Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0557.000 2008-2010William P. Kenoi Mayor William T. Takaba Managing Director Wally Lau Deputy Managing Director County of Hawaii 891 Ululani Street • Hilo, Hawaii 96720-3982 • (808) 961-8211 • Fax (808) 961-6553 KONA: 75-5706 Kuakini Highway, Suite 103 • Kailua-Kona, Hawaii 96740 (808) 329-5226 • Fax (808) 326-5663 September 28, 2009 C Cn Honorable J Yoshimoto, Chairman and Members of the County Council County of Hawaii 333 Kilauea Avenue = y U? Hilo, HI 96720 Dear Chairman Yoshimoto and Members: Change of Zone Application (REZ 09-000099) Applicant: Edward Nagata Request: A-3 a to FA -la Tax Map Key: 2-4-31:8 Planning Director hiitiated Amendment to LUPAG Map 11 of the County of Hawaii General Plan (Ordinance No. 05 25 As Amended) As required by Chapter 4, Sec. 6-4.3(C), Hawaii County Charter, transmitted herewith for the County Council's consideration and action are the Planning Commission's letters and enclosures regarding the above -referenced requests. Sincerely, William P. Kenoi Mayor Enclosures cc: Planning Department ( 611 1SO (Noted, Due to its large size, the attachments is not made a part of the duplicate copies, but is available for viewing at the Office of the County Clerk or on Laserfiche. For your information, Exhibits r 5 through 9 is also on CD disk.) Comm, No. J Ref. To: Ci Ref. mate 3 2 County of Hawai `i 8 2069 PLANNING COMMISSION Aupuni Center • 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Phone (808) 961-8288 • Fax (808) 961-8742 The Honorable J Yoshimoto, Chairman and Members of the County Council County of Hawaii 333 Kilauea Avenue, 2nd Floor Hilo, HI 96720 Dear Chairman Yoshimoto and Council Members: Planning Director Initiated Amendment to LUPAG Map 11 of the County of Hawaii General Plan (Ordinance No 05 25 As Amended) The Leeward Planning Commission at its duly held public hearing on August 28, 2009, considered the Planning Director's request for an amendment to the Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG) Map I I of the County of Hawaii General Plan (Ordinance No. 05 25, as amended) by changing the land use designation from "Urban Expansion" to "Open" for the area affecting State-owned lands in the vicinity and south of the Honokohau Harbor, Kealakehe, North Kona, Hawaii. The Leeward Planning Commission voted to forward a favorable recommendation of this request to the County Council. The Leeward Planning Commission agrees with the following reasons by the Planning Director for favorable consideration of this request: The General Plan may be amended by changing its goals, policies, standards, zoning acreage allocations, LUPAG map, and other applicable sections thereof, when the conditions or premises upon which the General Plan is based have changed and when such an amendment would assure the coordinated development of the County of Hawaii and the general welfare and prosperity of its people. The General Plan identifies the Honok6hau coastline as a site of natural beauty and there are several archaeological sites which are listed on the Hawai `i State Register of Historic Places within the amendment area. Additionally, the Kona CDP, which was adopted by ordinance on September 25, 2008, seeks to protect Kona's environmentally sensitive resources such as anchialine ponds and areas with significant cultural and historic resources. The CDP identifies several anchialine ponds in the amendment area and recognizes the anchialine pool Hawai `i County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer The Honorable J Yoshimoto, Chairman and Members of the County Council Page 2 shrimp as a rare, threatened, or endangered species. The plan also calls for the County to implement an enhanced shoreline setback of 1,000 feet along as much of Kona's coastline as possible. Approval of the subject amendment would facilitate this policy as some of the lands currently designated as "Urban Expansion" are less than 1,000 feet from the shoreline. CDP Policy LU -2 regarding urban area growth management recognizes that the current LUPAG Urban Area is larger than what is needed to accommodate the future growth and recommends growth within the Kona Urban Area occur in a pattern.of compact villages at densities to support public transit. The amendment area is located within the Kona Urban Area but is not located near one of the sites identified for future development as a regional or neighborhood compact village thus the current "Urban Expansion" LUPAG Map designation is not appropriate in this area. The amendment area is also located adjacent to the Kaloko-Honokohau National Historic Park which possesses many significant cultural resources and unique natural resources, such as coral reefs and anchialine ponds, which have the potential of being adversely affected by water quality degradation from nearby urbanization. For these reasons the Planning Director has determined that returning the LUPAG map to its 2005 layout by changing the land use designation from "Urban Expansion" to "Open" will assure the coordinated development of the area, and protection of the significant natural and cultural resources in the amendment area and on surrounding lands will maintain the general welfare and prosperity of the people of Hawaii island. Therefore, based on the information cited above and consideration of public comments, the Planning Director recommends that the Leeward and Windward Planning Commissions send a favorable recommendation to the Hawaii County Council for the amendment to Map 11 of the Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG) Map of the County of Hawaii General Plan. We have enclosed the Planning Department's Background & Recommendation Report, draft bill, and a transcript of the hearing for your information. Sincerely, Rodney 7Panning abe, Chairman Leeward Commission WDinitiatedamendlupagmap I I Enclosures cc: Planning Department -Kona Lincoln Ashida, Esq. County of Hawaii It 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION Aupuni Center • 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Phone (808) 961-8288 • Fax (808) 961-8742 The Honorable J Yoshimoto, Chairman and Members of the County Council County of Hawaii 333 Kilauea Avenue, 2nd Floor Hilo, HI 96720 Dear Chairman Yoshimoto and Council Members: Planning Director Initiated Amendment to LUPAG Map 11 of the County of Hawaii General Plan (Ordinance No 05 25 As Amended) The Windward Planning Commission at its duly held public hearing on September 4, 2009, considered the Planning Director's request for an amendment to the Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG) Map 11 of the County of Hawaii General Plan (Ordinance No. 05 25, as amended) by changing the land use designation from "Urban Expansion" to "Open" for the area affecting State-owned lands in the vicinity and south of the Honok6hau Harbor, Kealakehe, North Kona, Hawaii. The Windward Planning Commission voted to forward a favorable recommendation of this request to the County Council. The Windward Planning Commission agrees with the following reasons by the Planning Director for favorable consideration of this request: The General Plan may be amended by changing its goals, policies, standards, zoning acreage allocations, LUPAG map, and other applicable sections thereof, when the conditions or premises upon which the General Plan is based have changed and when such an amendment would assure the coordinated development of the County of Hawaii and the general welfare and prosperity of its people. The General Plan identifies the Honok6hau coastline as a site of natural beauty and there are several archaeological sites which are listed on the Hawaii State Register of Historic Places within the amendment area. Additionally, the Kona CDP, which was adopted by ordinance on September 25, 2008, seeks to protect Kona's environmentally sensitive resources such as anchialine ponds and areas with significant cultural and historic resources. The CDP identifies several anchialine ponds in the amendment area and recognizes the anchialine pool Hawai `i County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer The Honorable J Yoshimoto, Chairman and Members of the County Council Page 2 shrimp as a rare, threatened, or endangered species. The plan also calls for the County to implement an enhanced shoreline setback of 1,000 feet along as much of Kona's coastline as possible. Approval of the subject amendment would facilitate this policy as some of the lands currently designated as "Urban Expansion" are less than 1,000 feet from the shoreline. CDP Policy LU -2 regarding urban area growth management recognizes that the current LUPAG Urban Area is larger than what is needed to accommodate the future growth and recommends growth within the Kona Urban Area occur in a pattern of compact villages at densities to support public transit. The amendment area is located within the Kona Urban Area but is not located near one of the sites identified for future development as a regional or neighborhood compact village thus the current "Urban Expansion" LUPAG Map designation is not appropriate in this area. The amendment area is also located adjacent to the Kaloko-Honokohau National Historic Park which possesses many significant cultural resources and unique natural resources, such as coral reefs and anchialine ponds, which have the potential of being adversely affected by water quality degradation from nearby urbanization. For these reasons the Planning Director has determined that returning the LUPAG map to its 2005 layout by changing the land use designation from "Urban Expansion" to "Open" will assure the coordinated development of the area, and protection of the significant natural and cultural resources in the amendment area and on surrounding lands will maintain the general welfare and prosperity of the people of Hawaii island. Therefore, based on the information cited above and consideration of public comments, the Planning Director recommends that the Leeward and Windward Planning Commissions send a favorable recommendation to the Hawaii County Council for the amendment to Map 11 of the Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG) Map of the County of Hawaii General Plan. We have enclosed the Planning Department's Background & Recommendation Report, draft bill, and a transcript of the hearing for your information. Sm ely, L.J Rell Woodward, Chairman Windward Planning Commission IPDinitiatedamendhipagmap I I wwpc Enclosures cc: Planning Department -Kona Lincoln Ashida, Esq. BPDLiitKealakeheGPAmend. mjc-8/17/09 COUNT' OF IIAWAI`I PLANNING DEPARTMENT BACKGROUND AND RECOMMENDATION INITIATOR: PLANNING DIRECTOR AMENDMENT TO MAP 11 OF THE LAND USE PATTERN ALLOCATION GUIDE (LUPAG) MAP OF THE COUNTY OF HAWAII GENERAL PLAN (2005 EDITION, AS AMENDED) The Planning Director is initiating an amendment to Map 11 of the Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG) Map of the County of Hawaii General Plan (adopted by Ordinance No. 05 25, amended by Ordinance No. 06 153) by changing the land use designation from "Urban Expansion" to "Open" for the area affecting state-owned lands in the vicinity and south of the Honok6hau Harbor, Kealakehe, North Kona, Hawaii. BACKGROUND Pursuant to a Settlement Agreement in the Chun and Nelson v. County. of Hawaii (Civil No. 07-1-243K) case the Planning Director is required to initiate the subject amendment, which would return the land use designation for the area back to the 2005 LUPAG Map layout as illustrated in Exhibit 1. The General Plan is the policy document for the long-range comprehensive development of the island of Hawaii. The LUPAG Map is a component of the General Plan land use element. The land use element seeks to accommodate growth without congestion; to designate and preserve the lands needed for residential use, commercial and visitor services, industry, agriculture, and open space; and coordinate these uses with the County's service and circulation systems. The land use pattern is a broad, flexible design intended to guide the direction and quality of future developments in a coordinated and rational manner. The LUPAG Map is a broad -brush graphic depiction of the general location of land uses in relation to each other and is not parcel specific. The methodology used to develop the land use pattern reflects estimates of future population based on economic and employment evaluations, existing land uses and zoned areas, determination of community facility needs, and transportation demands for the entire island. Topography and other physical features and economic and social characteristics of an area are also considered. Ccrrm. 557 4- Bill 156 Several changes to the LUPAG Map designation have been made for the subject amendment area ("area") over the years with the primary designations being "Resort", "Open" and "Urban Expansion". "Resort" areas are defined as a mix of uses such as hotels, condominium hotels (condominiums developed and/or operated as hotels), and support services. Intermediate, minor, and retreat resort areas are identified as "Resort" areas on the LUPAG Map, whereas only major resort areas are identified as "Resort Node." "Open" areas include parks and other recreational areas, historic sites, and open shoreline areas. "Urban Expansion" areas allow for a mix of high density, medium density, and low density residential, industrial, industrial - commercial and/or open designations in areas where new settlements may be desirable, but where the specific settlement pattern and mix of uses have not yet been determined. The following is a brief chronology of LUPAG Map changes for the area: • 1971 General Plan: The LUPAG Map identified the majority of the area along the shoreline as "Open" with three small "Resort" areas and "Urban Expansion" along Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway. Exhibit 2-A • 1989 General Plan: No LUPAG Map changes in the area were made during this comprehensive general plan review. However, the designation of land immediately to the south was changed from "Conservation" to "Urban Expansion" to provide for a wide variety of urban land uses which would be required to support the growth in resort activities. Exhibit 2-B • 2005 General Plan: As a result of the 2005 comprehensive general plan review, all of the "Resort" designations were changed in the area to either "Open" or "Urban Expansion". The "Resort" area and "Urban Expansion" designations closest to the harbor, were changed to "Open" because the federal and state governments took ownership of these lands and the federal land was part of the Kaloko-Honokohau National Historic Park. The "Resort" area situated on land owned by the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands (DHHL) south of the harbor was changed to "Urban Expansion" and the Resort" area situated on State land that is part of the Honokohau Small Boat Harbor makai of the Kealakehe Wastewater Treatment Plant was changed to "Open." These changes were made because the resort designations were no longer appropriate at these locations and IN 0 the changes were consistent with surrounding lands. Exhibit 2-C 2006 Interim General Plan Amendment: A land use designation change from "Open" to "Urban Expansion" was made to the area in 2006 by an interim amendment (Ord. No. 06 153) to the 2005 General Plan. Said interim amendment was initiated by the Planning Director. The rationale for this change was to accommodate the State's plans to expand the harbor and have some associated commercial and golf development surrounding the harbor, with a coastal open space buffer. Exhibit 2-D STATE AND COUNTY PLANS 1. State Land Use Designation: Urban. 2. County Zoning: Open. Pursuant to a Memorandum of Agreement between the County and DHHL which gives DHHL the authority to designate a zoning district for their lands, on December 26, 2007 DHHL designated their lands identified as TMK 7-4-008:072 within the amendment area as "Project District." See Exhibit 3 (December 26, 2007 letter from DHHL to Planning Director) and Exhibit 4 (February 4, 2008 letter from Planning Director to DHHL). 3. Kona Community Development Plan (CDP): The proposed amendment area is situated within the Kona Urban Area. OTHER DOCUMENTS RELEVANT TO THE AMENDMENT AREA 4. P.D. Exhibit 5- The Spirit of Ka-loko Hono-ko-hau, prepared by the Honok6hau Study Advisory Commission, National Park Service, Department of the Interior, dated May 18, 1974. 5. P.D. Exhibit 6- Keahole to Kailua Development Plan prepared by R.M. Towill Corporation, dated April 1991 and Revised Roadway Plan Implementation Strategy prepared by Townscape, Inc. and the County of Hawaii dated September 1996. 6. P.D. Exhibit 7- County of Hawai `i General Plan Ten I Year Review Economic Assessment Report prepared by PKF Hawai `i, dated December 1999. 7. P.D. Exhibit 8- County of Hawai `i General Plan 10 -Year Review Infrastructure Assessment Report prepared by Roy R. Takemoto, dated December 2000. 8. P.D. Exhibit 9- Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement prepared by -3- Oceanit for Jacoby Development, Inc., July 2007. PUBLIC COMMENTS 9. P.D. Exhibit 10 — Letter dated July 2, 2009 from Pi`ilani Kaopuiki 10. P.D. Exhibit 11 — Letter dated July 24, 2009 from Miranda Wilson 11. P.D. Exhibit 12 — Letter dated July 30, 2009 from the Sierra Club 12. P.D. Exhibit 13 — Letter dated August 6, 2009 from Geraldine K. Bell, Superintendent of the U.S. Department of Interior, National Park Service, Kaloko-Honok6hau National Historic Park 13. P.D. Exhibit 14 — Letter dated August 7, 2009 from Laura H. Thielen, Chairperson of State of Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources 14. P.D. Exhibit 15 — Letter dated August 7, 2009 from Ms. Kaliko Chun 15. P.D. Exhibit 16 — E-mail dated August 9, 2009 from Janice Palma-Glennie and Alastair Glennie 16. P.D. Exhibit 17 — Letter dated August 11, 2009 from Frank R. Hays, Pacific Area Director of the U.S. Department of Interior, National Park Service RECOMMENDATION The General Plan may be amended by changing its goals, policies, standards, zoning acreage allocations, LUPAG map, and other applicable sections thereof, when the conditions or premises upon which the General Plan is based have changed and when such an amendment would assure the coordinated development of the County of Hawaii and the general welfare and prosperity of its people. The General Plan identifies the Honok6hau coastline as a site of natural beauty and there are several archaeological sites which are listed on the Hawaii State Register of Historic Places within the amendment area. Additionally, the Kona CDP, which was adopted by ordinance on September 25, 2008, seeks to protect Kona's environmentally sensitive resources such as anchialine ponds and areas with significant cultural and historic resources. The CDP identifies several anchialine ponds in the amendment area and recognizes the anchialine pool shrimp as a rare, threatened, or endangered species. The plan also calls for the County to implement an enhanced shoreline setback of 1,000 feet along as much of Kona's coastline as possible. -4- Approval of the subject amendment would facilitate this policy as some of the lands currently designated as "Urban Expansion" are less than 1,000 feet from the shoreline. CDP Policy LU -2 regarding urban area growth management recognizes that the current LUPAG Urban Area is larger than what is needed to accommodate the future growth and recommends growth within the Kona Urban Area occur in a pattern of compact villages at densities to support public transit. The amendment area is located within the Kona Urban Area but is not located near one of the sites identified for future development as a regional or neighborhood compact village thus the current "Urban Expansion" LUPAG Map designation is not appropriate in this area. The amendment area is also located adjacent to the Kaloko-Honokohau National Historic Park which possesses many significant cultural resources and unique natural resources, such as coral reefs and anchialine ponds, which have the potential of being adversely affected by water quality degradation from nearby urbanization. For these reasons the Planning Director has determined that returning the LUPAG map to its 2005 layout by changing the land use designation from "Urban Expansion" to "Open" will, assure the coordinated development of the area, and protection of the significant natural and cultural resources in the amendment area and on surrounding lands will maintain the general welfare and prosperity of the people of Hawaii island. Therefore, based on the information cited above and consideration of public comments, the Planning Director recommends that the Leeward and Windward Planning Commissions send a favorable recommendation to the Hawaii County Council for the amendment to Map 11 of the Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG) Map of the County of Hawaii General Plan. The accompanying draft bill is provided for your favorable consideration. -5- 0 mc� IMIL \■ j4 look■ ANEW mmok I , C g/�,,r'• p......I LINDA (iOVL1.hUR STA7B Or HAVIAli FV S'K'ATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF HAWAIIAN HOME LA IIS P.O. BOX 1879 HONOLULU, HAWAII 96805 December 26, 2007 The Honorable Christopher J. Yuen Planning Director County of Hawaii 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3 Hilo, Hawaii 96720--3043 Dear Mr. Yuen: Subject: Designation of Zoning Kealakehe, North Kona, Hawaii TMK No.: (3) 7-4-008:072 MICAH A. 1UNR CHAIRMAN HAWAIIAN HUMES COMMISSION DEN IIL+NMRSON DEPUTY TO'rHE CHAIRMAN BAULANA H. PARI, 4XrCVT3Vl1 ASSISTAIrr Please be advised that, pursuant to the Memorandum of Agreement Between the County of Hawaii and the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands ("Department") dated December 27, 2002, the Department hereby designates the district classification for the land referenced above by tax map key above as "Project District." The referenced parcel consists of 200 acres. The State Land Use District classification for the property is Urban. The Hawaii County Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide Map designates the property Urban Expansion. It is anticipated that the development. of the property will include a mix of commercial uses that are permitted within the Project District classification. Enclosed is a summary of the standards for this Project District, together with a metes and bounds description. In the future, we will refer to this property's zoning as the "Kealakehe Makai Project District." The Kealakehe Makai Project District is also consistent with the Department's Hawaii Island Master Plan commercial designation for this property. Planning Dept. Exhibit The Honorable Christopher J. Yuen December 26, 2007 Page 2 Please feel free to contact Linda Chinn, Administrator of our Land Management Division should you have any questions about the information that we have provided in this letter. Aloha and Mahalo, f Micah A. Kane, Chairman Hawaiian Homes Commission Enc. c: Commissioner Malia Kamaka KEALAKEHE MAKAI PROJECT DISTRICT DEPARTMENT OF HAWAIIAN HGMF LANtTDS Project District Area. The project district area shall be called the Kealalcehe Makai Project District. It is located at Kealakehe, North Kona, Island of Hawaii, and comprises 200 acres. A metes and bounds description of the project district area is attached. General Description of Planned Development. The Department of Hawaiian Home Lands ("DHHL") has leased the project district area ("DHHL parcel") to Kona Marina Development, LLC ("Lessee"). The DHHL parcel is to be developed with a mix of uses including commercial enterprises that serve visitor and local resident demands, open space, community. facilities, and infrastructure to support those uses, as well and regional infrastructure needs. Residential and Hotel/Time Share Unit Density The Kealakehe Makai Project District does not include a residential component. The maximum number of hotel/time share units -within the 200 acre parcel is 800 units. Project Infrastructure and Community Facilities. Internal infrastructure and community facilities are planned to be developed privately. The State and County shall not be obligated to construct any public facilities within the DHHL parcel. However, DHHL and Lessee are currently engaged with State and County agencies in coordination of regional infrastructural improvements within and adjacent to the DHHL parcel and intend to continue to work with those agencies. Permitted Uses. The permitted uses set forth in section 25-6-43, Chapter 25, Hawaii County Code will also be permitted in the Kealakehe Makai Project District. Design Standards. The following design standards shall apply within the Kealakehe Makai Project District: 1. Landscaping for the development shall comply with the PIanning Department's Rule No. 17, Landscaping Requirements. 2. The minimum building site area shall be 5,000 square feet. 3. The maximum height limit shall be 120 feet. 4. The minimum average lot width shall be 60 feet. S. Minimum front, rear and side yards shall be the same as those within the General Commercial (CG) district. 8. The minimum Off-street parking and loading space requirements for the Kealakehe Makai Project District will comply with the minimum standards as required by the Zoning Code (effective December 1, 2007), including compliance with the American Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements. 9. Interior roadways may be designed to private road standards as allowed by the Subdivision Code. 10. For purposes of identifying other design standards or criteria that are not specifically set forth above, those applicable to the General Commercial (CG) district will apply in the Kealakehe Makai Project District, unless other standards and criteria are adopted prior, to actual construction of the development. HIBIT "A" 5 � k STA'T'E OF HAWAII SURVEY DIVISION ��jj�� gg DEPT. OF ACCOUNTING Aide GENERAL SERVICES' ry� C.G.P. No-4uL+V HONOLULU August 24, 2000 PORTION OF THE GOVERNMENT LAND OF KEALAKEHE PARCEL 1 Kealakehe, .North Kona, Island of Hawaii, Hawaii Beginning at the east corner of this parcel of land and on the southwest side of Queen Kaahumanu Highway Widening, Project No. 19AB-02-97, the coordinates of said point of beginning referred to Government Survey Tkiangutation Station "KEAHUOLU" being 4646.65 feet North and 5314.51 feet East, thence running by azimuths measured clockwise from TYue South: - 1. 570 59' 20" 821.25 feet along Addition to Kealakehe. Wastewater Treatment Plant; 2. Thence along Addition to Kealakehe Wastewater Treatment Plant on a curve to the right with a radius of 1440.00 feet, the chord azimuth and distance being: 67° 24' 40" 471.48 feet; 3. 760 50' 266.67 feet along Addition to Kealakehe Wastewater Tkatment Plant; 4. 166° 50' 1210.00 feet along Addition to Kealakehe Wastewater Treatment Plant; 5. 76" 50' 2138.25 feet along Addition to Kealakehe Wastewater Treatment Plant; 6. 1230 04' 20" 1166.04 feet along Parcel 2 of the Government Land of Kealakehe; 7. 213' 04' 20" 1345.23 feet along the southeast side of Kealakehe Parkway; �f3,0t#8 August 24,-2000 8. 2130 04' 20" 30.00 feet along the southeast side of Kealakehe Parkway; _ 9. Thence along the southeast side of Kealakehe Parkway on a curve to the right with a radius of 1440.00 feet, the chord azimuth and distance being: 2130 40' 09" 30.01 feet; 10. Thence along the southeast side of Kealakehe Parkway on a curve to the right with a radius of 1440.00 feet, the chord azimuth and distance being: 2220 24' 21" 407.77 feet; 11. Thence along the southeast side of Kealakehe parkway on a curve to the right with a radius of 1440.00 feet, the chord azimuth and distance being: 231" 20' 29" 40.00 feet; 12. Thence along the southeast side of Kealakehe Parkway on a curve to the right with a radius of 1440.00 feet, the chord azimuth and distance being: 239° 03' 47" 347.28 feet; 13. 245" 59' 20" 1201.98 feet along the southeast side of Kealakehe Parkway; 14. Thence along the southeast side of Kealakehe Parkway on a curve to the left with a radius of 1560.00 feet, the chord azimuth and distance being: 244° 23' 34.5" 86.90 feet; 15. Thence along the southeast side of Kealakehe Parkway on a curve to the left with a radius of 1560.00 feet, the chord azimuth and distance being: 2410 59' 20" 44.00 feet; 16. Thence along the southeast side of Kealakehe Parkway on a curve to the left with a radius of 1560.00 feet, the chord azimuth and distance being: 239" 35' 05.5" 86.90 feet; 17. 2370 59' 20" 151.11 feet along the southeast side of Kealakehe Parkway; 18. Thence along the southwest corner of the intersection of Kealakehe Park and Queen Kaahumanu Highway Vlydening, Project No. 19AB-02.97 on a curve to the right with a radius of 50.00 feet, the chord azimuth and distance being: 282" 59' 20" 70.71 feet; -2- 23,008 G.S.F. fac., ._..-_— August 24, 20GO 19. 327° 59' 20" 3523.5E feet along the southwest side of Queen Kaahumahu Highway Widening; Project No. 19AR-02-97 to die point of beginning and containing an AREA OF 200.000 ACRES. Vehicle access shall not be permitted into and from Kealakehe Parkway over and across Courses 10, 12, 13, 14, 16 and 17 of the above-described parcel of land. Vehicle access also shall not be permitted into and from Queen Kaahumanu Highway Widening, Project No. 19AB-02-97 over and across Courses 18 and 19 of the above-described parcel of land. Reserving io the State of Hawaii, its successors and assigns, a Perpetual Non -Exclusive Irrigation Easement as shown on plan attached hereto and made a part hereof and more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the east corner of this easement, being also the initial point of beginning of the above-described parcel of land, thence running by azimuths measured clockwise from live South: - 1. 570 59' 20" 60.00 feet along Addition to Kealakehe Wastewater Treatment Plant; 2. 147' 59' 20" 3573.56 feet; 3. 237° 59' 20" 10.00 feet along the southeast side of Kealakehe Parkway; 4. Thence along the southeast corner of the intersection of Kealakehe Parkway and Queen' Kaahumanu Highway Widening, Project No. 19A"2-97 on a curve to the right with a radius of 50.00 feet, the chord azimuth and distance being: 282° 59' 20" 70.71 feet; -3- _a.'� 23,008 August 24,-'2000 5. 3270 59' 20" 3523.56 feet along the southwest side of Queen Kaahumanu Highway Widening; Project No. 19AB-02-97 to the point of beginning and containing an AREA OF 4.910 ACRES. SURVEY DIVISION DEPARTMENT OF ACCOUNTING AND GENERAL SERVICES Compiled from CSF 12168, 14056, 14057, 15706, 19656, 20876 and other Govt. Survey Records. TMK: 7-4-08:por. 3 STATE 9F HAWAII By: S y T. egawa Licensed d Surveyor .3632 gm Reviewed and Approved -by: Randall M .Hashimoto State Land Surveyor -4 _� kohou 13d;`i'L -SIP li ll Small ! Boat Harbor 23,012) OU -20' 231'20,%" 40.00 "' 1201.88 ;i PARCEL i 4ccees:permitied 24423'34.5" 86.90 _ g 8 241'S8'20' 44.00 $ o Access PormRted' oI 23V35'05.3" 86.00 a = L 237'59'20' 151.11 ! Ue PERPETUAL MON—EXCLUSIVE— — b IRRIGATION EASEMENT I rcQ(4.910 ACRES) �j �ortt p1Qnt I a. ; ;i PARCEL i M� � Government A 200.000 ACRES wcei 2 .d ' SF. 23.010) Lend to Kea14 (CS Waste`" 23 ter T PERPETUAL MON—EXCLUSIVE— — b IRRIGATION EASEMENT I rcQ(4.910 ACRES) �j �ortt p1Qnt I R08jBl rd°. so��'T I P � $ I r R=50.00 C. C 8452 ��.. 4048.0.3 w Ap 12 `"KEAtua u a Cr to Denotes no vehicle access permitted Okv/o/� _d._b.__ Denotes access permitted KeOh PORTION OF THE GOVERNMENT LAND OF KEALAKEHE PARCEL 1 S-19(95) Kealakehe, North Kona, Island of Hawaii, Hawaii Scale: t inch = 600 feet 3K. IBM CF 1—A, All Islondc HAP 7-4--0&:Por.3 SURVEY DIVISION _ DEPARTMENT OF ACCOUNTING AND GENERAL SERVICES F. No. 23,008 STATE OF HAWAII E T Aug 24 2000 t ramy rmn 80 PactyDi. of Atfun-i PLAMTING DE, pAp,TyM, NT 101 Fauahi Street, Suite 3 , Hilo, Hawaii 96720.4224 (808) 961-8288 . FAX (808) 961-8742 February 4, 2008 Mr. Micah A. Kane, Chairman Hawaiian Homes Commission STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF HAWAIIAN HOME LANDS P. O. Box 1879 Honolulu, HI 96805 Dear Mr. Kane: SUBJECT: RESIGNATION OF ZONING KEALAKEHE, NORTH KONA, HAWAII TAX MAP KEY: (3) 7-4-008:072 c. ir;S9op hey ". JTF1ien Director rad, Kuw1mv;va, AB LA MEDO AF Deputy Director We acknowledge receipt of your letter dated December 26, 2007, designating "Project District" zoning for TMK No. 7-4-008:072, a 200 acre parcel located on the mak side of the Queen Kaahumanu Highway, generally mauka of the Honokohau Boat Harbor. We concur that this is your prerogative under Paragraph III (C) of the Memorandum of Agreement between the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands and the County of Hawaii. We will revise our zoning maps to show this zoning designation. The letter specifies a maximum of 800 hotel and timeshare units in this Project District, plus an unspecified amount of commercial uses and public facilities. This zoning designation appears to involve the project called "Kona Kai `Ola," proposed by Jacoby Development under contract with DHHL. Under Par. IIID of the MOA, "all normal land use controls will be applied by Hawaii County to DHHL property according to the zoning district selected by DHHL. Except as specifically provided in the Agreement, DHHL will follow all normal land use Procedures, regulations, and standards applicable to the zoning district." Hatvai'i Comity is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer. Planning Dept. Exhibit 9. Mr. Micah A. Kane, Chairman Hawaiian Homes Commission STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF HAWAIIAN HOME LANDS V Page 2 February 4, 2008 In a Project District, those normal procedures and regulations include a detailed site plan, under H.C.C. sec. 25-6-46. The site plan must be fairly detailed because it substitutes for the normal plan approval requirements. Please see sec. 25-6-47 to 49. We will expect, at some point, to receive this detailed site plan, and pursuant to H.C.C. 25-6-48, the planning director's approval is a prerequisite to any development on the property. The planning director can require conditions or changes to the proposed site plan, though not, of course, to the extent of negating the zoning. The planning director can, among other factors, require conditions or changes to assure that "within reasonable limits, any natural and man-made features of community value are preserved." Sec. 25-6-47(7). Project District zoning is a bit different from the typical zoning districts in Hawai'i County in that standards such as setbacks and height limits are not set in the zoning code as they are for other types of zoning, but are set out in the Project District rezoning ordinance. Here, of course, there is no rezoning ordinance, so your letter includes a set of "Design Standards." These include a maximum height limit of 120 feet. Please note that aspects such as the proposed heights of buildings should be included in the detailed site plan, and that this would be one of the items that the planning director can modify. (The height limits in commercial and resort zones elsewhere in Kona would not exceed 45.) Under Par. IVY of the MOA: "Should DHHL elect to convert its land to a more intensive land use, DHHL will be responsible for upgrading the onsite infrastructure to accommodate the new use, and will consult with the County regarding the need to upgrade offsite infrastructure. DHHL and the County shall negotiate the extent to which DHHL will be responsible for any such offsite improvements requested by the County. DHHL shall be responsible for project -related offsite improvements to the extent that these would be required of other developers with similar projects. If offsite improvements benefit other property, DHHL and the County shall cooperate so that DHHL bears only its fair share of these improvement costs." If a purely private developer were seeking to do the same project in this location, substantial offsite infrastructure improvements would probably be imposed as a condition of zoning. Ord. 07-99, setting concurrency standards, for example, requires that major developments contribute to fix regional traffic problems when the roads are below a specified level of service. The County has been in discussions with Jacoby Development on some of these issues, and we expect that these will continue, consistent with the MOA. v Mr. Micah A. Kane, Chairman Hawaiian Homes Commission STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF HAWAIIAN HOME LANDS Page 3 February 4, 2008 If you have any questions, please contact Planning Director Chris Yuen. Sincerely, VI'VI; CHRISTOPHER J�EN Planning Director CJY:pak Wpwin60/Chris 08 — Kane - DHHL Honokohnu zoning designation reply.doc cc: Mayor Harry Kim Kona Planning Department Corporation Counsel TMK — 7-4-008:072 Plcmning. Exhi bit TEE 01101-4C RAU SAY PVIS RY COM=wn xailua-Kona� Hawaii Mkv 18;, 1974 The Secretary of the Lnteridt meted States Department,of :the Interior Washington, Dr C. 20240 ,Yl . Secietaxy. In accordance with the mandate of Public 'Law 52-346, `ire respectfully submit to you :study entitled. The -S irit of aloIko-Honokol au, x Satin ' I the feasibili ty .axad desir011ity of establi `° " . ,,, as part of the national .Dark System, the site of the Honokoha�u, national. Historic Land - .mark ands- adjacent waters, fine study referred 'to contains, but is not limited tri, findin with ageet ,to the riatorid, cultural, :arc4aeologica I, soeiic, :and natural:, values of the resources in-volvea and recommendations . cir preserrait on and interpretation of 'those resous es, 'including the role of nat" .wi ans- re'la'tive to the management and -performance o� that -preserve.- tion and initerprptation mrd the providing to them of training opportuni- ties ppo tuni-tips in such m exit .arid perforce. We,take special.pleasure in presenting this shay, because perhaps for the first time,, n a .tive �'sws�. ins have been abl.'6 :t6 tell their s tory: and tell it in 'their own way. O For this opportunity, we extend our einoere maha_2.o to the Congress of the United Staten, the Department of: the Interior, the National. Park Servico, and the numeroue other people who have =ntributed their kokua,.. r able Of contents INTROPUCTiON / 1 THE SPIRIT"OP KA•LOKO. HONO.KQ•HAU PAST / 2 PRESENT 18 FUTURt 1'20 THE NATIONAL SPIRIT 122 RECOMMENDATIONS, PLAN 125 PRESERVATION 129 INTERPRETATION] 36 MANAGEMENT/48 EMPLOYMENT POLICY, 59: RESEARCH 163' GE ERAL'PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS 165. APPENDIXES 177 '"" !, "' !� .. �► • �R 11,...11,. � .r Along the western coastline's f the Island of HawaVi lies`the hot;; rugged lava of lea-1pk,o,,f ono-kip-hau. This seemingly barren and harsh landscape does�novappear to -be suitable for human existence, andyy�t, long before written history;. the Hawaiianpeople built a thrivin settlement upon thea'a, lava, which was to lastwell into; the 1Oth'zentury-when the farces of western culture slowly brought an end to the. Hawaiian way of life. Some people find it difficult to understand why 'the anclerxt Hawaiians chose to settle upon the 'inhospitable lava fields of Ka-Ioko, Hono-k6-hau. Thereasoi was, p6ehaps, a spiritual one, for there was a spirit in Iia loko, Hono-k6-hau., The Hawaiians. who first carne to: the area felt its.p•esence"in every rock' and tree, in the gentle waters of shallow, bays, and in the tradewinds that gently, s yept.aeross the prehistoric lava flow. They touched the spirit anti felt its mana (power} a The spirit of Ka -lobo;;, lono-kob-hau'-wa's ifs'life,,fhe life that. flowed, in itslatIcl, and the eater that washed upon its shore. Like 'Hawaiians Who found, its p3reserice els6 here, the people of Ka -hake, Nano-k€i had let the spirit become plait of their existers e. They lived ill such perfect harmony withit that they became a siin�ular, feral, and inseparable environrhent'. 9 TH `PHYSICAL SPIRIT Perhaps Qnl j peopile like. the ancient Hawaiians, who had long agcy O formed a spiritual identification with nature, .couId rer,1rgnire:that despite'the nhospitable lava fields, a-loko, Honoak -hau had much to give, Only such -people could perceive that there were sufficient physical resources to ss.rp3part and satisfy the neeftof Large pop ula- tions if"they w& of the rind and spirit to stay and work with the land, Kir-loko, Hann- cs hau had calm -seas and shallow laar dings +; Bich made it ideal for the Hawaiian canoes, which were important far transp or tati n,, recreation, and fishing.. 'Fish Arid gather marine life were pl n tilul along the shorelir7e and offshore waters, with a olu,' "ku, and 'a%1 iii the offshore deeps and migrating akulein theshallows, providing more than ample catches for* the population, However, seasonal deep-seaJishirig was at times unpredictable, so rising l neering skills of the,shallow 1otio-ka-ha the Hawaiians ands areal. d v fet highly efficient ming that not been The native plant life which grew in the sr:-ttlement area was.s efficient to provide for many of the-needs'ol i the people; plants such as the native noni and Wi,n7a weee used for medicinal purlJoses,- They 5huehue mat" -.had several rise-§. VVIe twisted into coil's it wes used, to drive;fisti into nets, and when foods were scarce, tyre roots_and.. sterns could be 66o'ked and eaten. The -stria fqy land kauna oa' cdulc make an effective fish net ���hile the, 'chemical makeup of the `auhuhtt and akin Iwlants w re such that when crushed arid -strewn in'the water, they had a tranquilizing effect on fish, 'T e.'a huhu flower was also t,i'sed to treat�people, especially children, with respiratory problems,, and'the hard wood f the mil&and loci trees was crest for rrraking 'umeke bowls.), and other utensils. Pili grass was used by the Hawaiians to make the hatched walls and roofs of their Bale mau"u (grass shelters). The warrn, pleasant climate of the;!region made it unnecessary for the 1-lawaiians tb build 'aldborate.shelters. Instead they were able to dwell upon the p5hoehoe and 'a'a flats -in their, hale mao"u, wh'ic'h were only.built: to break,the exposure to sun, rain, .and wince, The h le mau'u: was functional, as well.as easy, to build, repair, and replace, More irnlaortant, thus was all'the shelterHaw; iians ever need rl in Ka-lok ,. Hono•k,5-hau. The physicallocation of Ka-loko, Hono-k(5,-hau.made the settlement: easy to manage Situated on the lower portions of a sloping terrain;, the settlement's-activities,.were"directed.by kahuna chfiefs,"frim a vantage poi'n.t, such,as the,bluff.t verlooking�the fishpond of'Ai'makapa where;a commanding view of Ka-loko, Honork&=hau was available; Tradition"has.itthat"direetiorns were issued by arm and kapa (tapa.) flag signals -to subord"inates in both are"as. In addition -the large platform heiau at Maliu Point, known as.Pu'u'oina was reputed to be the base of operations for kahuna chiefs who governed" H"ono-RQ hau and" the north Kona area. Its proximity to the ocean and the, 'Ai'opio, fish,trap made it ideal for directing the fishing activities of the settlement.. But the spiri.f of Ka-loko, Hono-kp-hau revealed itself to fhe ancient Hawaiians in:another form which was, perhaps, the most critical factor`in their decision to settle: in, the area. What they found"scattered along the shoreline and "among the jagged lava, were coal, brackish water springs To the Hawaiians, the presence of these springs. through out the area was indication that there was enough of -an underground water source to sustain the everyday needs of a setflement;of people. THE CULTURAL SPIRIT The Hawaiian settlement:.at 'Ka-loko, Hone-k&4hau did not just survive. Itthrived, because . theaticient Him1iiiians touched and understood the spirit, butdid no'UdMurb it. They nurtured the spirit tenderly, like,a.rare and pfec ious plant, and it grew uhtil. it fillet! everything around it With its being, Their philosophy was kslmple and,qffective one -- "provide,, for nature anti it will. provide", In this Way they maintained the delicate balance that existed' in their sacred relationship with nature. To misuse.the natural'resources at Ka-iokoj Hono-k6-hauwould being Upon. them'the:wrath of their all-powerful'gods Kana; ne, KU, Luno, and Kanaloa,,and devastation to their land. Thus the people of KPI-loko, Hono-k& , hap, like either : Hawaiians of that time, observed their kapu syste' :a set of regulations and prohibitions governing alencistevery, activity of life, reli, giously. They believed the kapu were directed by the gods. throlu9h thp,*ahuna chiefs who imposed them upon the ::people - Although' seemingly rigid and perpetuated by strict enforcement, thekapu system had a purpose for the Hawali,ians. Its:Oicts- contained their respect for nature's inana: and the assurance of survival; formany of I the kapu were designed to protect theland and conserve its resources which ultimately sustained their needs. ,One very important at Ka -lobo, Hono-kb-hau was the one .Placed on the use of Water. The brackish water pools Were divided into different, functions, S I ome were speci . fically for drinking, others for bathing -or for washing dishes, utensils,,and clothes.. Separating the functions of the:pool was the people's way of maintaining cleanliness and good health. M Water frorn theselpools was also necessary to sustain the ingenious. methods devised by the people who lived cera the lava flats<io grow supplem6ritary crops such as sweet pouOoes, gourdsg and medicinal plarnts and herbs upon the a i. These cropsmer° after grown within stone enclosures. To provide the moisture needed by these crops and to ensure protection to the root sy'swn in this orous.enviroh,menta the Hawaiians rr cade use cif the hbsks of drier coconuts. These Ikusks s ere lrrrmersed in the available fresh; or br�acl(ish .water until the color darkener) nearly to a shade of black, These: soaked (rusks were then, laced around the plant: , roots, providing a moist, environment as well as protecti0q, Front, direct exposure to the "sun and dehydration. A re alar apl licatiui of water ma. ,intained the desired grgwing conditions The,,walis n f'. the e166" cjre alsu:;prttvided support for the crawling vines and pIrOt, ctibil_:frorn the wined and afternoon heat, AHUPQXA BOUNDARIEP EXTENIDED FROM MOUNTAINTOP INTOITHE: OCE: N The porous nature of the soil in the settlement area, allo red the underground water.source to.fl wv n' lyfro the slops of Mount Hualalai to the sea-wh�ere it eventually evaporated iptqt_he sky; fell as rain upon the M- ou,rtain,sfojaes, and ,once main flowed underground to the sea. Beqause of their carefulcabservatioln and respect for their environment, the Hawaiians knew well enough not tca'obstruct or i'hterfere with this water= cycle in any way which would jeopardize thp, contin,gatiton'of this precious rescarar e. As well as supplying the brackish water pools; the� water source acted as valuable Under- ground aquifers for thq fishponds, The way Hawaiians constructed and used.'fishponds alsbAernOnstrated their total u tide rstand ing and, appreciation for the resources of Iia -)o .o Hono,k6-hau. The Ka=toko:anri 'Ai maka a ponds were; once the: largest and -best ajtang the Kona Coast of.the Island of HawaVi. The great kup a (sea wa10 of Ka-loko was built with large boulders, The; Hawaiians constructed two ripenings known as7'75O 7 (SI uice':gate) within the wall so that as the title began to flaw in through the m5kNi5", the fish cau d enter the pc oda At full tide the p4n (mate.} of the n k fats was then chased so that the fish could not escape WI en the tide receded. 'A' i'rnakdp�aicaperated Much in the same manner except that, the pond itself had formed behind a n turaI beach rather than being encloses{ by a ktaaj,)j. The Hawaii<ar}s' simply took the natural advantage afforded therm and improved it for their own benefit. Asa major source of food supply, these; ponds played important roles. in the culture` of the original" inhabi- O tants:of Ka-loko, Hono-k,5-hau,. Thus, once c6nstructed, great care was, taken to keep them intact:and clean and clear of overyowth, At times the fishponds were dna , thereby pro:- tectinc them from human abuse also, Harvests were made at the direction of the ruling chiefs to worry the ponds belonged, within the; constraints of the kapu system, and usually only in times of stress and need, ;or when the larger fish were too abundant ire the ponds; Seasons were also established when certain. -ocean fish sraeh as ol)elu and aku were kapu and could not be caught:. In these ways, the Hawaiians regulated the flow and supply of differentfish and maximized the efficient use.,of the ocean -and, fishponds; For the Hawaiians of Ka -lobo, H no- cr-ha , fishing was,not' merely a form of recreation, it was a way of life they O lived in order to meet the demands of an exacting environment. They Stever simply "went fishing". When venturing forth, they always had a specific place and a certain catch of fish In mind. However, even before doing that, they sought the favor of their gods upon` the ku'ula (fishing heiau) which were built around the fishponds and along the coastline. They expressed their gratitudeuponreturn by offering and honoring their gods with the'largest and choicest fish in their catch. Only after that was done could the daily catch be porti®ned out --first to the chief, then his family and retainers, and so on in line of protocol until all had shared. Thein offerings were signs of reverence, for the powers"that per- mitted and promoted the growth of O their food" acid allowedthem to secure it for their personal use id benefit.. With their siample tools,"the" Hawaiian of l a-loko, llono ko__hau cultivated. the land, b,uflt their dwellings, logged the forests, built their magnificent ocean tgoing;kqulua (sailing double - canoes) and tva'a (fishing and :suer canoe);, made their kapa`for ci.othing and all their fishing and farming etltiipmbnt, They learned tri use everything that nature had t offer• stone, wood, bark,.sap; fire roots; leaves,. mar :ne plants, herbs, fruits, nuts, fish, fowl, and animals In the process they also learned o. sch"ed"ule their time"so that there vv a "balance..of activities. There visas sufficieiit time for food produetioi for developing their uniclue forms creative art.such as their rnaele {sons oli (chants), and'hula (>~lances), ant rmost' mportant, time for t ei"r qo The latter occupied a substantial arnount, if not the greater part of time in all their activities. They pt vided for their "gads, and in turn, t gods provided for the Hawaiians. IN 1 here was mucn more to.ine spirt OT Na-IOKO; HonO-Ko-nau,. { ne settlement thrived not.oniy because of its physical resources; but also because of its human resources. The Hawaiians' spiritual identification with their land was matched bV their sensitivity and close relationship to each other. From this>sensitivity developed a socio-economic system based on sharing and mutual cooperation, O a system that can best be described by the Hawaiian concept of kakua (helping). Th'e Hawaiians built a systern of trails in Ka-loko, l-lono-kb.-hau. which was.used by the people to travel and comrngnicate with 'ohana (extended family) and friends with theahupua`a (basic O lana division reaching from mountain to sea). These trails also served as vital (if eljnes, far it was the custom of Hawaiians; living makar (seaward) to, take fish, salt, and lirrtu. ("seaweed) to 'ohana:: and friends -living rnauka (toward the mountains). In return, the people_mauka shared their,. products of taro sweet"potatof 1 and breadfru' it, Sometimes fires were, lit when one; needed the other. The food was then prel tired and taken to the origin of the fire. This farm of sharing was basic to theMawaiian way of life, and the trails provided the I�hysical means to make it possible. .It was -not a,matter of trading or bar- tering, but rather family<or friends s4 aring-vvitlt others: when they „had plenty'" This sharing conceit extended bey.00d the borders of the t�ur�t��'a as, well. Tails leading:along,the coast anri laterally in the maukil i ras served as routes for trans oath g food aril tither items to rn r- bem of the'ohana living. in the neighboring -hLpua Im SPIRIT THE GUARDIAN Ka-lok'd, Hor'o-ka-hau settlernent' In their religious beliefs, Hawaiians made very, Ilitfle distinction betweeln li.lq..anddeath. The,/ faithfully believedthat when their k6puna (ancestors) .~~ where they.b.ecam&-aumakua, th~ Thus the v�' ` — - disturbed.carefully tended, to by the. people for any disturbance oft I he _~~ THE ROYAL SPIRIT There is a mysterious,hau'ntin j quality abut the burials in Ka -lobo, Hono-Eco-hau. Most of there are those;of the maka-afraaria, the common people'who lived in the area. But, hidden`w.ithir secret eaves or lava .tubes, in order to,preserve their I -Par a, area e bohes.bf the high ranking alr `F. The afi'i, the chiefs of Various ranks, were those f purest_blocld and indisputable family §enicsrit; They were considered closest in descent from th gods, and their taana and prestige stemmed from this descent.. They treasured' the lands.,with fishponds because the ponds•were known to be .a great source of food supply. Thus-; Ka-loko : Hono ko-ha.0 was extremely valuable to therm because it had three fishponds. They often used the.settlernent for recreational and cure rrmonial purposes. Built upon the laya flats around the'Ai'makapa fishpond were.., large platforms, enclosed, arenas, and a h5lua (toboggan slide) whidl were used during their stay. Of all the ali'i associated with Ka-fokb O Hono-kZi-hau, the most famous. is the great nij (king), Ka'-rnehal eha I who first united.the Hawaiian Islands under one rule. The in&'T had moved his court to Kai-lua, not far from Ka-loko.. Hono-ko-hau, and itis said. his armies often used the settle- meat as e place to refresh .themselves on their long rrierches. The major tie v�+ith; Ka-mehameha, however, concerns the belief that after his'death, his chiefly bones were placed in a hidden sepulchre somewhere in Ka-loko near those of other a%f 1. To this day its exact location remains a cibsely guarded secret—protected by the Hawaiians' belief that, his resting place is sacred and kapt): Ka-loko is also believed to, be the resting place of King Kahekili, ruler of: Mau`i and purported by some, to. Ise the father of Ka-mehameha;.. Khekili's sister, K6161aj and her daughter, Keku'iepoiwa I_iliha,,the grandmother of Ka-rneharrieh"a I I I, are also, said to be. buried there in the same banal cave. as Ka. ekili.. 'Ka-loko has always been considered kapt ;kapu O (very sacred, io be respected), and its fishpond is said to have a rnob, a spirit guardian that. lives within the. pond and protects:it and the fish from being abused: L The ancient Hawaiians of Ka-loko, Hon6- c"s Iia }eve€• a, proud } ao l , and they had Mtrch to be.fxroud of Their life was not easy, but 18 because of their rernar able faiths in their gods, ira ttaerraselves, And it the spirit of Ka-loko, Hono-k5-hauj they were axle to develop away oflife unsurpassed by any other• group oIf.people in the world. Today, except foil occasional use oV fishermen, hikel-s, and campers - most of l0'a oko, Hong-lsa-heu lands.fare idle. But many of the ,physical, historical, and archeological features of the Ka-ioko Fi no -k frau settlement remain intact. Archeologists.,of the. Bishop M,LiSeram have found and identifier approximately 234. sites which en ori- pass almost every fu'notional structure known. to Flawaiitan prehistory, Thq most significant sites include the fish Ponds, heia(J, 1ct •trla: ,(irnare bsed tis attract fish)'„ house platforn s; holud, trails, stone planters, canoe landings ancl'shelter:s assembly groundsl,-.salt tans, petroglyphs, pal-7arrau (checkboard), and burials. Thee large nunib r of sites substantiates the fact that large popula- tions opul -tions of several hunclr:ed orad occupied the settlement,. , ltltei4gf laver rows and in disrelmir, the Ka lotto and W'rnak a . fishponds and the 'Ai'opiIo fish trap were the hub of the settlerne€iVs taUivities,and a major source of food. They still represent the finest' example of the ancient Hawaiian ability to adapt to their physical ertltironi-rient. Fishpond culture was of vast irriportanCe to the ancient Hawaiian way of life, and it can now regain..nauch Of that value by assisting modern man in adapting to his environment. Beath Ka-loko anif 'Ai'makapTi are well stockedl ..4vith'fish, and 'Ai'mal ap7d is a. habitat for. nrative and r7lirgratory birds, two of'which, the r7o' (Hawaiian stilt,)::land koloa (Hawaiian duckj, are on the endangered Mecie5 list.: ` h'e piaVoina h6hqu. alsohoWn as Hale o mano, remains as the hest example of a olatforr:-, fxviou in Kona. Its primitive beauty. an.0 durability are indications of the resourcefulness of the Harvai ans i�ao lxraiit it. Fish are still plemiful in offshore waters, and other sites such as the tr lu and stone planters are, well preserved, The trails wirid lazily through the lava, and the brackish mater pools remain refreshingly cool The graves are intact for the roost part, but toff many of thele have been ra' nsacked for artifacts they may have contained. Ka—lo, h1 aintains.its' aunting secrets and its kaper-kalatr atmosphere with the resting lilac;€ of lea-rnehamef-aa's bones still a mystery and a matter of conflicting documentation. Perhaps it should remain what, it is --a mystery.. One research source, speaking of Ka-rnehmeha's burial, staled; It is in one sense prestigious that history cquare_l the rnystery anct desired solemnity that the "loko I15 -n3" provides. if it can be accepted and respe ted by the Hawaiians, why then can others not be asaccepting? fl,dy and Nahale, Dral History of Hono-k -hau, (Na unpublished research, Honolulu: Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum, January, 3974, p, 4 ) Ho ever, the spirit of Ka-loko, Hono-Mhau, the life:of the lend and the sea, began to wither when it became merely a conirnodit.y t 'be. bought and sold. Now itis in da ger of extincii.on, ecause.af itsscenic`beauty and proximity to the ocean and its O recreational potential, Ka•lo.ko, Hono* -hau is beingthseata ed by encs-Wching urban and res6rt.development. ,4ndowners, n the area have proposed a development plan in which the lands' of KA -Intro and Honok6diau are designed for restart and urban use.. Perhaps the spirit of Ka-loko, Hono-k5-hau'Nis 'withered'.. because the spirit of the, Hawaiian people has Withered; slo,wly-,e od by 20 the powerful forces of the west, introduced almost two hundred years ago by profit-seeking merclizirim and over-zeal6us mission- aries.; forces that devastated, I the Hawaiian, population through epidemics, brokedown the kap) u system which provided the basic foundation of, the Hawaiian culture, and replaced, the Hawaiian system of land tenure with one so totally fpreign,� to the Hawaiians. - a„ that,within a matter "of%50 years they found themselves practically landless in their own land. The loss of their land and the disintegration of their culturehas left the Hawaiian people virtually .lifeless, without mu ch of their identity. Their lariguage,and arts are perpetuated by only a diligent few, and except for major events,, many Hqwaiiansl<now very little about their heritage. But perhaps,the most tragi I c loss Hawaiians have suffered is the sensitivity End spiritual bondt6 each other which once brought the: people of the Ka-loko, Hono- k6-hau settlement so close together. Today, despite the pressures to assimilate into the row dominant western culture, Hawaiia'ns desperately cling to that spirit so tenderly nurtured `try their kupuna at Ka-loko, Hono-k6-haul. There is renewed interest among young and old Hawaiians to preserve their land and culture. They are searching back for. , their roots, beyond the chaps of the 19th century, to, the time, when their kupuna were self7relient and .industrious; searching forthe values which can give. them the, strength, self-confidence, and most importantly, pridethey need to successfully overcorn 1 6 present challerinds., As their land continues to be abused, buried beneath high- rise buildings and concrete. highways, Hawaiiansare asking, "A ' re we to witness thdespoliation continuing despoliaion o f our land and culture at the hands of so-called progress?” For these, reasons, and countless others, the, Hawaiians and other people of Havvai'i who share the Hawaiian cultural heritage feet that Ka-IoRoj Honovkb-Iran will' I helpsatisfy their great hunger for a renewal of those cultural and spiritual 'values that have come so close. to extinction in recent decades. The preservation of, KaA.oko, H,ono-k6thau as a national park would help renew these very;important elements of the Hawaiian ,identity because it represents the. traditional Hawaiian way of life. Now there is n opportunity: to restore ilsa cultural identity: that ionce existed. Preservatiort of these intangible resources will have an 'expanding irn,P ct that wilt scat only touch they,lives-of all Hawaiians,. but will also enlarge the horizons of people thr, ughout the state', natioh,zhdl beyond. Thus,.a national cultural park will become the focal hint fear exhi% itinei (low this laartiular groupof people coped with their own unique environment. Currently, there, is no physical facility in the State of:.Hawa `i that 21 has been set: aside solely ldr th'e.purpose of perpetuati'iig Hawaiian culture and arts, particularly one that is managed by native Hawaiians. Ka-lokp, Hong-k5-hau could provide such a facility because, it em bodiesan integrated life style whic .was, at ohe tirme found in count- less coriarnunities through the islands of Hawaii. What.rerna'ins ip this settlement area is notjust a,few token archeological representations of the .Hai-aiian culture, but the historic site of an entire corn, unity that existed as an entity within th,uttundarfesof'the -afaupu <s but tied as well to adjacent 06mmunities of similarstructures. It is a stage upon which the Hawaiian way of life was first performed centuries ago Developed as a living museum, Ka-loko, Hono-ko-hau would be a place where:Hawaiians could personally and directly experience their ancestors' finest hour. 'If national;,parks are designed, to:. preserve, thea Ka-loko, Hono-kb-hau would be designed to preserve;. Othe values of ,a dying culture'. The land:and culture would live again. As Hawaiianswalked across Ka -lobo, Hono-ko-hau, they could experience the presence of the spirit flowing. through all of nature. They could stand upon the graves and offer silent worship t6 their lauiha ua, and their %sqpuna who cultivated the spirit. .end E__.. , _ _ =€e L _. _ •�:_ . ___.._ The alternative to this spir- itual and physical restor- atiori is the continuation of the classic pattern that has, for the past 200} years, threatened to erase those unique feelings that are Hawaiian, through destruction of more physical remains of his culture„ The tloss.ex- perienced by Hawaiians would he most dramatic, but the state and nation, would also suffer since the total rmosaic.of cultures that O make iiia otic cormplex and diverse heritage would be further eroded. O As evidence of its national significanco-Ka-loko, Hono-k6-.haU %,Ypq: givena rank of "high value in 1962 on the National Register of Historic, Landmarks. These hist6eic and cultur.'al sites represent:a_ .ciyilization that, floprished ` before the discovery of America. Failure. to, preserve the entiresettlemOnt will result in serious, . if not 22, loss and destruction. 