Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0690.004 2000-2002 E"' T United States Department of the Interior ~-~`~~\i;l hf .,Q,P i~~--~' i ~ ~ v ~ NATIONAL PARK SERVICE KALOKO-HONOKOHAU NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK 73-4786 Kanalani St., x/14 Kailua-Kona, Hawaii 96740 May 13, 2002 Mr. Christopher Yuen Planning Director County of Hawaii Planning Department 25 Aupuni Street, Room 109 Hilo, HI 96720-4252 Dear Mr. Yuen: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Change of Zone Application (REZ 02-009) from TSA Corporation (TSA), TMK 7-3-051:060, for a change from Open (O) to Industrial-Commercial Mixed District (MCX-la). Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park (National Park or Park) is primarily concerned with the protection of the pristine groundwater that flows into the Park from upland, supporting the Park's critical cultural and natural resources. The most significant wetland along the Kona coast, Aimakapa fishpond, and numerous smaller anchialine pools are found in the Park. These resources rely on the fresh groundwater that flows beneath the development mauka of the Park and supports ancient fishponds, native Hawaiian traditional and cultural practices as well as endangered waterbirds (Hawaiian stilt and Hawaiian coot), threatened and endangered sea turtles (green sea turtle and hawksbill sea turtle), and the occasional endangered Hawaiian monk seal. The offshore area of the Park includes pristine coral reefs and some of Hawaii's most popular dive spots. None of these National Park resources should be sacrificed to nearby industrial development. It is obvious that development in west Hawaii is affecting water quality. A recent Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) report found, for the first time, that twelve areas along the west Hawaii coast no longer meet state water quality standards (see attached EPA Section 303(4) letter and reports). This report demonstrates that even the most pristine areas, such as North Dona, are not immune from the adverse impacts of development, but rather are in need of immediate protection. Because of our concerns about the impacts of this industrial development on the natural and cultural resources found in the Park, NPS intervened in the State Land Use Commission (LUC) contested case hearing on the redistricting of the TSA property from Conservation to Urban District. In its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decision and Order, dated February 14, 2002 (LUC FFCLDO), the LUC recognized the potential adverse impacts of this development and the legal and constitutional obligation to protect and preserve the resources of the Park. The LUC imposed several conditions ~o~a His ~ 1~iI~ ~m~ ; 1;*, lea ~ on TSA's redistricting, many of which require the involvement and participation of the County of Hawaii (County} and, still others, are conditions that are applicable to the County's activities on the subject property and should be adopted as such. In support of its application for rezoning, TSA has submitted and relied heavily upon the Final Environmental Irripact Statement (FEIS) drafted for the LUC proceedings. While it is true that the LUC accepted the FEIS, the subsequent LUC hearing and the Hawaii Administrative Rules (HAR) make clear that "acceptance does not mean that the action is environmentally sound..." (HAR § 11-200-2.) In fact, a primary component of the case made by the NPS before the LUC established that TSA failed to present competent and reliable studies showing that the proposed industrial development would not adversely impact the National Park's resources. (LUC FFCLDO, Finding of Fact ~i 294) What is not found in TSA's application to the County or in their FEIS is that: The potential impacts to the groundwater water quality of the National Park are not adequately assessed. or mitigated in Petitioner's proposed project. Untreated surface water from the industrial development will potentially impact National Park resources by contaminating the groundwater that reaches the Park's ponds and coastal areas. Petitioner estimates a 50% increase of added nitrogen to the environment of the National Park from the full industrial build-out mauka of the National Park. This impact will likely be detrimental to the [Park's] ponds. (LUC FFCLDO, Findings of Fact ¶~i 343, 319, 289) In the face of these findings, the County cannot rely upon TSA's application. These and other facts should be central to the County's consideration of the application and the appropriate conditions on such change of zone to address the potentially deleterious effects of the proposed use, in accordance with HAR § 25-2-44. Like the LUC, the County is subject to Article XII, Section 7 of the Hawaii Constitution which requires the protection of native Hawaiian traditional and customary rights. The LUC expressly determined that: [N]ative Hawaiian rights and natural and cultural resources would be damaged or destroyed by the pollution of groundwater that reaches the National Park from surrounding areas, including [TSA]'s proposed development at the Kaloko Industrial Park. Appropriate mitigation measures are, therefore, required under the Hawaii Constitution in order to approve reclassification ofthe project area. (LUC FFCLDO, Conclusion of Law ¶ 7) _ Accordingly, only careful and complete implementation of the LUC's mandatory conditions will adequately mitigate the unacceptable adverse impacts of TSA's proposed industrial development on the coastal resources, particularly the natural and cultural resources of the