Hilo Bay Watershed-Based Restoration Plan, October 2005

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?2

CKNOWLEDGEMENTS

All members of the Hilo Bay WAG as well as frequent attendees to the regular WAG meetings
contributed long hours and thought to the development of a Hilo Bay Restoration plan. Peter
Heffron, Steve Skipper, Thomas Young, Jene Michaud and Jeff Zimpfer deserve special mention
among those who have worked hard over the last two years to ensure a meaningful outcome to
this project. Mary James, the coordinator for the Hilo Bay WAG, was the key researcher and
coordinator in this effort, and maintained contact with all contributors at all times. Her
networking and organizational skills and willingness to work long, unpaid hours have made this
draft plan possible. Phil Moravcik summarized and reviewed available data on the Hilo Bay
watershed, provided insight into the structure and purpose of monitoring plans, and created or
modified all maps and figures included in the document. Kaleleonalani Napoleon provided
background research and much insight into the personalities and customs of managers and
management agencies in the watershed. Kirsten Silvius organized and edited the thoughts and
knowledge of all these people, while keeping in mind the principles that guide interdisciplinary
research and adaptive management. Peter Rappa is the PI on the Statewide Watershed Project,
of which this Hilo Bay Restaration Plan is a subproject, and ensured the day-to-day functioning
of the project with help from the Environmental Center?s office manager, Char Kato.

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?3

ABLE OF

ONTENTS

Acknowledgements?????????????????????????..?.2

Section 1?Summary??????????????????????????7

Section 2?Disclaimer?????????????????????????..9

Section 3?Opportunities and constraints for management, restoration, and

pollution prevention in the Hilo Bay Watershed?????????..10

Section 4?Project Background???????????????????..??.11

4.1?Addressing the 9 elements of an EPA Watershed Based Plan???..?..12

Section 5?Watershed Background??????????????????.??16

5.1?Boundaries???????????????????????.?.16

5.2?Hydrology???????????????????????.?..16

5.3?Biology?????????????????????????....19

5.4?Land

Ownership?????????????????????.?.20

5.5?Conservation

lands?????????????????????..20

5.6?Hunting

Areas???????????????????????.22

5.7?Urban

areas???????????????????????.?22

5.8?Storm

water

management??????????????????...23

5.9?Grubbing and grading???????????????????.?23

5.10?Agricultural

lands????????????????????.?23

5.11?Wastewater

management?????????????????.?.25

5.12?Industrial

pollutants???????????????????..?25

5.13?Current uses of Bay??????????????????.??.26

Section 6?Existing management efforts and water related master plans?????...28

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?4

Section 7?Impaired Waters in the Hilo Bay Watershed-- Hawaii?s 303d list????32

7.1? Impaired Waters in the Hilo Bay Watershed???????????..32

7.2?Description of criteria for Listing ??????????????.?..33

Section 8?Sources of information on water quality in Hilo Bay?????????34

8.1?Research

Data?????????????????????..??34

8.2?Community input process?????????????????..?..35

8.3?Consultations with experts????????????????..??36

8.4?Data available in reports or on the web????????????..?.37

Section 9?Water Quality Data - Availability/Sources???????????..?.37

9.1?Water Quality Data?Hilo Watershed Locations????????..?.38

9.2?Bacteria Data ? General??????????????????.?.39

9.3?Bacterial Data ? Enterococcus?????????????????40

9.4?Bacteria Data - C. perfringens?????????????????41

9.5?Bacteria Data - Fecal Coliform???????????????.?..41

9.6?Bacteria Data - Fecal Streptococcus???????????..??.?41

9.7?Nutrient

Data?????????????????????..??42

9.8?Nutrient Data - Nitrogen????????????????..??..42

9.9?Nutrient Data ? Phosphorus??????????????????42

9.10?Chlorophyll??????????????????????..?.42

9.11?Turbidity??????????????????????..?.....43

9.12?Sediment

Toxicity

Data???????????????????43

9.13?Streamflow Data: - Availability/Sources????????????.44

9.14?Conclusions???????????????????????..44

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?5

Section 10?Overall Conceptual Approach to Restoration???????????40

10.1?Objectives of Restoration Plan???????????????.?45

10.2?Approach to Achieving Objectives?????????????..?46

10.3?Project Time-line: Five-year initial plan, divided into three elements?48

Section 11?Recommended Best Management Practices???????????..48

11.1. Eliminate cesspools and lava tube dumping??????????..?49

11.2. Elimination of gang cesspools (as per EPA regulation and ongoing

statewide

plans)

????????????????????.?.50

11.3. Sewer line completion???????????????????....51

11.4. Maintenance of flood control channels????????????.?.53

11.5. Habitat restoration on fallow sugar cane lands??????????...53

11.6. Implement locally adapted low impact development pilot projects?..?.53

11.7. Develop integrated floodwater management plan for the watershed??.54

11.8. Establish and enforce appropriate zoning for watershed???????55

11.9. Review and analyze existing SWCD Conservation Plans??????..56

11.10. Improve Grubbing and Grading ordinances???????????..57

11.11. Modify breakwater?????????????????????58

11.12. Maintain viable local Watershed Advisory Group????????...59

11.13. Establish MOUs with outside industries???????????..?60

11.14. Informal community education????????????????.61

11.15. Formal education????????????????????..?61

11.16. Long-term planning for coastal zone adaptation to climate change??.61

Section 12-- Recommended Demonstration Projects??????????????62

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?6

12.1. Removal of Falcataria molucca (?Albizia?), an invasive, Nitrogen-fixing

tree, from the watershed???????????????????.62

12.2. Control of rooting by feral pigs (Sus scrofa) in the Hilo Forest Reserve

and other forested areas of the watershed????????????..63

12.3. Waiakea Pond and Wetland Restoration????????????..?66

Section 13?Education plan (education as a Best Management Practice)??????.68

Section 14?Critical Monitoring Needs??????????????????.?71

Section 15?Proposed Management Structure, Phase 1 of Restoration Plan?????78

References?????????????????????????......................79

Figures?????????????????????????............................87

Tables?????????????????????????............................107

Appendix 1: County of Hawaii Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Program??.123

Appendix 2: Stakeholders, landowners and managers in Hilo Bay Watershed????124

Appendix 3: Management agencies acting in the Hilo Bay watershed

with areas of competence?????????????????????..127

Appendix 4: DOH WQ Data From STORET Database May 2005????????...129

Appendix 5. Background on Grubbing and Grading Ordinances and Problems???..162

Appendix 6. Public review of Draft Hilo Bay Watershed Restoration Plan?????.165

Appendix 7?Definition of Class A waters by HAR �11-54-03?????????...194

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?7

1?S

UMMARY

Several segments of coastal and inland waters in the Hilo Bay watershed have been on the 303d
list of impaired for several years, and Bay waters have been known to exceed state water quality
standards since at least the late 1970s. In 2003, EPA Section 319 funds were made available to
1) carry out a community-based assessment of sources of watershed impairment and 2) develop a
watershed-based restoration plan. A review of the basis for 303d listing and of the water quality
monitoring data available for the Hilo Bay watershed indicates that there are insufficient data to
allow identification of the sources of pollution; this is true for nutrients, fecal indicator bacteria,
and sediments (the basis on which the waters are listed).

Given the lack of site-specific data along with two major constraints on sediment reduction?the
harbor breakwater and high non-anthropogenic sediment inputs from the Wailuku River Basin?
the restoration plan developed by the UH Environmental Center in collaboration with the Hilo
Bay Watershed Advisory Group (the ?HBWAG?) therefore focuses on: 1) Locally adapted non-
structural Best Management Practices (BMPs) and associated demonstration projects on a small
scale that will serve to reduce nutrient and sediment inputs from a variety of sources immediately
following implementation; 2) formal and informal education BMPs, and in particular: a)
informal education of the Hilo community on general (not Hilo-specific) BMPs that will have a
positive effect at low cost regardless of the major sources of pollution, and which simply reflect
wise use of resources and smart development and b) improvement of formal education in
elementary and high schools as a way of increasing knowledge of science and management
issues, and as a way of both increasing the reach of information (to family members) and of
providing basic monitoring data for project researchers; 3) gathering of baseline data to spatially
locate sources of pollution and to understand the Bay ecosystem, followed by dissemination and
discussion of research results to stimulate development of a management plan to reduce pollution
should it prove to be significant; and 4) support of county efforts to manage flood water and
wastewater. We propose a five-year initial implementation, baseline data gathering, monitoring
and education period, after which a community-wide discussion will result in the selection of
additional BMPs to reduce pollutants, targeted at the appropriate land uses that are producing
pollution. This Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan incorporates comments and
corrections to the draft plan submitted to DOH in June 2005. The comments were generated
during a public review process coordinated by the Hilo Bay WAG in June-August 2005; these
comment, with responses, are also presented in Appendix 6.

The key threats to water quality identified in this Watershed Restoration Plan are (the order does
not indicate priority, as there is not enough information available to rank these sources of
pollution): urban flooding and erosion due to high rainfall, young geology and inappropriate
urbanization in flood zones; conservation area flooding and erosion; lack of enforcement of state
and county regulations, and lack of appropriate county level regulations, especially in the area of
Grubbing and Grading Ordinances; lack of education / information on the part of the general
public and of county and state officials regarding water quality issues and best management
practices; the left-over impacts of sugar cane industry; the impacts of the Hilo Bay Breakwater
on Bay circulation; incomplete wastewater system and pervasiveness of cesspools and lava tube
dumping; and invasive plant and animal species.

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?8

This Watershed Restoration Plan recommends that several BMPs and Demonstration Projects be
considered for the Hilo Bay Watershed. These BMPs will not only lead to reduction in pollution,
they will also generate baseline data and data on hydrology and pollution trends that are needed
to better understand the watershed.

Recommended Demonstration projects
1. Restore and monitor Waiakea Pond Wetlands and associated former wetland areas along the
Hilo Bay waterfront
2. Manage Nitrogen-fixing invasive species, especially removal of Albizia in lowlands (and
monitor impacts on soil and water N content of ongoing gorse removal on DLNR and DHHL
lands)
3. Control rooting activities by pigs in parts of the Hilo Forest Reserve, if possible by working
with hunters to alter the behavior and movement of pigs; fencing is not recommended in this
demonstration project except for small critical areas where it can be shown that rooting by pigs is
causing strong erosion impact and it is not possible to deter pigs by other means.

Recommended Structural BMPs
1. Modify the breakwater, if the Army Corps of Engineers determines through modeling that this
will in fact improve water quality in the Bay by allowing pollutants to be carried away from
shore, without significantly impairing the shipping industry based in Hilo Harbor.

Recommmended Non Structural-BMPs
1. Community participation
a-Support community group (WAG) to coordinate process
b-Establish a Memorandum of Understanding with critical outside industries, such as the cruise
ship industry, and seek economic support from them for water quality protection in the Hilo area.

2. Management
a-Eliminate cesspools in lava tubes, and lava tube dumping (near Wailuku), either by connecting
to sewer or by providing alternative individual wastewater treatment systems
b-Educate county and public about need for improving sewer hookups
c-Provide composting toilets in public facilities
d-Maintain flood control channels by removing debris and vegetation
e-Manage fallow / abandoned sugar cane land with vegetation that will reduce soil runoff and
minimize nutrient inputs

3. Planning
a-Adopt low impact development techniques for planned county projects
b-Adopt integrated floodwater management approaches, at the county and city planning scale
c-Review and amend zoning
d-Ensure that agricultural BMPs are being applied to all agricultural lands, and monitor
effectiveness of these BMPs as a way of obtaining baseline data and adaptively changing BMPs
when necessary
e-Improve county ordinances and monitoring, especially grubbing and grading
f-Implement contingency planning for hazardous spills in Bay

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?9

2?D

ISCLAIMER

The waters of Hilo Bay are considered quality impaired under current state and federal water
quality standards. It is worth noting that these standards were developed to fit all waters in all
regions of the US, and do not take into account local ecological conditions in Hawaiian
watersheds (tropical climate, flashy streams, Nitrogen fixing native and invasive plant species,
very recent volcanic substrate, very heavy rainfall, abundant ground water inputs to costal
zones). Because the sources of pollution causing the impairment of the Bay are presumed to
derive from the streams draining into the Bay, the DOH has requested the development of a
watershed-based restoration plan for the Hilo Bay. The Hilo Bay watershed was therefore
defined as the area including all streams that empty into Hilo Bay, and that could potentially
contribute pollution to the Bay. In the initial definition of the watershed, underground water
sources were not considered; we therefore make the assumption that the watershed as defined by
surface waters is large enough to include most underground flow that will affect the Bay.

Land ownership in the watershed is dominated by the Department of Land and Natural
Resources (DLNR) and Department of Hawaiian Homelands (DHHL), followed by the Federal
Government, Kamehameha Schools, and private landowners. The soil-disturbing practices and
the management practices carried out by these major landowners or classes of landowners are
likely to be resulting in the largest contributions of pollutants to the Bay. Note that absence of
management is considered management here?e.g., fallow agricultural land or roadless forest
reserve land is considered to be under a particular form of management, in this case lying fallow
or being protected from the well-known negative impacts of roads.

The major pollutants identified in the Bay are sediments and nutrients (primarily N), as well as
fecal contamination as indicated by fecal indicator bacteria. For DLNR land we assume that
(without having any data to support this, but using logic) the major sources of sediments (and
associated nutrients and bacteria) are rooting and other activities by exotic ungulates, natural
erosion of streams, and natural runoff from upland soils; we assume that the major sources of
nutrients are plant decomposition, N fixation by native and exotic legumes, and animal waste
products. For DHHL lands, we assume that the major sources are similar. In suburban and
urban areas, we assume that the major sources are runoff, cesspools, sediment runoff from
construction sites, leaking sewage pipes, toxins such as arsenic associated with past industrial
Canec production, and lava tube dumping. On agricultural lands we assume that the major
sources are runoff from fallow and active land, and recent and past pesticide and fertilizer
applications. Note that agricultural land is currently dominated by orchards and small-scale cattle
pasturing, as well as fallow land and former sugar cane plantation lands, currently undergoing
old field succession to shrublands.

The Total Maximum Daily Load process and sampling currently under way by the DOH is not
sufficient to define the sources of sediments and nutrients in the Bay, as it will only determine
the amounts of pollutants that are in the water at two different points on two different streams,
and the streams? capacity to process pollutant loads. Data exist on sediment and nutrient loads in
several streams, including the Wailuku River, and on nutrient and fecal contamination of Bay
waters. None of the data sets are lengthy. None of the data sets pinpoint the sources of the
pollutants by land use type. Therefore to date we do not know the locations where Best

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?10

Management Practices should be applied. We can only make assumptions about the sorts and
amounts of pollutants that are coming from each land use type, based on studies done elsewhere
of the pollutant effects of different land use and land management practices.

Such informed assumptions are therefore what this plan used to select best management practices
and monitoring that will help both establish baseline conditions and changes from these
conditions following to BMP implementation. In order to properly assess the effect of BMP
implementation, we must also assess the background variability in pollutants caused by non-
anthropogenic factors, including rainfall variation and soil types. This will allow us to identify
synergies between BMPs and local ecological conditions. This background assessment is also
necessary due to the high expected levels of non-anthropogenic inputs?i.e., active erosion on
newly formed lava flows, nitrogen contributions of the dominant nitrogen fixing trees and shrubs
in the area, etc.

This plan recommend BMPs and monitoring, but also spells out the types of research that must
be done to understand the hydrology of the Bay and watershed, and to develop bioindicator
techniques appropriate to the local conditions. It also heavily emphasizes education as a BMP,
because it recognizes that the watershed is currently in relatively good ecological and water
quality condition, and that in order to preserve and improve upon these conditions despite
planned future development, the community must be aware of the impact of their activities on
water quality and therefore on their quality of life. The community must be ecologically literate
and informed in order for it to ensure that elected officials move in the direction of Smart
Growth and Low Impact Development in the watershed. We expect to find different sources of
funding for the different activities recommended actions?e.g., 319 funds and National Science
Foundation (NSF) funds for education and other BMP implementation, Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) funds for agricultural BMPs, Army Corps of Engineer funds for
assessment of Breakwater modification (the major proposed structural BMP that would affect
Bay water quality), and NSF funds for research into ecosystem function.

3?O

PPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS FOR MANAGEMENT

RESTORATION

AND POLLUTION

PREVENTION IN THE

ILO

ATERSHED

Opportunities
1. With the demise of the sugar cane industry in the 1980s and 90s, the inputs of sediments,
fertilizers and pesticides into watershed waters greatly diminished. The streams and Bay waters
and surrounding soil are therefore cleaner than they were 10 years ago, and the ecosystem is
probably still continuing to assimilate and process some of these inputs (e.g., organic matter
from bagasse in the Bay, arsenic from Canec plants, sediments from planted fields, N and P from
fertilizers). Agriculture is at a low point now, but fruit orchards (e.g. Macadamia nuts) are on the
increase. This allows the application of BMPs to smaller scale plantations, smaller pieces of
land, and lands that already have more cover and where the cover is not harvested as frequently
as sugar cane was.

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?11

2. The cruise ship tourist industry is on the rise, and is a potentially good source of revenues for
Bay management if they can be retained in the local area.

3. The watershed has low population density

4. The watershed has an abundant water supply

5. There is no industrial pollution in the watershed

6. There are several active community groups in the watershed

7. The University of Hawaii?Hilo has a research focus on aquatic ecology and is an excellent
local source of expertise and trained professionals

Constraints
1. The breakwater affects circulation and therefore pollution in the Bay, and it is unlikely to be
removed or modified. Therefore, pollution reduction will probably have to occur within the
context of a permanent breakwater and the continued functioning of Hilo Bay as a major
commercial harbor
2. The Bay contains a major port, the primary point at which fuel and cruise ships are offloaded
on the island of Hawaii
3. The watershed is a geologically new and active area, with heavy rainfall, erosion and runoff
shaping the land
4. There is an urgent need to manage/control/eradicate exotic species of plants and animals; this
plant eradication can lead to soil disturbance and contribute temporarily to pollution in the Bay
5. The waterfront is vulnerable to tsunamis and sea level rise; a balance must therefore be
reached between short-term planning that allows economic development and protects the
environment, and long term planning that acknowledges the risky nature of the towns location on
a low-lying coastal zone

4?P

ROJECT

ACKGROUND

The Environmental Center of the University of Hawaii is under contract to the State of Hawaii
Department of Health (ASO Log No.03-017; the ?Statewide Watershed Project?) to acquire
background data on the causes of water pollution and resource degradation in seven key
watersheds located throughout the state. The Hilo Bay watershed is one of these. The purpose of
this data-gathering effort has been to produce and compile the information necessary to develop
meaningful watershed restoration plans for each watershed and sub-watershed pursuant to the
directives under U.S. EPA Section 319 Clean Water Grants. Successful and early completion of
this process in the Hilo Bay Watershed led to the addition of contract modification No. 2 to
proceed with the development of a Watershed Based Restoration Plan for Hilo Bay. This plan is
being prepared in accordance with directives from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for
Watershed Based Plans developed with Clean Water Act 319 funds, and using the background

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?12

materials compiled for the Statewide Watershed Project along with direct coordination with and
involvement of the Hilo Bay Watershed Advisory Group (HBWAG).

4.1?Addressing the 9 elements of an EPA Watershed Based Plan

The initial objective of the Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan was to meet the
Environmental Protection Agency?s (EPA) nine specifically required elements for a Watershed
Based Plan as stated in Section 319 of the Clean Water Act. The Hilo Bay Watershed Public
Input Final Report, as prepared by the HBWAG in May 2004, was used as a guide to addressing
the nine elements required by EPA for the Watershed Based Plan. However, given the paucity of
appropriate data available for the Bay, the elements referring to load reductions cannot be
completely addressed at this time. Furthermore, the Hilo Bay WAG and community have taken
a strong stance in favor of research prior to establishing load reduction guidelines. The
community is strongly in favor of improving water quality in the Bay, and stakeholder
participation has been high and positive during the community input process. Nevertheless, the
community is keenly aware that division and conflict will arise should BMPs and load
allocations be assigned to one sector of the economy or community without sufficient data to
support the contention that these sectors are actually producing pollution that is contributing to
impairment of Bay waters. During the review process, we have found no pre-existing data that
pinpoint the source of pollutants?for example, the sediments entering the Bay via the Wailuku
river has not been identified as originating on conservation land, ranching land, agricultural land,
or completely undeveloped land (non-anthropogenic source). The same holds true for nitrogen
(N) inputs into the Bay ?although we have strong circumstantial evidence that ground water
contributes large amounts of N, we do not know whether it derives from agricultural
applications, or from septic systems and cesspools along with other sources of waste water. We
also realize that the most detailed evaluations of water quality and hydrology that exist for the
area are now 20 years old, and that the closure of sugar mills and abandonment of sugar
plantations, concomitant with increases in urbanization and impervious surfaces, have changed
the inputs into the Bay in the intervening time. Furthermore, given that several segments of water
are listed under 303d based on the visual assessment of nutrients (i.e., visible algae), and that
there is little biological data to support such criteria at this time, we believe that better indicators
of water quality specific to Hilo Bay must be developed. This is, after all, the area of highest
fresh water input in the state of Hawaii, and ?the catchment for one of the known, great basal
groundwater spring areas of the world? (M & E Pacific 1980). Its hydrology and ecology are
therefore not the same as that of other estuaries that have been studied in Hawaii.

The nine elements of an EPA Watershed Based Plan are listed below along with the approach
used to address each requirement.

1. Identify the causes and sources or groups of similar sources (both natural and anthropogenic)
that will need to be controlled to achieve the load reductions estimated in this watershed-based
plan:

The Hilo Watershed Advisory Group (HBWAG) identified many of the potential causes and
sources of pollutants and watershed impairment to the Hilo Bay Watershed through a series of
six public meetings held between July 2003 and January 2004 and by soliciting input with a

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?13

questionnaire. The list of pollutants, along with other biological, geological, chemical, social and
political factors that affect water quality in the watershed, are listed in Table 5 of the Final
Report (HBWAG 2004). Following approval of Mod. 2 of the contract, the UH Environmental
Center, along with the HBWAG, proceeded to validate this initial input by focusing on the more
severe or large-scale sources of pollution through in-depth literature searches, examination of
existing data bases, meetings with researchers, county, state and federal officials, and meetings
focused on particular sources of pollution. The sources of information are listed and discussed in
detail in sections 7 through 9 of this document, as are the data reviewed from existing databases.

2. Estimate the load reductions expected for the management measures described under element
(3) below:

As described in Sections 7 (criteria under which Hilo Bay waters were placed on the 303d list), 8
and 9 (review of current data availability on Hilo Bay waters), it is at this point impossible to
estimate the load reductions needed to remove waters from the impaired list. With the possible
exception of the ongoing TMDL estimation process currently under way for two intermittent,
seasonal streams in the watershed, data are not available to estimate the current pollutant loads of
the waters entering into the Bay (especially for ground water and for the Wailuku River, the
largest sources of freshwater input to the Bay). This restoration plan therefore takes a two-phased
approach: the first five years of the plan will focus on 1) research and 2) implementation of a few
key BMPs and demonstration projects that we are fairly certain will have an impact on sediment,
nutrient and fecal indicator reduction (namely cesspool reduction and sewer hookups,
improvement of grubbing and grading ordinances, education, management of invasive plant and
animal species, wetland restoration, and adoption of low impact development practices). We
have estimated, without the use of models, the potential reduction in pollutant inputs that may
derive from implementation of the key BMPs and demonstration projects. At the end of 5 years,
armed with knowledge about the hydrology of the watershed, the response of nutrient levels and
fecal indicator bacteria levels to the BMPs, we will then be prepared to select larger scale BMPs
and mathematically estimate load reductions resulting from these BMPs.

3. Describe the NPS management measures that will need to be implemented to achieve the load
reductions estimated under element (2) above and an identification (using a map or a
description) of the critical areas in which those measures will be needed to implement this plan

See above.

4. Estimate the amounts of technical and financial assistance needed, associated costs, and/or
the sources and authorities that will be relied upon, to implement this plan:

Estimated budgets for the recommended research and monitoring, and sources of costs for BMP
and demonstration projects are provided, along with the identification of the individuals or
authorities most capable of carrying out these actions, or who have already expressed an interest
in carrying them out.

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?14

5. Develop an education component that will be used to enhance public understanding of the
project and encourage early and continued community participation in selecting, designing, and
implementing the NPS management measures that will be implemented

We have identified three necessary components of education, to take place after plan
implementation, and have developed an approach for each:

a) Informal education?a series of video modules addressing specific pollution and water
quality/management issues in the Hilo Bay Watershed will be developed; modules will be shown
on television, and will be prepared by local film experts; they will emphasize the information
that science can provide to managers, the state of knowledge regarding that particular watershed-
related topic in Hilo Bay, and the recommended BMPs for the situation

b) Formal education: teachers and students from local high schools and elementary schools will
be involved in the restoration plan by contributing to water monitoring efforts; simultaneously,
the restoration plan team will seek a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the
Department of Education (DOE) and/or individual schools to provide science curriculum
materials that include information on aquatic ecosystem function and water resource
management (to meet ecology and resource management curriculum requirements).

c) Community education on BMPs?this component will be carried out using standard materials
already prepared by other EPA and DOH funded watershed based projects, and materials
available through Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), US Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), University of Hawaii at Manoa College of Tropical Agriculture
(CTAHR), etc.

6. Determine a schedule for implementing NPS management measures identified in this plan that
is reasonably expeditious:

The time frame for the restoration plan currently is as follows: A five year implementation and
monitoring period starting upon availability of funds, to be followed first by 3-6 months of
meetings and community review of information, and then by 3-6 months for elaboration of the
research based restoration plan, which will probably involve a 5 to 10 year implementation and
monitoring effort, incorporated into the general management activities of the county and of state
and federal agencies acting in the watershed. In this document we describe the initial 5-year
effort.

7. Develop interim, measurable milestones for determining whether NPS management measures
or other control actions are being implemented as planned:

For each monitoring and implementation action recommended in the restoration plan, we
describe the milestones that should be targeted to evaluate whether a) the time frame is being
met, and b) initial steps are successfully leading into the necessary following steps. A formal
evaluation protocol will be set in place to determine if and when a certain planned measure is
going off-track. Evaluation measures may include: number of school children involved in the
monitoring plan, number of schools using watershed based science curriculum, surface area of

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?15

Bay that is being monitored, cumulative data production of research projects, key stakeholders
brought into the restoration process, personnel hired, etc.

8. Develop a set of criteria that can be used to determine whether loading reductions are being
achieved over time and substantial progress is being made toward attaining water quality
standards and, if not, the criteria for determining whether this watershed-based plan needs to be
revised or, if a NPS TMDL has been established, whether the NPS TMDL needs to be revised:

As part of the restoration plan we recommend a monitoring plan to provide both baseline and
continuing data on ecologically relevant water quality parameters. This should be based on
biomonitoring using algae and / or coral growth, and on monitoring of specific sites identified
after a consideration of the hydrology of the watershed. Monitoring should specifically target
storm events for sampling of sediment and nutrient inputs from streams into the Bay, because
data are lacking on storm flow (yet what data there are indicate that for Wailuku and Honolii
streams at least this in when most surface water enters the Bay and therefore potentially when
most sediments?though not nutrients?enter the Bay). This data set cannot be compared against
any existing database, to look for changes in parameters. Therefore, through the initial 5-year
period and perhaps beyond, plan implementers should also rely on consistent monitoring using
the same parameters that the HDOH uses to classify waters for the 303d list, but should ensure
that sufficient samples are available each year to meet the criteria of at least 10 samples each in
the wet and dry seasons. The DOH criteria are described in section 7 below; they include both
regular DOH numeric monitoring and the NRCS visual assessment protocol. Monitoring should
not target listed segments; rather, it should provide full coverage of the watershed by dividing it
into segments based both on hydrology and accessibility. This means sampling at locations that
represent inputs from different land uses, at the mouths of streams, and at locations where fresh
water seeps into the Bay. This is the type of monitoring that can be carried out by school groups
and canoe clubs and the general public, following adequate training by the restoration team.
Note, therefore, that we are referring to two different monitoring plans that have to be
developed?one for water quality to detect significant changes in standard water quality
parameters, and one that will be developed using the biological community of the Bay waters.

Plan implementers should use a consistent downward trend in the state approved water quality
indicator criteria (with the exception of visual assessment for nutrients) over at least a 5-year
period as an indication of load reductions. A downward trend over less than five years cannot be
indicative of change in water quality, given the variability in rainfall experienced in the
Hawaiian islands and the very large within- and among-year fluctuations noted for sediment
loads, flow rates, etc. Appropriate statistical techniques should be used to determine whether the
variance among years is lower than the variance within years and therefore statistically
significant.

Criteria for evaluating TMDL implementation success are being developed by the DOH TMDL
team working in the Alenaio and Waiakea basins within the watershed, and are not addressed in
this WBRP.

9. Develop a monitoring component to evaluate the effectiveness of the implementation efforts
over time, measured against the criteria established under element (8) immediately above:

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?16

See above for standard, DOH-approved criteria. Once plan implementers have developed algae
and / or coral based bioindicators of Bay water quality as part of the research plan, these can be
used these to monitor ecosystem functions that affect water quality.

5?W

ATERSHED

ACKGROUND

5.1?Boundaries

Two large (Wailuku, Wailoa), one medium (Honolii) and four small (Malii, Pauka, Pukihae,
Wainaku) subwatersheds make up the larger Hilo Bay Watershed as defined for the purposes of
this restoration plan (Fig. 1). The HB Watershed area covers 463,577 acres and includes
agricultural, forest, conservation, urban and rural land uses (Fig. 2).

5.2?Hydrology

Rainfall
Rainfall in this watershed is the highest on the island of Hawaii, ranging from around 120 inches
per year on the coast to about 240 inches per year on the lower slopes of Mauna Kea and Mauna
Loa (Juvik and Juvik 2002). The watershed includes the northern end of the Waiakea High
Rainfall area, as defined by the USGS (Fontaine and Hill 2002). Mean rainfall here ranges from
118 inches per year on the coast to 236 inches per year at 3000 feet elevation. It was this area
that received record rainfalls in the so called ?November 2000 storm? (more than 30 inches in a
single rainfall event) resulting in floods that damaged the Komohana Street bridge over the
Alenaio stream (Fontaine and Hill 2002), and which has generated increased concern among
Hilo citizens regarding flood control (G. Kuba pers. com., T. Young pers. com.). In fact, a flood
control structure was contemplated and cost/benefits assessed by NRCS at the Akolea Road
(Young, pers. com., NRCS 2001). The cost-benefit analysis was shown to be negative, and the
plan did not proceed. However, the cost-benefit analysis included only the benefits of preventing
flood damage to homes and other built structures--it did not consider the indirect benefit of
preventing erosion and reducing sediment input into coastal waters. Such benefits should be
estimated in future cost-benefit analysis for water management structures and activities in the
watershed.

The high rainfall area itself is primarily forested (plantation and native) and former sugar cane
land with much decreased agricultural activity. It is an area where commercial logging activities
have occasionally been considered (Anonymous 2001) and may be implemented in the future; as
such, close attention should be paid to the potential for this area to supply new future sediment
and nutrient input to the lower watershed and the Bay.

Surface water vs. ground water inputs

The hydrology and geology (including sediments) of the Bay are described in this section using
the Hilo Area Comprehensive Study (M & E Pacific1980) as a source of information, unless

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?17

otherwise noted. That study did not analyze long term flows from the Wailuku river, but base its
estimates of water and sediment flows from a shorter USGS record, and from its own data
collection. Hoover (2002) provides an analysis of the long term USGS records for the Wailuku
and Honolii streams, with a detailed description of the variability in base and storm flows as well
as of the sediment loads and nutrient loads carried by those two streams.

North of the Wailuku, and in the Wailuku itself, most of the fresh water input to the Bay is from
surface runoff. The basalt in this area is overlain by a relatively impermeable layer of Pahala
ash, limiting percolation. East of the Wailuku, most of the fresh water inputs to the Bay are from
ground water, which emerges at the Waiakea pond and then flows through Wailoa river to the
Bay, or as seeps and springs right along the coast line (Fig. 3). In this area the surface is made of
highly permeable basalts with little overlying ash. Waiakea Pond is the largest single source of
groundwater into the Bay (at Reed?s Bay).

As noted by M & E Pacific (1980), ?Hilo Bay is the greatest sink for fresh groundwater known
in the entire Hawaiian Archipelago. Indeed, the Bay is the catchment for one of the known, great
basal groundwater spring areas of the world. The flow of fresh basal groundwater to the Bay
exudes at a nearly constant rate in comparison with surface runoff and is often the
overwhelmingly dominant freshwater component entering the Bay.? Therefore research into
non-point sources of pollution needs to focus on ground water as well as surface water.

In 1980, the breakdown of fresh water inputs to the Bay was estimated as shown in the following
table. The ratios will have changed in the interim due to the increase in impervious surface area
in the lower watershed and due to storm runoff and hardening of the Wailoa river channel where
it leaves Waiakea pond for flood control purposes.

Average Flow (mgd)

Area Surface

Groundwater

Wailuku River north to Alealea
Point

10-20 10

Wailuku River

300 (range 10 to
several billion)

East of Wailuku and to
breakwater

6 500

Puhi Bay

100

East of Puhi Bay

100

The fresh water input creates an upper fresh water layer lying above a lower salt-water layer.
This two-layer system is present year round, but is most marked in the wet season, when the
upper fresh water layer is thicker due to higher surface runoff. The lower layer moves in and out
with the tide, and the upper layer is pushed toward shore by the easterly and northeasterly winds.
Because of low wave energy inside the breakwater, there is little mixing of the layers. Also, the
low wave energy allows sediments carried by Wailuku and Wailoa rivers to settle out into the
lower salt-water layer, where they can then be carried back inwards with the incoming tides.
Tidal velocities are probably too low to resuspend bottom sediments, but suspended sediments
will move in and out with the tide. Some of course are also carried out to the mouth of the Bay.

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?18

During storm flows, water and sediments from the Wailuku are carried out of the harbor more
rapidly.

Most sediments entering the Bay come from the Wailuku. Sediments settle out from the plumes
of storm water from the Wailuku, as evidenced by the decreased turbidity of the water as one
moves out to the mouth of the harbor during a storm event. In the late1970s, sediments coming
from the Wailoa river were marked with arsenic from Waiakea pond, making it possible to track
how far the sediments go (M & E Pacific 1980). Arsenic concentration in the sediments at the
entrance of the harbor were 96 ug/g dry weight, lower than in the pond but higher than in the
northwestern part of the Bay, indicating movement of sediments from the Wailoa river out
towards the entrance of the harbor. At the mouth of the Wailuku river, arsenic levels were at
background levels, indicating that sediment in this area comes primarily from the Wailuku itself.
Despite high arsenic content in the sediments, the water above them does not have detectable
levels of dissolved arsenic?i.e., levels do not differ from background levels typical of Hawaii?s
unpolluted coastal waters.

Silt and organic waste from the sugar mills accumulated near shore in the 1900s. This and
continued nutrient inputs made the sediment more Nitrogen rich than in any other estuary in the
state: Hilo Harbor sediments had about 1.46 mg per gram dry weight total N, the inner harbor
sediments had 1.52 mg/g, and the outer harbor had 1.28 mg/g. These values contrasted with the
other urbanized, agricultural and undeveloped coastal areas (Waikiki = 0.324 mg/g; Kahana =
0.299 mg/g, Maunalua = 0.712 mg/g, Kilauea = 0.235 mg/g); again, these are late 1970s levels
and will have changed. In contrast, P levels were relatively low in the harbor sediments (0.070
mg/g, 0.079 mg/g and 0.044 mg/g in Hilo harbor, inner harbor and outer harbor, respectively)
compared to about 0.5 mg/g for the other sites listed (M & E Pacific 1980).

Dissolved nutrients were also measured in 1978. ?The nitrogen data for Hilo Harbor show the
highest levels of ground water sources and lower for flood flows. The nitrate levels are
especially high in groundwater. In general, the nitrate plus nitrite concentration in Hilo harbor
seem unusually elevated during the wet season.? These high nitrate levels in ground water may
be the result of heavy fertilizer application or of intensive wastewater entry into area where the
ground water is recharged. Where cesspools or waste dumping into lava tubes is occurring
upslope in the recharge area, this could lead to high nitrate levels.

With respect to phosphorus, levels were higher during the wet season than the dry, indicating
surface runoff of phosphorus. This makes sense given that P does not move well through soils
because it is sorbed onto sediments and therefore would be retained by the soil and not easily be
carried in ground waters. ?However, the phosphorus levels in the samples taken from the Ice
Pond were unusually high. This may indicate significant groundwater movement via lava tubes
or direct discharges of surface runoff or wastewater near the sampling area? (M & E Pacific
1980)

In the late 1970s, levels of suspended solids during storm events exceeded state standards, as did
total Kjeldahl Nitrogen and nitrate-nitrite values and phosphorus during normal weather.
Chlorophyll a did not exceed state standards. However, the impact of nutrients on plankton
growth in the Bay may be limited by the low salinity conditions, especially when some layer

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?19

mixing occurs during storm events. These conditions are harsh for plankton growth, and would
consequently limit nutrient uptake (M & E Pacific 1980). Therefore, measurements of
chlorophyll a may not be good indicators of nutrient in the Bay, and nutrients may be there at
levels higher than what the plankton or algae can actually use.

Evidence for the movement of nutrients from agricultural land in ground water is supported by
contamination of wells near the coast with low levels of residual pesticides, which could have
come for the same source (Hawaii Department of Health 2003).

5.3?Biology

There are no long-term studies of the fauna and aquatic flora of the Bay. Some streams in the
watershed have been monitored using the DARs Stream Bioassessment Protocol, but data are
not currently available in a summarized form or published in reports.

Researchers with the Hawaii Coral Reef Initiative (HCRI) have carried out inventories for
invasive algae in Hilo Bay, and some fish monitoring transects outside the breakwater. Results of
these surveys are as follows: The mat-forming alien macroalgal species Gracilaria salicornia
was found in Hilo Bay (Hunter 2003); this species was apparently released during a ballast-
empying incident in the bay (L. Basch, pers. com.). The only sites surveyed by the HCRI were
outside of (East of) the breakwater. G. salicornia is spreading relatively quickly in the state and
it regrows rapidly when removed from experimental plots, implying that methods other than
manual removal may be necessary to control it should it become more abundant in the Hilo Bay
area.

Sites that have been monitored by HCRI for algae, fish and/or coral health are Puhi Bay, Leleiwi
point, Onekahakaha, and Richardson?s Ocean Park. For Puhi Bay (outside of the Hilo
breakwater), P. Jokiel reports that coral and fish surveys were carried out at 17? and 35?, the
second location being directly out from the Hilo sewer outfall station, 600 feet from the shore.
In a pattern opposite to that found in other coastal waters in the state, the temperature at this site
increases with depth, due to the cool groundwater seeps that form a freshwater lens at the
surface, again emphasizing the unique hydrology of the coastal waters in this area. Surface
waters were flowing away from the shore. Coral health seemed good, with high numbers of
recruits but no large coral heads; there was no evidence of disease, and 19 different species were
documented. Jokiel speculates that the presence of Porites rus in the area may be a result of the
sewage outfall, as in Guam this species is prevalent in areas of sewage outfall. Fish diversity
was recorded as 42 species on eight 25-meter transects at two depths, with Acanthurus
nigrofuscus (mai?i?i) and Thalossoma duperrey (hinalea) the two most common species.

Additional information on planktonic, benthic and fish communities is found in the Hilo Bay
Comprehensive Study (M & E Pacific 1980) and might be useful for comparison with up to date
data once both water quality and biological parameters are re-monitored in the Bay.

Note that the Hawaii Coral Reef Initiative Research Program?s Call for Proposals in 2005 had as
one of its focal themes the examination of ?how pollution (e.g. toxins, nutrients, debris, point
source and non-point source, sediment, hydrocarbons, heavy metals) affects Hawaii?s nearshore

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?20

reefs? and encouraged submission of proposals that would ?make practical recommendations for
preventing marine pollution that negatively impacts coral reef ecosystems.? This approach is
complementary to the goals of the Hawaii?s Local Action Strategy to Address Land-based
Pollution Threats to Coral Reefs, and these programs may be possible sources of funding for
research on this topic in Hilo Bay in the future.

5.4?Land Ownership

The major landowner in the watershed is the state of Hawaii with about 314,000 acres (nearly 69
% of the watershed). Two state departments manage most of these lands: Department of Land
and Natural Resources with about 254,000 acres and Department of Hawaiian Homelands
(DHHL) with nearly 60,000 acres (Fig. 4). The Federal Government owns and manages 68,823
acres in Volcano National Park and Hakalau Wildlife Refuge. Other large landowners are
Kamehameha Schools with about 32,119 acres, WU-Hilo with 11,394 acres, and C. Brewer with
10,553 acres. The County of Hawaii owns 675 acres (0.14 % of the watershed). These figures are
based on tax acres, not GIS acres. DHHLs Hawaii Island Plan evaluates current status of DHHL
land on the Big Island and sets out 20 year plan for development.

5.5?Conservation lands

Three reserves in the DLNR Natural Areas Reserve System are completely or partially within the
Hilo Bay watershed area: Mauna Kea Ice Age (3,894 acres) is located in the upper, southern
flank of Mauna Kea and contains rare alpine aeolian desert and the only alpine lake in Hawai?i.;
Waiakea (640 acres), a montane wet ?ohi?a forest ecosystem, is located on the sloping northeast
flank of Mauna Loa and supports succesional communities of ohi?a and other plants on recent
lava flows; Pu?u Maka?ala (12,106 acres, of which about half are within the watershed) is located
on the eastern flank of Mauna Loa and contains montane wet ?ohi?a and koa forests as well as a
montane wet grassland ecosystem (DOFAW brochure). The NARS area thus holds
approximately 2.3% (10,662 acres) of the watershed?s 463,577 acres. A fenced-off kipuka
within the Hilo Forest Reserve also receives additional protection by DOFAW. This is a small
kipuka area called ?Kipuka Mauna Loa? or Kipuka Mosaic, which protects and makes accessible
to the public several native bird species.

Other conservation lands include the Hilo Forest Reserve, managed by the Division of Forestry
and Wildlife (DOFAW); the US Fish and Wildlife Service?s (USFWS) Hakalau Refuge, where
feral pigs are being controlled to reduce invasive plant encroachment through fencing and
trapping and hunting. Lands above the Refuge (along Keanakolu Road), which are managed by
DHHL, are badly affected by invasive gorse (Ulex europaea, Fabaceae). DHHL has not renewed
the cattle leases in this area and a program has begun to contain and control gorse. DOFAW and
the USFWS are concerned that cattle are not being fenced along stream corridors (L. Hadaway,
pers. com. to K. Napoleon). Cattle trespassing from ranches adjacent to the restricted watershed
are a source of renewal for the resident population in the Hilo Watershed. Recent emphasis in
boundary fencing upkeep and errant cattle removal by DOFAW is to be supplemented by a
proposed Feral Cattle Hunt project (R. Bachman, pers. com.)

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?21

Protected areas with recreational facilities include Wailuku River State Park (16.3 acres), and
Wailoa River State Recreation Area (131.9 acres). Due to high visitation rates by local residents
as well as off-island tourists, these parks are excellent sites for educational activities, including
self-guided materials such as signs and pamphlets.

DOFAW management activities on conservation lands:
The Division of Forestry and Wildlife feels that the lands they manage are in the best shape of
any within the watershed boundaries. They encourage the use of scientific research to determine
whether the lands they manage play a role in water quality impairment, and will actively
participate in an approved restoration plan if there is evidence that their lands do contribute to
water quality problems (S. Bergfelt, pers. com.)

1. Invasive Species: DOFAW actively works on controlling invasive species within the
watershed area. DOFAW is currently working on gorse, Himalayan raspberry, Clidemia, banana
poka, and palm grass using mechanical and chemical methods and biological control
(pathogens). The Big Island Invasive Species Committee is working on the control of Miconia
within the watershed.

2. Threatened and Endangered Species: DOFAW is currently working with the Kau silversword,
Cyanea platyphylla, Cyanea shipmanii, Clermontia peleana and Nene.

3. Commercial timber: The Waiakea Timber management area falls within the watershed area.
A land license has been issue to Tradewinds to harvest the timber. No harvest has yet begun, but
DOFAW will ensure that Best Management Practices will be followed once harvest begins.

4. Hilo Forest Reserve: DOFAW?s management activities in the Hilo Forest Reserve are as
follows:

Fence line maintenance?within the last year, DOFAW removed trees threatening the

Puu OO ranch fence (3 miles of fence line). This will make it easier for the rancher to maintain
his fence and keep cattle out of the forest reserve.

Cattle removal?there are feral cattle in the upper reaches of the Hilo Watershed.

DOFAW is currently working on a feral cattle removal program. Numbers will be significantly
reduced within 3 years.

Trail and road maintenance?DOFAW periodically maintains roads and trails within the

watershed boundaries to facilitate access for management as well as for public access for hunting
and other forms of recreation.

Fire prevention, pre-suppression and suppression-- DOFAW is an active member of the

Big Island Wildfire coordinating group. BIWCG?s purpose is to allow the fire agencies on the
Big Island to work together more efficiently to provide fire services for the people and resources
of Hawaii Island. DOFAW trains and equips 38 personnel for fire suppression activities, and
maintains 17 fire vehicles and 2 fire caches on the island for fire suppression.

USFWS management activities in Hakalau Wildlife Refuge:
1. Conservation of native and endangered plants and animals.

2. Restoration of native forest through tree propagation and outplanting.

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?22

3. Control and removal of feral pigs and feral cattle.

4. Control of invasive weeds including Florida blackberry, gorse, banana poka and holly.

As noted by Ron Bachman, of the DOFAW wildlife branch, there is synergy between
management activities for invasive plants and animals: eradication of feral sheep on the Mauna
Kea slopes (Mauna Kea Forest Reserve and adjacent DHHL and Piihonua leases) has led to
increase in gorse; increase in gorse in turn provides shelter for feral pigs, which are then harder
to control by hunters.

5.6?Hunting Areas

Hunting is allowed on all Forest reserves and game management areas within the watershed.
Feral pigs and mouflon sheep are the main game animals. Game birds are also hunted in the
upper areas of the forest reserves. Areas open to hunting under different levels of restriction
include: the Hilo Watershed Forest Reserve, the Upper Waiakea Forest Reserve, the Waiakea
Forest Reserve, the Waiakea 1942 Lava Flow Natural Area Reserve, the Kulani Buffer Zone and
the Kipuka Ainahou Nene Sanctuary.

5.7?Urban areas

The Wailoa subwatershed is the most urbanized (Fig. 5). The largest streams in this
subwatershed are the Alenaio, Waiakea and Palai, all of which flow into the Waiakea pond,
which in turn empties into the Bay via the short, channelized Wailoa river. Alenaio, Palai and
Waiakea streams, the pond and the river have been modified as, or contain modifications for,
flood control structures. The green area and soccer fields surrounding the pond have been
designed as an additional feature of the Alenaio Flood Control system. A planned flood control
project on the Palai stream will divert flow into the 4-mile Creek Flood Control structure, which
will end at a detention basin rather than in the Wailoa and the Bay (G. Kuba, pers. com.). A
partial diversion is also being planned for Waiakea stream above Kupulani Street that would
divert peak flows around urban feed areas. Both projects are in the feasibility cost sharing phase
of development and are subject to further economic and engineering analysis by the ACOE (G.
Kuba, pers. com.).

The Bay itself contains Hilo Harbor, the main port for the island of Hawaii and the unloading
point for fuel, cargo and cruise ship travelers. A 10,080-foot long rubblemound breakwater was
constructed between 1908 and 1929 (USACOE 2004) to reduce wave energy and facilitate
docking by ships at the harbor. It lies on top of Blonde Reef, a natural shallow water area in the
eastern side of the Bay. In the late 70s and early 80s there was much research and planning
activity related to plans to modify the harbor and breakwater (US FWS 1979, USED 1980,
USACOE 1983a, b), but the modifications never took place. Currently there is a new push,
supported by the community and by Mayor Harry Kim, to study the Bay and the breakwater
again in order to determine whether modifications to the breakwater would improve water
quality in the Bay. The Department of Transportation, Harbors Division, is unlikely to allow any
such modification, however, if it reduces the functionality of the Bay. The key initiative in this

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?23

direction is the Hilo Bay circulation modeling study commissioned of the ACOE; the ACOE has
now prepared a draft Scope of Services that is available for review.

5.8?Storm water management

Developers must plan for the disposal of their storm water output and follow current county
guidelines on the amount of runoff water that the development must be able to retain/handle.
They are allowed to maintain pre-development drainage conditions. Small developments that
have negligible drainage impacts are not held to the same standards as large-scale developers, so
they may not be obligated to have the capability to retain water from a 10 or 25-year flood. There
has been some discussion recently of actions to be taken to protect water quality from the
impacts of storm water. Actions considered include catchment basins to filter out solid materials
before the water enters the storm drain, but this option is being weighed against the cost of
maintenance. With the tremendous rainfall in Hilo and the masses of plant litter that are carried
by storm water, this would be a huge undertaking. Modifications to storm drains are planned
under the Czara New Urban Development Measure. No non-structural BMPs have been tested
to date. There is no single map available showing major storm water diversions and channels,
but there is a map of storm drains for Hilo town (G. Kuba pers.com., by way of J. Zimpfer).
Integrated flood management, as recommended later in this plan, has not been a county strategy
to date, and no watershed-wide hydrologic model exists to support such management.

5.9?Grubbing and grading

Appendix 5 describes the current status of grubbing and grading ordinances, and positive
criticism for their improvement. The process of revising grubbing and grading laws was started
years back but has not reached completion yet. Both the county and NRCS are understaffed to
accomplish what are commonly called "grading/grubbing ordinance driven" plans for different
reasons. The local Soil and Water Conservation Districts could have a larger role to play but
there are linkages that need to be strengthened in order for that to happen (pers. com. S. Skipper).

As an indication of the understaffing that prevents proper monitoring and enforcement of
grubbing and grading permits, we examined the dates on 86 grubbing or grading permits that
were applied for in 2004 at Hilo county offices. Fifteen of the permits (17 %) were granted or
waived after the work had started, (range 1 day to 352 days after work had started) and 13 one
month or more after work had started. This is an improvement over the 1991 situation, when
173 of 355 permits (48.7 %) were issued or waived after work had already started; of these, 2
were after work was completed, 71 after work had started at least 30 days earlier, and 5 a year
after work had started.

5.10?Agricultural lands

Sugar cane dominated agriculture until 1990, then it gradually phased out, until in 1995 there
was only one plantation. The last crop was harvested in 1996 (Research Solutions 2002). The
change is very recent, and the economy, society and environment are still in transition.
Pesticides and fertilizers were added to these fields, and these may still moving into the ground
water, as indicated by well contamination with pesticides. As a result of the ending of sugar cane

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?24

planting, in the mid to late 90?s the Wailuku River drainage basin in particular experienced a
drastic change in land use activities. Following the departure of sugar plantation operations and
the cessation of continuous harvest and tillage cycles much of the area was stabilized by
volunteer cover, modified for residential development and smaller areas were planted to other
crops. Overall, annual tilled and open or bare land acreage has been drastically decreased. Water
quality and erosion and sedimentation data gathered during the sugar cane period may no longer
present a valid picture of agricultural contributions to watershed pollution.