'of an important,hist6rical and archeological complex, an area that is now threatened ened by encroaching orban- resort 'development. K'a-loko, Hones-1<6_haupreserved as a natibnal park which is designed M a livinq, rnOseurn'o Haw f ' aiian culture,.N�Mfld provide a uni ue des- , jinaLion point for visitors from the.m I inland. Un.ite'dStates and other parts of the world. It would provide the visitor not only,a,glimpse lout the beginnings of understanding of a way,of l'i'fe that that has be- come part of the,American heritage. But, the preservation of Ka-loko, Nano-k'6-hau as a national cu , Itural Bark rias much greater importance for the Un'ited States and its: people. First of all, thereare valuable lessons ,that.,can be learned from ancient Hawaiian culture. I ri.these . times when manyof our nation's, nalfur-a,l,resources -are :becot-niiig scarce, the interpretive opportunities,thatexist in Kadoko, Hono*6-hau can offer a. fine example of how one grouge of people, the Hawaiians, lived. in such harmony with: their environment that there. were always enough natural resources to provide for their physical needs. It is, perhaps£ one of the best examples of man'S,ad I a0tatio(l. to, rather than,dornination of, nature. With their abilitylo adapt, the HaWaiians devised ing6himss il-setlao is f ocean fishing and fishpond flar In inq growirig agricul, ural crops 0 Opon the porous J Si and cultivating, and usingof rY edicina( plants and hubs, the effectiveness of Tela has been praised by miodern. clay physicians. Ise audition, it presents an oppprtuhity for the l nited Mates to furthor explore and demonstrate water transl arta tion as evolved; ,by the Havvaiiatis.who had, a tyl:te cif craft capable f negotiating high. seas while still being able to land on shore. Secondly, Ka- oko, Hbno-k5-hau. is injoci Mart to The nation because.. i€-svestig,ltions ire the course of this shady have curt er substantiated the firm.,belief of.the Ha aiian eo le that th it national hero,:King ire K'a-rnOiameha, is burfed there, a-nieharnehra is world-recr gni'z d for his qualiti s of leadtcrshi'p,.hbm'as`rittarianistii, wisdor.p., Intl steensgth, and h s been ri htfully,honor-e;i nationally in the,United States Statuary Hall by the United` States Congress. A thsird',benefit the nation and thc;World can d,&M-x from the. Hawaiian culture as laracticed by tllaOse who, lived at 1 P,=lolto Hcano-k a-hau is an exampfe,in human rel tioships, The ancierq,. Hawaiians, with their attitude d=' sharing and slairit (if'mutual ooperatiory can show, IIiow siml--ale and uncomplicated life O, n be C heri people are sensitive tip such rather` meet s. I<anl o, tsca=; 6-hau can bo'the r editarj) through which this ex an,a{ale can be flemoststrated. OBut perhaps the rnost important benefit the United States will derive from the preservaticsr of Ka -lobo, Hoc os ki5liau is the knowledge. that it has contributed actively TO the preservation of a unique native American culture that has lead strong and broad effect on our nation's co, nscience,.attitudes, and lifestyle, but Haat was, nevertheless, on the verge,of extinction because.of tfie imposition of western values and concepts. The United' tater prides itself on being tlje lend of flit free, a fetesdiger eous;sdciety of maty different pedf le and cultures, and. yet, cultural differences ha, ve not always leen under stood or a`ceepted, The preservation of`Ka•loko, Honer-k6-hau .kVOUld provide the United States the olalaortunity to show that it does indeed accept: and value cultural .differences, and that it recognizes the role and -cbratributsons of native groups to Arnerican democracy, Ana btate.oT Hawan imotto "Ke aloha o ko k5kou '5ina Oia ka maria ku pa'a. P5,noano,a ka 7ina, Wnoanoa. ka po'e.- "The love of our land is the power for us,to stand fast, Rare. is the land Many are the ® The Hono kcr-hau Steady Advisory Comirnissiondnd ti e U.S.Dboart- 25 ment of, the lnit"arior :f rids it: feasible and cle iral e drat the, k -loko, Hono-k6-hau vicinity and adjacent waters be,pteserved by the United Stat'es for the, benefit of tha Ha4vaiian peopla olid the, nation. 1: An area comprising about 1300 acres of land( and water area, to include the Homo-kip-hau National Historic Landmark and adjacent waters iherernafier referred to. as Ka-loko, Hope- 1<6-hziu) be established as part of the rational Park Systeme_. 2. The The. Ka-loka, Hono-lCo=h a National Park complex"be. a) a center for the:reorientation a0d,perpetuation of Hawaiian activities, culture, and basic Ia d use "patterns; and b) used for.education, enjoy ant, and appreciation 1by ,local residents andl ivisitors, OGENERAL PARK PLAN The proposed parr boundary will include the entire rriakai (seaward) portions,of the Hon'a bounded on the mauka (mountain) side by the Queerr.Ka-'ahu -man u Highway. It 011 "also include shoreline areas M;tliiri floe a/7uj7ua'a of Ko-h15nai*i' and Keeala-kehe lying between Mw5hi wa'a and Noio Points. In the south sjde,,the park boundary, will 'begin at roia Point;, fcrlldw the State's Conservation Zone Boundary toward the.Hono- 1< -hau small Boat Harbor; and run across the rnout.4 of the harbor: It will thea extern! 50 feet north, run.parallel to and 50 feet from the northern border 'of the harbor until it is 400 feet past the inauka end of tlte-harb.pr, at which point it will run parallel to tl e.,inauk.a border of the harbor to the north right-of-way of the harbor entrance road and there mauka along this right -of' -way line to the west right-of-way+ liege of the Queen K 'ahu-manna Highway From thea it willJollow that right-of-way line to the boundary line between the' Shu ua'a. of Ka-loko and Ko-hanai-ki. From there the lime wi11 run rnakai long that boundary line to the state's coastal ownership line and then follow this line to the W5W5 a'a Point. O In addition to the land; boundaties, the ocean or offshore boundary will extend 300 feet out from 11115 vahi.wa'a Point and, Noio Point acid then stretch across in a line connecting these two paints. Ems= The, Ka-loko, Hon o-k6-haupark.complex will be 8eveloped as"AAiving museum of the Hawaiian culture, The. facility Would replicate,as nearly as possible, the prehistoric and phases,.of,the historic Ka-loko" �nt. TheICLiltUra-I 1p'ro-gramsc6ndulcted Horiol-k6-haO'settlem ,withih the park will be,based.on:the actual life activities performed by Hawaiians.. 26 The park will be physically,separated into appropriate use zones w4ich will provide for (1) the preservation, stabilization, and restor- ation of historic features, (2) livihg.hi 'story demonstrAtliciln's', (3) recreation use, (4) the education and training otnative Hawaiians in traditional cultural pursuits, and (5) kapu (restricted) areas, such as time concentrat.ion of burials in Ka-lok': (q), intense watershed management andlow density recreation, and M. offshore Water and marine life management, The park is also intended to give the first time visitor a, beginning com- prehension,and glimpse of the ancient Flawaiian culture -and lifestyle through diientati.on sessionsand guided tours of the various historical, archeological,, arvd:cult, ura l,sites within the settlement area. Programs will be established to restorepative vegetation including medil tinal'plzints and manage the offshore marine resources. The park will also lac .a.center for Hawaiian historical and cultural research, with the establishment of a library complex as a repository for tapes,, films, and publications concerning. HawaiiansaInd'Other groups (if peoplewithin the South Pacific region,. The proposed unit will be admidistered by the National. Park SerVice, United States Department of the Interior, but the park�staff will be composed of Hawaiians who have the skil'Is and kno , wlddqe necessary to manage such:a, unique park complex. PARK BOUNDARY RECREAS ION pRESERVATION OFFSHORE AND MAj4jNF- LIFE MMAGEmENT PARK, LANDS ZONES KAPU ARhAz) LIVING HISTOW HAWAIIAN EDUCA -00N WATF _RSHED MANAGEt AND L DENSITY L Ka-loko, mono k6-hau includes many resources that give it identity O i and natural beauty. Having aesthetic, cultural, archeological, historic, and scieritific value, those'resources are an irreplaceablepublio�trust, a � RECOMMENDATIONS f. The<fishponds anti their immediate surroundings should be restored, as nearly as possible, to the conditions that existed; before the introduction of foreign infl;uences.. 21 A meinitorirg system should be established' for water quality in offshore areas,.as well as -inland water bodies such as springs,, wells, and fishponds. .: The sites and structural remains of the early Hawaiian period and the historical period should be studied to determine their role in future development acid ;use of the park. 4. The ancient Hawaiian burial sites should especially be preserved and their privacy and sacredness maintained. 5. The area's remnant Hawaiian ecosystems should be protected from; further:depreciatioo and competition by exotic plants. and animals. & The natural environment should be preserved by protecting O outstanding environmental and scenic features and by main- taining the ecological balance of the area. PRESERVATION, PLAN OThe majority" df sites areclustered about the Ka-loko and 'Ai'h)akap5 fishponds and shoreline; which indicates tlat these areas were the vital-centers of activity".in the prehistoric life of`the Kadoko, Hgno k- -hau settlement_ The dncum'ented"historical importance of the fishponds and ocean in the life of the settlement further supports. the theory of these site complexes being the hub of settlement acti- vity. Good water quality is essential to'fishpond culture, and since the sourc0s almost entirely in the; rainy rriauka:areas; managetnent of these:and other lands adjacent to the park will have a direct impact of water resources within the park.: Thus; cooj�erative l�lannirc efforts with tete state, county, and private; landowners 'is an important part of this proposal. Essentially this means r"e-estabhshmerit of many of the managpment,practices used ray early Hawaiians; a hierarchy of use density, ranging from concentrated living areas "on7 the shoreline acid around fisc ponds to the. agricultural uses at the, middle elevations and the use of Inauka;;lands for watershed,' hunting, and gathering of timber resources; A progran `Hill be established to restore existing historicsGtes within these complexes as nearly as possible to their original' appearance for the function they fulfilled. The fishponds, Parti-- O cularly 'Ai'makapa, were historically larger than they are today. Ka,-l.oko wil'I be cieaned,of overgrowth and the makMD (sluice gates) rebuilt to allow the tides to flow evenly into and:out of the pond. Its kuapa the largest and tli,ckest;man-made; sea wall :on the lsland::of Hawaii, is,stillsomewhat intact but has '30_' been da raged over,the years and will require repair,. The overall intent of the program-will he to make the fiishpond and numerous surrouridin`g'sites, whichWere part of the fishpond culture'; functional :once again. 'Ai'makapa will be, restored to the extent at which it will not have an adverse ,effect on the wildlife that presently inhabits the pond. Further historical: research will be necessary to deter the what plar:e" wildlife such as the je'o (.Hawaiian stilt), kolna (Hawaiian duck);,.__ and the 'Wae4e'oke'o (Hawaiian coot) actually had in the fishpond during, historic and prehistoric times. Im <. :;%k:. G b f.Kira$�� 4 � T_4� �` ate' 4�d f'" s ^` � ius:such as the stone planters, saltpans, trails, petroglyphs„papamu; and the graves are not as impressive looking as the ponds or lir hja O bc�t ih y each played a corizribUt ng pert to tit way t life of the settlement-. The graves were especially important because of their religious meaning to the Hawaiian people. Therefore, these sites will also be preserved, In orrler'to further preserve and restore the historical integrity -d the Ka-loko, l lona-kc,-hau settlement area, a long-term plan will be designed to.eradicatea the exotic. vegetation and;animal life which now dorsi"mate the area.. The park will then be replanted with native vege- tation,, ;such as the nani anci 'ilirma plants and hal, , mild kou,: and coconut trees, all of which had furf,ctional uses and -are still growing in Kp-lokp, Hobo-k&=hau. In generals then,,the preservation pian b' the park is based on the historic -cultural importance of the settlement, rather than on indivi- dual Archeological c r environme tal.features., When ell these features are preserved and restored they will became what the Ka-l©kv, Hono-k6-hau+ settlement was -- the Hawaiian culture as it -was.. and \�� � � E�� k/ <�� � � � � R��� ¥ %�:7��� 2 . . � � ��: _ Ka-loko, Hono--k&-.hau is more than just an archeological, historic,, envie 6nmental or 'redteatidnal asset, It is a riceless syrr�bt l of Hawaiian culture and heritage. The, area vividly gortrays the trad- itional Hawaiian relationship between man and nature. Ka-loko Hono-1«-hau prcivides some of'the last_ remain1ing physical -evidence of a Hawaiian way of life that has beers all but dbrhpletely destroyers 30 by the intrusioh.of western rnarn and cicvelopment. While Hawaiians may be `the initial beneficiaries of Ka-lo€cc , Hoh6- k5-hau, people from other parts of the nation and the world will also be recipients of the park's benefits. They will have ars oppor- tunity portunic to view and participatefin the remaking of a culture that tram a thousand years yv to build. They will see, ho,well, man can live and has lived with the forces Of nature. Perfizips they; night even glimpse that aesthetic appreciation of the physical world which,. Hawaiians translated 'i to personifications,df natural phenomena and material objects to bind tacgathee men and; spiritual forces into one total and inseparable environment. Thus, for Hawaiians, ether local residents, a ld oast -of -state visitors, alike, Ka-loko, Hono- -hau will truly be a special place: 1: 'The primary interpretive theme'of Ka-loko, Nano: kd-hau will be the Hawaiian culture -- including the Hawaiian language, lanes and sea eth c, fishpondcutturej family system, ancientchants,danc%,. crafts, and the important part rekgion played in these and other cultural activities. 2, Within the context of the primaTy theme, an'interpretive pro- gramwill be developed around three themesof significance;, a) The first therne'wiill focus on the rejuvenation, perpetuation and understanding of Hawaiian culture and its attendant activities'. It will emphasize 1 he desire of the Hawaiian Opeople to retain their cultural legacy through interpretation of and participa t"on in cultural Itural Activities', and will.creatO, an awareness of the digni I Ty, integrit- ,and, importance of Y'. this segment of the n1ation's heritage both for Hawaiians and park visitors. b) The second theme will be environmental, and will conc-eln- trate on how cultural values were put into practice by the Hawa,iians in the'ie use cif' available resources, Emphasis should b0'placed on Hawaiian lan&sea use patterns;,2and on the important c,01,tural uses of native plants and animals, especially those which had food, medicinal, and ceremonial purposes, that existed before the introduction, of European, influences. The third therne wi I I be arecreationalone which encourages Hawaiians and park visitors to engp e in some of the ' recrea- tional a- tionalactivities that existed in ancient Hawai'i,.or.are corn- patible. with those, activities. 3. Specific elements of the interpretive program would include cul- tural demonstrations, educational activities, stabilization and restoration of sites, fishpond management, interpretive exhibits, an publications,whicli, provide further insight: into the cultural pursuits of the ancient: Hawaiians. O4. The architectural theme for the park complex should retain the timeless,:primeval Quality of.'Ka-loko, Hon"6-1<6-fiau by blendin 9 in with the settlement area's surroundings. 0 INTERPRETATION CLAN The interpretation:of Hawaiian culture can lest be accorriplished by O mai.ftaining'an info—rrnal.atmosphere.where traditibhaI Hawaiian activities can take pEace, The opennesseand natural surroundings of Ka loko, !-sono ka hau as well as its numerous arclneologica6 sites, and the wealth of Hawaiian We associated with the area,. iniake it an ideal setting for demonstrating, teaching, and learning what is 38 truly 'Hawaiian. Cultural Demonstrations Cultural derhonstrations within.the park carnplex will be designed to enable the park; visitor to understand and:appreciate the Hawaiian way-of.life as itwas laved by ancient Hawaiians at.6<a-loko, Hono-ho hau- They wil'I give visitors a close look at the land -sea ethic which the Hawaiians developed as a result of `their harmonious relatibn,§614 with all natural lahenomena. Emphasiswillbplaced on the fishing activities and fishpond culture that formed, the basis of the Hawaiians'subsistence economy and also 6h their'social structure which revolved around the sharing and mutual cooperation. of the.'ohana (extended :family system). More importantly, they wiII demonstrate -a lifestyle woven together by deep religious beliefs and rigidlygoverned by the kapo system. I'iiterreters will introduce visitors to the unicjue' pageantry whicli was the ancient Hawaiian way of life. They will guide visitors into:a world where a` "stone was not always just a stone; but sometimes the embodiment of.a.god.- where a simple but highly efficient system o:f fish farming; and breeding was developed with fishponds; where ,sweet potatoes and pumpkins were grown in the midst of lava flats; where people from<the uplands and the seashore shared food products. with .each other; and where the great riio`r, Ka-mehameha lies buried in mystery. They will explain the deeply religious world of the ancient Hawaiians and how. religion influenced every waking moment of "their lives. Only then will park visitors be able to absorb ,and appreciate some of the; significance of the archeologtcal and historical sites they will be exposed to within the park. Cultural demonstrations will be setup to,allow the..visitors the O opportunity to participate as well as to observe: By, the end.of their stay in:the park, they will understand the meaning of Ka-loko, Homo-kn-hau because they will, have.,experienced it. IM ultural Education An educational program kvQuld be established',,kithin the uric to O teach the values and traditions of the Hawaiian culture. An impor- tant segment of this educational program would involve a facility designed) primarily for native.Hawaiians and removed from any: major public,use area, where the dignity and integrity of the culture wotuld Ise maintained, It mould Bye an intimate personal experience 40 extending quer a period of one day or more, rather than being part, of an exhibit open to the regular visitor. Glasses would be conducted outdoors or in a hblau (open.shed). the. hilatr`would be necessary to provide `work space for'canoe-building, hulanstruction, and.pther activities which require work space under a protective.shelten. Instructionwou,ld be provided in basket weaving, lau hala plaiting,,. wood carving, feather work, musical instruments, nut crafts, and the making of,fishing iraterials € k such as nets, hos, robes, lines, and si n kers. Anotherpart of this educational program would involve not Hawaiians actually learning to "live off the land:" as their ancestors once did. They woul& learn, to adapt to nature by learning how to; utilize the natural resobeces of, the land and sea. This program -would include instruction in the ancie►it.rnethods of net fishing, and growing agricultural craps and medicinal plants within fhe'stone planters: Stabilization and Restoration A major program will be implemented to analyze and determine which;archeolo,gical'sites within the park should bo restored, stabilized, or merely left aline. These deterrtiinatibns vo'uld be part of tl,e overall interpretive. concept then will complement .the cultural demonstrations and assist in the ecluucational program For example, the restoration and operation of Kadoko, and"Ai'rnakapa` fishponds as food producers would be a.dominant cultural 'exhibit in the park: 'W'Makapa,Would, also dduble asp a wildlife sanctuary which provides a major scenic and wildlife: attraction for :park visitors. MEM Recreation would be an important asset to the complex. Certain, sites can be restored for use in cold Hawaiian garr essueh as € li rmaika {a form of bowling or shuffles I�opr'd), kbnr rte (similar t checkers), or a -rafW. war, and community organizer)"events of competition can be scheduled. The shoreline. is an ideal recreationaj area for ishin,01 snorkel ing,Aiving,'carnping, Ipionickir g and hiking, Recreation' alareaswould be, open to c sn unity use.and not restricted ;as exclusive areas: Interpretive Exhibits Within .the orientation center, but lo6Ialed sci ilia€ it will most often be used by visitors return ng from their park experierice'to their cars or Mises a museum area will contain certain artifacts and, exhibits. These will be designed for browsing and should supplement the cultural experience. They rimy include such device..s.as murals cif scenes from, ancient Hawaiian life, arti facts, that need indoor protection, and details of fish, vegetation, and cultural story elerrientss n -site bi i� i� tee x _ b is would a d be sirt-rpler, and the remote areas cif the park will have few or na exhibits at all Publications A variety of printed materials explaining certain Hawaiian cultural activities in detail will be made available to park visitors who: wish a Bleeper under- stand ing nder-standing of Hawaiian cu`Iture, and what they have: seen within the park. Visitor. Facilities and A€chitectural.Therne In Girder to most effectively portray for contem- porary porary man the astonishingly simple yet highly creative culture of a people who had ultimately learned to live and work, in total harmony with their bleak volcanic environment, the architectural charac- ter of the park building complex,sho ld pgssess a timeless quality by blending in with its rugged, prin`reval surroundings The resulting architectural theme will be a terrain -related organic architecture - a system of sheltered spaces seemingly "of the earth". O FISHPOND CULTURE-;, in NAW NTEN The entrance area will spacious and high-ceilinged., Leading; from it,:apassageway diminishing in height will reach out westvVard I oward. the sea and fi'nnel in tl'ie pool day -time bre:ezm, It will, at the same time, descend in the direction of the sea. Lighting Within the stricture will be -afforded by natural sources, particu- larly in the larder assembty areas: By now the visitor tivill„have* becorne so totally absorbed by the absence of anything corp temporary that upon emerging from the corridor end ( t thin point more a lava tube than a building) lie wilt in essence have spanned the tirne gall back into history..Perched some' 20 feet above'Ai'rnakap5 Pond, he can then follow the`descendin trail into the fishing village.below in much the same manner as a native Hawaiian would have done before the arrival sof the.'. white ITnan. The building site i s:i1. .n reality the:. edc e oaf an ,ancient lava flow hich ands abruptly at the inland hanks of the'Ai'makapa fishpond: O Elevated appe6xim te'N 40 feet abov' e the pfd, "sts lagged surf ce of loose clinker type lava slopo&.gradually.d6wnward toward the actual edge {i°ou laly 20'feet above the pond)" Before dropping in a steep, slo a down to.the-banks of`-th pgnd. It is a natural,prom- ontory and was chosen primarily for tl* excellent view of the coastlin' p-fticularly the three l istaric Fishpt�nds; l<a lokt , 44, 'Ai'makapa, and 'Ai`o}aio. However, equally as vital is its ldca tion relative to the'cool Oceanhreezes;' A priceless coirh nodity in an aria where the average day is,most often sunny, hot, and frequently humid.. Conceptually, the ty aical visitor will enter the park by motor Vehicle, leave his modern day cohVeyance in a leveled off d pressi`cti in the lana fields and climb,a.slightly ascending path toward a cave, - like opening that Penetrates a cluster of rocky mounds: Upon. entering lie will irrirriediately become aware that the mounft-pare a series of hollowed out caverns rather than masses of volcanic rubble. He will mite that"the spaces vary according to the func- tion, visual effect, or visitor capacity. The other authentically restored ancient Hawaiians>structures will be handled under trite direction of the Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum, Several small and simple structuresin the form of co—i-fifort stations and interpretive exhibits will be built' at the level of Lhe, fishponds but generally hidden inJush native Vegetation. The park will be. managed primarily for clay use, but selected, areas 4 AD will be provided for short-term live-in accornmcidat`ions which will 4nc urageNative Hawaiians to actively participate in ig-depth cultural activities; A facility Will be built for Hawaiian grOUps and or nizati6ns"to utilize as headquarters, a place to hold meetin s, err for ceremonial gatherings. In addition, supportive facilities such as parking,.food service (to be provided by a small coheession and featuring Hawaiian foods),. and transb.ortation will;be,l�rovided to help the visitor enjoy the full, range -of activities and: events withou.t destroying or.dimin- ishing the Havuai an ethnic or historical integrity,: Visitor Use and Capacities Several criteri& have been used to protect the°visitor capacities:for the proposed,' a -lobo; Hono-key-hau Natioiw l Cultural Park. These criteria include ( 1) visitor use at'Hawai`i Vulcan es and the: City- of itecif refuge, (2)accessibility, {3l the; variety cif facilities arse activities the park will offer, and 14y the estimated number of Hawaiians who lived'in thle historic settlernent at any one time.. ., Based on these considerati+ar s, the following is.arelin"imary estimate of visitor capacity with the a-lok€f, Hcno-k6-hau complex: 1:, Capacity at>any one, time 250'350 2. Daily capacity for the entire park 1,560 . Capacity for amphitheatre with' orientation center, 250-250 4. Dail.y capacity fiat; core.area and immediate vicinity only 1,500 5. Capacity in mor .r embte'areas.includin those areas Where nativeHawaiians will be pursuinq educational activities 500 6. Projected annual visitation assuming capacity visitation for 3010 days and. 0 percent capacity the remaining times 500,000 It should be:,noted that the daily overall park capacity and the, capacity for the core area are identical because it is assumed that all visitors will pass through the core area,,, which includes the orientation facilities. The average visitor stay within fhe park will be approximately 11% lours. This figure assomes about 15 to 20 minutes for:orientation,, about, 30 minutes for informal walks around the main orientation area and another 30 minutes for more formal programs. Some visitors will. probably remain to visit the fishponds, the Beach and shoreline' arewas-, and for. an intimate examination o.f the archeological sites.a� tive Hawaiiahs and others Who may come to the park for educational or cultbral pursuits will vent likely stay several hours or t>vernieght . This, however-, would bg a smaller, number when ggrnpared to; the, total visitation, so the overall average stay would likely' "remain,, ti erefcare, at about 11/2 hours. MANAGEMENT 14a-iako,"Nano-ko-hau is a vital touchstone."wJt.h the"Hawaiian spirit; O Constructive"steps need to ire taken�to retainand. further this cul- turai experience`fo� Hawaiians and.pa"rk visitors;; RECOMMENDATIONS 4.8 1: The general management of the Ka-loko, Hong-ko-hau complex should a. Insure that park programs and. uses maintain the dignity and character of Hawaiian culture by involving Hawaiian people`in all aspects of the park's management:, and i nterpretatio n; b. Provide means to study and perpetuate ail aspects of Hawaiian life, i.e., "languages family system, dances, chants; traditional arts, and technology, etc:; c., While managing the park primarily for day use, ,provido select"areas with authentic; H"awaiian live-in aceommoda- tions for Hawa_ iians who wish to actively participate in in-depth cultural pursuits; and d. Cooperate with other local, state; Federal instututions. in implementing the concept of a l;iving'cultural"park, 2. A resource angcmnt plan or # lcslao, Fi' no-1+-hu;l7rulcl, 0a. recognize the interdependence of all resources with the qhupya"4 and not just those Jocated with. in ttie p:►rogo. sed� park boundary, and, therefore, be, patterned,after the ah6 ira'a 'Coh epjt as develope&by the"and'ont Hawaiians b. Recognize the interrelationship of the"ahupua"'a of i<a-loko and Nona-k6-hau with the adjacent i uptia'a of d-h5nai=9 i and Ke-alai-k.eheand with.the cooperation of governmental agencies should include parts of these ahupua'a C. Include the management of "the offshore coral reefs and; Waters to complement the early Hawaiian 'lheme. of the park and protect the shorelind<and waters within the park' boundary from pollution; and d. Maintain air q'pality standards in the area. 3. The preservation and inters retatioh of the Ka-loka, l lona-1(6-lista complex should be' managed, to the greatest extent possible, by native Hawaiians. This should; include but not be limited to; a. Giving Hawaiians prefererstiaVtreatir ent-for any employmentgenerated by park operations. As a ccrollaryto this empl;y- menr policy, civil service. requirements for park positions should h;e"restructur1.ed to better reflect the special qualities Ha%rraiians can contribute to a cultural Park; ba Providing .train incg opportunities for the upgrading of O Hawaiian parte persofitna as well as for mem. ers of the Hawaiian community interest in the"operation, interpreta- tion, and preservation of histbdc aatd cuitur l resources;. c. Coaperating:with Havuaiian.groups in all phases of the park`s operations. As part of this process, a statewide Hawaiian advisory council (Na. Hoa pili o Ka-lak"o,_ Dano-ko-hau, see appendix for further"information) should tae established'to advise on the management of the Ka-ioko, HonoR6-hau complex; d, Allowing local Hawaiian groups to utilize park"facilities for appropriate headquarters, Hawaiian meetings, gatherings, 50. etc.,.and e.. refining "Hawaiians" as any descendant of the race inhab- iting the Hawaiian Islands prior"to the year 1779. MANAGEIVIENT PLAN Ancient Hawaiians placed great value on every feature of nature and all things they produced "and acquired from nature"to sustain thern> selves They understood that in order to survive in their island,.home„ they"had to live in close harmony with everything; around thern. This traditional Hawaiian "relationship between man and his environment provides the key to the future'management of the Ka-lokc , Hono-ko- hau complex. Any management plan for Ka-loko, Hono-k6-hau must recognize the. impact the area's resources has on people and conversely, the effect that human activity will have on these.same•resources. Therefore,,it seems appropriate that:thew management plan focus on (1) the control of on- and off-site factors that affect. park resources; "(2) the role of, Hawaiians in the management of parkz resources and (3) "the management of park resources to maximize the benefit visitors' receive and yet minimize the adverse effects of visitor use. Resource Control OThe conceptual framework for resource ep'ritrol begii�s;with the.vieuu that the environment is an, inseparable totality; Out.in the mjddle.of the vast:.Pacifici thio land, sea, and sky all functionally interrelate to form a home for mart. The living land pr=ovides "sheiter and security; -tile encircling sea gives its bounty 'far harvest;.and the: majestic sky dominates th'e:imaginatibi and proVides.a limitless',,&me overhead The'dynarnic thread„that. ties the environment together is water,. Water rises fr6mi the sea, travels'across the sky, falls on themountains and rushes through the hand backjo the„sea. The land:, sea, and sky act as carriers for this valuable resource and make possible the settlement of 646h, Hawaiians, perceiving the necessity.of water, on `isolated islands,; oriented their land -sea use patterns to tide water cycle. Ahupt!,a a land divisions running front the mountain to the sea, were estab- lished to the advantage of the natural'functions.of the environment. Crops were planted in the, rainy tj�acrka sections, wh-ile the people lived near the dry seashore. Each al7tipua`a developed. around a recognition that all of its elements were'interdependei t. What affected thenlauka regions, affected the makai. What affected'lhe, neighboring ahupt. 'a affected it: What affected the land affected: the fishponds and the sea. What affected the water cycle affected: the total anfvironme'nt. Thi's is the }pray it was'and is'at Ka-loko OHono-k6-hau. The Ka-loko, Hono-k5-luau complex is a small; fragile part of a larger environment which has influenced its history and affects it today.. Therefore; an'rnanagernent plan must cleat with' botKilie on- and. tiff -site factors thataffect the area's resources. fin -site The acquisition and developmerit df Ka-loko, ftno-led-hau by the O Nation6l Park ervica will allow direct management control. over onsite resources: Arnong;other- things, this will enable the National Park: Service to ..ontrol uses of park lands and adjacent waters; 2. Implement preservation and restoration projects, including 52 (a) the restoration and operation of the fishponds" and other historic features; and {bjthe.re=establishment of the area's endemic pleat and animal species; 3. Provide for living History demonstrations,.for recreation use, for education and training in traditional cultural pursuits, and other interpretive programs;~and 4. Conduct additional research of parrresources For adequate control of on-site resources, it is mandatory that sufficient acreage be acgrrired,by the National Parl< Service to provide protectivezones around'park resources.. It would make little sense to preserve Ka-loko pored if 'extensive development would then be allowed behind it. With the area's porous sails and. underground water cycle, little time would be needed before Ka-loko would destroyed;. Therefore, an identifiable outer boundary for the Kadoko, Hono-ka-hau complex would be the Queen Ka-'ahu-mane Highway. .In the control of on-site resources definite criteria should be O established bythe' National Park'Service for evaluating, planning, and implementing any, programs or projects. Specific attention must be given toward the types of land -sea uses that,will be designate in the development of the park complex, especially with regard to water management criteria. Procedurally, the criteria that developed should be reviewed by Na Hoa ;pili o Ka-loko; Hono-kb-hau. Two specific conditions of the `on-site: management plan will include M a provision allowing those°families who now occupy leaseltolcis> within the proposed park complex to remain on their land for a speci- fic period of"ti"m" e whid,h'Will be deterMined through neg6tiation, and (2} a provision that diene be no.cornmercial fishing within park waters. Fishing for: recreation or for personal needs, however, will be encour- aged, In addition,, removal of coral or sand from the park beaches and waters will be prohibited. w' W 70 UA cc t w ¢IL z 0 O zC, ,0 0 (1714 le 0w u i=< c - d waterf 9auka vatef :V Lens of fresh vvatet near sea level AHUPUA''A BOUNDARIES EXTENDED FROM MOUNTAINTQP INTO THE: OCEAN ,Moisture evap Off-site The ahuptiaa concept should be used as the approach in securing ng bff-Sife Controls. The mental image of land units running from the: rnountain to the sea indicates the erivirotirriental interrelationships that result from such divisions, and The types Of offsite controls that ate needed. Obviously, 'Stich controls Will of necessity have to be less direct and more limited than those thitare on-site, 541, Nevertheless, if the integrity of Ka,-Ioko, Hono-k&- I. ha U : is to be rnaiMai lied, Scarne contro'Is are required, It should be hibted that the-Mopoa'a concept, while widely recog- nized for its.value, is not utilized by either local governme nt or private landowners. One of the basic reasons for this failure is the fact that after Ahe &nd of the Hawaiian land tenure system and the introduction of private land ownership,. land usage was for many years, Hallowed to proceed in a laissez-faire fashion, The conceot of land use control both in Hawai'i and the nation, is a Jphenomenon of recent Vintage. Therefore, thie present day,: land ownersh i-' p and development patterns rns haphazardly cut a cross ahupua'a I in es,,, In establishment of off-site controls, the N' ational Park Service wil I coordinate its efforts on two general levels: governmental and private. On the governmental, level, coordination should be developed with: various Federal, state and county agencies. Federal action will be necessary if any Find o€ controls-areestablished to protect the airways-abov'e iheparkand the outer limits of the sea boundary. State and county zoning will have to be secured to protect, The lant-3-aroutid.Ka,-Iokb,'Honb-l-,6-iiau. The -State Land Use Commission should be prevailed upon to keep MU01 of ttje are ar'6und Ka-loko, Hong-1<6'h'au design-ated c66s&vation. This type.,of,action is especially necessaryalong_the shoreline areas neighboring Ka-10ka, HoniJ-1<5-hau. Furthermore,. since most of. tile land . 1 allUIXia'a of Ke7ala-kehe is o ned-,b Ahe state, its in the W_ �y use will have direct impact on Ka-loko, Hone-ki hau. Finally; lands that are designated conservation or owned by the state in the area,should be given special zoning limiting their. usesito activities, cornkible�.td':a cultural park. The(:County ..General Plan and zoning ordinances,of the area shoulcl' limit the uses of 'the lands immediately surrounding'Ka-loko, Hono- 0-hau to compatib I e activities. Lands further iria,uka should be restricted in density in order to preserve the integrity of the'p.aInk andpr6tekt its water resources. �,, �''� �� y ��' ..----'_ r 99 0 M In conjunction with these governmental units,'the:NationaI Park Service `should `develop a'coordinated resource maiiageh)eht;plan, establishing allowable land -sea -air uses for the area. lrnportant cornponents".of this plan would be (1),'a basis for coordinating the"taxation of reai property.iri the area, (2) the establishment of a watershed m'anagement.area based on specific water management-. criteria.. Water manaopment shou'Id deal with the uses of both surface and" sub -surface waters. With private landowners; the National Park Service should seep to. establish mutual interest agreements through private development covenants. These agreements would" seek to liiriif the' use of private. lands to activities compatible to a cultural park, This limitation would be. offset by the reciprocal benefit gained by the Iand'owner` in terms of the economic development that 'would accrue,as a result; of park; development. Furthermore, these agreements may not have to be negotiates{for receiving county zoning, variance, development, etc. approvals. Obviously, such a, procedure would; have4o'be worked out with the County. Planning Commission. O The National Parr Service should develop al,dd6rdinated mutual agreement management plan. This plan should build upon the, Resource Management Plan, using among other things .specific water managemenvcriteria, Hawaiian Management The rich driVironm nt of the Hawaiian Islands was entrusted to the_ O people whgsettled and worked the land. Nature's resources were available for man's use; however, being. fragile they Oduld Neve been just,as easilydestroyed by him. fihe ancient Hawaiians wisely chose: to Iive with, rather -thea attempt to -dominate nature. In turn, the land' responded and gav€ its full measure to the people„ lt seerns appropriate; 5.8 that, the management of Kalok6, 'Hono-l<5-hau and its resources sh-ould be once again placed in the hands of Hawaiians.and their descendantswho'cared for,th'em so well. While the Hawaiian community as a whole should and will be involved in park operations,the most direct way for tie preservation and. interpretation,at Ka4oko, Hon.07kip-hau to be managed by Hawaiians would be for them to,becorne emplbyees of the Na°tional,P rk Service However, this oppartunity should not.,Ibe restricted to that,site alone., for HaWaiiahs have a contribution to make throughout the: National Park System'in Hawai'i and nationwide. Oit small be the policy of the national Park Service, United Matas Department of the Interior-, to dive priority to I-lavwaiians.for all employment opportunities created l y the dove top ment and hianagr;ment.o;f the Ka-loko Hlono-k6-I.iau complex.. This policy is in agree -- merit with Public" Lav 92-34&, 92nd Congress H, -:'.R. 11,774, .July 11, 1972, which states; 5 „Tisa Congress further Believes that it: is appropriate that the; preservation and interpretation at that site be managed and performed by native Hawaiians, to the extent practical, and that training oppor- tunities be provided such persons in.ma1nage- merit and 'iriterpfetation of those cultural, historical, and archeological resources," lVis the i ,tent;of this policy that preference in :hiring and training be viewed as a rewired activity rather than an "optional one. The National.Park Service shall talo affirmativeaction to ensure that Hawaiians are given, rhakir-nurn opport nities for employ-= merit"in all phases of park operations, The National Park Service shall develop acid ir-np erment an affirmative action plan which. identifies all employ- ment to be generated by the Ka•loko, Nano-ko-hau complex and the.hirir and traininrg systems which will assurethe placem6nt. of Aawaiians in these jobs on.a preferential basis. The plan shall indicate the procedures O.e. recruitrnent, selecti6h, pre' employment and on-the-job training, upgrading, etc.) which will e used to implement this policy. The National -Park Service shall, establish specific training programs to upgrade eligible, "potential and. interested employees: This upgradingW' i11 be designed to lead to greater respbrisibility and these employees so upgraded will be retained in.higher level positions as such 1. positionsbecorme available through staff turn- over, expansion , or- ew procgram development. The National Park Service shall insure that Hawaiians placed can full-iime employment at the Ka-loko, Hono-k6-hau complex receive full civil service rights, including j ab security, seniority, fringe benefits; and opportunities for, promotidns. This policy. recognizes that persons holding such positions should be allowed to becorhe regular career service employees within the National Park System rather than have their occupatio al.horizoris limited only to the Ka-loko> Hono-k6-hau complex. However, this policy O also recognizes that the traditional requirements of the merit systerri can be an effective barrier against the hiring of Hawaiians. Thereforbi to, the greatest extent possible, the civil,,seevice eequire- ments,foir park positions at I<'a-16 ko, Hono-k6-haiij- shall be -re- structured e. ee- structured to betterreflect the special qualitie"s,:Hawaiians,can­ contribute to a cultural park -1. The National Park .Service.shall make regular reports detailing the progress made in implementing, this policy to Na H2Oa';. pili o: Ka-I6ko,.Ho1n1o._k3-hau (the, park's statewide Hawaiian 60 advisory council). The term "Hawaiian" as used in this policy,leneans any descendant of the race inh-a'biting the Hawaiian Islands previous to, the year 1.7.78. It should be, noted thatAhe definition, of a "Hawaiian" in this policy differs frormthe definition in Public Law 92-346 1 �, As def i ned in the law, the, term "Hawaiian" meant any descendant with not less than 50% of the blood of the'race inhabiiihg,the Hawaiian Islands previous to the year 17M. It was felt that setting a special percentage: figure would, bemuch too arbitrary aVthi§:' t poin since it is not really, What Percentage of the 135,152 p art-Hawailians in the state (based, on State of. Hawaii Department of "Health RS, Report, 1969-1971. statistics) are 50% or moreHawaiian. Even .more important is -the. fact that setting such.,a percentage would have probably:exclu'd'ed many part -Hawaiians who wouldinterested and , be interesteand well-qualif , ied because of theif'knowledge of Hawaiian 'culture, Procedures for. Preferential Hiring Examples :of activities that the National Park Service may undertake to insure the preferential hiring of naltive'Hawaiiansl.as staff for the� Kadoko�, Hono-k.6-h.py,complex .are . as follows: The National Park Service recruit qualified native Hawaiian candidates to fill staff positions or vacancies, utilizing ways and systems that reach out, to Hawaiians: 2. The National Park Service will be required to consult with Na Hoapilio Ka-loko, Hono-O-hau Before filling 'a posltion which it claims cannot be filled by a nativel,,Hawaiian, 3. The National Park Service can establish training and education programs by,which native Hawaiian candidates or staff positions could be trained in a reasonable:period of time, even if 'they could not otherwise qqql.ify for the jobs without such training, 4. The National Park Service can develop specific training .programs to qualify native -Hawaiian staff for Permanent civil service positions ,as,'"they':become 'available. 5. In-service and/or academic training should bo:.6ffered to all native Hawaiian staff employed by the pork Civil Service Requirements OThe preferential hiring of native Hawaiians dot's, enders andel ly, pose problems. for the National Park Sery ee whose Inirirtg procedures are governed by.civil service rales and.rerglations However- civil service rules €generally mate that the personrnel directcir carr recruit in, any way he sees fit in, order to..augrnent the official Public announcements of position openings and exarnninations'. Imven more important is the fact,that the; preferential employment of native > Hawaiians for the `Ka-loko, i" one .kcr-hair National Guitural Park, is. ndt,drrly consistent with t€ e civil -service concept of merit.: lout also enhances it. Native 'HaWaiiens are probably the:only people wlno can effect vely iifterpret and demonstrate what the Hawaiian cu,Rure as lived at Ka-loko, Hono.1<6-hau was,all about; With their natural skills and easy-going ►'personalities, they will make the park nnore;genuine, not only for the Hawaiian peo'ole,, but`also for park visitors, Job specifications for the:park can;be written for native Hawaiian preference by requiring "a practicalknowledge df fhe Hawaiian culture", together with "the ability to relate this knowledge t others in.an effective Hawaiian manner". Testing for these. qualities' becomes largely a mattet cif evaluating the life. bac - k- grounds if .back- grounds and attitudes of # 6se who apply; This kind of evalua- Otitin is a 'legitimate form cif testing. Any additional examinations should be of the, oral or performance type which are 'relevant to tine kind of skill the job requires, Few, if any, civil service riles or regulations aetually require tine personnel director to administer written exon inatiot s, In addition, exarrtinations that are rnot' relevant to the job area violation of the merit principle. Another means of preferential hiring of native Hawaiians is selective certification. Irnstead of referring the top people who passed the examination, the personnel director is permitted to go dawn the list to choose from all suecessfu ' examinees on the, basis of special criteria, such as being native Hawaiian and knowledgeable of Hawa€ian culture. Selective certification should be requested on the grounds that being native Hawaiian and having practical Rnow- 1 dge of the Hawaiian culture is necessary for servicing the park. Furthermore, charges of "discrir-ninatioh" can beanswered by the argument that hiring Native Hawaiians for park jobs is consistent With the merit principle in that the native Hawaiian and his knowledge of the'Hawaiian culture is necessary for servicing. the park,; Types of Park Employ!nent The kinds of jobs within the park complex will be broken down O into two categories - permanent. (full-time) and tern rarary (Dart -time car special short-term full-time). Permanent positions will include a ministrative.ohes such as taperia tersdent elepartraferit heads, li,brarian, and clerical. , CuItural in ter preters•dermnstrators will be hired Rall-tirrme.as well as security and rnairitenance personnel. Temporary people will be needed in all personnel areas, but part(c,u- laely`in interpretation. For example, work-study programs can be designed in which students, preferably nafive Hawaiiarms, frorn local high schools, -and colleges will be hired as park guides. All of the guides will have to undergo an intensive training prograrn in Hawaiian tl.ulture whichwill enable them to, intelligently gpi"dc visitors through"the park complex. In addition, people with special proficiency in Hawaiian language, hula, chanting, fishing, canoe=building, and other crafts wiIII be hired as;spe ial, short- term employees who can provide instructi6n in the cultural education programs which will lie conducted for native HIawaiians and others who are interested. Estimated staff requirements will b based essentially.on the City ,of refuge The arch ological, hist6rical, and cultural surface of Ka-loko, hlonp.-kd-hau have only been scratched. A wealth of information remains hidden beneath the a',N and in the hearts and tninds of: the Hawaiian people:: RECOMMEN CATION& 1. A H'awaiiap.His=torical and Cultural Research Laboratory trill be esta lished:within'the Ka'lokoj,Hono- o-hau park complex. . The park should contain a Library of Pacific Collections which would become O a'depository 1br tapes, films, and publications about the Hawaiian people and their culture as Well as the people and cultures of .other areas within ihae South Pacific region, MO Although arclieolc ical investigations have: continued in Iia-lbko, O Horio•1<75ahau since the 11930's, there remains :a paucity of information regarding the. social and economic,history,of tliis area. Iri'additiari`, present snformatiorr concerning tfie'religious; ge' n6alogical,and myth - cal and legendary history is somewhat:.sl<etclry .64 The establishment of a;Hawaiian Historical -and Cultural Research Laboratory at lea-loko, (lona-k6-hau will pro ide the ways and rnearis necessary.to close the'ii format onal,gap that exists in this area. The lab<irat ry, in coordination -with the Bernice P uahi Bishop (Museum, the Hawaii State Archives, the University; of Hawaii, and the 1 -Hawaiian Historical Society,will be;a place to further study the historical activities of the people of Iia-loko, Hono-0-hau and tither locations innthe Island of Hawaii Such research would include (1) further d! oeumentation:of the history of land ownership,within theal upua.'a, (2) care and use of fish- ponds, ponds, (3) the bse of the coastline and sea as resources, (A) the relirgibLIS. significance.of heiau and ko'a (5) the history of`ka-lobo Pond and surrounding land,. (8) the genealogical backgrounds of, people associated:with the traditipn.s of the region, (7) documenting correlations between archeological acid natural features:within the settlement, (8-) the relationship between Ka-lokq,, Honer-kb.hau and North Kohata, as well as all Hawn 'i, (9) the changing religious orientation of the settlement inhabitants after tete arrival of the O white n am, (10) the size of historic populations. and 01;) the history of Hawaiian land use patterns., In addition,.;studies would be. conducted to determine what native plants and animalsinhabited the area before foreign introductions, and what traditional ceremonies and cultural activities were perforated in the settlement., These.studies:will directly benefit the cultural demonstration and educational programs of the park. by providing them with historical information about Ka-loko, Hono•1<6-hau. The establishment of the library of: Pat, ific Collections in con. Junction with the research lab- oratory wiII make the park a valuable information center. Staffed by=a trained librarian, the librarywould be=a treme - Claus asset to loath children' and adults,who wish tolearn more about Polynesian cul- ture. SIGNIFICANT EVENTS Pfi'ECEDING THIS STUD 1'359. The Terrhory of Ha ai'.i issued a report "recommending a ° Haim=k5-hau Park"'jincludinrg fishponds) to be developed,as.part'of'the 1961-1965 budget, 1962: A proposal for Nana-k6_,'hau Nat1onal Historic Land-. mark -vas submitted by the National: Park S6rvice Time State D6 artment of mond and Natural Resources released, plans for a State mark at Hono-k&hau 'including a srrrall°boat'harbor, picnic areas, camp- grounds, an&protection of lmistoric features. 1963: Nana-k6hau 5ettletrent wes declared elclible fir National Historic Landmark status; 1967: The State of lawai'i, accepted the bronze landmark plaque fron3 the Federal Governn ent:. 199- 19703 Prior to 1969, the Miro( Ka-loko, Hono-kb-hau area. was part of a state. conservation district. The State, Land Use. Cornrrrission, in two major decisions, changed the land -use designation Of. Ka-loko, Homo-kd-hau: fronm conservation to: urban. The County of Hawai`Ii: has, to elate, however, maintained time area ih o en space toning. This zone is generally described in the County General Plan to be used for parks, his toric sites, forest and water reserves, and natural and, scientific preserves, 1971: The State Department of ,Land,ancl Natural (Resources, cgranted a conditia.na permit far recreation use of Ka-loko fishpond grid for modification of the"'seawal'l The State Department of Transportation, Harbors Div isioi "issued a permit for dredging, removal of -a portion of the seawall -and construction of a new crosswall. U.S. Army, Corps of.Engineers requested that; the Advisory.Council on` H istbr c. Preservation review the request for altering time seawall at Ka-loko and its effects tin the historic landmark,, Tine Advisory Council recommended ihat,acdon by the Kona Coast Compnay, owners of Ka -bakes, be "`held in Oabeyance" by the U.S. Array, Carlos of Engineers: 1972: Public: Law W-346 ryas signed by the Presideht. PURPOSE QF PUBLIC LAW 02-346 This act -authorized a study to determine the:?feasilr lity of ,creat%ng a unit 6 the National Park, ;ystern in the Ka-Ioko, Hono-kcr:hau vicinity. A sum of, $50,000 was appropriated by the act to eornple e the study' and print a report. The: proposal is not to exceed ,1,500 acres of land Banc[ eater ar•e. 66 The act also rewired that a Hono kd-hau Study Advisory Cornn ssion be set up to assist the Departrn ntlof the Interior in conducting the study. Appointments were rnade;by the Secretary of the Interior of .15, commissioners,, 13 of whore are Hawaiian or #partly Hawaiian. The Cower -r fission: ill be abolished at the .time the report and recorn- mendations are submitted to Congress. The Commission was repaired to operate under there uirernents of Public Law 02-453 which outlines the responsibi,lities,and uses for all Federal Advisory Cornrnissiuns. Particularly inippetant to the Hone-kbhau'Study is the cultural expertise pro ided by the com- missioners * o - missioners: It was considered that evaluation of inherent resources rn and forulati6n of a proposal cpuid only be acro piishe6 with participation by and cooperation with the community of native Hawaiians. In adclitibrl; the act: directed that no Federal. Agency should, without prier approval of the Secretary cif the Intar°iar, take 'an "bet'.ion that would diminish the inherent resources: of the.=slte and its immediate surroundings until the Secretary's report is submitted to the President and Congress. MOM d .� TONGA �SCANDS 'AUSTRALIA THE P+LNEAN ISLAND SOURCE:, KAMEHAMEHA SCHOOLS TY: DS MERCATOR PROJECTION. 4 fOa $44 300, .444 544 ;fi64 z4- EQi7ATMI STATUTE MILES NORTH AMERICA .... . �z. 'r 't s MLANDs !S �. - 'PHOENIX G� � a ` SEAuCs n �', ELuCE .� TONGA �SCANDS 'AUSTRALIA THE P+LNEAN ISLAND SOURCE:, KAMEHAMEHA SCHOOLS TY: DS MERCATOR PROJECTION. 4 fOa $44 300, .444 544 ;fi64 z4- EQi7ATMI STATUTE MILES NORTH AMERICA Other"totally foreign cultures hadtheir inliuence,too, alihoo9k this occurred only"iri the hast 200 years, Captain Cook first it iroduced Hawaii to European cultural in.:f uences. Missionaries frorn:New England followed in the.early 19th century and their influence on 0 the'culture was to be fhe most profound as centuries old religious practices wire abolished in favor of the new retigion and a vastly different social order. Missionaries and their descendants became. businessmen, as Hawaii had more intimate contact with the outside 68 world; Introduced diseases devastated the native Hawaiian papula- tion;and laborers were "importe' d to work in the neer pineapple -and sugar plantations. Through this action; Chinese, Japanese, Portugese, and Filipino attitudes and ideas became part, of the mo'siac of'racesx faces, and ideas that make up what Hawaii is today. Finally, the visitors, mostly Caucasians from mainland'U:S.A., have had their cultural and physical impact. Arriving by the millions each year; requirements for `their entertainment, housing, and'transportation produce a further impact on.' Hawaii and its indigenous culture,. Hawaiians and their culture thus can become a source of amusement and entertainment rather `th"an,a viable, living, and growing cultural entity A major purpose of this proposal is to assjst"the Hawaiian in reversing that trend and provide a physicallocation where Hawaiian and visitor alike may become more aware'of"this unique part of our national heritage and assure that it maintains the dignity it deserves. THIr HAI AI IAN ISLANDS -- THE STATE There are 132 islands,,, reefs, and shoals encompassed by the Hawaiian Archipelago. This is the State of Hawaii and it is over 1.;500 miles long. That area commonly referred to as H6wai'i, however, is the group of eight islands at the. 'southeast end of this chain, All ,are mountains of volcanic origin whose.ba"ses are the floor of the Pacific Ocean. Kauai, on the north, is'geologically the oldest, very deeply eroded, and most nearly; exemplifies the popular image of`a verdant tropical island., The lsland "of Hawaii is almost entirely the product of relatively recent volcanic' activity, is the largest of a#;I the islands and is a classical example of a complex.of: shield volcanoes: Prevailing tradewrids produce much of the state's pleasant; weather pattern. During rinost of the year they, bring moisture laden air from a northeasterly. direction to the windward coasts and."produce a perpetually moist atmosphere with its attendant dense vegetation, particularly at higher elevations. The lee side of the "islands is dryj warm, and receives much of its rain from Kona weather ---warm tropical storms that occur generally from November through April. Concentration of population is on Oahu, with about 700,000. O Hawaii, although, much larger in area, currently supports only about 63,008 In, contrast to,.The metropolitan atmosphere on,.Ua,hu,,.the :,Gig (stand of Hawai'i exhibits vast open spaces, large ranches, and extensive remote coastal areas. And it has the st4te!§lWo nearly constantly, active Volcanoes, Mauna Loa and, K-!'.1au-ea,. HualS lai a third major volcano, erupted last in 1801. 'These, flat dome-shaped mountains form,the'.the island with'summits of from 8,000 :.major mass of feet elevation on 1-10�15iai to nearly 14,000 on Mauna Kea. Kohala,'a much -older, and, more eroded volcanloi forms the north end of the island. Great.'contrasts occur here also. 'The, green,, moist, windward. coast gives,way to the cold high elevation Of the central part of the island. This, in turn, contrasts With the warm. Kona coast, w . here thegreatest potential for new resort and recreation development. exists. North Kona is the heart-ofthis resort. complex. The coast from Kai-lua to Ke-au-h6u is;dotted ,wjiK hotels and more are planned. Although there are few beaches; the,,weather is ideal with warm sunny days and -.cool ,nights. , 1, n,zodition 'to the. tourist industry Y coffee,9 razing, and Mlle aiaiciadamia nut industry provide the main economic base. Visitors usually arrive by air,.via the major neighbor, island terminal at Ke-5ho.l.e. There is an overseas terminal at Hilo on the windward coast. Hila is also the islarid's�:commercial. andO. litical center.. Hotels end P,: other facilities exist here but the predominant area that will support new resort construction will very likely be on Hawaii's. West roast; oast,, specif ically in, the districts of South Kohala.; North Kona, and South Kona. KA-LOKO" HE" NCI�KOMAU This complex of archeological, biological,:arid cultural resources - the subject of this'stu y; lies, just, north of the ex sting.resort gomplex that -extends from Kai-lua:tri iia-awhou Say, ' moreover, the 'cornplex is' -Within an area considered for crtentr `:e'xpans or of visitor services and facilities. The proposal for a Ka-ioko; J` Hono. -k whau National Cultural .Park p!4ceci the site in the context of continuing development on the lands. surrounding it, especially the ahuua° crta:loo; Fiona k -luau, Ko 3tana ki and Ke alb kele: ECONOMIC RAMIFICATIONS AND SURROUNDING LAND USE Altho41 discussed separately here, this is an integral part" Of the pian6 ing and decision-making process.. .and in Hawaii in expensive and Or'operty along the coast in North Kona is especially valuable since it has had,yeat pot6ritial for recreation and :resort .development, Moreover, th,e'Major alternative.for use of the .proposed . park.11s 7A for reWential,and resort purposes-. The ecoilorh,ic wisdom of, I maj I or additional development such as this is subject to serious. question, e . specially when tine economy of'tNe entire North Kona District is considered. 'Ciccubancy rates iii' many North Kona hotels are at or below that level considered profitable. Proposing facility similar to those that already exist bot,are underused is of questionable benefit for theregion, particularly when water and sewer services must be provided at some cost to the county,. A new facility; or one which. adds a dimension. to the experience of the. Hawaiian,and the,.Visitor.alike, provides:.ah:additidnal ,attraction, and source ofincorne for the region without1creat ing a facility that will com' pete with those already existing. Thetwo attached maps indicate the land -'use allocations in North Kona as currently assigned by the state and the county, State zoning divides all lands into four zones; urban,rural, utal,agricultlurat.6ndconservalti6n., The coh'servation zone is admi nistered by: the state and the other three zones come under county jurisdiction. As indicated -earlier in the report- the state. in 1970, changed thezoningin the. nnakai areas of the ahtipuaa of Ka-loko and Hon(j-k6-hau from :comerva- tion to urban. TfwCounty of Hawaii, in its -1971 general plan, allocated ali land 'in North Kon'a.in-accorda I nce with re'commended potential Uses, as shown. (in the,,attached map. It should be .noted, however, that even with this land allocation as it is, now shown,j.he current open space zoning for the Honp-kb'haul and Kd-lokb lands must be changed before the development proposed' by the landowners could proceed. Perhaps roost important to the future.of urbanwresort development and land use patterns in North Kona is the.. impact resulting from the Ka-loko, Homo7k6-hau National Park proposal. If Visitation requireseadditional facilities, other. land i I s available for -these uses. At Hono-k6-hau and.Ka-lbko ili0re is a unique opportubity to provide a new ,dimensibn to visitor experience and at the.sarTfe time; I me, help maintain the integrity of'Hawaiian culture.. The combin- ation of resources and opportunities for'such a con iplex does not exist elsewhere in Hawai'i- 0--14 F Lel Eo Aft Social Dynamics, Hawaii - Qctqher,'1973 1-16hokohau'National Historic Landmark: Data Reportm. Prepared for the H,onokohaU,.StudV,Advisory Commission ,and the National: .Parke ,Sgrvice. Lynette'A'alaonana Roy - December, 1073 Na:Mo'oeloHaTWaha'O, Honokohao-Kalokm... A study of the tradition'al, history of the H,ono­koha.y-j<_.aloko area, ,prepared for ,the Honokohau. Study Advisory Commission and . I theV,ational. Park Service, Honokohau National Historic Landmark: Digest df Relevant Material `Available at the B -P. Bis'hop,Mdseum, with a Listing of Archeolog,lical'Sites, their Description. -and. Lucation. :Prepared for the Honokohau Study Advisory Commission and the Ndtional Park Service. Deborah F. Ouff, B:, P -Bishop Museum -.1971 An Archeological -Survey of theSeawbrdPortion of Honokohau No. 1 and.No. 2,.North Kona, Hawaii Island. Prepared for Lanihaiu.0 , orpOratioln, Marion Kelly, B -P. Bishop Museum -7.March, 1971 Kekaha-- 'Aina"Malo - 0,,Historical Survey and Background of Kalokci and Kuki'b Ahupua'a, North Kona,; Hawaii. Robler C. Renger,,B. P. Bishop Museum -, Novem.b.e, f, 1970 Archeological Reconnaissance of Coastal Kaloko and Kuki.'