A.  Kailua Meeting, February 15, 2001

1.  I read the document with a critical eye and generally liked it.  I liked that it included short and long-term recommendations, the microbiological analysis, and the Kawai Nui Canal project.  I also found the ideas of a fuller plan and fund leveraging to be good ones.

None.

2.  Water testing needs to be done at multiple locations.

The recommendations will be coordinated with the KBAC Volunteer Water Quality Monitoring Program (VWQMP).

3.  Need to do more monitoring and modeling of the City and County Sewerage plumes.

The VWQMP may do this, although emphasis will be on nonpoint sources per the Consent Decree.

4.  Pleased that Enchanted Lake was included, and the issue of 40 years of sediment build up was addressed.  The C&C storm drains contribute to the sediment build up.  There is no longer any aeration taking place in the lake, the pollutants have built to problematic levels.

Supports recommendation to dredge portions of the lake.

5.  The drainage canal (ed. by Kaelepulu bridge) is clogged with debris.  If this situation continues with no attention it will back up at the bridge during a heavy rain and cause serious flooding.

The recommendations include dredging this area to improve circulation.

6.  Enchanted lake needs more attention than the residents can give it.

The recommendations would allocate KBAC and possibly Federal funds to the area.

7.  The living machine suggested for Meadow Gold Dairy in Waimanalo is a good idea.  The machine removes human and animal waste from water to a high (R1) standard.  Water is reusable on crops.

Supports recommendation.

8.  There is another machine similar to the living machine called a lake restorer that could be appropriate for Enchanted Lake to remove organic sediment.  If effective, the lake may not need to be dredged again in the future.

Information obtained by the Enchanted Lake Owners’ Association indicates that the use of the “machine “ would not remove existing sediment from the lake.  At his time, dredging is the proper solution.

9.  I reviewed the report with a critical eye, and found it well done and comprehensive.  The use and citing of sources added to the credibility of the report.  I hope that KBAC “runs” with this report. 

None.

10.  I have concerns about the interface with the government regarding highway cuts and their reforestation.  Specifically what % should be the City’s (ed. Or State’s) cost as opposed to KBAC’s cost, and how does it get done in a timely manner?

Preliminary coordination has been done with the State Highways Division concerning the highway cuts.  KBAC would fund the proposed project.

11.  I tried but couldn’t find problems with the entire report including the recommendations.

None.

12.  How will KBAC prioritize the recommendations?

KBAC will address this after the report is completed.

13.  The use of booms to catch debris/litter would be good, and California grass should be removed.  The booms would need periodic cleaning.

Booms have already been demonstrated to be effective.  The main problem is, as noted, that they require continued maintenance.

14.  Cleaning debris addresses visible changes in water quality.  We need to be sure to address the issues that really go to water quality, e.g. heavy metals etc.

Litter control is just one of the recommendations.  Other recommendations address bacteria, nutrients, chemicals, etc.

15.  How active is the voluntary water quality monitoring program?

Management of that program is done directly by KBAC, and is not a subject of this report.

16.  I applaud the first action strategy, it is most important to have an agreed upon action plan to moving forward.

Agreed.  The Watershed Restoration Action Strategy referred to is also a prerequisite to the receipt of certain State and Federal funds.

17.  I want to commend the consultant on the variety of recommendations; this is especially helpful in securing dollars and support.

None.

18.  In addressing restoration and vegetation projects, we need to make sure that the plant material is appropriate for holding soil as well as able to survive.  Can it survive without irrigation or does it need irrigation to be successful etc. are questions we need to answer and accommodate prior to planting.

Agreed.  Irrigation, if needed, will be provided by the project contractor. 

19.  We need to make sure that TMDLs are applicable to intermittent streams.

Many of Hawaii’s streams are considered to be both perennial and intermittent.  The maximum pollutant load that they can tolerate is, nevertheless, important information to help control stream pollution.

20.  As regards Kawai Nui we need to look at the natural flows, and work with them rather than trying to induce flows which as a strategy in the past has had limited success.

The recommendation concerning the Kawai Nui Canal is to determine the feasibility of restoring the natural flow of the canal that was cut off when the flood control berm was built in Kawai Nui Marsh.  The problem being addressed is the stagnant condition of the canal.