Currently orchards and flower plantations dominate the agricultural landscape, along with fallow
land. Along the Hamakua coast north of Hilo, soil loss due to erosion was high in the past due to
sugar cane and other plantings on steep, high rainfall areas. Currently less soil loss is probably
occurring because orchards and flower plantations have a smaller footprint and include good
ground cover. Nevertheless, it is necessary to monitor incoming small land holdings that may
require more frequent tilling (Smith 1998). Some cattle ranching occurs along the Hamakua
coast, but calves are exported for fattening due to economic constraints. Agricultural and
ranching land are shown as cultivated land, grassland and shrubland in the land cover map (Fig.
6)

Erosion and pollution control on agricultural lands are under voluntary management, overseen by
NRCS and the Soil and Water Conservation Districts. The NRCS Hawaii Field Office Technical
Guide (FOTG) is locally adapted and contains standards and specifications for all conservation
practice application. The NRCS National Conservation Planning Procedures Handbook (NPPH)
is also used to link and associate practices in a systematic manner for specific types of plans.
Planners use these manuals to ensure that practices are appropriate and integrated to apply a
?conservation systems? approach in development of the Conservation Plan documents. The
Hawaii FOTG is accessible on the web through the NRCS Hawaii website. Conservation practice
application effectiveness is well documented. However, if a plan and associated practices are not
applied, they cannot be viewed as complete or effective (S. Skipper, pers. com.).

Information on conservation plans on agricultural properties is proprietary information, so that
the authros were unable to assess the number, type, potential conservation impact and degree of
implementation of management plans. While voluntary compliance with conservation plans is
probably a good system, given the strong support provided to farmers through the USDA/NRCS,
no data are currently collected on the actual effectiveness of conservation plans in reducing
pollution. Without evaluation and monitoring, one cannot assess the value of BMPs or the
degree of compliance by landowners, and therefore one cannot determine when practices need to
be changed, or how to best adapt practices to local conditions.

Agricultural tourism may become an important even though small part of the Hilo economy?
e.g. tourists visiting local orchards and flower farms? especially when linked to the within-
Hawaii cruise ship industry (e.g., Norwegian Cruise Lines? week long tours of the islands)
(Bishop 2005).

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?25

5.11?Wastewater management

Hilo's first sewer system, which delivered raw sewage inside the breakwater (Fig. 7) was
completed in 1905-1906. The system was expanded in 1935-1937 to incorporate a longer outfall
and to link Waiakea Town. The capacity of the Waiakea segment was too small, and at times
raw sewage was discharged into the Wailoa River. In 1952, 3.5 million gallons per day of raw
sewage were discharged from the outfall, but most of the town relied on cesspools, not the
sewage system. In 1962, the Hilo Sewer System served about 20% of the Hilo population. The
sewage system was upgraded in 1966 to include primary treatment, locate the outfall outside of
the breakwater (off Puhi Bay), and other improvements. The treatment plant was upgraded to
secondary treatment sometime after 1980. The inner Bay outfall was closed, and the current
outfall from the 5 million gallon per day treatment plant near the airport is located in the area
outside of Puhi Bay (Fig. 8).

Approximately 30-40 % of urban Hilo is currently connected to sewers (P. Boucher, pers. com.)
(Fig. 8; Fig. 9). No master plan exists for achieving the maximum possible level of hookups to
existing sewer lines. County policy regarding hooking up to the sewer system is as follows: For
residential areas, County Code Section 21-5 states that ?every lot which is accessible to a sewer
and which has a plumbing fixture on it shall be connected to the sewer?. For subdivisions,
Section 23-85 states that ?In a subdivision laid out after December 1, 1966, sewer lines shall be
installed where the subdivision is within three hundred lineal feet of the existing sewer system.
These lines shall conform to the minimum requirements of the department of public works. In
subdivisions where connections cannot be made to an existing sewer system under the
requirements of this chapter, the subdivider shall meet the minimum requirements of the State
health department relating to sewage disposal.? All gang cesspools are referred to DOH for
application of current statewide regulations, which call for their total closure and replacement
with septic systems.

In 2004 the exemptions for houses built before 1984, and those that would have to pump up to
the collection system, were revoked. Homeowners were given 180 days to reach compliance.
But compliance has not been monitored (D. Beck, chief of Technical Services, pers. com.). To
achieve hookups, any house sold that is not connected must be connected prior to sale
completion, if a sewer line is available (J. Zimpfer, pers. com.). Also, customers must pay for the
installation of connection lines themselves (which can cost between 5,000 $ and 15,000 $,
depending on location and topography), and pay a 27 $ monthly sewerage fee, but there is no
additional one-time connection fee.

The exact status of sewer connections is not known due to low monitoring, and there is no
current map showing the location of cesspools and septic tanks or their relation with respect to
flood zones and underlying hydrology.

5.12?Industrial pollutants

During the height of the sugar cane era, there was a canec plant in Hilo that added arsenic and
other pesticides to bagasse to make an insect- and rat-resistant wallboard product used in
construction; wastewater from the plant was discharged into Wailoa estuary pond. Similarly, the

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?26

Wainaku sugar mill discharged process wastewater and bagasse into the Bay and the Waiakea
Mill discharged wastewater from washing cane (with high silt content) into Waiakea pond, some
of which would have been carried out into the Bay by the Wailoa River.

In 1978 sediments in Hilo Harbor had the highest concentrations of arsenic of any estuary in the
state (675.4 ug/g dry weight, vs. background levels elsewhere of less than 20 ug/g dry weight)
(M & E Pacific 1980). This is outside of the Waiakea pond, which presumably is the source of
arsenic, which would be resuspended from the sediments during storm flows. However, as
arsenic is not very soluble, concentrations in the water column are generally at non-detectable
levels, as they were in Hilo Bay in 1978. Although carcinogenic effects due to arsenic have been
recorded for workers in factories using inorganic arsenic and for those ingesting water with high
levels of inorganic arsenic (EPA standard is 50 ug/l), and high exposure to toxic forms of arsenic
can also cause birth defects, these effects are due to chronic exposure to arsenic in the air and
water. This is not a concern in the Hilo area, as arsenic levels in water and fish muscle tissue are
low. Consumption of fish from areas where arsenic is present in sediments is not a serious health
concern, as the forms of arsenic found in fish and crustaceans appear not to have negative health
effects (Eisler 1988). Although fish and other marine organisms, including crustaceans,
cephalopos, and algae can bioconcentrate arsenic to some extent, arsenic is not biomagnified in
the food chain. Fish naturally accumulate arsenic from non-anthropogenic sources into the
viscera, not the muscle (arsenic is relatively abundant in the environment and at very low levels
may be essential for proper vertebrate growth (Eisler 1988).

We stress this information because there has been concern among Hilo Bay fishermen that
studies of arsenic in the Bay may lead to a shutdown of fishing areas due to health concerns (D.
Weeks, pers. com.). The above description indicates that this is very unlikely occurrence. We do
however need to study the levels and cycling of arsenic in the Bay by the biological community,
because arsenic can affect plant growth (agricultural and other), insects, plankton, and other
aquatic organisms sensitive to arsenic, and can therefore affect ecosystem function in Bay
waters, which in turn can affect nutrient use by the biota. For example, arsenic can be taken up
by phytoplankton using the same pathway as phosphorus (T. Wiegner, pers. com.). Arsenic in
the Hilo Bay watershed could therefore potentially affect agricultural yields, wetland restoration
and function, and overall ecosystem function. It should be studied as part of ecosystem studies in
the watershed, but the public should be educated as to the purpose of this research and it should
be made clear that there is not current concern about the health effects of eating fish from areas
with arsenic contaminated sediments such as Waiakea pond and Hilo Bay.

There was also a gas plant on the shore that discharged petroleum waste into the Bay (Fig. 7; M
& E Pacific 1980) and there may be some residues from this time (County of Hawaii 2004).

5.13?Current uses of Bay

Hilo bay is regulated as a class A water; its uses and conditions are described as in Appendix 7
(Definition of Class A waters by Hawaii Administrative Rules)

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?27

Fishing

Fish management areas and regulations are described in the Division of Aquatic Resources Web
site. Within the Hilo Bay watershed, DAR regulates fisheries in Hilo Harbor (inside of the
breakwater), Wailoa River, Wailuku River and Waiakea pond. Data on fish takes are available
from DAR. The Hilo Bay Comprehensive Study (M & E Pacific 1980) contains the results of
extensive interviews with Hilo fishermen and describes the fisheries at that time. Current
concerns of fishermen include keeping the mouth of the Wailoa river open and enlarging the boat
harbor in that area. R. Nishimoto, DAR fisheries biologist in Hilo, is interested in managing
Waiakea pond as fish nursery, and restoring its vegetated border to increase its quality for fish
production. This is consonant with interests in the Hilo community in restoring the former
coastal wetlands in Hilo, and with the need to improve habitat quality for endangered wetland
bird species in Hawaii.

Canoeing

Canoeing (outrigger canoes) is the main recreational use of the Bay, and has great cultural
significance. There are 8 canoe clubs operating out of Hilo, and several of the high schools also
have canoe clubs. About 750 paddlers of all ages participate in the clubs. The 2004 International
Va?a Federation World Sprints were held in Hilo in August 2004, bringing about 1,500
competitors and many more spectators to Hilo, with an estimated contribution of about 4 million
$ to the local economy (Fig. 10). There are six to seven races every summer in the Bay, and
every day there are canoes on the Bay for practices and classes. This provides a great
opportunity for volunteer and school-based monitoring activities, as the canoeists and students
are constantly in the Bay, going fairly far out in their canoes. They have a strong interest in water
quality (Dayton 2005), and could easily be recruited to participate in the monitoring and
education activities.

Surfing and swimming

Surfing and swimming do take place, but swimming is limited due to the local populace?s fear of
rashes and staph infections. Hilo Bayfront as it is called is one of the longest and best left hand
surfing breaks in the State of Hawaii. It has a narrow swell window and breaks infrequently
predominantly from October through February. The surf spot has a long cultural history and is
referenced by Isabel Byrd Bishop in her novel ?Six Months in the Sandwich Islands?. There is a
large contingent of dedicated wave riders that use surf based website information to predict the
swell events and the spot can accommodate larger amounts of surfers due to the expansive nature
of the surfing area (S. Skipper, pers. com.).

Swimming is not uncommon at the Wailuku river mouth but the beach is small. Most of this type
of activity would be better termed ?wading? especially along the Bayfront Beach or Canoe
Beach section of the shoreline and Wailoa Boat Ramp where children often can be seen playing
in the shallows on the weekends while parents participate in paddling or fishing activities. A
common complaint is water turbidity and skin irritations that have been observed from time to
time from some unidentified sea creature(s). Since this popular surfing spot sits at the mouth of
the river with largest volume of water in the state, some studies should be undertaken along the

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?28

reach of the riparian system to locate and quantify potential pollutant/bacterial entry points, as
most of the inputs into the marine environment could be traveling into the Bay in or on the
waters of the Wailuku. (S. Skipper ? pers. com.).

Other water sports

Jet skiers and sailing boats are also present in the Bay. Their impact on, and concerns of their
owner regarding, water quality should be addressed.

Cruise ships

The number of port calls by cruise ships and the number of cruise ship passengers visiting Hilo
rose from 105 and 75,633 respectively in 2001 to 136 and 234,525 in 2004, respectively. With
the addition of Pride of Aloha to the fleet in July 2004, projected visits in 2005 are 164 and
302,560. With the addition of two new domestic flag ships to Norwegian Cruise Line?s fleet in
2005 and 2006, projections for the year 2007 are 217 port calls and over 400,000 passengers.
The projected revenues for the same year, based on an average expenditure of $ 100 per day by
each passenger and considering both Hilo and Kailua Bay ports, are $ 83,380,000 in passenger
expenditures, $ 53,366,000 in GSP generated, $ 33,352,000 in household income generated
(based on 1,108 jobs generated) and $ 5,669,840 in state and local taxes generated. A bit under
half of these monies would be generated by Hilo port calls (information provided by Harbor
Master I. Birnie).

The cruise ship industry will play a large role in the economic development (or stability) of the
Hilo area in the near future. Hawaii county and the city of Hilo have plans to revitalize the area
between Hilo and the cruise ship piers as a greenbelt with connecting greenways and with a
shore front park in order to strengthen the cruise ship industry in Hilo (County of Hawaii 2004).
While economic analysis has been done of the economic benefits of the industry, the impact in
terms of water quality has not been measured, nor has the cost or improving the infrastructure in
order to support the growing industry been included in the cost-benefit analysis. Issues such as
the environmental impact of increased visitation to Volcanoes Park and Hilo area parks need to
be addressed. There is huge potential here for creating a partnership between Hilo and the cruise
ship industry, especially with Norwegian Cruise Lines which has demonstrated a strong
commitment to Hawaii with its US flagships (Bishop 2005) and to establish an ecological/natural
history theme to the cruise ship visits to Hilo.

6?E

XISTING MANAGEMENT EFFORTS AND WATER RELATED MASTER PLANS

We are aware of the following management, construction, research and education efforts
ongoing in the Hilo Bay Watershed, which provide opportunities for synergy and collaboration
with the Watershed Based Restoration Plan (names of contact personnel are given in
parentheses):

1. UH Hilo storm water structures?redesign of storm water management on UH Hilo campus

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?29

2. Flood control?Palai Stream flood diversion?Department of Public Works; partial diversion
for Waiakea stream above Kupulani Street (Galen Kuba)

3. Stenciling urban storm drains?NEMO project (Jeff Zimpfer)

4. Army Corps of Engineers?Honolulu District?computer modeling of circulation in Bay,
under different hypothetical scenarios of breakwater modification, based on exiting data with
small amounts of water quality data to be gathered; Tom Smith in charge of modeling (E.
Williams per. com.)
The County is committed to improving and restoring the Hilo Bay ecosystem and water quality,
but rather than focusing on pollutant inputs coming from the watershed itself, it is investigating
ways to improve Bay circulation, possibly by altering the Hilo Bay breakwater. This would
allow natural flushing to occur and thus minimize accumulation of pollutants trapped by the
man-made structure. The one condition on altering the breakwater is that the harbor function not
be compromised. To this end, the County administration has approved funds to develop a
computer model to study Hilo Bay circulation and look at various alternatives to improve
circulation in the Bay. The County intends to hire the Army Corps of Engineers. The County has
expressed interest in including UH Hilo in the project, possibly to verify the model. The ACOE
also funds channel stabilization in waterways and canals.

5. Waiakea Soil and Water Conservation District?ongoing activities (Thomas Young)

6. Natural Resources Conservation Service? NRCS is involved in ongoing efforts to promote
stewardship by development of Conservation Plans for agricultural producers in the Hilo Bay
Watershed as well as other areas outside of the watershed. Some of these plans will be
associated with USDA Farm Bill cost sharing funds to implement erosion control, grazing
management and habitat enhancement and protection programs. In addition there will be a
review and selection of watershed areas (some in the WRP area) for participation in the
Conservation Security Program (CSP), another Farm Bill Program that targets watershed areas
and operators for stewardship incentive payments for applying higher levels of conservation
shown in their individual Conservation Plan. The NRCS Field Office (FO) is also responsible
for working with the local Soil and Water Conservation Districts to accomplish a GIS based
Resource Inventory for the FO work area. This inventory will include soils, watercourses,
critical habitat, drought affected grazing lands, coastal ponds, potential water quality problem
areas, confined animal sites, wellhead locations, fire hazard areas, noxious species and watershed
project areas and many other resource concerns. The Resource Inventory will include a sub-
inventory of the Hilo Bay Watershed Restoration Plan boundary area and have several layers of
information in that section as well.
The NRCS Big Island Resource Conservation and Development (RC&D) Coordinator and
Council are involved in assisting the HBWAG with grant development, grant seeking and fiscal
sponsorship of any received funds.

7. Sewer?Hookup incentives, flow study using dye, inspection of treatment plant and outfall
permit coming up

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?30

8. Fisheries?DAR fisheries area in the Bay and pond?allowing revegetation of area around
pond, considering study of Waiakea pond as population source for coastal fish (R. Nishimoto)

9. UH-Hilo:

Chemistry:

Dr. Debra Weeks examining occurrence and behavior
of arsenic and copper species in Waiakea pond

Marine Biology:

Dr. Tracy Wiegner and Dr. Richard Mackenzie (USDA
Forest Service): Bioavailability of natural and
anthropogenic dissolved and particulate organic matter
from Hilo Bay ahupua'a

Geology:

Dr. Jene Michaud: Mapping of accessible water
sampling sites in Hilo Bay watershed (with T. Wiegner)

10. DLNR/DOFAW?fencing, ungulate control, fire suppression, invasive plant species control,
invasive animal species control (L. Hadway, DOFAW-Hilo).

11. Kamehameha Schools?internal efforts towards greater sustainability in land management

12. Department of Hawaiian Homelands: DHHL does not do any more ranching on their
watershed lands. However, May start grazing and homesteading in the future. The area south of
Saddle Road is on long-term lease with DOFAW. On the rest of their land, DHHL is controlling
gorse via spray and reforestation (to shade out gorse)?they have about 4 or 5 thousand acres
covered in gorse. They want to plant about one thousand acres in trees. They also use biological
control measures, burning and herbicide application. They are estimating it will take 20-30 years
for the project to be complete. They have an approved (August 9, 2001) Final Environmental
Assessment for controlling gorse, for Koa salvage, and for reforestation. Reforestation in their
former sugar cane lands, in the makai area, is meant to both stabilize soil and bring in long-term
income through forestry.

13. EPA Brownfields Economic Redevelopment Initiative grant awarded to County of Hawaii;
identification and assessment of areas contaminated by past sugar mill use, pesticide storage,
plantation dump sites; development of plans for greenways and development on these areas

14. Friends of Downtown Hilo Association?have set priorities and developed mission/vision
statement for the revitalization of downtown, have chosen Hilo Bay restoration as one of their
key goals.

15. Living on a Hawaiian Stream Community Handbook?in prep by Dr. Michele Sheehan with
support from DAR.

16. County of Hawaii Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Program; objectives listed in
Appendix 1 (Galen Kuba).

17. Plans for Wailoa small boat harbor dredging?contract completed (Scott Sullivan) for study
of localized hydrogeology, now seeking funds to do the dredging. Filling in of river mouth is
considered an accretion problem with sand coming from Wailuku side, so sand will be replaced

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?32

7?I

MPAIRED

ATERS IN THE

ILO

ATERSHED

-- H

AWAII

303

D LIST

7.1?The table below lists the water quality impaired segments in the Hilo Bay watershed, and is
modified from Koch?s (2004) 3004 303d list of Impaired Waters in the State of Hawaii

Listed
Waterbody

Geographic scope of listing

Pollutant

Basis for listing

Standard

Stream

Alenaio Stream
8-2-61.01.1

Alenaio Stream (Wailoa
tributary)

Nutrients

Visual assessment

Dry

Honolii Stream
8-2-56

Honolii stream

Nutrients
Turbidity

Visual assessment.
Numeric assessment

Dry
Dry

Waiakea Stream
8-2-61

Waiakea stream (Wailoa
tributary)

Nutrients

Visual assessment.

Wailoa River
8-2-61

Wailoa River

Nutrients
Turbidity

Visual assessment.

Wailuku River

Wailuku stream

Turbidity

Visual assessment.

dry

Coastal

Wailoa River
001200

Boat Ramp station

Enterococci

Numeric

Wet/dry

Wailoa River
001132

WR Boat Ramp station

Enterococci

Numeric

Wet/dry

Hilo Bay

Bay inshore of breakwater
and near shore waters from
Wainaku to Paukaa

Nutrients
Turbidity

Visual assessment.
Prior listing

Hilo Bay
001106

Boat Landing station

Chlorophyll a

Numeric assessment

Wet/dry

Hilo Bay
001138

Canoe Beach station

Enterococci
Turbidity

Numeric assessment

Wet
Wet/dry

Hilo Bay
001102

Exit of Ice Pond station

Total P
Enterococci

Numeric

Wet/dry
Wet

Hilo Bay
001107

Lighthouse station

Chorlophyll a
Turbidity
Enterococci

Numeric

Wet/dry
Wet
Wet

Hilo Bay
001141

Offshore station

Chorlophyll a
Turbidity
Nitrite/nitrate
Ammonium

Numeric

Wet/dry
Dry
Wet/dry
Wet/dry

Hilo Bay
001110

Honolii Cove station

Enterococci
Turbidity

Numeric assess

Wet/dry
Wet/dry

Leleiwi Beach
Park
001121

LBP station

Total P
Enterococci

Numeric

Dry
Wet/dry

Kolekole Beach
001118

Kolekole Gulch station

Enterococci
Turbidity

Numeric

Wet/dry
Wet/dry

Richardson?s
Ocean center

ROC station

Enterococci

Numeric

Wet/dry

Puhi Bay
001130

PB #3 station

Turbidity
Chlorophyll a

Numeric

Dry
Wet/dry

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?33

7.2?Description of Criteria for Listing

Here we describe the basis on which streams were added or their listing modified in 2004; those
not described in the text but present in Table 1 are carryovers from the 2002 list, classified using
the same methodology described here.

Segments Listed on Basis of Numeric Assessment

Bodies of water in this category are categorized based on existing numeric data gathered by
DOH from 1997-2003, for conventional pollutants: nutrients, sediments, and turbidity. Note that
sample sizes in all cases were small and sufficient data were never available for any stream to
trigger the 10 % and 2% storm event allowances. All descriptions are from Koch et al. (2004).

Priority 1?(waters for which at least 10 samples are available in either the wet or dry season;
the geometric mean for each season is compared to the wet and dry season standards,
respectively):

1. Honolii stream: Previously listed (2002 303d list) for nutrients and turbidity. In 2004, showed
no exceedances of nutrients (NO3, total N, Total P) and turbidity (TSS and turbidity) for the wet
standard. For the dry standard, there is not sufficient data to evaluate exceedances, and more
monitoring is needed. Note that both nutrients and turbidity were sampled by visual assessment,
not by analyzing water samples.

2. Wailuku stream: Previously listed for nutrients and turbidity. In 2004, showed no
exceedances of nutrients (NO

, total N, Total P) and turbidity (TSS and turbidity) for the wet

standard. There were also no exceedances of the wet season turbidity standard. For the dry
standard, there is not sufficient data to evaluate exceedances, and more monitoring is needed.

Waters Listed Based on Fecal Indicator Bacteria

For inland waters, the fecal coliform standard is used. For marine waters, the enterococcus
standard of 7 cfu/100ml is used. Criteria for listing: there must be a minimum sample size of 10,
and there are no allowances for 10%, 2% or wet/dry variations. Fecal coliforms are rarely
measured in fresh or inland surface waters, so no data on fecal indicator bacteria are available for
streams in the Hilo Bay watershed. Therefore no streams are listed for fecal indicators.

There were no new listings in 2004 that did not already exist in 2002. Listed coastal waters are:
Wailoa River Boat ramp station, Honolii Cove, Lighthouse Station, Canoe Beach, Exit of Ice
Pond; all listed for enterococcus, based DOH data from 1997-2003.

Waters Listed Based on Nutrient Visual Assessment

Visual assessment for nutrients relies solely on an estimate of algal growth on the substrate and
greenish color to water. This is interpreted as sign of eutrophication. No species identification
of the algae in question is used. No measurements of organic or inorganic N or P or chlorophyll
are taken. Scores are as follows:

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?34

Score 2.0 ? 1.5: Water clear with no significant algal scum or microalgae; rocks may be
slimy but algae not obvious.

Score 1.0 ? 0.5: Large clumps of macroalgae present, or distinctive green/brown scums
visible on bottom or sides of stream

Score 0: Water distinctly green or pea green; or channel choked with grasses

It is unclear what the standard for exceedances is based on this visual assessment.

Waters Listed Based on Turbidity Visual Assessment:

This assessment is based on the depth to which objects can be clearly seen. No filtering of water
and measurement of total suspended solids takes place. Scoring is as follows:

Score 2.0 ? 1.5: Very clear, objects visible at depth to the bottom

Score 1.0 ? 0.5: Moderately turbid

Score 0: Very turbid

It is unclear what the standard for exceedances is based on this visual assessment.

8?S

OURCES OF INFORMATION ON WATER QUALITY IN

ILO

8.1?Research Data

There is little current research on the Hilo Bay ecosystem and previous research is scarce at best.
A search with the Web of Science search engine failed to turn up a single published peer-
reviewed article on aquatic ecology in Hilo Bay. Unpublished reports are few and far between as
well. One of the few detailed reports useful in assessing water quality is Dudley and Hallacher
1991.

This lack of published material contrasts with the situation for Kaneohe (multiple papers on
algae, diffusion, and nutrient concentrations), Hanalei, Nawiliwili (e.g., El-Kadi et al. 2003,
2004) and the urban bays in leeward Oahu. Those are the watershed now undergoing restoration
and continued research, indicating that a strong body of research is required prior to
implementation of restoration plans. In all those cases, research was a precursor to restoration.
All data available for Hilo Bay derive from consultants completing EAs and EISs, from ACOE
evaluations, DOH monitoring and USGS monitoring. None of these efforts are designed at
understanding the ecosystem, with the exception of the Hilo Area Comprehensive Study (M & E
Pacific 1980). Hoover?s (2002) analysis of the long term National Stream Quality Accounting
Network (NASQAN) data illustrates the problems of a sampling regime that is not well designed
spatially and temporally?trends in the data cannot be pinned down to any source, despite long
term, expensive sampling. That review also shows that better monitoring of storm samples is
needed, since nutrients and sediments are entering at this time and affecting the ecosystem, even
if they are not captured during many non-storm grab samples (i.e., certain organisms may not be
able to persist in the Bay due to infrequent but high inputs of nutrients or fresh water or

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?35

sediments). Any research plan in the future will need a strong scientific coordination to ensure
that samples are continuously and constantly gathered, without interruptions or changes in
protocol, and with much better spatial coverage than that provided by the USGS automatic
samplers or by DOH water quality monitoring.

One key point to keep in mind is that water quality classifications have little to do with
ecological conditions in the waters tested, and that sampling is carried out at a spatiotemporal
scale that does not allow an elucidation of the processes that produce the ?impaired? conditions
of the water. The scale of sampling is also inadequate to characterize the nutrient, fecal indicator
and sediment content of the water in terms of either average values or peaks and lows in values,
because storm events are not targeted, even though this is when the bulk of the inputs occur. On
USGS monitored streams, these data are available. For Hilo Bay, monitoring stations are neither
numerous nor continuously functioning (e.g., Wailuku data not usable for a number of years) and
there is no USGS monitoring of coastal waters which would allow us to understand the linkage
between stream inputs and coastal water contents, which would in turn allows us to at least
estimate the amount of inputs coming from ground water.

Of the 7 basins or subwatersheds in the Hilo Bay watershed, the best studied are Wailuku,
Honolii, and Alenaio/Waiakea. Wailuku is largely unaltered except for one floodwater input and
minor water uptakes at three small hydroelectric plants. Alenaio/Waiakea empty into the
Waiakea pond, and drain out through the canalized Wailoa river, and the entire urban portion is
highly altered for flood control. Honolii has water flow data from NASQAN. Pollutant loads are
currently being calculated for four stations on the Alenaio/Waiakea watershed as part of the
TMDL process. Once those loads are calculated, load reductions can be determined for that
watershed, although they cannot be assigned to specific reaches of the streams. The TMDL
process will allocate loads. The Restoration Plan process, in its early research phase, will
determine how the loads measured in the streams affect water quality in the Bay?i.e., are they
having an impact on Bay waters and Bay ecosystems. That information will assist the TMDL
process in allocating loads. Nutrient levels are currently under study at two points in the Wailuku
river watershed by Dr. Tracy Wiegner of UH-Hilo?one above the urban area, one below. This
study, once complete, will give us an idea of nutrient loads coming primarily from forested lands
and the lower urbanized area of the watershed, but not for agricultural areas. Once we have
those data, we can calculate needed load reductions for these nutrients. Currently we suspect
that large nutrient and other wastewater borne contaminants are coming from fresh water
seepage and underground conduit flow in lava tubes into the Bay from cesspools and septic
tanks. We are confident enough in this assessment to seek support for the county?s attempts to
increase the proportion of households that are hooked up to the main sewer system. Nevertheless,
we would like to see tracing studies and output monitoring studies that track the exact source of
fecal indicator bacteria and nutrients in the Bay, to verify our hypothesis.

8.2?Community input process

The community input process started in 2003 achieved two key goals of the EPA process for watershed
based restoration plans. First, it compiled a list of watershed-related problems; this list provides two
kinds of information, both of which are important for watershed management in the area: a) actual,
factual physical problems that need to be solved, and b) an overview of the community?s perceptions of

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?36

what constitutes a problem, with a ranking of what they view as the most serious problems. Second, it
established an independent, self-organized, self-governing community group composed of a mix of
technical and non-technical, government and non-government people, and other stakeholders and
interested community members. This group will serve as an outreach and coordination body for the
restoration efforts, and will also carry out independent necessary management and education efforts that
may not be included in the restoration plan

The key weakness of the community input process was that the major landowners in the watershed?
DLNR, DHHL, US Government, Kamehameha Schools and C. Brewer estates?did not participate
actively. Therefore we do not have documentation re their concerns, conservation plans, development
plans, willingness to participate in a restoration plan, etc. Additionally, fishers and the DAR were also
not heavily involved. On the other hand, participation by all county branches, the NRCS, the SWCD,
researchers and private landowners during the community input process was high. The biggest gap is
therefore probably with DOFAW and DHHL. Note, however, that DOFAW and DHHL have started
coordinating land management efforts. We do know a lot about fishers? needs and opinions from
interviews conducted during the Hilo Bay Comprehensive Study and from interviews with Dr. R.
Nishimoto, DAR biologist. Needs have not changed much over the last 20 years, focusing on the
dredging of the Wailoa river mouth, enlarging the boat harbor at the river mouth, and providing more
facilities for fishermen in Waiakea pond. Furthermore, DOFAW personnel gave extensive comments
during the review process and prior to the preparation of the final restoration plan. Additional efforts are
nevertheless needed to include input from all key stakeholders. A detailed description of the community
input process is given in the Hilo Bay Watershed Project Public Input Final Report, submitted to DOH
in May 2004.

Stakeholders, landowners and managers are listed with their contact numbers or addresses when possible
in Appendices 2 and 3.

8.3?Consultations with experts

Stephen Skipper (NRCS RC&D Coordinator), who has a strong background on Hilo Bay water
quality as an NRCS employee and former student coordinator with UH Hilo Bay Water Quality
Study (Dudley and Hallacher 1991), has provided us with extensive background on NRCS and
SWCD history in the watershed, County Grubbing and Grading Permit process, and NRCS
SWCD flood control projects. He has served as the NRCS/RC&D Program Technical advisor to
the HBWAG.

Ms. Kaleleonalani Napoleon, MSc. gathered background data and interviewed NRCS, DPW,
DOT and DLNR personnel as part of a ground truthing exercise to confirm and refine the
information obtained from the community input process.

The WAG itself, and in particular WAG coordinator Mary James continued gathering
information as we refined our objectives and specific questions came up during the writing
phase.

Jeff Zimpfer?UH Sea Grant Conservation Specialist?worked with the WAG to gather
background data.

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?37

Kirsten Silvius carried out discussions with UH Hilo researchers Drs. Debra Weeks, Jean-Pierre
Michaud, and Tracy Wiegner. Dr. Jene Michaud contributed her expert opinion through direct
participation in the WAG.

Dr. Weeks suggests that at least least 50 % of research and clean up efforts be spent on nutrient
issues. Dr. J. Michaud recommended focusing on repair and management of the sewer system
and wastewater management. Dr. Wiegner indicated that preliminary data from her project show
low levels of nutrients entering from the Wailuku river, recommended research to identify
sources of nutrients, sediments and bacteria to bay using tracers for particular sources. Dr. J. P.
Michaud recommended tracing sediment sources by land use type by identifying the geological
signature of the sediments entering the Bay.

8.4?Data available in reports or on the web

These data are described in the next section and in the earlier watershed background section.
Key sources of data are:

USGS data from monitoring stations, available on their website.

DOH water quality sampling?various branches, primarily Clean Water Branch available
on the STORET website

D. Hoover?s analysis of NASQAN data (Hoover 2002)

Study of fecal indicators and waste water in Hilo Bay (Dudley and Hallacher 1991)

M & E Pacific?s (1980) Hilo Bay Comprehensive Survey, commissioned by the
USACOE

Various Environmental Impact Statements

USGS report (e.g., Oki 2004; Fontaine and Hill 2002)

Fish, coral and algae sampling by the Coral Reef Initiative in Puhi Bay and Hilo Bay.

The information obtained is not listed here in its entirety. Rather, it is referred to in the
appropriate section under implementation, education, institutional review, and research, and
references are listed in the bibliography.

9?W

ATER

UALITY

ATA

- A

VAILABILITY

OURCES

This section provides an overview of the existing data and current monitoring activities in the
Hilo Bay watershed. The purpose of this data review is to determine whether sufficient data exist
to establish baseline water quality conditions in the waters within the watershed, and to evaluate
the adequacy of the current sampling regime for this purpose. This examination will help guide
us in developing a monitoring plan that will allow us to detect changes in the pollutant loads
entering the Bay and its tributary streams after mitigating measures have been implemented.

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?38

Several agencies have collected and continue to collect data of various types in the Hilo Bay
watershed. These include principally the Hawaii Department of Health (DOH), the U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS), and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The types of
data available include water chemistry and microbiology, stream flow rates in several of the
streams tributary to the Bay, and sediment and tissue chemical data. Most of this data is
accessible on the EPA?s online STORET databases (

http://www.epa.gov/STORET/dbtop.html

)

and on the USGS? websites at (

http://co.water.usgs.gov/sediment/

) and

(

http://nwis.waterdata.usgs.gov/hi/nwis/discharge

). The following sections outline the kind and

duration of monitoring that these agencies have conducted around the Hilo watershed. There
have also been numerous small investigations into water quality in Hilo Bay conducted by
university researchers, local government agencies, etc. The data from these is generally of a short
duration and directed at meeting the specific needs of the particular activity, therefore not really
?monitoring? in the sense of establishing baseline and trends in water quality.

9.1?Water Quality Data?Hilo Watershed Locations

The DOH monitors environmental waters at a number of beach and stream sites in the Hilo
watershed for bacteria, physical, and chemical parameters. Data for these sites extends over the
last several decades. Monitoring has taken place at more than 30 sites over the years. At some
stations the monitoring continued for more than 15 years with hundreds of samples regularly
being taken and analyzed. At some stations monitoring only lasted a few years with irregular
sampling, and at others the sampling was a one-time effort to obtain a snapshot of conditions at a
given point in time.
Most of the monitoring that the DOH does is for their regular program of federally mandated
water quality evaluation, other monitoring is done on an irregular basis in response to the need
for data for special projects and concerns. This means that the regular sampling regimen is not
designed specifically to determine sources of pollutants, but rather to detect exceedances of
recreational water quality standards at specific points.

Figure 11 shows the locations of all the DOH sampling sites with data available in the STORET
database. Due to budgetary constraints the DOH has gradually ceased sampling at a number of
monitoring stations in Hilo Bay. As of this writing, the DOH is sampling for C. perfringens,
enterococcus group bacteria, pH, salinity, temperature, turbidity, and dissolved oxygen, on a
weekly basis at three sites: Canoe Beach (~weekly since ~ 9/02), Honolii Cove (~weekly since
~5/2001), and the Exit of the Ice Pond (~weekly since ~11/2003). Prior to these dates the stations
were sampled less frequently. Data up to early 2005 for these 3 sites can be found on the
STORET website and newer data are held internally by the CWB awaiting uploading to the
STORET site. Appendix 4 summarizes the data available on the STORET system for all DOH
monitoring sites in the Hilo Bay watershed.

While the principal focus of the DOH monitoring is on recreational marine waters, DOH has also
sampled and continues to sample some fresh water streams in the Hilo watershed for bacteria and
the standard chemical/physical parameters. The STORET database contains DOH data for
stations on the Wailuku River and Honolii Stream. DOH is currently sampling Pukihae and Maili

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?39

streams. The sampling in these 2 streams plus that recently done in Honolii Stream and Wailuku
River are in support of current TMDL investigations being conducted by the DOH.

The USGS in addition to their well-known streamflow measurement activities, has collected an
extensive amount of water quality data at several of their gauge sites in the Hilo Bay watershed.
These stations are Wailuku River at Piihonua, Wailuku River near Kaumana, and Honolii Stream
near Papaikou. Figure 12 shows the locations of these stations. Parameters monitored at these
sites include a long list of chemical, physical, and biological factors (see Appendix 4 for an
example of the list of parameters monitored at USGS gauging station on the Wailuku river at
Piihonua).

Researchers at the University of Hawaii at Hilo (Dudley and Hallacher 1991) conducted a very
thorough investigation of sewage pollution in Hilo Bay in the early 1990s. The investigation
included bacterial monitoring at a number of sites between 1988 and 1991. During the three
years of the study the researchers monitored fecal coliform, fecal streptococcus, and
enterococcus at 15 stations along the shoreline and offshore in Hilo Bay, and several more
stations outside of the Bay. This group also looked at several physical parameters, and in
addition conducted circulation studies to characterize the pattern of water movement within the
Bay.

9.2?Bacteria Data ? General

Dudley and Hallacher (1991) contended that ?Hilo Bay?s waters receive untreated human sewage
via both point and non-point sources. Sewage appears to enter the Bay in one of two primary
ways: occasional catastrophic malfunctions of Hawaii County?s Hilo sewage treatment plant, or
chronic input from cesspools of private residences and commercial buildings.? However, given
the rather poor understanding we have of the relationship between the levels of the currently
employed bacterial indicators and the risk of illness from exposure to these levels (Byapanahalli
and R. Fujioka 2004, Fujioka 2001) it is important to carefully evaluate the sources of these
indicators to ensure that their presence is actually indicating sewage pollution.

Measurement and interpretation of the results of bacterial sampling is tricky. Given the fleeting
nature of such contamination results are seldom reproducible. In the available data there are a
number of examples of instances where several discrete samples were taken in a short period of
time with widely ranging bacteriological results.
Here for example are the results of a set of duplicate analyses for enterococci of samples taken at
Canoe Beach 10/19/99 - 10/20/99

date samples

min
(cfu/100ml)

max
(cfu/100ml)

avg
(cfu/100ml)

st. dev

10/19/99 10

0.3

132

33.7

42.71

10/20/99 25

0.7

124

13.69

29.79

All of these samples were taken from the same spots in the morning between 8:00 and 10:00 on
the two days.

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?40

A considerable amount of bacteriological data has been collected by the DOH. Over the years the
type of monitoring that has been done has evolved along with the advances made in the
understanding of bacterial indicators of pollution. In the past total coliform was assayed, but this
has been discontinued as it became commonly accepted that fecal coliform, and more recently
enterococci and C. perfringens perfringens are more meaningful indicators of sewage
contamination. Figures 13 through 15 illustrate the minima, maxima, and average numbers of
enterococci, C. perfringens, and fecal coliform respectively found in samples taken at the DOH
stations over the years.

9.3?Bacterial Data ? Enterococcus

Enterococcus group bacteria are currently the organisms used as the standard for environmental
waters in Hawaii. Aside from the three stations currently being monitored for enterococci by the
DOH the available data is old and sparse (Table 1, Fig. 13). Only 40 analyses were done in four
years at the boat landing station, and only 96 were done at the Coconut Island site. Use of
enterococcus as a sewage indicator was limited before the late 1980s, so sites that were active
before then lack this data. Enterococcus densities vary widely in the samples collected over the
years by DOH. The numbers are comparable at most of the stations (where the sample size is
sufficient to draw comparisons), and no pattern is apparent. In general enterococci survive in salt
water better than do the other indicator bacteria, but no difference between the data for fresh,
brackish, and ocean water stations is readily apparent.

Between August 1989 and July 1991 Dudley and Hallacher (1991, pg 37) found enterococcus
levels ranging from 0 to 4,000 at their sites inside and nearby but outside of Hilo Bay. Based on
their results they concluded that ?enterococci data from this investigation suggest that virtually
all of Hilo?s coastal marine waters will fail to meet State recreational marine water-quality
standards.? A summary of the enterococcus data collected by the University of Hawaii Hilo
researchers is found in Table 2.

Although this subgroup of the fecal streptococci are more human-sewage specific than the other
commonly used indicator organisms, the meaning of enterococcus levels in environmental waters
is somewhat unclear due to the fact that these organisms can occur and multiply in soils
uncontaminated by fecal matter, suggesting that their presence in recreational waters may be
unrelated to health risk from swimming exposure. The levels seen in the available data sets are
generally low, but quite variable. Levels are elevated during high rainfall periods when lots of
soil washes off the land. Dudley and Hallacher (1991) found a significant correlation between
densities of all the bacterial indicators and rainfall during the preceeding 24 hours. They also
found a corresponding negative correlation between salinity and bacterial densities. While these
researchers concluded that the observed correlations could be due to the rain bringing sewage
from cesspools in the drainage basin into the environmental waters, it is also possible that the
increases in indicators could be due simply to soil washing into the water and the greater survival
of bacteria in fresher waste water (c.f. Fujioka 2001).

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?41

9.4?Bacteria Data - C. perfringens

C. perfringens is a bacterium that provides a more definitive indication of fecal pollution in
water than enterococci. It has greater survival in the environment than other indicators, and is an
obligate anaerobe ? unlikely to multiply outside of a body. Hawaii DOH has used C. perfringens
as an adjunct to enterococcus testing as a way of dealing with the uncertainties of the
enterococcus standard. Unfortunately the data record for C. perfringens in the Hilo Bay
watershed is even sparser than that of enterococcus. The use of C. perfringens is fairly new in
Hawaii and therefore it was never monitored at several of the stations where monitoring has been
discontinued, and the period of monitoring is short at those sites were it has been used.

The range of values for C. perfringens at the DOH sites is much smaller than it is for enterococci
(Table 3, Fig. 14). While C. perfringens is not officially recognized as a sewage indicator the
State of Hawaii has set a recommended level of less than 5 CFU/100 ml for swimming waters.
As with enterococci there is no discernable pattern of C. perfringens distribution in the limited
DOH data set.

9.5?Bacteria Data - Fecal Coliform

Fecal coliform served as the standard sewage indicator organism group starting in the 1970s
when the USEPA recognized that total coliform bacteria, the previous standard indicator, were
not very specific for sewage pollution. The DOH collected samples for fecal coliform analysis
between the early 1970s and the mid to late 1990s at many of their Hilo Bay monitoring sites
(Table 4).

The data record for fecal coliform is rather longer than that of the newer indicators, however it is
less meaningful in light of the group?s non-specificity to sewage pollution. Some stations
definitely stand out as more and less contaminated with fecal coliform, but what else these
stations might have in common is unclear and requires additional investigation. The three most
contaminated sites on average were the Exit of the Ice Pond, Wailoa River, and Waiakea Mill
Pond (Fig. 15). These are all relatively fresh water sites, so it is possible that the lower salinity
has been conducive to longer survival by fecal coliforms.

9.6?Bacteria Data - Fecal Streptococcus

Fecal Streptococcus is another fecal organism that has been used as an indicator of sewage
pollution in water. Like the other indicators it has been found by researchers to be deficient in
this role and is not much used anymore. Formerly the ratio of fecal coliforms to fecal
streptococcus was used to determine whether the source of fecal matter in water is animal or
human ? animal feces containing a higher proportion of the streptococci. This utility has been
largely dismissed now due to variable die off rates of the two groups The DOH collected data
on fecal streptococcus at a number of their sites for several years. Table 5 summarizes the data
set for fecal streptococcus.

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?42

9.7?Nutrient Data

In the case of nutrients the extensive DOH data is supplemented by the large USGS collection of
data from their stream monitoring stations. A large amount of data on various nitrogen and
phosphorous species exists. There are also data sets of chlorophyll values; an indirect
measurement of nutrients, for many of the sites. Table 6 summarizes the history of DOH?s data
collection for different forms of nitrogen.

9.8?Nutrient Data - Nitrogen

The nitrogen water quality standards are exceeded on many occasions in the DOH data (Fig. 16).
While the reason for monitoring nitrogen compounds in water is generally to detect the presence
of agricultural pollution, the nitrogen seen in the waters in and around Hilo Bay may in fact be
the result of seepage of groundwater, which is much higher in nitrogen than seawater. It is well
known that Hilo Bay receives massive amounts of groundwater through near and offshore
seepage. As in the case of elevated levels of sewage indicator organisms, the significance of high
levels of nitrogen in the waters around Hilo Bay needs to be examined before resources are
expended to try and clean them up. Nitrogen levels found in the data collected by the USGS at
their completely fresh water sources are somewhat higher than those seen at the DOH?s marine
sites. Table 7 summarizes nitrogen data from the USGS station on Honolii Stream near Papaikou
as an example of typical levels seen in fresh water streams. Note that this stream drains an
agricultural area, so it is not unaltered or anywhere near its natural state.

The USGS nitrogen monitoring data (Table 8) also displays high results relative to the state
standards. The standard for inland waters (as the USGS stations are) is less stringent than the
standard for embayments (which the DOH Hilo Bay stations are). Nevertheless the levels seen at
the USGS stations regularly exceeded the applicable standards.

9.9?Nutrient Data ? Phosphorus

Phosphorus(P) levels seen in the DOH data sets are lower relative to the state standards than are
nitrogen levels (Fig. 17, Table 9). Table 10 summarizes USGS P data from the Honolii Stream
station, and Table 11 summarizes the availability of P data from USGS stations.

9.10?Chlorophyll

Chlorophyll content provides a useful indication of nutrient enrichment of environmental waters.
The DOH has collected chlorophyll data at a number of its Hilo Bay watershed sites over the
years. There has been no data collected since 1997, so the data is quite out of date. The
chlorophyll readings obtained by the DOH program are high. Station 1141 ? Hilo Bay offshore
has enough data to be able to lend credence to the results. The average concentration of 41.08
ug/l at this site is very high considering the state standards (Table 12).

The USGS database contains about fifteen measurements of chlorophyll (a and b) taken at
various stations in the Wailuku River in 1977 and 1978. This is much too sparse and short a data

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?43

set to permit an adequate assessment. The method used by the USGS is not readily comparable
to that used by the DOH.

9.11?Turbidity

The DOH monitored/monitors turbidity at most of its sampling sites for most of the years they
were active (Table 13). Average turbidity values are rather high at a number of the DOH stations,
most notably at Canoe Beach, the lighthouse, and Mooheau Park. One might expect that the
stations with the highest turbidity values would be those nearest the mouths of the streams
entering the Bay. However this did not seem to be the case near the estuaries of Honolii Stream
and the Wailoa and Wailuku Rivers. Turbidity, as with other water quality parameters is subject
to large variations with time and rainfall.

The USGS also collected a limited amount of turbidity data at its stations (Table 14). This
monitoring was not conducted on any kind of a regular schedule, but rather wass done
occasionally. In addition USGS switched at some point from the older Jackson turbidity scale to
NTU, two not readily interchangeable scales of measurement.

While it is commonly believed that the turbidity seen in Hilo Bay is the result of large quantities
of sediment being washed down the Wailuku River and other tributary streams. There is some
evidence that this is not necessarily the case. A program of continuous or nearly continuous
monitoring of stream flow at various points along the Bay?s stream courses coupled with
simultaneous measurement of turbidity is needed to truly determine the sources of turbidity in
Hilo Bay.

9.12?Sediment Toxicity Data

In the Hilo community a particular matter of concern is the presence of contaminated sediments
around the Bay. In addition to the bacteriological and physical parameters that the DOH has
monitored in water they have also performed sediment analyses in order to try and better
understand the extent of the chemical contamination known to exist in sediments around Hilo
Bay based on historical information about previous pollution from a Canec manufacturing plant.
For this purpose many samples were taken at multiple sites over a short time frame to get a
snapshot of what was there. Between September of 1976 and April of 1987 the DOH carried out
a special sampling of 22 sites around the Hilo Bay shoreline and estuaries of the tributary
streams. Eighteen of these stations were within the Hilo Bay watershed (Fig. 18). Testing was
performed by the DOH for a greater or lesser number of organic chemicals, pesticides, nutrients
and metals in sediment samples from these 22 stations. The DOH revisited the sites a few years
after the initial survey to see what changes may have occurred between the samplings. A large
suite of analyses was performed. Unfortunately there were some problems with the contract
laboratory that analyzed the samples and the lab was later closed down by the USEPA.
Nevertheless the data is reported to be essentially accurate (personal communication Terry
Teruya, DOH CWB, May 2005.

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?44

Between 1980 and 1987 the USEPA sampled a Hilo Bay shoreline site right at the bayfront for
toxic chemicals and metals in water, sediment, and plant or animal tissue, several times. This
data is also to be found in the STORET database.

9.13?Streamflow Data: - Availability/Sources

The USGS has monitored a number of streams in the Hilo Bay watershed from as long ago as
1911 in the case of Papaikou Stream. Table 15 outlines the sampling points and length of record
of USGS sampling in the watershed. One can see from the data that the largest stream entering
Hilo Bay is the Wailuku River (Fig. 19). Personal communication with Hilo residents indicates
that the Wailuku is a major source of sediments when there is a lot of rain. Unfortunately due to
the extreme conditions near the mouth of the river it is very difficult to obtain accurate
measurements during those times when the data would be most useful from the stadndpoint of
estimating pollution loading. The USGS continues to monitor at a number of stations in the
watershed, however these are not optimally situated for the purposes of estimating the relative
contributions of different reaches of the streams to overall pollution.

9.14?Conclusions

The existing data, though they are quite extensive in time span and quantity, have generally been
collected for the purpose of detecting the presence rather than the sources of pollution in Hilo
Bay. Data are not comparable between stations, were taken on different dates, at different times
etc. Many of the water quality analyses were done using a wide range of parameters using
different laboratory methods, yielding results that cannot be easily compared. Without the
guidance of an overall plan of comparing like parameters during the same time periods, the data
collection has been patchy. Drawing any kind of conclusions about the sources of pollution in the
Bay based on this uncoordinated data is difficult at best. There is a need for a
sampling/monitoring plan that is designed to address the specific questions of pollutant sources.
For example sampling should probably focus on the points where water actually enters the Bay;
the stream mouths and places where groundwater is seeping into the Bay.

Water quality is intrinsically variable over time and space. Even the best monitoring schemes
usually only obtain a series of ?snapshots? of data. Data that are taken only once or twice a
month may fail to capture significant trends in water quality. Samples taken 10 feet apart may
show completely different results. The case of the multiple analyses performed on samples taken
at the DOH?s Canoe Beach site over a two-hour period yielding hugely varying results
mentioned above is illustrative. Furthermore, change occurs very rapidly in streams and rivers,
particularly in the Hawaiian context. All of this points to the necessity of a high frequency of
sampling in a coordinated fashion.