.o 1, North, Kona, Hawaii, Prepared for fluehue:`Banc h, Kona z Coast Comappy, Holu'al0a, Hawaii. Kejinelh, P, Emory and Lloyd Soehren, S. P. Bishop Museum -- November, November, 1971 Archeological and Historical Survey Honokohau Area, North K ona, Hawaii. Prepared repared for, Department of Land and Natural Resour,des, Stale Pa,rks D ivision, State of H.aw,aii, 11 APPENDIX B PU LIC.L:AW 92-346 RONOKOH U NATIONAL HISTORICAL LANDMARK, HAWAII PUBLIC LAW 92-346 ; 86 STAT. 457 tFt. `R. 117241 An Act to authorize a study of the !cash Mty and desirability of establish Ing a snit of the. nationae park system in order to preserve and dater-- pret the gate; of Ndnokohau'; Natitonai Hisioricai LandmarK In the State of Hawaii, and for other purposes. Be it enacte b' the Senate and H€sa<se of Re prescrttcttit=,ea of the United States,: of America in Congress assembled, That: The congress finds the sit 'of Honokohau National Historical Landmark in the': tate of iiawan encompasses unique and nationally significant cultural, historical,, and ai•cheulogii:al resources and believes that it may be in the national: interest for the United States' to priaserve and, interpret'those resources for the e lut'htion alnd in- spiration of present and futureg.entrations. The Congress further believes that it is appropriate that"this prese�rvation.4nd interpreta- tion at that site be:Iraatncaged and performed by native liawaiiaans; to. the extent practical, and that training opt srtunities be provided such <persons in management.:and inte'rpretation of those cultural, historical, and archeological resources. Sec. 2_ (a) The Secretary of the Interior (hereinafter, referred to as the "Secretary")' shall study the feasibility aa1a1 desirability of es- tablishing 0 apart of the national park system an ,area, not to ex- ceed one thousand five hundred acrew, comp,risint: the site of Hono- kohau National Historic Landana'rk aand'adfacent Nvaters. (b) As. as part of such study other interested Federal agencies,. and. Statee ;and local boriies.and officials shall be consulted, and the: study shall be -coordinated with other applicable planning activities. Sec. ;3. The Secretary <hal.l submit to the President and the Congress within one year after the effective date., of this Act, a re- port of the findings resulting from the study. The report of the Secretary shall contain, 1)ut not' ler limitcd tu, findings wil a ra:spect to the historic, cultural, archeological, scenic, anal natural,values cif the resources involved and` recommendations for preservation and> interpretation of those resources, 'including the role of native Hawaiians relative to the management and performance 'o£ that preservation and interpretation and the pro°iding to them of train- ing opportunities in such management and performance Sec. 4. () There is hereby estaabti,sheet a Honoltahau study Ad- visory Commission. The Commission shall cease to exist,at the 'time of submission of the Secretary's report to the President and the Congress. (b) The Commission shall be composed of fifteen members, at leash ten of wltom shall be :native Hawaiians,. appointed by, the Secretary:., as follows-, t i) Two members., one of whom will be aplaointed from recom- mcndations made by each of 'the ienited States Senators repre- senting the State of Hawaii, respectively, (2) Two }nembers, o€re of whom will be appointed from recom; mendatidh-i made by each of the, United Statc:; Representatives for;the State of e;3i Five public mem} cr€ , who shall have lrnrawledge nand e,x7 perience iia ripe or .move ficlt3s as' they pertain to Hitw ii,, of history, ethnolop-, anthropology, culture, Sar€€l folklore and int cl€€ ii€rg ra=hee c nt€tit of the> 13L hop :%10-1�curi, th(� ullivorsity 7 of Hawaii, and organizations active: in: the State of Hawaii, in the conservation 'of resources, to tae appointud_ from recommenda- tions mad:c by the Governor _6f the .State. of 'Ilawta€i (4) Five members to be appointed from. recommendations made by local organizations representing the native Hatc•aiian peapie - and t,a) One meiriber.to e appointed from recorrameradations mach by the mayor of the county of Hauaii, (c)The Secretary- :shall designate one member to 'be: Chairrnan. Ah Y, vacancy iii the•''Comrciirsion shall be -filled in the same manner in whivhthea oricinal atstrointmeht was:=ode. t d i A rnembO of the Comrifission shall serve (hbut comiklisza- tion ;a�i such; The Secretary is authorized to pay the axpenses rea- sand€lily incurred by the Commi;,sion in rariy+ing'out its resporisibil- ities wider this Act on �=ouchers signed,:1)i, the Ch=airman., W The Secretary ,6i, his, de.40knee'sh It consult with the Commis. On, with respect to,matters:relating to the making of the study, See. 5: Luring the periott`co mmeneirag with enactmept of his Act anti ending with,-ubmi�,_4on of the: Secretary°'s report to the. Presi- dent an resi-dentan l the Congrei-4 and any necessarycompletion of congresslittn- al consideration of recommendations included in thtat report ti} no. department or< agenev of the United States shall, avis gout pirsor a)a- rvval of'the Secy etar}, a3 iwt try. to<an,: rant, license, or.otherwise in the implementation of any project which, in the determination of the Secretary, would unreasonably diminish the value of culturaai,; Historical, archeological, scenic, or natural resources relating to lands'or waters having potential to comprise t< fie area referred to in section 2(a) of this :pct and (2;) the Chief of Engineers', Depart- ment of the ArrIV, shall not, without prior approval of.the Secretary; undertake or as'sistj by license or otherwise the irtiplementation of any project which in the detetmination of. the Secretary, would diminish the vale of natural resources located within oi€e-quarter Fr:ile of the lands and waters having potchtial to compi-hie that di -ea. Sec. '6. The team ``native Hawaiian"' as used in this Act,., means any descendant of not less than one-half part of the blood of the races inhabiting- the Hawaiian Islands previous to the year%4778.. Sec. 7. There are authorized; to be ;appropriatednot to exceed X60,000 to carry out the, provisions of dais Act;., Approved July 11, 1972: APPENDIX C .NA HOIA 0.11-10 KA,-LOIKO, HONG-KQ-.HAU -K (THE'FR,IENDS OF'KA-LQKO*HONOO-HAU) AN ADVISORY,COMMISSIOU FOR THE KA-LOKO, H0NO*d-HAU NAt:16:1NAL CULTURAL PARK 80 (Suggested language for I Gongressio na.1- action) There is hereby established Na Hoa pil i o Ka-lok6j, Hono-k87hau, an Advisory Commission for the Ka -1 I oko, Hone-k6-hau National Cultural Park, The C6mmission shall be dom sed of nine rnembers, appointed by the Secretary of the Interior, as follows: 1.,. All members shall be residents of the,: State of Hawai'i.., 2., At leastsix members shall be Hawaiians, 3. All mernbees,shall be appointed from recommendations made by loc,aLorganizations to include but not be limited to: Aboriginal Lands of Hawaiian Ancestry Association of Hawaiian Civic Club$ Congress,of Hawaiian People Council on Hawaiian Heritage Daughters and Sons of Hawaiian Warriors- O Daughters of Hawai,T Hale o Na Alii 1'.Mua Hawaiian Uplift K6 Leo o Na Pua,'o Hawai'i ire-au-k,aha Pana-'ewa Community Association, Nana-kijWH6waiian Homesteaders N.at.iVe.Sans ,and Daughters Nna,,Hawailan Organization Tb An'oiha o Ta Ho'o'mana, Hawai'i P6no'i The Flawaitans The Kaahumanu Sociery The Order"of Kamehameha Waimea Hawaiian Homestead Association . I nitial ap ointment shatl. consist cif tiro rr�embers;appointed fora terra Of",five years, two for a term of four years, two, for a terra of three years, and tine for a term of one year. Thereafter appointrraents shall be, made foga term of Jive years. NAernlaers=shall not serve more than; one termconsecu- tively, but may, be reappioiMed after. a three-year tapse. Theecretary'shali designate one member to be Chairman. Any vacancy in the Comm issiontshall be filled..in the same manner as efired ri lection above.. A member of the Ccimmissi n shall serve without compensation as such. The Secretary is a,uthorized to pay the expenses reasonably incurred by the Commission in carrying out its responsibilities, under this Act on vouchers signed ley: the;:,Chairr-nan., IN In addition to the Commission members"defihed above, the Superintendent of the,.Hono-1<67hau National Gu'lturaf Park, the NationalPark Service: State Director, t tawai'i, a persona appointed by the Governor of Hawaii, and,.a person appointed by the Mayor of the County of `Hawai'i, shall serve as ex -officio, cion -voting members of the Commission. The purpose of the Gpmmission shall be to.advise the Director National Park Service, with -respect to the historical, archeological,. cultural; and interpretive Iprograms of the I<a-loko, Hoi o-k6—hau National Cultu;ral�Park, its staffing and operation; with particular emphasis on the operation of'the area bypualified Hawaiians and the duality of Hawaiian culture derndinstrated and <taug t therein. 'The Commission shall meet not less than twice;a year. Interim meetings. may' be called by the Chairman with the. concurrence of the -Director of the National Park.Servim APPENDIX D STUDY PARTICIPANTS O HONO-K6_H'AU STUDY, ADV ISO 'RY COMMISSION rr Colonel Arthur Chun, Chairman G Kei-guar Kon WDavid K. Roy, Executive Officer Kaklua, Kora; Mr. Hamer A: Hayes, Acting Chairman, Honolulu. Rev, Henry K, Boshard Kai-,lua, Kona Mr, Pilipo Springer Kai-:lua, Kona Miss rlo4ani (wahine Kai:4ua, Kona. Mr. George Pinehaka Captain Cook, Hawaii Mr. Alika Cooper O Hilo'Hawai'i Mr. Kwai Wah'1ea Hilt, Hawaii` Mr. George Nappe Hilts Haiovai'i Mrs, Robert (,Abbie) Napeahi Hiles:, Hawaii' Mr. Fred Cachola Wai-`anae, G'ahu Dr. Kenneth P. Emory Honolulu M's. Nani Bilary Bowman Honolulu Mrs_ Franklin W. (Emily i a'ai) Thomas He nolulu OJohn CONSULTANTS David Wai he'e_ I ! 1, and" assistants:, Cornilation of Basic, Data Richard Ka-polbl : Planner George, Ke, -keo lanI, Jr.: Architect. 83 Herb Ka-wai-nui.I<i$ne: Artist Stephen Kane -a -i Morse. ,Writer Lynette `A'alraonaona Roy: "Consultant on oral traditions and cultu'xal"values Bernice P. Bishop" Museums;: Archeological and Cultural Resource Data e NATIONAL PARKSERVIC - Robert Barrel; Hawaii State Director in Hbnoluly Ronald It ortimore' Park Planner," estern Regional Office, San Francesco; California 0 - A Graphic and photographic services were provided' by the. West m Regional Office 1674. United States Departmeni`of the`Interior / National Park Service Center ° RES e ! { - •n0 1000 ACRES c •o AO.LF. ' 1URSE ..r: . ACBE00, p V O GRADE SEPARATED a M� INTERCHANGE LIMITED IND. center RES GREENBELT —J -o o P�%eO c 480 ACRES 0o O O O e- URBAN EXPANSION5� F�AKEHE PLANNED MMUNITY � CO �0 O =00 FINAL $ O o URBAN EXPANSION 300 JJ 700 ACRES rGOLF COURSE .: (, Ex. Ind. 1 00 1;f19� 0 'OCL NATIONAL CULTURAL'PARK as HARBOR ACRES �f COMPLEX ` = : 100 ACRES j Polnr 100 ACRE OPEN 00 OPEN/PEC. ,STP. o 50 CRIES 00 CIVIC & BUSINESS CENTER r Shore < Polnr - Polnr KEAHOLE TO KAILUA DEVELOPMENT PLAN Civil No. 07-1-243K Defendant's Exhibit D5 Pki'n8 ing DePt In evidence – for identification Received E.hibit10 Clerk Donr nan►.vng KEAHOLE TO KAIL UA DEVELOPMENT PLAN North Kona, Island of Hawaii April 1991 Prepared By: Department of Planning County of Hawaii and R. M. Towill Corporation 420 Waiakamilo Road, Suite 411 Honolulu, Hawaii 96817-4941 KEAHOLE TO KAILUA DEVELOPMENT PLAN Prepared For: COUNTY OF HAWAII Planning Department Prepared By: R. M. TOWILL CORPORATION 420 Waiakamilo Road, Suite 411 Honolulu, Hawaii 96817 APRIL 1991 TABLE OF CONTENTS O Paye SECTION 1 - BACKGROUND 1-1 1.1 Study Objectives 1-1 1.2 Relationship to Other Plans 1-3 1.3 Study Area Description 1-4 1.4 Opportunities and Constraints 1-11 SECTION 2 - THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT PROCESS 2-1 2.1 The Planning Process 2-1 2.2 Key Development Issues 2-2 2.3 Regional Development Program 2-5 2.4 Alternative Concept Plans 2-7 2.5 The Initial Concept Plan 2-10 2.6 The Preferred Concept Plan 2-13 SECTION 3 - LAND USE PLAN 3-1 3.1 Objectives of the Land Use Plan 3-1 3.2 Land Use Summary 3-2 O 3.3 Discussion and Rationale 3-3 SECTION 4 - INFRASTRUCTURE PLANS AND COST ESTIMATES 4-1 4.1 Roadway Plan 4-1 4.2 Water Supply Plan 4-6 4.3 Sewerage Plan 4-13 4.4 Drainage System 4-16 4.5 Electricity and Telephone 4-18 4.6 Solid Waste Facilities 4-19 4.7 Parks Plan 4-21 4.8 Landscaping Concepts 4-23 4.9 Consolidated Cost Estimate 4-25 SECTION 5 - FINANCING AND IMPLEMENTATION 5-1 5.1 Financing Plan 5-1 5.2 Implementation Plan 5-6 SECTION 6 - LIST OF PREPARERS 6-1 OLIST OF TABLES Table Title 2-1 Regional Development Program 2-2 Siting Options Illustrated on Alternative Plans 4-1 Roadway Classifications 4-2 Major Roadway Costs 4-3 Water Demands 4-4 Water Supply Costs 4-5 Sewage Flows 4-6 Sewerage System Costs 4-7 Projected Sewage Flow - Kealakehe STP 4-8 Estimated Stormwater Flows LIST OF FIGURES Fieure Title 1.1 Location Map 1.2 Vicinity Map 1.3 Generalized Slope Map O 1.4 Groundwater Map 1.5 Visual Resources 1.6 Existing Land Use 1.7 Ownership Map 1.8 State Land Use 1.9 County General Plan 1.10 Zoning Map 1.11 Housing Inventory Subareas 1.12 Environmental Constraints 2.1 Alternative 1, Expansion of Kailua-Kona 2.2 Alternative 2, Extensive Makai Development 2.3 Alternative 3, New "Village" Center 2.4 Alternative 4, New Urban Center 2.5 Initial Concept Plan 3.1 Land Use Plan 4.1 Roadway Plan 4.2 Water Supply Plan 4.3 Sewerage Plan 4.4 Natural Drainage Paths 4.5 Existing Watersheds 4.6 Schematic Plan: Minimal Landscaping 4.7 Schematic Plan: Moderate Landscaping 4.8 O Schematic Plan: Heavy Landscaping COUNTY OF HAWAII STATE OF HAWAII O RESOLUTION No. - 296 91 (DRAFT 3 ) WHEREAS, the County of Hawaii contracted the planning consultant firm, R.M. Towill Corporation, to prepare a development plan for the land area between Keahole to Kailua; and WHEREAS, the Council recognizes the Keahole to Kailua area as a major future urban growth area and perceives the need for such a plan to serve as an implementing tool for the General Plan of `he County of Hawaii; and WHEREAS, the Keahole to Kailua Development Plan is intended to carry out the goals, policies and standards of the Hawaii County General Plan; and WHEREAS, the Keahole to Kailua Development Plan also provides further land use details to insure that infrastructure and land development will be consistent with the General Plan; and WHEREAS, the Keahole to Kailua Development Plan was not designed to be a regulatory measure but instead should be utilized as a guide for future infrastructure and land development of the area; and O WHEREAS, the Council finds that there is a need to establish provisions for future telephone and electrical services. WHEREAS, the Council desires to initiate the implementation of the Keahole to Kailua Development Plan through the establishment of a Task Force as recommended in the plan; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE COUNTY OF HAWAII that it adopts the Keahole to Kailua Development Plan as prepared by R.M. Towill Corporation, dated November 1990, as a guide to be utilized in the development of infrastructure and land uses in the region. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Council, in adopting the Keahole to Kailua Development Plan, dated November 1990, amends the said plan by adding the following section: "ELECTRICITY AND TELEPHONE The Hawaii Electric Light Company (HELCO) and Hawaiian Telephone supply utility services to the island. Both of these companies are privately -owned utilities who have their own planning and development processes. After a review of the land use plan, Hawaiian telephone indicated that they would have `o O provide five additional substations within the Keahole to Kailua Development Plan area should the area fully develop. These substations would not require large sites and can be worked into the development pattern as it evolves, Site requirements are on the scale of single family lots. The Hawaii Electric Light Company estimated that full development could entail an additional 100 megawatts of power. Currently, power is brought into the area by three lines: the line along the Queen Kaahumanu Highway, a line along the _ Mamalahoa Highway, and a line from the south. Should full development occur, one or two additional 69 KV lines would be required within the planning area. Both of these privately -owned utilities will be creating `_heir own implementation plans as the demand rises." BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the,Council directs the Planning Department to incorporate the aforementioned addition into the Keahole to Kailua Development Plan; -BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor is requested to form a Task Force as specified on page 5-8 of the Keahole to Kailua Development Plan and that the Task Force provide the Council with a work plan within six months of the date of adoption of this resolution; OBE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clerk of the County of Hawaii transmit a copy of this resolution to the Honorable Lorraine R. Inouye, Mayor of the County of Hawaii; Mr. William Takaba, Finance Director, Mr. William Sewake, Manager of the Department of Water Supply, Mr. Bruce McClure, Chief Engineer, and Mr. Norman Hayashi, Planning Director. Dated at Hilo, Hawaii, this 3rd day of Aoril , 1991. INTRODUCED BY: COUN ILMEMBER, CO NTY OF HAWAII COUNTY COUNCIL County of Hawaii Hilo. Hawaii I hereby certify that the foregoing RESOLUTION was by the vote indicated to the right hereof adopted by the COUNCIL of the County of Hawaii on 0 ATTEST: :OUNTY CLERK CHAIRMAN &PRESIDING OFFICER ROLL CALL VOTE 00©0 Reference RESOL=ONNO. SECTION 1 BACKGROUND KEAHOLE TO KAILUA DEVELOPMENT PLAN North Kona, Island of Hawaii 0 t,ENU1NL NANNE A G vow. ►viM N 0 a ? 2 6 SCALE IN Mit ES s Af.AE Coos Kustssoni LOCATION MAP KEAHOLE TO KAILUA DEVELOPMENT PLAN NORTH KONA DISTRICT, COUNTY OF HAWAII saw Pwmq osow,.n % . cow" of ,r." sy A M. To.a C."attwt SOnVABIA tM FIGURE 1.1 SECTION 1 O STUDY BACKGROUND 1.1 STUDY OBJECTIVES The County of Hawaii initiated the Keahole to Kailua Development Plan study in July 1988. At that time, the County Planning Department issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the project. The RFP described the overall project purpose as follows: "The land in the vicinity of the Keahole Airport, from the shoreline up to the developed subdivisions along the Mamalahoa Highway, and back to Kailua Village is largely undeveloped. The land holdings in this area include a few large parcels owned by a relatively small number of entities. The location of the subject area makes it a prime candidate for urbanization to meet the growing needs of West Hawaii. The site is served with some components of the required infrastructure for development but lacks other O components as well as the necessary regulatory approvals. The intent of the County in pursuing this planning effort is to create a plan for development, with the emphasis on implementing future development. This work focuses on setting up the conditions for development to occur rather than on planning for regulation as is somewhat typical of government community planning efforts. To this end the planning effort will require specific land use and engineering design and cost estimating work, and financial feasibility analysis." The County established an overall goal and related specific objectives for the Keahole to Kailua Development Plan, as follows: 1-1 "Goal To develop a mixed residential, commercial, resort, industrial and recreational community, with approximately 8,000 or more residential units, in a functional, attractive, and financially viable manner. The community will include appropriate shoreline uses, public facilities, and infrastructure and will be built out over the next 20 years. Objectives Land Use: To develop a plan for an integrated community consistent with the County General Plan, which can be served by the required infrastructure in phases, and which provides for a mix of land uses in a functional, efficient and aesthetically pleasing manner. Design: To develop design guidelines for critical visual aspects of the subject area. O Roads: To develop during the next 10 years an efficient, safe, and pleasing road network, which operates at level of service C over the next 20 years, and which interconnects the various land uses within the planning area and accommodates various modes of travel. Drainage: To identify all areas subject to flood inundation by a 100 -year storm or tsunami inundation and develop during the next 10 years an efficient, comprehensive flood control system. Water: To develop a water system with a 6 mgd capacity over the next 10 years to serve the land uses planned within the subject site. 1-2 OSewer: To develop an area -wide system of sewerage facilities with a capacity of 6 mgd over the next 10 years. Solid Waste: To develop facilities adequate for the needs of the area over the next 10 years. Parks: To develop recreational facilities that meet the range of needs arising from 25,000 or more residents over the next 10 years. Finance: In conjunction with land use and infrastructure plans, to develop a financing approach which provides for infrastructure financing, feasible land development, and a feasible level of County capital expenditures." OThe County noted in the RFP that the cited infrastructure numbers were approximate only, and that these numbers would be refined through the land planning process. These goals and objectives have guided the work of the project team throughout the course of the study. 1.2 RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER PLANS 1.2.1 General Plan The role of the Keahole to Kailua Development Plan is to serve as an implementing tool for the General Plan of the County of Hawaii. This role prescribed by the General Plan entails the formulation of desired land use patterns within the parameters established by the General Plan. The Development Plan is not intended to supercede the General Plan nor pose additional developmental controls; rather, its function is to guide land use actions by both the public and private sections. The Development Plan is thus not a regulatory measure with the accompanying requirements for compliance or amendment. While it assists in making land use decisions, Oit is not a zoning map. For this reason, no formal amendment process is included. There 1-3 will have to be, however, periodic revisions to the plan, if it is to continue to fulfill its role O as a guide to development. 1.2.2 West Hawaii Regional Plan In 1988, the Office of State Planning (OSP) undertook a, review of West Hawaii development trends and issues. The overall objective of OSP's "West Hawaii Regional Plan" was to develop broad guidelines for future land use and a basis for coordination of State activities in the region. The West Hawaii Regional Plan, published in November 1989, identified areas for resort development and urbanization that would be favored by the State. The OSP Plan identified the Keahole to Kailua area as a major future urban growth area and recommended the development of a "sub -regional plan." The Keahole to Kailua Development Plan has been coordinated with the Office of State Planning and with other key State agencies. It is anticipated that this Plan will provide the O development framework that was envisioned in OSP's overall plan for the larger West Hawaii region. 1.3 STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION 1.3.1 Summary of Important Characteristics During the period October -December 1988, the planning consultants undertook an analysis of the important characteristics of the project area. This analysis was intensive rather than extensive: the focus was on the identification of important opportunities and constraints for the development of the area. The summary of important characteristics provided here draws from the planning consultant's analysis work. This material is presented in outline form to facilitate quick evaluation. (J 1-4 OProject Area North Kona Judicial District Location Island of Hawaii Project Area North: Kau ahupua'a Boundaries East: Mamalahoa Highway and Size South: Palani Road, Kailua Village West: Shoreline Total Project Area: approximately 17,000 acres of which about 14,000 is undeveloped land. Ahupua'as in Kau Kohana'iki Project Area Makaula Kaloko Haleohiu Honokohau Hamanamana Kealakehe Kalaoa Keahuolu O'oma * Climate Semi -tropical climate with average annual rainfall of 25 inches, average annual temperature of 75°F. There are some significant local climatic variations within the project area. There are three basic climatic zones: O - Coastal Area: The shore zone and related lands extending up to about one mile inland. Generally hot and humid. - Lowlands: Hot, dry areas between about elevations 50 and 600+ feet. Uplands: Cooler, moister climatic conditions are found generally above elevation 600 feet. * Topography Elevation ranges from -sea level to 1800'+ in the northeastern (See Figure 1.3) comer of the project area. Slope conditions correlate generally with the climatic/elevation zones. The land is generally level in the coastal area, with slopes in the 0 to 5 percent range. The lowland areas are level to gently sloping, with slopes in the 0 to 5 percent and 5 to 10 percent ranges. The cooler upland areas are somewhat steeper, with slopes generally in the 10 to 15 percent range and some areas at 15 percent to 20+ percent. Geology & Soils Largely barren a'a and pahoehoe lava flows in the coastal and lowland areas, and thin, organic soils and ash loams over lava rock in the upland areas. The project area is located on the lower slopes of Hualalai Volcano, which is still active. O Wi Flora & Fauna The coastal area supports a plant community that typically O includes a variety of grasses and shrubs, including beach naupaka, fountain grass, maiapilo, heliotrope, pluchea shrubs and 'aki'aki grass. There are also scattered stands of kiawe trees along the shore. The lowland areas support a relatively sparse plant community, with grasses and shrubs including fountain grass, pili grass, 'ilima, indingo, uhaloa, and some kiawe trees. The upland areas with cooler temperatures, more rainfall and some soil cover, support a more diverse plant community. Species here include: ekoa, Christmas berry, Guinea grass, guava, ohia, ulu, and silver oak. Indigenous shore birds and water birds found in the area include the black crowned night heron, wandering tattler, golden plover, ruddy turnstone, sanderhng, least sandpiper, and the sharp -tailed sandpiper. The Hawaiian owl, 12ueo can be found in the project area, as well as the endangered Hawaiian hoary bat, ope'ape'a. Honokohau is a waterbird sanctuary for endangered species, including the Hawaiian stilt. Groundwater O Resources The project area has some potential for development of both (See Figure 1.4) potable and brackish water wells. Potable water wells could be developed between elevations 1500'-1800'. Safe yield for the potable water within the project area is about 6 mgd. Brackish wells for irrigation (less than 1000 mg/1 chlorides) can be developed between elevations 500' to 1000'. Brackish water supplies in the project area could total about 6 mgd. Shoreline and Generally, the coastline here is rough, rocky, low-lying land Nearshore interspersed with small white and black sand beaches. Near - Environment shore waters are classified "AA," except for the "A" classification at Honokohau Harbor. There are an estimated 79 anchialine ponds, including 27 ponds of exceptional natural value in the vicinity of Wawahiwa Point in Kohanaiki and "significant" ponds at Honokohau and Kaloko. Archaeological Resources Archaeological resources in the project area correlate strongly with the three natural climatic/ecological zones. The coastal area, once a significant settlement area for the Native Hawaiians, exhibits medium to high site densities - generally within 100 meters of the shore. Sites include permanent house O sites, subsistence sites, heiau, petroglyph clusters, temporary 1-6 shelters and a major coastal trail. There are few sites in the lowland areas. The upland area was at one time extensively developed for a variety of agricultural uses. There is thus a high density of sites within a band from about elevations 450'- 900' up to about elevation 3,500 feet in some places. Sites include agricultural field features and related shelters. Unfortunately, modem era development has destroyed a significant number of these upland sites. Visual Resources There are dramatic ocean and mountain views from many (See Figure 1.5), vantage points. This mostly undeveloped area of North Kona has a harsh, rugged visual quality that has its own special appeal. The lack of significant tree cover -- especially in the shoreland and lowland areas -- makes the project area highly sensitive to visual impacts. Visual analysis studies undertaken as part of this planning effort indicated the presence of a number of fairly large plateau -like areas in the lowland zone that are screened from view by steeper slope areas in the vicinity of Queen Kaahumanu Highway. These plateau -like areas could be the sites for more intensive urban development. Natural Hazards There is the potential for lava flows from Hualalai and Mauna Loa volcanoes. Coastal areas up to 50 feet above mean sea level are considered susceptible to tsunami inundation. Population North Kona is one of the most rapidly developing districts in the County. Population within the district increased from 13,748 in 1980 to 20,697 in 1987 - an increase of over 50 percent. The estimated 1988 population within the project area, based on 1,511 housing units at 2.8 persons per unit, was 4,230. Existing Land Use (See Figure 1.6) Most of the project area consists of undeveloped, rocky land. There is some agricultural activity in the upland portions of the site, including cultivation of macadamia nuts, coffee, avocado, flowers, and nursery plants, and some pastureland for cattle. Residential development is also concentrated in the cooler upland area. Other significant land uses include the Natural Energy Laboratory of Hawaii (NEL.H) at Keahole Point, the Hawaii Ocean Science and Technology (HOST) Park, Keahole Airport, Keahole Agricultural Park, Kaloko Industrial Park, Honokohau Harbor. The shoreland area has a number of popular swimming, camping and fishing areas. 1-7 * Landownership Of the 14,000 acres of undeveloped land in the study area, O (See Figure 1.7) approximately 12,800 acres (90 percent) is owned by 7 landowners. These owners are: * State of Hawaii 6,600 acres * Queen Liliuokalani Trust 1,957 * Lanihau Corporation 933 * Palani Land Trust H 555 * Y. O., Ltd. 410 * TSA, Inc. 1,167 * Nansay Hawaii, Inc. 1,170 * Land Use * State Land Use: 30 percent Urban,,37 percent Agricultural, Regulations 33 percent Conservation. (See Figures * County General Plan: Recent amendments include 1.8- 1.10) significant expansion of Alternate Urban Expansion lands within the study area. * County Zoning: 84 percent "Open" and "Unplanned." Remainder zoned Industrial (Airport, NELH, HOST, Kaloko, Queen Liliuokalani Trust Industrial Park) and Residential. * Special Management Area (SMA) - from Queen Kaahumanu Highway to the ocean - about 40 percent of the project area. * Access and Access to the project area provided by Keahole Airport and Transportation and by two State highways, Queen Kaahumanu and Mamalahoa Highways. Palani Road, a County maintained arterial road, is located along the southern boundary of the project area. The only County arterial within the project area is the Palisades subdivision road (Ka'imi Nani). Most of the traffic on the major roadways within the project area is traffic between Kailua Village and developed areas to the north. * Housing Resources (See Figure 1.11) A 1988 housing inventory conducted by the Planning Department indicated a total of 1,511 housing units within the study area. Housing data by subarea were as follows: OSingle -F Multi -F Subareas Units Units 1. Keahole 0 4 2. Makaula 0 0 3. Kona Coastview 409 0 4. Keahole Ag 12 0 5. Palisades 532 0 6. Ooma 0 0 7. Kaloko - Lower 0 0 8. Kaloko - Upper 96 0 9. Kohana'iki 0 0 10. Nat'l Park 1 0 11. Kaloko Industr'l 1 0 12. Honokohau - Lower 0 0 13. Honokohau - Upper 5 0 14. Kealakehe - Makai 0 0 15. Kealakehe - Middle 0 0 - 16. Kealakehe - Upper 337 114 TOTALS 1397 118 TOTAL, all units: 1.511 OPublic Services Police services are provided by the Hawaii County Police Department from its new regional headquarters at Kealakehe. The County Fire Department provides fire protection services through its Kailua-Kona station at Palani Road - Queen Kaahumanu. Kealakehe School, grades K through 8, is located at the southeastern border of the project area. The nearest high school is Konawaena High at Kealakekua. The State -operated hospital located in Kealakekua is the nearest hospital. Active recreation facilities in the project area are limited to the Kealakehe Elementary School playground, Kailua Community Park (Old Kona Airport) and Honokohau Harbor. Generally, all of these public services and facilities need significant expansion. * Utilities Electrical power and telephone service lines are already in place along Queen Kaahumanu Highway, Mamalahoa Highway and Palani Road. Potable water for the project area is provided by wells located at Kahalu'u at an elevation of about 600 feet. Wastewater is disposed of via cesspools, except at O Keahole Airport, where a package treatment plant is used. The County has begun construction of a new regional sewage 1-9 treatment plant, to be located in the vicinity of Honokohau O Harbor. Solid wastes are disposed of at a 15 -acre landfill located at Kealakehd mauka. Plans are currently being developed for a new landfill to be located to the north of the Keahole to Kailua area. Major New There are a number of major new development projects being Projects proposed for the project area. These include: 1. Completion of infrastructure for the Hawaii Ocean Science and Technology (HOST) Park - a 547 -acre State operated industrial park for high tech aquaculture, mariculture and ocean science businesses. 2. Kealakehe Planned Community - a 1,500+ acre, State sponsored "affordable" housing community for 5,000 to 6,000+ residents. 3. O'oma Resort - 300+ acre project at O'oma makai featuring 600 -room hotel, 18 -hole golf course, office/ industrial park and "sea -space center." 4. Kohanaiki Resort - 470 -acre project at Kohanaiki makai O featuring two hotels (700± rooms), 800 condominium units, 18 -hole golf course, 150 -slip marina, and some residential units. 5. Y -O Development - 410 -acre project at Kaloko mauka. Plans include 1,093 single family and 340 multi -family units. 6. Kona International Country Club - 18 -hole public golf course planned on 190 acres of land at Kaloko mauka. 7. Kaloko-Honokohau National Historic Park - a national, cultural historic park to be operated by the National Park Service for the preservation, interpretation and perpetuation of traditional Native Hawaiian activities and culture. 8. Keahole Airport Expansion - plans are being developed for a $100+ million expansion of runway and terminal facilities. r, 1-10 In addition to these specific proposed projects, several major area landowners, including Queen Liliuokalani Trust, Lanihau Corporation, TSA, Inc., and Nansay Hawaii, Inc., are developing long-range master plans for the development of their lands. Population Projections for the year 2010 were developed by the County Projections Planning Department based on the State's M -K projections for the Island. The breakdown of these projections for the planning area for housing, employment, schools and population were as follows: 1.4 OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS The analysis of important characteristics of the project area, summarized in the preceding pages, led to a preliminary identification of major physical/ environmental opportunities and constraints. Significant development opportunities include the following: 1. Distinct Geographic Zones - identified here as the coastal zone, the lowlands and the upland areas - provide a major opportunity for planning and development that "fits" the physiography and ecology of this planning area. 2'. Largely undeveloped lands in the project area provide, in general, good opportunities Ofor future residential, commercial, industrial and institutional development. 1987 2010 Inara No. Residential Units 1,511 5,774 4,263 (2M) Resident Population 4,512 14,674 10,162 (225%) No. Hotels & Condo Units -0- 2,629 -- OEmployment NA 6,612 -- School Enrollment 1,450 4,168 2,718 (187%) 1.4 OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS The analysis of important characteristics of the project area, summarized in the preceding pages, led to a preliminary identification of major physical/ environmental opportunities and constraints. Significant development opportunities include the following: 1. Distinct Geographic Zones - identified here as the coastal zone, the lowlands and the upland areas - provide a major opportunity for planning and development that "fits" the physiography and ecology of this planning area. 2'. Largely undeveloped lands in the project area provide, in general, good opportunities Ofor future residential, commercial, industrial and institutional development. 3. Low value agricultural use of most of these lands makes conversion to urban use less O difficult. 4. Relativelv few, fairly laree land holdings should facilitate the County's plans to develop a cooperative infrastructure implementation program. 5. Major transportation infrastructure consisting of Keahole Airport and Queen Kaahumanu Highway provide excellent access to the project area. 6. Proximity to maJor employment centers - i.e., Kailua-Kona to the south and the several major resorts to the north, make this area ideally suited for development as a major residential/ commercial center. There are, however, some significant development constraints, including: 1. Class AA coastal waters should be preserved in their relatively pristine state. This O environmental objective may limit certain kinds of development in the area - especially in the coastal zone. 2. Significant anchialine ponds and historic fishponds should also be preserved and protected. 3. The ocean water pipe corridor for NELH and HOST Park, a zone about 10,300 feet wide extending 12,000 to 14,000 feet out from the NELH/HOST shoreline, must be carefully protected from adverse environmental impacts. 4. The Underground Injection Control (UIC) Line, which runs along Queen Kaahumanu Highway in the northern section of the project area, then runs along .approximately the 500 -foot contour from the vicinity of Kaimi Nani Drive to Palani Road and beyond, will limit the intensity of urban development in the mauka areas of the site. 1-12 O5. Groundwater availability is limited - both within the project area and within the region as a whole. Estimated groundwater resources within the project area would have a safe yield of 'only" about 6 mgd of potable water. Estimated maximum day demand for the project area by the year 2010 is approximately 22 mgd. Thus, large volumes of potable water will eventually have to be brought into the area from both north and south. However, groundwater resources south of the project area will very likely be needed for future expected development in the Kailua to Keauhou area. Thus, potable water may become a significant constraint to development of this area. 6. Archaeological sites along the coast as well as on the upper slopes of the project area will be a significant development constraint for some specific projects. The Mamalahoa Trail, which runs from the vicinity of the Kailua Industrial Park to Keahole Airport, is another significant historic feature that should be preserved. O7. Roc4 soils and some steep slopes in the area will result in higher construction costs for most types of residential and commercial construction. 8. Noise impacts from Keahole Airport have and will continue to have a significant impact on lands immediately to the north and south of the airport. 9. Natural hazards, including tsunami inundation hazards for coastal areas, earthquake impacts, and the long-range possibility of volcanic eruptions - especially for Hualalai Volcano - must also be taken into account. These constraints have been schematically mapped and are presented at Figure 1.12. 4 1-13 w LL I lo W 0 LL NJ p t<o o� 'i o zogqUI I11 LL, "Ix f�. SECTION 2 O THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT PROCESS KEAHOLE TO KAILUA DEVELOPMENT PLAN O North Kona, Island of Hawaii OSECTION 2 THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT PROCESS 2.1 THE PLANNING PROCESS The planning process for the Keahole to Kailua Plan was shaped by a number of major themes and concerns. These themes and concerns may be summarized as follows: 1. Major urban growth and development in the project area is needed. 2. The County has a unique opportunity to guide the location, intensity, character, and quality of this future urban growth. 3. Land Use Plans for the project area should be specific enough to provide a framework for infrastructure planning, yet broad enough to allow for maximum possible landowner and market flexibility. O4. Environmental considerations and scale design criteria should be an integral part of the planning process. 5. The Plan should be developed in consultation with State agencies, landowners, area business people, community leaders, and the general public. 6. The primary products should be a Land Use Plan, Infrastructure Plans, and an Infrastructure Financing Plan that will provide a solid framework for the future development of this important area. The County Planning Department and the planning consultant have developed this Plan in accordance with these themes. Thus, the planning process has included: Inventory and analysis of major natural and cultural characteristics of the project O area; " Identification and discussion of major development issues; 2-1 * Public informational meetings, briefings to State agencies, meetings with individual O State agencies, meetings with major landowners and various community groups, and extensive reviews and discussions with County personnel. * A series of land use concept plans developed and revised in response to new facts, meetings and discussions and input from community people. * These concept plans culminated in the development of four "official" alternative land use plans (February 1989) and the resolution of a "preferred concept plan" (June 1989). Thereafter, a draft Land Use Plan and Infrastructure Plans were developed and a draft report was published in September 1989. The ensuing public review period included a public informational meeting, three Planning Commission Public Hearings, and meetings with Landowners and State agencies. The Land Use Plan was finalized in August 1990. It is hoped that this kind of open planning process will facilitate the implementation of this ambitious Development Plan for the Keahole to Kailua area. 2.2 KEY DEVELOPMENT ISSUES Section 1 of this report provided a summary of inventory and analysis findings. During the first month of the project, in addition to performing initial inventory and analysis tasks, the planning consultant participated in two County/ consultant "issues workshops" and attended the first public informational meeting. Based on these preliminary meetings and studies, the consultant developed a working paper entitled "Overview of Development Issues," dated November 7, 1988. The major growth and development issues for the project area were described in that working paper as follows: 1. Growth Rate - What is a "realistic" estimate of future growth for the study area - by the year 2010 and beyond? 2. Infrastructure Needs - Based on realistic growth projections, what will be the infrastructure system needs by the year 2010 - especially for critical systems such as potable water, wastewater collection and treatment, electrical power, O roads and recreational facilities? What will be the costs? 2-2 O3. Kailua Villne - How should the Keahole to Kailua Development Plan relate to future plans for the growth and preservation of Kailua Village? Will the plan for the study area include plans for an entirely new civic/commercial center? Will Kailua Village eventually become a "historic/tourist village" that is no longer the urban/ commercial center for West Hawaii? 4. Kailua South - How should the Keahole to Kailua Plan relate to growth, development and infrastructure needs of the "Kailua to Keauhou" area? This latter area has been the primary residential development area during the past 10 to 20 years. 5. Infrastructure Financing - How will major - and expensive - new infrastructure systems be financed? What should be the relative roles of the State government, the County government and the private sector? What are the appropriate methods for ensuring adequate and equitable infrastructure Ofunding participation by landowners and developers? 6. Affordable Housing - What is a "realistic" estimate of housing resources needed for the study area by the year 2010 and beyond? What types of "affordable housing" will be needed? How should the construction of affordable housing be financed and accomplished? What kind of residential development patterns and densities are desirable - and achievable - for single- family and multi -family affordable housing? Will affordable housing "requirements" conflict with infrastructure funding requirements imposed on developers? 7. Quality of Life - Can the "quality of life" that is enjoyed by area residents be preserved -- and even enhanced? What are the key elements of this "quality of life"? Will continued urbanization of the area gradually but inevitably degrade these qualities? 2-3 8. Environmental Quality - How can the quality of the area's natural O environment best be preserved? Continued high quality of coastal waters is of particular concern. Is there a need for a comprehensive coastal water quality protection plan and program for the Keahole to Kailua development area? 9. Visual and Aesthetic Concerns - Views, vistas and visual quality are major components of the "quality of life" that draws people to this area. Urbanization will inevitably impact on visual quality. Important views, vistas and visual resources must thus be identified and preserved to the fullest extent possible. 10. Public Shoreland Access - Land development projects in shoreland areas will be required to provide for public shoreland access. Above and beyond such basic provisions, however, there is an opportunity in this area to establish extensive public waterfront open space and park areas. How can this concept O be incorporated into the plan such that implementation of a waterfront park system is assured? 11. Landowner Plans and Property Rights - Some of the major landowners in the area are in the process of developing long-range master plans for their properties. How can the Keahole to Kailua Plan be coordinated with these private plans in such a way that the major objectives of both the County and the major landowners can be achieved? If significant conflicts develop between the plan and specific landowners' plans, how can such conflicts be successfully resolved? 12. Plan Implementation - The Keahole to Kailua Development Plan should be a flexible guide for the future growth and development of the area. The "Land Use Plan" and "Infrastructure Plans" will be conceptual in nature; we do not expect that they will be "implemented" at a detailed level, as would be O 2-4 Othe case for a master plan for a 500 -acre development tract for example. The primary "implementation" objectives for the plan will thus be at least two -fold: (1) that the overall land use/ infrastructure theme or concept be incorporated into the specific development plans of the various public and private landowners; (2) that the infrastructure financing plans and strategies specified by the plan be followed and acted upon. 2.3 REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM Prior to the development of the first schematic land use concepts, it was necessary for the planning team to set up a preliminary Regional Development Program - i.e., what are the major land uses that are to be accommodated in the land use plan? What is the "acreage demand" for each of these uses for the target planning year -- 2010 -- and beyond? What are the general siting criteria for each of these uses? OAs a first step in the formulation of this Regional Development Program, the consultant and County planners discussed and resolved a preliminary list of "given" land uses. These uses were: 1. Existiniz Land Uses Keahole Airport HOST Industrial Park Natural Energy Laboratory of Hawaii Keahole Agricultural Park Hawaii Electric Company Substation Kona Palisades Subdivision Kealakehe Subdivision Kona Heavens Kalaoa-Ooma Homesteads O Kaloko Industrial Park Queen Liliuokalani Industrial Park 2-5 Old Kona Airport Park O New Police Station 2. Planned Projects Kealakehe Planned Community Kohanaiki Resort Development Y -O Development Kaloko-Honokohau National Cultural Park Honokohau Harbor Expansion Kealakehe Wastewater Treatment Facility The next step was to develop a preliminary list of future land uses, with targeted acreages for the vear 2010. This list was developed through an analysis of County projections for housing and population, the results of the project area analysis and development issues analysis, and working sessions involving the consultants and County planners. O After several iterations, a preliminary development program was resolved. This development program, presented here in tabular form, then served as the basis for the alternative concept plans. The major growth assumptions in this Regional Development Program are: 1. The Keahole to Kailua area will be the location for a new "Civic and Business Center" with civic and commercial uses. 2. The Keahole to Kailua area will receive approximately 4,500 new residential units between 1990 and 2010. 2-6 TABLE 2-1 REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM LAND USE PLANNED ACREAGE GENERAL SITING CRITERIA REGIONAL CENTER 200 ACRES ON OR NEAR MAJOR ROADWAY (CIVIC AND COMMERCIAL) RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 1000+ ACRES UPLAND AREAS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL (2) 20 ACRES NEAR RESIDENTIAL AREAS MIDDLE SCHOOL (1) 20 ACRES NEAR RESIDENTIAL AREAS HIGH SCHOOL (1) 40 ACRES NEAR RESIDENTIAL AREAS COMMUNITY PARKS (5) 50 ACRES NEAR RESIDENTIAL AREAS DISTRICT PARK 25 ACRES NEAR MAIN URBAN CENTER WATERFRONT PARK. 200+ ACRES SHORELINE AREAS MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE 200 ACRES VICINITY OF PLANNED STP REGIONAL SPORTS COMPLEX 100+ ACRES QUEEN K. CORRIDOR UNIVERSITY SITE 200 ACRES QUEEN K. CORRIDOR; STATE LANDS INDUSTRIAL 200+ ACRES QUEEN K. CORRIDOR JUDICIARY 10 ACRES IN FOR NEAR URBAN CENTER HOSPITAL 10 ACRES IN FOR NEAR URBAN CENTER FIRE STATION 1 ACRE IN FOR NEAR URBAN CENTER CEMETERY 100 ACRES RURAL AREA NOTES: 1. Additional units projected by year 2010 are approximately 4,500 single and multifamily units. Density assumptions: Single family units at 4, 5, and 6 units per acre, totalling about 3,500 units. Multifamily units at 10 and 15 units per acre, 500 units each (1000 units total). Existing units total 2000. The population projected by year 2010 assumed a total unit count of 6,500 x 2.8 persons per unit = 16,800 people. 2. Acreage for uses other than residential was based on the projected 2010 population. 3. The project area is the logical location for a number of facilities that will serve a O much larger region - including a municipal golf course, regional sports complex and West Hawaii University. 4. The project area will have resort development in the range of 1,500 -visitor units. 2.4 ALTERNATIVE CONCEPT PLANS During the period January -February 1989, a number of preliminary land use concept plans were developed by the consultant. These plans were based on the Regional Development Program described in the preceding pages. After several iterations and working meetings with County planners, State agencies and major landowners, an "official' set of four alternative land use concept plans was developed. Alternative land use concepts are often developed to illustrate specific alternative "themes." Thus, concept plans could be developed to illustrate "Least Infrastructure Cost" or "Maximum Open Space" for example. The concept plans developed for this project followed O a somewhat different pattern. Each of the concept plans was drawn to illustrate optional locations for the major land uses in the development program. The objective was to illustrate a variety of feasible siting options - for the "Civic and Business Center," residential development, road systems, industrial parks, commercial centers, parks, schools, etc., so as to elicit the widest possible range of comments and critiques from State agencies, landowners, community leaders and the general public. These alternative concept plans were presented to the public at an informational meeting on March 8, 1989. Approximately 70 members of the public attended the meeting, and many commented on the concept plans. As part of the presentation, the planners noted that, on the basis of these and other comments, a "preferred concept plan" would be developed through a "mix and match" process - i.e., the 'best" aspects of each of the concept plans would be consolidated into one final concept plan. 2-7 OReduced size copies of the alternative concept plans are provided here, together with a tabulation of planned land uses and siting options. The major themes illustrated by each of the alternative concept plans are as follows: Alternative 1 - Exvansion of Kailua-Kona Kailua Village will remain as the regional commercial center, and will expand northward both east and west of Queen Kaahumanu Highway. New roadways will include a major new "bypass highway" from HOST Park to beyond Palani Road. This section of new high speed highway will be needed as urban development along existing Queen Kaahumanu Highway eventually will lead to congested conditions. Residential development in this alternative is concentrated on the mid and upper slopes of the project area. Alternative 2 - Extensive Makai Development This alternative shows major resort, commercial and residential development for the O Keahuolu and Kealakehe makai lands. The new urban center is located at Kealakehe just mauka of Queen Kaahumanu Highway. More residential development would be sited around this center. Anew bypass highway would define the limits of most of the new urban development. There would be a limited amount of new residential development on the upper slopes of the project area. Alternative 3 - New "Village" Center The new urban center would be a waterfront "village" located at Kealakehe-Keahuolu makai. Most of the new residential development would be on the upper slopes. There would be no bypass highway, but Queen Kaahumanu Highway would be expanded to a 4 -lane roadway. Alternative 4 - New (Mauka) Urban Center The new urban center would be sited about 2 miles mauka of Queen Kaahumanu Highway, within the Kaloko ahupua'a. The new center would have associated O residential development. Access to the center would be provided by a new "north - south road and by a mauka-makai road linking Queen Kaahumanu Highway and W. TABLE 2-2 KEAHOLE TO KAILUA DEVELOPMENT PLAN O SITING OPTIONS ILLUSTRATED ON THE ALTERNATIVE PLANS ALTERNATIVE 1 ALTERNATIVE 2 ALTERNATIVE 3 ALTERNATIVE 4 LAND USE Expansion of Extensive Makai New Village New Urban Kailua-Kona Development Center Center • Regional Center fgand Kailuo-Kona to the Honokofwu/Keolakehe At Kealakehe/Keahuolu mclsiope with Support South Mauka Makai Villages • Northern Urban limit Kona Palisades Subd. Kona Palisades Subd. Kau Kau • Residential Mid to Upper Slopes Mouka & Makai Green K Makai Queen K and Mid Mid to Upper Slops to Upper Slopes Strong "village' Theme • light Industrial At Ooma II Mauka Adjacent to Ex. Ind. at Al Ooma II Mouka of Airport & Office Kaloko and Keahuolu Park/Golf Course/light Industrial at Ooma II • University Site At Kealakehe and Keahuoiu At Keahuoiu Mauka At Keahuolu Mauka At Kalaoa/Hamanamona Mauka • Golf Course At Keaiakahe Mouka At Keohuolu Mauka At Keahuoiu Mouka At Keolakehe Mauka • District Park At Kealakehe Mauka At Kealakehe Mouka At Kealakahe Makai Al Ooma II Mouka • Regional Sports Complex At Keahuolu Moula At Keahuolu Mauka At Keahuolu Mauka At Kealakehe/Keahuolu /- Makai l • Shoreline Park None At Kealakehe/Keahuolu None At Kealakehe/Keahuolu Makai Makai • Resort/Commercial None At Kealakehe/Keahuolu None None Makai • Resort/Park None None At Kealakehe/Keahuoiu None Makai • Police Station At Kealakehe Mauka At Keolakehe Mauka At Kealakehe Mauko At Kealakehe Mauka • Open/Agriculture North of Palisades North of Palisades Mauka Oueen K. Mouka Oueen K. and Between Villages • Sewage Treatment Plant At Keolakehe Makai At Keolakehe Makai At Kealakehe Makai At Kealakehe Makai • Circulation: Oueen Koahumanu Hwy Constrvct.Byposs Hwy Construct Bypass Hwy Widen to 4 Loris Remains Palani Road Realign Southeast Realign Palani Between Improve Within 5doing Realign Southeast Old and New Oueen K Right -of -Way Kaimi Noni Remains Remains Remains Remains North/South Roads Palisades to Palani None None Kau to South of Palani Mauko/Makai Roads Kealokehe and Kaloko Kealakehe & Koloko from Kalaoa, Kaloko and Kalaoa and Koloko and Queen K Bypass to Kealakehe Kealakehe from North/ Marrtaiahoo Highway South Road to Mamaiahoo Highway Shoreline Road At Keafakehe/Keahuolu At Keolokehe/Keahuolu At Kealakehe/Keahuoiu At Keolokehe/Keahuolu OMamalahoa Highway. Several smaller "residential villages" would be developed along this north -south road. The makai lands would remain mostly 'open," with a limited amount of recreational facilities development. Subsequent to the public informational meeting, evaluation criteria for the alternative concept plans, which had been developed in draft form at an earlier date, were formalized. These evaluation criteria were used to test the alternative plans, and to narrow down the range of siting options that would be combined into a 'Preferred Concept Plan." The evaluation criteria were as follows: 1. Internal Cohesiveness - How well does the plan "hang together"? Is it coherent, cohesive? 2. Functionality - Is the layout functional in terms of interrelationships among Ouses? Consider also uses throughout the day and seasonality. 3. Access and Traffic Circulation - How well is access provided to the major uses of the area from the regional, system and how well does the internal circulation work? 4. Adaptability - How well does the overall urban pattern adapt to alternative use configurations, phasing changes; how well does it stand alone at each point? 5. Phaseability - How adaptable is the layout to phasing and to alternative phasing schemes? 6. Suitability Beyond 2010 - Adaptability of the plan to growth beyond 20 -year projections while maintaining functional and aesthetic values. ►.S 7. Drainage - How should this be handled? Are there differences in the plans O as to how this could be worked? 8. Climate - Are uses allocated to suitable climatic zones? 9. Visual Impacts - Identify key views and vistas. Evaluate visual impact implications of the concept. 10. Public Shoreline Access - Availability of public shoreline access and use. 11. Archaeological - Are there major features which are suitable for preservation; can the region's future development reflect its historical functions? 12. Construction Cost - Relative cost effectiveness of the layout in terms of infrastructure investment. O 13. Compatibility with Plans - Consistency with State, County, and landowners' plans. 14. Landowners - How motivated are the landowners, what are their capabilities, and the depth of their resources? 2.5 THE INITIAL CONCEPT PLAN 2.5.1 Planning Process The alternative concept plans were developed during the period January -February 1989 and were presented at a Public Informational Meeting on March 8, 1989. Subsequent to the public meeting, the project team participated in a series of meetings and working sessions that focused on the eventual resolution of an initial concept plan. These meetings involved key State agencies, major area landowners, and community groups. This part of the planning process took place during March -June 1989. O 2-10 OThe "Initial Concept Plan" that emerged from these many meetings and discussions is something of a "hybrid" plan, i.e., it incorporates ideas from several alternative concept plans as well as certain aspects of the several concept plans that have been developed by the major area landowners. The Initial Concept Plan also illustrates several important ideas that go beyond the relatively general alternative concept plans. 2.5.2 Major Development Themes The Initial Concept Plan was largely shaped by a number of major regional development themes or concepts. These themes, which were only partially expressed in the alternative concept plans, may be summarized as follows: A. Three Major Development Zones - Broadly speaking, the Plan organized the various land uses into three major bands or zones. These zones correspond to the physiographic/ecological/historical zones identified in Section 1 of this report. OThe "coastal zone" - which includes low-lying lands generally makai of Queen Kaahumanu Highway - planned primarily for public recreational facilities, parks and open space, and resort development. The lowland or "lower slopes" zone - a band of land about 1/2 to 1 mile in width generally mauka of Queen Kaahumanu Highway - planned for denser urban uses, including a major new civic center, light industrial uses, retail commercial development, and various other urban uses to serve the needs of all of West Hawaii. The third zone - the uplands zone from about elevation 600 feet to the Mamalahoa Highway - is planned primarily for residential development and related parks, schools and small village centers. B. New Government and Business Center -The Plan showed a concentration of higher density civic and commercial uses clustered on the mauka side of Queen Kaahumanu OHighway, approximately two miles north of the center of Kailua Village. This 2-11 proposed location for a "new regional center" was based on the assumption that the O new center should be near but not adjacent to Kailua Village. This suggested relationship between the new center and the existing village would reduce the risk of major traffic congestion while at the same time allowing for fairly easy movement back and forth between the new business/civic center and the historic visitor -oriented village. The proposed location of the new center has ample room for expansion well into the 21st century. C. Major New Roadways -The Initial Concept Plan showed a total of five major north - south roads, four major east -west (mauka-makai) roads, and a shore area parkway. The five north -south roads include an upgraded (4 lanes) Queen Kaahumanu Highway, a future (probably beyond year 2010) Queen Kaahumanu Highway "Bypass," and three new 2 -lane to 4 -lane area collector roads. Both the upgraded Queen Kaahumanu Highway and the Bypass Highway would be limited access roads. The three mauka-makai roads are: a new alignment for (most of) Palani Road, and mauka-makai roads that generally traverse the Kealakehe and Kaloko land divisions. O Given the projected growth and development for this area, this number and general overall pattern of highways and collector roads is considered to be required. D. Regional Greenbelt System - The proposed system of major roadways provides a strong, functional "framework" for the Initial Concept Plan. As a complement to this functional system, the Plan also proposed a greenbelt system that will provide important visual buffering and visual definition. More specifically, greenbelts are proposed along both sides of Queen Kaahumanu Highway and the Bypass Highway, and are also proposed in mauka-makai alignments along the borders of several of the major ahupua'as. The highway related greenbelts would typically be landscaped buffer strips varying in width from 100 to 300 feet. Bicycle paths could be constructed in these buffer strips. The mauka-makai greenbelts would be 200 to 300 feet wide. The natural vegetation would be maintained in these latter greenbelts, and paths for walking, jogging and bicycling could be constructed. More formal landscaping could be provided for certain sections of these greenbelts, especially for O 2-12 Osections below Queen Kaahumanu Highway. Thus, these proposed greenbelts would serve a number of important purposes, including: - Provide greenery and shade along the major highways in the area; - At least partially screen some of the urban uses from view from the major highways; - Provide visual/physical definition for the several major residential "villages" that will be developed on the upper slopes of the project area. - Provide opportunities for extensive walking/jogging/bicycling path systems. - Provide significant areas for the retention and infiltration of stormwater runoff. Given the importance of visual quality in the Kona region, we feel that it is essential that a regional scale greenbelt system of this kind be implemented as an integral part of the overall regional infrastructure development program. O 2.6 THE PREFERRED CONCEPT PLAN The major development themes that were expressed in the Initial Concept Plan have undergone considerable discussion since the release of the draft plan in September 1989. As a result of these discussions five significant adjustments to the plan were made: A. The Queen Kaahumanu Highway is recognized as the primary arterial for this area of Kona now and into the foreseeable future. While the draft plan called for a right-of-way set aside for an eventual bypass highway, the State Department of Transportation has stated its position that the'present highway will be the primary arterial and will be developed with grade separated interchanges and a frontage road system. B. The Kealakehe Planned Community Master Plan for the lands of Kealakehe Oabove the Queen Kaahumanu Highway has been completed. The Plan shows 2-13 the public golf course to be mauka of the Queen Kaahumanu Highway while no civic center is shown within the housing development area. C. The proposed civic center is now located on the Kealakehe property makai of the Queen Kaahumanu Highway on public lands with sufficient room for related commercial uses. This location would make use of the, interchange that will be built at Queen Kaahumanu Highway and the main access road for the Kealakehe Project. D. Extension of the residential development area was made to include the Kau land division to broaden the potential residential development area. E. The University site was relocated to a site north of the Kona Palisades Subdivision in the vicinity of the proposed Keahole Interchange on the Queen Kaahumanu Highway. O The net result of these changes provides some adjustments to the initial plan, though when viewed in their entirety the changes remain generally consistent with the original direction laid out in the Initial Concept Plan. 2-14 SECTION 3 O LAND USE PLAN KEAHOLE TO KAILUA DEVELOPMENT PLAN O North Kona, Island of Hawaii OSECTION 3 LAND USE PLAN 3.1 OBJECTIVES OF THE LAND USE PLAN The overall purpose of the Land Use Plan is to: 1. Provide a framework for the future growth and development of the Keahole to Kailua area; 2. Provide a framework for infrastructure plans and cost estimates for the rational and cost-effective development of the area; 3. Provide a basis for coordinated public-private implementation of major infrastructure projects; O 4. Provide a framework for State and County action on designating lands for urban development. The Land Use Plan is thus seen as a relatively flexible document and tool; the Plan is not intended to be used as a "master site plan" for the project area, i.e., a plan that has "fixed" all of the major roads and land use locations. It is fully expected that there will be some shifting and changing of roadway alignments and land use locations as actual development occurs over the next 20 years and more. It should also be noted that the Plan shows land use acreages that are large enough to accommodate residential and commercial growth well beyond the year 2010. The major development themes that were expressed in the Initial and Preferred Concept Plans and that are again embodied in the Land Use Plan are of more importance than the specific boundaries of a particular land use "bubble." To reiterate, these major development themes are: 3-1 1. THREE MAJOR DEVELOPMENT ZONES O 2. NEW CIVIC AND BUSINESS CENTER 3. MAJOR NEW ROADWAYS 4. REGIONAL GREENBELT SYSTEM It is critical that these major development themes continue to guide the planning and development of the Keahole to Kailua area. 3.2 LAND USE SUMMARY The range of land uses shown in the Land Use Plan, and the acreage for each use, was based on the regional development projections that were developed during the research and analysis phase of the study. These land uses and the actual acreages planned are as follows: Coastal Zone 1. Commercial/ Industrial 100 acres 2. Waterfront Parks 250 3. Sewage Treatment Plant 50 O 4. Civic and Business Center 100 5. Harbor Complex 100 6. National Cultural Park 540 7. Resort/Recreation 625 8. Ocean Research Commercial/ Industrial 620 9. Ocean Research (NELH) 320 10. Keahole Airport 1,675 11. General Industrial 180 12. Open/Recreation 1,300 13. Open 365 Subtotal 6,225 Lowland Urban Zone 1. Municipal Golf Course 200 2. Kealakehe Planned Community 200 (portion) 3. Limited Industrial 300 4. Urban Expansion 1,100 5. Open/Recreation 800 O Subtotal 2,600 3-2 OUpland Residential Zone 1. Kealakehe Planned Community 500 (balance) 2. Other Residential Areas 1,830 (including parks) ' 3. Schools: Elementary (2) 85 Middle and High Schools 4. Private Golf Course 200 5. University 500 6. University -Related Residential 610 7. Lands of Kau . 