21.  KBAC and other organizations should urge the listing of Enchanted Lake as a Water Quality Limited Segment (WQLS) to qualify it for Federal funding, and provide maximum leveraging opportunities.  The next application period is in 2002.

An “impaired” designation would help to focus priority attention on the lake.  The proposed WRAS will make the lake eligible for certain EPA funds, although not with the same priority of a WQLS designation.

22.  As regards water quality in Enchanted Lake, we should also be looking at life forms such as barnacles and fish.

Improving habitat underlies many of the recommendations.  A detailed assessment such as a WRAS would appraise aquatic life.

23.  If we dredge the lake where would the dredged materials go?

There are two approaches.  It is less costly if the material can be used in the same area for shoreline addition.  The other option is to transport the dredged material elsewhere.  Depending on the composition of the material, it may need to be treated, or it may be acceptable for ocean disposal.  The funds allocated to this project in the report cover a variety of options.

24.  We need to look at screens and grills at the inlets to Enchanted Lake to catch cans and debris.

The recommendations propose to demonstrate the use of grills in storm drain inlets in the Ahiumanu area.  Enchanted Lake is too large an area for the test.  Storm drain filters are being tested in the Ala Wai Canal project.

17.      Disposal and maintenance of systems to catch stream debris is a problem, should be looking at a more sustainable approach.  Look at the big picture and interconnections instead of the short-term fixes.

Demonstrating the use of grills is only one of the projects recommended.  The WRAS will also address the “big picture”.

26.  Why are their only 16 recommendations?  Trash disposal is less of a water quality issue, and many of the recommendations address this.  The issues involved in the recommendations are not all of the same magnitude, and this should be considered when prioritizing the recommendations.  The current recommendations as presented are not prioritized.

The importance of various measures to combat nonpoint source pollution is reflected in the amounts of KBAC funds that are recommended for each project.  KBAC will be establishing further priorities.

27.  Kawai Nui Marsh is not adequately addressed.  A number of Marsh studies are not referenced.

With the major exceptions of addressing the lack of flow in Kawai Nui Canal, the TMDL for Kapaa Stream, and Maunawili Stream cleaning, the recommendations do not include any projects in the Marsh.  The State and Federal Governments are beginning a major $5 Million restoration project in the Marsh.  Also, the State and City are beginning a Leachates study re. The landfill.  Further projects in the Marsh should await results of these activities.

B.   Kaneohe Meeting (February 20, 2001)

1.  I liked the commitment to spend $2.5 Mil on water quality improvements.

None.

2.  I liked the recognition in the report that Kaneohe Bay has a serious sedimentation problem.

None.

3.  I liked the recognition that Enchanted Lake also has a serious sedimentation problem.

None.

4.  I liked the mix of specific short-term and long-term recommendations.

None.

5.  I like that the report exists.

None.

6.  I would like to see more specific recommendations of what landowners along Kaneohe Bay who are suffering from erosion can do individually or collectively to address the problem.  There needs to be commitment to work with and educate these landowners to enlist their assistance in solving the erosion/sedimentation problem.

Organizing these owners as a group would appear to be the first step.  A more specific problem definition is also needed.  The recommendation relating to education measures should help.

7.  There is a need to address how to mitigate stream erosion without cement with landowners adjacent to streams.

Agreed.  Stream restorations and education programs will demonstrate this

8.  The cementing of streams contributes to sedimentation so if we are going to dredge those areas that are suffering from sedimentation the plan needs to include how to return the tributaries to a biological state so that the sedimentation doesn’t just reappear later.

Generally agree.  Sedimentation from eroding stream banks can be addressed by bank grading and revegetation instead of concrete lining.  Sedimentation from other sources may still occur.  A sedimentation basin needs to be periodically cleaned or dredged to perform its function.

9.  The report does a good job in a lot of areas, and needs to look more closely at the importance of wetlands and their function in assisting in the control of sedimentation, etc.

Wetlands are an important part of the ecological process.  Not all are sediment traps.  Those that are need periodic cleaning or dredging.  Others need maintenance.  This must be done carefully to avoid habitat damage.

10.  Hawaiian fishponds should not be thought of or described as siltation basins.  Historically they were preceded by wetlands that served this function.