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?45

10?O

VERALL

ONCEPTUAL

PPROACH TO

ESTORATION

This Restoration Plan takes into account the community?s knowledge, perceptions and
aspirations as well as the research and best management practices recommended by experts. The
Plan acknowledges that some of the problems are institutional and political in nature, and that
ecological research and on-the-ground remediation of physical and ecological problems alone are
not sufficient for restoration. The Plan suggests several major research efforts and multiple minor
ones that must be undertaken to guide restoration, and outlines an educational strategy to involve
the community in the restoration efforts. It also recommends a series of demonstration projects
and BMPs to be developed and applied in the watershed. In keeping with the EPA?s emphasis on
adaptive management, the plan proposes milestones and monitoring schemes that will allow
evaluation of the efforts along the way so that they may be changed or fine-tuned as the
restoration program proceeds.

The Plan focuses on restoring water quality and not ecological rehabilitation/preservation of the
whole watershed. However, this Plan does include ecological monitoring components aimed at
developing bioindicators for water quality that will make possible the development of ecosystem
restoration plans. Ecosystem maintenance is important not only for water quality but for the
enhancement of fishery resources that depend on restoration of the primary food chain and on the
nursery grounds in the estuaries.

10.1?Objectives of Restoration Plan

Obtain funding to establish three demonstration projects that will provide baseline data
and data from long-term monitoring on three areas of key concern in the watershed:
invasive plant species, invasive animal species, and wetland restoration (Section 13).

Encourage the establishment of general BMPs that will solve ongoing regulatory and
pollution problems in the watershed (Section 14) and obtain funding to implement these
BMPs

Determine sources of sediments from Wailuku river basin by land use type
(conservation/forest land vs. fallow agricultural land vs. active agricultural land vs. urban
and suburban areas vs. resuspension of Bay sediments).

Identify appropriate BMPs to reduce sediment input from identified sources in Wailuku
river basin where necessary and practicable.

Determine sources of nutrient input to Wailuku and Wailoa rivers?i.e., surface runoff
vs. ground water vs. autochthonous materials (in situ decomposition of leaf and fruit
litter).

Determine nature and amount of nutrient inputs to Bay through ground water seepage,
separate from ground water seepage into Waiakea pond/Wailoa River. Specifically,
determine amount that comes from cesspools, septics and leaking sewer system vs.
amount that comes from fertilizer runoff or non-anthropogenic sources.

Reduce number of cesspools, require homeowners currently discharging raw sewage into
lava tubes or crevices to terminate this practice immediately, and increase the number of
buildings hooked up to sewer lines.

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?46

Increase knowledge in the watershed community about the problems caused by
sediments, nutrients, runoff, wastewater, and other point and non point pollution sources
and about measures that can be taken by individuals and communities in the watershed,
and by State and County of Hawaii and federal agencies to reduce these pollutants.

Strengthen the HBWAG as an information center for watershed activities carried out by
individuals, NGOs, and city, county, state and federal agencies in the HB watershed

10.

Support DOH TMDL implementation through education, coordination and support of
low impact development practices.

11.

Develop bioindicators for nutrient levels in Hilo Bay to reduce the need for more
expensive lab-based sampling in the long term, and to enable trained non-professionals to
participate in water quality monitoring; i.e., methods should eventually be usable by
volunteers and high school students.

12.

Help develop a sound basis in public health, scientific research and economic
considerations for future development in the Hilo Bay watershed that will positively
impact water quality and watershed resource availability for present and future
generations.

13.

Improve the institutional management and decision-making process that regulates
activities impinging on water quality in the watershed.

14.

Describe the hydrology of the watershed in sufficient detail, including the flooding
situation in urban areas, to develop a comprehensive drainage and flood abatement
program that does not negatively impact the ecology of the watershed and Bay.

15.

Assess the potential contributions of wetland restoration to water quality, ecological
integrity and economic stability in the Hilo area.

16.

Through all of the above, achieve the prime objective: IMPROVE WATER QUALITY
IN HILO BAY

10.2?Approach to Achieving Objectives

The following strategies should guide the implementation of activities undertaken by the
eventual restoration team, and have already influenced the pre-selection of research, education
and immediate implementation activities:

Provide support and assistance (expertise and financial) to relevant Hawaii County
offices for those situations in which it is needed. Collaborate with the county?s efforts at
watershed restoration, including potential breakwater modification, development of
erosion control measures, and regional zoning. In this respect, for example, the WAG and
restoration team members could participate where possible in the County Technical
Advisory Committee review of the current sediment and erosion control measures to
make them more effective, and could also track and comment on County Planning
Department proposed zoning-related projects.

Implement BMPs for urgent issues such as cesspool reduction and sewer hook-ups,
runoff control, and community education.

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?47

Carry out longer-term research on key issues for which we do not have sufficient
information: sources of sediments, sources of nutrients, status of the Hilo Bay ecosystem,
potential for biomonitoring.

Carry out water quality monitoring on an appropriate spatiotemporal scale so that the
information contributes to our understating of the sources of impairment rather than just
to the status of the water relative to state water quality standards. Adapt the watershed
monitoring regime to local conditions appropriate for the Hilo area ?frequency and
location of sampling, parameters sampled, ground water as well as surface water, storm
and base flow, etc.

Provide sound economic and ecological bases for management decision and development
scenarios made by the Hawaii County and State, and Hilo Bay communities. This
includes putting the Hilo Bay Watershed /Hilo Bay into the larger context of a) Hawaii
Island and b) the State of Hawaii. Key areas to focus on are: cruise ship industry (impacts
pollution and the harbor management); agricultural development; forestry development
(the latter can be preliminarily assessed from existing EISs and inventories at DOFAW,
with additional input from DOFAW as one of the watershed partners) and industrial
development and urban/suburban growth in general.

Examine the hierarchy of decision-making that regulates watershed management
decisions.

Use demonstration projects on issues of public and scientific interest: e.g., wetlands and
fish stocks in Wailoa pond; economic analysis of cruise ship industry as example of
appropriate use of cost-benefit analysis, emphasizing need to include long term
environmental costs and benefits of any project as well as short economic costs and
benefits.

Support wetland restoration as a way of: 1) protecting endangered water birds; 2)
regulating sediment and nutrient entry into the Bay; 3) regulating flooding; 4)
diminishing the impact of arsenic pollution on the ecosystem. One approach is to carry
out a feasibility study on wetland restoration, including all appropriate forms of
valuation: ecological services, biodiversity protection, etc.

Involve local elementary schools and high schools in restoration and research efforts:
incorporate watershed issues into science curriculum (unbiased, fact-based information,
as distinct from social and political decisions about management, development and
conservation), involve students in monitoring (can be achieved through K-12 NSF grant
to UH Hilo professors)

10.

Coordinate with TMDL process: provide education for implementation success. Include
TMDL information in economic assessments, to emphasize how TMDLs can help guide
the development of an area, how BMPs can increase the allocations to any one sector,
and how they will link the different economic/management sectors of the community
through trading, etc. (proper management of conservation lands to decrease sediments
and nutrients, for example, can increase sediment and nutrient allocations to farmers?
this provides an incentive for farmers to collaborate with conservation; also, any plans to
bring in forestry will have to deal with existing allocations).

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?48

11.

Identify and then where possible address both current problems (sewer, runoff, low level
agriculture, residual sediments in Bay) and future problems (forestry, cruise ships, new
forms of agriculture, growth in urban area)

12.

Focus on UH Hilo as a way of positive development for Hilo?more money for research
will bring more students, which will provide a pool of trained personnel, which in turn
will bring in new businesses.

13.

Establish a formal partnership, by means of a Memorandum Of Understanding, among
the governmental and non-governmental organizations that can work together to oversee
the initial 5 year implementation, research and education period and must work together
later on do select, develop and implement best management practices and continue water
quality monitoring. Potential partner organizations include, among others, Hilo Bay
Watershed Advisory Group, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Waiakea Soil and
Water Conservation District, Hawaii Department of Health, Division of Aquatic
Resources, Division of Forestry and Wildlife, Army Corps of Engineers, diverse County
Offices (or simply the County of Hawaii), UH Sea Grant and University of Hawaii-
Manoa Water Resources Research Center.

14.

Increase the stakeholder base participating in or supporting the restoration plan by
incorporating private landowners into planning process (Kamehameha Schools,
individual homeowners) and by interfacing more closely with DLNR and DHHL.

10.3?Project Time-line: Five-year initial plan, divided into three elements

Immediate implementation of demonstration projects and pre-selected BMPs.

Medium term education efforts.

Medium term research and monitoring

At the end of five years, the restoration team should review the research, education and
implementation process, and evaluate data from the research projects. This evaluation shall be
done through a community and stakeholder participation process (e.g. one or two month-long
series of meetings in Hilo) to present data and reach consensus on the future needs of the
watershed, on long-term education and monitoring efforts, and on best management practices.
The restoration team will continue working through and after this period, but this will be the time
for critical evaluation of knowledge, success to date, and future budgetary needs.

11?R

ECOMMENDED

EST

ANAGEMENT

RACTICES

Baseline data obtained prior to the implementation of each of the BMPs described below, and
monitoring conducted for 3-4 years following implementation will provide badly needed data not
only on the impact of BMP implementation, but on the hydrology of the watershed. For each
BMP, monitoring of water quality should be designed to take place upstream of implementation

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?49

site, immediately downstream of implementation site, at one or more locations between the site
and the Bay, and in the Bay itself. Note that monitoring in the Bay itself is already covered by
the research and monitoring plan described in Section 14 below. The number of monitoring
locations between implementation site and the bay will depend on the distance of the site from
the bay, and on the hydrology and topography of the intervening area.

11.1. Eliminate cesspools and lava tube dumping

Background: Elimination of any cesspools in the watershed that are in the path of ground water,
along with completion of sewer hookups for the urban and suburban areas, of Hilo should reduce
the amount of waste water, and therefore nutrients and pathogens, reaching the Bay. For Hilo
Bay as well as for other coastal areas in Hawaii (Kahana, see Michaud 1995 and Garrison et al.
2003; Kaneohe, see Hoover 2002), it is clear that ground water is a large source of nitrogen.
This could indicate runoff from fertilizers, but also contamination from cesspools and septic tank
leachate. Monitoring of wastewater indicators together with nitrogen at selected areas will help
determine the source, as will tracing studies. However, the state of knowledge of the general
contribution of cesspool leachate to ground water is sufficient to call for the elimination of
cesspools in the hydrologically active areas. It is the goal of the county of Hawaii, the state of
Hawaii and of the US Environmental Protection agency to reduce cesspool usage. Contributing
to this goal will therefore expedite the process and make more efficient use of resources.

We know from local residents that cesspools opening into lava tubes (essentially lava tubes used
as cesspools) are common in the residential areas bordering the Wailuku river. Dumping of non-
household wastes into lava tubes is also common. Materials dumped in lava tubes may directly
move underground to the bay, or enter the fresh water system in other ways. Such cesspools and
dumping have been confirmed by residents (e.g. F. R. Hughes pers. com.) and researchers (e.g.
Halliday 2003). See Section 10.5.1 for more detail.

This BMP goes hand in hand with BMP 14.3 below (Sewer Line Completion) and should be
undertaken simultaneously

Problem Addressed: Nutrient, toxin, and fecal contamination of freshwater and bay

Expected Outcome: Reduce input of nutrients, human disease agents and toxic wastes into
freshwater and bay

Actions Required prior to implementation:

Evaluate the extent of cesspool and lava tube dump use in the watershed, map existing
cesspools, and assess, based on current knowledge of hydrology, the most critical areas to
target for elimination of cesspools.

Determine the actual extent of sewage hook up compliance in the urban areas.

Determine whether some of the houses can be hooked up to sewer system at owner?s
expense.

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?50

Identify alternative individual wastewater treatment systems to replace cesspools (e.g.,
septics) when hookup to urban sewer system is not possible.

Undertake a study of soils in the watershed to determine which are most appropriate for
cesspools, septic systems and which landscapes should have centralized sewage. Some
soils may provide adequate filtration for cesspools where others would be more suitable
for septic systems. Some soil areas would only be suitable for centralized sewage.
Generally the younger landscapes south of the Wailuku River are the most unsuitable for
cesspools (S. Skipper pers. com.)

make available in Hilo area materials re the impacts of cesspools

provide widespread community information on the rules and incentives and penalties
currently existing re cesspools

produce an educational video module (see education section) on the topic of wastewater
systems, including cesspools, septics, sewer, and alternative methods, in the state of
Hawaii in general and in the Hilo area in particular

Implementation actions: *Replace cesspools with alternative wastewater treatment system.
*Police known dumping sites, cite perpetrators and enforce penalties for dumping

Location to be applied: Prioritized cesspools

Costs to be incurred:

mapping--$ 5,000 for time spent with cesspool cards and ground truthing

salary and benefits for one technician to work with the county for two years solely on
mapping cesspools, monitoring compliance with regulations, and distribution of printed
educational materials? $ 80,000

print costs for educational materials? $ 5,000

cost of fuel and vehicles to be used by technician? $ 2,000

grant for the making of one video module?$ 10,000

Cost of selected individual waste water treatment systems (septics?).

Cost of policing known lava tube dumps (for toxic and other wastes).

Milestones by which to measure progress:

production of cesspool map 2 months after funding is acquired

hiring of technician no more than one month after funding

11.2. Elimination of gang cesspools (as per EPA regulation and ongoing statewide plans)

Background: Environmental Management Department has received funds from EPA to
address/remove gang cesspools

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?51

Problem Addressed: Nutrient and fecal contamination of bay

Expected Outcome: Reduce input of nutrients, human disease agents into freshwater and bay

Actions required prior to implementation: Identify gang cesspools and ascertain status of
compliance with elimination orders

Implementation actions: As per EPA / state plans

Location to be applied: Location of gang cesspools

Costs to be incurred: labor for locating and mapping cesspools and dumps with respect to known
hydrology of the area

11.3. Sewer line completion

Background: The sewer mains in the urban area have not been completed, and part of the urban
area within reach of sewer lines is not hooked up (see main text)

Problem Addressed: Provides alternative to cesspool use in urban area; reduces input of nutrients
and fecal disease agent to water.

Expected Outcome: Reduction in nutrient and disease agent input to water.

Actions required prior to implementation: *Carry out surveys of both homeowners and county
agencies to determine why sewer line completion has not occurred, and why compliance with
current hookup requirements is not occurring. *Obtain detailed map from county indicating
areas that are within reach of sewer lines but have not been hooked up. Note that we sought such
information from the county, but either it does not exist or it was not made available to us. The
County Environmental Management Office declined to review the first draft of this plan.

Implementation actions: *Hook up existing houses that are not already hooked up. *Extend
sewer lines and hook up additional houses. *Lobby county to proceed with hookups and seek
funds from sources such as State Revolving Fund. *Educate household owners as to
environmental advantages of hookups, and way to reduce cost of hookups

Location to be applied: At existing sewer lines and ends of such lines, to extend them

Costs to be incurred: *Under 319 funds--education campaign targeted at county and household
owners. *Actual hookups to be funded by other sources as accessed by the county

Milestones by which to measure progress:

100 % coverage of household in sewerage area 6 months after funding, with 1)
information 2) post-information evaluation re changes in attitudes and actual hooking up

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?52

full hookups of all houses that have access to sewer mains 3 years after funding

11.4. Maintenance of flood control channels

Background: Accumulation of debris near narrow areas in streams, at curves, and at bridges and
culverts results in flooding during storm events. Flooding continues to be a problem in the
watershed in spite of past implementation of flood control projects.

Problem Addressed: Flood and associated flood damage and erosion

Expected Outcome: Reduction in localized flooding during heavy rainfall

Actions required prior to implementation: Map all bridges, culverts and known ?clogging? points
in watershed. *Review the recommendations found in annual periodic inspection reports for the
existing flood control projects in the study area. *Request Corps of Engineers reconnaissance
report to see if conditions have changed from past project evaluation reports.

Implementation actions: Routine removal of in channel vegetation and debris. *Maintain
existing flood reduction projects in accordance with period inspection recommendations

Location to be applied: At identified at risk locations, and throughout stream channels

Costs to be incurred: Labor for driving/walking streams prior to each rainy season and during
rainy season to locate debris. * Labor for removing debris on a regular (? quarterly) basis

11.5. Habitat restoration on fallow sugar cane lands

Background: Much land is currently under grass cover following demise of the sugar cane
industry. Nutrients and sediments may be washed off from such lands during heavy rainfall.

Problem Addressed: Nutrient and sediment pollution

Expected Outcome: Reduce nutrient and sediment pollution, reduce erosion, increase nutrient
cycling, increase soil quality, put land back into potential forest production, contribute to
conservation of native species and reduction of exotic species

Actions required prior to implementation: Determine original vegetation cover prior to clearing
for agriculture (i.e., forest vs. scrubland vs. grassland). *Plan restoration according to previous
cover and current soil conditions. *On lands for which the zoning allows commercial plantation
of exotic species, evaluate the soil and slopes for potential planting with tropical hardwoods
which can generate income. *Review forestry BMPs developed by DLNR and available at
website, and update as needed for these particular sites and tree species being considered.
*Ensure that adequate marketing has been planned for these woods, which would only be
available for sale many years down the line.

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?53

Implementation actions: Restoration BMPs: removal of exotic grasses and feral cane
populations, establishment of nurseries for plant stock, or identification of nurseries with
appropriate stock. *Seek partnerships with companies interested in eventual harvesting of native
and exotic woods. *Seek partnership with land owners for leasing or other commercial
arrangements.

Location to be applied: Former sugar cane lands, now fallow. Maps being produced by NRCS
based on aerial imagery will in the near future allow pinpointing of these locations.

Costs to be incurred: Mapping. *Nursery establishment and / or seedling purchase.
*Coordination of volunteers for planting. *Equipment for planting. *Transportation and food
for volunteers. *Leasing of land if necessary

11.6. Implement locally adapted low impact development pilot projects

Background: Low impact development requirements and guidelines by the County of Hawaii
would lead to uniform, low impact construction patterns and materials. This includes strategies
such as using pervious pavement, treating storm water via an appropriate low-tech filtration
devices, and treating waste water in such away that pathogens and nutrients are released in lower
concentrations.

Problems Addressed: Flooding, water quality

Expected Outcome: Reduce storm flows and nonpoint source pollution (e.g., runoff polluted with
oil from roads, parking lots)

Actions required prior to implementation: Coordination with County of Hawaii and a local
landscape Architect

Implementation actions: Coordinate with Hawaii County Public Works and Parks and
Recreation.

Location to be applied:
1. Pervious pavement in an urban area--replace pavement in area slated for repair, or in new
construction.

2. Storm water filtration near the parking lot that drains into one of the anchialine ponds at
Richardson?s Beach Park.

3. Maintenance of drywells and catch basins throughout the watershed by removal of
accumulated sediment: check current maintenance schedule and increase frequency and
efficiency if needed

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?54

4. Removal of leaf and litter by increased street sweeping, especially along Banyan Drive, to
reduce particulate load to Reed?s Bay, Ice Pond, and the greater bay area

5. Installation of sediment removal facilities (check dams or filter fences) at parking lots adjacent
to or near the Hilo Bay and nearby drywells such as those located at Keakaha Park, Richardson
Park, and along Kalanianiole Ave. to reduce the sediment loading that washes directly into Hilo
Bay.

6. Identify all stormdrain outlets along Wailuku, Waiakea, Alenaio, Honolii and Wailoa rivers,
and determine potential for construction of sediment removal structures to reduce sediment
loading to the bay.

Costs to be incurred: Depends on projects chosen?e.g., area of surface to be paved in pervious
materials, etc. *Monitoring of outcome of projects?i.e., obtaining baseline data on runoff
quality prior to BMP application, and on load reductions after BMP application. No baseline
data currently exist for any potential project locations.

11.7. Develop integrated floodwater management plan for the watershed

Background: There is a need to prepare a detailed and well-coordinated comprehensive
watershed plan for the study area. To date flood control structures have been built in response to
individual flooding events, rather than on an assessment of the overall hydrology of the area.

Problem Addressed: Exacerbation of flooding at sites other than the flood control structure site

Expected Outcome: Reduce downstream flooding caused by upstream structures that were not
planned with the entire watershed in mind.

Actions required prior to implementation: *Develop hydrology model and water budget for
entire watershed, or at least for individual sub-watersheds were flood control structures are being
planned. *Request Corps of Engineers to prepare a Project Study Plan and reconnaissance level
plan for watershed flood management of the area

Implementation actions: *Make such planning a county level requirement. *Allocate funds for
such planning, including modeling and water budget. *Ensure future development and flood
control structures fit into the watershed wide flood management plan. *Facilitate Federal flood
reduction reports to evaluate possible flood reduction projects that might reduce future flooding
in the study area.

Location to be applied: County offices (planning); sites of proposed development and flood
control structures. *Entire watershed

Costs to be incurred: *Models. *Planning process and legislative change

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?55

11.8. Establish and enforce appropriate zoning for watershed

Background: Hawaii County Planning Department (PD) planning and land use decisions can
influence the sources that potentially cause pollution. There are two ways to regulate zoning: (1)
Resource/ Location (e.g. streams, groundwater, hazard areas, zoning, etc), and (2) Activity (e.g.
grading, wastewater disposal, stream alteration, etc). Hawaii land use is regulated in a
hierarchical fashion under 1) the State Land Use Law (under State jurisdiction), 2) the County
General Plan, and 3) zoning described within the General Plan. Urban growth is controlled
through the General Plan and zoning.

The General Plan identifies three major land categories: urban, agriculture, and conservation.
County zoning has the following major designations: urban, rural, agriculture, open and project.
The PD approves zoning (e.g. rezoning, variances, use permits, etc.), subdivisions, and certain
shoreline activities (Special Management Areas/SMA and Special Shoreline Variances/SSV).
People can request to have an area rezoned. There are higher standards for rezoning conservation
lands.

There are ?leverage points,? in the County Planning process for zoning where changes can be
made, especially in the area of subdivision regulation. Currently there are weaknesses in the
regulations, and in particular there is a need to require control of downstream flooding by new
subdivisions :

Discretionary approval early in development process. There are points in the
development process where discretionary approvals are made such as rezoning, or
attaching conditions to a design. Such actions take place early in the development process
and are opportunities to have input on a proposed project.

Enforcement of mitigation measures through ministerial approvals later in development
process such as subdivision approval, grading permits, and/or building permits. Input into
permits for such activities can be effective.

Decision-makers for discretionary approval, that is know who the decision makers are for
the various permits. (Planning Director, Planning Commission, County Council).

Problem Addressed: Hawaii County Planning Department (PD) planning and land use decisions
can influence the sources that potentially cause pollution. Better planning and proper zoning will
help prevent projects that might cause future drainage or pollution problems.

Expected Outcome: Improved and better coordinated PD related-activities that result in better
water quality

Actions required prior to implementation: Examine current zoning for watershed and identify
areas that may be inappropriately when viewed from the perspective of flood zones, contribution
to erosion, and integrated floodwater management.

Implementation actions: Ensure that next zoning process includes data from a hydrological
model and water budget for the watershed, and considers the guidelines set out by an integrated
flood management planning process.

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?56

Location to be applied: Hilo watershed.

Costs to be incurred: Cost to develop hydrological model, water budget for watershed, and cost
to develop integrated flood management guidelines.

11.9. Review and analyze existing SWCD Conservation Plans, with a view to implementing
NRCS technical standards and specs on agricultural lands that currently do not have
conservation plans with associated bmps

Background
Although NRCS maintains an up-to-date list and description of recommended BMPs for
agricultural lands, there is no available information on the BMPs that are actually implemented,
why they fail to be implemented, which landowners resist implementation, etc. Such
information would be useful in achieving more compete implementation of plans on more
properties. This review could be done internally by NRCS to find out how well the current
voluntary system is working and whether any changes are needed. The information should then
be made available to watershed planners. Currently conservation plans are developed by the
NRCS staff with review and approval or denial by the respective SWCD board at monthly
meetings. NRCS generally supervises the elements of plan installation, but not always if the
producers are comfortable installing them. NRCS employees are required to provide designs and
specifications for all practices. All programmatic (FARM BILL and other) projects are inspected
after installation and need to meet NRCS standards and specifications (as described in the
FOTG) before cost share payments are made to producers. All conservation practices in the plan
(BMPs) are also designed according to NRCS specifications. Conservation Plans are installed
and completed at various levels according to producer need and ability to accomplish. The
highest level of Conservation Plan is the Resource Management System (RMS) level plan and it
addresses all identified resource concerns at that level. Resource concerns are determined by
pre-planning field inventories and producer concerns, goals and operational considerations.
Everything from cultural resources, soils, water quality and endangered species are reviewed on
standardized inventory check sheets. Conservation Plan implementation is extensively
documented in the NRCS Progress Reporting Management System (PRMS) and soil erosion
reduction rates, water conservation rates, acres planted to ground cover, wetland acres created,
habitat acres created or protected, number of acres planted to buffers are all recorded in the
system showing the net savings, gains and quantifying the whole process (S. Skipper, pers.
com.). However, with the exception of calculating reductions in soil loss using formulas that take
into account the acreage under cover, NRCS does not monitor the outcomes of the conservation
plans. We therefore do not know how effective they are in reducing pollutant loads. A review of
current level of implementation may suggest effective ways of monitoring the effectiveness of
the plans. Monitoring of the effectiveness of conservation plans in the watershed would provide
critical baseline data and initial estimation of load reductions achieved by BMPs, and for this
reason it is an important source of information for understanding and eliminating of causes of
water quality impairment in the watershed. We should keep in mind, however, that agricultural
lands constitute a smaller portion of the watershed than other land uses, and that much
agricultural land is fallow due to the failure of the sugar cane industry on the Big Island. Our
emphasis on obtaining detailed information from Soil Conservation Plans should therefore not be

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?57

construed as an indictment of agricultural lands as a major source of pollution. Rather, we see
them and the NRCS as a major source of information.

Actions required prior to implementation

Assess all paper work for existing plans, carry out site visits to describe compliance and
effectiveness

Evaluate results of above surveys, and develop better strategies if needed

Costs to be incurred:

NRCS should be able to do this internally with existing resources; if not, allocate funding
for one technician for one year, with evaluation to be carried out the following year?
$50,000

Milestones:

Inform landowners of review process two months after funding

Carry out plan review and site visits within one year of funding

Evaluate survey outcomes and develop strategy for new conservation plan
implementation within two years of funding

11.10. Establish detailed standards and specs under current Grubbing and Grading
ordinance; enforce current G & G ordinance

Background: See section 5-9, section 10.5.2 and Appendix 5 for details. Although the BMP
guidelines under the Grubbing and Grading Ordinances have recently been revised, they are not
specific enough, nor is there an appropriate system for monitoring and enforcing penalties.

Problem Addressed: Insufficient monitoring, policing, and application of penalties for
inappropriate management of sediment runoff from constructions sites. *Lack of specific
guidelines for construction site BMPs.

Expected Outcome: Reduced runoff from construction sites

Actions required prior to implementation: *Examine current recommended BMPs (see Appendix
5) and system for regulating application of BMPs. *Reach consensus on best regulatory system
(e.g., who is responsible for ensuring application of BMPs?land owner, developer, machinery
operator, etc.; one solution might be to make the county responsible for violation of Grubbing
and Grading Ordinances, in order to ensure that the County does in fact apply its regulations).

Implementation actions: Establish detailed standards and specifications for different types of
construction sites. * Monitor all authorized construction sites on a timely basis. *Apply fines
when guidelines are ignored or incompletely applied. *Hire technical staff to monitor and
regulate construction sites.

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?58

Location to be applied: Hilo watershed urban and suburban areas.

Costs to be incurred: * Hiring of technical staff. * Development of site-specific BMPs, based on
zoning area and topography/hydrology, and identified on a map.

11.11. Modify breakwater

Background: A 10,080-foot breakwater was constructed on top of the pre-existing, naturally
formed Blonde Reef by the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) between 1908 and 1930 to create
Hilo Bay harbor. It is believed this breakwater inhibits circulation in Hilo Bay resulting in
adverse impacts on bay water quality, ecosystem, recreation and aesthetics.

In an effort to better understand bay circulation and improve bay water quality and ecosystem,
Mayor Harry Kim, through the Hawaii County Department of Public Works (DPW), asked the
ACOE to investigate and seek a solution to the problem. After much discussion, the County and
ACOE agreed the first step in addressing the problem was to develop a computer model of the
Hilo Bay circulation that could be used to better understand bay circulation and assess various
project alternatives to promote greater water circulation, leading to a better marine environment.

The ACOE submitted a proposed scope of work to DPW in May 2005. The HBWAG and UH
Hilo members reviewed and submitted comments to DPW last August. DPW forwarded these
comments to ACOE in August and is waiting for a response from the ACOE.

The restoration team should coordinate with the ACOE and their contractors to encourage
inclusion of parameters relevant to the evening out in time and space of storm flow from Wailoa
River following wetland restoration.

Problem Addressed: The breakwater is believed to inhibit circulation in Hilo Bay leading to
adverse impacts on bay water quality, ecosystem, recreation and aesthetics. The circulation
model will provide a better understanding of bay circulation patterns and how the breakwater
influences circulation. The proposed scope includes the development of a circulation model and
evaluation of five breakwater modification alternatives to see if such modifications can improve
circulation.

Expected Outcome: The expected outcomes include:
a.

a calibrated hydrodynamic model (looking at forces, current, wave patterns) of Hilo Bay
circulation leading to a better understanding of bay circulation and how the breakwater
influences bay circulation, water quality and ecosystem.

an analysis of five alternatives to modifying the breakwater as potential ways to improve bay
circulation, water quality and ecosystem.

Availability of a model that can be used to evaluate outcome scenarios for BMPs and
Demonstration Projects applied in the watershed?i.e., to explore how these changes in
pollutant inputs will interact with circulation to affect water quality in the Bay itself

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?59

Actions required prior to implementation:

Coordinator of restoration plan will pull together literature on impacts of wetland on
reduction of storm flows, rates of sediment trapping, rates of nutrient trapping, and make
these data available to ACOE modeler. If the ACOE process is delayed, data may also
become available from a feasibility study of wetland restoration, see below

The ACOE and County need to agree on scope and cost, and sign a project agreement.
Funding sources need to be secured.

Implementation actions: Once a project agreement has been signed and funding secured, the
model development can start..

Location to be applied: The location is Hilo Bay.

Costs to be incurred:

None, funding already being sought by County of Hawaii for the modeling effort, and the
restoration coordinator would already be on salary, see section on Management Structure
and Funding Needs.

The County approved $250,000 for the study which covered the original ACOE cost
estimate. However after detailing out the project, the cost estimate increased to $325,000.
The COE will provide a minimum of $10,000 to start and may be able to provide
$10,000/year for some time into the future. The COE prefers a 50:50 (County:ACOE)
funding ratio and is seeking an additional $175,000 for the project. A congressional
delegation is expected to help secure these funds. The ACOE anticipates an answer on
funding by January. If more money is needed, the DPW may consider requesting
additional County funds.

Milestones:

Begin data review within one month of funding, carry out first consultation with ACOE
or their contractors within one month of funding, provide data in appropriate form to
ACOE or their contractors within six months of funding.

11.12. Maintain viable local Watershed Advisory Group

Background: The Hilo Bay Watershed Advisory Group (HBWAG) is a community-based,
volunteer organization formed in July 2003 during a public input process that was part of the
EPA grant program to bring Hilo Bay and its tributaries in compliance with certain State water
quality standards. The UH Manoa Environmental Center has acted as project manager for this
effort during this time. A significant amount of progress has been made over the last 27 months.

The HBWAG is a very dedicated group as indicated by the countless number of volunteer hours
that have been poured into the Hilo Bay watershed effort from community members. The
HBWAG has had a coordinator that was paid half-time due to limited funding but who found it
necessary to work close to full time to really make a difference. In addition, for six months of the

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?60

project the coordinator worked as a volunteer, without pay, just to ensure that the community
momentum was not lost.

Over the life of the project the HBWAG has grown and includes a large number of community
members with representation from many key stakeholders. The WAG has a nine-member
Steering Committee composed of professional community members. In addition there are four
subcommittees. With bare-bones resources, the HBWAG has established a rudimentary outreach
and education program that includes making presentations by request to grade and high schools,
UHH class, and various community organizations. The WAG has also led several clean ups,
stenciled numerous storm drains, and developed a display that has been used at various events.

The HBWAG?s long-term goal is to develop a comprehensive watershed management plan for
the Hilo Bay Watershed.

Problem Addressed: EPA grant funds for the current part-time coordinator position expired in
October 2005. The HBWAG Steering Committee has applied for grants funds for a coordinator
and operating expenses but has not been able to secure funding. Therefore, funding for
coordination activities are needed to maintain current efforts as well as begin implementation of
priority objectives outlined in the Hilo Bay Watershed-Based Restoration Plan and the
HBWAG?s Hilo Bay Watershed Project Public Input Report dated May 2004.

Expected Outcome: A paid coordinator will allow the HBWAG to continue its progress in
educating the community, improving the watershed, and bringing in more key stakeholders and
community members.

Actions required prior to implementation: Obtain funding

Implementation actions: *Fund salary for full time watershed coordinator. *Fund materials for
Watershed Group activities, including conference visits, grant writing, office equipment and
supplies

Location to be applied: Hilo watershed

Costs to be incurred: Salary, operating costs (phone bills, print costs, travel costs), and office
materials, equipment (computer, printer, power point projector)

11.13. Establish MOUs with outside industries that impact the watershed, such as cruise
ship industry, tourist industry

Background: Cruise ships lead to maintenance of breakwater and its associated circulation
impairment problems, harbor facilities, increase road use, increase sewer system use, increase
stress National and local parks and facilities, lead to increased demand for infrastructure that
further stresses environmental services. Cruise ships and/or their passengers should pay a local
tax that stays in the area of the port of call and can be used to address the local environmental
impacts of the cruise ship industry.

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?61

Problem Addressed: Lack of funding for planning and environmentally sound infrastructure

Expected Outcome: Increased funding and awareness

Actions required prior to implementation: Discussions between citizen groups, cruise ship
companies, and county and state officials. Note that these discussions between the community
and the primary cruise ship company calling at Hilo, Norwegian Cruise Lines, have already
started, but with a focus on increasing cruise ship passenger visitation to downtown Hilo
businesses (Sur 2005)

Implementation actions: Pass legislation with respect to cruise ship tax

Location to be applied: Hilo, county

Costs to be incurred: None, costs of meetings will be covered by interested parties

11.14. Informal community education
See section 13 (Education Plan)

Additionally, increased funding is needed for storm drain stenciling, and for a monitoring plan to
determine how well the stenciling is working, so that the method can be improved (focus on key
locations, try out different messages, etc.), and water quality testing kits for volunteers and for
special occasion field efforts should be purchased.

11.15. Formal education
See section 13 (Education Plan)

11.16. Long-term planning for coastal zone adaptation to climate change

Background: Climate change models predict that ENSO like conditions will prevail in Hawaii
year round, with more extreme conditions during actual ENSO events. This means that warmer
waters between the California coast and Hawaii will result in the maintenance of Pacific
Hurricanes, increasing the probability that they will reach Hawaii as hurricane force storms
rather than losing force over the usually cooler Pacific waters.

Implementation actions: Begin community, county and statewide discussions on adaptation to
climate driven coastal zone changes and disasters (erosion, hurricanes, sea level changes, long-
term or ENSO associated changes in rainfall patterns)

12-- R

ECOMMENDED

EMONSTRATION

ROJECTS

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?62

Baseline data obtained prior to the implementation of each of the demonstration projects
described below, and monitoring conducted for 3-4 years following implementation will provide
badly needed data not only on the impact of project implementation, but on the hydrology of the
watershed. For each restoration project, monitoring of water quality should be designed to take
place upstream of implementation site, immediately downstream of implementation site, at one
or more locations between the site and the Bay, and in the Bay itself. Note that monitoring in the
Bay itself is already covered by the research and monitoring plan described in Section 14 below.
The number of monitoring locations between implementation site and the bay will depend on the
distance of the site from the bay, and on the hydrology and topography of the intervening area.

12.1. Removal of Falcataria molucca (?Albizia?), an invasive, Nitrogen-fixing tree, from the
watershed

Background and Rationale
There is now abundant evidence that several invasive, Nitrogen-fixing tree species in Hawai?i
increase the nitrogen content of the litter, the soil and of other plants relative to nearby or similar
sites supporting predominantly native forests (Vitousek and Walder 1989, Binkley and Ryan
1998, Kay et al. 2000, Hughes and Denslow in press). Current work in the Hilo Bay Watershed
and nearby shows that these increased N levels and rates of N cycling by stands of Falcataria
moluca translate to higher N levels in streams moving through these stands (K. Bishaw and R. F.
Hughes, unpublished data). For example, in Kolelole stream, the nitrate concentration in the
water just below an Albizia stand (at about 50 m above sea level) showed a 30 % increase over
the concentrations in the stream just above the stand (100 m asl) and in the stream at 1700 m asl.
In Ainako stream, well within the Hilo Bay watershed, the increase was 40 %. In this second
case, it is important to note that N levels measured after the stream level passed a residential area
were not higher than before the residential area, and the 40 % increase can be attributed to
collection of nutrients primarily from the Albizia stand. In the Kolekole area, there is no
concentrated residential development, indicating that the nitrates cannot be coming from urban
runoff.

Location
Ainako stream, Albizia stand at about 340 m asl.

Estimated pollutant reduction
Removal of the trees and associated litter should reduce nitrate inputs to the stream by about 30
%. The reduction factor of this nitrogen as it is used by the biological community before the
water reaches the bay is not known, and so the reduction in levels of N entering the bay cannot
be estimated at this time. Monitoring of N levels after tree removal at several points below the
implementation point and at the nearest estimated point of entry into the bay will provide us with
this information.

Potential Implementation Partners
Dr. Flint Hughes, Institute of Pacific Islands Forestry, USDA Forest Service, 23 East Kawili
Street, Hilo, HI, 96720;

fhughes@fs.fed.us

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?63

Estimated costs
Labor to cut and remove trees: 100 person-days
Truck rental and fuel for removal of plant matter from site
Implementation of BMPs during clear-cutting to prevent erosion and both soil and plant matter
input into the stream
Destruction of vegetative and reproductive Albizia parts to prevent spread of the plant at the
disposal site
Monitoring of N levels and flow rates at 5 points associated with removal site

Potential impacts
Erosion, N inputs at tree disposal site,

Relevant literature
Hughes, R. F. and J. S. Denslow. In press. Invasion by a N2-fixing tree alters function and
structure in wet lowland forests of Hawai?i. Ecological Applications

Vitousek, P. M. and L. R. Walker. 1989. Biological invasion by Myrica faya in Hawai?i: plant
demography, nitrogen fixation, and ecosystem effects. Ecological Monographs 59: 247-265.

Kaye, J. P., S. C. Resh, M. W. Kaye, and R. A. Chimmer. 2000. Nutrient and carbon dynamics
in a replacement series of Eucalyptus and Albizia trees. Ecology 81: 3267-3273

Binkley, D., C. and M. Ryan. 1998. Net primary productivity and nutrient cycling in replicated
stands of Eucalyptus salvigna and Albizia falcataria. Forest Ecology and Management 110: 101-
112

12.2. Control of rooting by feral pigs (Sus scrofa) in the Hilo Forest Reserve and other
forested areas of the watershed

Background and Rationale
There is evidence from studies in the mainland US, in Australia, in Central America, and in
Hawai?i, that rooting by feral pigs in different habitat types can result in ?plant and root death,
mixing of soil horizons, increased rates of nutrient mineralization, and decreased rates of
nitrogen retention? (reviewed by Mack and D?Antonio 1998). In forested communities such as
those that are of concern in the Hilo Bay watershed and elsewhere in the Hawaiian Islands, soil
disturbance and loss of the understory due to rooting can be associated with nitrogen and base
cation leaching from the soil (reviewed by Mack and D?Antonio 1998). In temperate deciduous
forest, ground water in pig-rooted watersheds may have elevated Nitrogen levels (Singer et al.
1984). It is important to point out that to date there are no published studies of rates of soil
erosion or nutrient leaching that can be attributed to pig rooting in Hawai?i. However, the
literature from other sites suggests that pig rooting may be contributing to both these factors in
Hawaiian watersheds, and that therefore controlling pig rooting may lead to a decrease in
sediment and nutrient inputs to streams and eventually to coastal waters. Research in Australia
indicates that pigs tend to root in moister areas there (Hone 2001). Whether or not this is true in

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?64

Hawaii, any rooting near water courses or on slopes draining immediately onto water courses
should lead to the highest soil inputs into water.

Pigs are abundant in the Hilo Bay Watershed, and have been so for many decades (Giffin 1972).
Hunting is allowed in large sections of the Hilo Forest Reserve and elsewhere in the watershed.
Hunting groups and individual hunters work with federal and state agencies in public hunting
efforts within protected areas, and also report their hunting activities within areas managed for
enhanced hunting opportunities. After identification of areas with heavy rooting activity near
waterways, and especially in the rainy season, hunters could hunt in a controlled way to ?harass?
pigs and deter their presence in these areas. Pigs will leave areas where they are persistently
hunted (Hone 2002), allowing for this type of behavioral control on their activities. To
supplement this form of management, especially disturbed patches near waterways could be
fenced off to prevent access by pigs (small, localized areas, of a hectare or so in extent at most,
which will not limit the amount of land areas available to hunters). Sediment and nitrogen levels
at several points above and below the location of implementation should be monitored during a
year before and for at least a year after implementation.

Location
Pick one subwatershed area to work with in the Hilo Forest Reserve, or work with Hakalau
Widlife Refuge to add this type of manipulation and monitoring to their ongoing pig
management activities (however, it would be good to have a lowland site as well as an upland
site in Hakalau, and also a site without extensive cover by invasive grasses, as is the case in
Hakalau)

Estimated pollutant reduction
For a volcanic island in Costa Rica, Sierra (2001) showed that over an 8-month period, forested
areas with pig rooting released 2.9 times as much soil on average as sites without rooting.
Therefore, by preventing rooting in sensitive areas near streams or other areas that drain into
streams, the inputs of sediments and associated nutrients could be reduced by up to a factor of 3.
How much of the sediments and nutrients that enter a stream at the source actually make it to the
bay waters is not currently known, but by monitoring at multiple sites downstream of the
implementation point such load reductions can be determined.

Potential Implementation Partners
Dr. Richard Mackenzie, USDA Forest Service, 23 East Kawili Street, Hilo, HI, 96720;

fhughes@fs.fed.us

Dr. J. Fragoso, Botany Department, UH-Manoa and PCSU
Dr. Kirsten Silvius, Environmental Center, UH-Manoa
Dr. Dick Wass, Hakalau Wildlife Refuge Manager
Mr. Edwin Johnson, State Hunting Coordinator, DOFAW-Honolulu

Estimated costs
Support for informational meetings with hunters
Data sheets for hunters, ideally also maps and GPS units (10 GPS, 10 maps)
Aerial photographs of watershed (available from NRCS or DOFAW or Forest Service)
Support for MS student to coordinate hunter monitoring

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?65

Support for hunters (taking them to areas where pig harassment is needed)
Fencing materials for small areas?estimate max one mile fencing to be used on multiple small
longitudinal barriers and/or exclosures along waterways

Potential impacts
Movement of pigs into other areas where they are not wanted
Conflict with the hunting community
Conflict with DOFAW

Relevant literature
Sierra, C. 2001. El cerdo cimarr�n (Sus scrofa, Suidae) en la Isla del Coco, Costa Rica:
escarbaduras, alteraciones al suelo y erosion. Revista de Biologia Tropical 49 (3-4)

Department of the Environment and Heritage, Australia Government. 2005. Threat abatement
plan for predation, habitat degradation, competition and disease transmission by feral pigs.
Commonwealth of Australia, Department of Environment and Heritage.

Mack, M. C. and C. M. D?Antonio. 1998. Impacts of biological invasions on disturbance
regimes. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 13: 195-198

Hone, J. 2002. Feral pigs in Namadgi National Park, Australia: dynamics, impacts and
management. Biological Conservation 105: 231-242

Singer, F. J., W. T. Swank and E. C. Clebsch. 1984. Effects of wild pig rooting in a deciduous
forest. Journal of Wildlife Management 48: 464-473

Kotanen, P. M. 1995. Responses of vegetation to a changing regime of disturbance: effects of
feral pigs in a Californian coastal prairie. Ecography 18: 190-199

Vtorov, I. P. 1993. Feral pig removal: effects on soil microarthropods in a Hawaiian rain forest,
Journal of Wildlife Management 57: 875-880

Aplet, G. H., S. J. Anderson and C. P. Stone. 1991. Association between feral pig disturbance
and the composition of some alien plant assemblages in Hawaii Volcanoes National Park.
Vegetatio 95: 55-62.

Russell-Smith, J. and D. J. M. S. Bowman. 1992. Conservation of monsoon rainforest isolates
in the Northern Territory, Australia. Biological Conservation 59: 55-63

Giffin, J. 1972. Ecology of the feral pig on the island of Hawaii. Division of Fish and Game,
Department of Land and Natural Resources, State of Hawaii.

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?66

12.3. Waiakea Pond and Wetland Restoration

Background and Rationale
Wetlands are known to retain sediments and nutrients, preventing them from entering coastal
waters. Constructed wetlands are designed specifically for this purpose (e.g., Perry 2004). They
are also known to store floodwaters and release them slowly, thus reducing the intensity and
impact of flooding caused by heavy rainfall and hurricanes (Sipple, W.S. 2004). They trap
heavy metals in the sediments, and allow them to be processed by vegetation (de Barry 2004).
Additionally, wetlands provide habitat for wildlife and endangered wading bird species, and
serve as nurseries for fish species of economic and ecological value. In the Hilo Bay watershed,
the costal wetlands have been reduced, with hardened channels in the Wailoa river and short
grassland vegetation and impervious surfaces (parking lots, roads) surrounding Waiakea pond
and separating it from the coastline. Waiakea pond has been identified as a critical primary
wetland for water bird conservation in the Hawaii Water Bird Recovery Plan (Henson 2002).

A demonstration project (BMP application, monitoring, and community education) should be
carried out at Waiakea pond in collaboration with the Division of Aquatic Resources, (DAR)
focused on wetland roles in controlling sediments and nutrients, and also on the role of this
particular site as a fish nursery. This project should be linked to or lead to a plan for the
restoration of the coastal wetlands in this area, including social, economic, ecological, and
biodiversity assessment. Activities will include experimental alterations of vegetation, with
monitoring of nutrient and sediment outputs (and perhaps other pollutants from runoff) at the
input and output points during rainfall/flood overflow events; fish stock monitoring by fishermen
(self-reporting of what is caught and seen); as well as regular monitoring by DAR. The US EPA
has produced numerous materials to guide the design and implementation of such a
demonstration project (e.g. US EPA 1996, 2002 a, b, 2003, among others)

Location
Waiakea pond and surrounding flood control areas (soccer fields, etc.)

Estimated pollutant reduction
Sierra Club estimates that wetlands can reduce street runoff pollutants by up to 90 %
(Townscape 2003)

Potential Implementation Partners
Dr. Richard Mackenzie, wetlands ecologist at USDA Forest Service
Army Corps of Engineers
Division of Aquatic Resources (Robert Nishimoto)
Ducks Unlimited
Department of Land and Natural Resources
US Fish and Wildlife Service

Estimated costs
Graduate student to monitor inputs and outputs, potentially supported through DAR
Sampling materials for nutrients and sediments
Preparation of safe harbor agreements

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?67

USFWS estimates from 500 to 1500 $ per acre of wetland for the physical aspects of wetland
restoration (Townscape 2003)
Construction of sediment removal structures (e.g. installation of geotextile fabric) at storm drain
outlets near Waiakea boat ramp and at several other locations around the pond.

Funding may be available through Ducks Unlimited, EPA Wetlands program, DLNR, or the Fish
and Wildlife Service, and the EPA State/Tribal Environmental Outcome Wetland Demonstration
Program Grant Pilot (WDP)

Potential impacts
This wetland restoration plan runs counter to plans by the County of Hawaii Department of Parks
and Recreation, which would like to acquire the Waiakea State Park from the state to include the
area into its envisioned greenway from the docks to down town Hilo (Takemoto 2002). The two
contrasting visions of the area should be presented to the community and discussed in
community meetings.

Relevant literature
Sipple, W. S. 2004. Wetland functions and values. EPA Watershed Academy.
http://www.epa.gov/watertrain

Perry, W. 2004. Elements of South Florida?s Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan.
Ecotoxicology 13: 185-193.

Townscape, Inc. 2003. Ala Wai Watershed Analysis. Final Report. Department of Land and
Natural Resources, State of Hawaii

U.S. EPA. 2002a. Methods for Evaluating Wetland Condition: Introduction to Wetland
Biological Assessement. Office of Water, U.S. Environmmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC. EPA-822-R-02-014.

U.S. EPA. 1996. Protecting Natural Wetlands: A Guide to Stormwater Best Management
Practices. Office of Water, U.S. Environmmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. EPA-
843-b-96-001.

U.S. EPA. 2002b. Methods for Evaluating Wetland Condition: Volunteers and Wetland
Monitoring. Office of Water, U.S. Environmmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. EPA-
822-R-02-018.

U.S. EPA. 2003. Methods for Evaluating Wetland Condition: Wetland Biological Assessment
Case Studies. Office of Water, U.S. Environmmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
EPA-822-R-03-013.

Interagency Workgroup on Wetland Restoration. 2000. An Introduction and User?s Guide to
Wetland Restoration, Creation and Ehancement. IWWR, Washington, DC

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?68

13?E

DUCATION PLAN

(

EDUCATION AS A

EST

ANAGEMENT

RACTICE

)

In addition to addressing immediate needs of education in the watershed re existing pollution and
management problems, regulations and BMPs, the education plan should also address the topic
of ecosystem function of bays and estuaries, and why certain features not seen as beneficial by
humans may actually provide useful services?e.g. flood control and nutrient retention function
of wetlands, providing appropriate conditions for coral and algae growth, thus enhancing
fisheries, also estuaries as sources of fish populations, why the benefits of not dredging a river
mouth may outweigh the benefits of dredging it, etc. Essentially, education should emphasize
the need to value long-term ecosystem services that depend on ecosystem function.

The three primary approaches of the education plan are:

Informal education?A series of video modules will be developed addressing specific pollution
and water quality/management issues in the Hilo Bay Watershed. The modules will be shown on
television, and will be prepared by or under the direction of local film makers. They will
emphasize the information that science can provide to managers, the state of knowledge re that
particular watershed related topic in Hilo Bay, and the recommended BMPs for the situation.
Ideally, the modules will be produced by local film-makers or students at Hawaiian film schools.
They could be funded through a competitive grant process (lay out the required contents and
approach, and ask for proposals from interested film makers, set a budget limit, film equipment
would have to be available already to the film maker, but grant could cover materials. Kimberlee
Bassford, owner of Making Waves Films LLC, in Honolulu, is an award winning documentary
film maker with extensive experience in educational videos who could serve as consultant to
organize and guide the call for proposals, help define the topics and themes, and oversee actual
film production and final products. The Watershed Advisory Group has already identified other
individuals and organizations who may be able to participate in this process: Darcy Bevens at
UH Hilo; Mari-Lyn Video Production; Na Aleo; Ackerman Black. The videos will show sites in
the watershed, and will contain interviews with residents, managers and researchers from the
watershed, although they will also provide general background on the science behind each issue
and what is being done elsewhere. Modules will be available to schools, the media, community
groups, and special interest groups. The videos will essentially be a combination of expos� and
education, highlighting what research has to tell us about each of the module topics. Funds may
be sought through the National Science Foundations Informal Science Education Program, as
well as through the US EPA. An attempt will be made to produce the videos in Hawaiian as well
as in English, or to combine the two languages with the judicious use of subtitles. The
documentary film consultant will be able to help here. The impact of video modules will be
evaluated by formal social science research techniques to assess changes in knowledge and
changes in attitudes before and after showing the video. A graduate student in sociology or
education could be recruited to work on the evaluation as part of their thesis research. The videos
will be available for use throughout the state of Hawaii once completed.

