KBAC CONSULTANT’S DRAFT REPORT
PUBLIC INFORMATIONAL MEETING
Kailua 7 – 9 PM
February 15, 2001
Group Memory
The meeting began with an overview from the consultants (Don Bremner and Chuck Prentiss) concerning the report structure and its recommendations. The list of recommendations was available as a handout to all that attended.
The purpose for the meeting was to present the consultant’s draft recommendations to the public for comment prior to the submittal of the draft report to the KBAC Advisory Committee for their consideration. The outcomes for the meeting were to develop a list of what those attending liked about the recommendations and what changes they would like to see considered.
During the public comment period a question was asked as to how long KBAC would be in existence, as some of the recommendations if implemented would need monitoring and oversight. It was noted that KBAC was not on the agenda for the meeting and that the meeting was set up by the consultants to present their draft report prior to its submission to KBAC. One member of KBAC, later during the meeting, did volunteer that he felt that if any of the recommendations were adopted by KBAC for implementation then the organization would provide monitoring and oversight.
Comment: I read the document with a critical eye and generally liked all of it. I liked
that it included short and long-term recommendations. I specifically liked the microbiological analysis and the Kawainui efforts. I also found the ideas of a fuller plan and fund leveraging to be good ones.
Comment: Probes need to be taken at multiple places – need to look at O2 in
Kawainui – need to do more monitoring and modeling of the City and County sewerage plumes.
Comment: Pleased that Enchanted Lakes was included and the issues of 40 years of
sediment build up was addressed. There is the problem of the C&C storm drains feeding into the lake which contributes to the very heavy build up. There are ten feet of sediments and muck in the lake, which means that there is no longer any aeration taking place in the lack. The pollutants have built to problematic levels.
Comment: The drainage canal into the lake 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 problems.
Comment: The small efforts of the community association in the area are insufficient
the lake needs additional attention and effort.
Comment: The living machine suggested for Meadow Gold in Waimanalo is a good
idea. The machine removes human and animal waste from H2O to a R1 standard. This means that the water is reusable on crops etc. It is currently operating at the Ewa slaughterhouse and tours are available.
Comment: There is another machine similar to the living machine called a lake
restorer that could be appropriate for Enchanted Lake. The machine removes organic sediment. It has been used in cranberry bogs and has removed 8 feet of sediment in 3 years. Once the lake is restored maintenance is important. If there is a decision to dredge then we need to couple that with what we do so that we do not have to dredge again. The cost of the machine would be dependent on the type and load of sediment to be addressed. More information on the technology can be found on www.oceanarks.org.
Comment: I reviewed the report with a critical eye and found it well done and
comprehensive. The use and siting of sources added to the credibility of the report. I hope KBAC “runs” with this report. I do have concerns about the interface with the city regarding the highways cuts and their reforestation, specifically what % should be the city’s cost as opposed to KBAC’s cost and how do we get this addressed in a timely manner?
Comment: I tried but couldn’t find problems with the entire report including the
recommendations.
Comment: You can find the report in its entirety on www.kbac-hi.org in the report
section.
Comment: How will KBAC prioritize the recommendations? (Again it was noted that
this was the consultant’s meeting and that KBAC was not on the agenda but would address these issues after the report is forwarded to them)
Comment: The use of booms to catch debris/litter would be good depending on its
effectiveness – the recommendation goes further into the removal of grass etc. – booms require periodic cleaning to remain effective and this maintenance cost and process needs to be included if this recommendation is adopted.
Comment: Cleaning debris addresses visible changes in H2O quality – we need to be
sure to address the issues that really go to water quality i.e. heavy metals etc. not just aesthetics.
Comment: How active is the voluntary H2O quality monitoring? (No one was
available to answer that questions)
Comment: I applaud the first action strategy – it is most important to have an agreed
upon action plan prior to moving forward.
Comment: I want to commend the consultant on the variety of recommendations this
is especially helpful in securing dollars and support.
Comment: 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.
Comment: We need to make sure that TMDLs are applicable to intermittent streams.
Comment: As regards Kawai Nui we need to look at the natural flows and work with
them rather then trying to induce flows which as a strategy in the past has had limited success.
Comment: KBAC and other organizations should urge the listing of Enchanted Lake
as a WQLF to qualify for federal funding and provide maximum leveraging opportunities. The next application period is in 2002. Susan Miller volunteered to help get the word out.
Comment: As regards H2O quality in Enchanted Lake should we also be looking at
life forms such as barnacles and fish in these studies? (It was noted that while this is worthwhile it is probably not important at this stage)
Comment: If we dredge the lake where would the dredge go? (There are two
approaches – it is easier if the dredge material can be used in the same area for shoreline addition etc., which would be less costly – the other option is to transport the dredge elsewhere. Depending on the composition of the dredge material it may need to be treated or it may be appropriate for ocean dumping off South `Oahu. The 600K allocated to this project in the report cover a variety of options.)