800 Subtotal 4,525 TOTAL ACREAGE 13,350 It should be noted that the acreage shown for residential development, 3,940 acres, is much larger than the projected acreage needed for this use by the year 2010. This significantly larger amount of residential acreage has been shown on the Land Use Plan in order to: (1) Oprovide a generous "contingency" factor for possible larger than projected market demand, (2) provide for future opportunities for a variety of residential environments, (3) provide for future possibilities for competition among developers and thus more affordable house prices for consumers. 3.3 DISCUSSION AND RATIONALE This section of the report provides a fairly detailed discussion of the components of the Land Use Plan. For each of the land uses, we have provided a succinct description of its site location(s), the criteria upon which acreage and siting were based and any special criteria or special features of the particular use. This discussion can be followed most easily with a copy of the Land Use Plan (Figure 3.1) at hand. The discussion has been organized according to the three major physiographic zones that provide an organizing theme for the Plan. 3.3.1 Coastal Zone A. Waterfront Parks (250 acres) OThe Plan shows major waterfront parks of approximately 250 acres. One waterfront park, situated along the shoreland areas of the Keahuolu and Kealakehe ahupua'as, 3-3 Owould be an extension of the existing beach park at the old airport. This new waterfront park would be designed primarily for "passive" use. Facilities would be limited to parking areas, restroom facilities, paths and trails and picnic areas. If successfully implemented, this park, together with the old airport site, would result in the setting aside of about 3 miles of waterfront lands for public use. The second waterfront park is situated along the shoreline of Ooma 2 and the HOST Park site. In time, as the Kailua area becomes increasingly urbanized, the wisdom of such a park plan will become more and more evident. B. Commercial Andustrial (100 acres) The Land Use Plan shows a 100 -acre area makai of Queen Kaahumanu Highway as "commercial." This site, an area already zoned for industrial development, would be a logical extension of commercial development trends in Kailua Village. Although the Plan generally seeks to limit commercial development makai of Queen OKaahumanu Highway, the fact that most of this site is already designated State/urban and is zoned industrial suggests that urban uses should be permitted there. Conceptually, this site should be developed as an office/retail commercial complex that would eventually complement a redeveloped and improved retail and office commercial complex that would be located at the site of the existing industrial park. This integrated development concept for the area would also potentially relieve traffic problems on Kaiwi Street. C. Civic and Business Center (100 acres) The earlier 'Regional Center" concept has been modified and downsized to a 100 - acre area labeled "Civic and Business Center" located makai of Queen Kaahumanu Highway, roughly between the harbor complex and the new sewage treatment plant. This complex would include a civic center for government offices and related office and commercial uses. This site lends itself to carefully planned government and business center development in that (1) the land is State-owned; (2) adjacent to a proposed major grade -separated highway interchange; and (3) adjacent to Queen Kaahumanu Highway. 3-4 Conceptually, the new regional center will have a "core" area of civic/public buildings. O and uses, including State offices, County offices and a judiciary complex, and 50 to 100 acres of office parks and retail commercial facilities. The rationale for a new, physically distinct regional center has already been discussed in the section on development issues. To reiterate briefly, it is the judgment of the planning team that: (1) Kailua Village cannot accommodate the 100 to 200 acres of new civic/commercial space that will be required over the next 20 years; (2) development of lands immediately adjacent to Kailua Village for civic/ commercial uses will result in a very large urban area and extreme traffic congestion, and seriously impact the character of Kailua Village; (3) a new, physically separate regional center should thus be developed near but not adjacent to Kailua Village; (4) the construction of the proposed Queen Kaahumanu Highway/Kealakehe interchange will provide good vehicular access to this new center. There also appears to be a general consensus in the community that a "separate but O nearby" new regional center should be developed, with an emphasis on good access and ample room for future expansion. Within the overall context of the West Hawaii region, it is generally assumed that the Kailua area will continue to serve as the main urban service center for the region. It is thus envisioned that the new regional center will eventually become a regional urban center for government, finance and a variety of services and retail commercial activities. The corollary to this development scenario is that Kailua Village will continue to thrive as an historic resource and visitor oriented service area, and that the village will be spared the potentially harmful effects of extensive urbanization. D. Harbor Complex (100 acres) The Plan shows an area of about 100 acres for the expansion of Honokohau Harbor and related facilities. The expansion would include DOT Harbors Division's plan to provide an additional 200+ slips for privately owned boats. Related facilities would O 3-5 Oinclude a variety of commercial, marine related structures and businesses, including shops, restaurants, marine equipment supply stores and boat maintenance facilities. E. National Cultural Park (540 acres) The planned National Cultural Park at Kaloko/Honokohau makai would be another recreational facility of major importance. Plans for this important park have been in the formative stage for many years, and the needed land acquisitions have just been completed. Once implemented, this National Cultural Park would be a public resource of great significance: it would serve as a unique cultural asset for the Hawaiian people and, at the same time, ensure the long-term preservation of about a mile and a half of coastline that has considerable historical and ecological importance. F. Resort /Recreation (650 acres) This designation encompasses the Kohanaiki resort project and a portion of the OOoma 2 makai lands. G. Ocean Research. Commercial/Industrial (620 acres) This designation encompasses the Hawaii Ocean Science and Technology (HOST) Park, the Natural Energy Laboratory of Hawaii (NELH), and a portion of the Ooma 2 makai site. H. Ocean Research INELHI (320 acres) Recent developments indicate that the Hawaii Ocean Science and Technology (HOST) Park and the Natural Energy Laboratory of Hawaii (NELH) have generated some major new interest within the local and international business communities. Although it is still early to predict the pace at which these related facilities will develop, we can reasonably say that they have significant potential as major employment centers in the near future. OHOST/NELH would thus, together with the Keahole Airport, constitute a significant employment and business "node" at one end of the Keahole to Kailua planning area. These State sponsored facilities are also of great significance because of their dependence on very clean ocean water - both nearshore warm water and deep, cold ocean water. Given the potential technological and economic importance of these unique facilities, it will be critical to ensure that the ocean waters in this area of the Kona coast remain free of manmade pollutants. I. Keahole Airport (1,675 acres) Keahole Airport is a regional air transportation facility that serves the entire west coast of the Island of Hawaii. The airport is also a significant - and growing - employment center. The 1989 Legislature provided 5100+ million for the expansion of facilities at Keahole Airport. This expansion, featuring an extension of the 6,500 -foot runway to 11,000 feet and construction of new terminal facilities for wide body aircraft, is needed to accommodate the projected year 2005 passenger volumes of 4,160,000 arrivals/departures per year. As Keahole Airport grows and expands, it will be important to ensure that adjacent and nearby land uses are compatible with the airport's noise levels and with its special land use characteristics. J. General Industrial (180 acres) This industrial area, located adjacent to the developed part of Keahole Airport, is the only general industrial area recommended for this planning area. K. Open/Recreation (1,300 acres) This designation indicates lands that should be used mainly for open space and recreational facilities. The Final Land Use Plan shows two major "Open/Recreation" areas: 1,300 acres at Keahuolu and Kealakehe makai and 800 acres at Ooma 2/Kalaoa-Ooma Homesteads/Kalaoa between Queen Kaahumanu Highway and the Mid -Level Arterial Roadway. Much of these lands had been designated "Open" in 3-7 the earlier Plan. The Regional Sports Complex is not explicitly shown, but could be accommodated in the Open/Recreation area. L. Qpen (365 acres) The Plan shows a 100 -foot wide "Open" zone on both sides of Queen Kaahumanu Highway in place of the "greenbelt" shown on the Draft Plan. As noted above, Queen Kaahumanu Highway will continue to serve as the major high speed limited access roadway through the study area. Thus, a permanent buffer zone should be established on both sides of this major highway. The objective will be to establish this zone as a dedicated open space strip. The "Open" designation has also been used for an archaeological complex located on the north side of the lower section of Palani Road. 3.3.2 Lowland Urban Zone A. Municipal Golf Course (200 acres) The final plan shows a municipal golf course of approximately 200 acres at Kealakehe mauka. This golf course will be the first municipal golf course in West Hawaii. The golf course will also serve as an effluent disposal site: sewage effluent from the sewage treatment plant that will be constructed at Kealakehe makai will be pumped across Queen Kaahumanu Highway to the golf course and used for irrigation. B. Kealakehe Planned Community (200 -acre portion) A portion of this State -financed affordable housing community lies within the Lowland Urban Zone. Generally, this zone is considered better suited to non- residential urban uses. However, the Land Use Plan basically has taken the State's Kealakehe plans as a given. C. 'Limited Industrial (300 acres) There are two existing light industrial parks within the project area: the older leasehold industrial park adjacent to Kailua Village and the fee simple industrial park at Kaloko, just mauka of Queen Kaahumanu Highway. M. The Land Use Plan does not recommend the expansion of the leasehold industrial O park. Instead, the Plan shows the expansion of the Kaloko industrial park at Kaloko and Honokohau mauka. As indicated earlier, it is assumed that some of the wider regional demand for industrial space will have to be satisfied within this planning area. It is also assumed, however, that most future heavy industrial facilities will locate at Kawaihae Harbor to the north. D. Urban Expansion (1,100 acres) A significant portion of the Lowland Urban Zone has been labeled "urban expansion." This designation denotes the land's general suitability for urban development. No specific urban uses for these areas have been recommended in this Plan. E. Open /Recreation (800 acres) O The northern sector of the Lowland Urban Zone has been designated "Open/ Recreation" to establish the general objective of keeping these lands generally in open space and recreational uses. The proximity of these areas to the existing Agricultural Park and the proposed West Hawaii University is part of the rationale for this objective. 3.3.3 Upland Residential Zone A. Kealakehe Planned Community (balance -500 acres) Most of the Kealakehe Planned Community lies within the Upland Residential Zone, and is thus compatible with the overall environmental and development objectives and criteria of the Plan. B. Village Centers (20 acres) Three village centers have been schematically indicated on the Land Use Plan. Conceptually, each village center would be a small neighborhood shopping center, O 3 to 5 acres in size, with 20,000 to 50,000 square feet of gross leasable retail 3-9 Ocommercial and office space. The village centers would be located on one of the main north -south collector roads, and would each serve a population of about 4-5,000 people. Typical commercial establishments would be food stores, variety stores, small clothing stores and specialty shops, fast food establishments and restaurants. Some of these village centers would also have branch banks and professional offices. Ideally, each village center would have its own distinctive architectural and commercial character. The purpose of these centers would be: (1) to provide convenience shopping facilities in close proximity to residential areas, (2) to give each residential "village" a distinctive physical and design character. C. Residential Villages (1,755 acres) The Land use Plan shows three distinct residential villages, varying in size from about 350 to 1,000 acres. These villages are located within the mid to upper slope ranges of the project area, i.e., from about elevation 400 feet to as high as elevation 1,000 O feet. As previously noted, the mid to upper slope areas have been designated for residential development because these areas have fine ocean views, cooler temperatures, some soil cover and somewhat more rainfall as compared to the hot, dry lowland and coastal areas. The concept of distinct residential villages rather than an undifferentiated mass of residential development is, we believe, an important planning and development concept. Clearly, "urban sprawl" rather than "sense of place" has been the trend during the United States' postwar urbanizing period. As a counter to this trend, we feel that Hawaii's tradition of identifiable towns, villages and neighborhoods is of great social importance, and that this tradition should be reflected to the fullest extent possible in the Land Use Plan. Each of the residential villages depicted here would ultimately contain 1,000 to 2,000 residential units. Each would have a distinctive village center, neighborhood parks, and some kind of public school. The limits of each village will be defined by major Oroadway corridors, the mauka-makai greenbelts, and by existing residential neighborhoods. 3-10 Developers of these villages should be encouraged to use innovative site planning O concepts in their plans. The possibility that each of these villages could, in reality, be developed with a distinctive urban/suburban character is further enhanced by the fact that landownership in each village area is limited to a few owners. D. Public Schools (Total of about 85 acres) The Land Use Plan shows very schematic locations for several "educational centers." These centers would include 'a high school, a middle school and two new elementary schools. It is assumed that the existing Kealakehe School will continue to function. Much more detailed site location studies will be needed in order to resolve the final sitings for these schools. The schematic locations shown here are primarily meant to illustrate a general planning and community identity objective that would prefer O to have the various schools allocated to the several residential villages. E. Parks and Playgrounds (Total of about 75 acres) As has previously been noted, public park acreage and facilities are very substandard in the Kailua-Kona area. Smaller community and neighborhood parks and playgrounds are not shown on the Plan. However, these smaller facilities are strongly recommended and should be developed as integral parts of the larger subdivisions and planned communities. The Land Use Plan does not site, but would include a large district park of approximately 25 acres. This park will be primarily an active recreation facility, with ballfields, soccer fields, tennis courts, basketball courts and related facilities. The park should also have a recreation building, a public swimming pool, picnic areas and one or more tot lots. Overall, this park should serve as the planning area's primary active recreation facility. O 3-11 OF. Private Golf Course 200 acres) One additional 18 -hole golf course is shown at Kaloko/Kohanaiki mauka. This golf course, which has already received State and County approvals, would probably be privately developed, owned and operated. It should be noted that still more golf courses - public or private - could be developed within this area: there is an abundance of undeveloped acreage here, and there should be adequate water for irrigation, both from the area's wastewater treatment plants and from brackish water wells. G. West Hawaii University (500 acres) There has been considerable discussion during the past few years concerning the possible size, location and timing for a major university campus in the Kona area. The Land Use Plan shows a campus site of about 500 acres located in the vicinity of Keahole Airport, mauka of Queen Kaahumanu Highway and the proposed Mid -Level Road. This site lies generally between elevations 400 feet and 600 feet. Advantages Oof this site include accessibility to major roadways and proximity to NELH and HOST Park. The State is now in the process of conducting a formal site selection study for this future West Hawaii University. H. University -Related Residential (610 acres) The Plan shows two clusters of University -Related Residential Development -- an area of about 450 acres immediately mauka of the University site and a secondary reserve area of about 160 acres located mauka of the first area. The development of a major University in this area will undoubtedly generate a significant demand for residential development in the vicinity. 1. Lands of Kau (800 acres) This area could provide support housing for the resorts in North Kona and South OKohala. The major mauka-makai road shown from the Keahole Access Road/Queen 3-12 Kaahumanu Highway intersection, up through the University and then through the O Lands of Kau to the Mamalahoa Highway would provide another important mauka- makai connector. J. Residential Expansion Areas (800 acres) The expansion areas in the upland zone would accommodate an additional 3,000 to 5,000 housing units. 3.3.4 Related Uses/Acreages A. Major Roadways (46.8 miles, 500+ acres) The major roadways in the Land Use Plan evolved from those shown in the Initial Concept Plan and the Draft Land Use Plan. Generally, the north -south roads run parallel to the contours, and will be relatively easy to construct. The east -west (mauka-makai) roads will have to be built across some steeper terrain, especially in the vicinity of the Mamalahoa Highway, where slopes are in the 10 to 15 + percent range. Curving road alignments will be needed here to keep roadway grades below O a design gradient of 8 percent. The proposed major roadways by geographic zones are: - Coastal Zone: "Shore Drive" - a scenic collector road near the shore. - Lowland Urban Upgraded Queen Kaahumanu Highway (4 to 6 Zone: lanes, with interchanges at Keahole Airport and Kealakehe) and "Main Street," a collector road that will provide access to many commercial and industrial properties. A proposed "Mid -Level Arterial' road (4 lanes) defines the mauka boundary of this zone. - Upland Zone: Three mauka-makai collector roads: Kealakehe Drive, Hina Lani Drive, and University Drive. Two north -south collector roads: Kealakaa Street Extension and Waena O Drive. The mauka-makai roads will extend down into 3-13 Othe Lowland Zone to link with Queen Kaahumanu Highway. One of the major challenges of the planning and regional development process will be to coordinate the phased development of this fairly complex roadway system. Roadway and intersection details are provided in the "Roadway Plan" section of the report. B. Regional Greenbelt System (173,000 linear feet, 1,110 acres) The Land Use Plan shows a system of north -south and mauka-makai greenbelts, all drawn at about 300 feet in width. In total, the Plan shows about 33 miles of greenbelts. As we have already indicated, this regional greenbelt system is seen as an extremely important and integral part of the overall land use plan. In addition to serving as Obuffers along the major highways, "edges" for the residential villages, and bikeway/walkway corridors, these greenbelts can be utilized as drainageways and retention areas for stormwater runoff. Most of these greenbelts will have "natural landscaping" rather than costly new plantings -- i.e., native grasses, shrubs and trees will be allowed to continue to grow in these areas. As with the proposed roadway system, implementation of this regional greenbelt system will be a fairly formidable task. This current planning project should provide the County with an opportunity to begin to build a public constituency for this important regional design concept. 3-14 SECTION 4 O INFRASTRUCTURE PLANS AND COST ESTIMATES KEAHOLE TO KAILUA DEVELOPMENT PLAN D North Kona, Island of Hawaii OSECTION 4 INFRASTRUCTURE PLANS AND COST ESTIMATES This section of the report presents plans for the important infrastructure systems that will need to be constructed in this planning area over the next 20 years. The infrastructure plans are presented in graphic and narrative form. A total of seven important infrastructure systems are covered: 1. Roadways 2. Water Supply 3. Sewerage 4. Drainage 5. Solid Waste 6. Regional Parks and Open Space 7. Landscaping For each of these infrastructure systems, we have provided: (1) basis for the plan, (2) description of the proposed future system, (3) preliminary cost estimate, and (4) a summary of further planning needed prior to system design and implementation. 4.1 ROADWAY PLAN 4.1.1 Basis for the Plan The Roadway Plan for the Keahole to Kailua planning area was developed through both qualitative and quantitative analysis. In terms of qualitative factors, the Roadway Plan was based in part on earlier regional planning studies conducted by the County Planning Department. These earlier studies had indicated a future need for significant roadway improvements within the Keahole to Kailua area including: 4-1 • Expansion of Queen Kaahumanu Highway from the existing 2 -lane road to a 4 -lane O highway. • Realignment and reconstruction of Mani Road. • Construction of a major "north -south" collector road located roughly between Queen Kaahumanu Highway and the Mamalahoa Highway. 0 Construction of two "mauka-makai" roadways linking Queen Kaahumanu Highway and the Mamalahoa Highway. These earlier studies were "qualitative" in that they were not based on quantitative analysis and mathematical modeling of future traffic volumes. The Keahole to Kailua Plan process tested and expanded on these proposed roadway improvements. As the future land use plan was articulated and refined, the planning team's O recommendations for major roadways became more focused. The preliminary Draft Roadway Plan was then tested analytically by a qualified traffic engineer. As already mentioned, discussions also took place with State Department of Transportation engineers. Adjustments were then made, and a final Roadway Plan was developed. 4.1.2 Description of the Roadway Plan The Roadway Plan for the Keahole to Kailua area (see Figure 4.1) shows a network of major arterial and collector roads that will form the "backbone" or overall framework for the future development of the area. The major facilities in the proposed road network have been classified into four functional categories, shown in Table 4-1. 4-2 TABLE 4-1. ROADWAY CLASSIFICATION O Facility Type R -O -W Laneage Major Arterial 300 feet 4 to 6 lanes divided plus frontage roads Minor Arterial 120 feet 4 lanes Collector 80 feet 2 to 4 lanes 1. Major Arterial Roadways Queen Kaahumanu Highway is designated as the major arterial highway in the area. Queen Kaahumanu Highway will become a four to six -lane expressway, with grade - separated interchanges at Kealakehe and the Airport. Queen Kaahumanu Highway could be widened to a six -lane, urban -type expressway near the Civic and Business Center. Expansion of the highway will require the acquisition of additional right-of- way lands for the section of the highway that lies within the Kealakehe and Keahuolu O tracts. In accordance with State DOT plans. Queen Kaahumanu Highway will also have 2 -lane frontage roads on both sides. 2. Minor Arterial Roads The proposed Nlid-Level Arterial is classified as a minor arterial. The Draft Plan proposed a 4 -lane "Queen Kaahumanu Bypass" limited access highway parallel to, and about 1 mile mauka of Queen Kaahumanu Highway. The Final Plan shows a "Mid -Level Arterial" road along the same corridor. This 4 -lane arterial roadway would have a minimum 120 -foot right-of-way. It would function as an important reliever road for Queen Kaahumanu Highway. 3. Collector Roadways Kealakehe Drive, Kealakaa Street, Waena Drive, Hina Lani Drive, University Drive, Main Street and Shore Drive are classified as collectors. 4-3 OKealakehe Drive is proposed as a four -lane divided roadway. This roadway is expected to have some steep grades and higher speeds. Combined with heavy traffic demands, this may result in traffic safety problems. A divided roadway with a raised median would improve traffic safety. Waena Drive is proposed as a four -lane undivided roadway. Waena Drive would function as the primary access road between the residential developments and Kailua Town, via Palani Road, as well as a collector road for trips destined for the Civic and Business Center, -via Kealakehe Drive. Kealakaa Street extension will be a four -lane undivided collector road that will link the upper residential villages. Main Street would facilitate traffic circulation between the Limited Industrial area and the urban expansion areas, to the north, keeping local traffic off Queen OKaahumanu Highway. A five -lane road section, with a continuous left turn lane, would provide for driveway access along Main Street. Hina Lani Drive would function as a collector road, as well as a minor mauka-makai roadway. Through -traffic on Hina Lani Drive would generally be discouraged by posting lower speed limits and designing for lower roadway capacity. Hina Lani Drive, between the Village Center and Queen Kaahumanu Highway, might need to be a four -lane roadway. The Final Plan also shows a major mauka-makai Collector Road running up through the University site and the Lands of Kau, plus a secondary mauka-makai road that links the Lands of Kau directly with the Queen Kaahumanu Highway corridor. Shore Drive is a scenic drive between Kailua Town and the Harbor Complex. This roadway should be a low speed, wide two-lane road. OThe Roadway Plan does not attempt to show the many lesser roads and subdivision streets that would be constructed as the area develops. Other details, including intersections and 4-4 interchanges, have not vet been shown at this general planning level. The Plan focuses on O the major roadways that will be needed for circulation within and through the area. Roadway names used in this Plan are tentative only. Definitive road names will be selected through the approved process. 4.1.3 Preliminary Cost Estimate The estimated cost for the ten major roadways described above, including intersections, is 5201,600,000. The budgetary cost estimates for these roadways are summarized below. It should be noted that the generalized unit costs include a 20 percent factor for design and contingencies. The cost estimate does not include land acquisition and landscaping. TABLE 4-2. MAJOR ROADWAY COSTS Cost of Cost Per Roadway per Cost for Interchge Interchg/ Major Roadways Lanes Miles Mile or Intersec. Intersection 1. Queen Kaahumanu Add 4 8.7 5.8M -- 50.5M O Expansion plus Frontage Roads * 2 Interchanges 17.5M 33M 2. Mid -Level Arterial 4 8.0 3.1M -- 24.8M 2 Intersections 0.5M 1.OM 3. Kealakaa St. Extension 4 5.3 3.1M -- 16.4M 1Intersection 0.4M 0.4M 4. Waena Drive 4 6.4 3.1M -- 19.8M * 1 Intersection 0.4M 0.4M 5. Kealakehe Drive 4 3.0 3.1M -- 9.3M * 5 Intersections 0.4M 2.OM 6. Hina Lani Drive 2 to 4 3.4 2.7M -- 9.2M * 5 Intersections 0AM 2.OM 7. Main Street 5 1.9 3.1M -- 5.9M 8. Shore Drive 2 * 2 Intersections 3.8 1.5M -- 0.4M 5.7M 0.8M O 4-5 O9. University Drive 2 to 4 4.0 4 Intersections 10. Kau Drive 2 2.3 3 Intersections TOTAL ESTIMATED COST Roadways and Intersections 3.1M -- 12.4M 0.4M 1.6M 1.4M -- 3.2M 0.4M 1.2M KIXI%VA 4.1.4 Further Planning and Desien The Roadwav Plan for the Keahole to Kailua planning area is an ambitious plan. Implementation of this plan will require considerable time, energy, coordination and funding. A cooperative effort involving the County, the major landowners and the State Department of Transportation will be essential. 0 The next step in the planning process should be a series of corridor studies and alignment studies for the ten major roadways proposed in the Plan. These studies should be Ocoordinated by the County, with the active participation of the major area landowners and the State DOT. Once these studies have been completed, sections of these various roadways can be incorporated, as appropriate, into the Master Plans and Development Plans of the major area landowners and of the State agencies that are actively pursuing development projects in the planning area. 4.2 WATER SUPPLY PLAN 4.2.1 Basis for the Plan The County Department of Water Supply has recently drafted a Water Use and Development Plan which analyzes and projects future water needs and sources. For the portion of North Kona from Keauhou to Kiholo the draft plan cites an estimate of 56 million gallons per day (mgd) in groundwater resources. These resources, however, include a substantial amount of non -potable water, i.e., water with chloride levels above drinking water standards. It is not known how much of the 56 mgd is readily useable for human consumption. O 4-6 The Water Use and Development Plan also projects water consumption for this area to total O 40.4 million gallons per day by the year 2010. The current consumption is approximately 8.5 mad. Included in this 40.4 mgd is the development planned in the Keahole to Kailua planning area. The projected demand of 40.4 mgd is considered high in relation to the estimated capacity due to the uncertainty in the amount of water actually useable. The Water Use and Development Plan recommends that exploratory wells be drilled as soon as possible to locate future water sources in the area and to increase the knowledge of the aquifer. Given that the projected demand is high in relation to the supply, it would also be prudent to monitor the situation closely and to give preference toward those water uses which most directly benefit the community, such as affordable housing and community facilities. A comprehensive water source allocation program may have to be developed to manage this s limited resource. The water supply plan presented here is based on the Water Use and Development Plan, O Island of Hawaii, and on studies performed by consultant Stephen P. Bowles, Island Resources, Ltd., on possible strategies for development of water sources in the Kona area. Developable potable groundwater is estimated to be 1 mgd/mile of aquifer width. To minimize salinity, wells are proposed to be drilled approximately 2.5 to 3.5 miles inland within a water resources development zone extending from 1,500 to 1,800 -foot elevation. Wells are spaced a half a mile apart. Each well is estimated to be capable of producing 0.5 million gallons per day. Groundwater in this area is spread thinly over a large area and costly well development and transmission will be necessary. The probability of developing sufficient potable water within the study area to support the projected development by the year 2010 and beyond is not promising. Problems are anticipated in finding suitable well drilling sites that can be acquired from landowners. Proposed well sites may also conflict with development plans of these owners. In addition, O there is no assurance of finding sufficient sustainable potable groundwater in this area of 4-7 Orelatively low rainfall. In all probability, much of the required potable water will have to be imported from outside of the area. This, in turn, would significantly increase the cost of water development and transmission. Areas with high rainfall are more likely sources of groundwater. These areas in Kona are the Kahaluu/Keauhou area and the Honaunau/Keokea area approximately 20 miles to the south. However, these possible water sources in South Kona will probably be required to support the growth in that area. Another more distant high rainfall area is North Kohala. Source development in North Kohala will require a long 50 -mile transmission line to Kailua- Kona. A transmission line and booster pumps from North Kohala to Kailua-Kona is estimated to cost $85 to $100 million, not including land acquisition and easements. The State of Hawaii is working on acquisition of a proposed energy corridor right-of-way (ROW) paralleling the Queen Kaahumanu Highway for a possible fuel pipeline from Kawaihae Harbor to Keahole Airport. This ROW could be used for a major portion of the water transmission line ROW requirements. Water demand and system requirements are based on Hawaii County standards where available, supplemented by other County standards as shown in the Water System Standards, State of Hawaii, 1985, as adopted by the Counties of Kauai, Honolulu, Maui and Hawaii. Although water demand calculations are based on these standards, lower water usage industries would be more appropriate for this area. Significant volumes of water will be recycled with the proposed municipal golf course using treated sewage effluent from the new Kealakehe Sewage Treatment Plant for irrigation. Potable water for the clubhouse will be from the County water system. Similarly, the proposed private golf course should use treated effluent for irrigation. Brackish water wells are an alternative. Golf courses should not be permitted to use potable water for irrigation except for buffer zones if required for public health reasons. EN:1 Water demand based on future land uses is shown below: TABLE 4-3 - WATER DEMANDS Land Use Acreage Rate 1. Commercial/Industrial 100 4,000. ' Waterfront Parks 250 4 -comfort station 3. Sewage Treatment Plant #1 50 -- 4. Sewage Treatment Plant #2 -- -- 5. Civic & Business Center 100 3,000 6. Harbor Complex 100 4,000 7. National Cultural Park 540 Domestic only for 5 - Comfort stations 1,830 staff and visitors 8. Resort/Recreation 625 2.80 mgd Kohanaiki 0.91 mgd Ooma II 9. Ocean Research, 620 - Commercial/Industrial 10. Ocean Research (NELH) 11. Keahole Airport 12. General Industrial 13. Open/Recreational (Coastal) 14. Municipal Golf Course 15. Kealakehe Planned Communitv 16. Limited Industrial 17. Urban Expansion Area 18. Open/Recreational (Lowland) 19. Other Residential 20. Schools Elementary (2) Middle School (1) High School (1) =1. Private Golf Course 22. University 23. Universitv Related Residential 24. Lands of Kau " Residential Commercial Hospital Golf Course Average Day = Maximum Day = 320 - 1,675 -- 180 4,000 1,300 9 - Comfort stations 200 Domestic only Irrigation by treated sewage effluent 700 1,000 300 4,000 1,100 -- 800 5 - Comfort stations 1,830 1,000 85 4,000 200 Domestic only Irrigation by treated sewage effluent 500 250 AC @ 4,000 610 1,000 800 -- ' 3,296 DU @ 400 = 1.318 40 AC @ 4,000 = 0.160 600 @ 250 = 0.150 0.008 1.636 mgd 14.8 mgd 22.2 mgd M TOTAL Demand mad 0.400 0.222 0.002 0.002 0.300 0.400 0.008 3.710 0.400 0.200 0.330 0.720 0.500 0.008 0.700 1.200 0.300 1.830 0.340 �I 11: 1.000 0.610 1.636 14.836 mgd O4.2.2 Descrin-tion of the Water Supply Plan Development of potable water sources for the Keahole to Kailua area is crucial to continued development of the area and availability of potable water may become the limiting factor. Estimated 2010 water demand for the proposed development is 14.8 million gallons per day average with a maximum day demand of 22.2 million gallons per day. A series of wells is proposed to be drilled about 2.5 to 3.5 miles inland in the 1,500 to 1,800 - foot water resource development zone. Wells are spaced approximately half a mile apart. Approximately 46 wells would be required to supply the maximum day demand with one well out of service. Wells are spread over a large area and will be tied into a 30 -inch transmission line approximately 29 miles long bringing water to the junction of Palani Road and Mamalahoa Highway. Four booster pump stations are estimated to be required along the length of the transmission line. From the 1,500 to 1,600 -foot level, the water will flow by gravity from the transmission line through the looped distribution system to the lower reaches of the system. The water distribution system will be divided into service zones to Omaintain a water pressure range of approximately 40 to 125 pounds per square inch. Indicated on the water supply plan is a new mid-level pipeline that could be constructed along the new highway alignment south of the study area to import a portion of the water demand for areas below elevations 590 feet. This will reduce pumping and improve the energy efficiency and flexibility of the system. Twenty-one (21) reinforced concrete reservoirs are estimated to be required for fire protection and minimum storage requirement of 22.2 mgd for the maximum day. An existing booster pump station along the Hawaii Belt Highway will be enlarged and a new booster station and reservoir with overflow at 2,090 feet are proposed to improve water pressure at the upper limits of the development for proper fire hydrant pressures. The existing water system along Palani Road from Hina Lani Drive to Waena Drive will be reinforced with a parallel 16 -inch line. Four 1.0 million gallon reservoirs are proposed to Obe added along Palani Road. Eventually, flow in the existing system along Palani Road will be reversed with water flowing down to Kailua Village instead of the present scheme of 4-10 N OZ ~g ¢W om¢ ¢0 > wNo W N 0 mWUJ 2 iuJ�owQn PO OF z>Z oz cct 2z 0 p 0 =2 w — 0 W=! O rcf wn CIL wz ClL� 7, S a w W 00 o SN / 0 w '\ JZ` 1w\o\ I\y `1f N orNn `fl. o •3� 4 ,.`M Q'' F 0 66, AIc� i* ,F ¢ > U w'o �o �% w ` C J f�. m o� \ ' 42 o4 [#° ` ,o'NAw-`4 �Q�� '•11 Qin 23aY i o o O� �\c� (1\[Fnj'"_\ 1� O W O i 1 Y.rti. Q,'" fU' 80 ,�...., 4• ll \' , ); oris o0 r w •.;0I,�i:. �.N F•i I, g m 0 O o Owt% ♦ ��J a WO Mhl' / 'FuJUrl. 'r�^ 'G N ° ° $ �'`'- •tl S•' o AA ; > _ \"21 X11 '' *� I R. i� • mo ., tiL _ �/'^C�,, _a'i•.. S o J y \ .. w0 om 1� _]w uq¢�S ��!//�Q'oti • 1 'I I 1>>,° t o o o v 04Q F aM _o o .i N' LLj 00 , K�O° ' pW ® w �" z O G, pumping water up Palani Road. Existing booster pump stations along Palani Road will then be no longer required and could be placed on standby. For the immediate future until an upper level water source can be developed, water will continue to be pumped up from the low level system fed from the Kahaluu water source. Booster pump stations have been proposed at the reservoirs along Hina Lani Drive. The Kealakehe planned community may also require booster pumps or booster stations along Palani Road. The lands of Kau may also require booster stations if fed from the Queen Kaahumanu pipeline. Plans of the developer for source development for the Lands of Kau are not known at this time. A new 16 -inch line parallel to the existing 16 -inch water line on Queen Kaahumanu Hiahwav is indicated, since for the immediate future water will continue to be supplied from the Queen Kaahumanu Highway line until the Mid -Level Arterial Line and the upper level water sources can be developed. The municipal golf course will use treated sewage effluent from the new Kealakehe Sewage OTreatment Plant (STP No. 1) for irrigation. Only potable water for the clubhouse will come from the Counw water system. Similarly, the private golf course should use treated effluent for irrigation. Golf courses should not be permitted to use potable water for irrigation in this area with limited water resources. 4.2.3 Preliminary Cost Estimate Estimated costs of the water system are summarized below: TABLE 4-4 - WATER SUPPLY COSTS 1. Well Sources (46 Wells) S110.4M includes electrical system 2. 30" Transmission Line 29 miles 39.7 3. Booster Pumps (Transmission Line) 9.5 4. Storage Reservoirs (21) 22.6 5. Distribution Svstem incl. Boosters 36.7 S218.91M 4.2.4 Further Planning and Desitin OAn updated water master plan for the rapidly developing West Hawaii area is needed with an up-to-date inventory of the existing water system. The County in coordination with the 4-11 State of Hawaii must pursue an agaressive program of developing water sources for the O Island of Hawaii and developing the pipeline network to transport water from areas with abundant water to water -poor areas. The program of test well drilling should be accelerated to provide the lead time required to construct necessary infrastructure to support development in this area. including early coordination with utility companies to plan needed electrical and communications system ahead of development. In addition, the County must begin to look at prioritizing water uses as the absolute limits of general water availabilities are approached within this region. 4.3 SEWERAGE PLAN 4.3.1 Basis for the Plan The sewerage plan is based on the ;Master Plan for the Kailua-Kona Sewerage System. Phase IV (Northern Zone) County of Hawaii. 1973, and the Kailua-Kona Facility Plan Southern Zone. Kailua-Dona. Hawaii. June 1931. Sewage flows based on land use are shown in Table 4-5. 4.3.2 Description of the Sewera_e� Plan The study area is proposed to be served by two municipal sewage treatment plants (STP). The southern portion of the study area will be tributary to the Kealakehe STP No. 1 proposed for construction south of the Honokohau Harbor. The first phase of this plant for the 20 -year design capacity of 2.30 million gallons per day (mgd) average flow is under construction with completion in 1992. Later phases of the plant will increase capacity to approximately 8 mgd average flow for a 40 -year design period. If further increases beyond 8 mgd are required. the STP capacity can be further expanded by conversion of the treatment process from aerated lagoons. However, expansion is expected to be limited by the effluent disposal capacity of the area. Approximately 5 mgd average flow will be generated by development of the southern portion of the study area. This plant will also serve the southern zone. Flow projections of the southern zone are provided toward the end of this section. O 4-12 O eat plant No. 2 for the northern portion was originally sited in the Municipal sewage treatment pla p g y Kailua-Kona Sewerage Master Plan, Phase IV (Northern Zone) next to the southern boundary of the HOST Park. This plant is now proposed to be located about 2.5 miles north of the Keahole Airport. The new site is in an undeveloped area and will provide more area for possible effluent disposal by land irrigation. The original site is proposed for development under Ooma II and site acquisition will be difficult. In addition, the original site has limited area for effluent disposal. The proposed Ooma II and Kohanaiki developments are planned to have private sewerage treatment plants until some time in the future when they could be connected to STP No. 2. Keahole Airport will also have a separate sewage treatment plant until the municipal STP No. 2 is constructed at which time the airport system will be connected to the municipal system. The Lands of Kau is also expected to have a private sewage treatment plant. The municipal STP No. 2 will have a capacity of approximately 5 mgd average flow which will Ohandle the additional flows from the private and airport sewage treatment plants. Effluent disposal from STP No. 1 will be accomplished by means of irrigation of the nearby municipal golf course and seepage ponds as backup. Effluent disposal from STP No. 2 will be by land irrigation. Possible alternatives include pumping to the private golf courses for irrigation and watering of Greenbelts. Effluent disposal capacity will be a critical factor and further study is needed. Effluent reuse will conserve limited potable water resources and should be employed to the maximum extent possible. Golf courses should not be permitted to use potable water for irrigation except for buffer zones if required for public health considerations. Sewer lines ranging from 8 inches to 36 inches will collect the sewage and convey it to the treatment plants with pump stations where necessary. Seven pump stations are proposed not including any pump stations required to divert flows from the private and airport sewage treatment plants to the municipal system. 4-13 Land Use 1. Commercial/Industrial '_. Waterfront Park 3. STP No.'1 4. STP No. 2 5. Civic & Business Cntr 6. Harbor Complex 7. National Cultural Park S. Resor[/Recreation 9. Ocean Research TABLE 4-5 - SEWER FLOWS Area Density Equipment Rate Acres CPA Population 100 30 3,000 '_50 -- 110 50 100 3 100 0.4000 3 100 30 3,000 100 40 4,000 540 -- 78 625 Private STP` 100 0.0080 Kohanaiki: 0.4600 Ooma II 0.2743 0.7343 MGD Q 620 GCD Avg - MGD 100 0.3000 100 0.0110 100 0.0003 100 0.0003 100 0.3000 100 0.4000 100 0.078 CommercialAndustrial 620 2.230 100 0.2230 10. Ocean Research (NELH i ,20 '70 100 OA270 11. Keahole Airport 1.675 3,000 100 0.3000 12. General Industrial ISO 40 7,200 100 0.7200 13. Open,Recreational(Coastal1 1.300 -- 4,860 100 0.4860 14. Municipal Golf Course 200 -- SO 100 0.0080 15. Kealakehe Planned Community 700 10 7,000 100 0.7000 16. Limited Industrial 300 40 12,000 100 1.2000 17. Urban Expansion Area 1.100 -- -- -- -- i8.Open, Reereationai(Lowland) 800 -- 2,950 100 0.2950 19. Other Residential 1,830 10 18,300 100 1.8300 20. Schools 85 40 3,400 100 0.3.300 ElementarN. (2) Middle (1) High School (1) '1. Private Golf Course 200 80 100 0.0080 22. University 500 250 100 0.0250 23. Universiiv Related Residential 610 10 6,100 100 0.6100 24. Lands of Kau 300 -- 15,964 100 1.5964 Residential 3296 DU x 400 = 1.3184 Commercial 40 AC x 3.000 = 0.1200 Hospital 600 Beds x 250 = 0.1500 Golf Course 0.0080 12,985 AC 93,878 9.3878'MGD *From Project EIS. 4-14 4.3.3 Preliminary Cost Estimates Estimated costs of the sewerage system are summarized below: TABLE 4-6 - SEWERAGE SYSTEM COSTS 1. STP No. 1 S26 million _. Effluent Disposal STP No. 1 17 million 3. ST? No. 2 25 million 4. Effluent Disposal STP No. 2 17 million 5. Pump Stations & Force Mains 35.6 million 6. Main Sewage Collection Lines 36.1 million TOTAL S156.7 million 4.3.4 Projected Sewage Flow for Kealakehe Sewage Treatment Plant The Kealakehe Sewage Treatment Plant (STP No. 1) serves both the northern zone and the southern zone of Kailua-Kona. The Keahole to Kailua Development Plan area was included in the tributary area of the northern zone with the exception of the extreme north end of the study area. an area of approximately 2.400 acres. This area will be tributary to sewage treatment plant No. 2 and does not affect the capacity of the Kealakehe Sewage Treatment Plant. The Kalaoa subarea is also tributary to STP No. 2. The upper Keopu subarea is not expected to be sewered in the first 20 years. Flow projections for the Kealakehe STP for both northern and southern zones are given in Table 4.7 (source: Kailua-Kona Facility Plan Southern Zone, June 1981). Required capacity of the plant as submitted to EPA is 2.80 mgd average flow for the 20 -year design period and 5.82 mgd average flow for the 40 -year design period. The treatment plant is designed for a capacity of 2.80 mgd average flow for the 20 -year design and 7.82 mgd average flow for the 40 -year design. The Keahole-Kailua Development Plan when fully implemented by the year _2010 (20 years) will contribute 4.92 mgd average flow. The projected flow from the southern zone in the vear 2010 is 1.29 mgd. The total required capacity of STP No. 1 is 6.21 mad average flow which is within the 7.82 mgd planned capacity of the plant. 4-15 TABLE 4-7 O PROJECTED SEWAGE FLOW KEALAKEHE SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT (Average Flow in MGD) 1985 2005 2025 Northern Zone 0.95 1.74 3.52 Southern Zone 0.47 1_06 2.30 TOTAL 1.42 2.80 5.82 20 Year (2005) 40 Year (2025) Kealakehe STP Required 2.80 mgd 5.82 mgd Capacity as Submitted to EPA — Kealakehe STP Design 2.80 mgd 7.82 mgd Capacity Required Capacity with 20 -Year (2010) Keahole-Kailua Development Plan O Northern Zone (K -K Dev Plan) 4.92 mgd Southern Zone 1.29 mad TOTAL. 6.21 med 4.3.5 Further Planning and DesiZn A more detailed lavout based on accurate topographic information is necessary in the low flat areas to accurately locate the sewage pump stations and major collection lines where slopes are critical. Effluent disposal from both sewage treatment plants should be studied further as plant capacity may be limited by effluent disposal capacity of the area. Because of the rapid development, the areas north of the Keahole Airport may need a regional sewerage master plan. 4.4 DRAINAGE SYSTEM. 4.4.1 Basis for the Plan. The study area is largely very porous barren a'a and pahoehoe lava flows in the lowland O areas with thin soil cover over the lava in the upland areas. Rainfall is relatively low ranging 4-16 O 20 inches to 40 inches annually. Defined drainage channels are absent and from Less than ., there are no streams. Concentrated stormwater runoff is not known to occur and the Flood Insurance Study for the National Flood Insurance Program does not identify any flood hazard area. There is no record of flooding in this area. The study area is largely very porous barren a'a and pahoehoe lava flows in the lowland areas with thin soil cover over the lava in the upland areas. Rainfall is relatively low ranging from less than 20 inches to 40 inches annually. Defined drainage channels are absent and there are no streams. Concentrated stormwater runoff is not known to occur. However, the presence of coastal flood hazard is indicated on Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) provided by the Federal Insurance Administration. Included in this area are coastal high hazard (tsunami inundation) areas and flood fringe areas. as shown on Figure 1.12. O a vs sed the aina e Master Plan for the Countv of The proposed drama�e s .tem �s ba on Dr g Hawaii. However, it is proposed that runoff generated within each area will be disposed of within that area by means of infiltration into the ground by drywells and seepage areas. Natural drainage pathways would be retained for flow through of runoff from outside the area and overflow from large storms exceeding normal design requirements. Natural drainage pathways are shown on Figures 4.4 and 4.5 and estimated discharge on Table 4-8. 4.4.2 Description of the Drainai�e Svstem As stated above, runoff generated within each area will be disposed of within each area by means of infiltration into the ground either by drywells, seepage areas or a combination of drywells and seepage areas. Sheet flow should be used and concentration of runoff should be avoided. Seepage areas such as localized depressions or low areas, lava tubes and retention basins should be left in their natural state as much as possible and set aside as Ononbuildable areas. These seepage areas could be minimally landscaped but widespread use of topsoil, fines or other materials that reduce the percolation capacity should be avoided. 4-17 v± C ON 1 r 010 CIN 0Oh 01 POhO ONNh CI C C% ONO0 POI CSO Oh - O 1D n w-Nh.•. 'n s, I 1 O N P N CO d PM 0 0 •� 10 C 1O P ry n N 0 n N .+ 0 h rV C P — n In N 0 P h0 0 h 0 ;,1 a r .� I 1 U 4 1 Mr• C4 0 P OPn10 r' CC P1010 O GI r, rr N 01 N1n 010 PNOh Nn010 to O t,n 1 Q G I .•1 •� N 11 4 H r/ N .•� .•� .. 1 � I 1 I 1 1 I I 1 •••.1 OnPN NNPh 10•-1 C1 •••1 P101n0nQ1O .•+On P ID O NT h n0 n ONII'1a 10 .••1PO N N.+ 1 1 1 In O 01P 0000 r- r- O nN en NOO 01n U'•1 101AO0 In Nhn POPNIAnO P n N0 i P O 10 O O •4 n 01 C, P IA 01 LL'1 h -4 N n 10 n co O n h n O n O n O n n h�4 ..1 O QI P 1A l7 P N 1 'r Ln n N N N •••1 N N N ••� rl N N r•1 n .� .•1 n N N r1 N N •••1 '-1 N r•1 1 4 N n•1 H .•� n n .� r4 t 1 4071 I L7 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 O0 tn0 O o OLA 000n to In In O IA 00 0tn0C 0 0111 to O1n 00 Ino 00%ncom 00-'1 1 I 1 .•1 PIDN 1D N Inn NO PO C101ONh00 OON 01 h01 to P 10 .tin0 P PPO r1 non h CO N I I I N N •••1 •-1 •••I N •ti N •"1 � H n r•1 N N •••1 •'� N Arl r•1 1'•1 •'•1 •••1 N N N 1 I ti 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 I I G I I 1 3 1 1 _D 1 Q 1 I 1 Q 1 hnP C1 ONOP Nh P%0 On0On 010 P1n Oh 0100%tn ntn Ph r -w CO nNO10.•+ r- CO I 1 ...� I .�.•1 ON .•1 CO 10N 10 PCOh In 00 In 010 n0 rl h X0111 01n N 10 Ir P10 ON NPn nPh to Ph ^ I I I r•I r•1 N N r•1 N n•1 .•+ n 1H N N .•+ ••M N N ••i •-. N .. N ti N N N N N .•. ••1 H N O .� '•1 H .-1 .� N •-� .-. .•. O I 1 Cal I I I D 1 I I I 1 I I 1 1 1 t ^ I nn00 NOhO m CO %A OONa. to OI n 90N n ntno CO CO 111N MOMOn0OID nn I 1 1 P u1 1D 01 CO o n CO Cr P P h P 1D o IN 11 n P n 1D O h n O1 n h N r Nm r- ..1 .•1 O O P P CI n 1 PP ••1 NNN ne•1NN .�•"1 N N r•1 .� ti '•• ^+N N •"1 •+N r+.� N .� NN•ti r•1 .•'n n •-N 1 I I O a l I Y C9 I I 4 �•' I r I I I ~ I I n0 n0 NO•••In 0101 n0 n•••1 n n.••100n011n0 .+n00 010.•10 Pn0nn001h Pmn 1 POND POh n. NO CIO nn n rn NO PC100 C%n P10 OO -0 10 v.4 P 10 010 O' -+r^ 1 L"'I I I ••1 O 10 P 0 CO P r•1 P T n ••� n N 111 •••1 N O n .� O ID N O O IA .+ tT 01 o N n 0 IA n N to N O n U1 .•• I 1 0 1 •+oco ooao •+ooa ...'+00.•100 •-•oo .+'•1ao 0000 •-1 .ro.'i..000 .•.00 t I 1 t I o o O C 0000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Coco 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00000000 O cc I I 1 I I 1 I 1 111000 01A 00 0000 0000000 0000 u1000 0000 li'1 o 001A 1A 00 u100 1 1 I Nn00 Nth h In rl 0 CO IA 00N01.1 tnO NCO0N Nn ul0 OOM 1A NIn NONh010 (.4 I 1 I,. I P J1 10 a1 CO O n CO CO P P h P IO O •"1 .+ n P n 10 O "1 r n Q• n h N h N n h N N 1n O P P 01 n .•. 1 1 J I .•� .•1 P P rti N N N r•1 N N N N N N N N N N 11 N N N N •••1 n n .-� N I I � I I I I 1 1 I 1 10 I U U U U coca DDDD 0000000 coca DDDo 0000 DODDDDDD D D D 1 1 V I I I 1 I 1 I I 1 10% rh 01 1n NhP nNON mn001%0 in r- x000 ONOh h00%a OPOIOIOnnO In rl CI I I •-.I 0%n N10 n0%CIO PNPP - "Nn 14 NN cc C4 01 ONO nhhn 01 4 k 01NOPO 010 P 1 14 y I N P OI N O N 01 CI O N 0 h N 10 N n 0 . n O 10 N n n r •-1 O P O h h O h P h P O m 0 to •� n I I i1 It. I •^� n P •ti N N n .4 N n n r•1 1ti N N 14 N N .•1 N N r1 .-1 N n 14 N 1n 1n '+ N I I I 1 I E J I I 1 4 I 1 I `-• 1 I I ' I I U 1 I 1 ! 1 I I .•1 Q' I I I .•i � I I I p O O i � •'� I I I 1y U O D .a <�°iDC U D D D D OUD U 1tI 1 Cil t . U D D 1 - 1 Dm D U D u '.4 `��C, DDu D°u D°u aa, °omai� nN-\ 1 y 1 41-+ m !Nm <n0 c:Zvn4�., <10m !hm !Om <1aa14.ornm O � /) 1 x t N.a! - n.aNm P.enm 1D<1sLnh1a1Dm m1aIrm 01a030 O41a.•+1a••+.aD1 -.`, q.a1D qwh <4CO •••1O4e-1tgwDw ��� .4 n < V P C 1s 4 h < 1a CO 4 .e T < .a r•1 0 1••1 ! O r' =" I 4 I 415 n < P 4 Il'f ID < In O 4 al •� .+ .•1 .-+ (� _ r•+ I I I N 4n P .� v• K1 h O r•1 m u I I N to Ln 1 1 • 1A m I 1 1 4 1 1 1 O < 1 —A �— /411a ° t Z a 0 w 0 t Y a Q $ o r � Y EXISTING WATERSHEDS KEAHOLE TO KAILUA DEVELOPMENT PLAN NORTH KONA DISTRICT, COUNTY OF HAWAII Pore Pl.." o.o.n.." Cowwr at t .r !r- 0.w. Te.Y Cmn...tmo ..r H-", FIGURE 4.5H­",H­",w Area required for seepage alone is estimated to be about 10 to 25 percent of an area O depending on land use, amount of impervious surfaces and the infiltration capacity of the soil in the area. Because of possible variations, specific requirements should be determined by actual field tests in the development area. Alternate to seepage areas is use of drywells. Capacity of drywells should also require field testing. Drywells must also comply with underground injection control regulation, Chapter 23 of the Department of Health, State of Hawaii. A drywell of 6 cubic feet per second capacity could handle the runoff from one to two acres, depending on the recurrence interval, rainfall intensity, time of concentration, and runoff coefficient of the developed area. 4.4.3 Preliminary Cost Estimate Drainage will be handled within each area and there will be no regional drainage infrastructure costs. 4.4.4 Further Planning and Design Field test by developers of the percolation capacity of the various soil types and drywell O capacity as it relates to different land use densities, rainfall amounts and other variables need to be undertaken to develop specific requirements to achieve the goal of disposal of runoff in each area. New Hawaii County drainage rules and regulations may need to be adopted. Runoff into the ocean should be avoided to preserve the pristine nature of the Class AA waters in this area. Further detailed mapping of the drainage paths will be required based on more detailed topographic information. 4.5 ELECTRICITY AND TELEPHONE The Hawaii Electric Light Company (HELCO) and Hawaiian Telephone supply utility services to the island. Both of these companies are privately owned utilities who have their own planning and development processes. After a review of the land use plan, Hawaiian Telephone indicated that they would have to provide five additional substations within the Keahole to Kailua Development Plan areas should the area fully develop. These substations would not require large sites and can be worked into the development pattern as it evolves. Site requirements are on the scale of single family lots. O 4-18 O The Hawaii Electric Light Company estimated that full development could entail an � P Y additional 100 megawatts of power. Currently, power is brought into the area by three lines: the line along the Queen Kaahumanu Highway, a line along the Mamalahoa Highway, and a line from the south. Should full development occur, one or two additional 69KV lines would be required within the planning area. Both of these privately owned utilities will be creating their own implementation plans as the demand rises. 4.6 SOLID WASTE FACILITIES 4.6.1 Basis for Plan The Solid Waste Management Plan is based on the Preliminary Engineering Report, West Hawaii Sanitary Landfill project,- March 1988 and the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the project dated July 1989. The proposed Solid Waste Management Plan O envisions closure of the existing 13 -acre Kailua (Kealakehe) Landfill and Development of a new 200 -acre sanitary landfill facility to be located somewhere north of the study area. The exact site of the new landfill is to be determined in the near future. Refuse generation projections.are based on population growth projection information from the Hawaii State Data book 1986, and a refuse production rate of 6 lbs/capita/day. 4.6.2 Description of the Solid Waste Facilities Solid waste from the West Hawaii area will be transported to the new landfill by a variety of vehicles including semi -trailers, dump trucks, container trucks, half and quarter ton trucks, pickup trucks and about 5 percent passenger vehicles. About 60 percent of the total volume will be from Kona with a major portion from Kailua-Kona and its environs. A transfer station is located at the existing Kailua Landfill area where refuse from the smaller trucks used for collection is compacted and transported by large trucks to the new landfill. However, because of the proposed land uses surrounding this site an alternate site is Odesirable. A possible alternate site would be in an industrial area in the northern end of the study area. 4-19 At the proposed landfill site will be a weigh station, an equipment maintenance building, O lunch room, and an access road with power and telephone lines from the Queen Kaahumanu Highway to the landfill site. The landfill site is excavated and prepared beforehand with an impervious bottom liner. A leachate collection system will be provided. The landfill site and the access road will be secured by chain link fencing. The landfill design must be reviewed and approved by the Department of Health, State of Hawaii. The initial increment of 30 acres will last about six to eleven years with additional 30 -acre increments required at about 5 -year intervals for the life of the landfill. For the closure of the existing Kailua Landfill, the County has under consideration a contract with a resource recovery firm to mine and recover scrap metal from the landfill. Recovery of methane gas for fuel is also a possibility. The entire closure process may take 15 to 20 years. 