Potential module topics will be evaluated with the help of the video consultant, but could
include:

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?69

Hydrology of Hilo Bay?a geography, geology emphasis?how much rain, where does it
go, where are the seeps, what are the fish, where are the tubes (available from the Hawaii
Speleological Survey of the National Speleological Society), how does water move
through them, where were the historic wetlands, how did they function? Include ahupua?a
and traditional boundaries. Consult with Jene Michaud and James Juvik at UH Hilo can
help refine these topics. This could actually take up two modules.

Waste disposal (garbage) in Hilo area: How much, what kind, where does it go (landfill),
what happens when it enters into streams accidentally or intentionally (e.g. dumping in
lava tubes). Issues of toxic substance disposal, and recycling: what options are currently
available in Hilo?

Flood issues: how does zoning and building currently deal with flood threats? What is
the 10-year flood zone? 100 year flood zones? Whose houses are located in these zones?
What are potential solutions? Runoff from impervious surfaces?

The legacy of the sugar industry: canec, arsenic, fertilizers, erosion, etc. Potential for
bioremediation, future uses of old sugar cane land, what have other islands, countries
done with similar lands?

Freshwater and estuarine communities in Hilo Bay watershed: fish, algae, trophic
interactions, impacts of habitat modification and pollutants.

Fertilizer impacts on nutrient cycling in freshwater and estuarine system in Hilo Bay
watershed?describe normal nutrient cycles, as well as impacts of N and P addition.
Propose a self-monitoring system, in which landowners keep track of how much of each
product they apply and report the data anonymously (through a web site or mail in system
with no return address, or by drop off box at grocery stores and schools)

Sediments in Hilo Bay watershed. Why sediments are a problem. How the following can
contribute to increased sediment loads: land clearing activities, natural runoff, grubbing
and grading laws, feral ungulates.

History of water management issues in Hilo Bay area, including which agencies have
jurisdiction over what. Also, breakdown of who contributes what to pollution: individual
landowners, agriculture, industry, tourists, conservation areas, military, etc.

Human waste?cesspools, septics and sewer lines in Hilo?capacity, leaks,
consequences, jurisdiction, impacts, potential fixes, costs.

Funding needs:

about 10,000 $ per module for six modules over a three year period = 60,000 $ (two
already counted in previous section on implementation)

15,000 $ to retain consultant

Milestones:

Contract with consultant one month after funding

advertise grant program within 4 months of funding

select documentary makers within 8 months of funding

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?70

produce at least 2 videos per year for the next three years, with first video produce 1.5
years after funding.

Formal education: Teachers and students from local high schools and elementary schools will be
involved in the restoration plan by contributing to water monitoring efforts (under the monitoring
regime described below); simultaneously, the restoration plan team will seek a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) with the Department of Education (DOE) to provide science curriculum
materials to elementary schools and high schools that include information on aquatic ecosystem
function and water resource management (to meet ecology and resource management curriculum
requirements). The Ecological Society of America?s program in Schoolyard Ecology and
ecology in the curriculum will be used as guidance. Success of the curriculum will be evaluated
through impact on science grades and through standard course evaluation used by the schools.

Funding needs:

Look for DOE funding or grants for education; estimate $ 15,000 to get the project off
the ground?produce initial materials for one high school course and one elementary
school course (web based, print outs by school as needed, can be designed in modules so
that teachers can modify them as needed).

The CANON Envirothon, funded by the National Association of SWCDs, is a potential
source of funding. With planning supported by the Restoration Plan process, Big Island
schools could successfully compete for this funding on an annual basis.

Milestones

initiate discussion with DOE three months after funding

establish MOU within 6 months of funding

produce initial materials and start using them in classroom two years after funding

Community education on BMPs?this component will be carried out using standard materials
already prepared by other EPA and DOH funded watershed based projects (e.g. West Maui
Watershed Management Advisory Committee 1997), and materials available through Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
University of Hawaii at Manoa College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources
(CTAHR), etc.

Funding needs:

print costs for booklets and pamphlets, will depend on number needed?check with West
Maui Watershed Advisory Committee re cost, and also get data from their evaluation of
the impact of the use of this manual (assuming they did a follow up study). Estimating $
15,000

Note that the Edith Kanakaole Foundation (http://www.edithkanakaolefoundation.org/) is already
doing education on waste management by and for native Hawaiians?the education program of
the restoration plan should interface with them to ensure inclusion of methods tested for

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?71

effectiveness among native Hawaiian communities. They include formal education in their
charter schools as well as informal education.

14?C

RITICAL

ONITORING

EEDS

The most effective approach to research on Hilo Bay non-point source pollution is to fund
researchers at the University of Hawaii-Hilo to design and carry out the required research and
monitoring projects with the assistance of their graduate students. In this way, in addition to data
collection, training and science education will also be fostered in the area. Furthermore, through
this linkage it may be possible to leverage research funds through the National Science
Foundation and other federal initiatives that support student research. Researchers based in Hilo
know the area and its resources well. It is likely that if consultants are contracted to carry out
work on the restoration plan, they would subcontract at least part of the work to the University,
increasing the overall indirect costs of the project. Faculty members can be supported through
partial salary buy-out during the academic year, which would allow them to reduce their teaching
loads and concentrate on research, and/or through full time summer salaries (all faculty members
have 9 month positions and are unsalaried for the three month summer break in the academic
year). Salary support should already be provided during the time that researchers are developing
the final, detailed monitoring proposals that will be supported by the restoration plan.
Additionally, programs such as the UHH Marine Option Program Student Research Projects and
the summer Quantitative Underwater Environmental Survey Techniques Program already exist,
and can be used to support research needs of the WRP.

UH-Hilo researchers and their collaborators that come to mind as potential project participants
are:

Dr. Tracy Wiegner, Department of Marine Sciences (nutrient inputs to estuaries): can
coordinate research on nutrient inputs from Wailuku river, ground water seeps, and in the
Bay waters.

Dr. Mike Parsons, Department of Marine Sciences (oceanic eutrophication, plankton
dynamics); can coordinate research on community structure in the Bay.

Dr. Jene Michaud, Department of Geology (hydrology); can coordinate research on flow
levels from surface and ground water.

Dr. Jon-Pierre Michaud, Department of Chemistry (biochemistry/toxicology); can
coordinate research on sediment inputs to the Bay.

Dr. Debra Weeks, Department of Chemistry (metal chemistry and pollution); can
coordinate research on wetland function in retaining toxins, sediments and nutrients in
Waiakea pond/Wailoa river.

Dr. Jeff Zimpfer, UH Sea Grant Extension Agent (non-point source pollution, with
specialization in microbial ecology); can coordinate research on fecal indicator bacteria.

Dr. Leon Hallacher, Department of Marine Sciences (ichthyology)

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?72

Dr. Walter Dudley, Department of Oceanography

Dr. Randy Schneider, Department of Chemistry

10.

Dr. Lisa Muehlstein, Microbiology

11.

Dr. Jim Beets, Marine Science (Icthyology)

12.

Dr. Richard Mackenzie, USDA Forest Service (wetlands ecologist)

13.

Dr. Jason Turner, Marine Science (food web ecologist)

14.

Dr. Fred Mackenzie, UH-Manoa (water chemistry; teaches in marine science at UH-Hilo)

A two-to-three day workshop should be held in Hilo as soon as possible to bring together these
researchers and to co-ordinate proposal development and monitoring design.

Funding needs for ecological monitoring:

$ 3,000 for workshop.

Buy out time for three faculty members at UH Hilo per year, for three years, at 1/2 time:
$ 25,000 plus benefits x 3 x 3 = $ 225,000 plus benefits plus scheduled annual salary
increases. (Or, alternatively, summer salary for 3 faculty members for 3 years, full time: $
17,000 x 3 x 4 = 204,000 plus benefits plus allowance for annual salary increases)

equipment and training costs are described separately under each research project

Objectives of Ecological Monitoring and Baseline Data Gathering

Identify sources of nutrients, fecal indicators and sediments to Bay waters, focusing on
the relative contributions of ground water vs. surface water, and of storm flows vs. base
flows in surface water.

Develop biological indicators that can be used as surrogates for sediment and nutrient
levels in Bay waters and can be monitored by students and volunteers.

Obtain baseline data on the current community structure in the Bay waters, with a focus
on trophic webs and nutrient cycling; monitor changes that occur following BMP and
Demonstration Project implementation (for example, such baseline data and monitoring
will allow us to determine the role of restored coastal wetlands in reducing sediment and
nutrient input to the Bay).

Develop a detailed spatio-temporal monitoring regime for water quality parameters,
based on an initial map of the estimated hydrology patterns. Dr. Jene Michaud and a
student assistant at UH Hilo have identified a preliminary set of sampling locations that
can be attained with existing facilities, equipment and personnel. This monitoring plan,
along with comments provided by reviewers of the plan, is available upon request. The
plan needs to be expanded to incorporate a much larger, landscape-scale coverage of the
watershed, and to place a much greater emphasis on storm sampling. We recommend
that Drs. Michaud and Wiegner (UH-Hilo) be retained to continue developing the much
more detailed monitoring plan required by the size and complexity of this watershed.

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?73

Objectives of Socio-economic Research

Determine the contributions of the cruise ship industry to economic status and
environmental quality of Hilo Watershed.

Identify the barriers and opportunities to effective watershed management in the current
management structure in Hilo Bay.

Recommended Ecological Monitoring Projects

Nutrient and sediment loads in the Wailuku river

Nutrients may be dissolved, incorporated into sediments (sorbed or mixed in the matrix) or arrive
as particulate matter. It is unclear which type of nutrient is more bioavailable, and which land
use type produces more of these bioavailable nutrients. There is evidence that both N and P
arriving in sediments are highly bioavailable in the tropical Pacific (K. Chaston pers. com.), and
also that dissolved organic nitrogen derived from soil erosion is less bioavailable than that
deriving from storm overflow and sewer overflow in urban areas (T. Wiegner pers. com.).
Furthermore, it is the relative availability of P, N and C that determines effects such as
eutrophication, and in Hilo Bay issues of salinity will also affect plankton and macroalgae
growth. In the absence of abundant large herbivores, and given the dense monospecific forests
established by invasive plants in Hawaii, nutrient input may also come from invasive plants
dropping leaves, fruits and seeds along certain stretches of the river, and this input needs to be
properly quantified (Hughes and Denslow in press, Larned 2000, Larned et al. 2001). How these
relationships play out may be very site-specific and therefore need to be studied at Hilo Bay and
its tributaries themselves. These questions need to be resolved for two reasons: 1) to apply
reductions where they will be really effective, and 2) to assure the community that the cost of
input reduction is being borne by the appropriate sectors, and that the BMPs applied have a high
likelihood of being effective in improving water quality. It will do no good to reduce sediment
inputs from natural erosional process in the geologically young Hilo watershed landscape, while
not reducing wastewater and storm water runoff and percolation. Furthermore, we need baseline
data on the relative importance of nutrients derived from agricultural lands (planted and
ranching) vs. urban runoff, in order to properly allocate total maximum daily loads. We also
need to know the direction and pathways of water flows throughout the basin, to know which
waters are reaching the Bay with pollutants in them, and we need to pin down the relative
contribution of surface flow in streams vs. ground water flow, as ground water may in fact be
more important than surface flow (Michaud 2003, Garrison et al. 2003, Hoover and Kinzie
2002). We already know that storm flow is more important than base flow in terms of the amount
of water carried into the estuary and Bay for the Wailuku and Honolii streams as well as for
other areas in Hawaii (Hoover 2002).

Baseline data gathering will focus initially on inputs from the Wailuku river, until the results on
the TMDL process in the Alenaio and Waiakea streams are available. At that point it may be
determined that more data are needed from those watersheds. Inputs to the Waiakea pond and

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?74

outputs from the pond through the Wailoa river will also be monitored as part of the
demonstration project described earlier.

Baseline data gathering in the Wailuku river sub-watershed will address the contributions of the
different land use types in the sub-watershed: alpine/conservation, forest/conservation,
abandoned cane fields, active agriculture, homesteads/small scale agriculture, suburban, urban,
and re-suspension of Bay sediments (the latter through cores, experimental re-suspension, and
observations of re-suspension during natural storm/wave events and other forms of disturbance).
Steps to be taken are 1) identification of land use types using the best available satellite imagery
currently being used by USGS, DLNR, NRCS and other federal and state agencies, and by
ground truthing these images in accessible areas of the watershed; 2) mapping of any cesspool
locations that may contribute nutrients to the river; 3) identification of accessible sampling sites
along the main river within each land use type, and at the confluences of tributaries with the
main river; 4) collection of water samples to be analyzed for sediment and nutrient content under
both base flow and storm flow conditions; sampling during storm flow and heavy rain conditions
will be maximized by targeting sampling at accessible sites during or immediately after these
conditions in addition to using automated samplers; 5) identification of sediment types deriving
from different substrate/land use combinations, to test whether they can be identified as they
settle out along the river and in the estuary; 6) simultaneous collection of water samples in the
river and its tributaries and in the Bay (mouth of river and elsewhere), ideally as part of the
regular monitoring effort described below. Sampling in the river will be carried out by UH Hilo
PIs and their graduate student assistants, while sampling in the Bay can be carried out by
students, volunteers and DOH personnel. Once baseline data gathering is concluded (at least
three years of sampling), sampling will continue at a reduced number of locations for permanent
monitoring purposes.

Funding needs:

satellite images, ground-truthed or not (potentially cost-shared with DLNR, NRCS or
USGS)

stipend support for faculty and graduate students (estimated above, all stipends for
ecological research are grouped together)

six storm flow samplers (to be suspended from bridges or other structures overhanging
the river) (~$10,000 each x 6 = 60,000 $)

twelve manual samplers for nitrogen, phosphorus

sampling materials for C. perfringens, including coolers; costs of lab analysis of C.
perfringens samples (potentially cost shared with DOH).

sampling materials for suspended sediments (collection jars, filter paper, dryers, etc.);
cost to be estimated after final monitoring and sampling design is determined

analytical services (nutrient analysis)

4-wheel drive vehicles (at least 2) for field work, plus fuel and maintenance

boat, with trailer, plus fuel and maintenance, for bay sampling

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?75

Sampling/monitoring in the Wailuku River and Wailoa mouths and the Bay will focus on TSS, C.
perfringens, N and P at permanent sampling spots in the river and in the Bay. In the river,
sampling will cover waters derived from each land use type, with replication; currently we are
estimating 6 land use types, with at least three replicate sites per land use type for grab samples
and only one replicate for permanent storm flow samplers. Locations of sampling in the Bay
will include all major fresh water seeps (approximately 6 sites), the mouths of the all
streams/rivers entering the Bay, and the surface and bottom layers of water at incremental
distances from the shore (at least three distances before reaching breakwater, and an additional
site at the entrance to the harbor. It may be necessary to sample for silica and/or salinity to
properly identify the source of water being sampled (fresh vs. ocean, ground vs. surface).
Additionally, since some of the sediment in Hilo Bay is biogenic in origin (carbonate sand from
coral and coralline algae), biogenic sediments should also be monitored. Although permanent
sampling probes have been developed by the HCRI for use in Kaneohe Bay (Hoover and Kinzie
2002), maintenance and training costs will be high for these and we prefer to work with single or
few parameter probes deployed only at the time of sampling. This increases person-hours needed
for sampling, but with access to students and canoe club volunteers, this does not present an
obstacle or added cost. The temporal sampling regime will require sequential sampling in the
Bay following sampling in the streams, with a time frame estimated from the expected rate of
water flow into the Bay for both base flow and storm flow. The initial coordination of this
multiple sampling regime may seem daunting, but once in place it should function well, and we
can build in redundancy and replication to reduce the statistical impact of missed samples. Sites
should be chosen to maximize information return while minimizing costs, based on current
knowledge of water flow. Final instrument selection will occur in consultation with D. Hoover
and the CRI team that carried out water quality monitoring in Kaneohe Bay in 1998-2002.

During the first 5 years, monitoring will also take place for the parameters traditionally covered
by DOH and on the basis of which the Bay waters were placed on the 303d list: turbidity (visual
assessment), nutrients (visual assessment), chlorophyll a, and C. perfringens. The number of
sites will be smaller, will correspond to sites previously monitored, and will overlap with sites
being sampled in more detail. Monitoring can be carried out by DOH staff with the assistance of
project volunteers. This monitoring will; 1) allow continuity with existing data to detect any
changes in parameters as a result of project implementation; 2) allow us to determine whether a
correlation actually exists between these visual criteria and the lab based criteria; 3) allow for
calibration of the visual assessment criteria against the chemical, instrument or lab based criteria
should a correlation exist; and 4) allow us to determine whether there is a correlation between
chlorophyll levels and the status of the plankton community in the Bay that is actually useful as
an indicator of community status.

Once sampling sites in the Bay are chosen, monitoring under calm weather and ocean conditions
in the Bay will be carried out with assistance from high schools, canoe clubs, UH-Hilo class
participants, and volunteers. The WAG coordinator will develop a schedule based on
availability of students, club members and volunteers. Initially, the project or the WAG will
have to hire technicians to carry out monitoring and train students and other volunteers, who will
then continue the data gathering, monitored by the WAG. Data will be entered on a website data
base maintained by WAG. Schools could enter data themselves, but we will need hard copies
and controls, with random checks of their data quality at regular intervals.

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?76

Funding needs:

salary for technician to work with DOH should that agency lack sufficient personnel to
carry out increased monitoring or, more likely, lab analysis

cost of lab analysis for C. perfringens samples

training of volunteers (copies of sampling methodology, sampling materials to be used
during training)

Biological baseline data

Characterize community structure of benthic and water column organisms in Hilo Bay
(phytoplankton, algae, zooplankton, invertebrates, vertebrates) and correlate changes in
community structure over the long (seasonal) and short term (daily) with above monitoring of
Wailuku and Bay waters. The initial work would be done by a graduate student for his/her thesis,
then incorporated into regular monitoring. Faculty members at UH Hilo (e.g., Drs. Jason Turner,
Jim Beets, Karla McDermid, and Mike Parsons) might be the best persons to carry out this work.

Coral growth and fish populations will be similarly monitored by volunteers using the protocols
developed by the Coral Reef Initiative. This will allow detection of impacts of pollution and the
reduction of pollution on the marine fauna, and may lead to reliable biological indicator species
for the Bay, reducing the need for continuous water sampling once the research phase is over.
Invasive algae cover can also be monitored in this way. Misaki Takabyashi, in the UH-Hilo
Marine Sciences Department, is a coral specialist who could help guide this work.

Funding needs:

Stipend support for faculty member at UH Hilo and for graduate student (included in
overall estimate of faculty/student costs)

Research materials?to be estimated

Fecal indicator bacteria

Analysis for fecal indicator bacteria and especially C. perfringens will be carried out by DOH
personnel, but we will need to provide them with more trained personnel to collect the samples
and preserve them properly, in order to get broad coverage across the Bay under different
weather conditions. Currently sampling is restricted to three sites at regular intervals rather than
to coincide with storm and base flow, which does not allow us to test the hypotheses that there is
considerable input from cesspools to the Bay. After mapping out the current location of
cesspools and of sewer lines (with potential leaks) in relation to the best available estimate of
water percolation into the Bay (see BMPs, Sections 11.1, 11.3), we will select sampling sites that
will allow us to test the hypothesis that cesspool leachate is entering through ground water rather
than stream flow. We will use C. perfringens rather than traditional fecal indicators to avoid the
possibility that bacteria from the soil are contaminating the water.

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?77

Funding needs:

cost of sample analysis and cost of training volunteers in proper collection techniques;
cost of sample bottles and coolers.

Social and Socioeconomic studies

Addressing Health Concerns in Hilo Bay

Bay users, and especially canoeists, complain of frequent rashes after entering the water, and
also believe that staph is prevalent in the waters. A collaboration with doctors and outdoor
groups to document incidences of ?rashes? and ?staph infections? anecdotally reported by Bay
users could do much to either confirm or dispel the concerns, leading to greater comfort for Bay
users if no disease pattern is found, or alternatively leading to further monitoirng and a solution
if support is found for anthropogenic causes of rashes and infections (as opposed to stinging by
jellyfish and/or algae).

Funding needs: minimal, forms to be posted in canoe huts and club house, and forms for doctors
to fill in; $ 1,000

Economic and Environmental Assessment of Cruise Ship Industry Impacts

Estimate the benefits to local economy, to island economy, to state economy, and costs to each
of these three (who is bearing the burden, who is getting the benefits), as well as impact on water
resources (direct through pollution in Bay, indirect through wastewater increase at Volcano park
and in town, indirect through need to maintain breakwater). This will also serve as a
demonstration project for cost-benefit analysis that includes ecological services and other costs
not usually considered.

Funding needs:

graduate student in economics at UH Manoa; one semester RAship at 8,000 $

Institutional barriers to and opportunities for efficient water resource management

A review is needed of the current governmental structure controlling watershed management,
conservation, granting of permits, etc., at county, state and federal level as it applies to Hilo.
This study should describe the barriers and opportunities for improving permitting, enforcement
and monitoring of existing regulations related to watershed management and pollution issues in
the Hilo Bay Watershed. What is the current procedure for any of the relevant processes?
Where are there contradictions and redundancies? What cultural, historical, political, legal and
procedural factors currently prevent the implementation of best management practices for
environmental quality in the area? Note that these extend all the way up to the State of Hawaii
legislative system, and the review will be applicable to watershed management in general rather
than just to Hilo, though there may be some historical and cultural factors that apply just in the
Hilo area.

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?78

Funding needs:

sociology or geography or related area graduate student one year RAship at 17,000 $;
there is strong interest at the federal level in understanding decision making process in
management, and the ways in which scientific knowledge is incorporated into policy; this
would therefore be a likely topic for a research proposal to the National Science
Foundation.

15?P

ROPOSED

ANAGEMENT

TRUCTURE

, P

HASE

ESTORATION

LAN

(Initial Five-

Year Research, Monitoring and Evaluation Period)

PI based at UH Manoa or UH Hilo (use of PI salary time as match?no additional cost)

co-PI at Hilo to oversee day to day activities, work on grants, and coordinate both science
and education aspects of plan (e.g., Jeff Zimpfer, UH Sea Grant. Full time, cover his
salary and benefits, paid through EC or whichever department ends up coordinating the
plan)--50,000 $ plus benefits x 5 years = $ 250,000 plus benefits

Cost sharing?can be cost-shared with UH Sea Grant

Full time WAG coordinator position?provides linkage between community and project,
participates in outreach, coordinates volunteer researchers and students (e.g., Mary
James)--$ 40,000 plus benefits x 5 years = $ 200,000 plus benefits

Faculty members and graduate students at UH Hilo and UH Manoa carry out research
and oversee data collection, analysis and presentation.

School teachers?are trained to pass information on to students

Students and canoe club volunteers and other volunteers?collect monitoring data, are
coordinated by WAG and Project director

Collaborators in research and monitoring: DAR, DOH, USGS, USDA Forest Service,

UH-Hilo

The Restoration Plan will need at least one full time coordinator, but ideally there would be one
Science Coordinator and one Education Coordinator. However, if the WAG continues
functioning and a coordinator is funded through the Restoration Plan, then the WAG coordinator
can assume some of these functions. The project coordinators could be housed within UH
Manoa, UH Hilo, or the WAG. If housed within a University, then University facilities will be
available to the project (computer, phone, fax, scanner, etc.). If housed within the WAG, all
these facilities, in addition to office rental, will have to be funded for the WAG. The
management personnel should be funded for the first five years. By that time the WAG and the
researchers will have raised additional funds on their own, and after the 5-year evaluation period
the new budget will be developed. The project coordinator will follow an evaluation protocol to
evaluate success/failure on a yearly basis of overall restoration plan. He/she will
oversee/coordinate the work of UH Hilo researchers, consultants, school programs, module
producers, etc.

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?79

EFERENCES

Hilo Specific

AECOS Inc. 1996. An environmental assessment for a bridge crossing of Waiakea Stream at
University of Hawaii, Hilo, Hawaii. AECOS Inc.

AECOS Inc. 1997. An assessment of stream impacts for a bridge crossing of Waiakea Stream at
University of Hawaii, Hilo, Hawaii. AECOS Inc.

AECOS Inc. 2000. Review of water quality and biology in Kawaihae and Hilo Harbors for the
Harbors 2000 Master Plan Implementation EIS (draft)

AECOS Inc. 2002. An environmental reconnaissance survey of Waiakea Stream for the USDA
Pacific Basin Agricultural Research Center on the Island of Hawaii.

Anonymous. 1995. State?s stream rezoning plan angers Laupahoehoe community. Environment
Hawaii 6(3), September 1995.

Anonymous. 2001. Can state balance logging, environment in Waiakea plan? Environment
Hawaii, Volume 11(12), June 2001.

Anonymous. 2002. Hardened banks, channelized streams climb ever upwards after Hilo flood.
Environment Hawaii Volum 12(7), January 2002

Anonymous. 2005. EPA Warns Big Island Asphalt. Hawaii Tribune-Herald date

Bishop, H. 2005. Cruise Ships Expect More. Tribune-Herald, May 26 2005.

Bliss, S. 2004. The future of downtown Hilo: Hilo citizens gather to create a vision. Hawai?i
Island Journal date and issue

County of Hawaii. 2004. EPA Brownfields Economic Redevelopment Initiative: Inventory and
Assessment, Hawai?i County. Proposal submitted to USA EPA.

County of Hawaii. 2004. General Plan. Web site address

County of Hawaii. 2005. County of Hawaii Hilo Wastewater Treatment Plant Mixing Zone
Study. Public Notice

Dayton, K. 2005. Efforts to clean up Hilo Bay gain. Honolulu Advertiser date

De La Cruz, K. 2005. Is agricultural tourism future of Big Island. Hawaii Tribune-Herald, May
13 2005

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?80

Dudley, W, C. Jr., and L. E. Hallacher. 1991. Distribution and Dispersion of Sewage Pollution
in Hilo Bay and Contiguous Waters Final Report. County of Hawaii Department of Public
Works

Environment Hawaii. 1990. Lots of pork, little sewage at the new Hilo treatment works.
Environment Hawaii Vol. 5, Issue 1.

Environment Hawaii. 1990. On the Trail of the Sewer Rats. Environment Hawaii Vol. 5, Issue
1.

Environment Hawaii. 1990. Stop pouring money down gold-plated tubes. Environment Hawaii
Vol. 5, Issue 1.

Fontaine, R. A. and B. R. Hill. 2002. Streamflow and erosion response to prolonged intense
rainfall of November 1-2, 2000, island of Hawaii, Hawaii. USGS Water-Resources
Investigations Report 02-4117

Halbig, J. B. Barnard, Bartlett, Overfield, and Abbott. A baseline study of ground water
geochemistry in the Kawaihae and Hilo areas on the island of Hawaii. prepared for] Dept. of
Planning and Economic Development, State of Hawaii. Publisher: [Honolulu] : Dept. of
Planning and Economic Development, 1986. Description: vi, 74 p. : ill. ; 28 cm

Halliday, W. R. 2003. Raw sewage and solid waste dumps in lava tube caves of Hawaii Island.
Journal of Cave and Karst Studies 65(1): 68-75

HBWAG. 2005. Hilo Bay Advisory Group OCB Project. Proposal submitted to the Hawaii
Community Foundation

HECO. 2005. Wailuku River Hydroelectric Power Company. Hawaiian Electric Company Web
site

Hilo Bay Watershed Advisory Group. 2004. Hilo Bay Watershed Project Public Input Final
Report. Submitted Univeristy of Hawaii at Manoa Environmental Center.

Kelly, M. (Marion), B. Nakamura, and D.B. Barrere. Hilo Bay, a chronological history : land
and water use in the Hilo Bay area, island of Hawaii. prepared for U.S. Army Engineer District,
Honolulu Publisher: [Honolulu] : Bernice P. Bishop Museum, c1981 Description: xiii, 341 p., [3]
folded sheets : ill., maps ; 28 cm.

Locket, D. E. 2004. Hilo Bay: A source or sink of atmospheric CO2? Senior thesis, Marine
Science Department, University of Hawaii at Hilo

M & E Pacific. 1980 Hilo Area Comprehensive Study?Geological, Biological and Water
Quality Investigations of Hilo Bay. US Army Corps of Engineers, Honolulu District

Medeiros, S. 2001. Run of the river. Hawaiian Electric Industries web site

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?81

NRCS. 2001. Wailuku River Dispersion Evaluation.

Sea Engineering Inc. 1981. Circulation and sediment transport study, Hilo Bayfroont Beach,
Hilo Hawaii.

Sur, P. 2005. From Ship to Downtown: Cruise, Hilo officials talk tourist dollars. Hawaii
Tribune Herald, Oct. 20 2005.

Takemoto, R. 2002. Hilo Bayfront Proposed Recreation Projects. Department of Parks and
Recreation, County of Hawai?i

U. S. Army Corps of Engineers?Honolulu District. 1982. Alenaio Stream, Island of Hawaii.
Harbors and rivers in Hawaii, final survey report and environmental impact statement.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers?Honolulu District. 1984. Draft reconnaissance hydroelectric
power study for the Wailuku River and Honolii Stream, Island of Hawaii, State of Hawaii.

US Army Engineer District, Honolulu. 2004. Hilo Bay Ecosystem Restoration Project, Island of
Hawaii, Hawaii: Preliminary Restoration Plan (PRP)?Tab C. USAE, Honolulu

US Army Engineer District, Honolulu. 1983. Hilo Breakwater Modification?Draft Survey
Report and Environmental Impact Statement. US Army Corps of Engineers, Pacific Ocean
Division

US Army Engineer District, Honolulu. 1983. Hilo Harbor?Draft Survey Report and
Environmental Impact Statement. US Army Corps of Engineers, Pacific Ocean Division

US Fish and Wildlife Service. 1979. Hilo Area Comprehensive Study?Biological Resources.
Report prepared for U.S. Army Engineer District, Honolulu

Wong, P. E. 2001. Letter to Dr. William Halliday re lava tube clean up.

Young, T. 2004. Statewide Watershed Project, Hawaii?Hilo Bay. Informal report to
Watershed Advisory Group.

State of Hawaii Specific

Andrews, S. and R. A. Sutherland. 2004. Cu, Pb and Zn contamination in Nu?uanu watershed,
Oahu, Hawaii. Science of the Total Environment 324: 173-182

Anonymous. 1999. Growth in cruise ship industry brings major changes to all isles.
Environment Hawaii, Volume 9 (1), May 1999.

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?82

Anonymous. 2004. Hawaii legislators advance bill to regulate discharge from cruise ships.
Hawaii Tribune Herald March 17 2005

Brasher, A. M. D. 2003. Impacts of human disturbances on biotic communities in Hawaiian
streams. BioScience 53: 1052-1060

Byapanahalli, M., and R. Fujioka. 2004. Indigenous soil bacteria and low moisture may limit
but allow fecal bacteria to multiply and become a minor population in tropical soils. Water
Science and Technology 50(1): 27-32

Calbet, A., M. R. Landry, and R. D. Scheinberg. 2000. Copepod grazing in a subtropical bay:
species-specific responses to a midsummer increase in nanoplankton standing stock. Marine
Ecology?Progress Serios 193: 75-84.

Cannarela, R. 1998. Forest Industry, p. 249 in S. P. Juvik and J. O. Juvik, eds. Atlas of Hawaii,
3

Edition. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu, HI.

CZM. No date. CZM Water Quality Directory. Web site

De Carlo, E. H. and K. J. Spencer. 1997. Retrospective analysis of anthropogenic inputs of lead
and other heavy metals to the Hawaiian Sedimentary Environment. Applied Organometallic
Chemistry 11: 415-437

De Carlo, E. H., and S. B. Anthony. 2002. Spatial and temporal variability of trace element
concentrations in an urban subtropical watershed. Applied Geochemistry 17: 475-492

De Carlo, E. H., V. L. Beltran and M. S. Tomlinson. 2004. Composition of water and
suspended sediment in streams of urbanized subtropical watersheds in Hawaii. Applied
Geochemistry 19: 1011-1037

El-Kadi, A. I., M. Mira, S. Dhal, and J. E.T. Moncur. 2004. Assessment and Protection Plan for
the Nawiliwili Watershed: Phase 3 ? Restoration and Protection Plan for the Watershed. Water
Resources Research Center Project Report to HDOH

El-Kadi, A. I., R. S. Fujioka, C. C. K. Liu, K. Yoshida, G. Vithanage, Y. Pan and J. Farmer.
2004. Assessment and Protection Plan for the Nawiliwili Watershed.

Fujioka, R. 2001. Evidence for multiplication of fecal bacteria in Hawaii?s soil environment and
evidence that Clostridium perfringens is a more reliable indicator of fecal contamination.
Presentation given at the Tropical Water Quality Indicator Workshop?, Honolulu, March 2001.

Garrison, G. H., C. R. Glenn and G. M. McMurtry. 2003. Measurement of submarine
groundwater discharge in Kahana Bay, O?ahu, Hawai?i. Limnology and Oceanography 48(2):
290-928

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?83

Hawaii Department of Health. 2003. 2003 Hawaii Groundwater Contamination Maps.
http://hawaii.gov/health/environmental/water/sdwb/conmaps/comaps.html)

HCRI. 2002. The First Four Years: Hawaii Coral Reef Initiative Research Program, 1998-2002.
Hawaii Coral Reef Initiative, Division of Aquatic Resources, and University of Hawaii- Manoa

HCRI. 2004. Hawaii Coral Reef Initiative Monitoring Program: Results of Hawaii. web site

HCRI. 2005. Request for proposals. HCRI Research Program. Web site

Henson, C. 2002. Hawaiian water bird recovery plan: Overview and status of the second
revision. Abstract in Proceedings of Wetland Management in the Hawaiian Islands Workshop,
October 31-November 1, 2002

Hoover, D. J. 2002. Fluvial Nitrogen and Phosphorus in Hawaii: Storm Runoff, Land Use, and
Impacts on Coastal Waters. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Hawaii-Manoa

Hoover, D. J. and R. A. Kinzie III. 2002. Urban runoff and coastal water quality: Continuous
monitoring in south Kaneohe Bay. Report to Coral Reef Initiative. Web site

Hunter, C. L. 2003. Alien algae on Hawaii?s reefs: distributional changes and ecological
responses. Final report to Coral Reef Initiative. Web site

Kall, R. K., G. A. Wolinsky, P. Husby, J. Harrington, P. Spindler, K. Vargas, and G. Smith.
2000. Status of aquatic bioassessment in U.S. EPA Region IX. Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment 64: 17-30

Kelly, J. 2002. Cruise control? Protests and meetings call for industry regulation. Hawai?i
Island Journal date and issue

Kido, M. H. 1998. Baseline and monitoring studies of Alakahi and Onomea streams, Hamakua
Coast, Hawaii. Final project report to the Hawaii Tropical Botanical Garden

Koch, L., J. Harrigan-Lum, and K. Henderson. 2004. 2004 List of Impaired Waters in Hawaii
Prepared Under Clean Water Act Section 303(d). Hawaii Department of Health Environmental
Planning Office.

Larned, S. T. 2000. Dynamics of coarse riparian detritus in a Hawaiian stream ecosystem: A
comparison of drought and post-drought conditions. Journal of the North American Benthology
Society 19: 215-234

Larned, S. T., C. T. Chong, and N. Punewai. 2001. Detrital fruit processing in a Hawaiian
stream ecosystem. Biotropica 33(2): 241-248

Laws, E. A., D. Ziemann and D. Schulman. 1999. Coastal water quality in Hawaii: The
importance of buffer zones and dilution. Marine Environmental Research 48: 1-21.

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?84

Laws, E. No Date. Continuous water quality monitoring to determine the cause of coral reef
ecosystem degradation. Final report to Coral Reef Initiative. Web site

Macioleck, J. A. 1981. Consumer trophic relationships in a tropical insular estuary. Bulletin of
Marine Science 31: 702-711

Macioleck, J. A. and A. S. Timbol. 1981. Environmental features of the macrofauna of Kahana
Estuary, Oahu, Hawaii. Bulletin of Marine Science 31: 712-722

McCarthy, S. A., E. A. Laws, W. A. Estabrooks, J. H. Bailey-Brock and E. A. Kay. 2000. Intra-
annual variability in Hawaiian shallow-water, soft-bottom macrobenthic communities adjacent to
a eutrophic estuary. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 5): 245-258.

Michaud, J. 2005. Recent discoveries and new interpretations of Hawaiian ground water system.
Water Resources Impact 7(2): 10-12.

Monger, B. C., M. R. Landry, and S. L. Brown. 1999. Feeding selection of heterotrophic marine
nanoflagellates based on the surface hydrophobicity of their picoplakton prey. Limnology and
Oceoanography 44 (8): 1917-1927

Oki, D. S. 2004. Trends in streamflow characteristics at long-term gauging stations, Hawaii.
USGS Scientific Investigations Report 2004-5080

Parks, N. M. 1998. Environmental Quality, pp. 294-297 in S. P. Juvik and J. O. Juvik, eds.
Atlas of Hawaii, 3

Edition. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu, HI.

Parnell, P. E. 2001. The distribution of estuarine and oceanic water masses on the southern
shore of Oahu, Hawaii: Ecological and coastal management implications, and novel
methodology. Limnology and Oceanography 46(6): 1468-1485

Research Solutions. 2002. Draft economic impact analysis of proposed critical habitat for
threatened and endangered plants on the island of Hawai?i. Report prepared for Division of
Economics, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Runcie, J. W. and R. A. Kinzie III. 2002. Water quality assessment using macroalgae as
indicators of eutrophication. Report to Hawaii Coral Reef Initiative. Web site

Runcie, J. W. and R. A. Kinzie III. 2003. Water quality assessment using macroalgae as
indicators of eutrophication. Report to Hawaii Coral Reef Initiative. Web site

Smith, C. 1998. Soils, pp. 95-96 in S. P. Juvik and J. O. Juvik, eds. Atlas of Hawaii, 3

Edition. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu, HI.

Smith, G. C. and J. D. Parish. 2002. Estuaries as nurseries for the Jacks Caranx ignobilis and
Caranx melampygus (Carangidae) in Hawaii. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 55: 347-359

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?85

Stimson, J. and S. T. Larned. 2000. Nitrogen efflux from the sediments of a subtropical bay and
the potential contribution to macroalgal nutrient requirements. Journal of Experimental Marine
Biology and Ecology 252 (2): 159-180

Stimson, J., S. Larned and K.McDermid. 1996. Seasonal growth of the coral reef macrolaga
Dictyosphaeria cavernosa (Foskal) Borgenesen and the effects of nutrient availability,
temperature and herbivory on growth rate. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology
196 (1-2): 53-77

Tomlinson, M. S. and E. H. De Carlo. 2003. The need for high resolution time series data to
characterize Hawaiian streams. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 39: 113-
123

Townscape, Inc. 2003. Ala Wai Watershed Analysis. Final Report. Department of Land and
Natural Resources, State of Hawaii

US Coral Reef Task Force. 2004. Hawaii Local Action Strategy. Web site

West Maui Watershed Management Advisory Committee (WMWMAC). No Date. Island
Stewardship: Guide to Preventing Water Pollution for Maui?s Homes and Businesses.
WMWMAC and HDOH

West Maui Watershed Management Advisory Committee. 1997. West Maui Watershed Owners
Manual. WMWMAC, HDOH, US EPA, and NOAA.

General

Allan, J. D. 2004. Landscapes and riverscapes: The influence of land use on stream ecosystems.
Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution and Systematics 35: 257-284

Andrews, S. S., C. B. Flora, J. P. Mitchell and D. L. Karlen. 2003. Grower?s perceptions and
acceptance of soil quality indices. Geoderma 114(3-4)? 187-213

Binkley, D., G. G. Ice, J. Kaye and C. A. Williams. 2004. Nitrogen and phosphorus
concentrations in forest streams of the United States. Journal of the American Water Resources
Association 40(5): 1227-1291

Boehm, A. B., J. A. Fuhrman, R. D. Mrse and S. B. Grant. 2003. Tiered approach for
identification of a human fecal pollution source at a recreational beach: Case study at Avalon
Bay, Catalina Island, California. Environmental Science and Technology 37: 673-680

Chen, B., Y. F. Li, G. H. Huang, Y. F. Huang and Y. R. Li. 2004. Modeling of pesticide losses
through runoff and sediment transport. Journal of Environmental Science and Health Part B?
Pesticides, Food Contaminants and Agricultural Wastes 39(4): 613?626

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?86

Coulter, C. B., R. K. Kolka and J. A. Thompson. 2004. Water quality in agricultural, urban and
mixed land use watersheds. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 40(6): 1593-
1601

DeBarry, P. A. 2004. Watersheds: Processes, Assessment, and Management. John Wiley and
Sons, Hoboken, NJ.

Eisler, R. 1998. Arsenic hazards to fish, wildlife and invertebrates: A synoptic review. U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD

Folke, C., S. Carpenter, B. Walder, M.Scheffer, T. Elmqvist, L. Gunderson, and C. S. Holling.
2004. Regime shifts, resilience and biodiversity in ecosystem mangement. Annual Review of
Ecology and Systematics 35: 557-581

Keplinger, K. 2003. The economics of Total Maximum Daily Loads. Natural Resources
Journal 43: 1057

Lapointe, B. E. and W. R. Matzie. 1996. Effects of stormwater nutrient discharges on
eutrophication processes in nearshore waters of the Florida Keys. Estuaries 19(2b): 422-435

Long, S. C. and J. D. Plummer. 2004. Assessing land use impacts on water quality using
microbial source tracking. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 40(6): 1433-
1448

Niemi, G. J., and M. E. McDonald. 2004. Application of Ecological Indicators. Annual Review
of Ecology and Systematics 35: 89-111

Ourso, R. T., and S. A. Frennzel. 2003. Identification of linear and threshold responses in
streams along a gradient of urbanization in Anchorage, Alaska. Hydrobiologia 501(1-3): 117-
131

Reginato, M. and T. C. 2004. Nutrient contribution of nonpoint soruce runoff in the Las Vegas
Valley. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 40(6): 537-1551

Shively, G. and I. Coxhead. 2004. Conducting economic policy analysis at a landscape scale:
examples from a Philippine watershed. Agriculture Ccosystems and Environment 104(1): 159-
170

Sweeney, B. W., T. L. Bott, J. K. Jackson, L. A. Kapaln, J. D. Newbold, L. J. Standley, W. C.
Hession, and R. J. Horwitz. 2004. Riparian deforestation, stream narrowing, and loss of stream
ecosystem services. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences volume

Szmant, A. M. 2000. Introduction to the special issue of Coral Reefs on ?Coral Reef Algal
Community Dynamics.? Coral Reefs 19: 299-302

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?87

IGURES

Fig. 1. Map of Hilo Bay Watershed, showing sub-basins and watershed boundaries

Fig. 2. Land use in Hilo Bay Watershed

Fig. 3. Location of ground water inputs into Hilo Bay

Fig. 4. Major landowners in the Hilo Bay Watershed

Fig. 5. Land use map, urban areas only, Hilo Bay area

Fig. 6. Vegetation/land cover in Hilo Bay Watershed

Fig. 7. Historical point sources of pollution into Hilo Bay

Fig. 8. Location of Hilo sewer lines

Fig. 9. Areas of Hilo currently hooked up to the sewer system

Fig. 10. Outrigger canoe racing in Hilo Bay

Fig. 11. Location of DOH sampling sites

Fig. 12. Location of USGS water sampling station

Figure 13. DOH enterococcus graph

Figure 14. DOH C. perfringens graph

Figure 15. DOH fecal coliform graph

Fig. 16. DOH Kjeldahl Nitrogen graph

Fig. 17. DOH Phosphorus graph

Fig. 18 DOH 21HISPEC Sampling Sites Hilo Bay

Fig. 19. USGS stream flow graph

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?102

Fecal Coliform at DOH Monitoring Sites for Period of Record

0.01

0.10

1.00

10.00

100.00

1,000.00

10,000.00

100,000.00

1100 -

Baker's

Beach

1101 -

Coconut

Island

1102 - Exit of

Ice Pond

1106 - Hilo
Bay (boat

landing)

1107 - Hilo

Bay

(lighthouse)

1108 - Hilo

Bay

(Mooheau

Pk)

1110 - Honolii

Cove

(ocean)

1111 - Honolii

Cove

(stream)

1122 - Nalei

Hotel

1123 -

Naniloa

Hotel

1132 - Wailoa

River

1133 -

Waiakea Mill

Pond

1134 -

Wailuku

River (a)

1135 -

Wailuku

River (b)

1138 - Hilo

Bay (Canoe

Beach)

1141 - Hilo

Bay (off

shore)

monitoring site

fecal coliform /100 ml

minimum

maximum

average

N=89

N=334

N=150

N=73

N=49

N=349

N=214

N=130

N=120

N=137

N=67

N=69 N=47

N=22

N=71

N=85

Figure 15, Results of fecal coliform monitoring at DOH sampling sites in Hilo Watershed

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?106

16701700 near Pua Akala

16701750 near Humuula

16701800 near Kaumana

16703000 at Pukamaui

16704000 at Piihonoua

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

month

cubic feet per second

16701700 near Pua Akala
16701750 near Humuula
16701800 near Kaumana
16703000 at Pukamaui
16704000 at Piihonoua

Figure 19, Discharge at Wailuku River USGS Monitoring Sites

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?107

Table 1, Enterococcus monitoring history at DOH sampling sites in Hilo Watershed
(highlighted sites are currently active)

site min

max

average

count

first

last

1101 - Coconut Island

0.30

310.00

10.57

11/6/1989

12/2/1998

1102 - Exit of Ice Pond

0.50

3,970.00

36.10

207

3/9/1987

2/28/2005

1106 - Hilo Bay (boat landing)

0.60

610.00

24.20

10/9/1989

9/23/2003

1107 - Hilo Bay (lighthouse)

0.30

1,000.00

31.31

114

10/9/1989

9/29/1999

1108 - Hilo Bay (Mooheau Park)

0.60

144.00

13.28

10/9/1989

10/19/1992

1110 - Honolii Cove (ocean)

0.30

870.00

39.77

363

11/6/1989

3/3/2005

1122 - Nalei Hotel

7.00

6/25/1990

1132 - Wailoa River (boat ramp)

1.00

1,500.00

63.38

4/23/1990

12/2/1998

1133 - Waiakea Mill Pond

4.00

480.00

111.54

4/23/1990

6/22/1992

1134 - Wailuku River (a)

49.00

6/25/1990

1138 - Hilo Bay (Canoe Beach)

0.30

740.00

29.13

337

4/23/1990

3/3/2005

1141 - Hilo Bay (off shore)

0.60

350.00

11.22

5/18/1987

10/6/1997

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?108

Table 2, Enterococci per 100 ml of water from 16 shoreline stations located throughout the vicinity
of Hilo Bay (N= number of sample-days) Dudley et al. study 1991

August 1989 to July 1990

August 1990 to June 1991

Site N

Geo.

mean

Range

Geo.mean

Range

Honolii

143

31 - 3120

0 - 3000

Wailuku River

0 - 4000

0 - 340

Wailoa River

0 - 1060

0 - 640

Suisan

0 - 1440

0 - 162

V.C.B.

0 - 1580

0 - 1860

G.O.

2 - 1040

211

31 - 2020

Maile Apt.

0 - 3360

0 - 1800

Canoe Beach

0 - 1120

2 - 800

Cocoanut Is.