The report supports restoration of the remaining fishponds.  Silt would have to be removed from most.  In some cases it may be feasible to restore or create an upstream wetland.

17.       The document needs to integrate the ahupua’a concept within it; perhaps use Heeia as a case study.

The report supports the ahupua’a concept.  The recommendations are consistent with the use of the concept.

17.       Recommendation #2 needs to look at the watershed as a unit.

The recommendation is predicated on a “watershed” approach.

13.  Can we identify how much of the sedimentation problem is due to urbanization, and has the rate of sedimentation slowed as growth has slowed?  What is attributable to private residences as opposed to the concrete channelizing of streams?

The rate has stabilized somewhat, but is still considered to be high.  Much of Kaneohe Bay sedimentation began with agriculture followed by development.  Urban runoff, and sediment from urban development contains other pollutants as well as sediments; these need to be addressed.

14.  The report treats Koolaupoko as a region.  It would be better to have the specific recommendations relate to the ahupua’a in the region, and then be organized this way.

The Koolaupoko area has a distinct identity and integrity of its own.  Treating it as a region, as does the Consent Decree, and State and Federal governments, will maintain the “big picture” without compromising individual stream watersheds or ahupua’a.

15.  Recommendation #1 is not clear as to its purpose, and needs to have more information and explanation included.

The purpose of the WRAS is an action plan for water quality improvements in the Koolaupoko Watershed that will qualify the area for certain Federal funds.  See section on “leveraging”.

16.  Recommendation #4 seems to be part of a research project that effects areas outside of the study area.  The report needs to clarify and discuss its direct relationship to the study area.

The results of the study will be applicable anywhere, but will be very useful in the Watershed, especially in Waimanalo.  The project is discussed in detail in Exhibit A.

17.  Recommendation #11 seems very labor intensive.  If the grills are small enough to be effective it will clog quickly creating a whole new set of problems.  We need to look at options in the mainstream to divert litter.

The intent is to demonstrate the importance of keeping litter out of the streams.  Once litter gets into the streams, it can impede flow and introduce pollutants.  Frequent cleaning will be part of the project.

18.  In those areas where mangrove removal is an issue, the report should discuss what was there before, and did it serve as a buffer to the identified problems in the areas.

The report discusses why mangrove is a problem, e.g. clogging, as well as the fact that it is an alien species.

19.  There is a need to integrate these recommendations with those of the Kaneohe vision team so that duplication is avoided, and resources are leveraged.

This was previously done.

20.  Kahaluu Stream: is there a sedimentation basin for the stream, and if not, how will this need be addressed.

The Kahaluu “lagoon” acts as a sedimentation basin.  It is periodically dredged by the City and County of Honolulu.

21.  The report should address current EPA recommendations on stream flow and other watershed issues.

The report reflects extensive study of EPA recommendations related to nonpoint source pollution, especially in the section entitled “Koolaupoko Watershed Management Issues”.

22.  Reforestation/revegetation is a powerful tool for reducing sedimentation load.  The report needs to include more about these options.

These tools will be used in a number of the recommended projects.  Details will vary by project.

23.  The report needs to identify where topography is a contributor to severe erosion and sedimentation.

Sample sites with severe erosion were chosen to demonstrate solutions.

24.  When the report addresses reforestation/revegetation it needs to look at native species and make sure that the plantings will be successful in the chosen areas.

Native species will be used when available and suitable.  Proper maintenance will be required.

25.  I see two issues in the report dealing specifically with Kaneohe Bay in the near term, and two in the long term.  The report needs to provide more options that directly effect the health of the Bay.

The education and volunteer water quality management projects will also deal with Kaneohe Bay issues.

26.  Adequate water flows are key to the health of the watershed, and the report needs to look at these including minimum stream flows to make streams functional within the watershed.

The State Commission on Water Resource Management has recently been required by the Hawaii Supreme Court to determine minimum stream flows for a major portion of the Koolaupoko Watershed.  The report discusses this in the section entitled “Issues Remaining for Future Determination”.  This report does not recommend any projects in the affected streams until the minimum flows are established.  The report addresses stream flow outside the above area in a number of recommendations especially the Kaiwai Nui Canal project.