adjacent National Park and the traditional and customary native Hawaiian practices that depend on the pristine nature of such resources. Through this rezon'ng process, the County should address its role in the TSA development, as determined by the LUC. A number of the conditions of approval imposed by the LUC on TSA's proposed development require active involvement by the County. For example, condition 2a calls for County approval of covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&rs) to contain spills and prevent materials from leaching or draining into the ground or subsurface storm drain collection areas. Condition lb, regarding wastewater disposal, requires the approval and funding of a County improvement district to connect the TSA and surrounding property to the Kealakehe @Vastewater Treatment Plant (~JVTP). In this proceeding, the County must explore publicly the process for evaluating and identifying the appropriate CC~iI~s for the TSA development. Among other things, this may include County commitment to participation in the regional pollution prevention forum established by the LUC condition 3g. In addition, the County should commit to prioritizing implementation of the project to connect the Kaloko area to V~VV`I'P..As you may be aware, connection to the local WWTP is a priority for the NPS and we have been and will continue to work collaboratively with the County. Like the impervious areas within an industrial development, roadways also contribute to the significant risk of surface water contamination. Surface water runoff is a signif cant nationwide problem for groundwater pollution and, consequently, one of the greatest threats of this proposed development to the National Park. Surface water runoff from roadways is exposed to petroleum products, metals and other pollutants that threaten the resources of the National Park. (See LUC FFCLDO, Finding of Fact ~ 309.) The consequences of nonpoint source pollution are increased risk of disease from water recreation, algae blooms, fish kills, destroyed aquatic habitats, and turbid waters. (LUC FFCLDO, Finding of Fact ~I 310.) The County should carefully review the entire LUC FFCLDO in its consideration of and decision regarding this rezoning application. The facts established by the LUC hearing and the LUC conditions of approval clearly determine that the County's activities on the TSA property must be subject to sianilar conditions. During the LUC hearing, TSA alleged that all of the roadway drainage systems will be dedicated to the County and will not include any treatment aspect to them because the County is unwilling to accept any of those units as part of the dedication. However, the Hawaii Constitution, the LUC's decision, and federal law all necessitate that the County's roadways adhere to the same protective measures required of TSA and determined to be necessary to preserve the National Park's resources. Containment and removal of contamination from surface water runoff is a basic tenet of the State of Hawaii's goals for nonpoint source ~llution control. These goals must be met soon for the State of Hawaii to avoid penalties under the Coastal Zone Act reauthorization Amendments of 1990, Section 6217. For all these reasons, the LUC conditions of approval 2b, 2h and 3e, requiring structural BMPs and vegetated swales to remove surface water contaminants, should be incorporated an adopted by the County as applicable to all areas in TSA development dedicated to the County. We believe that the NPS is an adjacent owner of property directly affected by the proposed rezoning and would like to receive notice of all actions related to this and other properties mauka of the National Park. At your convenience, we would like to meet with you to discuss our concerns and to familiazize you with the Park and its important cultural and natural resources. Thank you for your consideration in this Ynatter. Sincerely, Geraldine Bell Superintendent Stateane®~ ®I' Ka1®ko-lE~®nnk®hau 1~Tati®nal Dist®rical Park TS.~ Aggiisa~ias~ ff~g Z®a~s Chance ~a~aii Ca~s~ky iaiaa~ning C~ne~eni~i®ra Heariea~ .iaa9g~ 3, 20iB2 My name is Nicole ~1Valthall. I am an Assistant Field Solicitor for the Department of Interior representing the National Park Service, Kaloko- Honokohau National Historical Park. Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the Change of Zoning Application for Phases III and IV of the Kaloko Industrial Park from ®pen District to Industrial-Commercial Mixed District. As expressed in our written comments to the Planning Department, the National Park is primarily concerned with the protection of the pristine groundwater that flows from the mountain mauka of the Park (under all of the mauka development) and into the Park's nearshore and coastal waters. The Park's cultural and natural resources, including the most significant wetland along the Kona coast, are sustained by this fresh groundwater. The grouting industrial development in west Hawaii is affecting this region's water quality. Late last year, the Environmental Protection Agency announced that twelve areas no longer meet state water quality standards, including Kailua Bay, Magic Sands Beach and Banyan Surf Area. In the Park, Aimakapa Pond is showing signs of excessive nutrient input. Studies of fish tissue and sediments from Aimakapa Pond have found traces of heptachlor, chordane-related compounds, dieldrin, mirex, endrin, DDS and DDT, among others. Many of these contaminants are pesticides and herbicides. One groundwater well in the Park shows evidence of petroleum contamination. The