0 - 1020

0 - 400

Radio Bay

0 - 520

0 - 1600

Ice Pond

0 - 235

4 - 720

Reed's Bay

0 - 3100

0 - 1760

Puhi Bay

0 - 251

0 - 560

Onekahakaha

0 - 118

0 - 295

Kealoha

0 - 600

7 - 74

Richardsons

0 - 160

0 - 1840

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?109

Table 3, C. perfringens monitoring history at DOH sampling sites in Hilo Watershed

(highlighted sites are currently active)

site min

max

average

count

first

last

1101 - Coconut Island

0.70

18.00

2.59

7/26/1994

12/2/1998

1102 - Exit of Ice Pond

0.70

10.00

1.59

104

1/25/1993

2/28/2005

1106 - Hilo Bay (boat landing)

2.10

10/22/2002

1107 - Hilo Bay (lighthouse)

0.70

710.00

15.94

1/31/1994

9/29/1999

1110 - Honolii Cove (ocean)

0.20

110.00

6.18

243

1/25/1993

2/28/2005

1132 - Wailoa River (boat ramp)

1.00

96.00

7.81

2/7/1994

12/2/1998

1138 - Hilo Bay (Canoe Beach)

0.20

68.00

4.69

273

4/12/1993

3/3/2005

1141 - Hilo Bay (off shore)

1.00

14.00

2.70

7/8/1996

10/6/1997

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?110

Table 4, Fecal coliform monitoring history at DOH sampling sites in Hilo Watershed

(highlighted sites are currently active)

site min

max

average

count

first

last

1100 - Baker's Beach

2.00

1,100

86.42

6/19/1973

6/6/1978

1101 - Coconut Island

1.00

1,600

56.36

214

6/4/1973

6/3/1996

1102 - Exit of Ice Pond

2.00

16,000

325.44

334

6/13/1973

6/3/1996

1106 - Hilo Bay (boat landing)

2.00

1,100

54.91

6/19/1973

11/30/1992

1107 - Hilo Bay (lighthouse)

1.00

2,400

92.56

130

6/19/1973

6/3/1996

1108 - Hilo Bay (Mooheau Pk)

2.00

490

50.28

120

4/16/1986

9/21/1992

1110 - Honolii Cove (ocean)

1.00

5,400

148.13

150

6/5/1973

6/3/1996

1111 - Honolii Cove (stream)

2.00

2,400

181.38

6/13/1973

12/9/1975

1122 - Nalei Hotel

1.00

1,600

129.64

6/19/1973

6/25/1990

1123 - Naniloa Hotel

2.00

460

32.73

6/19/1973

12/9/1975

1132 - Wailoa River

2.00

24,000

373.99

137

4/16/1986

9/21/1992

1133 - Waiakea Mill Pond

2.00

11,000

450.10

6/19/1973

6/22/1992

1134 - Wailuku River (a)

5.00

1,100

136.27

1/7/1974

6/25/1990

1135 - Wailuku River (b)

790

153.50

1/19/1976

11/28/1977

1138 - Hilo Bay (Canoe Beach)

1.00

1,800

79.45

4/23/1990

6/3/1996

1141 - Hilo Bay (off shore)

1.00

1,300

27.28

349

2/11/1980

5/7/1991

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?111

Table 5, Fecal streptococcus monitoring history at DOH sampling sites in Hilo Watershed

(highlighted sites are currently active)

site min

max

mean

count

first

last

1100 - Baker's Beach

15.00

15.0

15.00

1/21/1974

1101 - Coconut Island

3.00

3.0

3.00

6/4/1973

1102 - Exit of Ice Pond

2.00

2,4000

189.98

8/13/1973

7/28/1982

1106 - Hilo Bay (boat landing)

4.00

4.0

4.00

1/21/1974

9/21/1992

1107 - Hilo Bay (lighthouse)

9.00

9.90

9.00

1/21/1974

1108 - Hilo Bay (Mooheau Park)

2.00

1700

21.92

1/21/1974

7/12/1982

1110 - Honolii Cove (ocean)

2.00

4700

92.63

1/16/1974

3/11/1985

1111 - Honolii Cove (stream)

3.00

11,000

931.84

8/13/1973

2/25/1974

1122 - Nalei Hotel

3.00

3.0

3.00

1/21/1974

1123 - Naniloa Hotel

4.00

4.0

4.00

1/21/1974

1132 - Wailoa River (boat ramp)

2.00

2,4000

264.36

1/21/1974

2/14/1977

1133 - Waiakea Mill Pond

3.00

1500

58.83

8/13/1973

2/11/1974

1134 - Wailuku River (a)

6.00

5400

149.61

1/21/1974

3/11/1985

1135 - Wailuku River (b)

2,400

459.00

1/19/1976

2/14/1977

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?112

Table 6, Nitrogen monitoring history at DOH sampling sites in Hilo Watershed

(highlighted sites are currently active)

site min

max

avg

count

first

last

Nitrogen ion (N) mg/l
1100 - Baker's Beach

0.230

0.540

0.405

12/6/1976

6/6/1978

1101 - Coconut Island

0.020

0.690

0.288

6/4/1973

12/6/1982

1102 - Exit of Ice Pond

0.350

1.424

0.514

3/16/1981

8/4/1997

1106 - Hilo Bay (boat landing)

0.01

1.17

0.21

9/25/1990

9/2/1997

1107 - Hilo Bay (lighthouse)

0.009

0.862

0.158

10/22/1990

8/4/1997

1108 - Hilo Bay (Mooheau Park)

0.061

0.269

0.153

9/25/1990

8/3/1992

1110 - Honolii Cove (ocean)

0.050

0.540

0.179

6/5/1973

9/2/1997

1132 - Wailoa River (boat ramp)

0.350

0.850

0.580

3/8/1976

6/20/1977

1135 - Wailuku River (b)

0.48

3/8/1976

6/20/1977

1141 - Hilo Bay (off shore)

0.010

1.160

0.234

451

10/2/1979

10/6/1997

Nitrogen, ammonium (NH4) as NH4, mg/l
1101 - Coconut Island

0.000

0.260

0.105

7/9/1979

12/6/1982

1102 - Exit of Ice Pond

0.000

0.180

0.021

3/16/1981

8/4/1997

1106 - Hilo Bay (boat landing)

0.001

0.050

0.018

9/25/1990

9/2/1997

1107 - Hilo Bay (lighthouse)

0.001

0.060

0.020

10/22/1990

8/4/1997

1108 - Hilo Bay (Mooheau Park)

0.001

0.014

0.005

9/25/1990

8/3/1992

1110 - Honolii Cove (ocean)

0.003

0.050

0.026

9/26/1990

9/2/1997

1141 - Hilo Bay (off shore)

0.000

0.500

0.058

443

10/2/1979

10/6/1997

Nitrogen, Kjeldahl, mg/l
1100 - Baker's Beach

0.200

0.500

0.350

12/6/1976

6/6/1978

1101 - Coconut Island

0.000

0.600

0.197

6/4/1973

12/6/1982

1102 - Exit of Ice Pond

0.100

0.300

0.129

3/16/1981

8/4/1997

1106 - Hilo Bay (boat landing)

0.100

0.200

0.120

11/28/1994

9/2/1997

1107 - Hilo Bay (lighthouse)

0.100

0.300

0.118

10/31/1994

8/4/1997

1110 - Honolii Cove (ocean)

0.000

0.500

0.190

6/5/1973

9/2/1997

1132 - Wailoa River (boat ramp)

0.100

0.500

0.300

3/8/1976

6/20/1977

1135 - Wailuku River (b)

0.000

1.000

0.320

3/8/1976

6/20/1977

1141 - Hilo Bay (off shore)

0.000

1.100

0.244

356

10/2/1979

10/6/1997

Nitrogen, Nitrite (NO2) + Nitrate (NO3) as N, mg/l

1100 - Baker's Beach

0.010

0.100

0.050

12/6/1976

6/6/1978

1101 - Coconut Island

0.010

0.210

0.065

6/4/1973

12/6/1982

1102 - Exit of Ice Pond

0.230

0.600

0.443

3/16/1981

8/4/1997

1106 - Hilo Bay (boat landing)

0.000

0.600

0.119

9/25/1990

9/2/1997

1107 - Hilo Bay (lighthouse)

0.010

0.200

0.045

10/22/1990

8/4/1997

1108 - Hilo Bay (Mooheau
P k)

0.000 0.200

0.075 20

9/25/1990 8/3/1992

1110 - Honolii Cove (ocean)

0.010

0.100

0.056

6/5/1973

9/2/1997

1132 - Wailoa River (boat

)

0.100 0.500

0.170

3/8/1976 6/20/1977

1135 - Wailuku River (b)

0.100

0.200

0.120

3/8/1976

6/20/1977

1141 - Hilo Bay (off shore)

0.000

0.330

0.034

455

10/2/1979

10/6/1997

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?114

Table 8, Nitrogen monitoring history at USGS sampling sites in Hilo Watershed

Station Count

First

Last

Parameter

16704000 Wailuku River at
Piihonua

20 1/25/1978

9/24/1979

ammonia plus organic nitrogen, suspended
sediment, total, milligrams per liter as nitrogen

16717000 Honolii nr. Papaikou 20 10/29/1980 9/1/1982

ammonia plus organic nitrogen, suspended
sediment, total, milligrams per liter as nitrogen

16704000 Wailuku River at
Piihonua

21 11/28/1977

9/24/1979

ammonia plus organic nitrogen, water, filtered,
milligrams per liter as nitrogen

16717000 Honolii nr. Papaikou 19 10/29/1980

7/29/1991

ammonia plus organic nitrogen, water, filtered,
milligrams per liter as nitrogen

16717000 Honolii nr. Papaikou 1 7/29/1991

ammonia plus organic nitrogen, water, filtered,
modified jirka method, milligrams per liter as
nitrogen

16701750 Wailuku R. nr.
Humuula

2 11/4/1977

9/14/1978

ammonia plus organic nitrogen, water, unfiltered,
milligrams per liter as nitrogen

16701800 Wailuku near
Kaumana

2 11/1/1977

7/26/1978

ammonia plus organic nitrogen, water, unfiltered,
milligrams per liter as nitrogen

16704000 Wailuku River at
Piihonua

57 10/31/1974

9/24/1979

ammonia plus organic nitrogen, water, unfiltered,
milligrams per liter as nitrogen

16717000 Honolii nr. Papaikou 83 10/29/1980

5/18/1993

ammonia plus organic nitrogen, water, unfiltered,
milligrams per liter as nitrogen

16717000 Honolii nr. Papaikou 1 7/29/1991

ammonia plus organic nitrogen, water, unfiltered,
modified jirka method, milligrams per liter as
nitrogen

16717000 Honolii nr. Papaikou 31 10/29/1980

12/8/1986

ammonia, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as
NH4

16717000 Honolii nr. Papaikou 80 10/29/1980

5/18/1993

ammonia, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as
nitrogen

16704000 Wailuku River at
Piihonua

6 5/16/1979

9/24/1979

ammonia, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as
NH4

16717000 Honolii nr. Papaikou 4 10/29/1980

2/4/1981

ammonia, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as
NH4

16701750 Wailuku R. nr.
Humuula

2 11/4/1977

9/14/1978

ammonia, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as
nitrogen

16701800 Wailuku near
Kaumana

2 11/1/1977

7/26/1978

ammonia, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as
nitrogen

16704000 Wailuku River at
Piihonua

27 9/26/1977

9/24/1979

ammonia, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as
nitrogen

16717000 Honolii nr. Papaikou 64 10/29/1980 8/4/1992

ammonia, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as
nitrogen

16704000 Wailuku River at
Piihonua

11/21/1972

6/12/1973

nitrate, water, filtered, milligrams per liter

16717000 Honolii nr. Papaikou

11/26/1969

3/28/1973

nitrate, water, filtered, milligrams per liter

16704000 Wailuku River at
Piihonua

4 10/26/1971

6/12/1973

nitrate, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as
nitrogen

16717000 Honolii nr. Papaikou 16 10/26/1971

6/20/1973

nitrate, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as
nitrogen

16717000 Honolii nr. Papaikou 3 7/24/1974

9/30/1974

nitrate, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as
nitrogen

16701750 Wailuku R. nr.
Humuula

2 2/12/1976

6/7/1976

Nitrite plus nitrate, water, filtered, milligrams per
liter as nitrogen

16701800 Wailuku near
Kaumana

2 12/15/1975

5/6/1976

Nitrite plus nitrate, water, filtered, milligrams per
liter as nitrogen

16704000 Wailuku River at
Piihonua

3 12/27/1973

9/24/1979

Nitrite plus nitrate, water, filtered, milligrams per
liter as nitrogen

16717000 Honolii nr. Papaikou 101 8/3/1973 5/18/1993

Nitrite plus nitrate, water, filtered, milligrams per
liter as nitrogen

16701750 Wailuku R. nr.
Humuula

2 11/4/1977

9/14/1978

Nitrite plus nitrate, water, unfiltered, milligrams
per liter as nitrogen

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?115

Table 8, Nitrogen monitoring history at USGS sampling sites in Hilo Watershed continued?

16701800 Wailuku near
Kaumana

2 11/1/1977

7/26/1978

Nitrite plus nitrate, water, unfiltered, milligrams
per liter as nitrogen

Station Count

First

Last

Parameter

16704000 Wailuku River at
Piihonua

62 10/31/1974

9/24/1979

Nitrite plus nitrate, water, unfiltered, milligrams
per liter as nitrogen

16717000 Honolii nr. Papaikou 103 7/24/1974 8/4/1992

Nitrite plus nitrate, water, unfiltered, milligrams
per liter as nitrogen

16717000 Honolii nr. Papaikou 41 10/29/1985

5/18/1993

Nitrite, water, filtered, milligrams per liter as
nitrogen

16717000 Honolii nr. Papaikou 15 6/10/1974 8/4/1992

Nitrite, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter as
nitrogen

16717000 Honolii nr. Papaikou 16 10/29/1980 9/1/1982

Organic nitrogen, water, filtered, milligrams per
liter

16701750 Wailuku R. nr.
Humuula

2 11/4/1977

9/14/1978

Organic nitrogen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per
liter

16701800 Wailuku near
Kaumana

2 11/1/1977

7/26/1978

Organic nitrogen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per
liter

16704000 Wailuku River at
Piihonua

22 11/29/1977

9/24/1979

Organic nitrogen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per
liter

16717000 Honolii nr. Papaikou 21 10/29/1980

10/27/1986

Organic nitrogen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per
liter

16704000 Wailuku River at
Piihonua

9/24/1979

Total nitrogen, water, filtered, milligrams per liter

16717000 Honolii nr. Papaikou

10/29/1980

7/27/1982

Total nitrogen, water, filtered, milligrams per liter

16701750 Wailuku R. nr.
Humuula

2 11/4/1977

9/14/1978

Total nitrogen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per
liter

16701800 Wailuku near
Kaumana

2 11/1/1977

7/26/1978

Total nitrogen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per
liter

16704000 Wailuku River at
Piihonua

57 10/31/1974

9/24/1979

Total nitrogen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per
liter

16717000 Honolii nr. Papaikou 13 10/29/1980

11/17/1981

Total nitrogen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per
liter

16701750 Wailuku R. nr.
Humuula

2 11/4/1977

9/14/1978

Total nitrogen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per
liter as nitrate

16701800 Wailuku near
Kaumana

2 11/1/1977

7/26/1978

Total nitrogen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per
liter as nitrate

16704000 Wailuku River at
Piihonua

57 10/31/1974

9/24/1979

Total nitrogen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per
liter as nitrate

16717000 Honolii nr. Papaikou 13 10/29/1980

11/17/1981

Total nitrogen, water, unfiltered, milligrams per
liter as nitrate

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?116

Table 9, Phosphorus monitoring history at DOH sampling sites in Hilo Watershed
(highlighted sites are currently active)

site min

max

avg

count

first

last

Phosphorus, mg/l
1100 - Baker's Beach

0.025

0.046

0.030

12/6/1976

6/6/1978

1101 - Coconut Island

0.011

0.081

0.025

6/4/1973

12/6/1982

1102 - Exit of Ice Pond

0.029

0.096

0.058

3/16/1981

8/4/1997

1106 - Hilo Bay (boat landing)

0.010

0.040

0.02

9/25/1990

9/2/1997

1107 - Hilo Bay (lighthouse)

0.005

0.104

0.020

10/22/1990

8/4/1997

1108 - Hilo Bay (Mooheau Park)

0.009

0.090

0.020

9/25/1990

8/3/1992

1110 - Honolii Cove (ocean)

0.008

0.102

0.026

6/5/1973

9/2/1997

1132 - Wailoa River (boat ramp)

0.020

0.060

0.050

3/8/1976

6/20/1977

1135 - Wailuku River (b)

0.015

0.0450

0.0290

3/8/1976

6/20/1977

1141 - Hilo Bay (off shore)

0.001

1.252

0.027

503

10/2/1979

10/6/1997

Phosphorus, orthophosphate as P, mg/l
1101 - Coconut Island

0.010

0.025

0.010

7/9/1979

12/6/1982

1102 - Exit of Ice Pond

0.010

0.074

0.054

3/16/1981

8/4/1997

1106 - Hilo Bay (boat landing)

0.00

0.030

0.01

9/25/1990

9/2/1997

1107 - Hilo Bay (lighthouse)

0.001

0.049

0.010

10/22/1990

8/4/1997

1108 - Hilo Bay (Mooheau Park)

0.001

0.082

0.011

9/25/1990

8/3/1992

1141 - Hilo Bay (off shore)

0.000

0.217

0.013

464

10/2/1979

10/6/1997

1110 - Honolii Cove (ocean)

0.003

0.032

0.012

9/26/1990

9/2/1997

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?118

Table 11, Phosphorus monitoring history at USGS sampling sites in Hilo Watershed

Station Count

FirstDate

Last

Date

Parameter

16701750 Wailuku R. nr.
Humuula

2/12/1976

6/7/1976

Orthophosphate, water, filtered, milligrams per liter

16701800 Wailuku near
Kaumana

12/15/1975

5/6/1976

Orthophosphate, water, filtered, milligrams per liter

16704000 Wailuku River at
Piihonua

12/27/1973

6/3/1974

Orthophosphate, water, filtered, milligrams per liter

16717000 Honolii nr.
Papaikou

8/3/1973

2/22/1983

Orthophosphate, water, filtered, milligrams per liter

16704000 Wailuku River at
Piihonua

5/16/1979

6/25/1979

Phosphate, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter

16704000 Wailuku River at
Piihonua

9/26/1977

9/24/1979

Phosphorus, water, filtered, milligrams per liter

16717000 Honolii nr.
Papaikou

5/16/1979

9/25/1979

Phosphate, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter

16717000 Honolii nr.
Papaikou

3/8/1979

5/18/1993

Phosphorus, water, filtered, milligrams per liter

16717000 Honolii nr.
Papaikou

1 7/29/1991

Phosphorus, water, filtered, modified jirka method,
milligrams per liter

16701750 Wailuku R. nr.
Humuula

11/4/1977

9/14/1978

Phosphorus, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter

16701800 Wailuku near
Kaumana

11/1/1977

7/26/1978

Phosphorus, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter

16704000 Wailuku River at
Piihonua

10/31/1974

9/24/1979

Phosphorus, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter

16717000 Honolii nr.
Papaikou

154

12/13/1973

5/18/1993

Phosphorus, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter

16704000 Wailuku River at
Piihonua

6 5/16/1979

9/24/1979

Phosphorus, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter
as phosphate

16717000 Honolii nr.
Papaikou

55 5/16/1979

12/8/1986

Phosphorus, water, unfiltered, milligrams per liter
as phosphate

16701750 Wailuku R. nr.
Humuula

2 2/12/1976

6/7/1976

Orthophosphate, water, filtered, milligrams per liter
as phosphorus

16701800 Wailuku near
Kaumana

2 12/15/1975

5/6/1976

Orthophosphate, water, filtered, milligrams per liter
as phosphorus

16704000 Wailuku River at
Piihonua

2 12/27/1973

6/3/1974

Orthophosphate, water, filtered, milligrams per liter
as phosphorus

16717000 Honolii nr.
Papaikou

75 8/3/1973

5/18/1993

Orthophosphate, water, filtered, milligrams per liter
as phosphorus

16717000 Honolii nr.
Papaikou

1 7/29/1991

Phosphorus, water, unfiltered, modified jirka
method, milligrams per liter

16701750 Wailuku R. nr.
Humuula

2 11/4/1977

9/14/1978

Orthophosphate, water, unfiltered, milligrams per
liter as phosphorus

16701800 Wailuku near
Kaumana

2 11/1/1977

7/26/1978

Orthophosphate, water, unfiltered, milligrams per
liter as phosphorus

16704000 Wailuku River at
Piihonua

5 10/26/1971

9/12/1978

Orthophosphate, water, unfiltered, milligrams per
liter as phosphorus

16717000 Honolii nr.
Papaikou

23 7/26/1971 8/4/1992

Orthophosphate, water, unfiltered, milligrams per
liter as phosphorus

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?119

Table 12, Chlorophyll monitoring history at DOH sampling sites in Hilo Watershed

(highlighted sites are currently active)

site ID

min

max

average count

site

parameter first

last

1101 - Coconut
Island

10.00 400.00 115.00 6 1101

Chlorophyll a (probe)
ug/l

1/18/1982 12/6/1982

1102 - Exit of Ice
Pond

0.00

100.00

3.94

1102

Chlorophyll a (probe)
ug/l

4/20/1981

8/4/1997

1106 - Hilo Bay
(boat landing)

0.10 201.00 7.84 57 1106

Chlorophyll a (probe)
ug/l

9/25/1990 9/2/1997

1107 - Hilo Bay
(lighthouse)

0.10 654.00 20.12 56 1107

Chlorophyll a (probe)
ug/l

10/22/1990 8/4/1997

1108 - Hilo Bay
(Mooheau Park)

0.30 36.00 3.72 20 1108

Chlorophyll a (probe)
ug/l

9/25/1990 8/3/1992

1110 - Honolii Cove
(ocean)

0.20

91.80

5.62

1110

Chlorophyll a (probe)
ug/l

9/26/1990

9/2/1997

1141 - Hilo Bay (off
shore)

0.00 1,375.00 41.08 405 1141

Chlorophyll a (probe)
ug/l

9/8/1980 10/6/1997

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?120

Table 13, Turbidity monitoring history at DOH sampling sites in Hilo Watershed

(highlighted sites are currently active)

NTU

Site count

min

max

average

first

last

1100 - Baker's Beach

0.50

12/6/1976

4/17/1978

1101 -Coconut Island

0.20

16.00

1.87

6/4/1973

12/6/1982

1102 - Exit of Ice Pond

109

0.10

2.50

0.43

3/16/1981

2/28/2005

1106 - Hilo Bay (boat landing)

0.20

10.10

1.49

9/4/1991

9/23/2003

1107 - Hilo Bay (lighthouse)

0.40

290.00

9.26

9/4/1991

8/4/1997

1108 - Hilo Bay (Mooheau Park)

1.90

32.00

7.99

9/4/1991

8/3/1992

1110 - Honolii Cove (ocean)

216

0.20

32.20

3.07

6/5/1973

3/3/2005

1132 - Wailoa River (boat ramp)

0.20

1.00

0.43

3/8/1976

6/20/1977

1135 - Wailuku River (b)

0.70

1.80

1.06

3/8/1976

6/20/1977

1138 - Hilo Bay (Canoe Beach)

185

1.90

84.30

9.45

1/4/1999

3/3/2005

1141 - Hilo Bay (off shore)

0.50

6.00

1.60

10/2/1979

10/22/2002

min 2

0.10

0.50

0.43

max 216

1.90

290.00

9.45

avg 63

0.62

43.31

3.38

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?121

Table 14, Turbidity monitoring history at USGS sampling sites in Hilo Watershed

Station

Count

Date

Last Date

Parameter

16701750 Wailuku R. nr.
Humuula

3 2/12/1976

11/4/1977

Turbidity, water, unfiltered, Jackson
turbidity units

16701800 Wailuku near
Kaumana

3 12/15/1975

11/1/1977

Turbidity, water, unfiltered, Jackson
turbidity units

16704000 Wailuku River at
Piihonua

51 10/26/1971

6/12/1978

Turbidity, water, unfiltered, Jackson
turbidity units

16717000 Honolii nr. Papaikou 47

5/5/1970 2/26/1976

Turbidity, water, unfiltered, Jackson
turbidity units

16717000 Honolii nr. Papaikou 4

5/5/1970 8/20/1970

Turbidity, water, unfiltered, milligrams per
liter as silicon dioxide

16701750 Wailuku R. nr.
Humuula

9/14/1978

Turbidity, water, unfiltered, nephelometric
turbidity units

16701800 Wailuku near
Kaumana

7/26/1978

Turbidity, water, unfiltered, nephelometric
turbidity units

16704000 Wailuku River at
Piihonua

17 5/23/1978

9/24/1979

Turbidity, water, unfiltered, nephelometric
turbidity units

16717000 Honolii nr. Papaikou 59 10/25/1982 5/18/1993

Turbidity, water, unfiltered, nephelometric
turbidity units

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?123

PPENDIX

1: C

OUNTY OF

AWAII

OIL

ROSION AND

EDIMENTATION

ONTROL

ROGRAM

Draft Objectives (2-11-2005)

Update the County?s grading ordinance and advocate the implementation of best
management practices to minimize or prevent pollutants in discharges from a
construction site

Provide better enforcement of the grading ordnance and best management practices

Incorporate provisions to assist SWCDs to better manage their conservation programs

Integrate/coordinate Chapter 10 regulations with State authorities such as DOH,
NPDES and UIC permits, and DLNR, SCAP permits and SHPD and regulations to
eliminate redundancies and improve efficiency

Provide continuing education and training programs for inspectors, contractors,
engineers and the general public

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?124

PPENDIX

2: S

TAKEHOLDERS

LANDOWNERS AND MANAGERS IN

ILO

ATERSHED

Agency

Name

Title

Address

City

Phone

E-mail

USGS

Gordon Tribble

Honolulu

Dale Nishimoto

Hilo office closing in
June

moving to Hon

933-6920

denishim@us
gs.gov

COE

Derek Chow

Sr Proj Man/Civil &
PW Brch

Warren Kani

Engineer

NRCS

Harry Toki

Dist Conservatnst

Hilo

933-8381;
933-8353

hary.toki@hi.
usda.gov

FWS

Dick Wass

Hakalau Wildlife
Refuge

32 Kinoole St; Suite
101

Hilo

933-6915

Patrick Glenn

SWCD

895-3480

Hamakua

Tom Young

969-3114

SWCD -

Francis Pacheco,
Chair

Waikea

SWCD -

Robbie Hind,
chair/rancher

885-6602

Mauna
Kea

Margaret Becca

DLNR

DOFAW

Roger Imoto

Branch Manager

19 E Kawili St

Hilo

974-4220

rimoto@dofa
wha.org

Steve Bergfeld

19 E Kawili St

Hilo

sbergfeld@d
ofawha.org

Land
Division

75 Aupuni St Rm 204

Hilo

974-6203

Aquatic
Resources

Bob Nishimoto

Aquatic Biologist

75 Aupuni St Rm 204

Hilo

974-6201

John Kahiapo

Educational Sp

75 Aupuni St Rm 204

Hilo

974-6201

DOBOR

Nancy Murphy

District Manager

Kailua-Kona

326-7896

DOCARE

Honolulu

587-0077

SHPD

Kailua-Kona

327-3690

OCCL

Honolulu

587-0377

State Parks

Glen Taguchi

DOH

Thomas See

Enforcement

Honolulu

Cliff Furukado

Clean Water

1582 Kam Ave

Hilo

933-0401

Jerry

Wastewater

1582 Kam Ave

Hilo

Dave Penn

TMDL

Honolulu

OHA

Ululani Sherlock

Community Resource
Coordinator

162-A Baker Ave

Hilo

920-6418

ululanis@oha
.org

HI
Homeland
s

Mauna Kea Dis

Waimea

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?125

Mike Robinson
forester

DHHL: East Hawaii
District

160 Baker Ave

Hilo

974-4250

James (Kimo)
DuPont

DHHL Director W
Hawaii District

Waimea

887-6053

DOT

Ian Birnie

Harbormaster

Hilo

Co
Planning

Chris Yuen

Director

961-8288

Roy Takemoto

Deputy Director
(moving to Mayors
office)

Alice Kawahara

CZM program

Co PW

Bruce McClure

Director

Galen Kuba

Eng Div Head

101 Pauahi St Ste 7

Hilo

961-8327

Co Env
Man

Barbara Bell

Director

25 Aupuni St#210

Hilo

961-8083

Nelson Ho

Deputy Director

25 Aupuni St #210

Hilo

961-8083

Solid
Waste

Lono Tyson

Division Head

108 Railroad Ave

Hilo

961-8339

Wastewate
r

Peter Boucher

Division Head

108 Railroad Ave

Hilo

961-8338

Water
Supply

Milton Pavao

Department Head

345 Kekuanaoa St

Hilo

961-8050

Operations

Dennis Lee

Division Head

889 Leilani St

Hilo

961-8790

WQ
Assurance

Keith Okamoto

Division Head

889 Leilani St

Hilo

961-8670

Res & Dev

Jane Testa

Director

25 Aupuni St #219

Hilo

961-8366

Co
Council

Stacy Higa, Chair

District 1

Donald Ikeda

District 2

Mayor

Harry Kim

CTAHR -

Marine
Science

Tracy Wiegner

Marine
Science

Walt Dudley

Geology

Don Thomas

Geology

Jene Michaud

Chemistry

Randi Schneider

Geography

Sonia Juvik

AECOS
Labs

Karen Klein

Kona

Landowne
rs

DLNR

DHHL

Mike Robinson

Hilo

C Brewer

may have sold
some land

World
Union

Hilo

US Gov

Kameham
eha Sc

Peter Simmons

Regnl Operatns Dir

78-6831 Ali'I Dr;
Suite 232

Kailua-Kona

322-5310

pesimmon@k
sbe.edu

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?127

PPENDIX

3: M

ANAGEMENT AGENCIES ACTING IN THE

ILO

AY WATERSHED WITH AREAS OF

COMPETENCE

Current & Planned Water Resource Management Efforts

Entity

Management Effort

State

DOH Wstwtr

Discharge permits

DOH CWB

TMDL; wate quality monitoring; revising State WQ standards; storm drain stencil

DLNR/DOFAW

wild pig control/ eradication; manage hunting and forests

DLNR/Aq Res

Bob Nishimoto - fishery management HB; hatchery; fees, permits, limits

DLNR/SWCD

DOT

Ian Birnie Harbormaster (leaves in June), harbor improvements; MOU w/ cruise ships??;

storm water management with County??

road construction and road and landscape maintainance including herbicide application

CZM

Hawaii NEMO program; CZM/DOH HI Implementation Plan for Polluted Runoff Control
(report 7/00)

DHHL

Mike Robinson contact for land managed in Upper Mauna Kea (grazing)

SWCD

subdivision of DLNR

Land Use Com

Ag Dept

pesticide branch: inspctions, application/proper storage & handling classes; list of certified
applicators

DHHL

Mike Robinson

USDA

includes NRCS, USFS, RC&D

USDA/NRCS

Farm Bureau Programs; Conservation Plans-sediment control, water quality resource
management,

techincal assistance; flood control

USDA/USFS

Hakalau NWR; pig control; reforestation; invasive species control

USDA/RC&D

non profit status; provides grant funding

EPA

Grant money; resources; assistance

FEMA

flood protection (life and property)

USGS

Monitoring

NOAA/NMFS

USFWS

COE

stream permits, breakwater (study and alterations), mitigation projects

Nat Mar Wild

National Marine Wildlife Sanctuary - whales

Commerce/NOA
O

law enforcement

WPRFMC

Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council www.wpcouncil.org

Coast Guard

Cruise ship law enforcement?

County

Planning

Revisions to General Plan - zoning/ land use planning, variances,etc; enforcement/penalties?

Hilo Bayfront Proposed Recreation Projects July 2002; Friends of Downtown Hilo

Pub Wks

Potential COE computer modeling of Hilo Bay

TAC Revising County Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance;

grubbing & grading permits & enforcement;

flood control, channel/road maintenance, herbicide application

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?128

submitted projects for stormwater control grant money (USBR?)

DOT

herbicide spraying, stormwater runoff, tree trimming/landscaping

Water

responsible for County drinking water facilities and compliance with State standards

Env Man

Solid Waste - Recycling; bottle bill; illegal dumping program

land fill (potential groundwater issues) - requested to extend life by increasing height

Expanding wastewater services???; EPA money to assist with addressing gang cesspools

Brownfields money;outfall dye dilution study; renewing Hilo NPDES permit; compliance
moniroting data

Env Man Com

Commission meets bi-monthly; 1 member from each of 9 districts represent the area re env
issue

Parks & Rec

Beach clean ups; maintain and manage beach areas and parks; water safety

Community

WAG

Restn Plan; Watershed Man Plan; Ed/Outreach; clean ups; monitoring

Canoe Clubs

John Kekua, Gerard Leeloy; interest in Bayfront (canoe shelters are illegal);

HSS

Hawaii Speleological Society; Lave Tube Cave Subcommittee; articles/information from Dr
Halliday;

Kaumana Cave information

Keep Am Bea

Litter clean ups

Fishing Clubs

Hunting Clubs

Youth Groups

High school clubs, Boy and Girl Scouts, etc; work on clean ups, stenciling,

Sailing Club

Sevice Groups

Rotary, Lions, Kiwanis

Surfing Clubs

Education

UHH

Studies and monitoring, technical assistance (COE model??); student help

Marine Science (Walt Dudley, Leon Hallaker, Lisa Parr); Natural Sciences (Jene-Geology);

Natural Resources Management; Geography (Juviks)

EPSCoR; UHRC (grant and staffing assistance)

UHM

Environmental Center/WRRC Restoration Plan; resources

Tropical Ag Extension Service - provide office supplies like copy machine, meeting room

Environmental

Nature Cons

Sierra Club

Blue Water Campaign; Blue Water Response Team/ Hot Line

Businesses

Hotels

Hilo Hawaiian, Naniloa, Seaside, Uncle Billie's

Fishing stores

Tokunaga

Kayak shops

Surfbrd shops

Dive shop

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?129

PPENDIX

4: DOH WQ Data From STORET Database May 2005

001100 Baker's

Beach

Organization:

Hawaii Dept. of Health

primary type

Ocean

latitude/longtitude

latitude: 19.7313889, longitude: 155.0622222

depth: 0

feet

PARAMETER FIRST

LAST

COUNT

MIN

MAX

AVG

Fecal Coliform, MPN

6/19/1973

6/6/1978

1100

86.42

Total Coliform, MPN

6/19/1973

6/6/1978

4600

305.84

Fecal Streptococcus Group Bacteria, MPN

1/21/1974

15.00

Turbidity, NTU

12/6/1976

4/17/1978

0.5

0.50

Nitrogen ion (N), mg/l

12/6/1976

6/6/1978

0.2300

0.5400

0.4050

Nitrogen, Kjeldahl, mg/l

12/6/1976

6/6/1978

0.2000

0.5000

0.3500

Nitrogen, Nitrite (NO2) + Nitrate (NO3) as N, mg/l

12/6/1976

6/6/1978

0.0100

0.1000

0.0500

pH, None

12/6/1976 12/6/1976

7.50

Phosphorus, mg/l

12/6/1976

6/6/1978

0.0250

0.0460

0.0328

Salinity, ppth

12/6/1976

6/6/1978

25.25

Temperature, water, deg C

12/6/1976

6/6/1978

23.5

26.5

24.70

Total Suspended Solids (TSS), mg/l

4/17/1978

6/6/1978

26.67

Dissolved oxygen (DO), mg/l

12/6/1976

6/6/1978

7.1

7.9

7.35

001101 Coconut

Island

Organization:

Hawaii Dept. of Health

primary type

Ocean

latitude/longtitude

latitude: 19.7325, longitude: 155.0711111

depth: 1

foot

PARAMETER FIRST

LAST

COUNT

MIN

MAX

AVG

Enterococcus Group Bacteria, #/100ml

11/6/1989

12/2/1998

0.30

310.00

10.57

Clostridium perfringens, #/100ml

7/26/1994

12/2/1998

0.70

18.00

2.59

Fecal Coliform, #/100ml

6/4/1973

6/3/1996

214

1.00

1,600.00

56.36

Total Coliform, #/100ml

6/4/1973

9/21/1992

135

1.00

24,000.00

499.84

Fecal Streptococcus Group Bacteria, #/100ml

6/4/1973

3.00

Turbidity, NTU

6/4/1973

12/6/1982

0.20

16.00

1.87

Nitrogen ion (N), mg/l

6/4/1973

12/6/1982

0.0200

0.6900

0.2880

Nitrogen, ammonium (NH4) as NH4, mg/l

7/9/1979

12/6/1982

0.0000

0.2600

0.1054

Nitrogen, Kjeldahl, mg/l

6/4/1973

12/6/1982

0.0000

0.6000

0.1969

Nitrogen, Nitrite (NO2) + Nitrate (NO3) as N, mg/l

6/4/1973

12/6/1982

0.0100

0.2100

0.0647

Phosphorus, mg/l

6/4/1973

12/6/1982

0.0110

0.0810

0.0247

Phosphorus, orthophosphate as P, mg/l

7/9/1979

12/6/1982

0.0100

0.0250

0.0100

Chlorophyll a (probe), ug/l

1/18/1982

12/6/1982

10.00

400.00

115.00

Total Organic Carbon (TOC), mg/l

2/11/1980

12/8/1980

1.50

4.30

2.41

Total Suspended Solids (TSS), mg/l

1/9/1978

12/6/1982

4.00

172.00

31.28

Dissolved oxygen (DO), mg/l

4/15/1974

9/13/1982

6.60

10.00

7.52

pH, None

4/15/1974

12/6/1982

7.10

8.40

7.90

Salinity, ppth

4/15/1974

12/2/1998

138

5.00

34.00

24.91

Secchi disk depth, m

9/11/1978

12/6/1982

1.00

10.00

3.29

Temperature, water, deg C

4/15/1974

12/6/1982

22.00

27.00

25.00

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?130

001102

Exit of Ice Pond

Organization:

Hawaii Dept. of Health

primary type

Estuary

latitude/longtitude

latitude: 19.7272222, longitude: 155.0652778

depth: 1

foot

PARAMETER FIRST

LAST

COUNT

MIN

MAX

AVG

Enterococcus Group Bacteria, #/100ml

3/9/1987

2/28/2005

207

0.5

3,970

36.10

Clostridium perfringens, #/100ml

1/25/1993

2/28/2005

104

0.7

1.59

Fecal Coliform, MPN

6/13/1973

6/3/1996

334

16,000

325.44

Total Coliform, MPN

6/13/1973

10/5/1992

277

24,000

2,026.83

Fecal Streptococcus Group Bacteria, MPN

8/13/1973

7/28/1982

2,400

189.98

Turbidity, NTU

3/16/1981

2/28/2005

109

0.1

0.43

Nitrogen ion (N), mg/l

3/16/1981

8/4/1997

0.3500 1.4240 0.5144

Nitrogen, ammonium (NH4) as NH4, mg/l

3/16/1981

8/4/1997

0.0000 0.1800 0.0214

Nitrogen, Kjeldahl, mg/l

3/16/1981

8/4/1997

0.1000 0.3000 0.1294

Nitrogen, Nitrite (NO2) + Nitrate (NO3) as N, mg/l

3/16/1981

8/4/1997

0.2300 0.6000 0.4430

Phosphorus, mg/l

3/16/1981

8/4/1997

0.0290 0.0960 0.0583

Phosphorus, orthophosphate as P, mg/l

3/16/1981

8/4/1997

0.0100 0.0740 0.0538

Total Organic Carbon (TOC), mg/l

9/25/1990

8/29/1994

0.3

0.64

Total Suspended Solids (TSS), mg/l

3/16/1981

8/4/1997

5.59

Chlorophyll a (probe), ug/l

4/20/1981

8/4/1997

100

3.94

Dissolved oxygen (DO), mg/l

3/16/1981

2/28/2005

153

5.82

22.07

Dissolved oxygen saturation, %

8/11/2003

6/30/2004

71.1

85.40

Silica, mg/l

9/25/1990 8/29/1994

14.48

Secchi disk depth, m

4/20/1981

9/13/1982

3.33

Salinity, ppth

4/20/1981

2/28/2005

217

8.01

pH, None

9/13/1982

2/28/2005

117

6.6

7.77

Temperature, water, deg C

4/20/1981

2/28/2005

122

22.30

001106

Hilo Bay (boat landing)

Organization:

Hawaii Dept. of Health

primary type

Ocean

latitude/longtitude

latitude: 19.7297222, longitude: 155.075

depth: 1

foot

PARAMETER FIRST

LAST

COUNT

MIN

MAX

AVG

Enterococcus Group Bacteria, #/100ml

10/9/1989

9/23/2003

0.60

610.00

24.20

Clostridium perfringens, #/100ml

10/22/2002 10/22/2002

2.10

Fecal Coliform, #/100ml

6/19/1973

11/30/1992

2.00

1,100.00

54.91

Total Coliform, MPN

6/19/1973

9/21/1992

2.00

5,400.00

551.4

Fecal Streptococcus Group Bacteria, MPN

1/21/1974

4.00

Turbidity, NTU

9/4/1991

9/23/2003

0.20

10.10

1.49

Nitrogen ion (N), mg/l

9/25/1990

9/2/1997

0.0070 1.1680

0.207

Nitrogen, ammonium (NH4) as NH4, mg/l

9/25/1990

9/2/1997

0.0007 0.0500

0.018

Nitrogen, Kjeldahl, mg/l

11/28/1994

9/2/1997

0.1000 0.2000

0.118

Nitrogen, Nitrite (NO2) + Nitrate (NO3) as N, mg/l

9/25/1990

9/2/1997

0.0000 0.6000

0.118

Phosphorus, mg/l

9/25/1990

9/2/1997

0.0050 0.0430

0.020

Phosphorus, orthophosphate as P, mg/l

9/25/1990

9/2/1997

0.0003 0.0300

0.013

Total Organic Carbon (TOC), mg/l

9/25/1990

8/29/1994

0.80

4.50

1.35

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?132

001107 Hilo

Bay

(lighthouse)

Organization:

Hawaii Dept. of Health

primary type

Ocean

latitude/longtitude

latitude: 19.7308333, longitude: 155.09

depth: 1

foot

PARAMETER FIRST

LAST

COUNT

MIN

MAX

AVG

Enterococcus Group Bacteria, #/100ml

10/9/1989

9/29/1999

114

0.30

1,000.00

31.31

Clostridium perfringens, #/100ml

1/31/1994

9/29/1999

0.70

710.00

15.94

Fecal Coliform, #/100ml

10/19/1992

9/21/1992

130

1.00

2,400.00

92.56

Total Coliform, MPN

6/19/1973

9/21/1992

2.00

24,000.00

1,902.31

Fecal Streptococcus Group Bacteria, MPN

1/21/1974

9.00

Turbidity, NTU

9/4/1991

8/4/1997

0.40

290.00

9.26

Total Suspended Solids (TSS), mg/l

10/31/1994

8/4/1997

3.00

33.00

15.36

Nitrogen ion (N), mg/l

10/22/1990

8/4/1997

0.0090

0.8620

0.1576

Nitrogen, ammonium (NH4) as NH4, mg/l

10/22/1990

8/4/1997

0.0007

0.0600

0.0202

Nitrogen, Kjeldahl, mg/l

10/31/1994

8/4/1997

0.1000

0.3000

0.1182

Nitrogen, Nitrite (NO2) + Nitrate (NO3) as N, mg/l

10/22/1990

8/4/1997

0.0100

0.2000

0.0450

Phosphorus, mg/l

10/22/1990

8/4/1997

0.0050

0.1040

0.0204

Phosphorus, orthophosphate as P, mg/l

10/22/1990

8/4/1997

0.0006

0.0490

0.0096

Silica, mg/l

10/22/1990 8/29/1994

0.50

6.50

2.39

Total Organic Carbon (TOC), mg/l

10/22/1990

8/29/1994

0.90

5.10

1.72

Chlorophyll a (probe), ug/l

10/22/1990

8/4/1997

0.10

654.00

20.12

Dissolved oxygen (DO), mg/l

10/22/1990

8/4/1997

6.10

8.60

6.80

pH, None

10/22/1990

8/4/1997

6.70

8.30

8.03

Salinity,

ppth

10/22/1990

9/29/1999 150 11.00 33.80

26.53

Temperature, water, deg C

10/22/1990

8/4/1997

21.90

27.50

24.84

001108

Hilo Bay (Mooheau Park)

Organization:

Hawaii Dept. of Health

primary type

Ocean

latitude/longtitude

latitude: 19.7280556, longitude: 155.0861111

depth: 1

foot

PARAMETER FIRST

LAST

COUNT

MIN

MAX

AVERAGE

Enterococcus Group Bacteria, #/100ml

10/9/1989

10/19/1992

0.600

144

13.284

Fecal Coliform, #/100ml

4/16/1986

9/21/1992

120

490

50.275

Total Coliform, MPN

6/19/1973

9/21/1992

102

11,000

913.000

Fecal Streptococcus Group Bacteria, MPN

1/21/1974

7/12/1982

170

21.917

Turbidity, NTU

9/4/1991

8/3/1992

1.9

7.989

Nitrogen ion (N), mg/l

9/25/1990

8/3/1992

0.061

0.269

0.153

Nitrogen, ammonium (NH4) as NH4, mg/l

9/25/1990

8/3/1992

0.001

0.014

0.005

Nitrogen, Nitrite (NO2) + Nitrate (NO3) as N, mg/l

9/25/1990

8/3/1992

0.000

0.200

0.075

Phosphorus, mg/l

9/25/1990

8/3/1992

0.009

0.090

0.020

Phosphorus, orthophosphate as P, mg/l

9/25/1990

8/3/1992

0.001

0.082

0.011

Silica, mg/l

9/25/1990 8/3/1992

20 0.500

3.955

Total Organic Carbon (TOC), mg/l

9/25/1990

8/3/1992

0.900

3.400

1.685

Chlorophyll a (probe), ug/l

9/25/1990

8/3/1992

0.300

3.720

Dissolved oxygen (DO), mg/l

10/22/1990

8/3/1992

5.600

8.200

6.756

pH, None

9/25/1990

8/3/1992

6.900

8.200

7.725

Salinity, ppth

9/25/1990

10/19/1992

24.328

Temperature, water, deg C

9/25/1990

8/3/1992

22.5

27.5

24.716

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?133

001110 Honolii Cove (ocean)
Organization:

Hawaii Dept. of Health

primary type

Ocean

latitude/longtitude

latitude: 19deg. 45min. 33sec. N, longitude: 155deg. 5min. 38sec. W

depth: 1

foot

PARAMETER FIRST

LAST

COUNT

MIN

MAX

AVG

Enterococci #/100 ml

11/6/1989

3/3/2005

363

0.30

870.00

39.77

Clostridium perfringens #/100 ml

1/25/1993 3/3/2005 243 0.20 110.00

6.18

Fecal Coliform MPN

6/5/1973

6/3/1996

150

1.00

5,400.00

148.13

Total Coliform MPN

6/5/1973

9/21/1992

103

4.00

24,000.00

1,969.50

Fecal Streptococcus MPN

1/16/1974

3/11/1985

2.00

470.00

92.63

Turbidity

NTU

6/5/1973

3/3/2005 215 0.20 32.20 3.09

Total susp. solids mg/l

11/28/1994

9/2/1997

4.00

22.00

10.55

Chlorophyll a ug/l

9/26/1990

9/2/1997

0.20

91.80

5.62

Dissolved Oxygen mg/l

4/16/1974

3/3/2005

257

5.78

97.70

18.50

Dissolved Oxygen sat. %

8/11/2003

6/30/2004

80.60

101.70

94.48

Nitrogen ion mg/l

6/5/1973

9/2/1997

0.0500 0.5400 0.1786

Nitrate mg/l

9/26/1990

9/2/1997

0.0030 0.0500 0.0260

Kjeldahl Nitrogen mg/l

6/5/1973

9/2/1997

0.0000 0.5000 0.1900

nitrite and nitrate N

6/5/1973

9/2/1997

0.0100 0.1000 0.0556

Phosphorus mg/l

6/5/1973

9/2/1997

0.0080 0.1020 0.0258

orthophosphate mg/l

9/26/1990

9/2/1997

0.0030 0.0320 0.0116

Silica mg/l

9/26/1990

8/29/1994 14 0.80 3.40 2.44

Total organic carbon mg/l

9/26/1990

8/29/1994

1.00

10.60

2.31

pH 4/16/1974

3/3/2005

107

6.40

8.43

8.17

Salinity

ppt

6/3/1974

8/29/1994 384 0.33 35.00 25.84

Temperature deg. C

4/16/1974

3/3/2005

274

19.11

27.50

24.01

001111 Honolii Cove (stream)
Organization

Hawaii Dept. of Health

primary type

River/Stream

latitude/longtitude latitude: 19deg. 45min. 37sec. N, longitude: 155deg. 4min. 58sec. W
depth: 1

foot

PARAMETER FIRST

LAST

COUNT

MIN

MAX

AVG

Fecal Coliform, MPN

6/13/1973

12/9/1975

2.00

2,400.00

181.38

Total Coliform, MPN

6/13/1973

12/9/1975

11.00

24,000.00

4,259.30

Fecal Streptococcus Group Bacteria, MPN

8/13/1973

2/25/1974

3.00

11,000.00

931.84

001122

Nalei Hotel (front of)

Organization:

Hawaii Dept. of Health

primary type

Ocean

latitude/longtitude

latitude: 19.7313889, longitude: 155.0655556

depth: 1

foot

PARAMETER FIRST

LAST

COUNT

MIN

MAX

AVG

Enterococcus Group Bacteria, #/100ml

6/25/1990

7.00

Fecal Streptococcus Group Bacteria, MPN

1/21/1974

3.00

Fecal Coliform, MPN

6/19/1973

6/25/1990

1.00

1,600.00

129.64

Total Coliform, MPN

6/19/1973

6/25/1990

3.00

4,600.00

749.36

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?134

001123

Naniloa Hotel (old diving board)

Organization:

Hawaii Dept. of Health

primary type

Ocean

latitude/longtitude

latitude: 19.7341667, longitude: 155.0683333

depth: 1

foot

PARAMETER FIRST

LAST

COUNT

MIN

MAX

AVG

Fecal Coliform, MPN

6/19/1973

12/9/1975

2.00

460.00

32.73

Fecal Streptococcus Group Bacteria, MPN

1/21/1974

4.00

Total Coliform, MPN

6/19/1973

12/9/1975

1.00

24,000.00

990.45

001132

Wailoa River (boat ramp)

Organization:

Hawaii Dept. of Health

primary type

Ocean

latitude/longtitude

latitude: 19.7252778, longitude: 155.0744444

depth: 1

foot

PARAMETER FIRST

LAST

COUNT

MIN

MAX

AVG

Enterococcus Group Bacteria, #/100ml

4/23/1990

12/2/1998

1.00

1,500.00

63.38

Clostridium perfringens, #/100ml

2/7/1994

12/2/1998

1.00

96.00

7.81

Fecal Coliform, #/100ml

4/16/1986

9/21/1992

137

2.00

24,000.00

373.99

Total Coliform, MPN

6/19/1973

9/21/1992

104

3.00

24,000.00

2,377.34

Fecal Streptococcus Group Bacteria, MPN

1/21/1974

2/14/1977

2.00

2,400.00

264.36

Turbidity, NTU

3/8/1976

6/20/1977

0.20

0.50

0.32

Nitrogen ion (N), mg/l

3/8/1976

6/20/1977

0.35

0.85

0.578

Nitrogen, Kjeldahl, mg/l

3/8/1976

6/20/1977

0.1000

0.5000

0.1667

Nitrogen, Nitrite (NO2) + Nitrate (NO3) as N, mg/l

3/8/1976

6/20/1977

0.3500

0.8500

0.5783

pH, None

3/8/1976

9/12/1977

6.50

7.30

7.03

Phosphorus, mg/l

3/8/1976

6/20/1977

0.02

0.06

0.05

Dissolved oxygen (DO), mg/l

3/8/1976

9/12/1977

8.20

10.80

9.60

Salinity, ppth

3/8/1976

12/2/1998

0.00

8.00

3.82

Temperature, water, deg C

3/8/1976

9/12/1977

20.00

25.00

21.69

001133

Waiakea Mill Pond

Organization

Hawaii Dept. of Health

primary type

Ocean

latitude/longtitude

latitude: 19deg. 43min. 2sec. N, longitude: 155deg. 2min. 45sec. W

depth: 1

foot

PARAMETER FIRST

LAST

COUNT

MIN

MAX

AVERAGE

Enterococcus Group Bacteria, #/100ml

4/23/1990

6/22/1992

480

111.54

Fecal Coliform, MPN

6/19/1973

6/22/1992

11,000

450.10

Total Coliform, MPN

6/19/1973

6/22/1992

24,000

1,827.00

Fecal Streptococcus Group Bacteria, MPN

8/13/1973

2/11/1974

150

58.83

Salinity, ppth

1/28/1991

6/22/1992

1.65

001134 Wailuku

River

(a)

Organization:

Hawaii Dept. of Health

primary type

River/Stream

latitude/longtitude

latitude: 19.7297222, longitude: 155.0913889

depth: 1

foot

PARAMETER FIRST

LAST

COUNT

MIN

MAX

AVG

Enterococcus Group Bacteria

6/25/1990

49.00

Fecal Coliform

1/7/1974

6/25/1990

1,100

136.27

Total Coliform

1/7/1974

6/25/1990

240

11,000

1,799.84

Fecal Streptococcus Group Bacteria

1/21/1974

3/11/1985

540

149.61

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?135

001135 Wailuku

River

(b)

Organization:

Hawaii Dept. of Health

primary type

River/Stream

latitude/longtitude

latitude: 19.7305556, longitude: 155.0930556

depth: 0

feet

PARAMETER FIRST

LAST

COUNT

MIN

MAX

AVG

Fecal Coliform, MPN

1/19/1976 11/28/1977

790

153.50

Total Coliform, MPN

1/19/1976 11/28/1977

540

16,000

4,151.36

Fecal Streptococcus Group Bacteria, MPN

1/19/1976

2/14/1977

2,400

459.00

Turbidity, NTU

3/8/1976

6/20/1977

1.06

Nitrogen ion (N), mg/l

3/8/1976

6/20/1977

0.290

0.660

0.4833

Nitrogen, Kjeldahl, mg/l

3/8/1976

6/20/1977

0.100

0.500

0.320

Nitrogen, Nitrite (NO2) + Nitrate (NO3) as N, mg/l

3/8/1976

6/20/1977

0.100

0.200

0.120

Phosphorus, mg/l

3/8/1976

6/20/1977

0.015

0.0450

0.0290

Dissolved oxygen (DO), mg/l

3/8/1976

9/12/1977

9.49

pH, None

3/8/1976

9/12/1977

7.42

Salinity, ppth

3/8/1976

9/12/1977

0.17

Temperature, water, deg C

6/14/1976

9/12/1977

21.97

001138

Hilo Bay (Canoe Beach) ? monitoring is ongoing as of 5/15/05

Organization:

Hawaii Dept. of Health

primary type

Ocean

latitude/longtitude

latitude: 19.7258333, longitude: 155.0786111

depth: 1

foot

PARAMETER FIRST

LAST

COUNT

MIN

MAX

AVG

Enterococcus Group Bacteria, #/100ml

4/23/1990

3/3/2005

337

0.30

740.00

29.13

Clostridium perfringens, #/100ml

4/12/1993

3/3/2005

273

0.20

68.00

4.69

Fecal Coliform, #/100ml

6/19/1973 6/3/1996

71 1.00

1,800.00

79.45

Total Coliform, MPN

4/23/1990

9/21/1992

7.00

3,500.00

432.67

Turbidity, mg/l

3/29/2004

3/3/2005

185

1.90

84.30

9.45

Dissolved oxygen (DO), mg/l

1/4/1999

3/3/2005

226

5.50

97.50

19.27

Dissolved oxygen saturation, %

8/11/2003

6/30/2004

78.20

100.30

90.06

pH, None

11/12/2002

3/3/2005

7.42

8.30

8.09

Salinity, mg/l

3/29/2004

3/15/2004

333

5.65

32.40

23.02

Temperature, water, deg C

1/4/1999

6/30/2004

199

19.90

27.28

24.02

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?136

001141

Hilo Bay (off shore)

Organization :

Hawaii Dept. of Health

primary type

Ocean

latitude/longtitude

latitude: 19deg. 44min. 43sec. N, longitude: 155deg. 4min. 53sec. W

depth: 55

feet

PARAMETER FIRST

LAST

COUNT

MIN

MAX

AVG

Enterococcus Group Bacteria, #/100ml

5/18/1987

10/6/1997

0.60

350.00

11.22

Clostridium perfringens, #/100ml

7/8/1996

10/6/1997

1.00

14.00

2.70

Fecal Coliform, #/100ml

2/11/1980

5/7/1991

349

1.00

1,300.00

27.28

Total Coliform, MPN

10/2/1979

5/7/1991

2.00

5,400.00

211.23

Turbidity, NTU

10/2/1979

10/22/2002

429

0.10

171.00

2.02

Secchi disk depth, m

10/2/1979

8/28/1990

1.00

15.00

5.41

Total Suspended Solids (TSS), mg/l

10/2/1979

10/6/1997

336

1.00

973.00

41.57

Nitrogen ion (N), mg/l

10/2/1979

10/6/1997

451

0.0100 1.1600 0.2339

Nitrogen, ammonium (NH4) as NH4, mg/l

10/2/1979

10/6/1997

443

0.0000 0.5000 0.0581

Nitrogen, Kjeldahl, mg/l

10/2/1979

10/6/1997

356

0.0000 1.1000 0.2435

Nitrogen, Nitrite (NO2) + Nitrate (NO3) as N, mg/l

10/2/1979

10/6/1997

455

0.0000 0.3300 0.0336

Phosphorus, mg/l

10/2/1979

10/6/1997

503

0.0006 1.2520 0.0267

Phosphorus, orthophosphate as P, mg/l

10/2/1979

10/6/1997

464

0.0000 0.2170 0.0133

Silica, mg/l

8/28/1990 8/29/1994 108

0.10

12.00

1.73

Total Organic Carbon (TOC), mg/l

2/11/1980

8/29/1994

128

0.80

16.80

2.06

Chlorophyll a (probe), ug/l

9/8/1980

10/6/1997

405

0.00

1,375.00

41.08

Dissolved oxygen (DO), mg/l

10/2/1979

10/22/2002

438

4.60

13.20

7.11

pH, None

10/2/1979

10/6/1997

330

6.70

8.40

8.01

Temperature, water, deg C

10/2/1979

10/22/2002

421

20.80

28.00

24.81

Salinity, ppth

10/2/1979

10/22/2002

473

10.70

38.00

30.50

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?137

Special Sampling Done to Address Concerns Over Arsenic in Sediment

001140

Hilo Bay estuary

Organization :

Hawaii Dept. of Health

primary type

Estuary

latitude/longtitude

latitude: 19deg. 44min. 0sec. N, longitude: 155deg. 4min. 0sec. W

depth: 0

feet

PARAMETER

FIRST

LAST

COUNT

arsenic as,tot ug/l

9/27/1976

arsenic sed mg/kg dry wgt

9/27/1976

4/27/1978

cadmium cd,tot ug/l

9/27/1976

cd mud dry wgt mg/kg-cd

9/27/1976

4/27/1978

chromium sed mg/kg dry wgt

9/27/1976

4/27/1978

chromium cr,tot ug/l

9/27/1976

copper cu,tot ug/l

9/27/1976

copper sed mg/kg dry wgt

9/27/1976

4/27/1978

lead pb,tot ug/l

9/27/1976

lead sed mg/kg dry wgt

9/27/1976

4/27/1978

nickel ni,Total ug/l

9/27/1976

nickel sed mg/kg dry wgt

9/27/1976

4/27/1978

zinc zn,tot ug/l

9/27/1976

zinc sed mg/kg dry wgt

9/27/1976

4/27/1978

mercury sed mg/kg dry wgt

9/27/1976

4/27/1978

Hilo01

Hilo Bay #1

Organization:

Hawaii Dept. of Health

latitude/longtitude

latitude: 19deg. 44min. 40sec. N, longitude: 155deg. 4min. 56sec. W

primary type

Ocean

depth 60

PARAMETER

FIRST

LAST

COUNT

water temp cent

9/8/1980

9/10/1980

transp secchi meters

9/8/1980

9/10/1980

DO mg/l

9/8/1980

9/10/1980

DO satur percent

9/8/1980

9/10/1980

pH su

9/8/1980

9/10/1980

Salinity ppth

9/8/1980

9/10/1980

residue tot nflt mg/l

9/8/1980

9/10/1980

Total N N mg/l

9/8/1980

9/10/1980

NH3+NH4- n Total mg/l

9/8/1980

9/10/1980

un-ionzd NH3-N mg/l

9/8/1980

9/10/1980

un-ionzd NH3-NH3 mg/l

9/8/1980

9/10/1980

tot Kjel N mg/l

9/8/1980

9/10/1980

NO2&NO3 N-Total mg/l

9/8/1980

9/10/1980

phos-tot mg/l P

9/8/1980

9/10/1980

t org c c mg/l

9/8/1980

tot coli mpn conf/100ml

9/27/1976

fec coli mpn ec med/100ml

9/27/1976

Chlorophyl a ug/l

9/8/1980

9/10/1980

phos-t ortho mg/l P

9/8/1980

9/10/1980

Turbidity lab NTU

9/8/1980

9/10/1980

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?139

Hilo02

Hilo Bay #2

Organization:

Hawaii Dept. of Health

latitude/longtitude

latitude: 19deg. 44min. 32sec. N, longitude: 155deg. 5min. 24sec. W

depth: 40

feet

(bottom)

PARAMETER

FIRST

LAST

COUNT

Total N N mg/l

9/27/1976

tot Kjel N mg/l

9/27/1976

phos-tot mg/l P

9/27/1976

arsenic sed mg/kg dry wgt

9/27/1976

9/9/1980

cd mud dry wgt mg/kg-cd

9/27/1976

9/9/1980

chromium sed mg/kg dry wgt

9/27/1976

9/9/1980

copper sed mg/kg dry wgt

9/27/1976

9/9/1980

lead sed mg/kg dry wgt

9/27/1976

9/9/1980

nickel sed mg/kg dry wgt

9/27/1976

9/9/1980

zinc sed mg/kg dry wgt

9/27/1976

9/9/1980

tot coli mpn conf/100ml

9/27/1976

fec coli mpn ec med/100ml

9/27/1976

pcp sed ug/kg dry wgt

9/27/1976

9/18/1979

chlordan c isomer bot ug/kg

9/18/1979

chlordan t isomer bot ug/kg

9/18/1979

nonachlr t isomer bot ug/kg

9/18/1979

alphabhc sed ug/kg dry wgt

9/18/1979

p,p'ddt sed ug/kg dry wgt

9/18/1979

o,p' ddt mud dry ug/kg

9/18/1979

p,p'ddd sed ug/kg dry wgt

9/18/1979

o,p' ddd mud dry ug/kg

9/18/1979

p,p'dde sed ug/kg dry wgt

9/18/1979

o,p'dde mud ug/kg

9/18/1979

aldrin sed ug/kg dry wgt

9/18/1979

dieldrin sed ug/kg dry wgt

9/18/1979

endrin sed ug/kg dry wgt

9/18/1979

mthxyclr mud dry ug/kg

9/18/1979

PCB-1254 sed ug/kg dry wgt

9/18/1979

lindane mud dry ug/kg

9/18/1979

residue diss-180 c mg/l

9/27/1976

mercury sed mg/kg dry wgt

9/27/1976

9/9/1980

Turbidity lab NTU

9/27/1976

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?140

Hilo03

Hilo Bay #3

Organization:

Hawaii Dept. of Health

latitude/longtitude

latitude: 19deg. 44min. 15sec. N, longitude: 155deg. 4min. 45sec. W

depth: 35

feet

PARAMETER

FIRST

LAST

COUNT

water temp cent

9/8/1980

1/19/1976

transp secchi meters

9/8/1980

1/19/1976

DO mg/l

9/8/1980

1/19/1976

DO satur percent

9/8/1980

3/8/1976

pH su

9/8/1980

3/8/1976

Salinity ppth

9/8/1980

3/8/1976

residue tot nflt mg/l

9/8/1980

6/14/1976

Total N N mg/l

9/27/1976

3/8/1976

NH3+NH4- n Total mg/l

9/8/1980

3/8/1976

un-ionzd NH3-N mg/l

9/8/1980

3/8/1976

un-ionzd NH3-NH3 mg/l

9/8/1980

3/8/1976

tot Kjel N mg/l

9/27/1976

3/8/1976

NO2&NO3 N-Total mg/l

9/27/1976

3/8/1976

phos-tot mg/l P

9/27/1976

1/19/1976

tot coli mpn conf/100ml

9/27/1976

1/19/1976

fec coli mpn ec med/100ml

9/27/1976

1/19/1976

residue diss-180 c mg/l

9/27/1976

3/8/1976

phos-t ortho mg/l P

9/8/1980

3/8/1976

Turbidity lab NTU

9/27/1976

3/8/1976

Hilo04

Hilo Bay #4

Organization:

Hawaii Dept. of Health

latitude/longtitude

latitude: 19deg. 43min. 57sec. N, longitude: 155deg. 5min. 15sec. W

depth: 30

feet

(bottom)

PARAMETER

FIRST

LAST

COUNT

arsenic sed mg/kg dry wgt

9/27/1976

cd mud dry wgt mg/kg-cd

9/27/1976

chromium sed mg/kg dry wgt

9/27/1976

copper sed mg/kg dry wgt

9/27/1976

lead sed mg/kg dry wgt

9/27/1976

nickel sed mg/kg dry wgt

9/27/1976

zinc sed mg/kg dry wgt

9/27/1976

tot coli mpn conf/100ml

9/27/1976

fec coli mpn ec med/100ml

9/27/1976

mercury sed mg/kg dry wgt

9/27/1976

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?141

Hilo05

Hilo Bay #5

Organization:

Hawaii Dept. of Health

latitude/longtitude

latitude: 19deg. 43min. 36sec. N, longitude: 155deg. 4min. 26sec. W

depth: 12

feet

(bottom)

PARAMETER

FIRST

LAST

COUNT

Total N N mg/l

9/27/1976

tot Kjel N mg/l

9/27/1976

NO2&NO3 N-Total mg/l

9/27/1976

phos-tot mg/l P

9/27/1976

arsenic sed mg/kg dry wgt

9/27/1976

8/11/1986

cd mud dry wgt mg/kg-cd

9/27/1976

8/11/1986

chromium sed mg/kg dry wgt

9/27/1976

8/11/1986

copper sed mg/kg dry wgt

9/27/1976

8/11/1986

lead sed mg/kg dry wgt

9/27/1976

8/11/1986

nickel sed mg/kg dry wgt

9/27/1976

8/11/1986

zinc sed mg/kg dry wgt

9/27/1976

8/11/1986

tot coli mpn conf/100ml

9/27/1976

fec coli mpn ec med/100ml

9/27/1976

pcp sed ug/kg dry wgt

9/27/1976

9/24/1981

chlordan c isomer bot ug/kg

9/18/1979

8/12/1986

chlordan t isomer bot ug/kg

9/18/1979

8/12/1986

nonachlr t isomer bot ug/kg

9/18/1979

8/12/1986

alphabhc sed ug/kg dry wgt

9/18/1979

8/12/1986

p,p'ddt sed ug/kg dry wgt

9/27/1976

8/12/1986

o,p' ddt mud dry ug/kg

9/18/1979

8/12/1986

p,p'ddd sed ug/kg dry wgt

9/18/1979

8/12/1986

o,p' ddd mud dry ug/kg

9/18/1979

8/12/1986

p,p'dde sed ug/kg dry wgt

9/18/1979

8/12/1986

o,p'dde mud ug/kg

9/18/1979

8/12/1986

aldrin sed ug/kg dry wgt

9/18/1979

8/12/1986

dieldrin sed ug/kg dry wgt

9/18/1979

8/12/1986

endrin sed ug/kg dry wgt

9/18/1979

8/12/1986

mthxyclr mud dry ug/kg

9/18/1979

8/12/1986

PCB-1254 sed ug/kg dry wgt

9/18/1979

8/12/1986

hcb sed ug/kg dry wgt

9/18/1979

8/12/1986

lindane mud dry ug/kg

9/18/1979

8/12/1986

residue diss-180 c mg/l

9/27/1976

mercury sed mg/kg dry wgt

9/27/1976

8/11/1986

Turbidity lab NTU

9/27/1976

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?142

Hilo06

Hilo Bay #6

Organization:

Hawaii Dept. of Health

latitude/longtitude

latitude: 19deg. 44min. 15sec. N, longitude: 155deg. 3min. 43sec. W

depth: 30

feet

(bottom)

PARAMETER

FIRST

LAST

COUNT

water temp cent

9/8/1980

9/10/1980

transp secchi meters

9/8/1980

9/10/1980

DO mg/l

9/8/1980

9/10/1980

DO satur percent

9/8/1980

9/10/1980

pH su

9/8/1980

9/10/1980

Salinity ppth

9/8/1980

9/10/1980

residue tot nflt mg/l

9/8/1980

9/10/1980

Total N N mg/l

9/27/1976

9/10/1980

NH3+NH4- n Total mg/l

9/8/1980

9/10/1980

un-ionzd NH3-N mg/l

9/8/1980

9/10/1980

un-ionzd NH3-NH3 mg/l

9/8/1980

9/10/1980

tot Kjel N mg/l

9/27/1976

9/10/1980

NO2&NO3 N-Total mg/l

9/27/1976

9/10/1980

phos-tot mg/l P

9/27/1976

9/10/1980

arsenic sed mg/kg dry wgt

9/27/1976

8/11/1986

cd mud dry wgt mg/kg-cd

9/27/1976

8/11/1986

chromium sed mg/kg dry wgt

9/27/1976

8/11/1986

copper sed mg/kg dry wgt

9/27/1976

8/11/1986

lead sed mg/kg dry wgt

9/27/1976

8/11/1986

nickel sed mg/kg dry wgt

9/27/1976

8/11/1986

zinc sed mg/kg dry wgt

9/27/1976

8/11/1986

tot coli mpn conf/100ml

9/27/1976

fec coli mpn ec med/100ml

9/27/1976

pcp sed ug/kg dry wgt

9/18/1979

9/24/1981

chlordan c isomer bot ug/kg

9/18/1979

8/12/1986

chlordan t isomer bot ug/kg

9/18/1979

8/12/1986

nonachlr t isomer bot ug/kg

9/18/1979

8/12/1986

alphabhc sed ug/kg dry wgt

9/18/1979

8/12/1986

p,p'ddt sed ug/kg dry wgt

9/18/1979

8/12/1986

o,p' ddt mud dry ug/kg

9/18/1979

8/12/1986

p,p'ddd sed ug/kg dry wgt

9/18/1979

8/12/1986

o,p' ddd mud dry ug/kg

9/18/1979

8/12/1986

p,p'dde sed ug/kg dry wgt

9/18/1979

8/12/1986

o,p'dde mud ug/kg

9/18/1979

8/12/1986

aldrin sed ug/kg dry wgt

9/18/1979

8/12/1986

dieldrin sed ug/kg dry wgt

9/18/1979

8/12/1986

endrin sed ug/kg dry wgt

9/18/1979

8/12/1986

mthxyclr mud dry ug/kg

9/18/1979

8/12/1986

PCB-1254 sed ug/kg dry wgt

9/18/1979

8/12/1986

hcb sed ug/kg dry wgt

9/18/1979

8/12/1986

lindane mud dry ug/kg

9/18/1979

8/12/1986

residue diss-180 c mg/l

9/27/1976

phos-t ortho mg/l P

9/8/1980

9/10/1980

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?144

Hilo07

Hilo Bay #7

Organization:

Hawaii Dept. of Health

latitude/longtitude

latitude: 19deg. 43min. 58sec. N, longitude: 155deg. 3min. 33sec. W

depth: 20

feet

(bottom)

PARAMETER

FIRST

LAST

COUNT

Total N N mg/l

9/27/1976

tot Kjel N mg/l

9/27/1976

NO2&NO3 N-Total mg/l

9/27/1976

phos-tot mg/l P

9/27/1976

arsenic sed mg/kg dry wgt

9/27/1976

9/8/1980

cd mud dry wgt mg/kg-cd

9/27/1976

9/8/1980

chromium sed mg/kg dry wgt

9/27/1976

9/8/1980

copper sed mg/kg dry wgt

9/27/1976

9/8/1980

Hilo07

Hilo Bay #7 continued?

PARAMETER

FIRST

LAST

COUNT

lead sed mg/kg dry wgt

9/27/1976

9/8/1980

nickel sed mg/kg dry wgt

9/27/1976

9/8/1980

zinc sed mg/kg dry wgt

9/27/1976

9/8/1980

tot coli mpn conf/100ml

9/27/1976

fec coli mpn ec med/100ml

9/27/1976

pcp sed ug/kg dry wgt

9/26/1976

9/18/1979

chlordan c isomer bot ug/kg

9/18/1979

chlordan t isomer bot ug/kg

9/18/1979

nonachlr t isomer bot ug/kg

9/18/1979

alphabhc sed ug/kg dry wgt

9/18/1979

p,p'ddt sed ug/kg dry wgt

9/26/1976

9/18/1979

o,p' ddt mud dry ug/kg

9/26/1976

9/18/1979

p,p'ddd sed ug/kg dry wgt

9/18/1979

o,p' ddd mud dry ug/kg

9/18/1979

p,p'dde sed ug/kg dry wgt

9/18/1979

o,p'dde mud ug/kg

9/18/1979

aldrin sed ug/kg dry wgt

9/18/1979

dieldrin sed ug/kg dry wgt

9/18/1979

endrin sed ug/kg dry wgt

9/18/1979

mthxyclr mud dry ug/kg

9/18/1979

PCB-1254 sed ug/kg dry wgt

9/18/1979

hcb sed ug/kg dry wgt

9/18/1979

lindane mud dry ug/kg

9/18/1979

residue diss-180 c mg/l

9/27/1976

mercury sed mg/kg dry wgt

9/27/1976

9/8/1980

Turbidity lab NTU

9/27/1976

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?145

Hilo08

Hilo Bay #8 (Wailuku River mouth)

Organization:

Hawaii Dept. of Health

latitude/longtitude

latitude: 19deg. 43min. 53sec. N, longitude: 155deg. 5min. 25sec. W

depth: 20

feet

(bottom)

PARAMETER

FIRST

LAST

COUNT

Total N N mg/l

9/27/1976

tot Kjel N mg/l

9/27/1976

NO2&NO3 N-Total mg/l

9/27/1976

phos-tot mg/l P

9/27/1976

arsenic sed mg/kg dry wgt

9/27/1976

cd mud dry wgt mg/kg-cd

9/27/1976

chromium sed mg/kg dry wgt

9/27/1976

chromium cr,tot ug/l

9/27/1976

copper sed mg/kg dry wgt

9/27/1976

lead sed mg/kg dry wgt

9/27/1976

nickel sed mg/kg dry wgt

9/27/1976

zinc sed mg/kg dry wgt

9/27/1976

tot coli mpn conf/100ml

9/27/1976

fec coli mpn ec med/100ml

9/27/1976

fec strep mpn tubecode

9/27/1976

residue diss-180 c mg/l

9/27/1976

mercury sed mg/kg dry wgt

9/27/1976

Turbidity lab NTU

9/27/1976

Hilo09

Hilo Bay #9 (Mooheau Park)

Organization:

Hawaii Dept. of Health

latitude/longtitude

latitude: 19deg. 43min. 36sec. N, longitude: 155deg. 5min. 4sec. W

depth: 1

foot

(bottom)

PARAMETER

FIRST

LAST

COUNT

arsenic sed mg/kg dry wgt

9/18/1979

cd mud dry wgt mg/kg-cd

9/18/1979

chromium sed mg/kg dry wgt

9/18/1979

copper sed mg/kg dry wgt

9/18/1979

lead sed mg/kg dry wgt

9/18/1979

nickel sed mg/kg dry wgt

9/18/1979

zinc sed mg/kg dry wgt

9/18/1979

mercury sed mg/kg dry wgt

9/18/1979

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?146

Hilo10

Hilo Bay #10 (Wailoa River boat ramp)

Organization:

Hawaii Dept. of Health

latitude/longtitude

latitude: 19deg. 43min. 27sec. N, longitude: 155deg. 4min. 27sec. W

depth: 5

feet

(bottom)

PARAMETER

FIRST

LAST

COUNT

arsenic sed mg/kg dry wgt

9/27/1976

9/8/1980

cd mud dry wgt mg/kg-cd

9/27/1976

9/8/1980

chromium sed mg/kg dry wgt

9/27/1976

9/8/1980

copper sed mg/kg dry wgt

9/27/1976

9/8/1980

lead sed mg/kg dry wgt

9/27/1976

9/8/1980

nickel sed mg/kg dry wgt

9/27/1976

9/8/1980

zinc sed mg/kg dry wgt

9/27/1976

9/8/1980

tot coli mpn conf/100ml

9/27/1976

fec coli mpn ec med/100ml

9/27/1976

blfec strep mpn tubecode

9/27/1976

pcp sed ug/kg dry wgt

9/27/1976

9/18/1979

chlordan c isomer bot ug/kg

4/27/1978

9/18/1979

chlordan t isomer bot ug/kg

4/27/1978

9/18/1979

nonachlr t isomer bot ug/kg

4/27/1978

9/18/1979

alphabhc sed ug/kg dry wgt

4/27/1978

9/18/1979

p,p'ddt sed ug/kg dry wgt

4/27/1978

9/18/1979

o,p' ddt mud dry ug/kg

4/27/1978

9/18/1979

p,p'ddd sed ug/kg dry wgt

9/27/1976

9/18/1979

o,p' ddd mud dry ug/kg

4/27/1978

9/18/1979

p,p'dde sed ug/kg dry wgt

9/27/1976

9/18/1979

o,p'dde mud ug/kg

4/27/1978

9/18/1979

aldrin sed ug/kg dry wgt

4/27/1978

9/18/1979

dieldrin sed ug/kg dry wgt

9/27/1976

9/18/1979

endrin sed ug/kg dry wgt

4/27/1978

9/18/1979

mthxyclr mud dry ug/kg

4/27/1978

9/18/1979

PCB-1254 sed ug/kg dry wgt

4/27/1978

9/18/1979

lindane mud dry ug/kg

4/27/1978

9/18/1979

mercury sed mg/kg dry wgt

9/27/1976

9/8/1980

ratio fec col fec strp

9/27/1976

Hilo11

Hilo Bay #11 (Wailoa River)

Organization:

Hawaii Dept. of Health

latitude/longtitude

latitude: 19deg. 43min. 33sec. N, longitude: 155deg. 4min. 25sec. W

depth: 5

feet

PARAMETER

FIRST

LAST

COUNT

tot coli mpn conf/100ml

9/27/1976

fec coli mpn ec med/100ml

9/27/1976

fec strep mpn tubecode

9/27/1976

ratio fec col fec strp

9/27/1976

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?147

Hilo12

Hilo Bay #12

Organization:

Hawaii Dept. of Health

latitude/longtitude

latitude: 19deg. 44min. 15sec. N, longitude: 155deg. 3min. 25sec. W

depth: 1

foot

PARAMETER

FIRST

LAST

COUNT

tot coli mpn conf/100ml

9/27/1976

fec coli mpn ec med/100ml

9/27/1976

Hilo13

Hilo Bay #13 (puhi Bay #3)

Organization:

Hawaii Dept. of Health

latitude/longtitude

latitude: 19deg. 44min. 6sec. N, longitude: 155deg. 3min. 3sec. W

depth: 1

foot

PARAMETER

FIRST

LAST

COUNT

tot coli mpn conf/100ml

9/27/1976

fec coli mpn ec med/100ml

9/27/1976

fec strep mpn tubecode

9/27/1976

ratio fec col fec strp

9/27/1976

Hilo15

Hilo Bay #15 (Honolii cove)

Organization:

Hawaii Dept. of Health

latitude/longtitude

latitude: 19deg. 45min. 32sec. N, longitude: 155deg. 5min. 40sec. W

depth: 1

foot

PARAMETER

FIRST

LAST

COUNT

tot coli mpn conf/100ml

9/27/1976

fec coli mpn ec med/100ml

9/27/1976

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?148

Hilo17

Hilo Bay #17 (Wailoa River)

Organization:

Hawaii Dept. of Health

latitude/longtitude

latitude: 19deg. 43min. 24sec. N, longitude: 155deg. 4min. 32sec. W

depth: 3

feet

(bottom)

PARAMETER

FIRST

LAST

COUNT

arsenic sed mg/kg dry wgt

9/20/1977

9/8/1980

cd mud dry wgt mg/kg-cd

9/18/1979

9/8/1980

chromium sed mg/kg dry wgt

9/20/1977

9/8/1980

copper sed mg/kg dry wgt

9/20/1977

9/8/1980

lead sed mg/kg dry wgt

9/20/1977

9/8/1980

nickel sed mg/kg dry wgt

9/20/1977

9/8/1980

zinc sed mg/kg dry wgt

9/20/1977

9/8/1980

pcp sed ug/kg dry wgt

9/18/1979

chlordan c isomer bot ug/kg

9/18/1979

chlordan t isomer bot ug/kg

9/18/1979

nonachlr t isomer bot ug/kg

9/18/1979

alphabhc sed ug/kg dry wgt

9/18/1979

p,p'ddt sed ug/kg dry wgt

9/18/1979

o,p' ddt mud dry ug/kg

9/18/1979

p,p'ddd sed ug/kg dry wgt

9/18/1979

o,p' ddd mud dry ug/kg

9/18/1979

PARAMETER

FIRST

LAST

COUNT

p,p'dde sed ug/kg dry wgt

9/18/1979

o,p'dde mud ug/kg

9/18/1979

aldrin sed ug/kg dry wgt

9/18/1979

dieldrin sed ug/kg dry wgt

9/18/1979

endrin sed ug/kg dry wgt

9/18/1979

mthxyclr mud dry ug/kg

9/18/1979

PCB-1254 sed ug/kg dry wgt

9/18/1979

hcb sed ug/kg dry wgt

9/18/1979

lindane mud dry ug/kg

9/18/1979

mercury sed mg/kg dry wgt

9/20/1977

9/8/1980

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?149

Hilo18

Hilo Bay #18 (Wailoa River)

Organization:

Hawaii Dept. of Health

latitude/longtitude

latitude: 19deg. 43min. 24sec. N, longitude: 155deg. 4min. 37sec. W

depth: 3

feet

(bottom)

PARAMETER

FIRST

LAST

COUNT

arsenic sed mg/kg dry wgt

9/20/1977

8/11/1986

cd mud dry wgt mg/kg-cd

4/27/1978

8/11/1986

chromium sed mg/kg dry wgt

9/20/1977

8/11/1986

copper sed mg/kg dry wgt

9/20/1977

8/11/1986

lead sed mg/kg dry wgt

9/20/1977

8/11/1986

nickel sed mg/kg dry wgt

9/20/1977

8/11/1986

zinc sed mg/kg dry wgt

9/20/1977

8/11/1986

pcp sed ug/kg dry wgt

4/27/1978

9/23/1981

chlordan c isomer bot ug/kg

4/27/1978

8/12/1986

chlordan t isomer bot ug/kg

4/27/1978

8/12/1986

nonachlr t isomer bot ug/kg

4/27/1978

8/12/1986

alphabhc sed ug/kg dry wgt

4/27/1978

8/12/1986

p,p'ddt sed ug/kg dry wgt

4/27/1978

8/12/1986

o,p' ddt mud dry ug/kg

4/27/1978

8/12/1986

p,p'ddd sed ug/kg dry wgt

4/27/1978

8/12/1986

o,p' ddd mud dry ug/kg

4/27/1978

8/12/1986

p,p'dde sed ug/kg dry wgt

4/27/1978

8/12/1986

o,p'dde mud ug/kg

4/27/1978

8/12/1986

aldrin sed ug/kg dry wgt

4/27/1978

8/12/1986

dieldrin sed ug/kg dry wgt

4/27/1978

8/12/1986

endrin sed ug/kg dry wgt

4/27/1978

8/12/1986

mthxyclr mud dry ug/kg

4/27/1978

8/12/1986

PCB-1254 sed ug/kg dry wgt

4/27/1978

8/12/1986

hcb sed ug/kg dry wgt

9/18/1979

8/12/1986

lindane mud dry ug/kg

4/27/1978

8/12/1986

mercury sed mg/kg dry wgt

9/20/1977

8/11/1986

Hilo19

Hilo Bay #19 (Wailoa River)

Organization:

Hawaii Dept. of Health

latitude/longtitude

latitude: 19deg. 43min. 23sec. N, longitude: 155deg. 4min. 43sec. srsid13459886w

depth: 3

feet

(bottom)

PARAMETER

FIRST

LAST

COUNT

arsenic sed mg/kg dry wgt

9/20/1977

9/8/1980

cd mud dry wgt mg/kg-cd

4/27/1978

9/8/1980

chromium sed mg/kg dry wgt

9/20/1977

9/8/1980

copper sed mg/kg dry wgt

9/20/1977

9/8/1980

lead sed mg/kg dry wgt

9/20/1977

9/8/1980

nickel sed mg/kg dry wgt

9/20/1977

9/8/1980

zinc sed mg/kg dry wgt

9/20/1977

9/8/1980

pcp sed ug/kg dry wgt

9/20/1977

9/18/1979

chlordan c isomer bot ug/kg

9/20/1977

9/18/1979

chlordan t isomer bot ug/kg

9/20/1977

9/18/1979

nonachlr t isomer bot ug/kg

9/20/1977

9/18/1979

alphabhc sed ug/kg dry wgt

9/20/1977

9/18/1979

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?150

p,p'ddt sed ug/kg dry wgt

9/20/1977

9/18/1979

o,p' ddt mud dry ug/kg

9/20/1977

9/18/1979

p,p'ddd sed ug/kg dry wgt

9/20/1977

9/18/1979

o,p' ddd mud dry ug/kg

9/20/1977

9/18/1979

p,p'dde sed ug/kg dry wgt

9/20/1977

9/18/1979

o,p'dde mud ug/kg

9/20/1977

9/18/1979

aldrin sed ug/kg dry wgt

9/20/1977

9/18/1979

dieldrin sed ug/kg dry wgt

9/20/1977

9/18/1979

endrin sed ug/kg dry wgt

9/20/1977

9/18/1979

mthxyclr mud dry ug/kg

9/20/1977

9/18/1979

PCB-1254 sed ug/kg dry wgt

9/20/1977

9/18/1979

lindane mud dry ug/kg

9/20/1977

9/18/1979

mercury sed mg/kg dry wgt

9/20/1977

9/8/1980

Hilo20

Hilo Bay #20 (Waiakea Pond)

Organization:

Hawaii Dept. of Health

latitude/longtitude

latitude: 19deg. 43min. 7sec. N, longitude: 155deg. 4min. 43sec. W

depth: 3

feet

(bottom)

PARAMETER

FIRST

LAST

COUNT

arsenic sed mg/kg dry wgt

9/20/1977

8/12/1986

cd mud dry wgt mg/kg-cd

4/27/1978

8/12/1986

chromium sed mg/kg dry wgt

9/20/1977

8/12/1986

copper sed mg/kg dry wgt

9/20/1977

8/12/1986

lead sed mg/kg dry wgt

9/20/1977

8/12/1986

nickel sed mg/kg dry wgt

9/20/1977

8/12/1986

zinc sed mg/kg dry wgt

9/20/1977

8/12/1986

pcp sed ug/kg dry wgt

9/20/1977

9/23/1981

chlordan c isomer bot ug/kg

9/20/1977

8/12/1986

chlordan t isomer bot ug/kg

9/20/1977

8/12/1986

nonachlr t isomer bot ug/kg

9/20/1977

8/12/1986

alphabhc sed ug/kg dry wgt

9/20/1977

8/12/1986

p,p'ddt sed ug/kg dry wgt

9/20/1977

8/12/1986

o,p' ddt mud dry ug/kg

9/20/1977

8/12/1986

p,p'ddd sed ug/kg dry wgt

9/20/1977

8/12/1986

o,p' ddd mud dry ug/kg

9/20/1977

8/12/1986

p,p'dde sed ug/kg dry wgt

9/20/1977

8/12/1986

o,p'dde mud ug/kg

9/20/1977

8/12/1986

aldrin sed ug/kg dry wgt

9/20/1977

8/12/1986

dieldrin sed ug/kg dry wgt

9/20/1977

8/12/1986

endrin sed ug/kg dry wgt

9/20/1977

8/12/1986

mthxyclr mud dry ug/kg

9/20/1977

8/12/1986

PCB-1254 sed ug/kg dry wgt

9/20/1977

8/12/1986

hcb sed ug/kg dry wgt

9/23/1981

8/12/1986

lindane mud dry ug/kg

9/20/1977

8/12/1986

mercury sed mg/kg dry wgt

9/20/1977

8/12/1986

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?151

Hilo21

Hilo Bay #21 (Waiakea Pond)

Organization:

Hawaii Dept. of Health

latitude/longtitude

latitude: 19deg. 43min. 5sec. N, longitude: 155deg. 4min. 36sec. W

depth: 10

feet

(bottom)

PARAMETER

FIRST

LAST

COUNT

arsenic sed mg/kg dry wgt

9/20/1977

8/12/1986

cd mud dry wgt mg/kg-cd

4/27/1978

8/12/1986

chromium sed mg/kg dry wgt

9/20/1977

8/12/1986

copper sed mg/kg dry wgt

9/20/1977

8/12/1986

lead sed mg/kg dry wgt

9/20/1977

8/12/1986

nickel sed mg/kg dry wgt

9/20/1977

8/12/1986

zinc sed mg/kg dry wgt

9/20/1977

8/12/1986

pcp sed ug/kg dry wgt

9/20/1977

9/23/1981

chlordan c isomer bot ug/kg

9/20/1977

8/12/1986

chlordan t isomer bot ug/kg

9/20/1977

8/12/1986

nonachlr t isomer bot ug/kg

9/20/1977

8/12/1986

alphabhc sed ug/kg dry wgt

9/20/1977

8/12/1985

p,p'ddt sed ug/kg dry wgt

9/20/1977

8/12/1986

o,p' ddt mud dry ug/kg

9/20/1977

8/12/1986

p,p'ddd sed ug/kg dry wgt

9/20/1977

8/12/1986

o,p' ddd mud dry ug/kg

9/20/1977

8/12/1985

p,p'dde sed ug/kg dry wgt

9/20/1977

8/12/1985

o,p'dde mud ug/kg

9/20/1977

8/12/1985

aldrin sed ug/kg dry wgt

9/20/1977

8/12/1985

dieldrin sed ug/kg dry wgt

9/20/1977

8/12/1985

endrin sed ug/kg dry wgt

9/20/1977

8/12/1986

mthxyclr mud dry ug/kg

9/20/1977

8/12/1986

PCB-1248 sed ug/kg dry wgt

4/27/1978

PCB-1254 sed ug/kg dry wgt

9/20/1977

8/12/1985

hcb sed ug/kg dry wgt

9/23/1981

8/12/1986

lindane mud dry ug/kg

9/20/1977

8/12/1986

mercury sed mg/kg dry wgt

9/20/1977

8/12/1986

Hilo22

Hilo Bay #22 (Waiakea Pond)

Organization:

Hawaii Dept. of Health

latitude/longtitude

latitude: 19deg. 43min. 1sec. N, longitude: 155deg. 4min. 45sec. W

depth: 6

feet

(bottom)

PARAMETER

FIRST

LAST

COUNT

arsenic sed mg/kg dry wgt

9/18/1979

4/27/1987

cd mud dry wgt mg/kg-cd

9/18/1979

4/27/1987

chromium sed mg/kg dry wgt

9/18/1979

4/27/1987

copper sed mg/kg dry wgt

9/18/1979

4/27/1987

lead sed mg/kg dry wgt

9/18/1979

4/27/1987

nickel sed mg/kg dry wgt

9/18/1979

4/27/1987

zinc sed mg/kg dry wgt

9/18/1979

4/27/1987

pcp sed ug/kg dry wgt

4/27/1978

9/23/1981

chlordan c isomer bot ug/kg

4/27/1978

8/12/1986

chlordan t isomer bot ug/kg

4/27/1978

8/12/1986

nonachlr t isomer bot ug/kg

4/27/1978

8/12/1986

alphabhc sed ug/kg dry wgt

4/27/1978

8/12/1986

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?152

p,p'ddt sed ug/kg dry wgt

4/27/1978

8/12/1986

o,p' ddt mud dry ug/kg

4/27/1978

8/12/1986

p,p'ddd sed ug/kg dry wgt

4/27/1978

8/12/1986

o,p' ddd mud dry ug/kg

4/27/1978

8/12/1986

p,p'dde sed ug/kg dry wgt

4/27/1978

8/12/1986

o,p'dde mud ug/kg

4/27/1978

8/12/1986

aldrin sed ug/kg dry wgt

4/27/1978

8/12/1986

dieldrin sed ug/kg dry wgt

4/27/1978

8/12/1986

endrin sed ug/kg dry wgt

4/27/1978

8/12/1986

mthxyclr mud dry ug/kg

4/27/1978

8/12/1986

PCB-1254 sed ug/kg dry wgt

4/27/1978

8/12/1986

hcb sed ug/kg dry wgt

8/12/1986

lindane mud dry ug/kg

4/27/1978

8/12/1986

mercury sed mg/kg dry wgt

9/18/1979

4/27/1987

2037 Honolii Stream @ Hilo
Organization :

USEPA mdsd

latitude/longtitude

latitude: 19deg. 46min. 15sec. N, longitude: 155deg. 5min. 33sec. W

PARAMETER

FIRST

LAST

COUNT

field ident number

08-01-1984

pcd12378 dioxin tis pg/g

08-01-1984

hcd12347 8 dioxin tis pg/g

08-01-1984

hcd12367 8 dioxin tis pg/g

08-01-1984

hcd12378 9 dioxin tis pg/g

08-01-1984

hcd12346 78 dioxin fishpg/g

08-01-1984

tcd2378 furan tis pg/g

08-01-1984

pcd12378 furan tis pg/g

08-01-1984

pcd23478 furan tis pg/g

08-01-1984

hcd12347 8 furan tis pg/g

08-01-1984

hcd12367 8 furan tis pg/g

08-01-1984

hcd12378 9 furan tis pg/g

08-01-1984

hcd23467 8 furan tis pg/g

08-01-1984

hcd12346 78 furan tis pg/g

08-01-1984

hcd12347 89 furan tis pg/g

08-01-1984

hexclbd tis mg/kg wet wgt

08-01-1984

124tcben tis mg/kg wet wgt

08-01-1984

endrin tis mg/kg wet wgt

08-01-1984

hpchlrep tis mg/kg wet wgt

08-01-1984

heptchlr tis mg/kg wet wgt

08-01-1984

hcb tis mg/kg wet wgt

08-01-1984

tcdd tispg/g wetwgt

08-01-1984

isopropa lin tis mg/kg

08-01-1984

chlordan c isomer tis-ug/g

08-01-1984

chlordan t isomer tis-ug/g

08-01-1984

alphabhc tis mg/kg wet wgt

08-01-1984

mnclbipn tot tis wet mg/kg

08-01-1984

p p'dde tis mg/kg wet mg/kg

08-01-1984

diclbipn tot tis wet mg/kg

08-01-1984

triclbpn tot tis wet mg/kg

08-01-1984

tetclbpn tot tis wet mg/kg

08-01-1984

peclbipn tot tis wet mg/kg

08-01-1984

hpclbipn tot tis wet mg/kg

08-01-1984

octclbpn tot tis wet mg/kg

08-01-1984

dieldrin tis mg/kg wet wgt

08-01-1984

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?153

nclbipnl tot tis wet mg/kg

08-01-1984

dcdlbipn tot tis wet mg/kg

08-01-1984

gbhc-tis lindane wet mg/kg

08-01-1984

pcnb tis wet mg/kg

08-01-1984

instrmnt lab/fld ratio num

08-01-1984

mercury fish ppm-wet

08-01-1984

fish species numeric

08-01-1984

anatomy code

08-01-1984

biphenyl tiss wet wgt mg/kg

08-01-1984

hexclbph fish tis wet mg/kg

08-01-1984

nonachlr trns tis wet mg/kg

08-01-1984

nonachlr cis tis wet mg/kg

08-01-1984

1234tet clrbenz tis mg/kg

08-01-1984

PCBs fish wet wgt mg/kg

08-01-1984

mtxchlor fish wet wgt ug/g

08-01-1984

mirex f ish wetw gt ug/g

08-01-1984

treflan fish wet wgt mg/kg

08-01-1984

dursban fish wet wgt mg/kg

08-01-1984

pca fish tis wet wgt mg/kg

08-01-1984

oxychlrd tiss wet mg/kg

08-01-1984

fish species f &wl

08-01-1984

anatomy alpha code

08-01-1984

dioxin study alphacod

08-01-1984

triclben 135tis wet mg/kg

08-01-1984

triclben 123tis wet mg/kg

08-01-1984

tetclben 1245tis wet mg/kg

08-01-1984

tetclben 1235tis wet mg/kg

08-01-1984

penclben tis wet wt

08-01-1984

dipndisu tis wet wt

08-01-1984

octclsty tis wet wt

08-01-1984

Nitrofen tis wet wt

08-01-1984

perthane tis wet wt

08-01-1984

dicofol tis wet wt

08-01-1984

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?154

000076

Hilo Bay

Organization:

USEPA Region IX wtr-2

latitude/longtitude latitude: 19deg. 44min. 30sec. N, longitude: 155deg. 4min. 50sec. W
station type indicator description: surface water
legacy storet station type: /typa/ambnt/estury
summary: wide range of toxic substances just a few samples analyzed over the period 1980-1987