Comment: Need to look at screens and grills at the inlets to Enchanted Lakes to catch
cans and debris.
Comment: 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. (Clarification the C&C disposes of stream debris the Army Corps establishes the rules for disposal of dredge materials.)
Comment: 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.
It was noted that there were handout comment sheets to make any further comments that attendees wanted to make. It was also suggested that these sheets and the recommendations be shared with persons not able to attend this evening meeting so that they might comment. These sheets need to be received by March 5, 2001. It was also noted that there are two more meetings regarding the draft recommendations. One on Tuesday February 20 at &PM at the Kaneohe Senior Center and the other on Tuesday February 27, 2001 at the Waimanalo Library.
The meeting adjourned at 8:45.
KBAC CONSULTANT’S DRAFT REPORT
PUBLIC INFORMATIONAL MEETING
Kaneohe 7 – 9 PM
February 20, 2001
Group Memory
The meeting began with an overview from the consultants (Don Bremner and Chuck Prentiss) concerning the report structure and its recommendations. The list of recommendations was available as a handout to all that attended.
The purpose for the meeting was to present the consultant’s draft recommendations to the public for comment prior to the submittal of the draft report to the KBAC Advisory Committee for their consideration. The outcomes for the meeting were to develop a list of what those attending liked about the recommendations and what changes they would like to see considered.
Comment: I liked the commitment to spend 2.5 million on water quality improvements
Comment: I liked the recognition in the report that Kaneohe Bay has a serious
sedimentation problem
Comment: I liked the recognition that Enchanted Lake also has a serious sedimentation problem
Comment: I liked the mix of specific short term and long term recommendations
Comment: I like that the report exists
Comment: I would like to see more specific recommendations of what landowners along the Bay who are suffering from erosion can do individually or collectively to address the problem
Comment: There needs to be commitment to work with and educate these landowners to enlist their assistance in solving the erosion/sedimentation problem
Comment: There is a need to address how to mitigate stream erosion without cement with landowners adjacent to the streams
Comment: 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 x years down the road
Comment: 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.
Comment: Hawaiian fishponds should not be thought of or described as siltation basins – historically they were preceded by wetlands that served this function
Comment: The document needs to integrate the ahupua`a concept within it – perhaps use He`eia as a case study
Comment: Can we identify how much of the sedimentation problem is due to urbanization of the area 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?
Comment: Recommendation #2 needs to look at the watershed as a unit.
Comment: The report treats Ko`olaupoko 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
Comment: Recommendation #1 is not clear as to its purpose and needs to have more information and explanation included
Comment: 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
Comment: Recommendation #11 seems very labor intensive – if the system is 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
Comment: 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
Comment: There is a need to integrate these recommendations with those of the vision team so that duplication is avoided and resources are leveraged (Shannon will get this information to Don and Chuck)
Comment: Kahaluu stream - is there a sedimentation basin for the stream and if not how will this need be addressed
Comment: The report should address current EPA recommendations on stream flow and other watershed issues
Comment: Reforestation/revegetation is a powerful tool for reducing sedimentation load and the report needs to include more about these options
Comment: Report needs to identify where topography is a contributor to severe erosion and sedimentation
Comment: 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
Comment: I see two issues in the report dealing specifically with Kaneohe Bay in the near term and 2 in the long term the report needs to provide more options that directly effect the health of the Bay
Comment: 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
Comment: 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
Comment: The report needs to look at City funds when it discusses fund leveraging
Comment: 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 doing so restore ecological viability to some intermittent streams
Comment: 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
Comment: The report needs to integrate BWS’s long term plans and the potential impact of these
Comment: 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
Comment: Recommendations #8 & 9 are good projects but the landowner state highways needs to agree to maintain.
Comment: The report needs to look at putting recommendations into categories i.e. one time, long range, research etc. and give different weights to the categories and recommendations within the categories
Comment: There was a suggestion to look at a monthly program on Olelo as a component of the educational plan but some present questioned the effectiveness such a program would have for the time commitment to put it on
Comment: The report needs to address how you educate people on these issues
Comment: Education efforts need to target what each person as an individual can do now to help the situation
Comment: A suggestion was made to look at an educational column in the Kaneohe section of the newspaper.
Meeting adjourned at 8:45.
KBAC CONSULTANT’S DRAFT REPORT
PUBLIC INFORMATIONAL MEETING
Waimanalo 7 – 9 PM
February 27, 2001
Group Memory
The meeting began with an overview from the consultants (Don Bremner and Chuck Prentiss) concerning the report structure and its recommendations. The list of recommendations was available as a handout to all that attended.