current I~aloko Industrial Park has experienced at lease one oil spill and the most recent annual report to the Land Use Commission from the McClean property, which is also mauka of the IOTational Park, reported four petroleum spills, one of which was so severe that the contamination reached 30 feet below ground. In its consideration of the proposed new industrial development, the State Land Use Commission recognized the potential adverse impacts of this proposed development and identified the legal and constitutional obligation to protect and preserve the Park's resources and native Hawaiian cultural practices. Like the Land Use Commission, the County must follow the mandate of the Hawaii Constitution and the federal Coastal Zone Management Act and impose mitigation measures that protect the Park's natural and cultural resources. The Park is please to see that the Planning Department's Background Report and Recommendation call for compliance with all of the Land Use Commission's conditions. But the Land Use Commission's conditions alone are not adequate. Because of arguments put forth by TSA and the County during the hearings, the Land Use Commission stopped short of applying surface water runoff mitigation measures to the construction and maintenance of the County roads within the development. All impermeable surfaces, including the roadways dedicated to the County, should be subject to similar conditions. Like the impervious areas within an industrial development, roadways also contribute to the significant risk of surface water contamination. Surface water runoff from roadways is exposed to petroleum products, metals and other pollutants that threaten the resources of the National Park. The consequences of nonpoint source pollution include an increased risk of disease from water recreation, algae blooms, fish kills, destroyed aquatic habitats, and turbid waters. It is up to the County now to acknowledge and incorporate all of the Land Use Commission's surface water runoff conditions as applicable to the public road construction and maintenance within this proposed development. The Coastal Zone Management Act, as implemented by the State of f€awaii, requires all counties to develop new rules for road construction and maintenance that will adequately mitigate impacts from polluted runoff. The County of Hawaii is now under contract with the State to achieve this mandate. Eut there is no point in waiting. The most effective and economical time to address control of nonpoint source pollution from roads and highways is during the initial planning and design phase. Erosion and sediment control structures should be planned and located during the design phase and included as part of the design specifications to ensure that such structures are provided. The County should act now, today, to ensure that the development mauka of this National Park meets these new requirements to protect the valuable resources of the National Park. For all these reasons, the County, at a minimum, should expressly adopt those Land Use Commission's conditions of approval requiring surface water containment systems, catch basins, and vegetated swales to remove surface water contaminants as applicable to all areas of TSA development, including those public roads dedicated to the County. Finally, the Park requests that the Planning Commission specifically exclude a particularly threatening use from TSA's planned development the storage, sale or manufacturing of pesticides, including herbicides. "Pest control facility" is not listed as a permitted business use in Industrial- Commercial Ndixed done (I~ICX), so we assume that no such use could be permitted. I~owever, Phases I and II were designated Limited Industrial (1VIL-la) and a pest control business called "Terminix" is a current tenant in the existing Phase II of Kaloko Industrial Park. Pesticide and pesticide- related compounds that have been found in the Park's fishpond sediments and fish tissue include several chemicals that were used or are currently used for termite control. Pesticides are a significant source of groundwater contaminant on the Island of Oahu. r spill of pesticides in the project area could reach the groundwater and be devastating to marine, fishpond, and anchialine pool species. Even small releases can build up in animal tissue causing reproductive and other endocrine disorders. Therefore, we request the Planning Commission explicitly exclude from Phases III and IV any facility involving pesticide storage, sale, use or manufacturing in order to prevent their possible release into the Park environment. Thank you for your time and consideration of our comments. E"' r United States De artment of the Interior .r 3~ Q NATIONAL PARK SERVICE r..~. KALOKO-HONOKOHAU NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK ~ 73-4786 Kanalani St., /f 14 Kailua-Kona, Hawaii 96740 August 22, 2002 Hawaii Island County Council 25 Apuni Street, Room 209 Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Dear Hawaii Island County Council Members: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Change of Zone Application (REZ 02- 009) from TSA Corporation (TSA), TMK 7-3-051:060, for a change from Open (O) to Industrial-Commercial Mixed District (MCX-1 a) to facilitate expansion of the Kaloko Industrial Park. The National Park Service has taken an active role in this proposed development since its inception before the State Land Use Commission (LUC). Kaloko- Honokohau National Flistorical Park is situated makai of the proposed development and the existing Phases I and II of the