4.6.3 Preliminary Cost Estimates O 1. New Sanitary Landfill (initial 30 -acre increment)* $12M 2. Close Existing Landfill 5M 3. Solid Waste Transfer Station 4M $21M *(Subsequent 30 -acre increments = $6.0) 4.6.4 Further Planning and Desi -n, The new landfill facility will require topographic mapping and surveys and soils investigation for preliminary design. Necessary permits, review and approvals from State and County governmental agencies must be obtained. Delays may be encountered. The County should also consider recycling programs and other innovative methods for reducing solid wastes. - 4-20 O4.7 PARKS PLAN 4.7.1 Basis for the Plan The "Regional Development Program" described in an earlier section of this report included an estimate of major park facilities that should be provided within the Keahole to Kailua area. Types of parks and acreages were identified based on commonly accepted outdoor recreation standards of urban/suburban areas. Based on these standards, the Regional Development Program calls for: * One district park @ 25 acres * Five community parks @ 10 acres each The Development program also identified the opportunity for a major waterfront park of 200+ acres. This park has been included in the program primarily because of strong public interest in reserving waterfront areas for future public recreational use. In addition, Odevelopers should be encouraged to include smaller (5± acres) neighborhood parks in their projects. 4.7.2 Description of the Parks Plan As noted earlier in this report, the project area lacks adequate parks and outdoor recreation facilities. The district park and the five community parks are not specifically sited on the Land Use Plan. Conceptually, however, these parks should be developed according to the following guidelines: * District Park - Close to major residential areas and with good road access. Facilities to include ballfields, soccer fields, tennis courts, basketball courts, recreational building, swimming pool, picnic areas, tot lots and related parking areas, restrooms, utilities and landscaping. O Community Parks - Locate within major residential areas. Facilities to include ballfields, court areas, tot lot, restrooms, utilities and landscaping. 4-21 The proposed waterfront parks are shown at Keahuolu/Kealakehe makai and at O HOST/NELH. The park is schematically shown as a 1000 -foot wide coastal strip. The two parts of the park contain close to 3 miles of shoreline. These "passive parks" would feature paths, trails, scenic viewing areas, interpretive signs and placards, and historical markers. Picnic areas, restroom facilities and parking areas would also be provided. These waterfront parks would potentially serve a much wider constituency than the people living within the project area. The proposed municipal golf course will be a par 72, 18 -hole regulation golf course with clubhouse, driving range and related facilities. A proposed Regional Sports Complex has been discussed but is not shown on the Land Use Plan. This 100 -acre facility could be at least partly funded through private sources. Construction costs, which could be $50M or more, should be "allocated" to developments throughout the region. For general cost accounting purposes, we have assumed that $10M should be allocated to this area. O 4.7.3 Preliminary Cost Estimate Development costs for these important parks have been calculated as follows: * District Park: Basic park development cost @ $200,000/acre x 25 acres = $5,000,000. Add: recreational building, court areas, swimming pool = $5,000,000. Total: $10M. * Community Parks: Estimated development cost at $200,000/acre x 10 acres = $2M each. * Waterfront Parks: Estimated development cost at $100/LF = $500,000+ per mile _ $1.5M+ for 3 miles. * Municipal Golf Course: $10M. * Regional Sports Complex: 20% of $50M cost = $10M. 4-22 4.7.4 Further Planning; and Design As the development process unfolds, the County Planning Department should work closely with land owners and developers to ensure that lands set aside for parks are appropriately located for maximum use and lowest possible construction cost. 4.8 LANDSCAPING CONCEPT'S 4.8.1 Basis for the Plan The majority of the study area is generally made up of lava fields overgrown with grasses and shrubs and occasional tree masses resulting in an open feeling with long vistas of the mountains, the sea, and the coastline. As the area is developed, some of the long vistas will be reduced and open spaces will become physically and visually restricted. Within the proposed development areas new landscapes will need to be developed. These landscape environments need to be sensitive not only to existing site conditions and landforms but also to the outdoor needs of the user population. O4.8.2 Landscaping Concepts The landscape is the common thread that will weave through the project area creating a network of greenbelts that will visually soften the built-up environment. An integral part of these greenbelts will be the recreational use areas: from district parks and neighborhood parks to bicycle and jogging trails. These greenbelts would serve two important purposes: one is the beautification of the various land . uses and the other is providing areas for recreational activities to occur. The overall character of the landscape should be tropical with a variety of forms, textures, and colors. The planting should also possess identifiable regional and neighborhood patterns. These planting patterns would then tie different use areas together in uniform mass planting patterns. Individualized fragmented landscapes should be discouraged in favor of more unified and contiguous landscape planting schemes. Both concepts of greenbelts and unified mass planting are especially applicable to the Olandscape patterns of the highway systems. Here distinct and identifiable corridors are 4-23 developed. Different conditions prevail that modify the established landscape pattern of the O highway greenbelt. Adjacent desirable land uses near highways would warrant opening the landscape along the highway to take advantage of vistas or activities. Incompatible land uses would require buffer planting of tree and shrub massing changing the character of the landscape. These changes in land uses along the highways could result in the landscape varying as follows: 1. Heavy Landscaping: Planting of trees, shrubs, ground covers, and lawns with a fully automatic irrigation system. 2. Moderate Landscaping: Informal grouping of trees and shrubs, open fields of ground cover and lawns with a fully automatic irrigation system. 3. Minimal Landscaping: Occasional trees and shrubs with much naturalized ground surfaces. Drip irrigation system. All of the various landscapes will need to be sensitive to the localized environmental conditions. Plants selected should be able to grow and thrive with the unique weather and O ground conditions present. Preferably landscapes requiring minimal maintenance in trimming, insect control, disease control, and irrigation requirements should be selected. Plants that generally meet these criteria include the following: Botanical Name Common Name Tree List: Acacia Confusa Formosan Koa Cassia Javanica x Cassia Fistula Rainbow Shower Conocarpus Erecta Buttonwood Sybistax Donnell-Smithii Gold Tree Delonix Regia Royal Poinciana Erythrina Sandwicensis Wiliwili Ficus Benjamina Weeping Banyan Ficus Retusa Chinese Banyan Olea Europaea Olive O 4-24 f'f.. 1.... Tom...... t'V\) Naturalized Groundcover Shade Trees ° .� A ,, .. —cue,• Z ,. ` e - �° ;, p ° o,� oTge�e oo. eye. oe-"e:e'•✓se•°q`•°°e•Ar1 ar°o0✓e X&P - •ee a G•o eo` pe 0;`,O;a 'voo �,D0 ° "eo'ao0d *8 0C •, a.O•D. o v.ea • d 0 ^^ C a e �[`.�.�� A.Z�C 0'`°� ,e °. •' O. 0.0 �OO° e� 7C� 7w r �� I nOe w C0.- w el - o Plan Section o , 'n .�-='R �,� O� en.0 _ T!e'•c � r ?e oA cOeC .(`-.. FIGURE 4.6 Minima! Landscaping KEAHOLE TO KAILUA DEVELOPMENT PLAN NORTH KONA DISTRICT. COUNTY OF HAWAII 0 10 20 40f1 CD C J C 0 U m W Plan Section FIGURE 4.7 O Moderate Landscaping KEAHOLE TO KAILUA DEVELOPMENT PLAN NORTH KONA DISTRICT, COUNTY OF HAWAII 0 10 20 40ft m c J C 0 U m en Shrubs Plan Section FIGURE 4.8 Heavy Landscaping KEAHOLE TO KA LUA DEVELOPMENT PIAN NORTH KONA DISTRICT. COUNTY OF HAWAII 0 10 20 40ff Prosopis Pallida Thornless Kiawe O Swietenia Mahagoni Mahogany Tabebuia Argentea Silver Trumpet Tamarindus Indicus Tamarind Tipuana Tipu Tipa Palm List: Arecastrum Romanzoffianum Queen Palm Cocos Nucifera Coconut Pritchardia Pacifica Fiji Fan Palm Roystonea Oleracea Caribbean Royal Palm Sabal Mauritiaeformis Sabal Palm 4.8.3 Cost Estimate Highway planting with a 100 -foot right-of-way. 1. Heavy Landscaping $ 120.00 per linear foot 2. Moderate Landscaping 67.00 per linear foot O 3. Minimal Landscaping 22.00 per linear foot The accompanying Roadway Landscaping Plan shows where the three types of landscaping treatments might occur. The cost of this landscaping would be approximately $4,500,000. 4.9 CONSOLIDATED COST ESTIMATE The overall cost of the infrastructure systems planned for the Keahole to Kailua area for the next 20 years may be summarized as follows (dollars in millions): Major Roadways (incl. intersections) 1. Queen Kaahumanu Hwy. Expansion 85.5 2. Mid -Level Arterial 25.8 3. Kealakaa Street Extension 16.8 4. Waena Drive 20.2 5. Kealakehe Drive 11.3 6. Hina Lani Street 11.2 O 4-25 O7. Main Street 5.9 8. Shore Drive 6.5 9. University Drive 14.0 10. Kau Drive 4.4 Subtotal, Roadways: 201.6M Water Supply 4-26 1. Wells (46) 110.4 2. 30" Transmission Lines 39.7 3. Booster Pumps (Transmission) 9.5 4. Storage Tanks (21) 22.6 5. Distribution System (incl. Boosters) 36.7 Subtotal, Water: 218.9M Sewerage Plan 1. Sewage Treatment Plant No. 1 26 2. Effluent Disposal for Plant No. 1 17 3. Sewage Treatment Plant No. 2 25 O4. Effluent Disposal for Plant No. 2 17 5. Pump Sta. and Force Mains 35.6 6. Main Sewerage Collection Lines 36.1 Subtotal, Sewerage 156.7 Parks and Open Space 1. District Park 10 2. Community Parks 10 3. Waterfront Parks 1.5 4. Municipal Golf Course 10 5. Regional Sports Complex 10 Subtotal, Parks 41.5 Landscaping 1. Major Roadway Corridors 3.3 2. Special Areas: "Moderate" 1.2 and "Heavy" Landscaping Subtotal, Landscaping 4.5 OGRAND TOTAL 623.2M 4-26 These cost estimates are 'order of magnitude" estimates only and they do not include costs O for land acquisition or the costs for administering a regional infrastructure development program. One hundred million dollars ($100M) or more of these costs are for infrastructure needed to serve the project area beyond the year 2010. Section 5, the final section of this report, will address the related critical issues of financing and infrastructure implementation. 4-27 O SECTION 5 FINANCING AND IMPLEMENTATION KEAHOLE TO KAILUA DEVELOPMENT PLAN North Kona, Island of Hawaii SECTION 5 FINANCING AND IMPLEMENTATION This final section of the Keahole to Kailua Development Plan report presents recommendations on financing and implementation of the Land Use Plan and infrastructure systems. As we have stated earlier in this report, the Keahole to Kailua Development Plan is intended to be an action -oriented Plan. This Plan is not intended to be "just another study": it is to provide a framework for a coordinated public/private infrastructure development program. 5.1 FINANCING PLAN The Keahole to Kailua Development Plan has focused on the types, extent and costs of the required infrastructure systems. Functional and adequate infrastructure systems have been described and outlined. Now, however, the Plan must address the more difficult question O of how all these infrastructure systems can be financed. The Financing Plan presented herein will not be an all-encompassing but ultimately unworkable financing plan, rather it is meant to describe a financing "process" for real development. This process will, by necessity, focus on a collaborative public-private development partnership, rather than simply prescribe and assign costs to each development. The overall concept is similar to that of utilizing an Improvement District. All of the property targeted for development will be responsible for its share of the infrastructure cost, before development is permitted. Because of the uncertainty associated with the long time frame of the Plan and the different time schedules of the property owners, there will not actually be a "super" improvement district. The actual provision of the financing will be done on a "piecemeal" basis. 5-1 OTherefore, hopefully, the financing process described here is closely tied with project implementation. However, at times the financing approach will appear frustratingly incomplete and lacking in definitive answers. One must remember that all conditions and obstacles for the next 20 years cannot be accurately predicted, particularly the vagaries of the real estate market, upon which the success of future development in the Keahole to Kailua area ultimately depends. , 5.1.1 Summary of Land Use Elements As is appropriate for a master plan for an area of this size, contemplated usage is extremely varied, including residential, residential service facilities (community parks and village centers), commercial, industrial, golf courses, visitor facilities as well as purely government functions; regional parks, airport and schools. Each of these activities has its own debt bearing limit and such limit is not necessarily tied to the size of the area being developed. O In recognizing the diversity of land uses, due regard must be paid to the diversity of property owners. Private developers, individuals and real estate trusts, as well as State and Federal government, own property in the planning area. Often, the government entities are not performing traditional government functions, rather their behavior is closer to that of private sector development proposal at Kealakehe. A prime example is the HFDC residential development proposal at Kealakehe. One critical distinction must be made; in the planning area it is assumed that other government agencies will finance their activities including their appropriate share of the infrastructure costs from traditional sources and will not look to the County nor this financing plan. Thus, this financing plan will focus on the infrastructure needs and financing capabilities for the private sector developments. A corollary is that development itself will finance its equitable share of the infrastructure costs. 5-2 5.1.2 Basic Financing Tools We have summarized below some basic "development" oriented public finance tools that will be referred to throughout the Financing Plan. Improvement District: Within a given geographic area, properties are "assessed" for the cost of public improvements which provide a direct "benefit" for those assessed properties. Reimbursement A�areement: Basically, it is a contract between a public agency and developer by which a developer is reimbursed for the costs of public improvements which are larger or "oversized" in relation to the needs of the developer's particular - development. Development Fees: Fees or charges imposed on a developer to provide for the costs of the infrastructure system necessary to serve the development. O 5.1.3 The Financing Process The most detailed, exhaustive planning process in the world will not result in actual development. First, the property owners within the planning area must see the opportunity for profitable development, which depends on many complex factors. One of the most important of these factors is the availability of affordable infrastructure. "Affordable" here means that the development potential of a particular property will support the cost of the infrastructure. The first step is simply to identify those property owners and developments which are likely to occur in the near 3-7 year future, notwithstanding the existence of the Plan. The second step is to attempt to "match up" appropriate Phase I infrastructure requirements with the probable development. Although it sounds simplistic, the County and the property owner will have to find a way of making the infrastructure costs acceptable and workable for the property owner. This may involve allocating certain oversizing costs to the County O or to the Developer. 5-3 OIn pursuing the financing program, there are two related obstacles. The first can be characterized as incomplete infrastructure systems. Developers will be unwilling to finance infrastructure that does not deliver the basic service to the development. For instance, the roads financed must provide access and the sewer pipes must lead to a treatment facility. However, when only one or a limited number of developers are proceeding, their respective share of the infrastructure systems might not be sufficient to construct a "usable" portion of that system. When this occurs, the financing of that part of the system necessary to make it usable must be found elsewhere. The underlying theme of having the developers pay for the infrastructure has not changed. Ultimately, the developments will pay; the question is when. The second obstacle is the question of "oversizing." It is best understood in terms of an example. Assume a developer can provide adequate water service for his development through 12 -inch distribution lines. However, in order to accommodate future development, a 16 -inch line is necessary. In this situation, either the developer must have the 16 -inch line installed and be repaid when other property owners develop or the County must pay for the oversizing and then be reimbursed. Either County or developer would be reimbursed through Reimbursement Agreements. Ideally, both "oversizing" and incomplete systems issues would be solved by requiring the initial developers to front the added costs, with reimbursement occurring when other properties develop. The County would then be relieved of the initial financial burden as well as the risk of future development. However, such an arrangement will not always be workable with a project as large as the Keahole to Kailua area. It is likely that the State and County will be required to provide some financial support. A form of self-supporting revolving fund might be most appropriate and workable. 5-4 The most important principal in this financing plan is the realization that the County will not O be able to finance Phase I infrastructure and then sit back and wait for development to occur. Rather, the County and property owners must work together and coordinate development plans and infrastructure needs. 5.1.4 Outline of Financing Plan Tasks 1) Classify all property, including government property, according to probable time of development. 2) Review and communicate infrastructure needs and costs. with due regard for current real estate prices and market conditions. 3) Meet with representatives of those properties with the most "immediate" development plans. 4) Through continuing negotiations and analysis, the County must ascertain (i) what level of infrastructure costs can actually be absorbed by the initial proposed development; (ii) whether the initial development is capable of absorbing any "oversizing" elements; and (iii) the necessity for County funds. 5) Only after step four has been completed may the actual financing structure be finalized. The implementation focus should be on those infrastructure items which require coordination amongst property owners and between property owners and areawide County systems. These types of systems are those which typically involve oversizing and which require considerable cooperative action. These five steps, though seemingly obvious, can be difficult to achieve. However, if approached in the spirit of cooperation, public and private joint ventures can prove to be O beneficial to both the private developer and the community at large. 5-5 5.1.5 Illustrative Development A sample area was selected for illustrative analysis focusing on the development economics. This area consisted of approximately 360 acres of land served by a major new road, water and sewer systems. The breakdown of the land uses were: Residential Convenience Commercial High School Retail Commercial Light Industrial 1,000 units on 250 acres 3 acres 30 acres 40 acres 40 acres The infrastructural costs to develop these -lands amounted to $23.792 million for off-site water system. sewage system, and a mauka-makai road system. (Note: These costs do not include on-site infrastructure and other on-site improvements.) On an allocated basis the infrastructure costs were: Residential Convenience Commercial High School Retail Commercial Industrial $ 10,000 per unit 236,000 per acre 120,000 per acre 137,000 per acre 80,000 per acre Based on these figures, the on and off-site development costs were analyzed in light of the current real estate market. These figures for off-site infrastructure were found to be supportable at today's market prices, and within the range that could be financed by improvement district bonds. 5.2 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN The Sutro Company report on infrastructure financing mechanisms suggests a variety of means for financing County -wide infrastructure systems over the next 20 years. Clearly, the implementation of an infrastructure development program of this magnitude will be a Oformidable task. This final section of the report provides some thoughts on the management aspects of the implementation process. 6� 5.2.1 Key Iml2lementation Elements O Implementation of the Keahole to Kailua Development Plan - with estimated infrastructure costs of $600+ million - will in itself constitute one of the largest coordinated land use/infrastructure development programs ever attempted in the State of Hawaii. In order to provide the best odds for a successful program, we suggest that several key elements be made an integral part of the implementation process: 1. Leadership: The County of Hawaii should provide the leadership for the implementation of the Keahole to Kailua Development Plan. Clearly, strong leadership from some entity will be needed. It is doubtful that any one private sector entity would be able to provide the necessary leadership - both in terms of the details of project development and the overall policy decisions that will be needed. Similarly, the State of Hawaii, despite its considerable resources, does not have any department or division that would have the technical O capacity - or probably the local support - to implement this Plan. The County government, with its zoning powers and ability to arrange infrastructure financing through a variety of means, should be able to play the critical leadership role. 2. Public/Private Partnership: A strong cooperative effort involving County agencies, State agencies, landowners and developers will also be an essential element. Although the County has a clear responsibility in the areas of regional planning and land use controls, its financial resources are severely limited. "Growth must pay for growth' in a rapidly developing region like North Kona. On the other hand, landowners and developers do not have the land use control powers that are necessary for the rational implementation of regional scale infrastructure development. The County also recognizes the O 5-7 Odevelopment interests and economic objectives of the major State and private landowners in the area. Only through mutual cooperation can the County and landowners here meet their goals and objectives. 3. Public Participation: Continued public participation at a variety of levels will be very important. A public participation plan and program should be developed as an integral part of the Plan implementation process. 4. Staffing: The Keahole to Kailua Development Plan cannot be implemented in an efficient and coherent way unless adequate staff with the appropriate expertise has been organized into an effective project development entity. It is unlikely that existing staff within the several critical County agencies - i.e., Planning, Public Works, Water and Finance - could carry their normal workload and, at the same time, Omanage and coordinate the many specific infrastructure projects that will be needed. Thus, the County administration will need to dedicate a number of key staff people to this program. B. Short -Term Action Plan: 1991-1992 The development of a comprehensive, long-range Implementation Plan is beyond the scope of this planning project. However, we would like to offer some recommendations on specific actions that should take place over the next 2± years. 1. Organize a Task Force that will undertake the initial implementation work. The "Keahole to Kailua Development Plan Implementation Task Force" could consist initially of one or more (senior) staff individuals from the County Departments of Planning, Finance, Water and Public Works. The Task Force's "mission" would be to organize Othe implementation process and to take the first two or three priority projects through the funding and design process. The Task Force staff should be assigned to this program full time. They would play a O management role. Technical planning and design work would be performed by consultants. 2. Identify Priority Projects: In consultation with the State and with the major area landowners, the Task Force should identify and scope two or three of the "top priority" infrastructure projects for the planning area. The Task Force should then organize and supervise preliminary engineering studies for these projects. 3. Land Use Reclassifications: In tandem with these specific project development activities, the Task Force should work with the major area landowners and resolve a set of preliminary agreements and commitments relating to future land uses and infrastructure financing. Based on these preliminary commitments, the County should then work with the State to initiate and implement appropriate State Land Use Boundary Amendments and County Zoning changes. As part of this process, the Task Force will probably also have to commission and administer an EIS for the Keahole to Kailua Plan. 4. Financine: From the outset, the Task Force will have to move ahead with the development of a comprehensive financing program for infrastructure development in the Keahole to Kailua area. Fairly early in this process - perhaps within about 12 months - the specific financing mechanisms for the two or three priority projects will need to be in place. 5. Project Design and Construction: The Task Force can then proceed with contracting for design services for the priority projects. Design and construction documents will probably take from 6 to 12+ months, depending on the type and scope of these priority projects. O Construction start can thus be expected by year 3 of this process. 5-9 A O6. Public Participation: The Task Force will also have to organize and implement a public information and participation process that will include a project newsletter, news releases, periodic public informational meetings, informal meetings with special interest groups and formal public hearings as may be required. 7. Organizational Plan: During the course of this two to three-year process, and in addition to the not insignificant tasks outlined above, the Task Force should meet from time to time to discuss and then to draw up a longer range organizational plan for the "optimum" administration/management of the Keahole to Kailua development process. Costs for this two to three-year program will of course depend on a number Oof factors. The significant cost items will probably be: - Administrative Costs - EIS Consultants - Financial Consultants - Engineering Studies and Design Services One of the Task Force's initial priorities will be to develop a detailed cost estimate for the two to three-year program, resolve a financing strategy and raise the necessary funds. It is probable that both public and private sources will be involved. 5-10 SECTION 6 LIST OF PREPARERS KEAHOLE TO KAILUA DEVELOPMENT PLAN O North Kona, Island of Hawaii SECTION 6 LIST OF PREPARERS The following agencies, firms and individuals provided the technical expertise for the development of the Keahole to Kailua Development Plan. Planning Department Duane Kanuha, Director Hawaii County William Moore, Deputy Director Keith Kato, Project Coordinator County Technical Committee Brian Nishimura, Housing Agency Harold Sugiyama, Dept. of Public Works Glenn Okada, Dept. of Public Works Quirino Antonio, Jr., Water Department Glenn Miyao, Parks and Recreation R. M. Towill Corporation (Prime Consultant) Real Estate Services, Inc. (Market and Economics) Island Resources, Ltd. (Water Resources) David Y. Tamura Assoc., Inc. (Landscape Architecture) Austin, Tsutsumi & Assoc., Inc. (Traffic Engineering) Bruce Tsuchida, Project Manager Joanne Hiramatsu, Staff Planner Roy T. Tsutsui, Project Engineer Toni Kawahara, Senior Engineer Peter T. Young Stephen P. Bowles David Y. Tamura Randall S. Okaneku 6-1 Dan� n, fFrau-plaw" Final Re ort O KEAIIOLE TO KAIL SIA DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVISED ROADWAY PLAN IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY Plamiulg Department County of Hawaii February1997 0 Final Report KEAHOLE TO KAILUA DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVISED ROADWAY PLAN IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY For: Planning Department County of Hawaii Townscape, Inc. 900 Fort Street Mall, Suite 800 Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 and Traffic Management Consultant 1188 Bishop Street, Suite 1907 Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 February 1997 Q TOWNSCAPE, INC. Planned Communities, Master Plans, Land Use Permits 900 Fort Street Mall, Suite 800, Honolulu, HI 96813 Telephone (808) 536-6999 Facsimile (808) 524-4998 January 30, 1997 Ms. Virginia Goldstein Planning Director 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Dear Ms. Goldstein: Keahole to Kailua Development Plan We are pleased to submit to you fifty copies of the final report for the "Keahole to Kailua Development Plan, Revised Roadway Plan & Implementation Strategy". This Plan serves as a more detailed component of the original "K to K Plan", which was adopted by the Hawaii County Council in April of 1991. As County planners move forward with planning for this important subregion, it will become increasingly important to consider other community development elements that the K to K O planning process has thus far only touched upon. The K to K Plans have focused on infrastructure systems, but have not really addressed the many community design issues that are of critical importance for the development of livable neighborhoods and towns. Thus, attention should be focused on issues such as compact towns instead of suburban sprawl, identifiable town centers, emphasis on pedestrian paths and bikeways, defining neighborhoods with greenbelts and open space, and the role of public facilities in overall community planning and design. We appreciate having had the opportunity to work with the Planning Department on this Plan, and hope that we will have an opportunity to be of assistance again in the future. Very truly yours, Bruce Ts2da President TABLE OF CONTENTS Page OVERVIEW...................................................................................................................................I...... I SECTION 1 - ANALYSIS OF ROADWAY REQUIREMENTS........................................................6 1.1 Model Development...................................................................................................................6 1.2 Traffic Forecasts.........................................................................................................................7 1.3 Evaluation Criteria...................................................................................................................:.. 8 1.4 Roadway Requirements............................................................................................................10 1.4.1 Year 2005 Roadway Improvements..........................................................................10 1.4.2 Year 2020 Roadway Improvements..........................................................................13 1.4.3 Year 2050 Roadway Improvements..........................................................................15 1.5 Impacts on Botanical and -Archaeological Resources............................................................... 21 1.5.1 Botanical Resources.................................................................................................21 1.5.1 Archaeological Resources.........................................................................................23 OSECTION 2 - IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY......................................................................:..... 26 2.1 Financing Mechanisms.............................................................................................................26 2. 1.1 Development Fees.......................................................................................................26 2.1.2 Improvement Districts.................................................................................................26 2.1.3 General Obligation Bonds............................................................................................27 2.1.4 Revenue Bonds............................................................................................................27 2.2 2005 Roadway Improvements..................................................................................................27 2.2.1 Queen Kaahumanu Highway....................................................................................... 28 2.2.2 Mid -Level Road......................................:....................................................................28 2.2.3 Palani Road/Kealakehe Parkway.................................................................................30 2.2.4 Waena Drive................................................................................................................33 2.2.5 Makala Boulevard........................................................................................................33 2.2.6 Kealakaa Street Extension...........................................................................................35 2.3 Roadway Corridors and Zoning Map.......................................................................................36 LIST OF TABLES Page Table 1 Average Daily Vehicle Trip Ends.................................................................................7 Table 2 LOS "C" Service Volumes...........................................................................................9 Table 3 Roadway Implementation Schedule - 2005 ...............................................................19 Table 4 Roadway Implementation Schedule - 2020 ...............................................................19 Table 5 Roadway Implementation Schedule - 2050 ...............................................................20 Table 4 2005 Roadway Improvements...................................................................................35 LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure1 Location Map..............................................................................................................2 Figure2 Vicinity Map................................................................................................................ 3 Figure 3 Traffic Volumes and Phasing 2005............................................................................11 Figure 4 Traffic Volumes and Phasing 2020............................................................................14 Figure 5 Traffic Volumes and Phasing 2050............................................................................16 Figure 6 Botanical Resources Map..........................................................................................22 Figure 7 Archaeological Resources Map.................................................................................25 Figure 8 Mid -Level Road Section............................................................................................29 Figure 9 Kealakehe Parkway Section.......................................................................................32 Figure 10 80 -Foot Right -of -Way Section..................................................................................34 Figure11 Existing Zoning Map.................................................................................................37 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A Updated Land Use Analysis Appendix B Botanical Resources Study Appendix C An Archaeological Characterization of the Keahole to Kailua Development Plan Update of Roadway Corridors OOVERVIEW The Keahole to Kailua Development Plan (KtoK Plan) study was completed in November 1990 and adopted by the Hawaii County Council on April 3, 1991 (Resolution No. 296). This development plan encompasses an area from Keahuolu ahupuaa in Kailua-Kona to the Kau ahupuaa near Keahole Airport (see Figures 1 and 2). The mauka limit of the study area is Mamalahoa Highway and the southern limit is Palani Road. The coastline marks the makai boundary. Since the adoption of the KtoK Plan by County Council resolution, landowners and developers have begun to pursue State and County entitlements for urban development. The LaTopua project at Kealakehe by the State Housing Finance and Development Corporation (HFDC), has constructed a portion of one of the major mauka-makai roads identified in the KtoK Plan as Kealakehe Drive, now known as Kealakehe Parkway. In addition, a portion of the "Mid -Level Road" and Waena Drive identified in the KtoK Plan have also been partially constructed within the Kealakehe ahupuaa by HFDC. Because of this progress of planned projects in this region and the very general roadway layout presented in the KtoK Plan, a more in-depth roadway analysis was needed to provide more detailed guidance for these new developments. Thus, Townscape, Inc. was retained by the Hawaii County OPlanning Department to develop a more detailed roadway plan and an implementation strategy for the major roadways within the KtoK region. The development of this detailed roadway plan and implementation strategy involved updating the status of the various projects planned within the region and identifying schematic roadway corridors that would be needed to accommodate future traffic volumes when this entire area is built out. Development of this roadway plan took into consideration the plans of the various landowners and developers. The new roadway plan established right-of-way widths and approximate horizontal alignments for the major roads within the region and these rights-of-way will be placed on the zoning map, if this plan is adopted by the County. Developers will then be required to design and construct their major project roads in substantial compliance with the roadway corridors outlined on the zoning map. HAM 0 A KAWAIHAE WA14 A i" f0"u'?5 11 PROJECT HILO r KAILUA KEAUHOU / T- PAHOA CAPTAIN QOK VO ANO a Loa �-ftounlain LAPANA P 'AHALA 0 0 PUNALUU FIGURE 1 LOCATION MAP KEAHOLE TO KAILUA DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVISED ROADWAY PLAN IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY For: Planning Department, County of Hawaii 0 5 10 15 20 25 C By: Townscape, Inc. N1 1 1 Scale in Miles August 1996 -2- -3- r a Q � wT w i o LU 0 a C- c o <QQ Q Q u O Q N � � C u O � z ((ssww 2 s IL 7 ¢ LL 00 W To promote alternatives to motor vehicle transportation, the roadway sections developed in this plan O have included pedestrian walkways and bicycle paths on all new roadways. The biking community has been growing over the years and the inclusion of bikeways along these major regional roadways will encourage bicycle use. Deviation from these schematic alignments could be allowed if important natural resources are discovered when detailed archaeological, biological or botanical studies are performed. However, to the extent possible, the roadway alignments that will be shown on the zoning map should be followed. As part of this plan, botanical and archaeological literature reviews were perfon-ned. These studies revealed that the KtoK region contains important botanical and archaeological resources, many of which would probably need to be preserved. A detailed survey of the roadway corridors will be needed to avoid impacts on these resources. As a result, the roadway pattern, right-of-way widths and layouts established in this plan may require revisions. For instance, Waena Drive passes through an area that is known to contain endangered plants. If the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the owner (Tokyo Green) establish a plant preserve or sanctuary within the Kaloko ahupuaa, an alternate roadway corridor may be needed, or the laneage requirements for other roads may need to be changed. A revised land use pattern for the Kaloko ahupuaa will change the traffic volumes that were estimated O for this plan. The projected roadway right-of-way widths depended to a considerable degree upon information received from the landowners and developers in the region and projections on "inflow" of traffic from other areas around the island. Because planned projects in this region are at various stages of development (i.e., conceptual plans to construction stage), densities that are reflected on conceptual plans are the developers' best estimations of what their ultimate build out will be. Implementation schedules for these planned projects were estimated from developers' schedules and from growth trends in the region. Roadway construction was phased over three time periods to the year 2050 (2005, 2020 and 2050) with sufficient right-of-way widths for expansion beyond the year 2050. U -- This report focuses only on roadway requirements for the KtoK region. It is generally assumed that other infrastructure and utilities (i.e., water, sewer, drainage, electrical, telephone, and cable) will be available and developed along with roadway construction. However, as presented in the original KtoK O OPlan report, the cost of future regional infrastructure systems will be very substantial -- in the 100's of millions, and possibly in excess of $500 million. In the original KtoK Plan, the overall goal was to develop a mixed residential, commercial, resort, industrial and recreational community in the KtoK area to meet the growing needs of the West Hawaii region. Thus, the original KtoK Plan assumed that the County would promote growth in this area, resulting in accelerated development of the KtoK region. However, since the adoption of the KtoK Plan by resolution in 1991, development of the area has been relatively slow. The State of Hawaii, Housing Finance and Development Corporation (HFDC) and Queen Liliuokalani Trust (QLT) are the only two major landowners that have begun to develop their lands. HFDC has constructed some of the infrastructure for their La'i'opua project, however, no homes have been constructed yet. QLT has opened K -Mart with 125,000 square feet of commercial space in the Keahuolu ahupuaa, which was designated "Urban Expansion" in the original KtoK Plan. Because of this slow pace of development, the projections derived in this plan are very conservative compared to the original KtoK Plan. Projections made in this plan are based on past trends extended Ointo the future. This report has been organized in two Sections with a discussion of the roadway requirements first, followed by the implementation strategy. The detailed analysis that was performed to develop the roadway requirements has been included as Appendix A. Appendix B is the literature search report on the Botanical Resources within the study area and Appendix C is a report on the Archaeological Resources. Because of the changing economic conditions that influence development, the implementation strategy focuses on roadway requirements needed by year 2005, although projections have been extended to the year 2050. Projections to the year 2050 were developed in an attempt to show the area in a "built - out" condition. However, based on the growth rate used in this plan, "build -out" of the KtoK region is expected to extend well beyond year 2050. These far reaching projections were also performed to allow for flexibility in the plan. Should growth occur at a much faster pace than assumed in this plan, roadway requirements for subsequent years beyond the year 2005 could be used as a guide. O -5- SECTION 1 ANALYSIS OF ROADWAY REQUIREMENTS This section of the report analyzes the roadway requirements based on projections made in the detailed analysis and the land use phasing plan to accommodate the projected growth in this region (see Appendix A). These projections included population, housing, employment, visitor industry, agriculture, and business/commercial space in five year intervals to the year 2050. The reader is referred to Appendix A for detailed numbers and assumptions used to arrive at these conclusions. 1.1 Model Development The sub -area traffic simulation model was developed based upon an island -wide traffic model developed by the State Department of Transportation (DOT) and the County of Hawaii Departments of Planning and Public Works. The State,/County model is documented in the "Island of Hawaii Long Range Highway Plan" (HLRHP, May 1991). The HLRHP is an island -wide plan assessing the regional highway needs for the Island of Hawaii. The HLRHP is in the process of being updated by DOT at this writing. A sub -area model is developed herein to analyze the Years 2005, 2020 and 2050 traffic forecasts for the Keahole to Kailua region. Sub -area analysis is a refinement process using the same methodology as the HLRHP. The HLRHP regional model covers the entire island, focusing on the primary arterial highways. The purpose of sub -area analysis is to develop a model that is more sensitive to a specific region and its collector road network, while maintaining the integrity of the island -wide model. The HLRHP divides the island of Hawaii into 127 traffic analysis zones (TAZs). Twenty (20) TAZs are contained within the Keahole to Kailua area. The sub -area highway network is extracted from HLRIIP island -wide network by establishing a "cordon" line, circumscribing the sub -area. The cordon line cuts all highway segments (identified as "links") entering and exiting the sub -area. The cut links are defined as "external" stations, representing the TAZs outside the subarea, i.e., "external" zones. The TAZs within the sub -area are defined as "internal" zones. The traffic assignment volumes along the cordon line are common to both the island -wide model and the sub -area model. Major collector roadways within the study area are added to the sub -area network. The HLRHP island -wide model is calibrated to Base Year 1987 conditions, using the land use inventory developed by the County of Hawaii and traffic data obtained from the State DOT. The sub- area model is also calibrated to 1987 conditions. The deviations between the sub -area traffic model's O -6- Otraffic assignment and the actual observed conditions are used to adjust the sub -area model's traffic forecasts. 1.2 Traffic Forecasts The Years 2005, 2020, and 2050 were analyzed as the planning horizons for traffic forecasts for the study area. The forecasted traffic is expressed in terms of average daily traffic (ADT). Projected twenty-four hour volumes are generally adequate to estimate lane requirements on continuous roadway segments. The average daily trip generation characteristics, shown in Table 1, are expressed in vehicle trip ends, i.e., trips entering or exiting a TAZ. The trip generation rates are developed in the HLRHP. The TAZ boundaries generally correspond to the Housing Inventory sub -areas shown in Figure 1.11 of the Keahole to Kailua Development Plan. TABLE 1 AVERAGE DAILY VEHICLE TRIP ENDS TAZ YEAR 2005 YEAR 2020 YEAR 2050 Keahole 5,283 9,104 26,575 Makaula 699 1,214 2,924 Kona Coastview 670 1,603 3,820 Palisades 4,182 5,385 8,893 Kaloko-Lower 3,289 5,617 12,250 Kaloko-Upper 2,519 4,275 11.818 Kohanaiki 4,325 12,231 12,231 Kaloko Industrial 750 1,203 3,063 Honokohau-Lower 870 1,397 3,476 Honokohau-Upper 1,244 1,936 5,572 Kealakehe Makai 1,372 2,100 5,058 Kealakehe Middle 1,516 2,411 5,889 Kealakehe Upper 8,476 13,976 25,693 QLT 11,758 18,927 46,726 QLT Makai 3,066 4,915 12,104 TOTAL 50,019 86,291 186,092 -7- O The traffic forecasts for the Years 2005, 2020, and 2050 are shown in Figures 3, 4, and 5, respectively. The traffic forecasts are shown in average daily traffic, total for both directions. Also noted on these figures are the lane requirements for each of the roadways for that planning period. 1.3 Evaluation Criteria The roadway plan, presented in the Keahole to Kailua Development Plan provides the framework for evaluating the roadway needs for the study area. Several factors were considered in assessing the roadway needs for the study area. These include: projected traffic demands relative to roadway capacity, traffic circulation within the study area, regional access to the study area, and overall highway planning for the island of Hawaii. The Level of Service analysis performed for this study is based upon procedures presented in the "Highway Capacity Manual" (HCM), Special Report 209, Transportation Research Board, 1985 and the "Highway Capacity Software," Federal Highways Administration. Level of Service (LOS) is "defined as a qualitative measure describing operational conditions within a O traffic stream." Several factors are included in determining LOS such as: speed, delay, vehicle density, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, driver comfort, and safety. LOS "C" is the design Level of Service for streets and highways in urban conditions. LOS "D" is generally considered a "desirable minimum" operating level of service. LOS "E" is an undesirable condition and LOS "F" is an unacceptable condition. The adequacy of roadway capacity is established for the maximum service volumes for Level of Service "C" conditions, as specified in the HLRHP. Peak hour service volumes of various roadway cross-sections are converted to average daily traffic volumes based upon K factor of 9.0% and a D factor of 60%. The K factor is the ratio between the peak hour traffic and the average daily traffic. The D factor is the percentage of traffic in the peak direction of peak hour traffic. Table 2 shows the comparative peak hour service volumes and average daily service volumes for LOS "C" conditions. The peak hour service volumes for two-lane highways, shown in Table 2, are expressed in vehicles per hour, total for both directions. The peak hour service volumes for multi -lane highways are expressed in vehicles per hour in the peak direction of traffic. The average daily service volumes for all typical roadway sections are expressed in vehicles per day, total for both directions. O -8- TABLE 2 LOS "C" SERVICE VOLUMES Typical Road Section Peak Hour Service Volumes Average Daily Service Volumes (Total for Both Directions) 2 lane, flat terrain 750 8,300 2 lane, sloping terrain 700 7,800 4 lane, undivided, flat terrain 1,700 31,500 4 lane, undivided, sloping terrain 1,150 21,300 4 lane, divided, flat terrain 1,900 35,200 4 lane, divided, sloping terrain 1,300 24,100 6 lane, undivided, flat terrain 2,500 46,300 6 lane, undivided, sloping terrain 1,800 33,300 6 lane, divided, flat terrain 2,900 53,700 6 lane, divided, sloping terrain 2,100 38,900 1.4 Roadway Requirements 1.4.1 Year 2005 Roadway Improvements Based on the projections developed for this study and the traffic volumes that would be associated with future growth, the Mid -Level Road, Kealakehe Parkway, and the Airport Access Road have been identified as being substantially complete by the year 2050. Other roadways identified in the KtoK Plan would be completed only as developments occur along their alignments. Improvements for the years 2005, 2020 and 2050 are discussed below and outlined in Table 3. Queen Kaahumanu Highway O State DOT is planning to widen Queen Kaahumanu Highway from a two (2) lane highway to a four (4) lane, divided controlled -access highway from Kailua to Kawaihae. Access to the highway would be provided at grade -separated interchanges or along a frontage road system. The Queen Kaahumanu Highway improvement would establish a high quality, high capacity arterial highway from Kailua to Kawaihae. The first phase of the Queen Kaahumanu Highway widening is planned to occur between Palani Road and Keahole Airport Access Road. At -grade traffic signalized intersections are planned at the Keahole Airport Access Road, Kaimi Nani Drive, Hina Lani Drive, Kealakehe Parkway, and Makala Boulevard. By the Year 2005, Queen Kaahumanu Highway four (4) lane widening should be extended north of the study area to maintain LOS "C" operating conditions. Palani Road Palani Road corridor should provide an additional two (2) lanes by widening the existing Palani Road and/or a two-lane Palani Bypass Highway. The Palani Bypass is being studied by the County of Hawaii as an alternative to widening of Palani Road along its existing alignment. State DOT and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) are also planning to complete the upper portion of Kealakehe Parkway to provide a continuous State-owned roadway from Mamalahoa Highway onto Kealakehe Parkway. Palani Road will form a T -intersection with this new roadway. This four -lane Kealakehe Parkway can serve as an alternate to a four -lane Palani Road. Kealakehe Parkway Kealakehe Parkway has been constructed as a two (2) lane roadway with future expansion to a four (4) lane roadway, as part of the development of the State -planned Villages of La'i'opua. By the Year 2005, the makai portion of Kealakehe Parkway should provide access to the initial phases of the Villages of LaTopua and the new Kealakehe High School. Kealakehe Parkway is planned to be extended to Mamalahoa Highway to improve access to the high school. -10- 10 04 �Q o 0 � + Z z 10 g Q 'a _ Q. � W m � w = n O N t� id N O 3 a U0 O D mo Cl) LU z�] LU C4 a. I r X lL m Q N p" ` IL Q 3Y }�/ ab_ �¢3 J \ LY Q N d �� -" �^K (i NV- E 4 i Vl cli W VI N W.9 m (0 0- U _ OV U W�SU) JC4 3: Q d • ro O Z O CLLJ d �D O o r11 ? y V 7 r, _ -- N CO N fn 0 Dom (eek NN -11- QLT Road (Makala Boulevard) IO The commercial center in the Keahole to Kailua region is planned in the Queen Liliuokalani Trust (QLT) project. West Hawaii's proposed Civic Center is also planned to be located in this area. The QLT Road, presently named Makala Boulevard, has been constructed and will provide local access to the commercial/civic center. Makala Boulevard should provide four (4) traffic lanes by the Year 2005. North-South Roads The Mid -Level Road, Waena Drive, and Kealakaa Street Extension are expected to be constructed in sections as development occurs along their alignments. Each segment should initially serve as local roads, connecting to mauka-makai collector roadways. Portions of the Mid -Level Road should provide access to the West Hawaii University campus from Kaimi Nani Drive; the Kaloko Master Plan residential/golf course development on Hina Lani Drive; and the Villages of La'i'opua on Kealakehe Parkway. A portion of the Mid -Level Road has been constructed within the LaTopua project to provide access to the high school site. A portion of Waena Drive also should be constructed off Hina Lani Drive to provide es h O p p o access to the Kaloko Master Plan area. Consideration should be given to extending either the Mid -Level Road or Waena Drive from Kealakehe Parkway to Palani Road to improve access to the proposed high school. Mauka-Makai Collector Roads The recently completed Hina Lani Drive and the existing Kaimi Nani Drive should accommodate the area's mauka-makai access needs to the Year 2005. The east end of the University Drive is expected to be constructed as part of the Lands of Kau development along Mamalahoa Highway. -12- O1.4.2 Year 2020 Roadway Improvements Queen Kaahumanu Highway Queen Kaahumanu Highway should be widened to six (6) lanes, three (3) lanes in each direction, between Makala Boulevard and Palani Road. The traffic demands projected for Queen Kaahumanu Highway, between Hina Lani Drive and Kealakehe Parkway, are expected to exceed the LOS "C" service volumes beyond the Year 2020. North-South Collector Roadways The Mid -Level Road should be constructed between Kealakehe Parkway and Palani Road as a four - lane, two-way roadway. The Mid -Level Road would provide secondary access to the Villages of La'i'opua and the QLT commercial/civic center. A portion of the Mid -Level Road is expected to be extended from Hina Lani Drive in conjunction with additional development at Kaloko. However, this section of the Mid -Level Road should remain as a local road. OWaena Drive and Kealakaa Street Extension should continue to be constructed in segments as development occurs along their alignments. Initially serving as local roads, the future north -south collector roadways would connect to existing and future mauka-makai collector roadways. Waena Drive is expected to be constructed between Palani Road and Kealakehe Parkway, as part of the Villages of La'i'opua. Makala Boulevard The four -lane Makala Boulevard at QLT should be extended to the Mid -Level Road. The mauka extension of Makala Boulevard to the Mid -Level Road should improve access between the commercial/civic center and the mauka developments. Makai of Queen Kaahumanu Highway, a four - lane Makala Boulevard should be extended to the planned QLT Phase III industrial development to provide another route into Kailua, and improve traffic circulation between Kailua Village and the proposed commercial/civic center in the QLT project. -14- OHina Lani Drive Hina Lani Drive should be widened from two (2) lanes to four (4) lanes, between Queen Kaahumanu Highway and the Mid -Level Road. The existing two-lane Hina Lani Drive, mauka of the Mid -Level Road should accommodate the Kaloko area's mauka-makai access needs to the Year 2020. 1.4.3 Year 2050 Roadwgy Improvements Queen Kaahumanu Highway By the Year 2050, Queen Kaahumanu Highway would require eight (8) lanes, four (4) lanes in each direction, between Palani Road and Hina Lani Drive. Queen Kaahumanu Highway would require six (6) lanes, three (3) lanes in each direction, between Hina Lani Drive and Keahole Airport Access Road. Mamalahoa Highway Mamalahoa Highway would require widening from two (2) lanes to four (4) lanes from Palani Road to Qa point north of the study area by the Year 2050 to maintain LOS "C" or better operating conditions. Additional rights-of-way should be reserved/acquired to provide for the improvement to a four -lane, divided highway. While a four -lane, undivided highway should provide adequate capacity on Mamalahoa Highway, a divided arterial highway is recommended for traffic safety considerations. Palani Road Palani Road should be widened to provide a total of six (6) lanes, three (3) lanes in each direction, between Waena Drive and Queen Kaahumanu Highway. Alternatively, if the Palani Bypass Highway is constructed, the roadway would need to be widened to four lanes by the year 2050. Mid -Level Road The "missing" sections of the Mid -Level Road should be constructed by Year 2050 to provide a continuous north -south collector road within the Keahole to Kailua area. The Mid -Level Road would be located about one mile mauka (east) of Queen Kaahumanu Highway. The Mid -Level Road provides alternative access to parcels along Queen Kaahumanu Highway. A two-lane roadway from Kealakehe Parkway to University Drive should be adequate to the Year 2050. -15- -16- Waena Drive A two-lane Waena Drive from Kealakehe Parkway to Palani Road would be sufficient to provide access to the Villages of Ui'opua. Kealakaa Street Kealakaa Street should be extended to Kealakehe Parkway and Hina Lani Drive, as development occurs along its alignment. A two-lane roadway should be adequate to accommodate projected needs to the Year 2050. Makala Boulevard The QLT Makala Boulevard should continue as a two-lane roadway in the mauka direction, connecting to Waena Drive. The extension of Makala Boulevard would improve access to the commercial/civic center from the upper areas of Kealakehe as well as provide additional access from OPalani Road. Kealakehe Parkway The final mauka section of Kealakehe Parkway should be constructed to complete the mauka-makai roadway. Kealakehe Parkway would require four lanes between Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Mamalahoa Highway by the Year 2050. Hina Lani Drive Hina Lani Drive should be widened from two (2) lanes to four (4) lanes, between the Mid -Level Road and Mamalahoa Highway. -17- University Drive University Drive extends the existing Airport Access Road, mauka of Queen Kaahumanu Highway. The proposed mauka-makai roadway should be extended to Mamalahoa Highway, providing access between Mamalahoa Highway and Keahole Airport. It also would provide access to the proposed West Hawaii University. A two-lane roadway should have adequate capacity to the Year 2050. These improvements for the years 2005, 2020, and 2050 are outlined in Table 3. -18- TABLE 3 ROADWAY IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE - 2005 STREET YEAR 2005 IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED 1. Queen Kaahumanu Highway Widen from 2 lanes to four lanes from Palani Road to just 2. Mid -Level Road north of the study area. 2. Mid -Level Road Construct 2 lanes as development occurs along the proposed alignment: Kalaoa, Kaloko, and Kealakehe ahupuaas. 3. Palani Road Widen to 4 lanes or construct a 2 -lane Palani Bypass Highway. 4. Kealakaa Street Extension Construct 2 lanes as development occurs along the proposed alignment: Kau ahupuaa 5.Waena Drive Construct 2 lanes as development occurs along the proposed alignment: Kaloko and Kealakehe ahupuaas. 6. Makala Boulevard (QLT) 4 lanes from Queen Kaahumanu Highway to the commercial/civic center. TABLE.4 ROADWAY IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE - 2020 STREET YEAR 2020 IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED 1. Queen Kaahumanu Highway Widen to 6 lanes from Palani Road to Makala Boulevard. 2. Mid -Level Road Widen to 4 lanes from Kealakehe Parkway to Palani Road. Construct a 2 -lane road as development occurs along the proposed alignment. 3. Waena Drive Construct a 2 -lane road as development occurs along the proposed alignment. 4. Makala Boulevard Extend the 4 -lane road mauka to the Mid -Level Road and makai to Kuakini Highway. 5. Hina Lani Drive Widen to 4 lanes from Queen Kaahumanu Highway to the Mid -Level Road. -19- TABLE 5 ROADWAY IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE - 2050 STREET YEAR 2050 EWROVEMENTS REQUIRED 1. Queen Kaahumanu Highway Widen to 8 lanes from Palani Road to Hina Lani Drive. Widen to 6 lanes from Hina Lani Drive to Keahole Airport Access Road. 2. Mamalahoa Highway . Widen to 4 lanes from Palani Road to a point just north of the study area. In addition, reserve/acquire additional right- of-way to accommodate a 4 -lane divided highway for traffic safety. 3. Palani Road Widen to 6 lanes from Waena Drive to Queen Kaahumanu Highway or Widen Palani Bypass Highway to four lanes between Waena Drive and Queen Kaahumanu Highway. 4. Mid -Level Road Complete the construction of 2 -lane Mid -Level Road from Kealakehe Parkway to University Drive (i.e., construct "missing" sections of the road. 5. Waena Drive Complete the 2 -lane Waena Drive from Kealakehe Parkway to Palani Road. 6. Kealakaa Street Extend Kealakaa Street to Hina Lani Drive as a 2 -lane roadway. 7. Makala Boulevard Extend to Waena Drive with a 2 -lane roadway. 8. Kealakehe Parkway Extend to Mamalahoa Highway. Provide 4 lanes from Queen Kaahumanu Highway to Mamalahoa Highway. 9. Hina Lani Drive Widen to four lanes from the Mid -Level Road to Mamalahoa Highway. 10. University Drive Construct a 2 -lane roadway from Queen Kaahumanu Highway to Mamalahoa Highway. -20- O1.5 Impacts on Botanical and Archaeological Resources Literature search was performed for the botanical and archaeological resources for the KtoK region after the roadway corridors were preliminarily identified. The purpose of these reports was to identify botanical and archaeological resources that are known to occur within the KtoK Region and to ascertain whether or not these resources would be significantly affected by the roadway alignments. These studies were not intended to provide a definitive assessment of these resources, but rather an overview of these resources in the area. As roadways are developed in the region, more detailed botanical and archaeological studies will need to be performed. 