The purpose for the meeting was to present the consultant’s draft recommendations to the public for comment prior to the submittal of the draft report to the KBAC Advisory Committee for their consideration. The outcomes for the meeting were to develop a list of what those attending liked about the recommendations and what changes they would like to see considered.
Comment: I like the idea of taking a watershed approach to the issue and developing an action strategy plan for the whole district, also liked the leveraging idea
Comment: Liked the idea of a citizen drop off point for hazardous waste
Comment: Concerned that the report says it focuses on non-point source pollution but then discusses actions and remedies for industries in the area that have NPDES permits which makes them a recognized source – am concerned that some of the recommendations include spending what I consider public funds on problems created by private companies that have the resources to fund their own solutions – i.e. Meadow Gold had a net profit of $109 million with assets of $4 billion and $43 million in cash last quarter
Comment: Report page 8 paragraph 1 states that the Ko`olaupoko 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
Comment: The living machine may be appropriate for Meadow Gold but they should pay for it - funds from the lawsuit settlement should not be used
Comment: Recommendation #6 concerning composting – I question if this should be a recommendation seems to be based on the Unisys 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
Comment: The compost created by the current horse operations in the area is already utilized by the farmers
Comment: One of the problems is the allowing of open pit lagoon manure storage which throws off methane gas – question whether anything from this type of process is pathogen free
Comment: 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.
Comment: 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 co-operative approach rather then consolidation. – work with the agricultural community to incorporate the farmer’s concerns – we’re not even sure manure is a problem
Comment: I am concerned that Meadow Gold is a primary beneficiary of the money spent in Waimanalo and that they should use their own resources
Comment: There needs to be consultation with the farmers in Waimanalo concerning the recommendations in the area
Comment: Need to go to farmers before making recommendations rather than after – the rational exhibited in the report seems to be based on funding options rather then the actual basis of the problem
Comment: Need more inclusive consultation with farmers
Comment: Need to know the source of problem prior to proposing recommendations to solve it
Comment: Need to involve the community impacted in the formulation of solutions
Comment: On 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
Comment: There was an interim report issued by Deshield and we tried to respond – not sure we were heard at all
Comment: We would like to see meaningful consultation with the community not individual meetings
Comment: TMDL study seems disjointed from these recommendations – recommendations do not address nitrates/phosphates etc. at specific sites
Comment: The executive summary seems to build on previous efforts prior and during KBAC’s inception – recommendations are based on assumptions rather then findings
Comment: 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
Comment: The Bellows restoration efforts are not consulted even though the findings from these efforts would inform the overall analysis – this group should be consulted
Comment: Recommendation 8 regarding stream erosion – nice title do not see much substance
Comment: KBAC should fund engineering studies for the purpose of restoring stream flow and the water table levels
Comment: The State is a major contributor to the problems and they’re not present – they have no flood control plans for the area and over the years have probably contributed more to the problem then Meadow Gold – they need to be present and held responsible
Comment: 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
Comment: What are we looking at for erosion control on streams – not concrete this just increases sediment problems – need to look at softer remedies
Comment: Need to get all players involved – the outcome would be an agreement between the agencies and the community on how streams will be managed
Comment: The need is to get the data before we spend money on recommendations that are not adequately examined
Comment: 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
Comment: KBAC need 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
Comment: An example would be the necessary studies and action to restore the water table and habitat in Waimanalo stream
Comment: 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
Comment: Although you talk about leveraging the only project in the Waimanalo area 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
Comment: The dollars for recommendation #7 need to be increased
Comment: Do we know the % of stream waste that is currently channeled into the Bay
Comment: 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
Comment: The funds were allocated to 3 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
Comment: Equality of fund distribution is a concern
Comment: Recommendation 5 concerning the living machine’s use at Meadow Gold – do we know how Meadow Gold feels – it was noted that Meadow Gold is in discussion with the Living Machine group concerning restoration technology
Comment: I need clarification between the $25,000 noted in the report for research on pollutant identification and the $90,000 noted in the matrix – which is it – it is the $90,000 noted in the matrix
Comment: Who would do the restoration action plan – an RFP would be put out by KBAC to find the contractor for the project
Comment: Is what is referred to in the report being confused with the Wing King reservoirs if this is the case then it may be appropriate to spend some of this money on clean up of this area
Comment: Use of the living machine at Wing King through KBAC if it will work is appropriate but not for use on private i.e. Meadow Gold – Wing King is 7 times more polluted then sewerage
Comment: Waimanalo should get its share of the 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
Comment: When will the compilation of community notes be available – the notes with consultant answers will be available by the end of March