industrial park. As demonstrated before the LUC and as expressed in our comments to the County Planning Department, the National Park is primarily concerned with the protection of the pristine groundwater that flows from the mountain mauka of the Park (under all of the mauka development) and into the Park's nearshore and coastal waters. The Park's cultural and natural resources, including the most significant wetland along the Dona coast, are sustained by this fresh groundwater. Should this water become contaminated, the resources of the National Park are at risk. Surface water runoff is a significant nationwide problem for groundwater pollution and, consequently, one of the greatest threats of this proposed development to the National Park. The LUC found that surface water runoff from roadways is exposed to petroleum products, metals and other pollutants that threaten the resources of the National Park. (LUC FFCLDO, Finding of Fact ~I 309.) Accordingly, the LUC imposed significant conditions on the new development aimed at controlling and containing polluted surface water runoff. But because of arguanents put forth by TSA and flee County~during the LUC hearings, the LUC stopped short of applying surface water runoff mitigation measures to the construction and maintenance of the County roads within the development. It is these roads that the Park comes before the County Council to address. The Park also requests that the County specifically exclude a particularly threatening use from the planned developrYaent commercial pest control facilities. Pesticide and pesticide-related compounds are capable of traveling long distances, even when incidentally released into a water source, and are known to cause devastating impacts to aquatic resources. During the recent County Council meeting on August 13, 2002, Dr. Stanley Bond, the Resource Manager from the Park, presented the Park's request that storm water runoff from County dedicated roadways be treated before entering the ground and that the County specifically exclude commercial pest control facilities. In response to our request, the Council asked the Park to submit specific written recommendations that would address the Park's concerns. Our recommendations are as follows: For surface watemmoff, the Park concurs in principle with TSA submitted engineered drawings for vegetated swales along all roadways within the proposed development. The Park acknowledges that these swales will offer some reduction in pollutants from roads. However, it is not adequate for the water running fram the swales to be released directly into dry wells. We recommend that the County, like the LUC, require that all roadway dry wells include a catchment basin, such that all surface water, after passuag through a vegetated Swale, will run into the catchment basin prior to entering the dry well. Catch basilis-help remove sediments and larger debris that can pass through a Swale unmitigated. Therefore, the Park submits that an adequate system of vegetated swales, catchment basins, and dry wells is an adequate mitigation measure for storm water runoff from roadways within the proposed development. As for the threat of pesticide releases, the National Park offers the following language concerning pest control facilities: Commercial pesticide, pest controland/or extermination facilities are prohibited. The intent is to exclude commercial businesses based upon use of these products, including bulk storage, distribution, or manufacturing. The retail sale ofpre-packaged pesticides to the general publac would not be a$~ected. The term pesticide includes herbicides, insecticides, and other related compounds. The Park requests that these conditions be imposed by the County on all development mauka of the National Park, including the McClean and Lanihau developments. Representatives of Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park will attend the next County Council meeting on August 27`~ to answer any questions the Council members may have. Thank you for your consideration of the important resources of the National Park. Sincerely, Geraldine Bell Superintendent Statement of lE~aloko-Honokohau loTational Historical Park TSA Appiesati~s~ f®r .Z®~i~g Chaa~g~ d-Ia~aai Csau~ty C®aancel He~rga~~ Aca~ust 2~, 2002 Good mornin~n Council members. Thank you for this opportunity to express the concerns of Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park. My name is Stanley Bond. I am the Resource Manager for the Park. Yesterday, we received a draft roadway drainage condition for the proposed Phases III and IV of the Kaloko Business Park. Unfortunately, the proposed drainage condition will not adequately protect the Park from non-paint source pollution from roadway runoff: The proposed condition relies entirely on existing state and federal rules to protect the pristine groundwater that flows beneath the mauka development into the National Park. There is a common misperception that the state Underground Injection Control (LTIC) requirements and the Federal Clean Water Act protect groundwater from nonpoint source pollution. In fact, until completion of the contested case hearing, the State Land Use Commission shared this misconception. The National Park Service has taken an active role in this proposed development since its inception before the State Land Use Commission. During the year-long contested case hearing, the testimony of both State and County experts from the Department of Health and the Department of Public V~Jorks overwhelmingly established that existing rules and regulations do