27.  Cleaning streams does not impact water quality so these types of projects should not have the same weight/priority as those that do impact water quality.

Cleaning streams impacts water quality by improving stream flow, removing some pollutants, and helping to educate the public.

28.  The report needs to look at City funds when it discusses fund leveraging.

All KBAC funds originated with the City and County.

29.  Need to look at reclamation of water for reuse within the watershed.  One of the options is that reuse could increase stream flows, and by so doing restore ecological viability to some intermittent streams.

Reclamation of sewage water is a point source issue that the City is testing elsewhere, especially in Ewa.  The report notes future reuse possibilities, and that the plans for the Waimanalo Wastewater Treatment Plant include reuse of treated water.

30.  The report needs to recognize that motor vehicle impacts are not included.  I am not asking that they be included after what the Ala Wai watershed study went through, but that they be recognized as contributing.

The report discusses the problem, as well as some solutions. 

31.  The report needs to integrate the Board of Water Supply long-term plans, and the potential impact of these.

The subject of report is polluted runoff.

32.  The report needs to look at the sociological component of the area – empowering the communities – there are people out there that would be interested in helping if they had the tools and knowledge.

The Consent Decree does not indicate any funds to social programs.  The educational projects should help mitigate this problem.

33.  Recommendations #8 and 9 are good projects, but the landowner (State Highways) needs to agree to maintain.

Long-term maintenance is the responsibility of DOT.  They are supportive of the proposals.

34.  The report needs to look at putting recommendations into categories e.g., one-time, long-range, research, etc., and give different weights to the categories and recommendations within the categories.

KBAC is planning to set priorities after the report is completed.

35.  An educational program on Olelo may not be effective.

Olelo does reach a portion of the public, and is only one of many proposed educational activities.

36.  The report needs to address how to educate people on these issues.

The discussion of education addresses this.

37.  Education efforts need to target what each person as an individual can do now to help the situation.

Agreed.

38.  Suggest an educational column in the Kaneohe section of the newspaper.

Newspaper columns are one of the proposed educational activities.

C.  Waimanalo Meeting (February 27, 2001)

1.  I like the idea of taking a watershed approach to the issue, and developing an action strategy plan for the whole district, also like the leveraging idea.

None.

2.  Liked the idea of a citizen drop off point for hazardous waste.

None.

3.  Concerned that the report says it focuses on nonpoint source pollution, but then discusses actions and remedies for industries in the area that have NPDES permits which makes them a recognized source.  I am concerned that some of the recommendations include companies that have the resources to fund their own solution, i.e. Meadow Gold had a net profit of $109 million with assets of $4 billion and $43 million in cash last quarter.

The recommendations focus on demonstrating solutions to a wide variety of nonpoint sources.  All pollution that finds its way into the streams and bays is a concern no matter what its source is called.  For instance, animal waste lying in the field is a nonpoint source.  When collected in holding ponds, the effluent is a “point” discharge and needs a NPDES.  The composting project is intended to mitigate all sources of farm animal waste in the area.  Meadow Gold may wish to assist with the project.

4.  The report page 8, para. 1 states that the Koolaupoko area will have no significant population increase – Waimanalo is forecast for a 50% increase in population which will be significant to the area, and needs to be reflected in the report.

See the Koolaupoko Sustainable Communities Plan footnoted on page 8.  No such increase for Waimanalo is contemplated by the plan.  A one-time reference to such an increase was deleted when its conflict with islandwide policy was confirmed.

5.  The “Living Machine” may be appropriate for Meadow Gold, but they should pay for it – funds for the lawsuit settlement should not be used.

See comment 3. above.

6.  Recommendation #6 concerning composting – I question if this should be a recommendation, seems to be based on the Unisyn model which was a failure.  Any proposal that includes moving animal waste to a collection site will be a failure.  There is no economic value in the cost of moving the manure, and when you consolidate it in one place you exponentially increase the odor and other problems associated with waste.

The Unisyn process included other forms of waste as well as animal waste.  It also used a “anaerobic” (lacking air) approach to composting.  The proposed project would be “aerobic” (using air), and demonstrate composting as a solution to the problem of animal waste pollution of the streams and Bay.  Both the physical and economic results will be evaluated.  If a solution is not found, stricter government regulation of the keeping of farm animals may result.