1.5.1 Botanical Resources According to the "Botanical Resources Study," Char & Associates, September 1995, a copy of which is attached as Appendix B, there are a number of endangered plants in the KtoK Region as shown in Figure 6. There are three sensitive areas that are known to contain endangered plants: 1) Kealakehe; 2) Kaloko; and 3) Hamanamana to Kau ahupuaa. OWithin the Kealakehe ahupuaa, three listed, one proposed, one Category 1, and one Category 2 plant exist on the site. As part of the Villages of La'i'opua project by HFDC, several preserve areas have been established and a long-term management plan has been prepared. HFDC's development plans have changed a number of times to mitigate impacts on the botanical resources within their project. Another large area containing important botanical resources is located within the Kaloko ahupuaa on lands owned by Tokyo Green, Inc. on as lava. This area contains two listed endangered species, two species that are proposed for listing, one Category 1 plant, and two Category 2 plants. According to the study, the jagged substrate discourages grazing animals and the introduced or alien species do not adapt well to this type of growing conditions. A portion of this as lava flow also extends into the adjacent Honokohau ahupuaa owned by Lanihau Partners. Both Tokyo Green and Lanihau Partners have had discussions with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) about establishing a plant preserve or sanctuary on the part of the flow that has high quality native dry forest. If a plant preserve or sanctuary is established on a large portion of this area, Waena Drive may not be allowed to extend through this zone. -21- -22- OWaena Drive would either need to "dead-end" on both sides of the Kaloko ahupuaa or an alternative alignment may need to be established. However, if a significant portion of land at Kaloko is not urbanized as planned and analyzed in this report, the need for Waena Drive as a through road may be lessened. According to the traffic analysis performed for this study, Waena Drive was not needed as a through road by the year 2050. New studies may be needed to identify new roadway requirements with the reduction of urban lands in the KtoK region. Waena Drive is also affected between the Hamanamana and Kau ahupuaas. Limited studies have been performed in this area and there is a good possibility that more endangered plants could be found. Portions of the Mid -Level Road and Kealakaa Street Extension may also affect botanical resources through the Kaloko ahupuaa and between Hamanamana/Kau ahupuaas. The alignment of these two roadways through these zones would need more detailed botanical studies at the time of more detailed planning and design of the roadway. 1.5.2 Archaeological Resources OCultural Surveys Hawaii performed a literature search on the archaeological resources within the KtoK region in September 1995 (see Appendix B). The purpose of the study was to identify areas within the region that have a high likelihood of archaeological resources which may affect the roadway corridors illustrated in this plan. There have been numerous archaeological studies performed in this region with some studies encountering hundreds of archaeological sites. The significance of these sites has not yet been determined by the State Historic Sites Division. Some of these sites will probably require preservation. These previous studies do reveal a mauka settlement pattern within this region. Generally, in addition to the coastal area there are three zones with varying densities of archaeological resources. The area from Queen Kaahumanu Highway to approximately the 400 -foot elevation is characterized as having a low density of sites. Between the 400 to 800 -foot elevation, archaeological sites are moderately dense and from the 800 -foot elevation to Mamalahoa Highway there is a high density of archaeological sites (see Figure 7). The coastal zone has a fairly high density of archaeological sites. It should be noted that these general archaeological zones correspond to the ecological zones identified in the original KtoK Plan. -23- As shown on the Archaeological Resources Map, the Mid -Level Road lies mainly within the low O density area. Waena Drive and Kealakaa Street Extension lie generally within the moderate density area. The mauka portion of University Drive from Kealakaa Street to Mamalahoa Highway lies almost entirely within the high density zone. Below Kealakaa Street, University Drive lies within the moderate and low density zones. The mauka unconstructed portion of Kealakehe Parkway lies approximately half within the high density zone with the other half in the moderate density area. The alignment of this segment of Kealakehe Parkway has been preliminarily aligned to minimize impacts on archaeological sites that have been identified within the roadway corridor. Since this region is known to contain an abundance of archaeological resources, all new roadway corridors should be surveyed and the alignment adjusted to avoid archaeological sites of significance that require preservation. These open space preservation areas could be an opportunity to provide cultural/historical parks that can promote the Hawaiian culture as well as provide an open space amenity. O -24- -25- SECTION 2 O IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY In order to ensure that the required roadway segments are constructed when needed an implementation strategy must be in place. Specifically, the strategy should address the questions of what roadways should be constructed, who should pay for and construct the roadways, and when the roadways should be constructed. This section of the report will address these questions for the shorter term 2005 roadway requirements. Given the dynamic nature of the land development process in an area like the KtoK Region, a longer -range strategy would be very difficult to establish. 2.1 Financing Mechanisms There are a number of financing options that could be implemented to construct the required roadways within the KtoK region. These financing options are described in detail in the "County of Hawaii Infrastructure Financing Analysis and Plan" document that was prepared by Sutro & Co., and the reader is referred to that document for more detail. A summary of the four recommended financing mechanisms is provided below. O 2.1.1 Development Fees Although an attempt was made by the County to initiate a Development Impact Fee program for the island, that program was not implemented. Development fees are based on the impacts that new developments will have in a particular area. New developments could be assessed an impact fee for each residential or resort unit constructed, or by square foot of commercial, office, or industrial uses. These fees would then be used for regional infrastructure improvements including area roadways in the vicinity of the proposed development. Roadways within the development would be paid for and constructed by the developer. 2.1.2 Improvement Districts Improvement districts would be a mechanism whereby the County shifts the cost burden to the landowners where new developments will pay for and construct the improvements. For instance, the KtoK area could be designated an improvement district where all new development would be responsible for upgrading existing roadway segments that abut their property and to also pay for and construct roads identified in the KtoK Plan. Since this area is still largely undeveloped, roadways such O -26- Oas Palani Road could be significantly improved by area developers. On the northern side of Palani Road from the intersection with Queen Kaahumanu Highway to the existing Kealakehe Houselots, the State and Queen Liliuokalani Trust could be required to widen the northern side of the road since these two landowners abut Palani Road. QLT also owns the land on the southern side of Palani Road and would be responsible for upgrading the southern side of Palani Road when they develop those lands. Small existing private landowners would be responsible for the segment of roadway that fronts their property when redevelopment occurs. 2.1.3 General Obligation Bonds According to the Sutro report, the County has been using general obligation bonds to fund all infrastructure needs, except those funded by the State. Real property tax revenues are used to repay the debt. 2.1.4 Revenue Bonds O Revenue bonds are typically used to fund sewer, water, and electrical systems. Operators of these systems charge their customers a user fee that pays for the improvements. The user fees collected are then used to pay for the bond debt. In the case of roadways, user fees are typically in the form of tolls on various points of major roadways. Given the limited transportation system on the Island of Hawaii, potential fees that could be collected from tolls were viewed as insufficient to finance transportation improvements. However, tolls could be used as a revenue supplement. 2.2 2005 Roadway Improvements As indicated in Table 3, there are six roadway improvements that will be needed in the KtoK Region by the year 2005. These improvements are based on the Projected Phasing Plan discussed in Appendix A and the traffic volumes resulting from that phasing, as discussed in the previous Section 1. Construction of major new roadways in the KtoK region is potentially simplified by the large landholdings of a few corporations and the State of Hawaii. Financing mechanisms described above can be used to expedite the construction of certain segments of these major roadways if the need arises through major unforeseen changes in the broader KtoK region. The County may also decide to take a O"proactive" role in the development of this area to encourage growth by developing all or a major part -27- of one of these regional roadways. Thus, these financing mechanisms are a means to help pay for these O roadways. Each of the corporations and the State, however, do have plans to develop their lands and the major roadways identified in this Plan and the KtoK Plan traverse through these large parcels. Since roadway requirements result from development, new roadway segments can be constructed as development occurs along the alignment. The following describes the roadway improvements needed for the year 2005, and addresses the issue of who will pay for and construct these improvements. 2.2.1 Queen Kaahumanu Highway Queen Kaahumanu Highway is planned to be widened to a four -lane divided highway by the State Department of Transportation (DOT) from the Keahole Airport Access Road to Henry Street in Kailua Village. The widening will generally occur makai of the existing highway, except in the vicinity of Palani Road to Henry Street, where the expansion will occur mauka of Queen Kaahumanu Highway. According to discussions with DOT, design of the improvements is planned to begin in mid-1996 with O construction in 1998. Construction cost estimates for this widening project were prepared in 1994. At that time the highway expansion was estimated to cost approximately $43M, including relocation of the existing electrical system. Expansion of Queen Kaahumanu Highway will be paid for by the State and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Approximately 80 percent of the cost will be paid by FHWA and the remaining 20 percent will be paid for by the State. 2.2.2 Mid -Level Road The Mid -Level Road has been classified as a minor arterial roadway with a minimum right-of-way width of 120 -feet. The Mid -Level Road is proposed as a limited access highway that would function as a reliever road for Queen Kaahumanu Highway. This roadway corridor, as shown in Figure 8, is conceptually planned as a four lane divided roadway with a 16 -foot median, 8 -foot shoulders, 10 -foot wide landscaping strip, and 10 -foot wide pedestrian/bike path strip. The median can be used for left turn movements at intersections, and the shoulders and landscaping strips can be used for acceleration/ deceleration lanes where appropriate. O -28- -29- By the year 2005, three segments of the Mid -Level Road are expected to be constructed at Kealakehe, Kaloko, and Kalaoa. As part of the Villages of La'i'opua Project, the segment through Kealakehe has been constructed from Kealakehe Parkway to the new high school site by the State Housing Finance and Development Corporation (HFDC). This roadway consists of two travel lanes and one lane for turning and acceleration within a 120 -foot right-of-way. The two-lane segments of the Mid -Level Road at Kalaoa and Kaloko should also be constructed, if development occurs as shown in the Phasing Plan. The State is expected to build the section of the Mid -Level Road within the Kalaoa area as part of their master plan and Tokyo Green is expected build the section of roadway within their lands at Kaloko. According to actual construction costs provided by HFDC, the Mid -Level Road, from Queen Kaahumanu Highway to Waena Drive, cost a total of approximately $790,000 or $405 per linear foot. This cost includes the cost of the road only and not the electrical, drainage, sewer, and water systems. Using HFDC's construction costs as a guide, the 3,300 lineal feet of roadway through the Tokyo Green Kaloko project would cost approximately $1.3M and the 2,500 lineal feet of roadway through the State-owned Kalaoa project would cost about $1.OM in 1995 dollars for a three lane roadway similar O to what has been constructed at Kealakehe. 2.2.3 Palani Road/Kealakehe Parkway Palani Road was identified in this study to be widened to four lanes by the year 2005 and a four -lane Kealakehe Parkway was needed by the year 2050. However, recent transportation plans indicate that Kealakehe Parkway will be constructed as a four -lane roadway prior to year 2005. Thus, Palani Road may no longer need to be widened, since a completed Kealakehe Parkway will serve as an alternative route to Kailua Village. Kealakehe Parkway was upgraded from the original KtoK Plan from an 80 -foot collector road to a 120 -foot minimum minor arterial. As indicated previously, this road has been partially constructed from Queen Kaahumanu Highway to the vicinity of Waena Drive. This road currently has two travel lanes, one turning and acceleration lane, and one truck climbing lane within the Villages of La'i'opua, Housing Finance and Development Corporation (HFDC) project. -30- OThe section of Kealakehe Drive mauka of the LaTopua project is presently being planned by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the State Department of Transportation (DOT). According to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), widening of Palani Road to four lanes as a State-owned facility was an alternative to extending Kealakehe Parkway to Mamalahoa Highway. However, widening of Palani Road was eliminated as an alternative because 71 residences and a religious facility would be affected by the widening. In addition, the Villages of La'i'opua project would not have access to Mamalahoa Highway/Palani Road. Thus, Kealakehe Parkway is being proposed by DOT and FHWA as an extension of Mamalahoa Highway to Queen Kaahumanu Highway with Palani Road partly realigned to form a T -intersection with Kealakehe Parkway. This continuous movement from Mamalahoa Highway onto Kealakehe Parkway will encourage motorists to use this State roadway to access Kailua Village rather than Palani Road, which has had a number of serious accidents due to the irregular vertical and horizontal alignments. Kealakehe Drive is being proposed by FHWA and DOT as a four -lane divided roadway with 8 -foot shoulders. The right-of-way width is 120 feet as shown in Figure 9. The section in Figure 9 has been slightly modified from the section provided in the State DEIS to include a 10 -foot wide planting strip and a pedestrian/bike path. O, Two preferred alignments were identified in the DEIS, Alternatives 10 and 11. The alignment shown in this report is Alternative 10. According to the DEIS, design of the roadway is planned to begin in early 1996 with construction to commence in mid-1997. The roadway is expected to take approximately 18 months to complete. Thus, the roadway is anticipated to be completed by the end of 1998. HFDC provided information on "the actual construction costs to build the portion of Kealakehe Parkway through the La'i'opua project. This roadway, from Queen Kaahumanu Highway to Waena drive, a distance of approximately 1,800 feet cost $825,000, excluding utilities, or $460 per linear foot and was paid for using State funds. The remaining portion of Kealakehe Parkway is planned to be 80 percent funded by the Federal government with the remaining to be paid with State funds. In the DEIS for Kealakehe Parkway, Alignment 10 is expected to cost approximately $40M to construct. If Alternative 11 is constructed, the cost will be approximately $35M. -31- -32- O2.2.4 Waena Drive By the year 2005 Waena Drive is expected to be partially built for the La'i'opua Project at Kealakehe and on the Tokyo Green parcel at Kaloko. Waena Drive is planned conceptually as a collector road with an 80 -foot right-of-way. This right-of-way width would be able to accommodate a 4 -lane roadway as shown in Figure 10. HFDC has completed construction of Waena Drive from Kealakehe Parkway to the new high school site. Portions of Waena Drive that occur within the Villages of La'i'opua project will be constructed by HFDC, then dedicated to the County for maintenance. The cost of this 1,820 lineal feet of roadway was approximately $912,000, or $505 per linear foot. The section of roadway through the Tokyo Green parcel is expected to be paid for and constructed by the landowner at such time that development occurs. This section of the roadway is expected to cost approximately $2M for 4,000 lineal feet. O Since a large portion of the Tokyo Green parcel may be preserved because of endangered species and remnant native dry forests and shrublands, continuation of Waena Drive from Palani Road to the Kau ahupuaa, and the associated urban development may not occur. If the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service determines that this mauka area should be preserved, then a large portion of the Kaloko lands will be left in open space and undeveloped. The elimination of substantial urban development will change the roadway requirements needed for this area and a new study will be needed to address the new development pattern in this region and the need for Waena Drive from the Kau ahupuaa to Palani Road. This segment of Waena Drive is only needed as development occurs along the alignment through the year 2050 to serve local traffic. Thus, if this segment of roadway is not constructed because there is no development, other roadways will not be significantly affected. 2.2.5 Makala Boulevard Makala Boulevard has been classified as a minor arterial with a 120 -foot right-of-way. This roadway was not identified in the original KtoK Plan mainly because at that time Queen Liliuokalani Trust (QLT) did not have a master plan for the development of their lands. This road has since been constructed up to the first phase of their commercial development at Keahuolu. As part of their development plans, QLT will eventually extend Makala Boulevard to the Mid -Level Road. -33- -34- o " � CC W o Q F4 Wcc� v • + �' N H 0 Q0o �Q �� y• • • �9 o OO 1 m IOL �a P o ty0 N N W N N § 3 l a W 5 WJ N e ew of m d 46 • q a 0 -34- O2.2.6 Kealakaa Street Extension The segment of roadway needed for the Kealakaa Street Extension occurs at the Kau ahupuaa as part of Nansay Hawaii's development. This segment of roadway will be paid for and constructed by the developer of this project. Kealakaa Street Extension is classified as a collector road with a right-of-way width of 80 feet. The cross section of this roadway will be the same as that of Waena Drive shown in Figure 10. The cost to construct this road is assumed to be comparable to Waena Drive. Thus, for the 3,000 lineal feet of road, the cost is estimated at $1.5M. A summary of the 2005 roadway requirements is provided in Table 4 below. TABLE 6 2005 ROADWAY EVIPROVEMENTS: ENIPLEMENTATION STREET CONSTRUCTED WHEN COST AND PAID BY CONSTRUCTED Queen Kaahumanu Federal Highway 1998 $43M Highway Administration (801/o) State of Hawaii (20%) Mid -Level Road Kalaoa - State of Hawaii As development occurs along $LOM Kalaoa Kalaoa and Kaloko Kaloko - Tokyo Green the alignment $1.3M Kaloko Kealakehe Parkway (in Federal Highway 1998 $40M (Alt. 10) lieu of Pa ani Road Administration (80%) $35M (Alt. 11) Widening) State of Hawaii (20%) Kealakaa Street Nansay Hawaii As development occurs along $1.5M Extension - Kau the alignment Waena Drive Tokyo Green As development occurs along $2.OM Kaloko (Kealakehe the alignment segment already constructed by State) Makala Boulevard Queen Liliuokalani Trust Constructed (already constructed) -35- 2.3 Roadway Corridors and Zoning Map O The new roadway corridors were combined with a digitized version of the County zoning map for the KtoK region (see Figure 11). This zoning map with the roadway corridors could be used as a tool by the County to review zoning applications. All zoning applications that are submitted for this region should include these roadway corridors on their plans. Deviation of roadway alignments can occur, depending on the presence of significant archaeological sites or endangered or threatened botanical resources. Topographic conditions and grading considerations will also be a factor. However, if the alignment does change, the zoning application must address how the realigned roadway will tie back into the alignment on the zoning map. Other than minor adjustments to the roadway alignments to avoid impacts on important resources, these corridors should be shown on all new project plans. Landowners should be required to construct these roadway segments within their property. If two or more adjacent landowners are preparing plans to develop their property, the landowners involved should be required to coordinate the design of the roadways with adjacent landowners to ensure that the County of Hawaii design standards for collector and minor arterial roadways are met. O During the construction phase of each project, if the roadway is planned to be phased (i.e., construct two lanes in the initial phases with two additional lanes later), each developer should construct the corresponding lanes through their project. For example, since the Mid -Level Road has already been partially constructed within the mauka side of the roadway corridor by HFDC and the right-of-way width is a minimum 120 feet, the developer of the Honokohau ahupuaa should initially construct the lanes situated on the mauka side of the roadway corridor. The built portion of the road should provide three lanes (two travel lanes and one lane for turning and acceleration) within a 120 -foot wide right-of- way, which will be an extension of the existing right-of-way. Similarly, Waena Drive has been fully constructed within an 80 -foot right-of-way in the LaTopua project. Thus, extension of Waena Drive to the north should consist of four -travel lanes as shown in Figure 10. The new roadways generally lie within the Open and Unplanned zoning designations, with the exception of the mauka portion of University Drive, which lies entirely within the Agriculture (A -3a) area at Kau ahupuaa. University Drive is a four -lane undivided collector road with a minimum right-of- way width of 80 feet. O -36- r, a a Q z z 1 ZZ m a CL \ R o $ 2 O S IL J a W \\ f 3 r r U O G + 4 z n n + _ Q ui J 0 o k Z>} „ Zai o N Olen LU Z a ,-� �(�AY �% WF l7W z F° Ir h < 1�'\XSr'Y\ +\, z �f 0 z t vi } n mo $9 a ve S N¢cc S+2 O z C4 O < \H 1 O f'7 N � g g Q < < A S Q A o ¢ n BOLL W ¢ o oo N ==D Z ap } Q 4 r n o C W .9L v ZZ -0 R 4 s�s>° F a Oa1Q 0 z � 2 O 11.1 -P s w gmUU OY`(fJnON 0 ¢ O < r0Y�Y 3 O077QQQ111Sm N r GNU INYN - Q 0 0—i—IZ Zy 9 H fi i g R < l fiC mmm o0 a r o ¢ W0V. Y4 Tc?c e�Q r�. VUU r- a r o r v 2 -0 • _ _ W I rc IL z �jNtn < � O � w 000�tl7 v�i� cS UNNEyiSfTY` 0 o voi 0 0 0 0 0 0 < r Z nR.IQN�Yh 7 W D S 0 if LLLLLLLLmm L LL n E .2I p a . Uff j- F. s�wo W :Cic :(ic 0 g g = l rLU o °��Qo a = O � Qaacp < C, Lo NN 6 6 C`0`0 Q z 7 7 w z X w y� aaaaa �z 0.m sa O 1 W m o � SMG toi z � aaaaao� -37- The Mid -Level Road meanders in and out of the Open and Unplanned zones, except at the Kohanaiki O ahupuaa where the road passes through a narrow strip of "Industrial" zoned land that is planned to be developed by Kama'aina Eight. This road has a minimum right-of-way width of 120 feet and is a four - lane divided minor arterial roadway. Waena Drive is an existing roadway within the Kona Palisades Subdivision. This road extends into the Unplanned zone moving north to Kau, where the alignment is situated within the Agriculture (A -3a) zone. Moving southward, Waena Drive meanders through the Unplanned zone, then through Agriculture (A -la) and Single Family Residential (RS -15) zones in the Villages of La'i'opua project at Kealakehe and Keahuolu. Waena Drive is a four -lane undivided collector road with a minimum right- of-way width of 80 feet. Kealakaa Street extends north through the Unplanned zone from the existing Kealakehe Houselots to Holoholo Street in Kona Palisades, which is in the Agriculture (A -la) zone. The alignment continues north from Kona Palisades within the Unplanned zone, then into the Agriculture (A -3a) zone at Kau. Kealakaa Street is a four -lane undivided collector road with a minimum 80 -foot right-of-way width. University Drive extends mauka into the Open zone from the Keahole Airport Access Road, into the O Unplanned zone, then through the Agriculture (A -3a) zone in the Kau ahupuaa where the road connects to Mamalahoa Highway. University Drive is a four -lane undivided collector road with a minimum right-of-way width of 80 -feet. Kealakehe Parkway begins at Queen Kaahumanu Highway in the Open zone, through the Unplanned zone, then through the Agriculture (A -la) zone at the upper limit of the alignment where the road connects to Mamalahoa Highway. Kealakehe Parkway is intended to be an extension of Mamalahoa Highway to Queen Kaahumanu Highway, providing a continuous State-owned highway link to Kailua Village. Palani Road will form a T -intersection with Kealakehe Parkway. Kealakehe Parkway is a four - lane divided minor arterial roadway with a minimum 120 -foot right-of-way. -38- APPENDIX A UPDATED LAND USE ANALYSIS Appendix A Updated Land Use Analysis for Keahole to Kailua Development Plan Revised Roadway Plan Implementation Strategy by: Townscape, Inc. September 1996 O OTABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION A - REGIONAL GROWTH TRENDS AND PRO]ECTIONS....................................... A-1 A.1 Population.............................................................................................................................. A-1 A.1.1 Past Trends - Population............................................................................................A-1 A.1.2 Future Trends - Population........................................................................................A-5 A.2 Housing............................................................................. .....................................................A-7 A.2.1 Past Trends - Housing ........................................ ....................................................... A-7 A.2.2 Future Trends - Housing............................................................................................ A-9 A.3 Employment.........................................................................................................................A-10 A.3.1 Past Trends - Employment.......................................................................................A-10 A.3.2 Future Trends - Employment ................ ................................................................... A-11 A.4 Visitor Indust...........................................A 13 A.4.1 Past Trends - Tourism.............................................................................................A-13 A.4.2 Future Trends - Tourism..........................................................................................A-15 A-5 Agriculture........................................................................................................................... A-17 A.5.1 Past Trends -Agriculture ...................................................... ................. ... ...... .........A-17 O A.5.2 Future Trends -Agriculture ........................ ............................................................. A-18 A6Business/Commercial ...........................................................................................................A-18 A.6.1 Past Trends - Business/Commercial.........................................................................A-18 A.6.2 Future Trends - Business/Commercial.....................................................................A-19 A.7 Summary of Regional Growth Trends.................................................................................. A-22 SECTION B - ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED PROJECTS..............................................................A-23 SECTION C - LAND USE PROJECTED PHASING....................................................................A-36 -i- LIST OF TABLES Table A-1 County of Hawaii, Population and Household Distribution, 1990 ...........................A-1 Table A-2 North Kona District, Persons in Households and Household Distribution, 1990 ..... A-1 Table A-3 County of Hawaii, Resident Population, 1982 to 1992 ............................................A-4 Table A4 Population Projections and Comparisons.................................................................A-6 Table A-5 Housing Units and Vacancy Rates, 1990 North Kona District................................A-8 Table A-6 Housing Units Projection, Kalaoa Sub -District ................................... ..................... A-9 Table A-7 Civilian Labor Force Status, North Kona 1990 .....................................................A-10 Table A-8 Employment Statistics, January 1994....................................................................A-11 Table A-9 Employment Projections, County of Hawaii..........................................................A-12 Table A-10 Employment Projections, North Kona .................................... ............................... A-12 Table A-11 Employment Projections, Kalaoa Sub-District.......................................................A-13 Table A-12 Westbound Visitors to Hilo and Kona, 1984 to 1993 ............................................ A-15 Table A-13 Westbound Visitor Projections..............................................................................A-16 Table A-14 Projected Hotel Rooms and Condominiums.......................................................... A-17 Table A-15 Projected Retail and Office Space Requirements North Kona District .................. A-19 Table A-16 Projected QLT Retail and Office Space.................................................................A-20 Table A-17 Projected Commercial and Office Space................................................................A-21 Table A-18 Summary of Projected Growth..............................................................................A-22 TableA-19 Planned Projects.....................................................................................................A-24 Table A-20 Status of Planned Projects.....................................................................................A-26 Table A-21 Proposed Projects Land Use Summary ..................................................................A-27 Table A-22 Projections - 2000 to 2050 ................................................ ..................................... A-40 Table A-23 Proposed Projects Phasing Schedule.....................................................................A-41 LIST OF FIGURES Figure A-1 Proposed Projects ........................................ Figure A-2 ' Land Use Projected Phasing Plan ................ Figure A-3 'Build -out" Land Use Plan .......................... ..A-25 ..A-37 ..A42 SECTION A REGIONAL GROWTH TRENDS AND PROJECTIONS Prior to proceeding with the analysis of the future roadway system in the region, an understanding of regional growth trends was essential in determining how quickly or how slowly the KtoK area was expected to grow. Projections of future growth were also analyzed in order to provide a basis for the roadway phasing plan. Projections made are in five-year intervals to the year 2050. This long-range projection is very speculative, however, it was an attempt to generate population and traffic numbers that might approach the "build -out" condition for the KtoK region. Based on assumptions used to, project future growth trends, the "build -out" scenario was not realized by the year 2050. However, these projections can be used as a guide to determine roadway requirements depending on actual growth in the region. For instance, if growth occurs at a faster pace than projected in this plan, then roadway requirements would increase accordingly. OA number of assumptions were made to develop these projections. These assumptions on future growth are presented in the following pages. It should be understood that these future growth projections are not being presented as "definitive numbers." These projections are considered to be reasonable approximations, which can in turn be used for projecting approximate future roadway requirements. A.1 Population A.1.1 Past Trends - Population Over a 20 year period from 1970 to 1990, the North Kona district increased in population 4.6 times from 4,800 people in 1970 to 22,300 people in 1990, which is the largest population increase of any of the districts on the Big Island. Between 1970 and 1980, the population of North Kona increased by 8,900 people (184.5 percent) and in the subsequent decade from 1980 to 1990, the population increased by 8,500 people (62.1 percent). Therefore, the rate of population increase in North Kona is declining, but is still high when compared with other A-1 districts on the island. Net population growth for the 1970-80 and 1980-90 periods was about O the same. Of the nine districts on the Island of Hawaii, South Kohala had the highest rate of population increase of 98.4 percent, from 1980 to 1990. The Puna District had the second highest rate of increase in population of 76.8 percent, followed by the North Kona district with a 62.1 percent increase. Other districts on the island experienced 32 percent increase to a decrease in population in the North Hilo district of -8.2 percent. The overall population growth rate for the island of Hawaii during the period 1980 to 1990 was 30.7 percent. This rapid growth is comparable to the islands of Maui and Kauai, which had a 41.6 percent and 30.9 percent increase respectively during the period 1980 to 1990. Oahu's population grew by 9.7 percent during that decade. According to the 1990 census, the island of Hawaii had 41,461 households in 1990 with a population of 120,317, which averages out to 2.9 persons per household. The North Kona district, with a population of approximately 22,300, had 7,900 households averaging 2.8 persons per household, which is the lowest average ratio of persons per household for the Big O Island. The North Kohala district had the highest average ratio of 3.2 persons per household (see Table A-1). In the County of Hawaii Data Book, 1992, the resident population and household distribution within the North Kona district has been further divided into six "sub -districts" (Holualoa, Honalo, Kahaluu-Keauhou, Kailua, Kalaoa and Kealakekua Point) (see Table A-2). The Kalaoa "sub -district" reflects the resident population within the KtoK region, but excludes the lands makai of Queen Kaahumanu Highway. At present, these makai lands are not known to contain any year-round residential units. During the period 1982 . to 1992, the population of the County of Hawaii increased by an average of 3,050 people per year, or 2.9 percent increase per year, compounded (see Table A- 3). Based on 1992 population distribution by district, the North Kona area housed 19 percent of the total population of the County of Hawaii. Within the North Kona District, the Kalaoa sub -district housed 21 percent of the district population. A-2 TABLE A-1 COUNTY OF HAWAII POPULATION AND HOUSEHOLD DISTRIBUTION, 1990 District of Total Population` Households' *Ave. Persons Per Household South Hilo 37% 44,639 15,558 2.87 Puna 17% 20,781 7,136 2.91 Ka.'u 4% 4,438 1,530 2.90 South Kona 6% 7,658 2,591 2.96 North Kona 19% 22,284 7,898 2.82 South Kohala 8% 9,140 3,095 2.95 North Kohala 4% 4,291 1,351 3.18 Hamakua 4% 5,545 1,796 3.09 North Hilo 1% 1,541 506 3.05 TOTAL 120,317 41,461 2.90 State Data Book, 1992, Tables 10 and 16. * Based on population divided by the number of households. TABLE A-2 NORTH KONA DISTRICT PERSONS IN HOUSEHOLDS AND HOUSEHOLD DISTRIBUTION, 1990 Sub -district % of Total Persons in Households Households Average Persons Per Household Holualoa 18% 3,834 1,456 2.63 Honalo 9% 11905 670 2.84 Kahaluu-Keauhou 10% 1,927 781 2.47 Kailua 41% 8,645 3,144 2.75 Kalaoa 21% 4,490 1,548 2.90 Kealakekua Point 1% 192 69 2.78 TOTALS 20,993 7,668 2.75 OSOURCE: County of Hawaii Data Book, 1992, Table 18. A-3 TABLE A-3 COUNTY OF HAWAII RESIDENT POPULATION, 1982 TO 1992 Date County Population *North Kona Share (19%) *Kalaoa Share (21%) County Population Increase County Percent Increase 1982, July 1 98,800 18,800 3,948 1983, July 1 100,800 19,150 4,020 2,700 2.7 1984, July 1 103,500 19,665 4,130 2,400 2.4 1985, July 1 105,900 20,120 4,225 2,500 2.4 1986, July 1 108,400 20,600 4,325 3,300 3.1 1987, July 1 111,700 21,220 4,460 3,300 3.0 1988, July 1 113,400 21,550 4,525 11700 1.5 1989, July 1 116,600 22,150 4,650 3,200 2.8 1990, July 1 121,500 23,100 4,850 4,900 4.2 1991, July 1 126,400 241000 5,040 4,900 4.0 1992, July 1 **130,400 24,780 5,200 4,000 3.2 10 -Year Average Annual Increase 3,050 2.9 SOURCE: State Data Book, 1992, Table 7. *Interpolated, based on past trends. **Preliminary estimate from Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism, March 1994. Given these past trends, and using an average of 2.9 percent increase per year, compounded, the 1994 population for the Island of Hawaii is estimated at 138,073 people. Using 19 percent as the North Kona district's share, the 1994 population is estimated at 26,234 persons. Since the Kalaoa sub -district's share of the North Kona population is 21 percent, it is estimated that the 1994 Kalaoa population will be 5,510 people. These assumptions will be used in the following section on "Future Trends" to compare population projections in the Keahole to Kailua Development Plan (KtoK Plan), the County of Hawaii General Plan, and the State Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism (DBEDT) Series M -K projections. A-4 0 A.1.2 Future Trends - Population Using past trends as a basis for projecting future growth on the island, and specifically, the Kalaoa sub -district of North Kona, the following Table A4, illustrates population growth within this region as compared to the KtoK Plan, the General Plan and the Series M -K. As noted in Table A-4, the KtoK Plan showed a very high increase in the Kalaoa sub -district population. This projection was mainly due to the rising economic activity in Hawaii in the mid 1980s, the significant number of planned projects in the KtoK region, and the State and County policy to emphasize residential growth in the KtoK region. However, in the early 1990s, the economic activity in Hawaii, the U.S. mainland, and Japan began to decline. This depressed economic condition resulted in a number a projects being delayed because of lack of funds. In addition, the visitor industry, Hawaii's most important economic base, experienced a decline in the number of visitors to the islands. More detailed discussion on the economic conditions of the State and the County of Hawaii will follow in subsequent sections. OThe General Plan projections were based on the rate of growth in the visitor industry. Three scenarios were presented to reflect varying economic conditions. Scenario A (Series A) is the most conservative approach and "assumes the demise of the sugar indusay and modest expansion in the visitor industry. " In this scenario, the employment growth rate of 2 percent per annum was used to project future conditions. Scenario B (Series B) assumes that the sugar industry is maintained and the employment growth,rate that was used was approximately 3.7 percent per annum. This scenario represents a medium growth rate, whereas Scenario A reflects conservative growth and Scenario C reflects a more optimistic growth rate. The rate of employment growth in Scenario C assumes a 4.6 percent increase per year. A-5 TABLE A-4 POPULATION PROJECTIONS AND COMPARISONS Year Past Trends' KtoK Plan' General Plana Series M-KQ Projected A B C County Population @ 2.9% per year, compounded: (1990 Census) 1990 121,500 122,000 124,000 129,000 134,400 1995 140,200 138,000 148,000 167,000 158,600 2000 161,700 155,000 180,000 212,000 183,000 2005 186,600 173,000 217,000 258,000 211,000 2010 215,200 191,000 260,000 325,000 243,000 2015 248,300 211,000 312,000 407,000 279,500 2020 286,400 233,000 374,000 510,000 321,400 2050 675,200 382,000 1,073,000 1,879,000 705,464 North Kona District (19% of County Population): (1990 Census) 1990 22,300 23,200 23,600 24,500 25,500 1995 26,600 26,200 28,100 31,700 30,100 2000 30,700 29,500 34,200 40,300 34,800 2005 35,500 32,900 41,200 49,000 40,100 2010 40,900 36,300 49,400 61,800 46,200 2015 47,200 40,100 59,300 77,500 53,100 2020 54,400 44,300 71,100 96,900 61,100 2050 128,300 72,600 203,900 357,000 134,000 KtoK Sub -district (Base yr. (21% of North Kona 1987, 4,512 Population): people) (1990 Census) 1990 4,500 5,300 4,900 5,000 5,100 5,400 1995 5,600 6,800 5,500 5,900 6,700 6,300 2000 6,400 8,800 6,200 7,200 8,500 7,300 2005 7,500 11,400 6,900 8,700 10,300 8,400 2010 8,600 14,670 7,600 10,400 13,000 9,700 2015 9,900 18,990 8,400 12,400 16,300 11,200 2020 11,400 24,500 9,300 14,900 20,300 12,800 2050 126,900 112,900 15,246 42,819 74,970 28,140 SOURCE: County of Hawaii General Plan, DBEDT Series M -K. ' Based on an average growth of 2.9% per year during the decade 1982-1992. 2 Projections for 1990-2005 and 2015-2020 are interpolated from base year population of 4,512 and the KtoK projected 2010 population of 14,670 3 County population figures beyond year 2005 have been interpolated based on percent growth in each scenario (A, B, & Q. North Kona population assumes 19% share of County population. Kalaoa population assumes 21% share of North Kona population. 4 Year 2015 and 2020 population projection is based on a 15% growth between the periods 2010 to 2015, and 2015 to 2020. North Kona population assumes 21% share of County population. Kalaoa population assumes 19% share of North Kona population. O A-6 O The DBEDT Series M -K population projections fall between the General Plan Scenarios A and B. Similarly, the projections based on past trends also fall between Scenarios A and B, although somewhat lower. Since there has been discussion that the Series M -K projections are on the high side, for the purposes of this analysis, population figures based on past trends will be used as a conservative (i.e., low side) basis to project future growth in the KtoK region. The future growth projections used in the KtoK Plan will be used as a "high side" estimate, in the event that State and County policies for the KtoK region continue to emphasize residential development and a proactive role is taken by government and by private entities to implement the plan. These two growth projections provide a conservative and an aggressive development scenario to allow flexibility in the development of the KtoK area. If the KtoK area begins to grow at a much faster pace, but not as fast as anticipated in the original KtoK Plan, then the roadways requirements can be interpolated to accommodate a medium growth pace. A.2 Housing OA.2.1 Past Trends - Housinu The County of Hawaii Data Book, 1992, indicated that the number of residential housing units for the island of Hawaii in 1990 was 48,253 units. Of this total, 9,990 housing units were within the North Kona District. The Kalaoa area, which comprises the KtoK region mauka of Queen Kaahumanu Highway, had 1,685 housing units. Similar to the population distribution, housing units within the North Kona district represented approximately 21 percent of the total housing units for the County of Hawaii. The. Kalaoa sub -district's share of housing units is approximately 17 percent. The breakdown of housing units within each sub -district of North Kona is shown in Table A-5. As indicated in the Table, the vacancy rate within the Kalaoa sub -district is slightly less than the average vacancy rates for the County. The high vacancy rate in the Kahaluu-Keauhou area, especially in the rental units, is assumed to be a result of the resort -related housing units, whereas the Kalaoa area is primarily for Hawaii residents. A-7 TABLE A-5 HOUSING UNITS AND VACANCY RATES - 1990 NORTH KONA DISTRICT Location Housing Units Units Vacant Part- time Units Homeowner Vacancy Rate Rental Vacancy Rate Holualoa 1,926 470 258 2.0 5.8 Honalo 775 105 32 0.6 9.3 Kahaluu-Keauhou 1,507 726 189 3.2 52.7 Kailua 3,739 595 274 1.7 10.4 Kalaoa 1,685 137 27 1.3 9.0 Kealakehe Point 77 8 5 - - NORTH KONA TOTALS 9,709 2,041 785 COUNTY TOTALS 48,253 *6,792 *2,045 (Average) 1.5 (Average) 10.3 SOURCE: County of Hawaii Data Book, 1992, Tables 262 and 263. *Numbers were adjusted to reflect actual totals. Historically, the vacancy rate for rental housing units has been higher than homeowner vacancy rate for the State as well as the County of Hawaii. In 1990, Hawaii County had the highest rental and homeowner vacancy rates of 10.3 percent and 1.5 percent respectively. Maui County had the second highest rental and homeowner vacancy rates of 9.9 and 1.5 respectively. The vacancy rates for the State of Hawaii were 5.4 for rental units and 0.8 for homeowner units. However, these vacancy rates were lower than vacancy rates of 1980. In 1980, the County -wide rental vacancy rate was 14.1 percent and 2.5 percent for homeowner vacancies. Of the 2,041 vacant units in the North Kona district, only 137 units were vacant in the Kalaoa sub -district, which represents approximately 9 percent of the total number of occupied units. O A.2.2 Future Trends - Housing To project the number of units that will be needed in the KtoK region over the next 55 years, a factor of 2.9 persons per unit will be used (see Table A-6). A contingency factor of 9 percent will be added for vacant units and part-time units. The basis of this analysis will be the population projections based on past trends. TABLE A-6 HOUSING UNITS PROJECTION KALAOA SUB -DISTRICT Year Population Occupied Units Vacant Units Total Increase 1990 4,500 1,550 140 1,690 1995 5,600 1,930 170 2,100 410 2000 6,400 2,210 200 2,410 310 2005 7,500 2,590 230 2,820 410 2010 8,600 2,970 270 3,240 420 2015 9,900 3,410 310 3,720 480 2020 11,400 3,930 350 .41280 560 2050 26,900 8,450 830 9,280 5,000 TOTAL 7,590 NOTE: Numbers have been rounded to the nearest 10. As shown in the table above, an additional 7,590 units will be needed to the year 2050. This total number of new units calculates at approximately 80 new units per year to meet the projected population growth in the Kalaoa area. This number of new annual units may be on the conservative (i.e., low) side, since the KtoK region has been targeted as an area for urban expansion. A-9 A.3 Employment O A.3.1 Past Trends - Employment The number of persons that are employed in Hawaii County has continued to increase annually over a ten year period from 1982 to 1992. However, the unemployment rate began to increase in 1992. In 1989 and 1990, the unemployment rate was at its lowest for the ten year period from 1982 to 1992 at 3.8 percent. In 1992, the unemployment rate for Hawaii County increased dramatically to 7.2 percent, compared to the State's unemployment rate of approximately 4 percent. The first six months of 1993 showed a slight decline in the unemployment rate to 7.1 percent (First Hawaiian Bank Economic Indicators, September/October 1993). The distribution of the labor force for the North Kona district in 1990 is shown in Table A-7. The County of Hawaii, in 1990, had an unemployment rate of 4.6 percent. TABLE A-7 CIVILIAN LABOR FORCE STATUS - NORTH KONA 1990 Place *Total Not In Labor b Force Labor F Force Employed Un- employed e p oyed % Un - em 1 p oyed Holualoa 3,022 859 2,163 2,133 30 1.4 Honalo 1,512 485 1,027 991 36 3.5 Kahaluu- Keauhou 1,537 661 871 837 4 3.9 Kailua 6,790 1,915 4,875 4,711 164 3.4 Kalaoa 3,363 806 2,557 2,488 69 2.7 District Total 16,224 4,726 11,493 11,160 333 (Ave)3.0 County Total 88,999 31,870 56,986 54,348 2,638 4.6 SOURCE: County of Hawaii Data Book, 1992, Table 155. * Persons 16 years and over. A-10 O The employment statistics for January 1994 from the State Department of Labor and Industrial Relations indicated that the North Kona district had an unemployment rate of approximately 4.8 percent (see Table A-8). The total number of employed persons increased by over 1,500 and the unemployed increased by 325 persons since 1990. As shown in the Table, the unemployment rate for the North Kona district is relatively low when compared to the County unemployment rate of 7.6 percent. TABLE A-8 EMPLOYMENT STATISTICS, JANUARY 1994 Census Tract Labor Force Employed Unemployed % Unemployed 215.01 (Kalaoa & North) 3,923 3,727 196 5.0 215.02 (Mauka Lands) 1,945 1,890 55 2.8 215.97 (Honalo Area) 17 17 0 0.0 215.98 (Kahaluu/Keauhou) 1,580 1,466 114 7.2 216.00 (Kailua Village) 6,122 5,829 293 4.8 District Total 13,587 12,929 658 4.8 County Total 65,839 60,828 5,011 7.6 SOURCE: State Department of Labor and Industrial Relations, January 1994 statistics. A.3.2 Future Trends - Employment The labor force for the County of Hawaii from 1981 to 1990 has averaged 46.6 percent of the population and the unemployment rate has averaged 6.9 percent. However, past trends have also indicated that the North Kona district has had a significantly lower unemployment rate, as shown in Table A-8 above, even with the depressed economic conditions. Thus, for the purposes of this analysis, an unemployment rate of 7 percent and a labor force of 46.5 percent of the population will be used to project employment demand to the year 2050 for the County of Hawaii (see Table A-9). For the North Kona district, and the Kalaoa sub -district, an unemployment rate of 5 percent and a labor force of 46.5 percent of the population will be used to project employment demands (see Tables A-10 and A-11). O A- I 1 TABLE A-9 EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS - COUNTY OF HAWAII Year Population Labor Force Employed Unemployed 1990 121,500 56,500 52,540 3,960 1995 140,200 65,200 60,640 4,560 2000 161,700 75,190 69,930 5,260 2005 186,600 86,770 80,700 6,070 2010 215,200 100,070 93,070 7,000 2015 248,300 115,460 107,380 8,080 2020 286,400 133,180 123,860 9,320 2050 675,200 313,970 291,990 21,980 Note: Unemployed persons based on a constant unemployment rate of 7 percent. Labor force based on 46.5 percent of the population of the County of Hawaii. TABLE A-10 EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS - NORTH KONA Year Population Labor Force Employed Unemployed 1990 22,300 10,370 9,850 520 1995 26,600 12,370 11,750 620 .2000 30,700 14,280 13,570 710 2005 35,500 16,510 15,680 830 2010 40,900 19,020 18,070 950 2015 47,200 21,950 20,850 1,100 2020 54,500 25,300 24,030 1,270 2050 128,300 59,660 56,680 2,980 Note: Unemployed persons based on a constant unemployment rate of 5 percent. Labor force based on 46.5 percent of the population in the North Kona district. A-12 TABLE A-11 EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS - KALAOA SUB -DISTRICT Year Population Labor Force Employed Unemployed 1990 4,500 2,100 2,000 100 1995 5,600 2,600 2,470 130- 30-2000 2000 6,400 3,000 2,850 150 2005 7,500 3,490 3,320 170 2010 8,600 4,000 3,800 200 2015 9,900 4,600 4,370 230 2020 11,400 5,300 5,030 270 2050 26,900 12,510 11,800 630 Note: Unemployed persons based on a constant unemployment rate of 5 percent..Labor force based on 46.5 percent of the population for the Kalaoa sub -district. OWhen these employment projections are compared to the Hawaii County General Plan, the projections for the year 2005 again fall between Series A and B. The total number of jobs projected in Series A was 63,800 and in Series B, the total number of jobs was projected at 89,000 for the County of Hawaii. A.4 Visitor Industry A.4.1 Past Trends - Tourism According to First Hawaiian Bank's Economic Indicators (FHBEI), September/October 1993, the County of Hawaii experienced a better 1993 than 1992 in the visitor industry. This increase in visitor activity on the Big Island was mainly the result of diverted tourists from Kauai because of Hurricane Iniki. The first six months of 1993 indicated a 4 percent increase in westbound visitor arrivals over the 1992 six-month figures. The island of Oahu, during the same time period, experienced a decline in westbound visitors of -3.7 percent. The number of eastbound visitors to the Big O A-13 Island was even higher with a 11.7 percent increase for the first half of 1993, compared to a O decline in the eastbound Oahu arrivals of -13.6 percent. Some of the Big Island attributes that attract tourists are Kilauea volcano, and the rural character of the island. Time-share resorts at the Kona Coast Resort's 26 -acre property at Keauhou Bay, grossed $30 million in revenues in 1992 and projected revenues were expected to be up by another 50 percent in 1993. According to the FHBEI, Kona Coast Resorts is one of the largest employers in Hawaii County. The accessibility to the Kona coast will be greatly improved with the expansion of the. Keahole Airport runway to 11,000 feet. This expansion will enable direct flights to and from the U.S. midwest and possibly from foreign countries if and when customs and immigration facilities are provided. Table A-12 shows the annual westbound visitors to Hilo and Kona since 1984. As shown in the Table, the Kona area has consistently captured a higher number of visitors than the Hilo area. Since 1986, the number of visitors to Kona has been over two times more than visitors to O Hilo. The number of visitors to the Kona area in 1993 was 2.8 time higher than visitors to Hilo. In addition, it should also be noted that the average length of stay of visitors to the Hilo area has been approximately 3 days compared to 6 days in the Kona area. In 1991, there were approximately 8,500 visitor units on the Big Island. The Kona area accounted for over half of the units with 4,400 visitor accommodations. Approximately 57 percent, or 2;500 units were hotel rooms and approximately 43 percent, or 1,880 units were in condominiums. Occupancy rates have averaged approximately 50 percent for condominiums and 60 percent for hotels. With these occupancy rates, 1,500 hotel rooms and 940 condominiums were assumed to be occupied, for a total of 2,440 units. It is also estimated that about 10 percent of the visitors stay with friends or relatives. The average length of stay has been 5 days for an average party size of about 2 persons. Based on these averages, the daily visitor count on the Big Island in 1991 was 13,400 persons or 6,700 parties. CJ A-14 TABLE A-12 WESTBOUND VISITORS TO HILO AND KONA 1984 to 1993 Year Hawaii County % Change Hilo % Change Kona % Change *Ratio 1984 760,940 463,990 698,940 1.5 1985 697,380 (8.4) 306,160 (34.0) 597,380 (14.5) 2.0 1986 786,930 12.6 297,170 (2.9) 676,770 13.3 2.3 1987 782,550 (0.6) 285,330 (4.0) 674,590 (0.3) 2.4 1988 782,360 (0.1) 263,760 (7.6) 691,570 2.5 2.6 1989 946,540 21.0 303,240 15.0 857,770 24.0 2.8 1990 982,900 3.8 332,070 9.5 8771930 2.4 2.6 1991 975,610 (0.7) 298,530 (10.1) 863,880 (1.6) 2.6 1992 1,142,340 17.1 404,680 35.6 972,720 12.6 2.4 1993** 1,112,400 (2.6) 349,440 (13.7) 967,310 (0.6) 2.8 Ave. Annual 39,000 4.7 -12,700 (1.4) 29,800 4.2 *Ratio of visitors to Kona versus visitors to Hilo. **Preliminary numbers from Hawaii Visitors Bureau. March 1994. A.4.2 Future Trends - Tourism Projections for the visitor industry were calculated using an average annual increase in visitors to the Big Island based on past trends (see Table A-13). Although westbound visitors to Hawaii are expected to decline in 1994, it is assumed that over a long-term period, the average annual increase will be approximately 4 percent. The distribution of westbound visitors that visit Hilo (37.6%) and Kona (87.9%) is based on the average percent distribution of total number of visitors to the County of Hawaii since 1984. A-15 TABLE A-13 WESTBOUND VISITOR PROJECTIONS Year Hawaii County Hilo (37.6%) Kona (87.9%) 1990* 982,900 332,070 877,930 1995 1,285,000 483,200 1,129, 500 2000 1,563,000 587,800 1,374,200 2005 1,902,100 715,200 1,672,000 2010 2,314,200 870,100 2,034,200 2015 2,815,500 1,058,600 2,474,900 2020 3,425,600 1,288,000 3,011,100 2050 11,110,600 4,177,600 9,766,200 *Actual 1990 figures, rounded to nearest ten. Based on the above projections in the number of visitors to the Big Island, Table A-14 identifies the number of hotel and condominium units that would be needed. Since the Kona O area accounted for approximately 50 percent of the units, the future demand for new units assumes that the Kona area will continue to provide approximately 50 percent of the total number of units on the Big Island. It is also assumed that 75 percent of the units will be hotel rooms and the remaining 25 percent will be condominium units. In the Kona area, approximately 60 percent of the units are expected to be hotel rooms and 40 percent condominiums. The projections of visitor accommodations, like the population and employment projections, again fall between the General Plan Series A and B projections, although closer to the conservative Series A projection. Series A projected a total of 11,200 visitor units by 2005 and Series B projected 20,300 units. The "straight line projections" used in this analysis result in very large numbers for Hawaii County by the year 2050 (11+M visitors and 76,000+ hotel/condo units). These numbers are probably unrealistically high. A-16 TABLE A-14 PROJECTED HOTEL ROOMS AND CONDOMINIUMS Year County Totals Kona Totals Total Hotel Rooms Condos Total Hotel Rooms Condos 1990* 8,200 6,380 1,820 4,100 2,560 1,540 1995 8,800 6,600 2,200 4,400 2,640 1,760 2000 10,700 8,030 2,670 5,350 3,210 2,140 2005 13,000 9,750 3,250 6,500 3,900 2,600 2010 15,850 11,900 3,950 7,930 4,760 3,170 2015 19,300 14,480 4,820 9,650 5,790 3,860 2020 23,460 17,600 5,860 11,730 7,040 41690 2050 76,100 57,100 19,000 38,050 22,830 15,220 O*Actual 1990 figures, rounded. A.5 Agriculture A.5.1 Past Trends - Agriculture The closure of the Hamakua Sugar Company and the Hilo Coast Processing Company will result in approximately 30,000 acres of land that will be taken out of sugar production and approximately 1,100 lost jobs. C. Brewer & Co. has proposed a eucalyptus wood chip industry in Hamakua. However, this industry does not have the labor intensity of the sugar industry. Therefore, although new jobs would be created by the wood chip industry, the employment demand will not be as high as the sugar industry. Other agricultural crops, such as coffee and macadamia nuts, have reported rising prices and revenues in 1993, according to the FHBEI. However, because of the weak economy, demand for labor has not been significant. Other crops include fruits, vegetables, and flowers. A-17 . The value of all crop sales for Hawaii County in 1991 was approximately $149 mullion. Of this O total, the sugar industry accounted for nearly $44 million. Flowers and nursery products had over $31.3 million in sales, followed by fruits at $20.6 million, and vegetables and melons at $15.4 million. The value of crop sales for macadamia nuts was not published in the State Data Book 1992. However, by deducting the value of all the other crops from the total crop sales, the macadamia nut crop sales are assumed to be approximately $33 million. Livestock, such as cattle, hogs and pigs, and chicken, also contributes to the Big Island economy. The value of all livestock sales in 1991 was $33.4 million, of which nearly $27 million was in cattle. A.5.2 Future Trends - Agriculture Even with the closing of the sugarcane plantations other diversified agricultural pursuits will continue to grow, although employment demands will not be as high as the sugar industry. Since the KtoK region is not expected to have a high demand for agricultural lands, the future of the agricultural industry is not expected to have a great impact on this area. Tourism is O expected to continue as the primary economic base in the Kona area. A.6 Business/Commercial A.6.1 Past Trends - Business/Commercial A market study was prepared for the Queen Liliuokalani Trust (QLT) in November 1989, to analyze market potential for commercial, office, and light industrial uses. In this study, surveys were conducted to determine the current supply of retail and office space in the North Kona district. The survey concluded that the North Kona district had over 420,000 square feet of retail commercial space and approximately 187,600 square feet of office space. Since then, Costco opened in 1994 with 157,000 square feet. Frame 10 Center has also opened with 72,000 square feet of office space. K -Mart opened at Keahuolu with an additional 125,000 square feet of commercial space. The study also identified 1,113 acres of light industrial parks in the KtoK region. These light industrial areas included the Kona Industrial Subdivision (50 acres), Kaloko Industrial Park O A-18 O (194 acres), Natural Energy Laboratory of Hawaii (322 acres, and Hawaii Ocean Science and Technological Park (547 acres). A.6.2 Future Trends - Business/Commercial The QLT market study calculated the demand for retail, office and industrial space for the North Kona area as shown in Table A-15. The study also projected that the QLT property will capture approximately 960,000 square feet of retail space by year 2020, 487,000 square feet of office space, and 100 acres of industrial use. Absorption of retail and office space beyond the year 2020 was not included in the QLT market study. Since the QLT property will directly affect the KtoK region, Table A-16 shows the projected space requirements that could be accommodated on the QLT property. Since the QLT project represents a significant portion of the KtoK region and is one of the major projects currently underway, the retail and office space requirements within the KtoK region will assume that the projections for the QLT property will satisfy the retail and office space requirements for the planning time period of 20 -years. TABLE A-15 PROJECTED RETAIL AND OFFICE SPACE REQUIREMENTS WEST HAWAII REGION Year *Unmet Retail Demand/Year (Sq. Ft.) ' **Total Demand *Unmet Office Demand/Year (Sq. Ft.) **Total Demand 1990 31,400 879,000 82,900 270,600 1995 118,100 1,147,000 154,000 496,600 2000 3 38, 500 1,485,000 169,200 665,600 2005 400,800 1,886,000 205,800 871,600 2010 420,900 2,307,000 233,200 1,104,600 2015 502,300 2,809,000 254,300 1,358,600 2020 613,300 3,423,000 290,700 1,649,600 Total 2,425,300 1,390,100 SOURCE: Analysis of Market Potentials for Selected Queen Liliuokalani Trust Properties, November 1989. *Excludes existing space and projects planned for completion within specified period. O**Includes existing space and projects targeted for completion within specified period. A-19 A.7 Summary of Regional Growth Trends Table A-18 summarizes the future growth trends for the KtoK region as discussed in earlier sections of this report. TABLE A-18 SUMMARY OF PROJECTED GROWTH Item 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2050 Population: County 121,500 140,200 161,700 186,600 215,200 248,300 286,400 675,200 North Kona 22,300 26,600 30,700 35,500 40,900 47,200 54,400 128,300 Kalaoa 4,500 5,600 6,400 7,500 8,600 9,900 11,400 26,900 Housing Units: Kalaoa Sub -district 1,690 2,100 2,410 2,820 3,240 ! 