not protect the Park and its resources from the release of contaminated surface water. The LUC's Findings of Fact reflected the fact that existing rules and regulations are inadequate to address nonpoint source pollution. The LUC's February 14, 2002, Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decision and Order (LUC FFCLDO) provides a wealth of information on this critical issue. The LUC findings related to storm water runoff which I will summarize for you, clearly demonstrate the need for specific additional conditions on roadway design that go beyond the inadequate existing applicable laws. There are no applicable permitting requirements for this development under the UIC requirements and no pollution safeguards. The LUC findings specifically confirm that the permitting requirements of the UIC do not address or control nonpoint source pollution (LUC FF# 410-412, 414, 415). An overlooked, but very important, point is that the UIC requirements are designed only to protect drinking water, and there are no drinking water resources in or adjacent to the Petition Area (TSA Phases III and IV) (LUC FF# 413). The proposed project is also below the UIC line and, therefore, does not require any UIC permit (Hew, 10/3. P. 120aines 13-15, lines 20-25). The LUC's findings provide describe the geographic and hydrological setting of the North Kona area. Fresh groundwater flow is from mauka to makai (LUC FF 330, 331). Because of the high permeability of volcanic rock the groundwater is vulnerable to impacts associated with industrial development (LUC FF 338). Ultimately, pollutants that enter the groundwater will find their way into Park waters and alter the natural ecosystems (LUC FF 339). With these facts in mind, the Park is particularly concerned with potential contaminants to surface water that will enter the groundwater. The LUC found that surface water runoff from roadways is exposed to petroleum products, metals and other pollutants that threaten the resources of the National Park. (LUC FFCLDO, Finding of Fact ~ 309.) A significant source of nonpoint source pollution is runoff of roadways, highways and parking lots. The design specifications of drainage wells do not inherently incorporate any structure or other design feature to remove petroleum, oil, or any contaminants contained in runoff. Perhaps most importantly, as representatives from the Safe Drinking Water Branch of the Department of Ilealth, Groundwater Protection Control Section, and the County Department of Public Works testified, there is no State law or County code currently in place to ensure that pollutants carried with surface runoff do not get into the environment through groundwater (Emler 7/18, p. 73:linesl6-22, 8/23, p. 116: lines 11-22; Hew 10/3, p. 109:lines 11-17). The Representative from the Groundwater Protection Branch of DOH testified to the following: Q. What kind of regulations are there applicable for the protection of significant environmental resources? A. There's nothing like that in our regulation under Title 11 Chapter 23. The injection wail regulations are more geared towards protecting underground sources of drinking water more so than, say, ecological systems that might be affected by injection wells. (Hew 10/3, p.109:11-17) The Representative from I-Iawaii County Department of Public Works testified to the following: COIO~II\~IISSIONER JARMAN: So you're really more concerned about the amount of water and not what's in the water in your regulations? THE WITNESS: That's correct. This lack of protection puts water quality and natural resources at risk where drainage wells are used without Best lO~Ianagement Practices, such as the proposed vegetative swales. In particular, testimony by the County expert revealed that County drainage well standards are only designed for flood control purposes and not for removing any hazardous substances (Emler, 8/23, p. l l l :lines 4-15). The County Codes for drainage wells do not address protection of significant environmental resources, but rather solely consider flood control and volume of runoff: Furthermore, the County does not consider nonpoint source pollution in -its review of surface discharge in development plans. The County applies the same standards to address runoff whether the proposed development is in an urban area or next to a IdTational Park (LUC FF 418-421). Likewise, the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) applies oniy to point source industrial discharges and industrial stormwater discharges (Lau 10/3, p. lines 7-24), which do require BMPs (Lau 10/3 p. 155: lines 4-12). The NPDES is primarily for heavy industry generated point source pollution and not for the types of commerciaUlight industrial uses found in this type of development. It is not anticipated that the types of businesses in Phases III and IV will require NPDES permits. Indeed, no businesses in the current Phases I and II require them (Lau 10/3 p.151:lines 3-15; Lau 10/3 p.157aines 15-18). The NPDES does not provide any protection to groundwater in this particular project. To summarize, because of the project location and types of businesses UCI permitting requirements and NPDES regulations do not apply. Therefore other conditions need to be imposed to reduce non-point source pollution.The National Park would like to see structural BMPs in place to prevent pollutants from entering the groundwater. The proposed change does not give us a system any dii~erent than the one already in place in the current development, which the LUC found inadequate. A system that allows roadway runoff to go