7.  The compost created by the current horse operations in the area is already utilized by the farmers.

If it is compost that is used, that is good.  If it is manure, it is a problem.

8.  One of the problems is allowing open pit lagoon manure storage, which throws off methane gas.  Question whether anything from this type of process is pathogen free.

Agreed.  A well managed compost operation will kill most pathogens.

9.  The nutrient loading sources on Waimanalo Stream are unclear.  There are plastic bottle caps at the reservoir outfall which would indicate that something is getting into the reservoir where water is delivered via a closed pipe.  Could this be another source of nutrient loading?  Until we are clear as to what the sources are, recommendations aimed at solving the problem should not be arrived at or funded.

The recommended project first requires a plan for restoration of the stream to be prepared by the person or group doing the restoration.  That will make clear what is required.  The TMDL process will also provide significant information.

10.  Considering the Meadow Gold site for consolidation of manure and composting doesn’t adequately consider the impacts, and might precipitate community opposition.  The report should consider strategies that mitigate potential impacts, such as reconsider cooperative approach rather than consolidation.  Work with agricultural community to incorporate the farmer’s concerns.  We are not even sure manure is a problem.

The report indicates that a certain scale of operation is necessary.  A cooperative is a possible approach.  In that way, all participants would share in the proceeds from the sale of the compost.

11.  I am concerned that Meadow Gold is a primary beneficiary of the money spent in Waimanalo, and that they should use their own resources.

None.

12.  There needs to be consultation with the farmers in Waimanalo concerning the recommendations in the area.

The farms and their output of animal waste have been well studied.  These community meetings have been given wide notice and have been well advertised.  The existence of KBAC has been known for many years, and their meetings are open to the public.

13.  Need to go to farmers before making recommendations rather than after.  The rationale exhibited in the report seems to be based on funding options rather than the actual basis of the problem.

This is exactly the purpose of the “Public Review Draft” process that we are conducting.  The report conducts an extensive problem analysis in the section on Specific Issues.

14.  Page 33 of the Consent Decree talks about community involvement.  Feel that this has not taken place.  How did you gather community input?  The DOH TMDL study is not emphasized as we feel it should be.  The Neighborhood Board was not approached.  It is unclear to us as to how the recommendations were arrived at.

In addition to meetings with area residents and representatives of community groups, a “Public Review Draft” of the report was prepared.  The report was placed in the public library in each of the three major sub-watershed areas, as well as in the main State library.  The report is available online at the KBAC website, and was e-mailed to a number of people who requested it.  Copies of the entire report were distributed at each of three community meetings held in the area, as were copies of the Executive Summary.  Notices of the meetings were mailed to approximately 300 individuals, organizations, and agencies on the KBAC mailing list including the four Neighborhood Boards, and advertised in the daily newspaper.  Comment forms were also available at the meetings for comments to be mailed in.  The TMDL process is explained in the report.  The Waimanalo Stream TMDL is not yet in final form, but is indicated as an important data source for the restoration of Waimanalo Stream.

15.  There was an interim report issued by Eugene Dashiell and we tried to respond.  Not sure we were heard at all.

A matrix of all community comments made on the interim report was prepared, and is on file at KBAC.  It was reviewed as part of the preparation of this report.

16.  We would like to see meaningful consultation with the community not individual meetings.

See response 14. Above.

17.  The TMDL study seems disjointed from these recommendations.  They do not address nitrates/phosphates etc. at specific sites.

The Technical Program Report and the TMDL report are quite consistent.  The TMDL study found that “Waimanalo Stream is impaired primarily by sediments and nutrients (p. 10).  The Technical Program Report makes proposals to remedy those conditions by eliminating animal waste nutrients, and reducing the need for fertilizer that contains nitrates and phosphates.

18.  The executive summary seems to build on previous efforts prior and during KBAC’s inception.  Recommendations are based on assumptions rather than findings.

Perhaps a review of the references cited in the report will help make the basis clear.

19.  KBAC should extend comment period to afford the Neighborhood Board the opportunity to review/discuss and comment on the report.  Need at least a month, two would be better.

Not a subject of this report.

20.  The Bellows restoration efforts are not consulted even though the findings from these efforts would inform the overall analysis.  This group should be consulted.