3,720 4.280 9,280 Employed Persons: County 52,540 60,640 69,930 80,700 93,070 107,380 123,860 291,990 North Kona 9,850 11,750 13,570 15,680 18,070 20,850 24,030 56,680 Kalaoa 2,000 2,470 2,850 3,320 3,800 4,370 5.030 11,800 Westbound Visitors: County 982,900 1,285,000 1,563,000 1,902,100 2.314,200 2,815,500 3,425,600 11,110,600 Hilo 332,070 483,200 587,800 715,200 870,100 1,058,600 1.288,000 4,177,600 Kona 877,930 1,129,500 1,374,200 1,672,000 2,034,200 2,474,900 3.011,100 9,766,200 Visitor Accommodations: County Total 8,200 8,800 10,700 13,000 15,850 19,300 23,460 76,100 Hotels 6,380 6,600 8,030 9.750 11,900 14,480 17,600 57,100 Condos 1,820 2,200 2.670 3,250 3,950 4,820 5,860 19,000 Kona Total 4,100 4,400 5,350 6,500 7,930 9,650 11,730 38,050 Hotels 2,560 2,640 3,210, 3,900 4,760 5,790 7,040 22,800 Condos 1,540 1,760 2,140 2,600 3,170 3,860 4.690 15,220 Retail Commercial: (Sq. Ft.) Kalaoa 135,000 168,000 192,000 225,000 258,000 297,000 342.000 807,000 Acs. 15 19 22 26 30 34 39 93 Office Commercial: (sq. Ft.) Kalaoa 20,700 25,760 29,440 41,400 47,472 54,648 62,928 148,488 Acs. 2 3 3.5 5 5.5 6 7 17 Industrial: (Acres) Kalaoa 1,100 1,150 1,200 1,250 1,300 1,350 1,400 1,400 These projections were used to determine what the land requirements will be to accommodate future growth in the KtoK region. Other assumptions will be used to determine other amenities, such as recreational areas and O public facilities. A-22 SECTION B ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED PROJECTS The Keahole to Kailua Development Plan (KtoK) area has approximately 17,000 acres of which about 14,000 acres are undeveloped land. However, landowners and developers in the KtoK area have plans to develop approximately 11,400 acres of land in the future. These projects are at various stages in the planning process, ranging from schematic conceptual plans to projects under construction. A summary of the planned projects and the acreage being planned as of April, 1994 is provided in Table A-19 and illustrated in Figure A-1. Research on the status of each of the projects was performed mainly by contacting landowners and developers for a brief update on the status of the projects. Where response from or contact with a landowner or developer was not successful, the most current County, State, or other documents were acquired to get some understanding of what was being planned in the KtoK region. The status of the projects as of April, 1994, is shown in Table A-20. O The summary of projects by land use is shown in Table A-21. As indicated in the Table, these projects are planned to provide approximately 20,300 residential units and 2,100 hotel rooms over nearly 4,600 acres. The remaining 6,800 acres are being planned as follows: 1,600 acres of commercial use; 1,400 acres of industrial use; 120 acres of agricultural use; 120 acres of civic facilities; 560 acres of school facilities; 820 acres of parks; 900 acres of golf courses, 120 acres of open space and preserve areas, and 1,200 acres of other uses, such as roads or buffers. It should be understood, of course, that these numbers do not necessarily reflect present or future market realities. A-23 TABLE A-19 PLANNED PROJECTS - AS OF APRIL 1994 Project Acreage Planned Uses Liliuokalani Trust Commercial, Phases 1 and 2 545 Commercial, Industrial. Civic, and Other Public Facilities Liliuokalani Trust Phase 3 212 Business Expansion Dept. of Hawaiian Home Lands (DHHL) 150 Hawaiian Homesteads Sports Complex 100 Sports Complex & Park LaTopua (HFDC, State) 988 Residential, Golf Course, Commercial, Schools Lanihau Partners & Palani Trust 1,325 Residential, Commercial, Industrial, Agricultural Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park 615 Historical Park Y.O. Ltd. 410 Residential, Commercial. Park Kaloko Mauka Lands (Tokyo Green) 740 Residential Kaloko Industrial Park (Tokyo Green) 127 Industrial Kona International Country Club (Tokyo Green) 190 18 -Hole Golf Course Honokohau Light Industrial McLean & Isemoto 99 Light Industrial Kama'aina Eight 70 Commercial and Light Industrial Kohanaiki Resort 560 Hotel, Condo. Residential, Support Housing, Golf Course, Marina Ooma II 314 Hotel, Residential, Office Park, Commercial Golf Course OSP Kalaoa Lands (Kalaoa site was selected for the West Hawaii University) 2,640 Residential, Commercial, Civic, Employment Center, Light Industrial, Parks, Golf Course, University Kona Civic Center 30 Judiciary, Correctional Facility, State Office Bldg., Senior Center & Library NELHA 547 Ocean Water Commercial, Campus Industrial Keahole Airport Expansion 548 Runway Extension and Terminal Expansion Queen Kaahumanu Highway Expansion Highway widening and interchanges Electric Power Generating Station Upgrade existing Generating Station North Kona STP 50 Lands of Kau (Nansay) 1,000 Residential/Agricultural Pu'uhonua Subdivision (Haseko) 125 Residential, Commercial, Park TOTAL 11,385 A-24 A-25 TABLE A-20 STATUS OF PLANNED PROJECTS Project Status - As of April 1994 Liliuokalani Trust Commercial 545 Acres (Phases 1 & 2) received LUC approval 8/91, 212 Acres received "Incremental Reclassification," and 350 acres remained in the Agriculture district. Phase I (3 15 acres) received zoning approval for Office Commercial (CO -10, 114 acres), General Commercial (CG -10, 173 acres), and Open (O, 28 acres) in 7/93. K -Mart is currently under construction and is expected to be completed by 11/94. LaTopus (HFDC, State) Infrastructure Under Construction. Kealakehe Parkway from Queen Kaahwnanu Highway to near the northern property line ofthe project is completed. Phase II ofthe infrastructure, which provides access to the High School site along the "Mid-level Arlerial" road identified in the KtoK Plan is now under construction. The golf course is being designed. Dept. of Hawaiian Home Lands DHHL may be acquiring this parcel to develop Hawaiian Homesteads. A site acquisition study was (DHHL) prepared in February 1994, however, plans have not yet been prepared. Sports Complex Preliminary plans for the LaTopua project shows this area reserved for a sports complex. Lanihau Partners & Palani Trust Conceptual Plans Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Master Plan being reviewed by NPS Head Office, Washington D.C. Park Y.O. Ltd. Zoned; not yet under construction. Kaloko Industrial Park (Tokyo Green) Phase 2 under negotiations for future tenants; Phases 3 & 4 received SLU "Incremental Reclassification" and will be reclassified when Phase 2 is 75% complete. Kona Intn'I Country Club (Tokyo Permits received, but not yet under construction. Green) Kaloko Mauka (Tokyo Green) Property was sold to Tokyo Green and a definitive master plan has not yet been prepared. Currently discussing with the USFWS the possibility ofpreserving a large portion ofthese lands because of endangered plants. Honokohau Light Industrial 1 McLean & Zoning approvals received. Currently designing a portion ofthe "Mid-level Arterial" through the Isemoto McLean property. Kama'aina Eight LUC approval received 4/92. Design drawings are being prepared. Zoning application submitted to County and will be on the Planning Commission agenda in April 1994. Kohanaiki Resort Project is currently in court. Ooma II LUC denied State Land Use "Urban" designation 9/87. Second denial was late 1993. OSP Kalaoa Lands and West Hawaii LUC approved 12/93, but no definitive plans available. However, the Site Selection Study for the West University Hawaii University selected Kalaoa as the site ofthe university. Kona Civic Center (haft EIS for Site Selection Studv Published 1/94. Site selection not made vet. NELHA LUC approved 2/86. Only one major tenant to date. Keahole Airport Expansion Runway extension completed terminal expansion on hold. Queen Kaaltumanu Highway Phase I - Highway Widening out to public soon. Interchanges are not part ofthe Phase I improvements. Expansion Signalization may be proposed at five intersections. Electric Power Generating Station Presently in contested case. North Kona STP Construction ofthe STP is completed. Effluent is currently being disposed in seepage pits in the area of the municipal golf course at Kealakehe (Ia'i opus project). Golf course is currently in the design stage and is expected to be wider construction mid 1995. Lands of Kau (Nanny) Conceptual Plans. 285 acres on the mauka side of the property received tentative subdivision approval for 81 3 -acre lots. An additional 65 acres for 19 3 -acre lots will be submitted to the County soon for subdivision approval. Pu'uhonua Subdivision (Haseko) Received Cowry zoning approval. Phase I has subdivision approval for 24 1/2 -acre lou. NOTE: Status of projects were taken from various sources (i.e., telephone discussions with project coordinator, most current Countv information, State Land Use Decision and Order documents, EISs, Master Plan Reports, and various other reports). A-26 � � A-27 § t 7 ) \\� � / ® § " a � E " _ ) eb] k00 )/¥ < a) E , / a q / ) Q cn \� U a \ 0 k > o 00 0 ? � § w C4 cn ) � ® u CD CD t4It ) § o ) ? / R a A-27 § t 7 ) Many of these projects have begun acquiring approvals for urban development and have prepared O traffic studies to assess impacts from the project on surrounding roadways. Recommendations were also made in the traffic studies to mitigate any impacts that may occur on area roadways. A summary of the traffic studies for each project along with an analysis of whether or not recommendations made in these studies comply with the original KtoK plan is presented below. Discussion of these projects is from south (Kailua Town) to north (Kau ahupuaa): Queen Liliuokalani Trust (QLT) Commercial A traffic study was prepared for the QLT Phase I project of 315 acres. According to the traffic study dated February 26, 1994, the project will create an additional intersection with Queen Kaahumanu Highway just north of the Kaiwi Street intersection that was not identified in the KtoK Plan. However, this intersection is included in the preliminary plans for Phase 1 of the Queen Kaahumanu Highway Expansion project, which may include signalization. A new intersection will also be created with Palani Road. Both of these intersections are proposed to be signalized. The study does recognize that in the future the intersection with Queen Kaahumanu Highway may be replaced with a grade -separated interchange. O The road that intersects with Queen Kaahumanu Highway is called Queen Liliuokalani Boulevard in the traffic study and is presently named Makala Boulevard. This mauka/makai road is proposed to have a 120 -foot right-of-way, which is consistent with the KtoK Plan's definition of "minor arterial" roadways. Villages of LaTopua (HFDC) Some of the major roadways identified in the KtoK Plan have either been constructed or are under construction in the Villages of LaTopua project. Other major regional roadways that pass through the site and major backbone roadways that provide access to the various villages have been preliminarily designed. Kealakehe Parkway, that was identified as one of the major mauka/makai roads, has been partially constructed from Queen Kaahumanu Highway to approximately 4,400 lineal feet mauka into the parcel to Waena Drive. This road has a minimum right-of-way width of 120 feet and will eventually have four travel lanes with storage lanes at intersections. Extension of the roadway to the northern boundary of the Kealakehe ahupuaa is currently being planned by the State Department of Transportation (DOT) O and the Federal Highway Administration (FHA). The KtoK Plan classified this road as a "collector" A-28 O road with an 80 -foot right-of-way. However, in the Hawaii County Long Range Highway Plan, this road was upgraded to a minimum 120 -foot right-of-way. The built portion of the road currently has two travel lanes, one turning and acceleration lane, and one truck climbing lane. The intersection of Kealakehe Parkway and Queen Kaahumanu Highway may be proposed in the highway expansion project as a signalized intersection. A portion of the "Mid -Level Road" has been constructed from the northern boundary of the Kealakehe ahupuaa to the proposed high school site located in the central area of the project for a distance of approximately 1,800 lineal feet. This road has been constructed with two travel lanes and one lane for turning and acceleration. The right-of-way width is 120 feet, which is consistent with the recommendations in the KtoK Plan. Waena Drive from Kealakehe Parkway to the mauka boundary of the high school site (approximately 1,900 lineal feet) has been constructed as part of the La'i'opua infrastructure project. From the high school site, Waena Drive continues to the southern boundary of the Kealakehe ahupuaa as a 20 -foot wide access road. From the end of the Waena Drive access road other 20 -foot wide access roads have Obeen constructed through the mauka areas of the property which eventually tie back to the existing Kealakehe Parkway in the existing Kealakehe subdivision. Waena Drive has an 80 -foot right-of-way with 64 feet of pavement and 8 -foot wide shoulders for sidewalks, signs, and above ground utilities (i.e, fire hydrants, street light poles, and other electrical equipment). The 80 -foot right-of-way for Waena Drive is consistent with the recommendations in the KtoK Plan. Department of Hawaiian Home Lands (DH -HL) A site acquisition study was completed in February 1994 by Townscape, Inc. to analyze the feasibility of acquiring certain State lands on the islands of Hawaii, Oahu and Kauai. Approximately 150 acres were recommended to be acquired in the mauka area of the Keahuolu ahupuaa, formerly owned by Queen Liliuokalani Trust. The decision to acquire the site has not yet been made, although a 150 -acre site is shown in the La'i'opua plans for Hawaiian Homesteads. Therefore, development plans and traffic studies have not been prepared. A-29 Sports Complex Preliminary plans for the LaTopua project also show a 100 -acre parcel reserved for a sports complex. The KtoK Plan suggested that an area of approximately 100 acres be set aside for a regional sports complex. However, a specific site was not shown on the development plan Land Use Map. No known traffic studies have been prepared for this complex. Lanihau Partners/Palani Trust The Honokohau ahupuaa, adjacent to the La'i'opua project, is the area planned for residential, commercial, industrial and agricultural uses by Lanihau Partners and Palani Trust. Due to the conceptual nature of the plans, detailed traffic studies have not yet been prepared. However, close coordination will be required with adjacent landowners to assure that the roadway system through each property maintains similar design standards. Honokohau Light Industrial McLean Honokohau Properties and Isemoto Contracting Company have zoning approval for light O industrial lots, adjacent to the makai side of the La'i'opua project. Traffic studies done for the Isemoto project did not address requirements of the KtoK Plan, since the project was approved prior to the adoption of the plan. However, because of the State's plans for Queen Kaahumanu Highway, the project documents for the Isemoto project implied that future access to the site would be from Kealakehe Parkway that has been partly constructed by HFDC. Currently, access to the site is via a paved quarry road easement. The McLean project also has access to the site from the quarry road easement. According to the traffic study prepared for this project, access to the site in the future will be from Kealakehe Parkway. The mid-level arterial passes through the mauka area of the site, and McLean has proposed to construct that portion of the mid-level arterial through its property. Preliminary plans for this section of the mid- level arterial are currently being prepared. Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park The National Park Service (NPS) has prepared a master plan for the Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park. The master plan is currently being reviewed by Federal agencies in Washington. Detailed traffic studies have not been prepared for this project. However, the NPS has negotiated with A-30 O the State Department of Transportation to allow one access point into the parcel on the southern side of the site. Initially, two access points were permitted off of Queen Kaahumanu Highway. However, since the permitted access points were located in undisturbed areas of the site, the potential impact on archaeological sites of significance would be high. Therefore, the proposed access was located in an area that was already disturbed in order to minimize impacts on archaeological resources. Since Queen Kaahumanu Highway is proposed as a limited access highway by the State Department of Transportation (DOT) and in the KtoK Plan, frontage roads to future grade -separated interchanges should be required in the future. Kaloko Industrial Park Access to Kaloko Industrial Park is off of Hina Lani Drive, one of the major mauka-makai roads identified in the KtoK Plan. Conceptual plans for the expanded Queen Kaahumanu Highway indicate that this intersection with Hina Lani Drive may eventually be a grade -separated interchange. This intersection is currently an at grade channelized intersection and may, be signalized as part of the Phase I Queen Kaahumanu Highway expansion project. O Kona International Country Club Similar to the Kaloko Industrial Park, this golf course will have access off of Hina Lani Drive, which has been designed and constructed, and is identified in the KtoK Plan as a major mauka-makai road. Kaloko Mauka Lands No known traffic studies have been prepared for this project. The land was previously owned by TSA International. However, the land has been sold to Tokyo Green, a Japan -owned corporation, and plans for the development of this parcel have not yet been defined. Access to this project will also be off of Hina Lani Drive. Plans for this site should include the major north -south roads that traverse the site. Tokyo Green is currently discussing with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services (USFWS) the possibility of preserving a large portion of their lands to protect endangered plants. If this area is preserved, Waena Drive may not be allowed to be constructed through this area. A-31 Y.O. Ltd. - Kaloko Subdivision O This subdivision will have access from Hina Lani Drive. Approximately 100 acres of the site received tentative subdivision approval. The remaining 300 acres are planned for single family and multi -family units. Kama'aina Eight A traffic study was prepared by Pacific Planning & Engineering, dated June 1989. The study recommended a fully channelized intersection with Queen Kaahumanu Highway as a short term traffic mitigation measure until such time that Queen Kaahumanu Highway is expanded. The study does recognize that frontage roads will be required along Queen Kaahumanu Highway in the future. The Mid -Level Road does pass through this site. Thus, provisions should be made in the design drawings by the developer of the property to set aside a 120 -foot wide roadway right-of-way. As development occurs along the alignment, the section of the Mid -Level Road within this property should be constructed. O Kohanaiki Resort A traffic report was prepared in September 1990, by M&E Pacific for the proposed Kohanaiki Resort. This report, prepared prior to the adoption of the KtoK Plan, proposed a fully channelized, at grade intersection with Queen Kaahumanu Highway. Since the project is being contested, there is a possibility that the project will be delayed for some time to come and the proposed land uses may also change, in which case, a new traffic study may be required. The new traffic study should address the recommendations in the KtoK roadway plan and the State's plans for the expanded Queen Kaahumanu Highway. Frontage roads to designated access points along Queen Kaahumanu Highway should be required as recommended in the KtoK Plan. Preliminary plans for the upgraded Queen Kaahumanu Highway indicate that a grade -separated interchange may be located in the vicinity of the Kohanaiki and Ooma I1 projects. Ooma II Resort The Traffic Management Consultant prepared a traffic impact analysis report in July 1991. The report O recommended interim traffic mitigation measures to include a channelized intersection with Queen Kaahumanu Highway with eventual signalization when needed. The study does acknowledge that A-32 O when Queen Kaahumanu Highway is upgraded to freeway status, frontage roads and grade separated interchanges according to DOT's plans would be required. DOT's preliminary plans indicate that a grade -separated interchange may be proposed in the vicinity of the Kohanaiki and Ooma II projects. However, construction of the grade -separated interchanges are not part of the Phase I upgrades to Queen Kaahumanu Highway. NELHA The NELHA project, as part of the State Land Use Petition approved in February 1990, proposed to construct acceleration and deceleration lanes along Queen Kaahumanu Highway at the intersection with the existing access road to mitigate traffic impacts. These improvement's to the intersection have since been constructed. A subsequent traffic study was prepared in June 1992, by Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc., as part of a land exchange between the State and the adjacent Ooma II project. The study indicated that the future access to the NELHA project would be via frontage roads and is thus consistent with the KtoK Plan, OOSP Kalaoa Lands A traffic assessment was prepared for this 2,640 -acre project in February 1993, by The Traffic Management Consultant. Because the State did not have a detailed land use plan, the traffic assessment was very general in nature. However, the plan does acknowledge that frontage roads will be needed and access to the site via Queen Kaahumanu Highway will be from grade -separated interchanges. The study also recognized the KtoK plans for two of the north -south roads that would potentially pass through the State lands. Thus, the report recommends that future studies prepared for these lands address County and State plans for traffic circulation within the KtoK region. UH West Hawaii A site selection study was prepared to identify a site for a West Hawaii University. The study was approved in August 1991 and the Kalaoa site was selected as the location of the university by the Board of Regents in September 1991. No traffic reports were prepared for this study. Thus, as part of the State's master plan for the Kalaoa project, traffic studies to address County and State transportation requirements should be undertaken. A-3 3 Pu'uhonua Subdivision A traffic report was prepared for this subdivision for the State Land Use Petition that was approved in February 1990. According to the study, the project was not expected to have an adverse impact on adjacent streets. However, the study did indicate that improvements will be needed in the future at the intersection of Kaimi Nani Drive and Queen Kaahumanu Highway due to other growth in the region. Since the State and County plans were not yet prepared when the study was conducted, the issues of frontage roads and grade -separated interchanges were not addressed. However, the project documents indicated that the developer is willing to pay its fair share of improvements that may be required by the State DOT at the Kaimi Nand intersection with Queen Kaahumanu Highway. As part of the Queen Kaahumanu Highway expansion project, this intersection may be signalized as part of the Phase 1 improvements. Keahole Airport Expansion The "Traffic Assessment" for the Keahole Airport Master Plan, which was prepared prior to the completion of the KtoK Plan, did not address the issue of grade -separated interchanges. Findings in the O traffic study did, however, recognize that there was a need to either widen Queen Kaahumanu Highway to four lanes in the future or to add an additional lane for a minimum of one -nine to allow for passing zones. In addition, traffic signals were recommended by 1994 at the intersection of Queen Kaahumanu Highway and the airport access road, and the airport access road was recommended to be widened to four lanes by the year 2004. To date, signalization has not been provided at the Queen Kaahumanu/Airport Access Road intersection. However, this intersection may be signalized as part of the Phase 1 highway expansion project. This intersection was recommended in the KtoK Plan to have a grade -separated interchange. Conclusions in the traffic study indicate that signalization of the intersection will improve traffic conditions and serve as an interim mitigation measure until such time a grade -separated interchange is needed. Keahole Electrical Power Generating Station As part of the environmental assessment process for the expanded generating station, a Traffic Impact Analysis Report was prepared by The Traffic Management Consultant. The study analyzed access to the site via the existing access on Queen Kaahumanu Highway at the Keahole Airport Access Road, and an alternative access from Kaimi Nani Drive. Both of these intersections are preliminarily part of the Phase 1 highway improvements that are expected to include signalization and channelization. A-34 Lands of Kau Plans for this ahupuaa are still in a conceptual stage of the planning process. Thus, traffic studies have not yet been prepared. However, traffic studies that may be prepared for this project in the future should recognize that "University Drive" has been recommended in the KtoK Plan as a major mauka- makai link. In addition, the three north -south roads identified in the KtoK Plan will also pass through the Kau ahupuaa. Thus, future traffic studies should include these major roadways as part of traffic circulation within and through the project. Kona Civic Center A Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) was published for the Kona Civic Center Site Selection Study on January 24, 1994. As part of the DEIS, a traffic study was prepared by Barton- Aschman Associates, Inc., July 1993. The study did not attempt to incorporate frontage roads and grade -separated interchanges, since the State plans had not yet been determined. When a preferred site has been selected for the Kona Civic Center, a more detailed study that addresses the State and County Oplans should be included in the report. As noted above, some of the projects have incorporated the roadway corridors as identified in the original KtoK Plan in their plans while others have not. This report thus provides the guidelines for development of roadway projects within this region. A-35 SECTION C LAND USE PROJECTED PHASING The projections established in this study and the status of proposed projects within this region were used to prepare a schematic phasing plan for future growth. Projects that had most of their approvals in place were allocated the projected land uses first, however, the uses were phased over the fifty-five year planning horizon to allow other projects to begin to absorb the market demand. Phasing of the various land uses by five-year intervals is shown on Figure A-2 and in Table A-22. The split between the single family and multi -family units was based on past trends. Thus, 21 percent of the units was allocated to multi -family units. The average density for the single family units is approximately 4 units per acre and the multi -family units' density is 10 units per acre. Visitor units were based on the schedules provided in the Kohanaiki Resort project, which assumed that 50 percent of the units planned were condominium units. By the year 2010, it is projected that the Kohanaiki Resort project will be built out. Because the Land Use Commission rejected the Ooma II resort project, it was assumed that it will take a long time to implement a project on this site. Thus, O other than the golf course, no other uses have been shown for Ooma II on the projected phasing map. The distribution of employment types was based on the County of Hawaii Long Range Highway Plan (HLRHP). Retail employment accounts for approximately 40 percent of the jobs, FIRES/Government accounts for 38 percent of the jobs and manufacturing/WTCU accounts for 22 percent of the jobs. Department of Education (DOE) standards were used to determine the number of schools needed. Elementary schools are based on 25 students for every 100 housing units. The average student population is 750 students and the lot size is 12 acres, which includes a 4 -acre park. By the year 2050, three new elementary schools will be needed. A-36 A-37 Intermediate schools are based on 6 students per 100 housing units with an average student population O of 900 students. The standard lot size of intermediate schools is 18 acres. Based on DOE standards one intermediate school will be needed by the year 2050. One high school will be needed by the year 2050, based on 10 students for every 100 units with an average student population of 1,500 students. The standard lot size for a high school is 50 acres. This high school is expected to be under construction soon as part of the Villages of La'i'opua project by HFDC. Parks were also factored into the plan based on the area's population. Mini parks, neighborhood parks, community parks and district parks are shown in Table A-22. Parks requirements were based on the following criteria: • A 2 -acre mire park for every 1,000 people • A 6 -acre neighborhood park for every 5,000 people • A 10 -acre community park for every 10,000 people • A 20 -acre district park for every 25,000 people By the year 2050, 27 mini parks, 5 neighborhood parks, 3 community parks and one district park will be needed. The total acreage required for these parks would be 134 acres by 2050. Other recreational facilities that are planned to be developed in this region include a 615 -acre National Historical Park, five golf courses totalling 900 acres, and a 100 -acre regional sports complex. Retail commercial space assumes a demand of 30 square feet of gross leasable space per resident and the office commercial space assumes a demand for 4.6 square feet of gross leasable space per resident. It was also assumed that 20 percent of a site would be attributable to gross leasable space. An additional demand of 20 percent of office space was added from the year 2005, because of the development of the civic center. It was assumed that the area would attract office demand from outside of the study area, because businesses would want to locate near the civic center. The civic center is currently planned as a 50 -acre complex. This plan assumes that 10 acres will be built by the year 2005 and increase by 10 acres every 10 years. Therefore, by year 2045, the civic center is expected to be built out. O A-3 8 Because of the relatively steep terrain at Honokohau, larger residential/agricultural lots are expected to be constructed in the mauka areas of Honokohau. Thus, for this study we have assumed 50, 1/2 -acre lots covering an area of approximately 300 acres. Based on projections in the KtoK Plan and the Market Study for QLT, industrial uses are expected to increase by about 10 acres each year. By the year 2050, an additional 300 acres of industrial use are expected to be required. Table A-22 shows acreage requirements in five-year intervals to allow flexibility in the development of roadways. For example, if by year 2015, growth reflects 2010 conditions, then. roadway requirements for year 2010 would apply. Conversely, if by 2015, 2020 conditions are reflected, then 2020 roadway requirements would be needed. Table A-23 shows the allocation of land uses by project name for the three planning periods of 2005, 2020, and 2050. This Table can be used to monitor the development of each of the projects and Opotential future projects that may be proposed in the area. Adjustments can be made to this table to reflect actual conditions, which can then be compared with the projected conditions. The Land Use Projected Phasing was developed based on the projections made in this study and the assumptions listed above. The Projected Phasing was reviewed by the traffic consultant, Traffic Management Consultants, who then identified roadway requirements needed for the three planning periods and traffic volumes at various points along the area roadways, which is presented in Section 2. The 'Build -out" Land Use Plan is shown in Figure A-3. This plan shows a slight variation of the Land Use Plan that was in the original KtoK Plan. The plan has been revised to reflect the proposed projects in the area as of April 1994. A-39 TABLE A-22 PROJECTIONS - 2000 TO 2050 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2050 Population: Kalaoa 6,400 7,500 8,600 9.900 11,400 26,900 t Residential: Single Family 1,860 2,180 2,510 2,920 3,330 7,280 Multi -Family 500 590 680 780 900 1,950 ResidentiaUAg 50 50 50 50 50 50 TOTAL UNITS 2,410 2,820 3,240 3,720 4,280 9,280 TOTAL ACRES 640 720 820 930 1,050 2,120 1 Visitor Units: Hotel Rooms 400 800 1,200 1,300 1,300 Condo Units 200 400 600 800 800 TOTAL UNITS 600 1,200 1,800 2,100 2,100 ACRES 40 80 120 140 140 ' Employment: Retail 1,140 1,330 1,520 1,750 2,010 5,000 FIRES/Govt. 1,080 1,260 1,440 1,660 1,910 4,750 Mfg/WTCU 630 730 840 960 1,110 2,750 TOTAL JOBS 2,850 3,320 3,800 4,370 5,030 12,500 °Schools: Elem. Students (1)600 (1)700 (1)810 (1)930 (2)1,070 (3)2,320 Intermediate 145 170 195 (1) 225 (1) 255 (1) 560 High School (1)240 (1)280 (1)325 (1)375 (1)430 (1)930 *University (1) 1,380 (1) 1,590 (1) 1,840 (1) 2,120 (1) 5,000 TOTAL STUDENTS 985 2,530 2,920 3,370 3,875 8,810 NUMBER OF JOBS 100 250 290 340 390 880 TOTAL SCHOOL ACREAGE 62 112 112 130 142 204 Parks,Recreation: Mini (2 acs./1,000 people) 6 7 8 10 11 27 Neighborhood (6 acs./5,000 people 1 1 1 2 2 5 Community (10 acs./ 10,000 people) I 1 3 District (20 acs./25,000 people) 1 Subtotal Acres 18 20 22 42 44 134 Nad. Historic Park 615 615 615 615 615 615 Golf Courses 385 565 565 765 765 900 Sports Complex 100 100 100 100 TOTAL ACREAGE 1,018 1,195 1,415 1,657 1,659 1,749 S Commercial Space: Square Feet 192.000 225,000 258,000 297,000 342,000 807,000 ACRES 22 26 30 34 39 93 6 Office Space: Square Feet 29,440 41,400 47,470 54,650 62,930 148,500 ACRES 3.5 5 5.5 6 7 17 ' Civic Facilities: Square Feet 87,120 87,120 174,240 174,240 435,600 ACRES 10 10 20 20 50 s Industrial: ACRES 1,200 1,250 1,300 1,350 1,400 1,600 GRAND TOTAL ACREAGE 2,945 3,359 3,772 4,247 4,337 5,971 GRAND TOTAL EMPLOYMENT 2,950 3,570 4,090 4,710 5,420 13,380 Based on 2.9 persons per units. Multi -family units account for 21 percent ofthe total number of housing units. = Based on absorption rates provided in the project documents for Ooma and Kohanaiki and assumes that initial phases will be completed by year 2005. ' Based on 46.5 percent ofthe population in the work force and 5 percent ofthe work force is unemployed. Numbers in parenthesis indicate the number of schools needed. Student population and size of school based on DOE standards as follows: 1. Elementary Schools: 25 students/100 units; average 750 studentsischool; maximum lot size of 12 acres (includes a park). 2. Intermediate School: 6 students/100 units; average 900 students/school; minimum lot size of 18 acres. 3. High School: 10 students/100 units; average 1,500 students/schooh minimum lot size of 50 acres. • The planning period for the West Hawaii University is approximately 100 years from the date of opening. Detailed plans have not yet been established. However, for the purposes of this table, the University is assumed to open with 50 acres in year 2005 and remain at 50 acres to the planning period 2020 and increase to 100 acres by the year 2050. The student population is based on 2 percent of die resident population for the souther side ofthe Island. The ultimate size of the University campus is 500 acres. ' Based on an average of 30 square feet of conunercial space per resident and assumes that 20 percent ofthe site will be the gross leasable space. 6 Based on 4.6 square foot per resident. An additional demand of 20 percent office space has been added in the year 2005 and beyond because of the _ development ofthe civic center that would attract office space users to locate near the civic center. O ' Assumes that the first phase ofthe Civic Center will be completed by year 2005 and will be expanded by an additional 10 acres every 10 years. s Based on projections made in the original KtoK Plan dated Novenmbcr 1990 of approximately 50 acres every five years. A-40 TABLE A-23 OPROPOSED PROJECTS PHASING SCHEDULE rt n TMRFR S ARF. Ci IMUI .ATI VEl Land Use & Project Existing 2005 2020 !F 2050 Acres Units Acres Units I Acres Units Acres Units Residential 1,510 Kealakehe 800 1500 1 3190 Lanihau/Palani 50 150 550 y p 150 400 1500 TSA 50 150 500 Puuhonua Subd. 60 120 480 OSP Kalaoa EE100 500 Kau (Nansa) 150 300 1000 Total Residential330 1260 2720 7720 Total w/Existin ' 2770 4230 4,400 9230 Agriculture: Lanihau/Palani 120 50 120 50 120 50 Total Residential and A 2820 4280 9280 Resort: 0 Kohanaiki 40 600 140 2,1001 140 2100 Schools: Kealakehe Elem 12 12 12 Kalaoa Elem 12 12 Kaloko Elcm 12 Kealakchc Intermediate 18 18 Kealakehe HS 50 50 50 Kalaoa University 50 50 100 Total Schoob 112 142 204 Recreation: Kealakehe GC 195 195 195 Kona Intl GC 1901 190 190 Kohanniki GC 180 180 180 Ooma GC 135 Kalaoa GC 200 200 ad Historic Park 615 615 615 Sport Complex 100 100 Mini Parks 14 22 I 54 Neighborhood Parks 6 12 30 Communitv Parks 10 30 District Parks 20 Total Recreatior 1200 1524 1749 Commercial: LT & Kealakehe 26 39 93 Office Space: LT 5 7 17 Civic Center 10 20 50 Industrial: NEW 320 320 320 320 HOST Park 50 120 180 Kcahole Airport 640 640 6401 640 LT Makai 20 40 Kamaina Eight 30 40 50 McLcan/Isemoto 30 40 50 _ Kaloko Ind. Park 100 130 150 230 LanihawPalani 20 40 Kona STP 50 50 50 50 Total Industrial 1110 1250 1400 1600 W.Q11 A-42 APPENDIX B BOTANICAL RESOURCES STUDY 9 BOTANICAL RESOURCES STUDY KEAHOLE TO KAILUA DEVELOPMENT PLAN UPDATE OF ROADWAY CORRIDORS NORTH KONA DISTRICT, ISLAND OF HAWAII 10 Winona P. Char CHAR & ASSOCIATES Botanical Consultants Honolulu, Hawai'i Prepared for: TOWNSCAPE, INC. September 1995 BOTANICAL RESOURCES STUDY KEAHOLE TO KAILUA DEVELOPMENT PLAN UPDATE OF ROADWAY CORRIDORS NORTH KONA DISTRICT, ISLAND OF HAWAII INTRODUCTION An updated roadway plan to more accurately identify major roadway corridors in the Keahole to Kailua region, North Kona District, is being prepared for the County of Hawai'i. The plan will be a supplement to the Keahole to Kailua Development Plan that was prepared in November 1990 and approved by County resolution. O Since 1990, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has listed a number of plants as endangered, some of them within the Keahole to Kailua region. The updated plan requires the identification of known botanical resources in the study area. If a portion of the proposed alignment significantly affects these resources, the roadway align- ment may change or more detailed studies will be required in the future. The study area is located from Kau ahupua'a to Palani Road, and between Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway and Mamalahoa Highway. The primary objective of this literature search is to identify and map known or possible areas of botanical resources. These resources are listed, proposed, or candidate threatened and endangered species, and areas with remnant native lowland dry forests and shrublands. The methods include a review of the lite- rature pertinent to the study area and informal interviews with other botanists familiar with the botanical resources of the area. The principal investigator has conducted a number of surveys O g ys within the study area and has also prepared several reports for these surveys, some of them yet in draft form. DESCRIPTION OF THE VEGETATION The plant names used in the following discussion follow the most recent treatment of the Hawaiian flora by Wagner et al. (1990). The distribution of the vegetation types within the study area is influenced largely by environmental factors such as substrate type and rainfall gradient (Char 1992). Annual rainfall along the lower portions of the site is about 20 inches, increasing upslope to about 50 inches below Mamalahoa Highway. In general, the substrates below the 800 -foot contour are pahoehoe and 'a'a lava flows with very little, if any, soil development (Sato et al. 1973). O The pahoehoe flows support an open grassland dominated by fountain grass (Pennisetum setaceum) with scattered trees of kiawe (Prosopis pallida) and koa-haole (Leucaena leucocephala) thickets. The vegetation tends to be sparser along the lower elevations of the study site, but begins to increase in cover further upslope due to the increasing amount of rainfall. Woody components, including some native species, also become more numerous further upslope. The 'a'a flows along the lower portion of the site, usually below 200 feet elevation, support sparse vegetation. From about 200 feet to 800 feet elevation, the 'a'a flows in most instances are dominated by native lowland dry forests and shrublands, or a mixed native and introduced plant community. Native species which are common to abundant on these flows include 'ohi'a (Metrosideros polymorpha), lama (Diospyros sandwicensis), mamane (Sophora chrysophylla), alahe'e (Canthium odoratum), a'ali'i (Dodonaea viscosa), 'ohe (Reynolsia sandwicensis), and naio (Myoporum O 2 sandwicense). Several listed, proposed, and high priority candidate endangered species are associated with these dry forests and shrublands, especially on the Kaloko and Kealakehe flows. The 'a'a flows support these native dominated communities because the jagged substrate tends to discourage grazing animals, and most of the introduced or alien weedy species are not well -adapted to the harsher growing conditions on this type of substrate. At about 800 feet elevation there is a shift in rainfall gradient and also more soil development. The substrates on this portion of the study area are composed of soils of the Punalu'u series, "rPYD" on the soil maps, and Kaimu series, "rKED" on the soil maps (Sato et al. 1973). The Punalu'u soils consist of well -drained, thin organic soils over pahoehoe lava bedrock. The Kaimu soils consist of well -drained, thin organic soils over 'a'a lava. The vegetation on this part of the study area is usually dense, Oconsisting primarily of introduced trees and shrubs such as Christmas berry (Schinus terebinthifolius), silk oak (Grevillea robusta), koa-haole, and guava (Psidium guajava). In many places, the Christmas berry will form dense, almost monodominant, thickets, 12 to 18 feet tall. Fountain grass is abundant where the woody cover is more open. Recently disturbed areas support scrub vege- tation composed mostly of dense mats of molasses grass (Melinis minutiflora) and comb hyptis shrubs (Hyptis pectinata). Native components occur as scattered remnant pockets on areas where there is little soil and the 'a'a is exposed. ENDANGERED SPECIES AND THEIR DISTRIBUTION ON THE STUDY AREA Five listed endangered species, two proposed species, one candidate 1 endangered species, and two candidate 2 endangered species (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1994a, 1994b) have been recorded from the study area. 3 Listed endangered species are protected by the U.S. Endangered O Species Act of 1973, as amended, and by Hawai'i State law HRS 195-D, which protects all Federal and State listed plants on all lands within the State. The listing packet for the two proposed plants is currently under review by the Washington D.C. office of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (S. Miller, pers. comm., USFWS). All proposed plants should be treated as if already listed and protected. Candidate 1 plants are high priority plants for which the USFWS has on file enough substantial information on biological vulnerability and threats to support proposals to list them as endangered or threatened. Candidate 2 plants are taxa for which there is some evidence of vulnerability, but for which there are not enough data to support listing proposals; more biological research and field studies are needed. A brief description of the plants and their distribution on the study area (Table 1 and Figure 1) follows. O Listed Plants Caesalpinia kavaiensis, uhiuhi: The uhiuhi, a member of the legume or pea family, is a large shrub to medium-sized tree up to 30 feet tall, with dark, heavy wood which was used by the Hawaiians to make spears, 'o'o (digging sticks), and fishing implements. The leaves are twice divided into smaller, pale bluish -green leaflets. The flowers are borne in cone-shaped clusters at branch tips; each flower 1.25 inches long, pinkish -purple to dark red. The uhiuhi was listed in July 1986 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1986) under its old name, Mezoneuron kavaiense. Some 20+ uhiuhi plants are found on the Kealakehe 'a'a flow from about 200 to 600 feet elevation (Belt Collins & Associates 1990; Char 1989; Funk 1993). Two plants occur on an extension of this same flow on the Honokohau site, just above 400 feet elevation near the Kealakehe Parkway Extension (Char 1991, 1993, 1994). O 4 One uhiuhi plant was recently found on a small parcel mauka of the Kaloko Industrial Park (M. Bruegmann, pers. comm., USFWS). Linney and Char (1988) found one plant on the Pu'u Honua Estates subdivision, Kalaloa 5, during a botanical survey for the deve- lopment. The plant was found at about the 780 -foot contour, south of Kaimi Nani Drive. Isodendrion pyrifolium, aupaka: The aupaka, a woody member of the violet family, was presumed to be extinct until its recent rediscovery on Hawai'i at Kealakehe in 1991 (U.S. Fish and Wild- life Service 1994a). It is a shrub, 2.6 to 6.6 ft. tall, with small, fragrant flowers, greenish -yellow in color. On Kealakehe ahupua'a, some 60 to 70 plants are found on the State's Villages of La'i 'Opua residential development and golf course which are located on the large 'a'a flow which dominates Othe site (Funk 1993; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1994a). Much of this 'a'a flow supports a shrubland composed of native and introduced shrubs with scattered trees. Mariscus fauriei (no common name): This perennial member of the sedge family forms small clumps, 4 to 20 inches tall. Stems are three -angled with leaves as long as or shorter than the stem. Flower clusters are arranged in 3 to 10 spikes. One plant was recently observed on the Kaloko 'a'a flow (L. Mehrhoff, pers. comm., USFWS). Nothocestrum breviflorum, 'aiea: The 'aiea, a member of the tomato family, is a stout tree (10 to 30 feet tall) with grayish - white bark. The thickish, almost succulent leaves, are clustered towards the ends of the branches. Flowers are numerous, short - staked, pale greenish -yellow, and fragrant. Ripe fruits are Oreddish -orange berries with many wrinkled, brown seeds. 5 One plant occurs on the 'a'a flow at Kealakehe, Villages of La'i O 'Opua (Funk 1993). At least four plants have been observed on the Kaloko flow (Char 1991, 1994, in prep.). One declining specimen was observed on an 'a'a lava flow at about 480 feet elevation on Hamanamana ahupua'a (Char 1992). And one 'aiea tree was found in the interface between fountain grass grassland and mixed shrubland, at about 480 feet elevation, on Kau ahupua'a (Char 1990a). Pritchardia affinis, loulu: The endemic loulu palm is a small to medium-sized tree, 30 to 80+ feet tall, with fan -shaped leaves. The undersides of the leaves have a pale white to pinkish soft wool covering. The stout flower clusters are located among the leaves and later bear spherical fruit about 0.9 inches in diameter, which turn black upon maturity. Two loulu are located along Mamalahoa Highway and will be impacted by the Kealakehe Parkway Extension (Char 1995). Proposed Plants Neraudia ovata, ma'oloa: This member of the nettle family is a scandent to sprawling shrub with grayish -green colored, slightly pubescent leaves. The plants are dioecious, that is, some plants bear only male (staminate) flowers, while other plants have only female (pistillate) flowers. The wind -pollinated flowers are rather small and inconspicuous. The fruits are small, about a quarter of an inch long, and reddish -orange when mature. About six plants have been observed on the Kaloko flow (Char 1991, 1994; L. Mehrhoff, pers. comm., USFWS). Pleomele hawaiiensis, hala pepe: The hala pepe, a member of the agave family, is usually a small tree, 15 to 20 feet tall, but may reach 30 to 40 feet tall in some parts of South Kona. It has a straight trunk and is freely branching. The branches, densely ringed with leaf scars, are erect and stiff with long, slender, tapering leaves. O .0 The golden yellow to cream -colored flowers are arranged in long drooping panicles. Fruits are numerous, globose, and turn bright red to orange when mature. One rather sickly plant was found just makai of the mid-level road on the Villages of La'i 'Opua site (Char 1989). The Kaloko flow has at least two dozen hala pepe plants of all size classes. One hala pepe plant was found along the proposed Kau waterline at about 450 feet elevation (Char 1990a), and several dozen plants of all size classes have been reported further mauka between 600 and 800 feet elevation on a proposed residential development (L. Mehrhoff and M. Bruegmann, pers. comm., USFWS; B. Pang, pers. comm., U.H. Botany Department). Candidate 1 Plants O Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla, ko oko olau: This member of the daisy or sunflower family is an erect, much -branched, perennial herb, from 2 to 7 feet tall. Large, dense clusters of yellow daisy -like flowers are borne at the ends of branches. This species occurs across all of the study area in a wide band between about 300 feet elevation and 1,000 feet elevation (Char 1990b). The largest numbers of plants are found on 'a'a subtrates. Smaller, scattered clumps of plants can be occasionally found on pahoehoe subtrates. Candidate 2 Plants Capparis sandwichiana, pua pilo or maiapilo: This member of the caper family is•a decumbent, much -branched shrub with large, O fragrant, white flowers. Flowers are orange at maturity and resemble a small cucumber. 7 O The pua pilo is found throughout the study area, primarily along the lower section up to about 500 feet elevation. Fimbristylis hawaiiensis (no common name): This diminutive sedge forms slender, wiry tufts 2 to 6 inches tall. The leaf sheath is a dull reddish yellow. The inflorescences terminate in a single spikelet. This plant has been recorded from weathered pahoehoe lava on the Keahuolu ahupua'a and was recently observed on the Kaloko flow (L. Mehrhoff, pers. comm., USFWS). DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS Five listed endangered species (uhiuhi, aupaka, Mariscus, 'aiea, and loulu); two proposed endangered species (ma'oloa, hala pepe); one candidate 1 species (ko'oko'olau); and two candidate 2 species O (pua pilo, Fimbristylis) are known from the study area. Of these, the first three categories are of importance. Listed species are protected by Federal and State endangered species laws. Proposed species are undergoing the listing process and should be regarded as already listed. Candidate 1 plants are expected to be proposed for listing in the near future and, as such, should be considered in the planning process. Candidate 2 plants are low priority and are not yet in danger of extinction or threatened. The areas most likely to harbor endangered species and remnant native dry forests and shrublands are the 'a'a lava flows, particularly those between 200 and 800 feet elevation. There are three such sensitive areas within the study site. The first is the Kealakehe flow on which a portion of the State's Villages of La'i 'Opua is situated. Due to the presence of these endangered plants, the development plans, especially the roadways and high school site, have been modified a number of times. Several plant O preserves have been established in areas with high concentrations of endangered plants and remnant dry shrublands. A long-term management plan for these preserves has been prepared. The second sensitive area is the Kaloko flow which supports a high quality dry forest and several endangered species. Both Lanihau Partners. L.P., which owns a small portion of the flow, and Tokyo Green, Inc., which owns the majority of the flow, have recently approached the USFWS about establishing a plant preserve or sanctuary on that part of the flow with high quality native dry forest. The third sensitive area covers the Kau to Hamanamana ahupua'as. Only limited surveys have been conducted in this area, and there is a good chance of finding more endangered plants. OThe botanical resources within the study area would be impacted most by the proposed Waena Drive alignment. This alignment crosses the high quality dry forest on the Kaloko flow and may also impact sensitive areas on the Kau and Hamanamana ahupua'as. The Kealaka'a Drive and.Mid-level Arterial alignments may affect some endangered species. More detailed field surveys need to be conducted for each of the roadway corridors when they are approved. If endangered species or high quality dry forests and shrublands are found, then the roadway alignment will need to be changed. The USFWS and the State's Department of Land and Natural Resources should also be consulted, beginning as early as the planning phase. 9 LITERATURE CITED O Belt Collins & Associates. 1990. Kealakehe Planned Community, Kealakehe, North Kona, Hawaii. Final Environmental Impact Statement. Prepared for State of Hawaii, Housing Finance and Development Corporation. September 1990. Char, W.P. 1989. Botanical survey, Kealakehe Planned Community, North Kona, Hawai'i. Prepared for Belt Collins & Associates. November 1989. . 1990a. Botanical survey, Kau ahupua'a waterline/ roadway corridor, North Kona, Island of Hawaii. Prepared for Helber Hastert & Kimura. March 1990. . 1990b. Botanical assessment, 'O'oma 2 wellfield site, North Kona, Hawai'i. Prepared for Helber Hastert & Kimura. May 1990. O . 1991. Draft report, Botanical survey, Honokohau 1 & 2, North Kona District, Island of Hawai'i. Prepared for Lanihau Partners L.P. December 1991. 1992. Botanical survey, West Hawai'i boundary review, Kailua to Keahole region, North Kona, Hawai'i. Prepared for Helber Hastert & Fee. September 1992. . 1993. Botanical survey, Kealakehe Parkway Extension, Alternatives 10 and 11, Kailua-Kona, North Kona District, Island of Hawai'i. Prepared for Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc. October 1993. . 1994. Biological assessment, Kealakehe Parkway Extension. Prepared for Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc. and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. November 1994. O 10 . 1995. Report on the endangered loulu palms (Pritchardia affinis) found within the Palani Road corridor. Letter report prepared for Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc. April 1995. . In prep. Environmental assessment study, Botanical (flora) resources, Kaloko Mauka (736 acres), North Kona District, Island of Hawai'i. Cuddihy, L.W. and C.P. Stone. 1990. Alteration of native Hawaiian vegetation: Effects of humans, their activities and introductions. University of Hawai'i Cooperative National Park Resources Studies Unit, University of Hawai'i Press, Honolulu. Funk, E.J. 1993. Botanical search report - Villages of La'i 0 'Opua at Kealakehe, North Kona, Island of Hawaii, Hawaii. 1992-1993. Prepared for State of Hawaii, Housing Finance and Development Corporation. Gagne, W.C. and L.W. Cuddihy. 1990. Vegetation. pp. 45-114. In: Wagner et al. (eds.), Manual of the flowering plants of Hawai'i, vol. 1. University of Hawai'i and B.P. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu. Linney, G.K. and W.P. Char. 1988. Botanical survey, Pu'uhonua Estates Subdivision project, District of North Kona, Hawai'i. Prepared for Sidney Fuke & Associates. December 1988. Sato, H.H., W. Ikeda, R. Paeth, R. Smythe, and M. Takehiro, Jr. 1973. Soil survey of the island of Hawaii, State of Hawaii. Soil Conservation Service, Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. 11 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1986. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; Determination of endangered status for Mezoneuron kavaiense (Uhiuhi). Federal Register 51(130): 24672-24675. 1994a. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; Determination of endangered or threatened status for 21 plants from the island of Hawaii, State of Hawaii. Federal Register 59(43): 10305-10325. 1994b. Plants, Hawaiian Islands, Listed, proposed candidate species under the U.S. Endangered Species Act, Updated: December 15, 1994. Unpublished list. Pacific Islands Office, Honolulu. Wagner, W.L., D.R. Herbst, and S.H. Sohmer. 1990. Manual of the flowering plants of Hawai'i. 2 vols. University of Hawai'i O Press and B.P. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu. B.P. Bishop Museum Special Publication No. 83. 12 TABLE 1. Summary list of endangered species (listed, proposed, candidate) found on the Keahole to Kailua study area, North Kona District, island of Hawaii. Species name Ahupua'a Listed Plants (5 taxa) Caesalpinia kavaiensis Kealakehe -- Villages of La'i 'Opua (uhiuhi) Honokohau -- near Kealakehe Parkway Extension Kaloko -- above industrial park Kalaoa 5 -- Pu'u Honua Estates subdivision Isodendrion pyrifolium (aupaka) Mariscus fauriei Nothocestrum breviflorum ('aiea) Pritchardia affinis (loulu) Proposed Plants (2 taxa) Neraudia ovata (ma'oloa) Kealakehe -- Villages of La'i 'Opua Kaloko -- Kaloko 'a'a flow Kealakehe -- Villages of La'i 'Opus Kaloko -- Kaloko 'a'a flow Hamanamana -- 'a'a flow Kau -- 'a'a flow/grassland Honokohau -- along Mamalahoa Highway Kaloko -- Kaloko 'a'a flow Pleomele hawaiiensis Kealakehe -- Villages of La'i 'Opua (hala pepe) Honokohau -- extension of Kaloko 'a'a flow Kaloko -- Kaloko 'a'a flow Kau -- 'a'a flow Candidate 1 Plants (1 taxon) Bidens micrantha ssp. ctenophylla (ko'oko'olau) Candidate 2 Plants (2 taxa) Capparis sandwichiana (pua pilo, maiapilo) Eimbristylis hawaiiensis All of the study area All of the study area Keahuolu Kaloko FIGURE 1. Distribution of endangered plant species (listed, proposed, candidate) on the Keahole to Kailua study area, North Kona District, island of Hawai'i. Note: Bidens and Capparis plants are wide- spread throughout the study area and not all locations have been mapped. APPENDIX C ANARCMEOL OGICAL CHARACTERIZATION OF THE KEAHOLE TO KAIL UA DE VEL OPMENT PLAN UPDA TE OF ROAD WAY CORRIDORS r; AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL CHARACTERIZATION OF THE KEAHOLE TO KAILUA DEVELOPMENT PLAN UPDATE OF ROADWAY CORRIDORS PROJECT AREA Within the Ahupua`a of Kau, Maka`ula, Haleohiu, Hamanamana, Kalaoa, Kalaoa-`O`oma, `O`oma 2, Kohanaiki, Kaloko, Honokohau, Kealakehe, Keahuolu Kekaha, North Kona District, Hawaii Island DRAFT by Cultural Surveys Hawaii, Inc. Prepared for TOWNSCAPE, INC. Cultural Surveys Hawaii September 1995 TABLE OF CONTENTS O LIST OF FIGURES.................................................... LIST OF TABLES..................................................... INTRODUCTION.................................................... 1 Project Area Description.......................................... 1 BACKGROUND RESEARCH........................................... 5 A. Historical Studies............................................. 5 Legendary References...................................... 5 Early Historic References.................................... 5 1848-1852 Mahele Data ..................................... 6 Late Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries ............ 8 VI. REFERENCES CITED............................................. 11 i O LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 State of Hawai`i........................................... 2 Figure 2 General Location Map, Hawaii Island .......................... 2 Figure 3 Portion of USGS 7.5 Minute Series Topographic Map of Kailua and Keahole Point Quads, Showing Project Area ..................... 3 Figure 4 Project Map Showing Location of 3 Belts of Archaeological Site Density................................................. 4 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Summary of Zone Model Characteristics ............................ 10 ii INTRODUCTION Project Area Description The project area is within the North Kona District of Hawaii from the ahupua`a of Kau in the north to Keahuolu in the south and from Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway on the west to Mamalahoa Highway in the east (Figures 1-3). The following general scope of work was provided by Townscape, Inc. for when Cultural. Surveys Hawaii conducted the present project: 1. Do a literature search of studies done for the area and provide a map showing known sites or possible areas of archaeological resources. 2. Indicate, if possible, the type of resources that may be encountered (i.e. burials, agricultural fields, house sites, etc.). 3. Prepare a short report (5-10 pages) to document findings. Through follow-up discussions, it was agreed upon that Cultural Surveys Hawaii would provide evidence of previous archaeological research (and depicted on a map, Figure 4). Thus, the focus would not be .on an attempt to depict individual archaeological sites. Additionally, to accompany the map, Cultural Surveys Hawaii will provide a brief background synopsis of the region, Kekaha, within which the project area lies and a table (Table 1) which characterized the environmental cultural zonal pattern of the project area. Volumes of previous research have been written about the region of the project O area which is referred to as "Kekaha" (Kelly 1971). Recent archaeological reports (Henry et al. 1993; Cordy et al. 1991) have provided excellent background summaries detailing settlement patterns of the region and the reader is referred to these two documents, in particular for an in-depth presentation of settlement sequence and characterization. The general on standard settlement model for the Kekaha region, including three environmental/cultural zones of a high site density coastal zone, a very low site density intermediate or barren zone; and a high site density upland zone where intensive agriculture took place. The following background synopsis provides the historical and archaeological framework from which this standard zonal pattern was derived. P Nt'IHAU KAUA I � �C/,Z`,C OAHU MOLOKAI QC A, �q C/A/ � MAUI C LANAI - N KAHO'OLAWE Oce HAWAII MILES 0 50 100 KILOMETERS 0 50 100 Q. PROJECT LOCATION Keahole l Kailu`a N FIGURE 1 State of Howai'i P1 Pq ciF /c i 4'0 y1 A (R iC ^ ��Mauna Kea 3.796 Htl0 41 j� A Mauna Loa + Q /�� ✓ 13.677 It ``4 A A'A ' n ✓ ` ^ 0 10 20 30 MILES • KILOMETERS 1 0 4 w m Q K umuR ah i Ka. Lae FIGURE 2 General Location Map, Hawaii Islanc 2 4 �: �••Q_ �� �� a CLcoca C Z A z W = W W(n Q CL W � CL a 0,- ° o a Q E > o OQca r y fia r ts7 .� Q 0 ZU Y Q W- U. m Q N 4 BACKGROUND RESEARCH O A. Historical Studies The present project area covers the area in between the Mamalahoa highway to the east and the Queen Ka`ahumanu highway to the west. It is bounded to the north by the ahupua`a of Kau and the ahupua`a of Keahuolu to the south. These ahupua`a from south to north include; Keahuolu, Kealakehe, Honokohau 1-2, Kaloko, Kohanaiki, `O`oma 2, Kalaoa-`O`oma (`O`oma 1), Kalaoa 1-4, Hamanamana, Haleohiu, Maka`ula, and Kau. Because a considerable amount of background research and previous archaeological studies have been conducted within the subject ahupua`a, the background study for this project will focus on presenting a summary of these previous studies with an emphasis on identifying land use and settlement patterns for the project area. Legendary References The project area is located within the Kekaha region of North Kona District. Based on a recent translation of the "Legend of Ka-Miki" by Kepa Maly (cited in Henry et al. 1993) the region or `okana of Kekaha extends from Keahuolu northward to the Kona-Kohala boundary. The Kekaha region is also called Kekaha wai`ole, or "waterless place", a name which reflects its dry and barren appearance. Despite its desolate appearance, legends and other traditional accounts indicate that Kekaha was once a populous and productive region. Referring to the lands between `O`oma and Maka`ula, PHRI researchers Maly and Kalima summarize this point as follows: To a contemporary visitor, the project area lands, and Kekaha in general, appear barren and desolate. It is difficult to believe that many people could have lived in the area without modern conveniences, but traditional accounts of this area describe numerous settlements, extensive agricultural fields and fishponds, and well-defined trails. There is also much praise of the fishing grounds of the region. (in Henry et al. 1993:20) A great deal of primary research on legendary references and place names of Kekaha has been undertaken by Kepa Maly and Lehua Kalima. The results of some of this research can be found in "The Historical Documentary Research by Kepa Maly and Lehua Kalima" presented in PHRI report 1275-071493: Archaeological Assessment Study, Kailua to Kedhole Region State Lands LUC Project (Henry et al. 1993). Early Historic References Early historical references to Kekaha and North Kona, in general, tend to emphasize its barrenness, but also hint at traditional settlement, particularly along the coast. The following observations were made by visitors to the region between 1792 and 1840. The naturalist, Archibald Menzies who travelled along the coast in 1792, described the area as "barren and rugged with volcanic dregs and fragments of black lava... in consequence of which the native inhabitants were obliged to have recourse to fishing for their sustenance" (1920:99). O 5 OVancouver, referring to the North Kona coast in 1794 stated: the adjacent shores... chiefly composed of volcanic matter, and producing only a few detached groves of cocoa nut trees, with the appearance of little cultivation, and very few inhabitants... (Vancouver 1798,III:62 quoted in Cordy 1985:34) In 1823, William Ellis referred to the 1801 Hu`ehu`e lava flow from Hualalai, which covered parts of Kekaha just to the north of the present project area, as having "inundated several villages, destroyed a number of plantations and extensive fish ponds, filled up a deep bay twenty miles in length and formed the present coast... stone walls, trees and houses all gave way before it" (Ellis 1963:30-31). In 1840, the explorer C. Wilkes observed "a considerable trade is kept up between the north and south end of this district. The inhabitants of the barren portion of the latter are principally occupied in fishing and the manufacture of salt, which articles are bartered with those who live in the more fertile regions of the south, for food and clothes" (Wilkes 1845:91). 