directly into a dry well and from there directly into the ground without any treatment is not an adequate prevention measure for non point source pollution. One of the main reasons the Park has participated so closely in the permitting of this proposed development is that existing federal, state and local regulations do not protect the Park from potential pollution from this and other planned mauka developirients. In fact, according the Susan lOililler of the State Planning Department who is the State's expert on nonpoint source pollution, Hawaii County is under contract with the State Department of Health to develop a new ordinance that will adequately addresses non-point source pollution. This ordinance is mandated by the Clean Water Act and is overseen by the Environmental Protection Agency. Conclusion The LUC the legal and constitutional obligation to protect and preserve the resources of the Park, as set forth in Article XII, Section 7 of the Hawaii Constitution. The LUC expressly determined that: [N]ative Hawaiian rights and natural and cultural resources would be damaged or destroyed by the pollution of groundwater that reaches the National Park from surrounding areas, including [TSA]'s proposed development at the ICaloko Industrial Park. Appropriate mitigation measures are, therefore, required under the Hawaii Constitution in order to approve reclassification ofthe project area. (LUC FFCLDO, Conclusion of Law ~ 7) Like the LUC, the County is obligated to protect native Hawaiian traditional and customary rights and National Park resources. Accordingly, the County should impose the same stringent conditions on the County-dedicated roads as the LUC imposed upon the remainder of the proposed development. TESTII6~IO10TY REFEItItED TO IIOT TEXT Hew 10/3, p.109:11-17 Q. What kind of regulations are there applicable for the protection of significant environmental resources? A.There's nothing like that in our regulation under Title 11 Chapter 23. The injection well regulations are more geared towards protecting underground sources of drinking water more so than, say, ecological systems that might be affected by injection wells. Hew 10/3, p. 120:lines 13-15, 20-25 A. Industrial permits in watershed areas would be prohibited. You can only build these things below the UIC line or makai of the UIC line. Q. Where is this project, the proposed project in relation to the UIC line? A. I believe it's below the UIC line. Q. That's where industrial uses are permitted or allowed? A. Injection wells, right. Q. Right. Emler 7/18, p. 73aines 16-22 COMMISSIONER JARMAN: Could I ask one last question? Are the standards that you use to determine what the design is or should be, the County standards that you guys follow, are those standards based upon DOH criteria to ensure that the pollutants within storm water runoff don't get into the environment? THE WITNESS: No. COMMISSIONER JARMAN: They're not. Emler, 8/23, p. 116: lines 11-22 THE WITNESS: Well, I think, I think you're asking me whether the county accepts pollutants into these stormwater runoff systems as if we are approving it. And I don't think that's something we are doing. We're not approving it necessarily. It's something that has naturally occurred if there are pollutants that do get into the systems, and they do and we don't have regulations to prevent that. COMMISSIONER JARMAN: So you're really mere concerned about the amount of water and not what's in the water in your regulations? THE WITNESS: That's correct. Lau 10/3 p.151: lines 3-15 Q. And would that also now is an NPDES permit required, do you believe one would be required for the Kaloko industrial site? A. Only if it included tenants that fell within the federal guidelines, those 11 industrial categories that were identified under the 40 CFR. Q. What would those be? A. Well, they include lumber and wood products, paper products, chemical and allied products, petroleum and coal products, leather tanning and finishing, stone, clay and glass products, primary metal industries, fabricated structural metal, ship and boat repairing. It's a long list. You want me to read them all? Lau 10/3 p.157:lines 15-I8 COMMISSIONER ING: Dennis, in that NPDES permit that it seemed that present project has not had to have that type of permit, if I heard you correctly? THE WITNESS: That's correct. Lau 10/3 p. 155:lines 4-12 A. Normally those permits we require a stormwater pollution control plan. And that plan normally has ways to control stormwater through housekeeping methods, pollution prevention and discharge only after Best Management Practices have been implemented or put in place and implemented. Q. Does that include things that are structural BMPs or just housekeeping type BMPs? A. It could include both structural as well as nonstructural. Lau 10/3, p. 154:lines 7-24 Q. Just for a point of clarification, can you explain what the difference is between a non-point source pollution and point source pollution? A. Yes. Point source is from a discrete pipe conveyance or ditch. Anon-point source normally runs over land like discharges from urbanized areas or agricultural land. Q. Does a NPDES permit, is that required for point source or non-point source pollution? A. For point sources. In addition it's covered for stormwater discharges from industrial and construction activities. Q. So, for example, if you had an industrial use where you had some sort of drainage well in the middle of it but it was just a paved area, would that qualify for an NPDES permit or could that qualify? A. If it went into a drainage well? Q. Yes. A. No.