The detailed restoration data referred to can be used in the preparation of the plan for Waimanalo Stream if relevant.

21.  Recommendation #8 regarding stream erosion, nice title but not much substance.

#8 concerns a good site to test reforestation of a hillside.

22.  KBAC should fund engineering studies for the purpose of restoring stream flow and the water table levels.

With the exception of Kaiwai Nui Canal, the report emphasizes projects over engineering studies to be consistent with the Consent Decree.

23.  The State is a major contributor to the problems, and they are not present.  They have no flood control plans for the area, and over the years have probably contributed more to the problem than Meadow Gold.  They need to be present and held responsible.

Comment should be addressed directly to the State.

24.  The funding driven projects noted in the report are not integrated which will lead to reduced effectiveness.  The need is to galvanize the community, and work with them to come up with a set of recommendations that are integrated, and bring all the players including the State to the table.

The recommendations are “integrated” with respect to remedying problems, and making significant improvements to water quality, which is the objective of KBAC.

25.  What are we looking at for erosion control on streams, not concrete?  This just increases sediment problems; need to look at softer remedies.

Agreed.

26.  Need to get all players involved – the outcome would be an agreement between the agencies and the community on how streams will be managed.

This report is action oriented; emphasizing projects for significantly improving water quality.

27.  The need is to get data before we spend money on recommendations that are not adequately examined.

Too often this is the basis for nothing ever getting done.  The report provides adequate detail and rationale for the projects recommended.

28.  Community expectations are not satisfied unless their input is meaningfully sought and incorporated.  There is a disconnect between the community and the recommendations as prepared by the consultant.

To the contrary, the recommendations have been very well received so far.  All comments and responses are available on file at KBAC.

29.  KBAC needs to explicitly spell out criteria for the prioritizing of recommendations.  They need to get stakeholder support for their recommendations, and this is done by having data that proves the impact of the problem being addressed on water quality.  An example would be the necessary studies and action to restore the water table and habitat in Waimanalo Stream.

KBAC will prioritize recommendations at a later date.  A plan for Waimanalo Stream is one of the recommendations.

30.  KBAC should set aside each community’s share of the funding for use by the community on community approved actions and projects that address water quality.

The main thrust of the Consent Decree is the improvement of water quality, and KBAC is responsible for project allocations.  Projects are recommended in each community based upon existing water quality problems.

31.  Although you talk about leveraging, the only project in Waimanalo that mentions this is the restoration of the stream.  The other recommendations that assist private companies such as Meadow Gold do not mention leveraging or matches.

The largest proposed project in Waimanalo (Rec. #6) “Composting of Animal Waste”, poses the possible “leveraging” of this project by $325,000, and is based on a land contribution for the facility.

32.  The dollars for recommendation #7 need to be increased.

An increase will be considered.

33.  Do we know the % of stream waste that is currently channeled into the Bay?

Streams have been addressed because of their high levels of water pollutants.

34.  We should examine how Bellows could be used or might come into play as a buffer zone or wetland to remove nutrients/sediment etc. prior to waters entering the Bay.

This matter is discussed in the report.

35.  The funds were allocated to three communities.  What rationale was used to determine this?  Waimanalo funds seem to be only allocated to immediate short-term projects while the other areas have long-term projects noted.  We need to look at long-term mitigation in Waimanalo.  It also appears that when you take out those projects that benefit private companies, Waimanalo is left with a token amount.

As mentioned above, the Consent Decree requires “major improvements to water quality”.  One major consideration was to address the four DOH designated “Limited Water Quality Segments”, only one of which is in Waimanalo.  One of the major long-term mitigation recommendations is the composting project for Waimanalo.

36.  Equality of fund distribution is a concern.

Funds are recommended for each of the three watershed areas in a manner that will make “major improvements to water quality”.  Proposed project funding amounts to over $1 million for each community.

37.  Recommendation (5) concerning the Living Machine’s use at Meadow Gold – do we know how Meadow Gold feels?

There have been preliminary discussions with Meadow Gold.  Further discussion will follow KBAC approval of the recommendation.

38.  Need clarification between the $250,000 noted in the report for DNA research, and the $90,000 noted for the same in the matrix.