PARAMETER

FIRST

LAST

COUNT

toxics epa iden fy

09-08-1980

arsenic sed mg/kg dry wgt

09-08-1980

09-15-1987

arsenic tis mg/kg wet wgt

09-09-1980

09-04-1984

berylium sed mg/kg dry wgt

09-08-1980

09-15-1987

cd mud dry wgt mg/kg-cd

09-08-1980

09-04-1984

chromium sed mg/kg dry wgt

09-08-1980

09-15-1987

copper sed mg/kg dry wgt

09-08-1980

09-15-1987

lead sed mg/kg dry wgt

09-08-1980

09-15-1987

nickel sed mg/kg dry wgt

09-08-1980

09-15-1987

nickel tis mg/kg wet wgt

09-19-1983

09-16-1987

thallium tis-wet mg/kg

09-19-1983 09-16-1987

silver sed mg/kg dry wgt

09-19-1983

09-15-1987

zinc sed mg/kg dry wgt

09-08-1980

09-15-1987

antimony sed mg/kg dry wgt

09-08-1980

09-15-1987

antimony tis-wet mg/kg

09-09-1980

09-16-1987

selenium sed mg/kg dry wgt

09-19-1983

09-15-1987

selenium tis mg/kg wet wgt

09-19-1983

09-16-1987

diclbrmt tot ug/l

09-08-1980

09-19-1983

carbn tet tot ug/l

09-08-1980

09-19-1983

12diclet tot ug/l

09-08-1980

09-19-1983

bromofrm whl-wtr ug/l

09-08-1980

09-19-1983

cldibrmt tot ug/l

09-08-1980

09-19-1983

chlrform tot ug/l

09-08-1980

09-19-1983

toluene tot ug/l

09-08-1980

09-19-1983

benzene tot ug/l

09-08-1980

09-19-1983

acenapht hylene tot wug/l

09-08-1980

09-04-1984

acnapthy ssed ug/kg dry wgt

09-10-1980

09-04-1984

acnapthy tis mg/kg wet wgt

09-09-1980

09-04-1984

acenapht hene tot wug/l

09-08-1980

09-04-1984

acnapthe ssed ug/kg dry wgt

09-10-1980

09-04-1984

acnapthe tis mg/kg wet wgt

09-09-1980

acrolein tot wug/l

09-08-1980

09-19-1983

acrolein ssed ug/kg dry wgt

09-08-1980

acrolein tis mg/kg wet wgt

09-09-1980

09-19-1983

acrylonitrile tot wug/l

09-08-1980

09-19-1983

acrylnit ssed ug/kg dry wgt

09-08-1980

acrylnit tis mg/kg wet wgt

09-09-1980

09-19-1983

anthrace ne tot wug/l

09-08-1980

09-04-1984

anthrace ssed ug/kg dry wgt

09-10-1980

09-04-1984

anthrace tis mg/kg wet wgt

09-09-1980

09-04-1984

benzbflu orant Total ug/l

09-08-1980

09-04-1984

benzbflu orantmud dryug/kg

09-10-1980

09-04-1984

benzbflu oranttis wetmg/kg

09-09-1980

09-04-1984

benzene ssed ug/kg dry wgt

09-08-1980

benzene tis mg/kg wet wgt

09-09-1980

09-19-1983

benzidin tis mg/kg wet wgt

09-09-1980

09-04-1984

benzo(k) fluorant tot wug/l

09-08-1980

09-04-1984

benzkflu ssed ug/kg dry wgt

09-10-1980

09-04-1984

benzkflu tis mg/kg wet wgt

09-09-1980

09-04-1984

benzo(a) pyrene tot wug/l

09-08-1980

09-04-1984

benzapyr ssed ug/kg dry wgt

09-10-1980

09-04-1984

benzapyr tis mg/kg wet wgt

09-09-1980

09-04-1984

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?155

berylium tis mg/kg wet wgt

09-09-1980

09-16-1987

beta bhc ssed ug/kg dry wgt

09-10-1980

09-15-1987

beta bhc tis mg/kg wet wgt

09-09-1980

09-16-1987

deltabhc tot ug/l

09-08-1980

09-04-1984

deltabhc ssed ug/kg dry wgt

09-10-1980

09-15-1987

deltabhc tis mg/kg wet wgt

09-09-1980

09-16-1987

bis2chlo roethyle tot wug/l

09-08-1980

09-04-1984

b2cetetr ssed ug/kg dry wgt

09-10-1980

09-04-1984

b2cetetr tis mg/kg wet wgt

09-09-1980

09-04-1984

bis2chlo roethoxy tot wug/l

09-08-1980

09-04-1984

b2cetoxm ssed ug/kg dry wgt

09-10-1980

09-04-1984

b2cetoxm tis mg/kg wet wgt

09-09-1980

09-04-1984

bis2chlo roisopro tot wug/l

09-08-1980

09-04-1984

b2cipetr ssed ug/kg dry wgt

09-10-1980

09-04-1984

b2cipetr tis mg/kg wet wgt

09-09-1980

09-04-1984

bromofor ssed ug/kg dry wgt

09-08-1980

bromofor tis mg/kg wet wgt

09-09-1980

09-19-1983

nbb phth Total ug/l

09-08-1980

09-04-1984

nbb phth mud-dry ug/kg

09-10-1980

09-04-1984

nbb phth tis-wet mg/kg

09-09-1980

09-04-1984

carbn tet ssed ug/kg dry wgt

09-08-1980

carbn tet tis mg/kg wet wgt

09-09-1980

09-19-1983

Chlorobe nzene tot wug/l

09-08-1980

09-19-1983

clbenzen ssed ug/kg dry wgt

09-08-1980

clbenzen tis mg/kg wet wgt

09-09-1980

09-19-1983

cldibrmt ssed ug/kg dry wgt

09-08-1980

cldibrmt tis mg/kg wet wgt

09-09-1980

09-19-1983

Chloroethane tot wug/l

09-08-1980

09-19-1983

clethane ssed ug/kg dry wgt

09-08-1980

clethane tis mg/kg wet wgt

09-09-1980

09-19-1983

chlrform ssed ug/kg dry wgt

09-08-1980

chlrform tis mg/kg wet wgt

09-09-1980

09-19-1983

chrysene tot wug/l

09-08-1980

09-04-1984

tblchrysene ssed ug/kg dry wgt

09-10-1980

09-04-1984

chrysene tis mg/kg wet wgt

09-09-1980

09-04-1984

diclbrmt ssed ug/kg dry wgt

09-08-1980

diclbrmt tis mg/kg wet wgt

09-09-1980

09-19-1983

dcldflmt tis mg/kg wet wgt

09-09-1980

diethylphthalate tot wug/l

09-08-1980

09-04-1984

dethphth ssed ug/kg dry wgt

09-10-1980

09-04-1984

dethphth tis mg/kg wet wgt

09-09-1980

09-04-1984

dimethyphthalat tot wug/l

09-08-1980

09-04-1984

dmetphth ssed ug/kg dry wgt

09-10-1980

09-04-1984

dmetphth tis mg/kg wet wgt

09-09-1980

09-04-1984

12diphen ylhydraz tot wug/l

09-08-1980

09-04-1984

12dphnhy ssed ug/kg dry wgt

09-10-1980

09-04-1984

12dphnhy tis mg/kg wet wgt

09-09-1980

09-04-1984

endsulsf tot ug/l

09-08-1980

09-04-1984

endsulsf ssed ug/kg dry wgt

09-10-1980

09-15-1987

endsulsf tis mg/kg wet wgt

09-09-1980

09-16-1987

b-endo sulfan tot wug/l

09-08-1980

09-04-1984

b-endosul ssed ug/kg dry wgt

09-10-1980

09-15-1987

b-endosul tis mg/kg wet wgt

09-09-1980

09-16-1987

a-endo sulfan tot wug/l

09-08-1980

09-04-1984

aendosul ssed ug/kg dry wgt

09-10-1980

09-15-1987

aendosul tis mg/kg wet wgt

09-09-1980

09-16-1987

endrinal dehyde tot wug/l

09-08-1980

09-04-1984

endrinal ssed ug/kg dry wgt

09-08-1980

09-10-1980

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?156

endrinal tis mg/kg wet wgt

09-09-1980

09-04-1984

ethylbenzene tot wug/l

09-08-1980

09-19-1983

ethylben ssed ug/kg dry wgt

09-08-1980

ethylben tis mg/kg wet wgt

09-09-1980

09-19-1983

fluorant hene tot wug/l

09-08-1980

09-04-1984

flantene ssed ug/kg dry wgt

09-10-1980

09-04-1984

flantene tis mg/kg wet wgt

09-09-1980

09-04-1984

fluorene tot wug/l

09-08-1980

09-04-1984

fluorene ssed ug/kg dry wgt

09-10-1980

09-04-1984

fluorene tis mg/kg wet wgt

09-09-1980

09-04-1984

hexachlo rocyclop tot wug/l

09-08-1980

09-04-1984

hexclcpd ssed ug/kg dry wgt

09-10-1980

hexclcpd tis mg/kg wet wgt

09-09-1980

09-04-1984

hexachlo robutadi tot wug/l

09-08-1980

hexclbd tis mg/kg wet wgt

09-09-1980

09-04-1984

hexachlo roethane tot wug/l

09-08-1980

09-04-1984

hexaclet ssed ug/kg dry wgt

09-10-1980

09-04-1984

hexaclet tis mg/kg wet wgt

09-09-1980

09-04-1984

indeno(1 23cd)pyr tot wug/l

09-08-1980

09-04-1984

i123cdpr ssed ug/kg dry wgt

09-10-1980

09-04-1984

i123cdpr tis mg/kg wet wgt

09-09-1980

09-04-1984

isphrone tot ug/l

09-08-1980

09-04-1984

isphrone ssed ug/kg dry wgt

09-10-1980

09-04-1984

isphrone tis mg/kg wet wgt

09-09-1980

09-04-1984

methylbromide tot wug/l

09-08-1980

09-19-1983

methylbr ssed ug/kg dry wgt

09-08-1980

methylbr tis mg/kg wet wgt

09-09-1980

09-19-1983

methylch loride tot wug/l

09-08-1980

09-19-1983

methylcl ssed ug/kg dry wgt

09-08-1980

methylcl tis mg/kg wet wgt

09-09-1980

09-19-1983

methylen echlorid tot wug/l

09-08-1980

09-19-1983

mthlencl ssed ug/kg dry wgt

09-08-1980

mthlencl tis mg/kg wet wgt

09-19-1983

Nitrosod ipropyla tot wug/l

09-08-1980

09-04-1984

nitdnpra ssed ug/kg dry wgt

09-10-1980

09-04-1984

nitdnpra tis mg/kg wet wgt

09-09-1980

09-04-1984

Nitrosod iphenyla tot wug/l

09-08-1980

09-04-1984

nitrsdpa ssed ug/kg dry wgt

09-10-1980

09-04-1984

nitrsdpa tis mg/kg wet wgt

09-09-1980

09-04-1984

Nitrosod imethyla tot wug/l

09-08-1980

09-04-1984

nitrsdma ssed ug/kg dry wgt

09-10-1980

09-04-1984

nitrsdma tis mg/kg wet wgt

09-09-1980

napthale ssed ug/kg dry wgt

09-10-1980

09-04-1984

napthale tis mg/kg wet wgt

09-09-1980

09-04-1984

Nitroben zene tot wug/l

09-08-1980

09-04-1984

Nitroben ssed ug/kg dry wgt

09-10-1980

09-04-1984

Nitroben tis mg/kg wet wgt

09-09-1980

09-04-1984

parachlo rometacr tot wug/l

09-08-1980

09-04-1984

pclmcres ssed ug/kg dry wgt

09-10-1980

09-04-1984

pclmcres tis mg/kg wet wgt

09-09-1980

09-04-1984

phenanthrene tot wug/l

09-08-1980

09-04-1984

phenanth ssed ug/kg dry wgt

09-10-1980

09-04-1984

phenanth tis mg/kg wet wgt

09-09-1980

09-04-1984

phenol tis mg/kg wet wgt

09-09-1980

09-04-1984

pyrene tot wug/l

09-08-1980

09-04-1984

pyrene ssed ug/kg dry wgt

09-10-1980

09-04-1984

pyrene tis mg/kg wet wgt

09-09-1980

09-04-1984

silver tis mg/kg wet wgt

09-19-1983

09-16-1987

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?157

tetrachl oroethyl tot wug/l

09-08-1980

09-19-1983

tetclete ssed ug/kg dry wgt

09-08-1980

tetclete tis mg/kg wet wgt

09-09-1980

09-19-1983

thallium sed mg/kg dry wgt

09-19-1983 09-15-1987

toluene ssed ug/kg dry wgt

09-08-1980

toluene tis mg/kg wet wgt

09-09-1980

09-19-1983

triclete ssed ug/kg dry wgt

09-08-1980

trichlor ofluorom tot wug/l

09-08-1980

trclflmt ssed ug/kg dry wgt

09-08-1980

trclflmt tis mg/kg wet wgt

09-09-1980

09-19-1983

vinylchl ssed ug/kg dry wgt

09-08-1980

11diChloroethane tot wug/l

09-08-1980

09-19-1983

11diclet ssed ug/kg dry wgt

09-08-1980

11diclet tis mg/kg wet wgt

09-09-1980

09-19-1983

11diChloroethyle tot wug/l

09-08-1980

09-19-1983

11dceten ssed ug/kg dry wgt

09-08-1980

11dceten tis mg/kg wet wgt

09-09-1980

09-19-1983

111trich loroetha tot wug/l

09-08-1980

09-19-1983

111tclet ssed ug/kg dry wgt

09-08-1980

111tclet tis mg/kg wet wgt

09-09-1980

09-19-1983

112trich loroetha tot wug/l

09-08-1980

09-19-1983

112tclet ssed ug/kg dry wgt

09-08-1980

112tclet tis mg/kg wet wgt

09-09-1980

09-19-1983

1122tetr aChloroe tot wug/l

09-08-1980

1122tcle ssed ug/kg dry wgt

09-08-1980

1122tcle tis mg/kg wet wgt

09-09-1980

09-19-1983

benzo(gh i)peryle tot wug/l

09-08-1980

09-04-1984

bzghiper ssed ug/kg dry wgt

09-10-1980

09-04-1984

bzghiper tis mg/kg wet wgt

09-09-1980

09-04-1984

benzo(a) anthrace tot wug/l

09-08-1980

09-04-1984

benzaant ssed ug/kg dry wgt

09-10-1980

09-04-1984

benzaant tis mg/kg wet wgt

09-09-1980

09-04-1984

12diclet ssed ug/kg dry wgt

09-08-1980

12diclet tis mg/kg wet wgt

09-09-1980

09-19-1983

12diChlorobenzen tot wug/l

09-08-1980

09-04-1984

12dclben ssed ug/kg dry wgt

09-10-1980

09-04-1984

12dclben tis mg/kg wet wgt

09-09-1980

09-04-1984

12diChloropropan tot wug/l

09-08-1980

09-19-1983

12dclprp ssed ug/kg dry wgt

09-08-1980

12dclprp tis mg/kg wet wgt

09-09-1980

09-19-1983

12diChloroethene tot wug/l

09-08-1980

09-19-1983

12tdcete ssed ug/kg dry wgt

09-08-1980

12tdcete tis mg/kg wet wgt

09-09-1980

09-19-1983

124trich lorobenz tot wug/l

09-08-1980

09-04-1984

124tcben ssed ug/kg dry wgt

09-10-1980

09-04-1984

0649 124tcben tis mg/kg wet wgt

09-09-1980

09-04-1984

dibenz(a h)anthra tot wug/l

09-08-1980

09-04-1984

dbahanth ssed ug/kg dry wgt

09-10-1980

09-04-1984

dbahanth tis mg/kg wet wgt

09-09-1980

09-04-1984

13diChloropropen tot wug/l

09-08-1980

13dcprpe tis mg/kg wet wgt

09-09-1980

09-19-1983

13diChlorobenzen tot wug/l

09-08-1980

09-04-1984

13dclben ssed ug/kg dry wgt

09-10-1980

09-04-1984

13dclben tis mg/kg wet wgt

09-09-1980

09-04-1984

14diChlorobenzen tot wug/l

09-08-1980

09-04-1984

14dclben ssed ug/kg dry wgt

09-10-1980

09-04-1984

14dclben tis mg/kg wet wgt

09-09-1980

09-04-1984

2Chloroethyl viny tot wug/l

09-08-1980

09-19-1983

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?158

2clevetr ssed ug/kg dry wgt

09-10-1980

2clevetr tis mg/kg wet wgt

09-09-1980

09-19-1983

2Chloron aphthale tot wug/l

09-08-1980

09-04-1984

2clnapth ssed ug/kg dry wgt

09-10-1980

2clnapth tis mg/kg wet wgt

09-09-1980

09-04-1984

2Chlorop henol tot wug/l

09-08-1980

09-04-1984

2clpheno ssed ug/kg dry wgt

09-10-1980

09-04-1984

2clpheno tis mg/kg wet wgt

09-09-1980

09-04-1984

2Nitroph enol tot wug/l

09-08-1980

09-04-1984

2nphenol ssed ug/kg dry wgt

09-10-1980

09-04-1984

2nphenol tis mg/kg wet wgt

09-09-1980

09-04-1984

dinoctph tot ug/l

09-08-1980

09-04-1984

dinoctph ssed ug/kg dry wgt

09-10-1980

09-04-1984

dinoctph tis mg/kg wet wgt

09-09-1980

09-04-1984

24diChlorophenol tot wug/l

09-08-1980

09-04-1984

24dcphen ssed ug/kg dry wgt

09-10-1980

09-04-1984

24dcphen tis mg/kg wet wgt

09-09-1980

09-04-1984

24dimeth ylphenol tot wug/l

09-08-1980

09-04-1984

24dmphen ssed ug/kg dry wgt

09-10-1980

09-04-1984

24dmphen tis mg/kg wet wgt

09-09-1980

09-04-1984

24dinitr otoluene tot wug/l

09-08-1980

09-04-1984

24dntolu ssed ug/kg dry wgt

09-08-1980

09-04-1984

24dntolu tis mg/kg wet wgt

09-09-1980

09-04-1984

24dinitr ophenol tot wug/l

09-08-1980

09-04-1984

24dnphen ssed ug/kg dry wgt

09-10-1980

09-04-1984

24dnphen tis mg/kg wet wgt

09-09-1980

09-04-1984

246trich lorophen tot wug/l

09-08-1980

09-04-1984

246tcphn ssed ug/kg dry wgt

09-10-1980

09-04-1984

246tcphn tis mg/kg wet wgt

09-09-1980

09-04-1984

26dinitr otoluene tot wug/l

09-08-1980

09-04-1984

26dntolu ssed ug/kg dry wgt

09-10-1980

09-04-1984

26dntolu tis mg/kg wet wgt

09-09-1980

09-04-1984

33diChlorobenzid tot wug/l

09-08-1980

09-04-1984

33dcbnzd ssed ug/kg dry wgt

09-10-1980

09-04-1984

33dcbnzd tis mg/kg wet wgt

09-09-1980

09-16-1987

4bromoph enylphen tot wug/l

09-08-1980

09-04-1984

4brppetr ssed ug/kg dry wgt

09-10-1980

09-04-1984

4brppetr tis mg/kg wet wgt

09-09-1980

09-04-1984

4Chlorop henylphe tot wug/l

09-08-1980

09-04-1984

4clppetr ssed ug/kg dry wgt

09-10-1980

09-04-1984

4clppetr tis mg/kg wet wgt

09-09-1980

09-04-1984

4Nitroph enol tot wug/l

09-08-1980

09-04-1984

4nphenol ssed ug/kg dry wgt

09-10-1980

09-04-1984

4nphenol tis mg/kg wet wgt

09-09-1980

09-04-1984

46dinitr oorthocr tot wug/l

09-08-1980

09-04-1984

46dnocre ssed ug/kg dry wgt

09-10-1980

09-04-1984

46dnocre tis mg/kg wet wgt

09-09-1980

09-04-1984

PCB-1221 tis mg/kg wet wgt

09-09-1980

09-16-1987

PCB-1232 tis mg/kg wet wgt

09-09-1980

09-16-1987

PCB-1248 tis mg/kg wet wgt

09-09-1980

09-16-1987

PCB-1260 tis mg/kg wet wgt

09-09-1980

09-16-1987

PCB 1016 tot wug/l

09-08-1980

09-04-1984

PCB-1016 tis mg/kg wet wgt

09-09-1980

09-16-1987

tcdd tot wug/l

09-08-1980

aldrin tis mg/kg wet wgt

09-09-1980

09-16-1987

cdanewet tech&met tis mg/kg

09-09-1980

09-16-1987

dnb phth tis-wet mg/kg

09-09-1980

09-04-1984

endrin tis mg/kg wet wgt

09-09-1980

09-16-1987

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?159

hpchlrep tis mg/kg wet wgt

09-09-1980

09-16-1987

heptchlr tis mg/kg wet wgt

09-09-1980

09-16-1987

hcb tis mg/kg wet wgt

09-09-1980

09-04-1984

PCB-1242 tis mg/kg wet wgt

09-09-1980

09-16-1987

PCB-1254 tis mg/kg wet wgt

09-09-1980

09-16-1987

toxaphen tis mg/kg wet wgt

09-09-1980

09-16-1987

triclete tis mg/kg wet wgt

09-09-1980

09-19-1983

vinylchl tis mg/kg wet wgt

09-09-1980

09-19-1983

phenol tot ug/l

09-08-1980

09-04-1984

phenol ssed ug/kg dry wgt

09-10-1980

09-04-1984

napthalene tot wug/l

09-19-1983

pcp tot ug/l

09-08-1980

09-04-1984

pcp tis mg/kg wet wgt

09-09-1980

09-04-1984

pcp ssed ug/kg dry wgt

09-10-1980

09-04-1984

chlordan c isomer tis-ug/g

09-15-1987

09-16-1987

chlordan c isomer bot ug/kg

09-15-1987

chlordan t isomer tis-ug/g

09-15-1987

09-16-1987

alphabhc tis mg/kg wet wgt

09-09-1980

09-16-1987

alphabhc ssed ug/kg dry wgt

09-10-1980

09-15-1987

b2ethxph tis mg/kg wet wgt

09-09-1980

09-04-1984

b2ethhxl phthalat tot ug/l

09-08-1980

09-04-1984

b2e phth mud-dry ug/kg

09-10-1980

09-04-1984

dnb phth Total ug/l

09-08-1980

09-04-1984

dnb phth mud-dry ug/kg

09-10-1980

09-04-1984

benzidin tot ug/l

09-08-1980

09-04-1984

benzidin ssed ug/kg dry wgt

09-10-1980

09-04-1984

vinylchl oride tot ug/l

09-08-1980

09-19-1983

trichlor ethylene tot ug/l

09-08-1980

09-19-1983

aldrin tot ug/l

09-08-1980

09-04-1984

aldrin ssed ug/kg dry wgt

09-10-1980

09-15-1987

alphabhc tot ug/l

09-08-1980

09-04-1984

beta bhc tot ug/l

09-08-1980

09-04-1984

gammabhc lindane tot.ug/l

09-08-1980

09-04-1984

gbhc-mud lindane dryug/kg

09-10-1980

chlrdane tech&met tot ug/l

09-08-1980

09-04-1984

cdanedry tech&met mudug/kg

09-10-1980

dieldrin tot ug/l

09-08-1980

09-04-1984

dieldrin ssed ug/kg dry wgt

09-10-1980

09-15-1987

endosuln whl smpl ug/l

09-19-1983

endrin tot ug/l

09-08-1980

09-04-1984

endrin ssed ug/kg dry wgt

09-10-1980

09-15-1987

toxaphen tot ug/l

09-08-1980

09-04-1984

toxaphen ssed ug/kg dry wgt

09-10-1980

09-15-1987

dieldrin tis mg/kg wet wgt

09-09-1980

09-16-1987

heptchlr tot ug/l

09-19-1983

09-04-1984

heptchlr ssed ug/kg dry wgt

09-10-1980

09-15-1987

hpchlrep tot ug/l

09-08-1980

09-04-1984

hpchlrep ssed ug/kg dry wgt

09-10-1980

09-15-1987

mthxyclr mud dry ug/kg

09-15-1987

PCB-1221 tot ug/l

09-08-1980

09-04-1984

PCB-1221 ssed ug/kg dry wgt

09-10-1980

09-15-1987

PCB-1232 tot ug/l

09-08-1980

PCB-1232 ssed ug/kg dry wgt

09-08-1980

09-15-1987

PCB-1242 tot ug/l

09-08-1980

09-04-1984

PCB-1242 ssed ug/kg dry wgt

09-10-1980

09-15-1987

PCB-1248 tot ug/l

09-08-1980

09-04-1984

PCB-1248 ssed ug/kg dry wgt

09-10-1980

09-15-1987

PCB-1254 tot ug/l

09-08-1980

09-04-1984

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?160

PCB-1254 ssed ug/kg dry wgt

09-10-1980

09-15-1987

PCB-1260 tot ug/l

09-08-1980

09-04-1984

PCB-1260 ssed ug/kg dry wgt

09-10-1980

09-15-1987

PCB-1016 ssed ug/kg dry wgt

09-10-1980

09-15-1987

hcb tot ug/l

09-08-1980

09-04-1984

hcb ssed ug/kg dry wgt

09-10-1980

09-04-1984

hexclbd tot ug/l

09-19-1983

09-04-1984

hexclbd ssed ug/kg dry wgt

09-10-1980

09-04-1984

gbhc-tis lindane wetmg/kg

09-09-1980

09-16-1987

g-chlrdn mud ug/kg

09-15-1987

dimethyl napthsed ug/kg

09-19-1983

oh ion oh mg/l

02-24-1987

mercury sed mg/kg dry wgt

09-08-1980

09-15-1987

mercury tis mg/kg wet wgt

09-09-1980

09-16-1987

lead tis mg/kg wet wgt

09-09-1980

09-16-1987

copper tis mg/kg wet wgt

09-09-1980

09-16-1987

zinc tis mg/kg wet wgt

09-09-1980

09-16-1987

cr-fish ug/g or mg/kg wt

09-19-1983

09-16-1987

cadmium tis mg/kg wet wgt

09-09-1980

09-16-1987

cd Total fish dwt ug/gm

09-09-1980

acetone sed dry wgtug/kg

09-19-1983

2hexanon sed dry wgtug/kg

09-19-1983

styrene sed dry wgtug/kg

09-19-1983

bnzylalc sed dry wgtug/kg

09-19-1983

benzoica sed dry wgtug/kg

09-19-1983

dbnzofur sed dry wgtug/kg

09-19-1983

crbn dis Total ug/l

09-19-1983

vinyl ac Total ug/l

09-19-1983

aniline Total ug/l

09-19-1983

09-04-1984

2hexanon Total ug/l

09-19-1983

styrene Total ug/l

09-19-1983

o-xylene Total ug/l

09-19-1983

bnzylalc Total ug/l

09-19-1983

09-04-1984

benzoica Total ug/l

09-19-1983

09-04-1984

2mnaptha Total ug/l

09-19-1983

09-04-1984

245tclph Total ug/l

09-19-1983

09-04-1984

dbnzlamn Total ug/l

09-19-1983

09-04-1984

endrinke tiswetwt mg/kg

09-15-1987

09-16-1987

chlordan a-fish ww ug/kg

09-16-1987

dibenzo furan tot ug/l

09-19-1983

09-04-1984

acetone tot ug/l

09-19-1983

mtxchlor fish wet wgt ug/g

09-15-1987

09-16-1987

endrinke sed dry wt ug/kg

09-15-1987

t1 3-dcp tot wat ug/l

09-08-1980

c1 3-dcp fish wet wgtmg/k6

09-09-1980

09-19-1983

c1 3-dcp tot wat ug/l

09-08-1980

09-19-1983

napthal enes pc . ug/l

09-08-1980

09-04-1984

p p'ddt tot ug/l

09-08-1980

09-04-1984

p p'ddd tot ug/l

09-08-1980

09-04-1984

p p'dde tot ug/l

09-08-1980

09-04-1984

arsenic as tot ug/l

09-08-1980

09-15-1987

berylium be tot ug/l

09-08-1980

09-15-1987

cadmium cd susp ug/l

09-15-1987

cadmium cd tot ug/l

09-08-1980

09-15-1987

chromium cr tot ug/l

09-08-1980

09-15-1987

copper cu tot ug/l

09-08-1980

09-15-1987

lead pb tot ug/l

09-08-1980

09-15-1987

thallium tl Total ug/l

09-19-1983 09-15-1987

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?162

PPENDIX

5. B

ACKGROUND ON

RUBBING AND

RADING

RDINANCES AND

ROBLEMS

Land Clearing and Grubbing and Grading

The State of Hawai?i seeks to control erosion and sedimentation through legislation.

Chapter 180 of the Hawai?i Revised Statutes (HRS 180) sets the criteria for the creation
of Soil and Water Conservation Districts (SWCD), a program administered by the State
Department of Land & Natural Resources (DLNR); defines the SWCD as a governmental
subdivision of the State of Hawai?i; and defines the powers and duties of the DLNR, the
SWCD and its Directors.

Soil Erosion and Sediment Control comes under HRS 180C, which states that a
?Conservation Plan? is a plan for the control of erosion and sediment from a land
disturbing activity; and ?Land Disturbing Activity? is any land change that may result in
soil erosion from water or wind and the movement of sediment into State waters or onto
lands in the State including but not limited to tilling, clearing, grading, excavating and
filling.

HRS 180C mandated counties to enact an ordinance to contain standards for the control
of erosion and sediment from land disturbing activities [HRS 180C-2(b)(3)], and to
include a provision whereby standards are met if lands are being managed in accordance
with practices acceptable to the SWCD [HRS 180C-2(b)(4)].

The SWCD Conservation Program manages agriculturally based land disturbing activity,
with free technical assistance given by the Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS), a division of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Chapter 10 of the
Hawaii County Code (HCC), Erosion and sediment Control, is structured to manage
urban or construction-based land disturbing activities.

Contractors initiating land-disturbing activity in urban areas (i.e., construction) must pay
for grubbing and grading permits and technical assistance from professional engineers.

According to DPW officials, all agricultural land disturbing activity whether initiated in
rural or urban settings is best managed by of SWCD, while construction based land
disturbing activity whether initiated in rural or urban settings fall under the jurisdiction of
DPW.

Though the SWCD?s do not have direct enforcement authority, they may choose to
cancel a landowner?s conservation program due to non-compliance. This will require the
landowner to obtain a grubbing/grading permit from the county of Hawaii at his own
cost.

Lack of enforcement of HRS 180C by the SWCD has lead to a threat of cancellation of
the SWCD by DPW, if HRS 180C violations are not followed up with corrective actions
imposed by SWCD.

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?163

There are concerns regarding funding of the SWCD by the State of Hawaii: Hawaii
County is the only local government agency to provide direct?.

In an attempt to safeguard the public, property and the environment, grading is regulated
for the purpose of erosion and sedimentation control.

Chapter 10 of the HCC requires grading permits in certain situations.

However, the technical knowledge required to determine whether or not a permit is
required is neither common knowledge nor is it knowledge held by the average Permittee,
or the person who has the interest in the land (i.e., the owner or designated
representative).

Permitting requirements are described in the recently amended Chapter 10 of the Hawaii County
Code (HCC), Erosion and sediment Control. Here we transcribe the elements directly related to
erosion control in urban areas:

Chapter 10?Erosion and Sedimentation Control
Article 1, Section 10: Minimum BMPs
Regardless of whether a permit is required pursuant to this chapter, all grading, grubbing and
stockpiling activities shall provide BMPs to the maximum extent practicable to prevent damage
by sedimentation to streams, watercourses, natural areas and the property of others.

a) Drainage. On-site drainage shall be handled in such a way so as to control erosion,

prevent damage to downstream properties and to return waters to the natural drainage course free
of sedimentation or other pollution.

b) Dust control. All work areas within and without the actual grading area shall be

maintained free from dust which will cause a nuisance or hazard to others.

c) Vegetation. Whenever feasible, natural vegetation, especially grasses, should be

retained. If it is necessary to be removed, trees, timber, plants, shrubbery and other woody
vegetation, after being uprooted, displaced or dislodged from the ground by excavation, clearing
or grubbing, shall not be stored in or deposited along the banks of any stream, river or natural
watercourse. The director may require the removal and disposal of such vegetation from the site
within a reasonable time but not to exceed three months.

c) Erosion Controls. All disturbed areas shall be stabilized with erosion control measures

that may include staging, construction, clearing only areas essential for construction, locating
potential non-point pollutant sources away from steep slopes, water bodies and critical areas,
routing construction traffic to avoid existing or newly planted vegetation; protecting natural
vegetation with fencing, tree armoring and retaining wall or tree wells; stockpiling topsoil,
covering the stockpile to prevent dust, and reapplying the topsoil; covering or stabilizing all soil
stockpiles; using wind erosion control; intercepting runoff above disturbed slopes and conveying
it to a permanent channel or storm drain; construction benches, terraces, or ditches at regular
intervals to intercept runoff on long or steep disturbed or man-made slopes; providing linings or
other methods to prevent erosion of storm water conveyance channels; using check dams where
needed to slow flow velocities; using seeding and fertilizing, mulching, sodding, matting,

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?164

blankets, bonded fiber matrices, or other effective soil erosion control technique; and providing
vehicle wheel wash facilities for vehicles before thy leave the site.

e) Sediment Control. In addition to the erosion control measures above, providing

practices to capture sediment that is transported in runoff to prevent the sediment from leaving
the site. Filtration and detention (gravitational settling) are the main processes used to remove
sediment from construction site runoff. Sediment control measures include sediment basins
sediment traps; filter fabric silt fences; straw bales, sand bag, or gravel bag barriers; inlet
protection; stabilized construction entrances, and other measures to minimize off site tracking of
sediment by construction vehicles, and vegetated filter strips.

f) Material and Waste Management. Measures to insure the proper storage of toxic

material and prevent the discharge of pollutants associated with construction materials and
wastes shall be implemented.

g) Timing of Control Measure Implementation. Timing of control measure

implementation shall be in accordance with the approved erosion control pan is such plan is
required. At a minimum disturbed areas of construction site that will not be re-disturbed for 21
days or ore will be stabilized (grasses or graveled) by no later than the 14

day after last

disturbance.

Article 2, Section 10-15

(2) For grading of areas of more than fifteen thousand square feet, an erosion

control plan, prepared by an engineer or land surveyor, and approved by the director and
showing the contours and elevations of the land before and after the completion of the proposed
grading. This map shall include the location of existing large trees, designated historic and
archaeological sites, and definable rock outcroppings, lava tubes, detailed plans, and
specifications of all drainage devices and utilities, including bank protection, walls, cribbing,
dams, silting or sediment basins, landscaping, screen panting, erosion control plantings, or other
BMPs or protective devices that be constructed in connection with, or as a part of the proposed
work, together with a map showing the drainage area and estimated runoff of the area served by
any drains.

All of these technical requirements lead to the potential solution that the technician, i.e., the
bulldozer or excavation equipment operator, should be the Permittee. An operator/permittee
would probably have working knowledge of the terms put forth in the permitting requirements,
therefore allowing for 1) close adherence to requirements, and 2) accountability (i.e., fines and
loss of operator?s license) for permit infractions. This solution to this issue has actually been
proposed by NRCS in discussions with DLNR and SWCD, but has not been considered
appropriate by the state and county.

Chapter 10 of the HCC also provides a list of projects that do not require permits if the work
conforms to the provisions of Section 10-26. It appears that some of the work on the ?no permit
required? list can lead to serious erosion and sedimentation due to runoff problems during and
after significant rain events. One of the most glaring examples is ?Grading within building lines
of a structure authorized by a valid building permit?. With this exception as an example, it seems
that effective grubbing and grading laws, intent on erosion and sedimentation control, are
dependent on close communication and cooperation with the agencies governing building
permits.

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?165

PPENDIX

6. P

UBLIC REVIEW OF

RAFT

ILO

ATERSHED

ESTORATION

LAN

Transcription of hand-written comments turned in by reviewers, with responses in [italics]

TEVE

ERGFELT AND

ISA

ADWAY

(DOFAW-H

ILO

FFICE

)

Additional DOFAW management activities to be added to background section (all these
activities will be incorporated into the final draft)

1. Invasive Species: DOFAW actively works on controlling invasive species within the
watershed area. DOFAW is currently working on gorse, Himalayan raspberry, Clidemia, banana
poka, and palm grass using mechanical and chemical methods and biological control
(pathogens). The Big Island Invasive Species Committee is working on the control of Miconia
within the watershed.

2. Threatened and Endangered Species: DOFAW is currently working with the Kau silversword,
Cyanea platyphylla, Cyanea shipmanii, Clermontia peleana and Nene.

3. Commercial timber: The Waiakea Timber management area falls within the watershed area.
A land license has been issue to Tradewinds to harvest the timber. No harvest has yet begun.
Best Management Practice will be followed.

4. Hunting: Ron Bach now manages the hunting program in the area?contact him for more up
to date information. Hunting is allowed on all Forest reserves and game management areas
within the watershed. Feral pigs and mouflon sheep are the main game animals. Game birds are
also hunted in the upper areas of the forest reserves.

5. Hilo Forest Reserve: DOFAW?s management activities in the Hilo Forest Reserve are as
follows:

Fence line maintenance?within the last year, DOFAW removed trees threatening the

Puu OO ranch fence (3 miles of fence line). This will make it easier for the rancher to maintain
his fence and keep cattle out of the forest reserve.

Cattle removal?there are feral cattle in the upper reaches of the Hilo Watershed.

DOFAW is currently working on a feral cattle removal program. Nubmers will be significantly
reduced within 3 years.

Trail and road maintenance?DOFAW periodically maintains roads and trails within the

watershed boundaries to facilitate access for management as well as for public access for hunting
and other forms of recreation.

Fire prevention, pre-suppression and suppression-- DOFAW is an active member of the

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?166

Comment re DOFAW?s role in the restoration plan:

?once the science has been completed DOFAW will participate if it shows the lands we manage
are a major problem. We feel the lands we manage are in the best shape of any within the
watershed boundaries.? [this is one reason we need research on sediment sources: NRCS and
farmers claim sediments come from conservation lands, DOFAW refute this, and we cannot
impose BMPs until we have evidence for the sources of sediments.]

L

ISA

ADWAY

(DOFAW-H

ILO

FFICE

)

1. p. 13: Kipuka 21 is a fenced of kipuka within the Hilo Forest Reserve, not a new NARS as
implied by the manuscript. [noted, will be corrected]

3. p. 14: Though cattle may be causing more damage than pigs in parts of the watershed, I do not
know this as a fact. This sentence implies that it is a fact. Please delete the second part of the
sentence that reads ?and that cattle are currently causing more habitat damage than pigs in some
areas? second paragraph staring with ?other conservation lands? [noted, will be corrected]

4. p. 18: add sailing and jet skiing to uses of Bay?not sure if these are legal uses or of concern
for water quality, but, but they take place and should be considered or addressed. Another use
that takes place at Bay front , which is of concern, is ATV use. I have seen multiple ATVs and
Dirt Bikes ripping up and down the beach at Bay front. [noted, water sorts will be added]

5. p. 19: update list of DOFAW management activities?add invasive species control, fire
suppression

6. p. 20: add USFWS Hakalau Refuge Management Plan as one of the management plans in
effect for the watershed [noted, will be added]

7. p. 31: What about water-borne diseases such as Lepto, etc. Do they fit into a water quality
sampling regime? [No one monitors for leptospira because no standard method exists for their
detection/enumeration in environmental waters. The tests that do exist are almost useless for
differentiating between non-pathogenic strains (which are numerous) and pathogenic strains.
Clinical tests exist to detect them once they infect an animal. It is not practicable to say that we
recommend identifying sources and monitoring.]

8. p. 34: change Department of F and W to Division of F and W. [done]

9. p. 42: suggest adding another research objective: ?tree cover and influence on water
quality/quantity-N inputs from invasives such as Albizia. [see demonstration project in new
BMP and Demo. Project section added in final version of plan]

10. p. 45: comment on the use of coral reef monitoring by volunteers: ?concerns over
consistency?. ?I have concerns that volunteers will not be a reliable and consistent source of
data and monitoring. I believe this phase of the work needs to be done by trained scientists/grad

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?167

students.? [as explained in the text, we feel that with appropriate supervision, such monitoring
can be useful, especially as we are unlikely to obtain any funds for research by professionals on
these issues. Furthermore, monitoring by volunteers greatly increases the educational aspect of
the WRP, and this is a key objective at this point]

M

IKE

OBINSON

(DHHL)

Comments to Mary James by teleconference August 5, 2005

1.

The report is very positive, not regulatory or threatening.

Check through the report and correct abbreviations to DHHL (eg. not DHH)

1999-2000 DOFAW prepared BMPs for forestry. These should be included in the appendix.
[we will include either as appendix or by referring to them and listing their availability on
the web].

BMP for ag was part of the Clean Water program in the 1990s. There were 5 areas for BMPs:
ag, forestry, tourism, and 2 others. The State requires that grant applicants meet BMPs to get
State grant money. [existence of these BMPs will be mentioned. However, without
monitoring of BMPs, and studies of before and after levels of water pollution, we do not
know whether they are working or not; also, it is difficult to ascertain whether or not BMPs
are actually being implemented, or how well]

Re the 2002 DHHL Master Plan ? check with Darrell Yagodich (808-586-3836) in the Oahu
DHHL Planning Department (homestead) regarding management efforts and watershed.
Significant urban areas/housing. [unclear whether housing will be developed in the
watershed, or just on DHHL lands in general.]

Contact James Leary a soil scientist at UH Manoa (808-956-9214) who is coming to Hilo late
August and ask if clearing gorse will increase nutrient release. Suggest that we coordinate
with him. He may be able to recommend land use practices and tweak one of his grants to
help us. [thank you for this information; this fits in with the overall concern about invasive
legumes altering nutrient regimes]

Conversation with Jeff and Mary on July 19

when WRP was delivered:

DHHL does not do any more ranching. South of Saddle Road is on long-term lease with
DOFAW. Rest of land controlling gorse via spray and reforestation. Want to start forest for
fog drip ? want to plant 1K acres in trees. 4K-5K acres of gorse. DOFAW manages some of
the areas. Developing a 250 ft wide circle of trees to shade out gorse. Using 7 biological
controls, also burn and herbicide. Will take 20-30 years for project. May start grazing and
homesteading.

Makai area ? lower part was former sugar cane land. Trees help stabilize soil and bring in
long term income.

Final Environmental Assessment for Controlling Gorse; Koa Salvage ? Reforestation &
Gorse Containment ? August 9, 2001

Working with James Leary at UH Manoa. He is sampling for nitrogen fixers.

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?168

Comments on manuscript

1. p. 3, last sentence of second paragraph: ?excellent? [this refers to our 5 year plan in which
research over three years occurs prior to identification of BMPs]

3. p. 14: clarify that the ?lands above the refuge? are managed by DHHL (line 6) [ok]

4. p. 14: Change DHL to DHHL throughout [ok]

5. p. 14: line 7. Add ?DHHL has not renewed the cattle leases in this area and a program has
begun to contain and control gorse.? [ok]

6. p. 20: add DHHL gorse control program [ok]

7. p. 24, last paragraph, line 7 from bottom: ?DOFAW and DHHL have started coordinating land
management efforts? [ok]

8. p. 40. Re community education on BMPs? ?a good example are the DOFAW forestry
guidelines or publications? [noted]

9. stakeholder list: update DHHL name and contacts; also note that address for DHHL may be
changing in next two months. [ok]

9. eliminate DHHL second time listed in Management agencies list; also eliminate grazing and
add invasive species control and koa forest restoration as areas of competence. [it seems like the
making of a watershed partnership right there between DOFAW, DHHL, WAG?partnership
formation and maintenance of community organizations are recommended as a bmp in our new
section; note that such activities are fundable through 319 funds (A. Shilekis, pers. comm.]

10. update DLNR contacts in stakeholder list appendix 2 [notes are illegible]

T

OUNG COMMENTS FOR

AMAKUA

SWCD,

PER

OMMY

RABB

-C

HAIR

1. re the summary, Tom maintains that ? sources of nutrients are fertilizers (home owner and
some agriculture, sewage sources (cesspools, sewer and end of pipe effluent that finds its way
back in the bay from the outfall); one of the major sources of nutrients is a products of the
degradation of the natural material in the upper watershed. The parent rock material being young
geologically contributes nutrients?. [this comments illustrates why we desperately need research
and education?a very vocal member of the community and officer of the SWCD insists that
more nutrients come from conservation land than ag and urban areas; such unsubstantiated
statements influence the community and may prevent it from agreeing to restoration efforts or
review of agricultural bmps. In comment 4, Mr. Young completely misinterprets the report by
Runcie and Kinzie (2002), using it to say that algae are not good indicators of stream water
quality, when in fact what the report says is that two algae species are excellent indicators of
nutrient levels in bay waters as long as a strict experimental protocol is followed. It is in fact
that protocol, developed for Kaneohe Bay, which we suggest be followed in Hilo Bay. The work

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?169

was funded by DOH, and much more extensive use should be made of the results and the
expertise generated by the Kaneohe project]

2. re our comments on improvement of and monitoring of agricultural BMPs, Young maintains
that ?the BMPs have been developed and agreed to by all the parties that interact in the
watershed. There are outstanding MOUs as to these agreements [unclear if outstanding means
very good or not yet implemented]. Voluntary application of BMPs is only reviewed statistically
but not individually as per the Freedom of Information Act. [We presume this means that the %
of farms in compliance is reported, rather than the actual farms in compliance? Or the % of
farms with plans rather than the identity of farms with plans?] [the authors of the WRP feel that
the onus is on NRCS and SWCD to demonstrate their system is actually reducing nutrient,
pesticide and sediment inputs to streams and oceans, relative to a situation with no voluntary
BMPs]. To view BMPs go to a NRCS office and review the resource conservation practices that
are on file [We?re not so much interested in viewing the BMPs as in knowing how well they are
being implemented and whether they are having any effect on water quality. This requires
measurement of water quality downstream from farms with BMPs?i.e., scientific monitoring of
NRCS and SWCD activities to determine their effectiveness. This is standard Quality Control
and Assurance procedure].

3. re section 2.1, where the report states that ?we have strong circumstantial evidence that ground
water contributes large amounts of N? , Young says ?please cite sources this needs to be
discussed.? [this is in fact discussed in the body of the report; and we have two citations
supporting this for Hawaii]

4. re section 8, where we talk about bio-monitoring using algae and / or coral growth, Young
comments on the use of algae as bioindicators. From previous conversations with him I know he
is referring to looking at algal cover on rocks in streams to determine nutrient presence /
eutrophication in streams. But what we are referring to is nutrient levels in the estuary/bay. The
Coral Reef Initiative (Kinzie, Runcie, Hoover, Smith, etc.) have worked out good salt water algal
indicators of nutrient loads, and we can use the same methods in Hilo. These same researchers
could serve as consultants for Hilo, as they have the expertise already. Young?s specific
comment is: ?algae in Hawaii steams are a poorly understood subject. Filamentous algae are the
predominant species in our streams, and it will proliferate in situations of low flow that do not
coincide with high nutrient availability but seems to be a function of maturity and lack of
flushing intensity. Coral is also dependent on algae and is poorly understood as to its response to
elevated nutrient:. [it is unclear what Mr. Young means by coral being dependent on algae?
macroalgae can cover coral and prevent feeding and other physiological functions]

5. ?The data available on nutrients are outdated and a lot of things have changed. New work is
necessary prior to any assessment of remedial work?. [Whether Mr. Young is right or wrong,
this is the current attitude among a large portion of the community and county officials, and the
restoration plan must deal with it. At the very least, education must precede BMPs, and
research must go along with education]

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?170

6. re hunting areas in watershed reserve: ? this subject needs to be expanded because of the long
standing tradition within the resident population.? [please see demonstration project on ungulate
control in new bmp section of report]

7. SWCD are assisted by NRCS, not overseen by NRCS [noted]

8. re visual assessments: ? this is a poor methodology in Hawaii and is not conclusive as in large
farming areas on the mainland? [visual assessment should not be used to determine water
quality, we agree; however, as a monitoring method that allows you to track changes over time
or allows you to compare different areas?e.g. those with and without management?it is
acceptable as long as it is consistently applied]

9. re turbidity: ? non-anthropogenic contribution needs to be dealt with, it is not supposed to be
accumulative with man made turbidity? [the authors agree that it has to be measured and
quantitative. However, whether it is cumulative or not is beside the point, the point is that water
quality limits are set based on human health and/or on ecosystem function/biodiversity
conservation. If the natural inputs allow the ecosystem to function, and to do not impair human
health, but as soon as you add human inputs you exceed these limits, then you have to make a
decision as to whether you want to modify the natural area to reduce inputs, stop all human
inputs, some combination of the two, or not allow humans to use the area. The key thing is to
know the inputs, and make a decision on acceptable uses of the area after one has this
information]

10.re Appendix 5, where it discusses the lack of enforcement of HRS 180C: ?there is a general
ignorance as to the authority of the SWCD. The Clean Water Act spells out that toxic chemicals
in toxic amounts shall be regulated and that there should be a voluntary program for non-point
sources of pollution. If a land occupier chooses not to voluntarily treat their environmental
problems, then the State is required to use their back up authority (see recent attorney general
opinion, can be found by calling Dennis Lau DOH)? [note that we consider enforcing existing
rules as a bmp; this includes the state imposing penalties on those who do not voluntarily deal
with their pollution problems]

11. Agricultural Grading Exemption is for bona fide ag-producers in cooperation with a SWCD
board of directors on a comprehensive conservation plan. [noted]

12. Targeting storm events is not going to produce a database that will lead to compliance with
the clean water act or in the meeting of water quality standards. What is needed is a sampling of
indicator streasm thru-out Hawaii that will give us a thorough set of data points that is so lacking
at the present time. We need ambient thru storm events so that we understand the dynamics of
the watershed. [agreed, and we are not proposing to sample only during storm events. The
problem is that storm events are often missed, because they are rare relatively to non-storm
conditions. So, they must be targeted to ensure that an adequate sample of sediment and nutrient
loads are measured during storm events. If it is true that all sediments come down during storm
events, then BMPs can be chosen that are targeted at storm events?e.g., a water diversion or
sedimentation basin may actually be necessary because increasing tree cover, etc. will not be
sufficient]

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?171

ALEN

UBA

, H

AWAII

OUNTY

UBLIC

ORKS

, E

NGINEERING

IVISION

HIEF

(

COMMENTS

WRITTEN ON MANUSCRIPT

)

1. p. 10, comments re the type of cost-benefit analysis done for flood control project: ?need to
discuss with NRCS and ACOE?probably difficult to attach a $ value? [yes, it is difficult, but
necessary if the cost of environmental degradation is ever to be included in the cost of our
overall activities. This is an active field of research in environmental economics. It can provide
important guidance in development decisions]

p. 14. Re flood control structure in the watershed: add Palai stream to the list of modified
streams in 4

full paragraph [ok]. Also ?the ACOE and the County of Hawaii are planning two

flood control projects [not one as described in this paragraph?will update]. A partial diversion
is also being planned for Waiakea stream above Kupulani Street that would divert peak flows
around urban feed areas. Both projects are in the feasibility cost sharing phase of development
and are subject to further economic and engineering analysis by the ACOE?. [corrections and
update noted, will include in final version]

p. 15. Line 3 from top, please change ?small operations? to read ?small developments that have
negligible drainage impacts? [noted, will change]. Line 7, please add that modifications to storm
drains are planned ?under the Czara New Urban Development Measure.? On last sentence of
this paragraph, please add the words ?for Hilo town? [noted, will do]

p. 19. Again, list the two planned flood control structures in this section [will do]. Add the urban
new development measure by Susan Miller [unclear what this is].

p. 50. Appendix 1. Eliminate objectives 1, 3 and 4 from this draft list of objectives, as these are
the amendments made to the proposed ordinance [done]

p. 54, paragraph 5: rewrite to say ?The SWCD Conservation Program manages agriculturally
based land disturbing activity, with free technical assistance given by the Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS), a division of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).
Chapter 10 of the Hawaii County Code (HCC), Erosion and sediment Control, is structured to
manage urban or construction-based land disturbing activities [done]. Paragraph 6: add
?engineers? at the end [done]. Paragraph 7, change ?falls under the jurisdiction of? to read ?is
best managed by? [done]. Join paragraph 8 to paragraph 7 [done]. Paragraph 9: Change to read:
? Though the SWCD?s do not have direct enforcement authority, they may choose to cancel a
land owner?s conservation program due to non-compliance. This will require the land owner to
obtain a grubbing/grading permit from the county of Hawaii at his own cost. [done]? Paragraph
10: change to read: There are concerns regarding funding of the SWCD by the State of Hawaii:
Hawaii County is the only local government agency to provide direct? [will change, but note
that comment unreadable at the end]

p. 55, 1

paragraph: eliminate the word ?drainage?. [done] Middle section of page: please

amend these permitting requirements as per the new chapter 10 [done]. 4

item from the

bottom?eliminate the reference to dust control regulations by DPW, as the county has not
enacted any regulations to address these issues. [done]

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?172

p. 56. Galen Kuba disagrees with the alternative of the bulldozer operator or equipment
contractor being the permittee, as it is harder to track the contractors. [noted]. Re the list of
project not requiring permits in Chapter 10?please amend this list to reflect the new chapter
[will do; have been added to Appendix 5]. Comment on last paragraph: note that there are no
regulations to control roof runoff [will note this lack of regulations]

D

ICK

ASS

, R

EFUGE

ANAGER

, H

AKALAU

OREST

ATIONAL

ILDLIFE

EFUGE

, USFWS

p. 14: add cattle to the species being controlled by DOFAW in Hilo Forest Reserve, and note that
the cattle referred to as causing problems are mostly if not all feral [done; this comment was
already modified as per L. Hadway]

p. 20: add these items to the list of ongoing management efforts: ?Hakalau Forest National
Wildlife Refuge (USFWS)?conservation of native and endangered plants and animals.
Restoration of native forest through tree propagation and outplanting. Control and removal of
feral pigs and feral cattle. Control of invasive weeds including Florida blackberry, gorse, banana
poka and holly. A Conservation Plan covering all management activities (fuel break
construction, fence construction, road maintenance, gravel mining, tree planting, weed control,
facilities construction, etc.) was prepared by NRCS and approved by the Mauna Kea Soil and
Water Conservation District.? [ok]

p. 21. To item 8, add upland restoration as well as wetland restoration. [no, this paragraph is
specific to wetland ecosystems]

p. 22. Add the following objectives to the list: encourage restoration of native forest; reduce feral
cattle and pig populations; encourage agricultural practices that use less pesticides and that
conserve soil. [these items are very specific compared to the broader objectives in this list; we
will include them elsewhere in the plan, where they may be more appropriate]

Map of Hilo Bay watershed: make sure that the two parcels that include the Refuge are labeled
as such [will try].

W

ILLIAM

ALLIDAY

GEOLOGIST

, N

ATIONAL

PELEOLOGICAL

OCIETY

p. 11, line 2. Add: it consists of a mixed crevice and conduit pseudokarst [please clarify?does
this refer to Waiakea pond or to the overall substrate in the area? We had not received a reply
by the deadline for report completion]

p. 12. 2

paragraph, 3

line from end: change if to where [done]

p. 24, first full paragraph, 5

line from end. Add to read: ?..seepage and underground conduit

flow in lava tubes?? [done]

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?173

p. 35, in 8.5; add: ?require homeowners currently discharging raw sewage into lava tubes or
crevices to terminate this practice immediately? [done]

p. 39. Item 1, add to read ??where are the tubes (available from the Hawaii Speleological
Survey of the National Speleological Society)? [ok]

p. 46, center: add to read: ??doctors, audiologists and ?? [please clarify why audiologists are
important in this context; no reply received by deadline]

Figure 3: Alenaio Stream is incorrectly shown as a surface stream. Except in flood, it is a
subterranean pseudokarstic stream? [noted]

L

, W

AIAKEA

SWCD

p. 15, under grubbing and grading: SWCDs provides grubbing/grading plans under contract to
the county; yes, there is very little enforcement [noted]

These G and G permits should be mandatory and also should be closely monitored?given the
level of development?new housing, etc. [this concern will be noted in final plan, we do already
stress the need for revision and enforcement of grubbing and grading ordinances]

New developments should have means to handle the water, such as dry wells, or accumulation
basins. [will include under a suggested list of construction BMPs]

p. 15, under Agricultural Lands: ?Maybe agricultural lands should have mandatory conservation
plans prepared?monitoring would be difficult but necessary. Proactive planning should reduce
polluted runoff.? [this is discussed under actions to review and monitor the BMPs applied under
NRCS / SWCD auspices]

p. 16, still under Ag. Lands: ?Conservation plans for agriculture are in lieu of grubbing/grading
permits? [thank you, information also given by Galen Kuba, clarification included in Appendix
on grubbing and grading]

p. 19, items 5 and 6: ?funding for channel stabilization (waterways, canals) is through ACOE?
[noted?ACOE funding of channel stabilization; this overlaps with G. Kuba?s comments on
ACOE flood control projects currently under feasibility study]

p. 33, re item 13, note that ?Bio-filtering / bio-capture of nutrients is demonstrated as effective
for effluent clean up, and 319 funds are available for demo projects; see Siverton, Oregon demo
site [info will be added to the wetland BMP/demo project proposed later in report]

p. 34?note that the SWCD acting in the watershed is the Waiakea SWCD [noted].

p. 35, section 8.4: ?public needs to be informed and educated; money should be allocated
especially for this; we are the primary stakeholders? [agree, will refer to this wording in our
section on Education as a BMP]

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?174

p. 37, re reviewing SWCD soil management plans: ?note that NRCS assists SWCDs with 1)
technical help (planning, engineering, etc.) and 2) funding programs (NRCS seems to be moving
to a funding based program); many programs already exist for funding of projects, check with
NRCS about EQIP, WRP, WHIP

?conservation plans require closer and more timely monitoring? [unclear if this refers to a need
for more rapid monitoring than just one year after initial funding of conservation plans; but we
will note the perceive need for close monitoring]

R

ACHMAN

, W

ILDLIFE

RANCH

, DOFAW

p. 14, section 3.6 on Hunting Areas: ?Managed public hunting for pigs, sheep and goats in
conducted throughout the areas listed in this section although not all of these areas are part of the
official designation : ?Restricted Watershed? as described in Attachment Chapter 105.?

