none of that monitoring has occurred at Waikoloa. So that’s something that was recommended back in 1992, and none of it has been done.Another broad class of monitoring that was recommended by the 1992 conference and the protocol guidelines had to do with looking at the sediments in near shore areas. Sediments are important not only just from things running into the water but because they trap bio-accumulated toxins. So if there is pesticide being used, if there is a heavy metal something or other, any range of known pollutants, they can be sampled in the sediment. There is a requirement that – or rather a recommendation in the monitoring guideline protocols – EXHIBIT C 9