Matrix was corrected to $250,000.

39.  Who would do the restoration action plan?

KBAC would issue a request for proposals (RFP).

40.  Is what is referred to in the report being confused with the Wing King reservoir?  If this is the case, then it may be appropriate to spend some of this money on clean up of this area.  Use of the Living Machine at Wing King through KBAC, if it will work, is appropriate, but not for use on private property, i.e. Meadow Gold.  Wing King is seven times more polluted than sewage.

No, there is no confusion.  The recommended project concerns the ponds at Meadow Gold.

41.  Waimanalo should get its share of funds for the community to manage in solving its water quality problems.  The community could create its own 501(c) 3, and come up with a better approach.

Not a subject for the consultant report.  See comment #30.

42.  When will the compilation of community notes be available?

This matrix will be available at the end of March, 2001.

43.  KBAC should fund a facilitated stakeholder process to develop a mutually acceptable memorandum of agreement for stream and stormwater management in Waimanalo.

Something to consider for the future, but not a basis to delay any of the recommended projects.

44.  (Ed.  The remaining comments are extracted from a comprehensive letter received from Lisa Ferentinos of Waimanalo.  A copy of the entire text of the letter has been transmitted to KBAC for their consideration and filing.)

N/A

45.  Although the report notes that “further investigation is required in Waimanalo” (ed. concerning sewage sources), there are no recommendations in the report to do so.

The report makes very significant recommendations to help identify the source of nutrients in Waimanalo water bodies.  The recommended R&D work under Dr. Alam, when complete, will enable a determination as to whether the source is human or animal. (See Exhibit A).

46.  The report states that “Mitigation measures for the Waimanalo Bay sub-watershed are geared to its immediate concerns.”  However, since no watershed scale analysis has yet been done, the immediate concerns have not been properly identified.

Waimanalo water quality problems were classed as “immediate” because, relative to other parts of the region, they are prominent (e.g., algal blooms from high nutrient loads); contributing sources are reasonably identified; and significant remedial action can be recommended with a high degree of confidence.

47.  A KBAC allocation of $2,592,000 has been proposed.  Only $520,000 of this amount is proposed to address the particular water quality problems of Waimanalo, although other assessment and educational projects may have some impact on Waimanalo if the community is involved in their design and implementation.

When total project costs are used, the recommendations allocate $1.3 million to Waimanalo; $1.8 million to Kailua; and $985,000 to Kaneohe.  If just KBAC resources were used, Waimanalo would receive $855,000, Kailua, $1,080,000 and Kaneohe, $657,500.  Universal allocations, such as “education” are pro-rated equally.

48.  The statement that no population figures are forecast is incorrect.  Waimanalo’s population is projected to increase 50% in the next twenty years.

The Koolaupoko Sustainable Communities Plan does not project a 50% population increase for Waimanalo.  See comment No.4.

49.  The most significant variable in water quality degradation is the per cent imperviousness of the watershed.

See report for discussion of the need for zoning to leave more land uncovered by structures.

50.  Emergency Response Issues:  This section should mention the sewer overflows experienced at the WWWTP which are conducted through the Polo Field by a channel leading to Inoaole Stream.

The report includes sewage spills in its discussion of emergency response issues.

51.  The TMDL study was not conducted in the sewage treatment plant watershed.  The TMDL study did not collect the data required to determine if the high levels of nitrate were coming from agricultural sources or from unsewered areas …

As reported, molecular “source tracking” will distinguish pollutants from human sewage and animal waste.  In addition, no further study is needed to determine that there is a large amount of animal waste pollutant in the watershed that must be addressed for water quality improvement.

52.  (Ed. Compost) storage on site will still be a problem.

The proposed composting facility is in an enclosed building and is designed to accommodate all of the animal waste on a daily basis.  There will be no outside storage of animal waste.  Storage of finished compost will be outside, but is an inert substance at that point.

53.  Leveraging:  The $150,000 of UWA money is going to a group only dealing with a portion of Kaneohe Bay.  KBAC should ensure this effort in all its watersheds by providing matching funds for a full process.  This is the most important first step KBAC could make.

Agreed.  This is our recommendation No. 1.  Federal funds for a portion of it are still a possibility.