?Mauna Kea Forest Reserve, adjacent Hawaiian Home Lands and Piihonua Lease could
reasonably be included as they too influence lower areas by runoff in a particularly significant
way; where gorse has taken over and seeds are washed into the watershed. Gorse was under
control until sheep eradication orders removed these grazers. Gorse is now growing along the
entire length of the Wailuku River. Feral pigs evade hunting dogs by dashing into gorse thickets
and, as a consequence, their numbers are increasing? [this information is very useful in helping
us design research and BMPs?several land managers are using feral ungulates to control
invasive plants; we need to look into feral ungulate management that does not suddenly disrupt
ecological relationships that have recently become established and area actually helping to
maintain community integrity and ecosystem function]

p.19, item 10 under existing management efforts: ?Cattle trespass from ranches adjacent to the
restricted watershed are a source of renewal for the resident population in Hilo Watershed.
Recent emphasis in boundary fencing upkeep and errant cattle removal by DOFAW is to be
supplemented by the project proposal: Feral Cattle Hunt (see attachment) [comment is
complementary to those made by L. Hadway and S. Bergfeld; will add this information and
summarize the cattle hunt plan, an example of a wildlife management BMP.]

T

RACY

IEGNER

, UH H

ILO

Dr. Wiegner has multiple short comments of a scientific editing nature, too many to be addressed
here separately, these will be responded to during editing. Her major observations re the plan
can be summarized as follows:

p. 8.
Suggest using bacteria in biomonitoring as well.
Suggest lower gage should be established in Wailuku River
Not comfortable with using NRCS visual assessment protocol for monitoring

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?175

p.9. re the TMDL data: ?I?m concerned about Waiakea data?there is construction occurring in
2 locations in ephemeral part of stream?probably skewing the results.?

p. 17: note that arsenic can be taken up by phytoplankton using the pathway as phosphorus

p. 18: where do cruise ships currently dump their waste? [legally at sea, 3 miles out, after pre-
treatment, but there are no inspections of treatment facilities on board, and there are records of
violations?dumping in Hawaii in inner island areas, including protected areas]

p. 21. Re the table of listed impaired waters: ?How do you do a visual assessment on Alenaio
stream, when it never flows??

p. 22: ?should include a list with state standards and compare values for Hilo sites to them? [this
is difficult to do, as the standards are not fixed and vary with the season and the number of
samples taken. The standards are posted on the DOH web site. Also remember that there is a
difference between the state standards and the visual assessment standards].

p. 22, 23: Visual assessment is not a valid way of assessing water quality; it would be good to
show once and for all with observational and experimental data that visual assessment is not an
accurate measure of water quality.

p. 22: why aren?t fecal indicator bacteria being measured in streams, given that they may be
coming from streams into the bay? [we assume that this is due to 1) lack of resources and 2) the
fact that monitoring is designed to determine beach closures, not to detect and correct the source
of contamination]

p. 23: please clarify whether a secchi disk is used in the visual assessment for turbidity, and what
criteria were used for developing the visual assessment for turbidity system [this information is
not given in the visual assessment guidelines; as far as we can tell, the observer can consider
any object or no object at all, and secchi disks are not mentioned; in addition to the scaling
system already described, the following narrative is also provided re the assessment of turbidity:
?Clarity of the water is an obvious and easy feature to asses. The deeper an object in the water
can be seen, the lower the amount of turbidity. Use the depth that objects are visible only if the
stream is deep enough to evaluate turbidity using this approach. For example, if the water is
clear, but only 20 cm deep, do not rate it as if an object became obscured at a depth of 20 cm.
This measure should be taken after a stream has had the opportunity to ?settle? following a
storm event. This element cannot be measured after recent heavy rains (come back to the site
another day). Recognize that organics acids can create tea-colored water; this is not turbidity
and should not be counted as turbid. Identify the condition and note the score on the datasheet]

p. 24: is Honolii stream considered altered or unaltered [will check]

p. 24: what does ?allocating loads? mean in the TMDL process? [it means that after the overall
pollutant levels are identified, and the hydrology of the stream determined, the various pollutant
sources (e.g. farmland, urban areas, logging, industry] are given a limit of how much they can

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?176

contribute to the pollutant load in the stream, so that no more pollution enters the stream than
what the stream can ?handle?, or process biologically, chemically, and hydrologically]

p. 24, re the study by under way by Dr. Wiegner and Dr. Richard Makenzie: nutrient loads will
be a rough estimate, as there is no gage at the lower site on the Wailuku; ?the study is not funded
to make enough measurement to really calculate annual loads?. Also, the study won?t actually
tell us what is coming from agricultural areas, it will only separate forest areas from urban areas.

p. 25: re her recommendations as cited in the draft: ?I would say?identify sources of nutrients,
sediments and bacteria to bay using tracers for particular sources? [will modify the original
statement to reflect this]

p. 26: again, please show the state standards on the graphs [we will try to provide a meaningful
summary of the state standards]

p. 26: we need to actually measure the amount of fresh water seepage into the bay, along with its
nutrient content [agreed, see research recommendations later]

p. 30. The station on Honolii stream at Papaikou measures water from an agricultural area, so
you should not really consider this as typical of other streams in the area [note, will change the
wording, N levels in Honolii therefore may be more typical of an agricultural area.]

p. 30. Eliminate statement about Dr. Wiegner?s ?unexpectedly low? levels of N in Wailuku,
because she doesn?t ?know how her values compare to theirs? [ok]

p. 30: ?are the chlorophyll samples taken by USGS benthic or from the water column? Benthic is
more appropriate.? [will check]

p. 31: re stream flow data: ?only 2 locations are gaged and they are high in the watershed, not at
the river mouths? [We are not sure how many of the USGS stations are currently active. We have
no reason to doubt Dr. Wiegener?s statement that there are only 2 stations gauged right now.
Obviously these two stations are inadequate to the task of monitoring discharge for the purposes
of obtaining a big picture of where contaminants are coming from in the watershed].

p. 31: note that the recent loss of the USGS office on the Big Island is seriously hampering
monitoring efforts here?

p. 31. One of the problems with the existing data sets is that data were not gathered in a
coordinated fashion, so that different types of information do not correspond in time and space
with each other [agree, this is why we recommend a good research design, beyond a monitoring
design]

p. 32-33. Re Objectives of Restoration Plan: for item 1, also need to know when doe the
sediments come into the bay?base flow, storm flow, wet season, dry season, and the amounts.
Same goes for nutrients in Wailuku and Wailoa river (item 3). Also, add 3 more objectives to

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?177

the list: 1. Identify the sources of bacteria in the bay, and develop BMP to reduce them [first
need to determine sources, then develop bmps; if bacteria do not originate in in sewage/animal
waste, then there is no need to reduce them]. 2. Determine the impact of invasive species in
rivers and estuaries (plants and animals). 3. Determine the effects of paving and stream channel
modifications on water quality of streams and bay (sediment loads, important ecological services
provided by stream beds, like denitrification). [with respect to this last objective, the impacts of
stream channel modification are fairly well-known, and BMPs to restore stream beds or lessen
the impact of the modifications should be considered

[The most common alteration to

channelized streams is to put a small sub-channel in the bottom of the channel to allow for a
constant flow of water even at very low discharge rates. Channelization basically turns a stream
into a storm sewer/garbage dump and any ?ecological services? provided by the stream are lost.
Whatever goes into the channel will wash down the channel unaltered. Restoration of these
means removing the concrete and returning them to a natural substrate. This is unlikely to
happen]. [With respect to new objective 1, we will include something on this, as others have
brought it up?i.e. animal vs. human vs. soil, cesspool vs. sewer leaks, ground water vs. surface
water; some of these are already addressed in the draft plan. With respect to new objective 2,
we will add this as an objective, but with a focus on feral ungulates as well as on marine
organisms; the issue of invasive algae is already mentioned and is of great concern. With
respect to the first part of the comment, we agree, and note that later in the plan we recommend
a research design that includes all water sources and all seasons].

p. 33. Re approaches to achieving objectives: one approach is to understand the ?response of
Hilo Bay to drought, flood and redevelopment? [good point, though with this as an end goal,
even more research and modeling will be needed]. Also, make sure the monitoring plan is long-
term, otherwise it is not useful.

p. 34: re cruise ships: ?Hilo needs to charge fee to passengers for services in town? [this is why
we recommend a study to find out where the taxes levied on cruise ships are going, and suggest
that the County of Hawaii insist that revenues from ships calling in Hilo should stay in Hilo]

p. 34, re wetlands: wetlands will help reduce sediment and nutrient inputs to bay [wetland
restoration is one of the BMPs we recommend]

p. 34, re item 12: ?UH Hilo cold be a center for fresh and coastal water research in the state?
[that would be great, but UH Manoa already has the WRRC and CTAHR, so it is unlikely that
large investment in this area will happen in Hilo. However, research to be done in Hilo area
should definitely be done by Hilo-based researchers]

p. 34. Item 13: include USDA Forest Service and UHGS as partners in any MOU [will include in
list]

p. 35: re reducing the number of cesspools: ?give tax incentives for hookups; need to help
communities financially to hook up, it costs a lot of money; give them some kind of assistance or
incentive? [agreed, either an incentive or a direct grant to the County do to the job is required;
this is one BMP that could be immediately financed]

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?178

p. 36: re grubbing and grading: ?use fines for research? [fines will probably never provide much
in the way of research funds, better to invest the fines back into the enforcement agency, which
provides incentive for the agency to enforce its rules. More to the point fines are unlikely ever to
be levied in Hawaii]

p. 37, re ACOE model of Hilo Bay Circulation: Compare model with water quality parameters to
crate a nutrient and sediment budget for Hilo Bay [this suggestion is not entirely clear, but we do
agree that the model should be available to serve the community?s needs for further information
on Hilo, and especially to future researchers, and that if the model can be made more inclusive
right from the start it should be done that way. It should remain proprietary ACOE information
after it is developed, especially as it was funded through the County of Hawaii.]

p. 39. Re modules: ?would modules be produced after 5 year initial period? It would be hard to
do many of them before that without the critical information? [no, modules or any other form of
education must start immediately. The modules can highlight the current state of knowledge,
focusing on both the weaknesses and strengths of the current information available, and can
indicate the need for more research, and in fact they should highlight the role of research in
management, to increase community support for research]

p. 41: other researchers who could participate in research: Dr. Lisa Muehlstein (UH Hilo
microbiologist); Dr. Jim Beets (UH Hilo Marine Science, fish specialist); Dr. Richard Mackenzie
(USDA Forest Service, wetlands ecologist); Dr. Jason Turner (UH Hilo Marine Science, food
web ecologist); Dr. Fred Mackenzie (UH Manoa water chemistry). On p. 45, more names are
given under Biological studies: Karla McDermid (UH Hilo Marine Sciences, seaweed); Misaki
Takabyashi (UH Hilo Marine Sciences, coral) [names noted; this list highlights the broad base of
research expertise and management potential at UH Hilo]

p. 46: consider monitoring insects as well, as they provide food for vertebrates and provide an
indirect link between water quality and vertebrate diversity [noted, but would have to work with
exotic insects at these lowland sites; fish monitoring is practical because the monitoring can be
done by the fishers themselves, rather than by an insect ecologist]

P

ETER

EFFRON

, HBWAG

AND TEACHER IN LOCAL SCHOOL SYSTEM

In general, I think it is an excellent draft paper. My main observation is that the paper presents
the Hilo Bay Watershed challenges in a sequence that does not feel ?natural? or logical.
Suggested Ordering: Executive Summary > The Problem > The Solution > Background >
Appendices: Budget > Logframe > Maps > other documents. Also, I would include a section on
Risk Analysis (?constraints?), perhaps as a sub-section in ?8.3?Approach to Achieving
Objectives.? List the top few priority issues that could derail each action and state what would be
done to prevent, mitigate, or respond to each issue. This will add credibility to the plan.

[This is a major rearrangement of plan structure and cannot be done at this point. The HBWAG should
produce a document that reflects their own organizational needs and priority setting].

1-Summary

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?179

It?s good, but the intro may be too ?abrupt? for the average reader. An initial paragraph on
watersheds, water quality, and development, and the link between these would be helpful.
Something to grab people?s attention and draw them in?. Also, mention of a model watershed
restoration initiative could be useful, especially if in Hawaii. Helps re-ensure people their efforts
and resources wont necessarily go down a rat hole.

[The summary has been updated to include more information, but has not been adapted for the general
reader, as it is meant for technical personnel at DOH.]

2?Project Background
This section is well put together, in my opinion. The only thing that makes me a bit anxious is
the five-year time frame (especially item#6) focused on research and monitoring?as the Hilo
Bay Watershed disintegrates at an accelerating rate (based on the personal observations and the
experience of countless other watersheds).

[We are hesitant to recommend embarking upon site specific physical restoration projects before defining
the extent/causes. We do suggest some other measures that are not site specific that can be implemented.]

I think the part of the watershed degradation problem related to increasing?but not
systematically documented?pressure on this watershed is not adequately represented in this or
any of the other sections of the draft paper. For example, we have relatively unplanned rapid
urban/suburban expansion in our watershed (runoff, sewerage, and other issues) and relatively
unplanned rapid expansion of cruise-ship visits (air and water pollution?no environmental
impact assessments). Both examples could have severe effects on the watershed that could cost
far more to remedy than to prevent/mitigate.

[No data were provided during the community input process or the later research process on the rate and
pattern of growth in Hilo over the last few years. This was not detailed as a concern in the initial
discussions. However, note that we address this topic under the BMPs dealing with Low Impact
Development and Zoning.]

The ?mindset? of a five-year research and monitoring project (the restoration plan) would likely
preclude preventive as well remedial action in a timely manner. My suggestion is to keep
perhaps ?two-thirds? of the five year effort in practical research and monitoring, but explicitly
move the other third of the effort into policy analysis, stakeholder (governmental, non-
governmental) involvement, lobbying and advocacy for watershed sustainability, etc.

[This concern is addressed in section 11.5??Immediate implementation of critical actions.? And section
11.6 ?Education plan (education as a BMP)?]

I realize this may be controversial, but that in parallel (as opposed to starting after the first five
years), based on lessons learned in other watersheds, takes action to prevent or reduce negative
impacts on the watershed, impacts that by the time they are fully analyzed and understood, may
well have altered the Hilo Bay Watershed beyond economically/socially/environmentally
feasible remediation. Put yet another way, the draft plan conveys no sense of the trends such as
rapid growth affecting the watershed, and no sense of urgency. Without going overboard or
being too alarmist, a small injection of these things (i.e., ?reality?) is warranted and might
improve chances for carrying out the WRP.

[We are certainly cognizant of the fact of Hilo?s unbridled growth and the risk it poses to the health of the
watershed. However we consider it more credible to present the facts in as unbiased a tone as possible.
In the prevailing social climate any hint of fear-mongering vis-�-vis impending environmental calamity
may be looked upon as specious by those with a vested interest in maintaining the status-quo.]

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?180

Crucial BMPs that do not require solid evidence or comprehensive understanding of the problem,
should be implemented, even if on a pilot basis, as soon as possible during the first five years.
Many BMPs are sufficiently ?generic,? only requiring fine-tuning to suit local conditions, to
have a positive effect in the Hilo Bay Watershed?Again, I think we advocate somewhere in the
plan some kinds of social interventions starting right away.

[Again, we make some suggestions for immediate actions in sections in the main text, and in the new
section on BMPs and demonstration projects]

3?WATERSHED BACKGROUND
Overall, this section looks good.

Hydrology

Might it be apropo to mention global warming/climate change and the potential effects on the
Hilo Bay Watershed?

[See BMP # 14.]

Also, I believe we have officially been in a drought for several years, even though this is the
rainiest part of the island. This should be mentioned to balance the assumption that this
watershed doesn?t have to worry about an abundance of fresh water.

[It would be good to keep this in mind insofar as it could strengthen the case for taking measures to
improve the watershed given that we can expect even higher flow rates than have been experienced in the
watershed over the several years of drought. Note that we require 5 years of data in our monitoring plan
to detect trends in pollution levels.]

3.4?Land Ownership
A map would be useful. This section needs a bit more information covering, for example, how
the large landowners interact (or don?t) and how the HBWAG plans on involving them in the
restoration work.

[See comments on DLNR-DHHL collaboration]

Mention should also be made of the Federal Government, which owns the land at the top of the
watershed and which plans on contributing to an expansion of the highway that bisects the
watershed. A new Army Stryker Brigade is slated to be based close to the top of the watershed.
Although its impacts on the watershed, if any, are not known to most (there is an EIA, however),
it should at least be mentioned in the restoration plan as something to explore further.[we are
looking for information on this]

Urban Areas

If possible, please mention what the watershed used to be like per early Hawaiians and explorers.
I would say a little about the ahupua?a concept and what the Hilo downtown area was like 200
years ago (i.e., marshes, taro patches, etc.).

[Uncertain about the utility of such a description. There seems little hope of restoring the watershed to
pre-European contact condition, this was not a goal mentioned by the community.]

The word ?landfill? is mentioned only once in the draft paper, yet landfill problems are likely to
be among the more dominant ones over the next 5 years and beyond (it is a major crisis even

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?181

now). The present Hilo landfill will be closed in five months. And it is unlined. It is bound to
have negative impact on ground water and probably Hilo Bay for many years. Thus it should be
mentioned in the plan, ideally with a strategy to include it in the restoration plan?s monitoring
activities.

[Agree that the landfill issue is important and should be considered in any restoration plan. However,at
this point the only action we could take is to monitor water flow from the area of the landfill and
determine whether it is contaminate; such monitoring should already be carried out on a regular basis by
county officials. Did the WAG receive information that monitoring was showing polluted waters in the
area of the landfill? It would be worth checking into the quality, regularity and scale of monitoring for
the landfill, to determine whether it is sufficient to detect any problems.

The Friends of Downtown Hilo planning process and collaboration with the HBWAG?s efforts
should be mentioned.
Done

8.1?Overall Conceptual Approach to Restoration
Can?t we say the ultimate goal is a sustainable watershed, and a watershed management plan will
help us get there; and say that the water restoration proposal focuses on the water quality
elements of the problem? As presented in the draft, this section seems a bit ?disjointed.? In
WAGSC discussions we used the analogy of two umbrellas. The first umbrella is the watershed
and the watershed management plan. The second, smaller umbrella?the water restoration
initiative?lies under the first umbrella. Logically, ideally, we would have opened the first
(watershed) umbrella before the water restoration umbrella, but since that wasn?t to be, we need
to work on both simultaneously, in a coordinated manner.

[Embarking on a discussion of sustainability will get us off-track with the EPA requirements. This is a
topic for the WAG to develop and write up].

8.2?Objectives of Restoration Plan
The main objective seems to be missing: improve the water quality of Hilo Bay

[Incorporated now].

ENE

ICHAUD

, UH-H

ILO

YDROLOGIST

p. 10, first line. Is Paukaa misspelled Pauka? .

Yes, should be Paukaa

Last paragraph on p. 10. We really don't know the ratio of stream to groundwater freshwater
inputs. Instead of saying that "most" of the freshwater is from streams (is it?), why not say that
in this area--unlike areas to the south--there are perennial stream contributing freshwater to the
coastline. Strike the word "Pahala" (the ash in this area has a different source than the Pahala ash
in Kau).

[We are citing from M & E Pacific?s (1980) Hilo Bay Comprehensive Survey]

Table on p. 11. Does the source state the methods used to estimate the groundwater fluxes?
Please cite the original source of the groundwater data in the table and map. (I assume you got
the info from M and E Pacific, but where did they get it from?)

[They used a flow net (derived from head levels in wells) produced by John Mink ? local groundwater
hydrologist, but do not include any citation. They support their findings regarding the magnitude of
groundwater flux by citing the work of Fischer et al. who looked at freshwater springs into Hilo Bay
using infrared imaging ca. 1966.]

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?182

P discussion on p. 12. Were the elevated P levels for total P or dissolved P? Can you be sure that
higher P levels in the wet season are due to "surface" runoff. . It could be partly from higher P
fluxes in groundwater (groundwater fluxes will increase with recent rainfall) or re-mobilization
of P that previously sorbed to the rocks that the groundwater was moving through.

[P levels were Total - M&E report pg. VII-26 Yes, I suppose so. We were quoting from M&E. We cannot
be sure that the highher P levels in the wet season are due to "surface" runoff].

"Surface" runoff is not a useful term because during baseflow conditions the streamflow is
derived from groundwater. Storm runoff is probably a mix of true surface runoff, runoff
traveling through the shallow subsurface and groundwater.

[Yes, ?surface runoff? is an ambiguous term.]

Pesticides in GW (fifth paragraph on p. 10). Double check the maps to make sure if the
contaminated wells are in the Hilo Bay watershed, and give a general description of the locations
of the contaminated wells that are in the watershed. Please note that there is a new map out for
2004.

[New maps for 2004 not yet available from DOH The URL we give for the maps in the bibliography is
wrong and should be changed to
http://hawaii.gov/health/environmental/water/sdwb/conmaps/pdf/conmaps03.pdf]

p. 16 - History of sewage systems. Please add the following (from Kelly et al, 1981)

[done].

Hilo's first sewer system, which delivered raw sewage inside the breakwater was completed in
1905-1906. The system was expanded in 1935-1937 to incorporate a longer outfall and hook up
Waiakea Town. The capacity of the Waiakea segment was too small, and at times raw sewage
was discharged into Wailoa River. In 1952, 3.5 million gallons per day of raw sewage were
discharged from the outfall, but most of the town relied on cesspools, not the sewage system. In
1962, the Hilo Sewer System served about 20% of the Hilo population. The sewage system was
upgraded in 1966 to include primary treatment, locate the outfall outside of the breakwater (off
Puhi Bay), and other improvements. The treatment plant was upgraded to secondary treatment
sometime after 1980.
note: if possible please report when the secondary treatment and Puhi Bay outfall were
completed. I don't know the date offhand.

Sewer connections on p. 16 - fourth line from the bottom. Please add that typical costs for
connecting are on the order of $5,000-$15,000 per house, depending on the amount of lava rock
that must be excavated and whether a pump needs to be installed. This cost is the major barrier
to more hook ups. To address lack of hook ups we must address the cost barrier. Can we do
anything to soften this barrier?
P. 16. The report should note that the sewage outfall has a NPDES permit. Can you refer us to
information on the permit or self-monitoring data? We are not considering the outfall as a source
of pollution for Hilo Bay
P. 16. You should mention the gang cesspools, which are currently the focus of regulatory
action. Contact Dan Chang at DOH for more information. .

[Mentioned as BMP]

P. 17 (bioaccumulation of arsenic). There is a sentence that says that fish DO bioaccumulate
AND it is rapidly excreted. Which is it? It can't be both.

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?183

Bioaccumulation within an individual is not the same as biomagnification up the food chain, so amounts
are small. Language in text modified to clarify this issue].

P. 17 (gas plant). The 2000 flood stirred up creosote (?) from the gas plant and spread it over
the soccer fields, some of which were closed for a long time. This issue deserves more attention
in this report.

[Unfamiliar with the incident. Need to find information from Hilo DOH rep. Not reported as a water
quality issue associated with turbidity, fecal contamination or nutrients by DOH, however, so not
included in this plan, which addresses the issues for which the bay was specifically listed in the 303d list
of impaired waters]

P. 17 current uses of the bay. The report neglects to mention commercial shipping.

[It is mentioned as occurring, in relation to the breakwater]

For regulatory purposes, please mention that Hilo bay is regulated as class A waters and list the
water quality objectives of class A waters (see p. 54-9 of Hawaii Administrative Rules, Tittle ``
(DOH), Ch 54 Water Quality Standards). Please provide similar information for the tributaries.
DOH may be able to clarify for the streams. ;
[Done for Hilo Bay. ]

P. 19, to the UHH researchers please add Jon-Pierre Michaud (chemistry dept) who has expertise
in toxicology and is working on pesticide exposures via stream biota. Was already mentioned
later in plan.

P. 22. Please clarify the DOH guidelines regarding the temporal and spatial sampling frequency
required to determine if a water quality exceeds regulatory guidelines. For streams, you need 10
samples, but over what length of time? The same question applies to 2% criteria. DOH written
documentation does not seem to say, so you may need clarification from DOH.) It would be
extremely interesting to know, on a stream by stream and parameter by parameter basis, whether
the existing sampling program is sufficient to determine if violations are or are not occurring.

[We already had a brief description of these standard and systems in Section 7. Detail are available on
the web at the DOH website and in the latest list of Impaired Waters for Hawaii, which can be
downloaded from the same site.]

Sediment Toxicity Data. Did anyone ever interpret all that sediment data (metals and organic
chemicals) (plus some aqueous assays for metals and organic chemicals) that were taken in Hilo
Bay and Waiakea pond from 1976-1987? (or the similar USGS data for streams?) The
Restoration plan does not cite any report associated with the data. I believe that a worthwhile
research project would be to interpret this data in terms of ecological and human health concerns.
Since the data is already collected, we would get a large amount for our expenditure.

[Spoke to Terence Teruya at DOH Clean Water Branch about this data. There are some problems with it,
and the lab that did the analyses was subsequently closed down by the EPA. Think Terry did some
analysis of the data.]

It is essential that the report includes a table that lists the DOH regulatory standards for Hilo Bay
and the streams flowing into it. Please indicate whether (when?) Hilo Bay is held to the wet
versus dry standard (ask DOH for clarification). Also mention or list the standards for metals
and organic chemicals listed on p. 54-11 of (see p. 54-9 of Hawaii Administrative Rules, Tittle
`` (DOH), Ch 54 Water Quality Standards).

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?184

[We feel it is not essential. It is not the objective of this plan to interpret and improve upon the DOH?s
standards. HAR is available on the web].

The tables and charts would be improved by inclusion of information on the applicable
regulatory standard for the parameter under discussion.

[Regulatory standards are not clear-cut enough to be included on a single page in most cases.]

The document should be reformatted so that the figure caption appears on the same page as the
figure itself.

[Agreed.]

I don't recall whether the report addresses whether the bay is well oxygenated. When I looked at
Storet Legacy data from Hilo Bay I found that (from 4/4/74-10/6/97) 18% of DO samples were
below the regulatory standard. This seems significant.

[D.O. will vary a lot depending where (depth, site) samples were taken].

Section 7.13 (streamflow data). The report should mention that there was a large body of
streamflow data, plus some water quality data at a USGS station near where the Wailuku River
enters Hilo Bay (station 16713000), but the data have been retracted due to quality assurance
issues. There was also a large amount of very valuable sediment data for this site, but until the
quality assurance issues with the streamflow can be resolved, the sediment data cannot be
considered perfectly reliable either. It is my opinion that the USGS should be pressured to issue
a revision stating which data can be considered reliable. Some options to consider include
partnering with the agency that paid for the data (and presumably has a vested interest in getting
updated information) or asking the USGS how much they would charge to issue a revision.
[Recent discussions with the USGS indicate that it is, in fact, the sediment data that is unreliable
while

the flow data has been checked.]

The report should mention Leptospirosis, as it does pose a potentially significant health threat
(risk of death) to those who recreate or work in streams, even if only a small number of people
become seriously ill. This is a notable omission in the DOH monitoring efforts. Education needs
to address Lepto. I am forced to recommend to my students that they not wade or swim in
streams, which is a problem for doing water sampling.

[It should be noted that Leptospira are not easy to monitor for, especially if you care if it is the
pathogenic kind. Environmental waters are full of non-pathogenic types which are almost impossible to
distinguish from the pathogenic strains. Standard laboratory methods for detecting them in water do not
exist. People working in the streams should wear waders. The waters were not listed for leptospirosis, as
there are no state standards for this.]

The following two items should definitely be included in the reference list: The first is a
wonderful reference

[Done]

Kelly, M. (Marion), B. Nakamura, and D.B. Barrere. Hilo Bay, a chronological history : land
and water use in the Hilo Bay area, island of Hawaii. prepared for U.S. Army Engineer District,
Honolulu Publisher: [Honolulu] : Bernice P. Bishop Museum, c1981 Description: xiii, 341 p., [3]
folded sheets : ill., maps ; 28 cm.
Halbig, J. B. Barnard, Bartlett, Overfield, and Abbott. A baseline study of ground water
geochemistry in the Kawaihae and Hilo areas on the island of Hawaii. prepared for] Dept. of
Planning and Economic Development, State of Hawaii. Publisher: [Honolulu] : Dept. of
Planning and Economic Development, 1986. Description: vi, 74 p. : ill. ; 28 cm.

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?185

The following reference is in the library, but I don't know how important it is.
Title: Hilo Bay pollution study / prepared by the Student-Originated-Studies Program ; National
Science Foundation, Student Project Directors: Michael S. Osato, Mary Lou Yuen ; Faculty
Project Advisor: Dr. John G. Chan. Publisher: Hilo, 1971. Description: iv, 165 p. : ill. ; cm.

Main Comments on Proposed Monitoring Plan (p. 42-44)
Instead of specifying the details implementing the monitoring plan, why not be specific about the
goals and seek competitive bids for the implementation of the plan? The competitive bids may
have better or more effective plans than we can come up with in the next month.

[Depends on our interpretation of our mandate. ]

In most cases I am opposed to the use of volunteers for data collection. Quality data will suffer.

[Disagree. Monitoring can be done effectily with well trained, well-organized volunteers. It also depends
what kind of data the volunteers are collecting. It does not require a PhD scientist to collect data.
Furthermore, the educational return of working with volunteers is huge.]

I feel rather strongly that visual assessment should be discontinued in favor of quantitative
measures.

[No, visual techniques can be useful for monitoring if calibrated to quantitative data, as we propose.]

There is already a large amount of water quality data, and before we spend money getting more,
we should try to interpret the data we already have. I propose that we contract out a study to
examine the existing data for the purpose determining if there is a relationship between stream
water quality (suspended sediment concentrations, nutrient concentrations, turbidity), and a)
streamflow levels, previous rainfall, b) soils (Mauna Kea vs. Mauna Loa shields), and c) land
use. Similar studies could be entertained to examine the variability of Bay nutrients, C.
perfringens, and turbidity in relationship to rainfall (which could affect groundwater fluxes),
streamflow, and high surf.

[We think the existing data is woefully inadequate to the task of identifying sources of pollution in the
Bay.As we must have stated elswhere, the data was mostly collected for the purposes of public safety, not
pollutant source identification. Feel that little can be learned from examining existing data.]

To re-emphasize, we need to know more about how stream water quality varies with streamflow
level and soil type. Otherwise we may have trouble interpreting how stream water quality varies
with landuse.

[Agreed Yes.]

In addition to looking at sources of pollutants we need to do baseline monitoring (a few key
parameters in a few key locations) so we know how water quality is changing over time. This
baseline data is essential for prioritizing restoration projects determining their effectiveness. It
appears (if I can believe the data sets I got from Peter Rapa, which may be incomplete for recent
years) that DOH has stopped monitoring certain parameters that are probably exceeding
regulatory standards in certain spots.

[Base flow data will be useful in identifying sources of groundwater pollution, such as the contributions
from onsite disposal systems. We feel, however that restoration will/should probably focus more on storm
flows as turbidity is the principal reason for the Bay?s inclusion on the 319 list and storms are when the
greater amount of sediment is flowing into the Bay. DOH has stopped monitoring for most parameters at
most sites. They only sample at a couple of beach sites now.]

If money were no object, I would recommend a spatially intensive monitoring scheme to
establish the spatial variability in Bay nutrients, turbidity, chlorophyll-a, and C. perfringens .

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?186

However I feel that this is a lower priority than the monitoring and mentioned in the previous
paragraph.

[We respectfully disagree. We think that identifying the sources of turbidity and other contaminants
throughout the watershed is the top priority, and that base flow quality characterization is secondary.]

The extant land use data that is in GIS-readable format isn't that great. The biggest problem is
identifying active vs. inactive ag lands. So I would agree that better land use data is a priority,
but it may cost more than you have budgeted.
[note that such data will become available shortly from other agencies?eg NRCS]

Ultimately we need to better understand nutrient cycling within the Bay itself, as that is the key
to understanding the impact of the nutrient fluxes. This is the sort of thing that could be done
with a $300,000 NSF grant, but can probably wait until we have a better handle on the amount
AND FORMS/SPECIES of nutrient fluxes.
Understanding the cesspool/groundwater system is very important. It should be possible to
identify N from cesspools (as opposed to fertilizer) using stable nitrogen isotopes (possibly in
conjunction with oxygen isotopes). This data, in conjunction with bacterial data and a
mathematical groundwater model linked to a cesspool map could get a handle on this issue.
Once challenge will be the shortage of wells in Hilo. I would roughly estimate $200,000 for this
project.

[This would be an interesting and worthwhile project to recommend.]

Additional Comments on Proposed Monitoring Plan
Please note that in much of the Hilo Bay watershed, there are severe constraints on the number of
locations where samples can be taken. These constraints relate to: lack of roads, deep
inaccessible river channels, safety; and landowner permissions. Replicate sample sites (more
than one site per land use) are really not possible.

[We feel that samples obtained from as high as is practicable can tell us a lot. If someone can get up
there to farm or hunt then presumably someone can get up there to take a sample.]

You should budget about $10,00 each for automated storm flow samplers.

[Okay.]

If students are hired to do field sampling, we should budget for transportation, as many do not
have cars. [

Yes].

In general, the listed costs of the research plan are much lower than would be required to do a
quality job. [

We did not intend these figures to be final. Individual proposals, with budgets, will have to

be developed by researchers and others once DOH decides which aspects of the WRP it is interested in
funding, or by researchers seeking independent funds]

What do you mean by "manual samplers" for N and P?[

grab samplers]

During storms, you cannot get representative TSS data from grab samples. Representative TSS
data (and reliable TP data) must be taken from flow- and depth- integrated samples, which are
practically impossible to get unless you have a cable-way like the one at the Piihonua site. This
appears to be a (financially) unavoidable limitation.

[We feel that, while they may not be entirely representative, grab samples would provide useful data of
sufficient quality to make determinations about relative contributions of sediment by different streams
during storm runoff events at an acceptable cost. We believe in thinking outside the box. There are many
people out there who can probably come up with alternative methods to sample water, given sufficient
incentive]

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?187

Please contact Kathleen Ruttenberg (kcr@soest.hawaii.edu) for ideas about monitoring for P
sources and studying the P dynamics in the Bay. As P cycles between various forms the bio-
availability changes.
Comments on Waiakea Pond and Wetland Restoration (p. 45)
It is not at all clear that there is community support for wetland restoration. Perhaps we should
suggest a feasibility study rather than a demonstration project.

This could be very true and should be investigated by the WAG for community acceptance. There is
extensive data to support the ecological services provided by wetlands. The community should be
educated about these ecological services.

If you do stick with a recommendation for a demonstration project, you will need funding for lab
measurements of nutrients.

Concluding Comments

I spent a lot of time reviewing the restoration plan but ran out of time, which is why I

don't have any comments on the education plan. Again, I wonder if it might be better to focus on
the goals we want to accomplish and a broad plan for how to accomplish them, but not go into
too much detail on implementation. There may be controversy on some of the goals. Is there a
plan for reviewing and coming to a consensus?

We had difficulty getting a consensus from the WAG on what the goals of restoration should be.

TEPHEN

KIPPER

, RC & D, NRCS

Summary
Between sentence 2, 1 & 2: In the mid to late 90?s the Wailuku River drainage basin experienced
a drastic change in land use activities. Following the departure of sugar plantation operations and
the cessation of continuous harvest and tillage cycles much of the area was stabilized by
volunteer cover, modified for residential development and smaller areas were planted to other
crops. Overall, annual tilled and open or bare land acreage has been drastically decreased. Any
water quality and erosion and sedimentation data gathered during the former period may no
longer present a valid picture of current sources and levels of impairment in this watershed.

[done]

paragraph last sentence add: ?and the possibility of setting unattainable standards of for

water quality?.
Project Background
2.1 Review accuracy of M&E data in the last sentence??one of the largest basal groundwater
spring areas of the world? ( Amazon Basin and others notwithstanding,)

We?ll take M&E?s word for it, it is after all a quote.

Watershed Background - S. Skipper, RC&DC comments.
3.10 Agricultural, Lands ? Paragraph 3 needs some revision. Please refer to similar comments
on section 8.5-3 on data and Conservation Plans and practices. The last paragraph in this section
is misleading to a degree in that the NRCS Hawaii Field Office Technical Guide (FOTG) is
locally adapted and contains standards and specifications for all conservation practice
application. The NRCS National Conservation Planning Procedures Handbook (NPPH) is
also used to link and associate practices in a systematic manner for specific types of plans.
Planners use these manuals to insure that practices are appropriate and integrated to apply a
?conservation systems? approach in development of the Conservation Plan documents. The

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?188

Hawaii FOTG is accessible on the web through the NRCS Hawaii website. Conservation practice
application effectiveness is also well documented. NOTE: I said application. If a plan and
associated practices are not applied they t can?t be viewed as complete or effective.

Modified as requested

CURRENT USES OF THE BAY
3.13 PG. 18 Surfing and Swimming Hilo Bayfront as it is called is one of the longest and best
left hand surfing breaks in the State of Hawaii. It has a narrow swell window and breaks
infrequently predominantly from October through February. The surf spot has a long cultural
history and is referenced by Isabel Byrd Bishop in her novel Six Months in the Sandwich
Islands. There is a large contingent of dedicated wave riders that use surf based website
information to predict the swell events and the spot can accommodate larger amounts of surfers
due to the expansive nature of the surfing area.

[modified as requested].

Swimming is not uncommon at the Wailuku river mouth but the beach is small. Most of this type
of activity would be better termed ?wading? especially along the Bayfront Beach or Canoe
Beach section of the shoreline and Wailoa Boat Ramp where children often can be seen playing
in the shallows on the weekends while parents participate in paddling or fishing activities.
A common complaint is water turbidity and skin irritations that have been observed from time to
time from some unidentified sea creature(s). Since this popular surfing spot sits at the mouth of
the river with largest volume of water in the state some studies should be undertaken along the
reach of the riparian system to locate and quantify potential pollutant/bacterial entry points. Most
of the inputs into the marine environment are likely traveling into the bay in or on the waters of
the Wailuku. (S. Skipper ? pers. comm.)

[recommended].

EXISTING MANAGEMENT EFFORTS &WATER RELATED MASTER PLANS
2.) Pg 19. Somewhere in this section you might want too include plans for a project along
Kaumana Dr. from Chong St. Bridge to mile above Wilder Road that is associated with the
Waipahoehoe Stream corridor. This will consist of a series of smaller projects to protect homes
and is associated with the Wailuku-Alenaio Watershed project. The County of Hawaii will be
the project sponsor.

[done]

Technical assistance has and will be provided by NRCS.
S. Skipper, RC&DC comments.
NRCS - Existing Management Efforts and Water Related Master Plans - NRCS is involved
in ongoing efforts to promote stewardship by development of Conservation Plans for agricultural
producers in the Hilo Bay Watershed as well as other areas outside of the watershed. Some of
these plans will be associated with USDA Farm Bill cost sharing funds to implement erosion
control, grazing management and habitat enhancement and protection programs.
In addition there will be a review and selection of watershed areas (some in the WRP area) for
participation in the Conservation Security Program (CSP), another Farm Bill Program that
targets watershed areas and operators for stewardship incentive payments for applying higher
levels of conservation shown in their individual Conservation Plan.
The NRCS Field Office (FO) and is also responsible for working with the local Soil and Water
Conservation Districts to accomplish a GIS based Resource Inventory for the F.O. work area.
This inventory will include soils, watercourses, critical habitat, drought affected grazing lands,

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?189

coastal ponds, potential water quality problem areas, confined animal sites, wellhead locations,
fire hazard areas, noxious species and watershed project areas and many other resource concerns.
The Resource Inventory will include a sub-inventory of the Hilo Bay Watershed Restoration
Plan boundary area and have several layers of information in that section as well.
The NRCS Big Island RC&D Coordinator and RC&D Council are involved in assisting the
HBWAG with grant development, grant seeking and fiscal sponsorship of any received funds.
The RC&D Coordinator is also providing technical assistance and input on the Resource
Inventory and local water quality issues as a former co-researcher and student coordinator in a
previous Hilo Bay water quality study (A Study of Sewage Pollution Distribution and
Dispersion in Hilo by and Contiguous Waters Dudley, Hallacher, et al) work with University
of Hawaii @ Hilo 1988 -91.[incuded]
6. Sources Of Information On Water Quality In Hilo Bay - S. Skipper, RC&DC comments.
Might be better to start out with, ?There is little current research on the Hilo Bay ecosystem and
previous research is sparse at best.?

[sone]

This section should include the first mention of : A Study of Sewage Pollution Distribution
and Dispersion in Hilo Bay and Contiguous Waters, Dudley, Hallacher, et al. This 2 year
comprehensive study is mentioned elsewhere in the text and in the appendix but not in this intro.
section. This was a long term study and represents an equal or larger body of data than some of
the other mentioned studies. Probably the most comprehensive bacterial NPS study to date of the
contiguous waters of Hilo Bay. It also has data from other observations regarding surface and
subsurface current speed and direction, salinity stratification and specific data gathered on
bacterial dispersal at the Honolii Surfing Beach. [done]
8.5 Immediate implementation of critical actions: Undertake a study of soils in the watershed
before dooming all cesspools to see which are most appropriate for cesspools, septic systems and
which landscapes should have centralized sewage. Some soils may provide adequate filtration
for cesspools where others would be more suitable for septic systems. Some soil areas would
only be suitable for centralized sewage due to characteristics. Generally the younger landscapes
south of the Wailuku River are the most unsuitable for cesspools.

[Mentioned, but don?t know if soil information alone is adequate for making the determination of
suitability of on-site systems. Population density should also be considered.]

8.5 -3 & 4 - pg.37 ? Review and analyze existing SWCD soil management
plans/Consolidation of BMPs by NRCS ? There is a fairly complete record of all that you are
suggesting here and it has been in place for decades.

[note some modifications to the language here; however, we feel that an external review of the efficacy of
this system would be advisable]

This section needs to be revised. SWCD does not accomplish ?soil management plans? (the term
is Conservation Plans) for the most part, save for the few done by their 1 planner in the Hilo
NRCS Field Office. Plans are done by the NRCS staff with review and approval or denial by the
respective SWCD board at monthly meetings.
NRCS generally supervises elements of plan installation, but not always if producers are
comfortable installing. NRCS employees are required to provide designs and specifications for
all practices. All programmatic (FARM BILL and other) projects are inspected after installation
and need to meet NRCS standards and specifications (see FOTG above) before cost share
payments are made to producers. All conservation practices in the plan (BMPs in watershed
lingo ) are also designed according to NRCS specifications. In essence the NRCS Field Office

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?190

Technical Guides (FOTG) Number 1 through 5 are the ?consolidation of agricultural
BMPs by NRCS? that you are requesting.

[modifications made].

Conservation Plans are installed and completed at various levels according to producer need and
ability to accomplish. The highest level of Conservation Plan is the Resource Management
System (RMS) level plan and it addresses all identified resource concerns at that level. Resource
concerns are determined by pre-planning field inventories and producer concerns, goals and
operational considerations. Everything from cultural resources, soils, water quality and
endangered species are reviewed on standardized inventory check sheets.
Conservation Plan implementation is extensively documented in the NRCS Progress Reporting
Management System (PRMS) and soil erosion reduction rates, water conservation rates, acres
planted to ground cover, wetland acres created, habitat acres created or protected, no. of acres of
planted to buffers etc., etc., etc are all recorded in the system showing the net savings, gains and
quantifying the whole process.
In the past any citizen could access the NRCS, PRMS at the county level to see field office
progress through the NRCS and NRCS Hawaii Home pages. Maybe you still can. I haven?t been
in the field office for 2 years so I?m not sure. In addition the implication here is that Agricultural
activities seem to be targeted. There is a low level of agriculture in the watershed compared to
the total acreage.
Completing a resource inventory prior to much of this effort would align activities and determine
if some of them are needed at all. The review of the completed inventory would provide a great
deal of information about what is occurring in the watershed with land use and cover. Contacting
landowners to find out what their concerns and priorities are would help direct energy toward
problem identification, stake holder concern validation and landowner buy in..
8.6 Education Plan ? pg. 37 - S. Skipper, RC&DC comments.
Formal Education: The real trick here is figuring out HOW you are going to be included in any
formal curriculum. DOE may not want to play with any of this and may need to be involved
from the outset in the curriculum development if this is to be formalized. This may take a long
time to accomplish and may not be as practical as the informal approach.
The CANON ENVIROTHON competition is very successful in the mainland and encompasses a
wide range of environmental management concepts from water quality and biological integrity to
agriculture, forestry and soils. It would be of great benefit here for the schools. This contest is
well supported by the National Association of SWCDs on the mainland.. It should be
incorporated here as an annual competition.
CANON was providing $ 4000.00 for pilot program development.
[information added]
Pg. 41 ? In the section on researchers perhaps include Drs. Leon Hallacher, Ichthyology, Marine
Biology and Walter Dudley Oceanography, Dr. Randy Schneider, Chemistry and possible UHH
Marine Option Program (MOP) Student Research Projects, including possible transect setting
and monitoring under the summer Quantitative Underwater Environmental Survey Techniques
(QUEST) Program. This could be used to set transects for density and diversity of fish and coral
species that could be checked at a minimum annually or incorporated into other student research
projects for more frequent review. [done]
Pg. 42 ? Objectives of socio-economic research
1.) Is this really necessary?? Hilo Bay as opposed to Hilo Watershed. The cruise ship industry
probably has minimal effect on the watershed but I get the drift here.

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?191

2.) It is not clear yet what is being done or not done in the watershed with respect to management
that is contributing to the perceived problems. Inventory and research first and then recommend
management. Maybe that is what you are saying here. I don?t think all of the recommendations
can be accomplished concurrently. Should we have an implementation schedule on this to clarify
general phases of the WRP???
S. Skipper, RC&DC comments.
9. Proposed Management Structure, Phase 1 of Restoration Plan
Informal Education - There are a wide range of existing generic, to State of Hawaii specific
watershed education and information materials in many forms, from videos, posters, coloring
books and community watershed activity guidebooks. Several watershed partnership
organizations NGOs and particularly USDA have materials of this type.
I have produced local videos and currently the cost is $1500.00 per minute for finished
professional grade product. It might be more effective to produce a series of locally produced
SPOTS that could be run on channels here for increased public awareness. I think it might be
cheaper to search for and organize existing materials that could be adapted. Concept is really the
key and the general concepts on water quality and watershed stewardship can be learned from
existing sources. Also if curriculum is developed it needs to be incorporated (buy in) by DOE
before large amounts of money are spent.

Mr. Skipper makes some good points here.

It would also be best to produce anything locally on watershed dynamics after the research is
completed so that it is reflective of what happened here with the whole process of the HBWAG.
That would be a real documentary that would incorporate process, history, research and
recommendations. This what we thought and heard, this is what we found out from research,
this is how we told everyone and finally, this is what we did.

R

AKEMOTO

, D

EPUTY

IRECTOR

, C

OUNTY

LANNING

EPARTMENT

Summary. The Summary is often the only section read. We are partial to subheadings where
the main points and organization become apparent with a quick scan. Suggested subheadings
include: study area, plan objectives, findings, action plan.
[format was modified]
Project Background. The normal reader does not care how this plan conforms with the EPA
criteria. Perhaps that element-by-element analysis can be in an appendix. It is useful to know
what prompted this study, so the first paragraph is well-written. I would perhaps quote EPA?s
nine elements in one list, then synthesize how those elements have been applied by restating the
elements as plan objectives or determining the plan?s organization.
[Report is meant to be technical]

Watershed Background. A major section that seems to be missing is a discussion on previous
studies and history of Hilo Bay?how did we get where we are. For example, the arsenic from
the canec plant?is this still a concern in the sediments? If so, how does this affect the bottom
feeders (crabs and mullet)?
[We do address all these points in this section]

The other subsections could perhaps be organized by source (the land subsections), pathways
(hydrology), and receiving waters. The receiving waters section discusses uses but does not

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?192

discuss circulation. The biology section has some discussion on the benthos, but not much detail
provided. Where applicable, distinctions in subwatershed characteristics should be discussed to
understand which contribution areas and receiving waters are critical areas. On the hydrology,
perhaps the difference in rainfall by elevation is pertinent. Because most of the rainfall is
orographic, the amount of rainfall reduces above a certain elevation. Is the entire watershed to
the top of Mauna Kea really critical, or can we outright dismiss this higher elevation area as
lesser priority?

[We do not have sufficient information on the relative contributions by each subwatershed]

Water Quality Data. The plan is an opportunity to synthesize the state of knowledge and
deficiencies. Is there one composite map showing the sampling locations of the various
parameters?

[No, many stations, small 8.5? x 11? paper]

Can the plan relate the parameters to the public health or ecosystem concern by reorganizing the
parameters under subheadings?

[Unclear what this means]

Restoration Actions. This is the heart of the plan. The actions should be clearly substantiated
by the findings. The first recommended action stood out?reduction of cesspools. On the one
hand, the plan acknowledges the uncertainty of cesspool contribution to nutrient load: ?This
could indicate runoff from fertilizers, but also contamination from cesspools and septic tank
leachate. Monitoring of wastewater indicators together with nitrogen at selected areas will help
determine the source, as will tracing studies.? (p. 35). Then a leap of logic without substantiation
is made: ?However, the state of knowledge of the general contribution of cesspool leachate to
ground water is sufficient to call for the elimination of cesspools in the hydrologically active
areas.? Such drastic unsubstantiated recommendations (drastic in terms of cost and resources to
implement) undermine the credibility of the plan. Research is an important immediate need.
The plan has a good discussion of the research objectives (p. 41); however, these objectives and
the specific projects should be widely discussed before funding applications are submitted to
ensure useful answers are being sought for the right questions. If this plan is the place to justify
the research projects and would serve as the basis for EPA funding, then we would like to know
this so that we can direct more focused review on this portion of the plan.
Given that we are uncertain about everything, we feel that the least uncertainty lies in the area of
wastewater, which is associated with human health issues and risks, and for which alternative
treatment plans have already been developed extensively.

Jeff Zimpfer, UH Sea Grant Non-point Source Pollution Extension Officer
Need to add information on county wide storm water management. May want to add something
about impervious surfaces in the built up areas of the watershed and perhaps add demonstration
projects with pervious pavement

[done].

May want to consider the effects of feral animals on water impairment, especially pigs. May
want to look and invasive plant species too, gorse, albizia, strawberry guava, etc.

[done].

You may want to think about modeling the effects of septic a cesspools.

We think it would be better to monitor the effects of septic and cesspools.

Hilo Bay Watershed Based Restoration Plan?194

PPENDIX

7?D

EFINITION OF

LASS

WATERS BY

HAR �11-54-03

It is the objective of class A waters that their use for recreational purposes and aesthetic
enjoyment be protected. Any other use shall be permitted as long as it is compatible with the
protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife, and with recreation in
and on these waters. These waters shall not act as receiving waters for any discharge which has
not received the best degree of treatment or control compatible with the criteria established for
this class. No new sewage discharges will be permitted within embayments. No new industrial
discharges shall be permitted within embayments, with the exception of:

Acceptable non-contact thermal and drydock or marine railway discharges, in the following
water bodies:
Honolulu Harbor, Oahu;
Barbers Point Harbor, Oahu;
Keehi Lagoon Marina Area, Oahu;
Ala Wai Boat Harbor, Oahu; and
Kahului Harbor, Maui.

Storm water discharges associated with industrial activities (defined in 40 C.F.R. Section
122.26(b) (14)) which meet, at the minimum, the basic water quality criteria applicable to all
waters as specified in section 11-54-04, and all applicable requirements specified in the chapter
11-55, titled "Water Pollution Control"; and

Discharges covered by a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System general permit,
approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and issued by the Department in
accordance with 40 C.F.R. Section 122.28 and all applicable requirements specified in chapter
11-55, titled "Water Pollution Control",