1848-1852 Mahele Data Historical data on land use and settlement for individual ahupua`a was generated during the Great Mahele land divisions of the mid -Nineteenth Century. Several previous archaeological and historical studies have compiled Mahele data for each of the eight ahupua`a through which the present project area traverses. In general, land claim �1 testimonies indicate that there were relatively few native tenants that made land claims and the majority of lands became the property of the government. Of the few land claims made, however, it appears that the cultivation of traditional crops within the upper elevations (the Upland Zone), including taro and sweet potatoes, was the predominate land use activity. Only one claimant indicated the cultivation of a commercial crop (coffee). Besides a claim made for "salt lands" at Keahuolu, and several other claims made for rights to fish pond resources, there is very little indication of land use throughout the intermediate and lower elevations, including an absence of claims made for house lots on the coast. The Mahele data from each of the subject ahupua`a supports what Cordy found in his study of land claims made at Kaloko, namely, that by the time of the Mahele, "the coast was virtually abandoned [and] the economic focus in this area had shifted to the uplands, which may have been a non-traditional pattern in this area" (Cordy et al. 1991:421). The following are excerpts from previous studies which provide brief summaries of the Mahele data for each of the subject ahupua`a. The excerpts are direct quotes compiled from the referenced reports. `O`oma 1-2 and Kalaoa 1-5 The Mahele saw all these ahupua`a become government lands (Indices 1929:31,35); evidently they were the king's lands which he passed to government control... Only two Land Commission Awards were given in this area (LCA 7899 and 7937), both in Kalaoa 5 [outside the present project area]; but a series of Grants were issued in the ahupua`a from O1852-1864 -- evidently commoners acquiring lands. All these awards were in the upland 6 forest zone from the 800 to 2200 foot elevations... they would seem to be agricultural O parcels. (Cordy 1985:35) Kohanaiki The entire ahupua`a of Kohana-Iki was classified as Government Lands (Board of Commissioners 1929). Because of this, no testimony can be found on this land by any of the natives wishing to testify for Kuleana lands. Instead, parcels of the land were later sold by the government to raise money. (Lehua Kalima in O'Hare and Goodfellow 1992:A- 12) Honokohau 1&2 The ahupua`a were given to two members of the reigning ali`i... Subsequent kuleana awards within the two ahupua`a were given to eleven individuals. These awards - ranging in size from 1 to 5.75 acres... are located between 800 and 1680 feet [elevation]. Only two of the testimonies recorded for these awards mentioned specific crops grown upon the awarded parcels, [these include taro and potato kihapais. A house lot was claimed by only one individual]. (Robins et al. 1995:25) Kaloko As Kelly (1971) noted, all 12 commoner or kuleana awards were located within the Upland Zone, between 1200-1700 feet elevation. [In addition] six unawarded claims,, were (� found. Thus, at least 18 kuleana claims were filed for Kaloko in 1848. Actual crops grown in the claims fields are mentioned in only six claims. Taro predominated, although two sweet potato plots were claimed and eight mixed taro and sweet potato plots. House lots were claimed in only two of the eighteen cases - which is extremely unusual. In sum, housing data are extremely poor for this period. (Cordy et al. 1991:411, 415) Kealakehe At the time of the Mahele, the ahupua`a of Kealakehe was set aside as government land, while preserving the rights of native tenants. It is from the testimonies of these tenants that we obtain data on land use during the mid -1800s ... From the [eleven] testimonies it was determined by Silva (1987) that ...claimants listed numerous cultivated parcels (kihapai) planted in taro and sweet potatoes. At least ten houses... [and] a fair sized banana patch was situated in the uplands. (Donham 1990b:B-4) Keahuolu The ahupua`a of Keahuolu was awarded to Ane Keohokalole (d.1857). Six native tenants made claims for kuleana lands at Keahuolu. [Claimants indicated taro and sweet potato kihapais as well as palm trees, one coffee patch and one section of salt land. None of the claimants specifically filed for house lots]. (Donham 1990:B3-5) fl OLate Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries Following are selections from previous studies which summarize the historical developments that occurred within Kekaha and selected portions of the Kekaha region: Kekaha By the end of the 1800s, land use in North Kona had undergone significant alterations from the dryland cultivation and fishing practiced during prehistoric and proto-historic times. Maly summarizes the gradual replacement of Hawaiian lifestyle in this area as the result of two major factors: the 1801 eruption of Hualalai, and changing land use patterns over the last 150 years. The lava flows from Hualalai reclaimed much of the land used for settlement, agriculture and fishponds; reducing the land to a shadow of its former condition. Introduction of foreign plants and animals brought about additional changes, as once barren lava fields became overgrown with kiawe and other weedy shrubs, and goat and cattle raising became a mainstay of local industry. The 1850s saw the development of large-scale commercial ranching and agriculture as a result of the shift to private land ownership brought about by the Mahele and an 1850 law permitting foreigners to own land. Coffee, grazing land, tobacco and sugar cane gradually replaced traditional crops such as taro and uala; stripped the land of forests, and caused disruption of the water catchment systems. Today, the upland and intermediate zones are covered with coffee plantations, housing developments, and light industry. On the coast are the Keahole Airport and the Natural Energy Laboratory. The coast has not been utilized for permanent human habitation since the 1801 lava flow. (Henry et al. 1993:50) Kaloko The historical documents suggest that by the 1840s to 1850s, the Coastal Zone had been abandoned as a residential area, except probably for a house used by the fishpond's caretaker. This pattern would have been a stunning change from prehistoric and early historic times, when many coastal residences were present. (Cordy et al. 1991:288) By the 1870s and 1880s, housing does seem to have become focused in the Upland Zone at the Kohanaiki Homesteads and with some scattered houses across Kaloko along the Road to Kailua and the upper Government Road. Cultivation may have been shifting to cash crops (coffee), and... small-scale livestock raising may have been taking place. By the early 1900s, large-scale ranching began in the uplands, with the acquisition of chiefly lands by Huehue Ranch. [Citing Kelly (1971), Cordy also notes], a gradual reduction in house locations... These patterns appear to be related to decreasing populations in this region of North Kona into the early 1900s. (Cordy et al. 1991:421) Honokohau Following the Mahele (ca. 1850s), the Intermediate and Upland Zones of the project area Owere ultimately abandoned, as suggested by Boundary Commission and Land Court 1.1 Award records. Asa result, the vacant lands were subsequently acquired for cattle O ranching and portions leased for commercial cultivation of coffee and fruit by Japanese immigrants. By the 1920s to 1930s the Coastal Zone of Honokohau I and II was virtually vacant, with settlement associated with ranching and coffee farming centered primarily along the mauka roads, as it is today. (Robins et al. 1995:149) Briefly, the region of the project area, Kekaha, has been characterized by archaeologists and ethnohistorians as containing three main environmental/cultural zones: Coastal, Intermediate and Upland. However, there are variations or refinements to this model, including splitting up the upland zone, adding the saddle region, as the most upper zone etc. For this particular project, Cultural Surveys Hawaii is subdividing the upland zone into varying degrees of site density. Thus, for this specific project area, the zones are as follows: From Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway to approximately 400 ft. amsl, a portion of the standard Intermediate Zone; this area is characterized as having a very low site density; From ca. 400 ft. to 800 ft. amsl, a portion of the standard Upland Zone; this area is characterized as having a "dense" or modern to high site density; and a 'very dense" characterization for the portion of the Upland Zone from ca. 800 ft. amsl to the project's mauka or east boundary, Mamalahoa Highway and Palani Rd. Table 1 "Summary of Zone Model Characteristics" does not include the standard Coastal Zone, as it is not within the present project area. 0 9 4) "p O F. T O O � �' 0 y co o �� yp 0 o co O > Co y p N C m ca Ci Q) ho 00 cc 2 ca m' m ca, v m co m � C ui rn C O cd S. Cd .0 cn ,q 0) d UCO3 UC m cj Cdo > d o m C m o m aai -^ p a y tQ y m o a ca 0 LS +> k ^o A p O. co 11 H cd x O a v� (1) a�«.a3L) (1)caa� co >) :14 U3 co �b ca CO 0 M to o cl 02 q q Q v c v C v 3 d v da C. O (4 Ho O � -G O is � � coO.� cA n> q O d '� � � b ) W cd � r. � O C 0 as G y C + m o a0 h0 w 0 m .L' [ a o .Fa t+" •>: L• .+., N O � w cad m a a 0.O ro .0 hn u a U a G o g a as FOi o w o O y O .+. F,' a o„ hD 1p. C .�.. U cd 00 y O p cd & p a7 a Cr b x �' m o 10, CS O yOj O c� a m g a °' c'' a c " �a ° GL U ham > It r. m m v m a r: a a a3 0' o .`d m a t .'70" o w ai t`d. u CO a .0 > >, m 0 m.0 'a) ro 0 m co coy cab d h0 �+ O G E .� q f1. C7 •o vpi Z of w ^o O O cl w cd , r...q. •p U d O co'cd p C�x0.c�cc C1 O co O Ux to O d m d O o ai � -0 � cyo cd d C p ai o b ;-- o 0 LIJ O 7 ca 0 � id 0 m o ��' Q W ca b y �'�'' C'. O w> H 40. , 00 m b V Q W as O .ti a 0 q > CO apa M Mr O 44 LO +� Lm+ U �N O api t- O M d W G O C'3 Cq �g O N Cl. S O W a.mv~ m R� cpi cpi� coiM Z •o q `d o N ►O. 0 O +. VI. REFERENCES CITED Apple, Russell A. 1965 Trails: From Steppingstones to Kerbstones, B.P. Bishop Museum Special Publication 53, Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu. Armstrong, Warwick, Ed. 1973 Atlas of Hawai'i, University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu. Barr, Timothy R. et al. 1994 An Archaeological Inventory Survey and Limited Subsurface Testing of the Proposed Kealakehe Parkway Extension, Alternatives 10 and 11 (TMK 7-4-8: por.3,5,17,34), Cultural Surveys Hawaii, Kailua, Hi. Barrera, William, Jr. 1985 Ke-ahole Point, Hawaii: Archaeological Reconnaissance (Revised Version), Chiniago, Inc. 1989 Archaeological Data Recovery at the Host Park and NELH, Kalaoa and `O`oma Ahupua`a, North Kona, Hawaii Island: DLNR Submittal Version, Chiniago, Inc. 1987 Ke-ahole Airport, Hawaii: Archaeological Survey of Five Areas Proposed for Airport Expansion, Chiniago, Inc. 1990 Final Report: Kalaoa, North Kona, Hawaii Island: Archaeological Data Recovery for Kedhole Airport Expansion, Chiniago, Inc. 1993 Kalaoa, North Kona, Hawaii Island: Archaeological Documentation of Mamalahoa Trail and Immediate Vicinity at Kedhole Airport, Chiniago, Inc. Bonk, William J. 1987 An Archaeological Walk -Through Survey of Lower Kealakehe, North Kona, Hawaii, University of Hawaii at Hilo. Burgett, Berdena D. and Paul H. Rosendahl 1992 Addendum Report: Archaeological Inventory Survey - Kealakehe Planned Community Project Area: Lands of Kealakehe and Keahuolu, North Kona District Island of Hawaii, PHRI 927-021192. Borthwick, Douglas F. and Hallett H. Hammatt 1992 Archaeological Field Inspection and Interim Preservation Plan for the Proposed Kealakehe Golf Center. Kealakehe, North Kona, Hawaii Island (TMK.•7-1-8.por 17), CSH. Borthwick, Douglas F. et al. 1993 Archaeological Planning Reconnaissance for the Proposed Kealakehe Parkway Extension, CSH. O 11 Ching, Francis, Jr. and.Deborah Cluff and Thomas Riley 1968-9 Preliminary Report of Archaeological Surface Survey and Salvage Operations at Kedhole, North Kona, Hawaii Island: Section II Kedhole Point Airport Kailua-Kawaihae Road, DLNR. Ching, Francis Jr. and Paul Rosendahl 1968 Archaeological Surface Survey of the Kailua-Kawaihae Road (Section II, Honokohau to Kedhole Point) and the Kedhole Point _Airport, DLNR. Clark, Jeffrey T. 1987 Waimea-Kawaihae, A Leeward Hawaii Settlement System, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana - Champaign. Cluff, Deborah F. 1971 An Archaeological Survey of the Seaward Portion of Honokohau #1 and #2 North Kona, Hawaii Island, Report 69-5 Dept. of Anthropology, B.P. Bishop Museum. Cordy, Ross 1985 Working Paper I. Hawaii Island Archaeology, `O`oma & Kalaoa Ahupua`a, Kekaha, North Kona. TMK 7-3. Historic Sites Section, Division of State Parks, Dept. of Land & Natural Resources, State of Hawaii. 0 Cordy, Ross et al. 1991 An Ahupua`a Study: The 1971 Archaeological Work at Kaloko Ahupua`a North Kona, Hawaii - Archaeology at Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park, Western Archaeological and Conservation Center, Publications in Anthropology No. 58. Cox, J. Halley and Edward Stasack 1970 Hawaiian Petroglyphs, Bishop Museum Special Publication 60, Honolulu. Davis, Bertell D. 1977 Archaeological Survey of the Proposed Agricultural Park at Ke-ahole, North Kona, Hawaii Island, ARCH Project 14-122. Donham, Theresa 1990a Archaeological Inventory Survey - Queen Liliuokalani Trust Property: Land of Keahuolu, North Kona District, Island of Hawaii (TMK.•3-7-4-8.por.2,12), PHRI 596-021290. 1990b Archaeological Inventory Survey - Kealakehe Planned Community Project Area: Lands of Kealakehe and Keahuolu, North Kona District Island of Hawaii (TMK.•7-4-8:17, por.12), PHRI 652-010890. 1990c Addendum Report: Archaeological Inventory Survey - Kealakehe Planned Community Project Area: Lands of Kealakehe and Keahuolu, North Kona District Island of Hawaii (TMK.•7-4-8:17, por.12), PHRI 652-051090. 12 1990d Archaeological Inventory Survey Honokohau Industrial Park (Parcel VII), Land of Honokohau 2nd, North Kona District, Island of Hawaii, PHRI, Hilo. Ellis, William 1963 Journal of William Ellis, Honolulu: Advertising Publishing Co. Emory, Kenneth P. and Lloyd J. Soehren 1971 Archaeological and Historical Survey, Honokohau Area, North Kona, Hawaii, Bishop Museum, Dept. Anthro. Revised Edition, Report 61-1, Honolulu. Hammatt, Hallett H. and William H. Folk 1980 Archaeological Excavations within the Proposed Keahole Agricultural Park, Kalaoa-`O`oma, Kona, Hawaii Island, ARCH Project 14-122 H. Handy, E.S. Craighill and Elizabeth G. Handy 1972 Native Planters in Old Hawaii: Their Life, Lore, and Environment, Bishop Museum Bulletin 233, Honolulu. Head, James A. and Paul H. Rosendahl 1993 Archaeological Inventory Survey, Kailua to Kedhole Region State Lands, LUC Project - 500 -Acre University Site, Lands of Makaula, Hale`ohi`u, Hamanamana, and Kalaoa 1-4, North Kona District, Island of Hawaii, PHRI, Hilo, HI. Helber, Hastert & Kimura, Planners 1987 Environmental Assessment: Easement Across Portion of the Mamalahoa Trail, Kohanaiki, North Kona, Hawaii, Prepared for Hawaii County Planning Dept. and DLNR. Henry, Jack D. et al. 1993 Archaeological Assessment Study Kailua to Keahole Region State Lands LUC Project, Lands of Makaula, Hale`ohi`u, Kalaoa 1-4, Kalaoa-`O`oma, and `O`oma 2, North Kona District Island of Hawaii, PHRI 1275-071493. Jensen, Peter M. 1992a Archaeological Mitigation Program, Queen Liliuokalani Trust Property, Phase L• Mitigation Plan for Data Recovery, Interim Site Preservation and Monitoring, Land of Keahuolu, North Kona District, Island of Hawaii, PHRI 1152-012192. 1992b Archaeological Mitigation Program - Kealakehe Planned Community Project Area - Phase I: Mitigation Plan for Data Recovery and Interim Site Preservation: Lands of Kealakehe and Keahuolu, North Kona District, Island of Hawaii, PHRI 991-101491. 13 5� 1995 Archaeological Preservation Plan - Queen Lili`uokalani Trust Keahuolu Lands, Land of Keahuolu, North Kona District, Island of Hawaii, Johnson, Greg and Gary F. Somers 1991 Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park Ruins Stabilization Projects 1990, National Parks Service, Pacific Area Office, Honolulu. Kennedy, Joseph 1991 Surface Reconnaissance of the Proposed Industrial Development at Kohanaiki, North Kona, Hawaii, TMK.7-3-09:15), Letter report of 12 August, 1991 to Mr. James Leonard. Menzies, Archibald 1920 Hawaii Nei 128 Years Ago, (Edited by W.F. Wilson), The New Freedom Press, Honolulu. National Park Service 1975 Draft Environmental Statement, Proposed Kaloko-Honokohau National Cultural Park/Hawaii, Western Region National Park Service, Department of the Interior and the Honokohau Study Advisory Commission, DES 75-12. O'Hare, Constance R. and Susan T. Goodfellow 1992 Kohana-Iki Resort Phased Archaeological Mitigation Program Phase II - �} Data Recovery, Land of Kohana-iki, North Kona District, Island od Hawaii �J (TMK.•3-7-3-09:3), PHRI 874-121391. 1994 Phased Archaeological Mitigation Program, Kealakehe Planned Community, Phase II: Archaeological Data Recovery, Land of Kealakehe, North Kona District, Island of Hawaii, PHRI 1201-040794. O'Hare, Constance R. and Paul H. Rosendahl 1993 Archaeological Inventory Survey - Queen Liliuokalani Trust 100 -Acre KIS Expansion Site: Land of Keahuolu, North Kona District, Island of Hawaii (TMK.•3-7-4-8:por.2), PHRI 1311-010093. Renger, Robert C. 1971 Archaeological Surface Survey of the Coastal Area of Kaloko and Kukio, North Kona, Hawaii, B.P. Bishop Museum Department of Anthropology, Honolulu. Robins, Jennifer J. et al. 1995 An Archaeological Inventory Survey of an Approximately 803 acre Subject Parcel in the Ahupua`a of Honokdhau I and II, North Kona District, Island of Hawaii (TMK.•7-4-8:por.5,13,34), CSH. 14 0 DECCO 'g9 RE�E�vED ���y o� ►►nw�� o P►ANN►tl8 ti� County of Hawaii General Plan Ten -Year Review Economic Assessment Report December 1999 Prepared By: PKF Hawaii 2032 South Beretania Street Honolulu, HI 96826 � � j„,<<T�; + + • Civil No. 07-1-243K Defendant's Exhibit D3 3�'i�bi _ __R_ In evidence —for identification Received Clerk December 29, 1999 Ms. Virginia Goldstein Planning Director County of Hawaii 25 Aupuni Street, Room 109 Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Dear Ms. Goldstein: PI(F HAWAII O Represented by The CPA Consulting Group, Inc. A Professional Corporation 2032 S. Beretania Street Honolulu, Hawaii 96826 Telephone (808) 949-6079 FAX (808) 949-2353 E-mail: info@pkfhawaii.com Pursuant to our agreement set forth in our contract with the County of Hawaii, we are pleased to present herein, our study of the Economic Assessment for the County of Hawaii's General Plan Ten -Year Review. Our study herein is based on information and research obtained as of the completion of our fieldwork on September 13, 1999 and is subject to the limitations and conditions included in our contract agreement. We were able to compile this study through the efforts of many individuals who provided valuable information and insight into the County of Hawaii's past, present and future economic outlook. We would especially like to thank you and your staff for the tremendous assistance and cooperation in helping us collect, compile and research pertinent information relative to this study. Please let us know if we can be of further service to you in this matter. We sincerely appreciate the opportunity to once again be of service to the County of Hawaii. Very truly yours, Member, Pannell Kerr Forster International • Certified Public Accountants & Management Consultants Table of Contents I. Introduction II. Executive Summary III. Economic Profile and Employment/Income Characteristics IV. Primary Economic Sectors A. Visitor Industry B. Sugar C. Macadamia Nuts D. Flowers & Nursery E. Kava/Industrial Hemp/Marijuana F. Beef Cattle G. Coffee H. Papayas I. Bananas O J. Avocados K. Fresh Vegetables L. Irradiation Plant M. Renewable Energy N. Astronomy O. Satellite Launching Facility P. Military Activities Q. Film Industry R. Aquaculture S. Commercial Fishing T. Forestry U. Special Events V. Secondary Economic Sectors VI Econometric Model VII. Economic Forecasts VIII. Appendix O SECTION I O INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND The County of Hawaii (County) adopted its General Plan in 1971 and subsequently amended it in 1989. This General Plan sets the policies for the long-range comprehensive development of the County with respect to land use, population, housing, infrastructure, public utilities and facilities. A comprehensive ten-year review of the General Plan was completed and amended in 1989 in accordance with County Ordinance 439 (as amended by Ordinance 761). This ten-year review included an assessment and update of the economic assumptions and O framework of the General Plan and involved reevaluating the economic goals and policies of the County. This ten-year comprehensive review was intended to maintain the dynamism and flexibility of the General Plan and to accommodate major changes and trends that may occur within the County. In addition to the economic framework of the General Plan, the economic projections and assumptions developed in the General Plan and its updates, serve as a basis for projecting population trends and urban land use requirements under the "land use element", and for defining some of the housing needs as described in the "housing element" of the General Plan. These projections in turn have implications for many of the other General Plan elements such as transportation, public facilities, and public utilities. O I-1 As previously mentioned, the ten-year comprehensive review program is conducted to update the General Plan to accommodate any major changes and trends that may occur within the County and is designed to conform to the content requirements of the Charter of the County of Hawaii. Whereas it is the policy of the County to thoroughly review its General Plan at intervals of not more than ten years, the County retained The CPA Consulting Group, Inc., dba PKF-Hawaii in 1998 to assist in the assessment and update of the economic assumptions, framework and elements of the General Plan. PURPOSE OF THE STUDY O The generalrP u ose of the study undertaken by PKF-Hawaii is to provide the basis for P the following actions by the County: • Assess the current economic conditions within the County and compare it with the economic conditions existing since the last ten-year update was performed, utilizing similar data and level of detail. Reassess the economic assumptions of the General Plan, as updated. • Assess both positive as well as negative impacts of future economic growth directions and alternatives. • Project future population growth alternatives. I-2 • Project overall and district land use requirements for residential, agricultural, O commercial industrial and resort needs. • Assess overall district housing needs. SCOPE OF THE STUDY The scope of the study covers the following tasks: • Description of the overall economic profile of the County, including district profiles. • Description of the island -wide and district employment characteristics for the County. • Description of the island -wide and district income characteristics for the O County. • Identification of the primary and secondary economic sectors which contribute or are likely to contribute substantially to the economy of the County, both island -wide and by district. • Development of income and employment multipliers for the primary and secondary economic sectors which contribute or are likely to contribute substantially to the economy of the County. • Discussion of economic or legislative trends on the international and national scale which may impact upon the major economic sectors which contribute or are likely to contribute substantially to the economy of the County. I-3 O• Projection of employment and economic growth alternatives to the year 2020 and projection of population distribution over island -wide and districts in five- year increments (2005, 2010, 2015,2020). • Providing technical assistance to the Planning Department in implementing the projections. METHODOLOGY. Definition of Economic Sectors The 1970 General Plan for the County recognized two principal economic sectors - Primary (basic) Income Generators and Secondary Industries. The economic study, which provided the forecasts of employment and population for the 1971 General Plan utilized an employment "multiplier" of the primary income generating industries to Odetermine related employment in the secondary industries. The current study as well as the previous ten-year update, employs similar methods involving detailed analyses and forecasts of the principal industries comprising the County's Primary Income Generators as the principal basis for forecasting primary and secondary employment, population and income. Primary Income Generators Those industries that make up the primary economic sectors include producers of both products and services. In the case of products, income is generated primarily by exports that are purchased mainly by non-resident individuals and businesses. Services generate I-4 income mainly through payments received from non-resident individuals or governmental agencies within the County. Secondary Industries Industries comprising the secondary economic sector include producers of goods and services that are purchased predominantly by primary income generators and resident individuals and families for their own consumption. Secondary industries for the most part are induced activities and /or requirements of the primary income generators. Sector Interrelationships and Use of Available Data The complex interrelationships between businesses (as producers and purchasers) and individuals in their role as employees and consumers, tend to obscure the lines between the rim and second economic sectors. For the most art, statistics compiled on O primary �'Y P P gross sales and activities of a business makes no distinction between purchases made for local consumption versus purchases made for exports, or between primary and secondary sectors. As an example, in the broad category of Hotel Services, it is possible to classify activities of hotels as a primary industry as it relates to use by visitors to the County by analyzing hotel occupancy and expenditure patterns. However, food and beverage sales to tourists is also included under the broad category of Retail Trade -Food, which is mainly a secondary activity supported through consumption by the resident population. I-5 OThere are also situations where a secondary activity could also become a primary industry. For example, certain agricultural products grown primarily for local consumption would normally be included as a secondary activity. However, if such agricultural goods produce export demand in quantities of substance, these export sales would be deemed a primary industry. As a result of these types -of factors for which definitive data is not available or is not accounted for separately, identification of "primary" and "secondary" sectors have been made based on the predominance of the activity. Categories of Economic Sectors OWithin the confines of available and compatible time series data, the following categories have been adopted for this study to identify and evaluate those activities which are predominantly "primary" or "secondary" in nature. Primary Economic Sectors Products Sugar Macadamia Nuts Flowers and Nursery Hemp/Marijuana/Kava Beef Cattle Coffee Papayas Bananas Avocados Vegetables, Melons and Ginger O I-6 Aquaculture Commercial Fishing Forestry Services Visitor Industry Irradiation Plant Renewable Energy Astronomy Satellite Launching Facilities Military Activities Film Industry Special Events Secondary Economic Sectors Retail Sales Wholesale Sales Finance, Insurance and Real Estate Transactions Utilities Communications Transportation Manufacturing (non -export) Construction Services (non -travel industry related) State and Local Government Health Care Education Prisons Regional Analysis The U.S. Census of Population and Housing identifies 21 different tracts within the County. For the most part, these tracts can be aggregated into the nine regions, which O I-7 corresponds to the County Judicial Districts. As such, data concerning population, family income, housing, occupation and employment are available according to location of residence within census tracts and approximate judicial districts. The allocation of industrial activities and employment to regions is highly restricted by the limited amount of available data and as such, certain assumptions and estimates were employed in allocation of activities in certain districts. The following District zones were employed in this study: District 1 Puna District 2 South Hilo District 3 North Hilo District 4 Hamakua District 5 North Kohala District 6 South Kohala District 7 North Kona District 8 South Kona District 9 Ka'u Econometric Model An econometric model is used to estimate the relationship between employment in the primary economic sectors and economic activity in the secondary sectors. The econometric model also relates the demographic variables of population, income and housing units to the primary and secondary economic activities. Recursive estimation is I-8 employed to calculate some equations of best fit so as to capture the simultaneity of the O relationships between the demographic variables and the secondary economic sectors. The reliability of econometric models depends to a large extent on the quality of the historical data on which the estimation is based. The data used herein is based on a comprehensive compilation of variables over the time period of 1960 to 1997. When compared to other local economic databases, this data set is unusual in both its length and breadth of coverage. The County of Hawaii data consists of about 140 variables, which are supplemented by state and national economic data. Furthermore, cross-section data for the judicial districts within the County is compiled from the census tract series. The entire database is presented in the Appendix. I-9 O SECTION II EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The County of Hawaii's economic activities in the 1960's and 1970's brought about a period of unprecedented growth in population, employment and income. As the sugar industry started its decline in the late 1970's, the visitor industry was there to replace much of the economic activity loss due to the decline of sugar. The growth in the visitor industry generated record levels of employment and population within the County, largely due to the high levels of visitor expenditures and growth in the secondary industry sectors affected by the visitor industry. OVisitor arrivals to the County peaked in 1978 at 1,001,000 and declined the next three years down to 722,000 visitor arrivals in 1981, consistent with the statewide visitor arrival trends. In 1982, visitor arrivals to the County increased to 754,000 as the economy in Hawaii started an upturn. By 1990 visitor arrivals rose to 1,171,000, an overall growth of 55.3 percent over the eight-year period and representing an average annual increase of 5.66 percent. With the 1991 economic downturn in both the mainland U.S. and Japan (where nearly 85 percent of Hawaii's visitors come from), coupled with the Persian Gulf War, visitor arrivals started to decline both statewide as well as in the County of Hawaii. This downward trend continued until 1996, when arrivals increased primarily due to the start of direct flights into Kona International Airport at Keahole from Japan. As of 1998, visitor arrivals to the County totaled 1,286,000 representing an annual Ogrowth rate of 1.18 percent, a much slower growth rate than the previous eight years. The County's visitor industry boom period of the 1980's was evident in the increased statistics in population, employment and income within the County from 1980 to 1990. Also evident was the economic slowdown that occurred since 1990, reflected by the increase in unemployment rate from 3.8 percent in 1990 to 10.2 percent in 1997. As tourism became the primary economic generator in the County during the 1980's, a shift in employment from the non -service to the service industry sector was also evident. Back in 1980, the service industry accounted for approximately 60.6 percent of average employment, rising to 71.3 percent in 1990 and even further to 78.5 percent in 1997. The demise of the sugar industry on the Big Island has led to growth and prospects in O other diversified agricultural products. The flowers and nursery products industry has competed over the past several years with macadamia nuts as the leading agricultural industry on the Big Island accounting for over $35 million in value of crop sales in 1997. The macadamia nut industry on the Big Island accounts for nearly 95 percent of the total macadamia nut production in the United States and currently ranks as the . second largest diversified agricultural industry in state of Hawaii and the largest in the County of Hawaii generating an estimated $41 million in crop sales value in the County alone. The macadamia nut industry on the Big Island, however, is not immune to the competitive forces outside of Hawaii, primarily from Australia but also from other emerging countries in Africa and Central/South America, where labor is much cheaper resulting in lower II -2 Ocosts by the competition. Macadamia nut growers in Australia that produces equivalent amounts of macadamia nuts as Hawaii have begun to market low-cost macadamia nuts in an effort to compete with Hawaii as well as unload abundant supplies of macadamia nuts. As these external competitive efforts continue, the macadamia nut industry in Hawaii may be in for tough economic times and could go the route of the sugar industry in Hawaii unless innovative efforts are made to curtail the competition. Arguably the largest agribusiness in the County of Hawaii in terms of income generated is the illegal and clandestine farming of marijuana. Although no firm statistics are available on the marijuana industry on the Big Island, based on police estimates of the value of confiscated marijuana, this industry is estimated at nearly $5 billion for the Big OIsland alone, thus making it the largest industry within the County of Hawaii. The portion of total income generated that is reinvested within the County is unknown, but is likely very considerable with substantial portions remaining in criminal activities. There has recently been a strong movement within the State of Hawaii and the County to consider the growth of industrial hemp, a non-toxic relative of the marijuana plant. The 1999 Hawaii State Legislature passed a bill allowing privately -funded industrial hemp research in Hawaii upon prior registration and approval by the Hawaii State Department of Public Safety and the U.S. Justice Department's Drug and Enforcement Administration. The first plantings are scheduled for December of 1999 on a quarter -acre plot of highly secured lands at Whitmore Village, just outside of Wahiawa. Hawaii's experiment of cultivating industrial hemp is the first of its kind in the United States. Industrial hemp is used in textiles, fabrics, building materials, food, soap and shampoo II -3 and is used in, its products by retail industry giants such as Ralph Lauren, Nike and O Adidas. Industrial hemp is imported into the United States from China, Hungary, Chile, Germany and England and is expected to generate imports into the United States of over $250 million in 1999, over three times the $75 million of imports in 1997. Kava, a legally grown medicinal plant known for its mild narcotic properties, isstarting to be grown on vacated sugar cane fields and has the future potential to be a part of the $12 billion global medicinal plant industry. The most promising agribusiness within the County is the growing of Kona coffee. Next to water, coffee is the most popular beverage in the world, with an estimated 400 billion cups consumed annually. In 1998, the world production of coffee amounted to approximately 12.4 billion pounds of coffee, with Brazil accounting for about 25 percent O of the world's coffee. The County of Hawaii produces approximately one-third of Hawaii's estimated 9 million pounds of coffee, grown on approximately 2,000 acres of land by 575 coffee farms, primarily in the Kona region of the Big Island. The world - acclaimed quality and name attached to Kona coffee has produced premium dollars and excess demand for Kona coffee and as a result, Kona coffee has accounted for over 55 percent of the total value of coffee in Hawaii. The future outlook for coffee on the Big Island, especially Kona coffee is very promising. One large Kona landowner has preliminary plans to establish a mechanized and efficient Kona coffee plantation on approximately 500 acres of land, thus increasing acreage of this industry by 25 percent. I1-4 OThe County of Hawaii is known as one if not the most aggressive and innovative counties and a leader in the development of new and emerging industries. Prime examples of this include the development of aquaculture, renewable energy, astronomy, satellite launching facilities and newly introduced diversified agricultural products such as forestry, kava and specialty vegetables. Although all new ventures have not always met with great success (e.g. satellite launching), many others have (e.g. aquaculture, astronomy, renewable energy). With the growth of the papaya industry, the County is now exploring ways to increase the export of papayas and other fruits and vegetables by developing irradiation or other treatment plants to allow for the export of traditionally locally consumed products. These Oand other aggressive and innovative ventures have and will continue to reap benefits to the economy of the Big Island and will help to diversify the economic base of the County of Hawaii, which is now very dependent on the tourism industry. II -5 SECTION III O ECONOMIC PROFILE EMPLOYMENT AND INCOME CHARACTERISTICS COUNTY OF HAWAII ECONOMIC PROFILE County of Hawaii From 1980 until 1990, the County of Hawaii enjoyed the benefits of the strong Hawaii economy that was booming primarily because of the influx of Japanese investment in Hawaii. During this period, the following major developments/events occurred within the County: • 1983 -completion of the 350 room Mauna Lani Bay Hotel and Golf Course, the first luxury destination resort development along the South Kohala Coast since the opening of the Mauna Kea Resort in 1965. • 1988 -completion of the 1,240 room Hyatt Regency Waikoloa, the first themed, luxury mega -resort to be developed in Hawaii. • 1989 -the PGA Senior Skins Game established at Mauna Lani Resort. • 1990 -completion of the 540 room luxury Ritz Carlton Mauna Lani, Ritz Carlton's first entry into the Hawaii hotel market. Key economic indicators that fueled the County's economy during this period are shown in Exhibit III -1. Impressive increases were recorded in mostly all key economic areas including employment, retail trade, visitor arrivals, and construction. The only major Oeconomic sector that showed a steep decline was sugarcane production, which decreased from $137.5 million to $55.0 million in production value. With the onset of the Persian Gulf War in 1991 together with the U.S. and Japan recession, the Island of Hawaii's economy was hurt rather severely and like the rest of Hawaii, the Island of Hawaii has yet to emerge from its own economic downturn. As of 1997, retail trade in the County of Hawaii declined to $560.6 million, down nearly $340 million from 1990's high of $900 million. Westbound visitor arrivals in 1997 totaled 915,000, down from 1990's high of 983,000. This downturn was partially offset by the increase in eastbound visitor arrivals that blossomed due to direct flights from Japan. Also, as of 1997, the sugar industry on the Island of Hawaii all but disappeared. ODuring the turbulent 90's, the Island of Hawaii was still successful in attracting several development and world-class events including: • 1994 -opening of the 351 room Hapuna Beach Prince Hotel and Golf Course. 1994 -filming of the movie Waterworld which influxed an estimated $35 million into the County of Hawaii economy. • 1996 -opening of the 243 room luxury Four Season's Hualalai Resort and Golf Course. • 1996 -the PGA Seniors MasterCard Tournament of Champion's at the Four Season's Hualalai Resort. • 1996 -Japan Airlines starts direct flights into Kona International Airport at OKeahole, boosting eastbound tourism to the Island of Hawaii. III -2 EMPLOYMENT CHARACTERISTICS Employment in the County of Hawaii back in 1980 totaled 40,850 based on a U.S. Census Bureau population base of 92,053 for the County. In 1990, employment in the County increased to an average of 55,200 and population increased to 120,317, representing a 3.05 percent and 2.71 percent annual compounded increase, respectively. The latest census information in 1997 reveals that employment in the County totaled 61,750 and population totaled 141,458, representing a 1.61 percent and 2.34 percent annual compounded increase, respectively, indicating a slowdown in growth in both employment and population after the boom years of the late 1980's. As shown in Exhibit III -2, according to the Hawaii State Department of Labor and Industrial Relations (DLIR), average employment increased from 40,850 in 1980 to O 55,200 in 1990 and 61,750 in 1997. From 1980 to 1990 and from 1990 to 1997, employment increased in every judicial district in the County. Exhibit II -2A shows the County's unemployment rates for 1980, 1990 and 1997 by districts. Unemployment rates dropped drastically from 1980 to 1990, from 6.2% to 3.8% due to the strong County economy. With the cooling of the County's economy in the 1990's, by the year 1997, unemployment increased to an alarming 10.2%, with the rural district areas of Puna and Ka'u unsurprisingly experiencing the highest unemployment rates at 15.6% and 14.8%, respectively. III -3 OExhibit III -3 shows population trends by districts within the County according to the U.S. Census Bureau. From 1980 to 1990, population increased in every district with the exception of North Hilo. Puna district posted the largest gain increasing by 9,030. Also showing impressive gains were the districts of South Kohala (4,669 to 9,140) and North Kona (13,690 to 22,284), areas where most of the employment increases also occurred primarily due to the expansion of the tourism industry in these areas. INCOME CHARACTERISTICS Total personal income in the County of Hawaii back in 1980 totaled $901,300,000. In 1990, total personal income in the County increased to $1,948,000,000; a very healthy average annual compounded increase of 8.01 percent, reflective of the strong economic Oconditions existing in the County at the time. The latest available information on total personal income in the County was for 1996, which totaled $2,662,000,000, an average annual compounded increase of 5.34 percent. As shown in Exhibit III -4, per capita income in the County increased from $9,682 in 1980 to $16,039 in 1990 and to $19,056 in 1996 representing annual compounded increases of 5.18 percent and 2.91 percent, respectively. The increase from 1980 to 1990 is reflective of the strong economic conditions existing within the County during the boom years with corresponding decreases in growth during the recessionary periods of the 1990's. III -4 Median household income also increased at a healthy rate from 1980 to 1990, increasing O from $16,975 to $29,712, an annual compounded increase of 5.76 percent. During this same period, every district within the County also recorded increases in median household income with the greatest increases occurring in the districts of South Kohala and North Kohala where the total percentage increase in median household income were 124.58% and 121.82%, respectively. These healthy increases amounted to compounded annual growth rates of 8,.43% and 8.29%, respectively for these two districts which benefited from the increase in tourism in these areas during this period. The rural districts of Puna and Ka'u showed the lowest annual growth rates in median household income at 2.49% and 3.81%, respectively. These two districts also recorded the highest unemployment rates in 1990 at 6.9% and 6.1%, respectively, substantially O exceeding the countywide unemployment rate of 3.8%. According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the poverty threshold for a family of four in 1980 and 1990 was $8,570 and $14,610, respectively. The 1980 and 1990 U.S. Census Bureau reported that 13.2% and 14.2% of the total County of Hawaii population, respectively, were considered in poverty status. COUNTY EMPLOYMENT TRENDS According to statistics from DLIR (Exhibit III -5), since 1980 to the present, there has been a shift of employment trends from the non -service industry to a dominant service industry within the County. In 1980, the service industries (wholesale/retail trade, III -5 Ofinance, insurance, real estate, hotels, etc.) accounted for 60.61 percent of the private industry workforce and 49.08 percent of the total wages earned in the private industry. By 1997, the service industries dominated the private industry, accounting for 78.79 percent of the workforce and 73.64 percent of the total wages earned. This shift in employment trends has significantly changed the economic make-up of the County as workers have in -migrated to the Island of Hawaii to meet the demands of employment growth in the service industry, primarily fueled by the tourism sector. Additionally, non -service industry workers, primarily in agriculture, have had to adjust and shift to new employment opportunities in the service industries as agricultural jobs have dwindled. DISTRICT PROFILES Puna The Puna District of the Island of Hawaii is located south of the main city of Hilo and west of the District of Kau and is the third largest (land mass) judicial district within the County of Hawaii with a land area of nearly 500 square miles. Puna is primarily an agricultural district and includes part of the Hawaii Volcanoes National Park. Within the Puna District are the towns of Kea'au, Kurtistown, Mountain View, and Pahoa. The population in the District of Puna from 1980 to 1990 increased from 11,751 to 1 20,781, according to the latest U.S. Census Bureau information. This 76.8 percent increase over the ten-year period represents a healthy annual compounded growth rate of O III -6 5.87 percent. Employment in the Puna District increased from 5,850 in 1980 to 8,432 in O 1990 and to 8,850 in 1997, representing an annual compounded growth rate of 3.72 percent from 1980 to 1990 and .7 percent from 1990 to 1997. The relatively stagnant growth rate from 1990 to 1997 is indicative of the slowdown of the Hawaiian economy, which has yet to turn around. With population growth rates in the Puna District increasing during the 1990's at a substantially higher rate than employment, it is not surprising that unemployment rates within this district has also substantially increased from 6.9 percent in 1990 to a very high 15.7 percent in 1997. Median household income increased from $14,359 to $18,360 from 1980 to 1990 (latest date figures available), representing a 2.5 percent annual compounded growth rate. As previously mentioned, the primary economic generator in the District of Puna is agriculture. Flowers and nursery, primarily anthuriums and orchids are prevalent in the Mountain View, Pahoa and Kapoho areas and is the largest of the diversified agricultural products in the district in terms of production. In addition to flowers and nursery, papaya farms in the District of Puna accounts for the majority of the State papaya production. Bananas and macadamia nuts are other diversified agricultural products grown in quantity within the Puna District. Puna is also known for its geothermal resources where the Puna Geothermal Venture has been operating a 30 megawatt geothermal plant since 1993 which currently provides nearly one-fourth of the Island of Hawaii's electrical needs. O III -7 rl South Hilo The South Hilo District contains the City of Hilo, which is the County seat and only metropolitan area on the Island of Hawaii. The city of Hilo also functions as the Island of Hawaii's industrial, commercial and distribution core. The South Hilo District houses the largest number of residents of any district on the Island of Hawaii and accounts for over 37 percent of the total population on the Island of Hawaii. The population in the District of South Hilo increased by only 2,361 from 1980 to 1990 (42,278 vs. 44,63 9), representing a mere .54 percent annual compounded growth rate. Employment in South Hilo also increased from 14,750 in 1980 to 20,561 in 1990 and to O22,250 in 1997, representing an annual compounded growth rate of 3.38 percent from 1980 to 1990 and 1.13 percent from 1990 to 1997. The unemployment rate in South Hilo decreased from 6.3 percent in 1980 to 3.4 percent in 1990, primarily due to the economic recovery of the 1980's. Unemployment rates increased from 3.4 percent in 1990 to 9.5 percent in 1997, reflective of the economic downturn in the island. Medianhousehold income in South Hilo increased from $17,944 in 1980 to $29,967 in 1990, representing an annual compounded growth rate of 5.26 percent. Sugar was once the largest single industry in South Hilo, but with the closing of the last sugar processing plants in 1996, this industry has disappeared. The commercial growing of ornamental plants is now the largest diversified agriculture product in South Hilo. III -8 Bananas and papayas are other major diversified agricultural products grown in South O Hilo. South Hilo is also where the University of Hawaii -Hilo is located where over 2,700 students attend this four-year college. UH Hawaii -Hilo employs approximately 500 faculty, administration and staff. The University of Hawaii -Hilo has developed a 10 -year strategic growth plan that could eventually lead to an additional 1,000 students and over 70 additional faculty and' staff. The City of Hilo is also home to the Merrie Monarch Festival which celebrated its 36th anniversary in 1999. There are several significant projects in the making that could propel South Hilo's economy in the near future. The first is the improvements to the Saddle Road, which will substantially reduce the commute time between Hilo and Kona. The second is the O development of an irradiation plant, which would allow for a substantial increase in the amount of exported diversified agricultural goods. Third is the creation of ' a calling center in Hilo which could create as many as 300 new jobs. A Pennsylvania company, Penncro Associates, has opened its Pacific calling center which provides services for clients such as banks, collection agencies, and mortgage companies. Lastly, South Hilo has been identified as a possible site for a newly proposed 2,300 bed state prison which is estimated to cost between $150 to $200 million to build and is estimated to create 1,000 permanent jobs and 3,000 temporary construction jobs. III -9 North Hilo The North Hilo District is the least populated district in the County with population estimated at less than 1,500 residents. The major town and service center in North Hilo is Laupahoehoe, where one third of the population in the district resides. The population of North Hilo has been declining for more than 60 years primarily due to the lack of demand for workers in its once major industry, sugar. The latest U.S. Census Bureau information shows that population in North Hilo decreased from 1,703 in 1980 to 1,541 in 1990. Employment in the North Kona District increased from 450 in 1980 to 610 in 1990 and to 650 in 1997, representing an annual compounded growth rate of 3.09 percent from 1980 to 1990 and .91 percent from 1990 to 1997. Unemployment rates in North Hilo were 6.40 percent in 1980, 3.40 percent in 1990 and 10.40 percent in 1997. Median household Oincome increased from $15,719 to $27,118 from 1980 to 1990, representing a 5.60 percent annual compounded growth rate. The closing of both the Hamakua Sugar Company and the Hilo Coast Processing Company in Hamakua and North Hilo in 1994 forced the residents in North Hilo to seek alternative jobs in diversified agriculture as well as jobs outside of the district. In North Hilo, large tracts of land are used for cattle grazing and logging of native and planted forests. Macadamia nuts, ginger, banana, tropical foilage, orchids, tropical fruits, cacao, kava, assorted leafy vegetables, papaya and taro are other diversified agricultural products grown in North Hilo. III -10 Hamakua The Hamakua District, which is located north of Hilo, encompasses 580 square miles and includes the towns of Honokaa and Paauilo. The Hamakua District's population increased from 5,079 in 1980 to 5,545 in 1990. Employment in the Hamakua District increased from 1,850 in 1980 to 2,565 in 1990 and to 2,750 in 1997, representing a annual compounded growth rate of 3.32 percent from 1980 to 1990 and 1.00 percent from 1990 to 1997. Unemployment rates in Hamakua were 5.00 percent in 1980, 3.30 percent in 1990 and 9.70 percent in 1997. Median household income in Hamakua increased from $17,270 in 1980 to $31,431 in 1990, representing an annual compounded growth rate of 6.17 percent. Primarily known in the past for its sugar, macadamia nut, and cattle industries, Hamakua O has since diversified into agricultural products such as papaya, taro, ginger, kava, coffee, watermelon, tree nursery, and tomatoes. Hamakua is home to Waipio Valley. Located minutes outside of Kukuihaele, Waipio Valley was inhabited by Hawaiians for over 1,000 years and is still considered a significant cultural and historic landmark. Practically every type of food once flourished and even in times of famine, the produce from Waipio could sustain the populace of the entire island estimated at 100,000. Today, there are still signs of avocados, bananas, coconuts, passion fruit, mountain apples, guavas, breadfruit, tapioca, lemons, limes, coffee, grapefruit, and pumpkins. OThe astronomy facilities atop Mauna Kea (considered one, if not the best sites for astronomy research) is also a part of the Hamakua District and is home to 13 observatories and includes 12 of the world's most state-of-the-art telescopes including the $300 million Subaru telescope. Promising developments in the Hamakua District include the development of a power plant in Honokaa by Encogen, L.P., improvement of the Hamakua ditch system, the slaughter house, and the incubator kitchen. Most significantly, the development of commercial forestry in Hamakua has been started by Prudential Timber, who has leased 21,000 acres of land formerly owned by Hamakua Sugar Company from the Bishop Estate for a eucalyptus plantation. Prudential Timber is investing $29 million in OHamakua for its forestry plantations and has already created 100 new jobs. North Kohala The North Kohala District is the smallest (land mass) district in the County covering only 133 square miles and includes the towns of Hawi, Halaula and Kapaau. North Kohala is home to approximately 5,000 residents. According to the latest U.S. Census Bureau information, the North Kohala District had a population of 4,291 in 1990, an increase of 1,017 residents from 1980. Employment in the North Kohala District increased from 1,500 in 1980 to 2,044 in 1990 and to 2,250 in 1997, representing an annual compounded growth rate of 3.14 percent from 1980 to 1990 and 1.38 percent from 1990 to 1997. Unemployment rates in North Kohala were 5.30 percent in 1980, 5.10 percent in 1990 and 8.70 percent in 1997. Median household income in North Kohala increased from III -12 $13,987 in 1980 to $31,026 in 1990, representing an annual compounded growth rate of O 8.29 percent. Most of the residents of North Kohala are employed in diversified agriculture (mainly foilage and macadamia nut), the cattle industry and the visitor industry (primarily for the South Kohala resorts). North Kohala also contains some of the largest ranches in the state including the Parker -Ranch and Kahua Ranch. These ranches, together with the Bishop Estate, CHALON International of Hawaii, Inc. and the State of Hawaii, account for 90 percent of the land ownership in North Kohala. South Kohala The South Kohala District is one of the more diversified districts within the County and includes the towns of Waimea, Kawaihae and Waikoloa Village. South Kohala is home O to the luxury resort areas of the Mauna Kea Beach Resort, Waikaloa Beach Resort, and the Mauna Lani Resort which contains approximately 40 percent of total hotel rooms on the Island of Hawaii. In addition to the luxury resort areas, Hapuna and Spencer beach attract visitors year around. For tourists who enjoy golf, South Kohala is arguably the best destination for world class golf courses in the State of Hawaii and possibly the Nation. With the development of resorts in this district, population and employment skyrocketed during the 1980's. From 1980 to 1990, population in South Kohala nearly doubled from 4,669 to 9,140. Employment in the South Kohala District increased from 3,550 in 1980 to 4,882 in 1990 and to 5,400 in 1997, representing an annual compounded growth rate of 3.24 percent from 1980 to 1990 and 1.45 percent from 1990 to 1997. With the increase in jobs at the South Kohala resorts, unemployment rates in South Kohala O III -13 Owere only 3.70 percent in 1980 and 3.40 percent in 1990. Since then, the unemployment rate has increased to 6.2 percent, primarily due to the recent downturn in tourism and protracted economic conditions existing across the Hawaiian Islands. Median household income in the South Kohala District is the highest of all County districts at $39,857 as of 1990, up nearly 125 percent from 1980's income of $17,747 (8.43 percent annual compounded increase), primarily fueled by the increased activity in the service industry. Although tourism is currently the leading economic industry in South Kohala, this district is also known for cattle ranching (Parker Ranch), paniolo activities, vegetable production, the vacuum cooling plant, egg production, goat cheese production and diversified agriculture. Hawaiian Home Lands owns significant portions of land in South Kohala Oand could impact the economics of the district in the future. South Kohala is home to Kawaihae Harbor where commercial and sports fishing are operated. In addition, South Kohala houses the newly completed North Hawaii Community Hospital and serves as base facilities for several astronomy operations. Now known as one of the world's premier resort destinations, South Kohala has been able to attract annual world-class special events including the Senior Skins Game, which is televised nationally. North Kona The North Kona District is comprised of 489 square miles and includes the towns of Kailua-Kona, Keauhou, Holualoa, Honalo and parts of Kealakekua. North Kona has the second largest population base of all districts within the County, second only to South O III -14 Hilo. According to U.S. Census Bureau information, North Kona had 22,284 residents in O 1990 an increase of 8,594 residents since 1980. North Kona also has the second largest employment base, employing 13,100 residents as of 1997, up from 8,650 in 1980 and 11,898 in 1990, representing an annual compounded growth rate of 3.24 percent from 1980 to 1990 and 1.38 percent from 1990 to 1997. Unemployment rates in North Kona were 3.90 percent in 1980, 2.80 percent in 1990 and 6.40 percent in 1997. Median household income in North Kona increased from $19,486 in 1980 to $35,364 in 1990, representing an annual compounded growth rate of 6.14 percent. Tourism is the largest economic generator within the North Kona District where the largest concentration of hotel rooms exist on the Island of Hawaii (over 45 percent of total hotel rooms). North Kona is also the home to Kona International Airport at O Keahole, Honokohau Harbor, the Natural Energy Laboratory of Hawaii Authority (a combination of two entities once known as The Natural Energy Laboratory of Hawaii and the Hawaii Ocean Science and Technology Park), and the Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion Park. The North Kona area is also well known for its Kona coffee, an industry that has started to thrive in recent years. In addition to Kona coffee, cattle ranching and other diversified agricultural products are produced in North Kona, including avocados, macadamia nuts, orchids, tropical fruits and other vegetables. 1I1-15 Kailua-Kona town is considered the hub city for North Kona and includes most of the government, banking and commerce industries. It is also home to the Honaunau Harbor, space museum, and Queen Liliuokalani Children's Center. Major commercial centers also exist within Kailua-Kona including big -box retailers K -Mart, Walmart and Costco. North Kona hosts the annual Kona Coffee Cultural Festival. and is also well known for its international sporting events including the Senior PGA Tournament of Champions golf tournament at Hualalai Resort, the Ironman Triathlon and the Hawaiian International Billfish Tournament. OSouth Kona The South Kona District of the Island of Hawaii encompasses approximately 335 square miles. Within the South Kona District are the towns of Kealakekua, Captain Cook, Milolii and Honaunau. The population in the District of South Kona increased from 5,902 in 1980 to 7,658 in 1990, a 30 percent increase. Employment in South Kona also increased from 2,850 in 1980 to 4,029 in 1990 and to 4,300 in 1997, representing an annual compounded growth rate of 3.52 percent from 1980 to 1990 and .93 percent increase from 1990 to 1997. Unemployment rates in South Kona during this same period were 8.10 percent in 1980, 3.10 percent in 1990 and 13.10 O III -16 percent in 1997. Median household income in South Kona nearly doubled from $16,273 in 1980 to $31,292 in 1990, representing an annual compounded growth rate of 6.76 percent. South Kona is primarily an agricultural district. Agricultural industries include coffee, macadamia nuts, avocados, bananas, citrus fruits, and cattle ranching. South Kona, however, is best known -for its coffee growing and processing. Total acreage and production of Kona coffee has remained fairly stable in the 1990's; however, the total value of Kona coffee sales have nearly quadrupled during the same period. Although the price for Kona coffee has been quite volatile, Kona coffee is considered one, if not the most promising diversified agricultural product within the County. Macadamia nut growing is also a major economic agricultural industry ry in South Kona.O MacFarms of Hawaii has one of the largest single macadamia nut plantations in the world, with nearly 3,000 acres. Ka'u The Ka'u District of the Island of Hawaii is the largest (land mass) judicial district within the County of Hawaii with a land area of approximately 922 square miles. Within the Ka'u District are the towns of Hawaiian Ocean View Estates, Naalehu, Waiohino, Volcano and Pahala. Situated to the southern and eastern slopes of Mauna Loa, Ka'u is primarily an agricultural district that is made up of lava fields, grazing and reserve lands, macadamia O III -17 Onut orchards, coffee, orchids, vegetables, flowers and also includes parts of Hawaii Volcanoes National Park. It is also the home of the large Ka'u forest reserve, Sea Mountain and Volcano Golf courses, and the temple in Wood Valley. Although Ka'u is the largest district within the County, its population size is the second smallest only to that of North Hilo. The population in the District of Ka'u from 1980 to 1990 increased slightly from 3,707 to 4,438 (19.7%), according to U.S. Census Bureau information. Employment in the Ka'u District increased from 1,400 in 1980 to 1,965 in 1990 and to 2,100 in 1997, representing an annual compounded growth rate of 3.45 percent from O1980 to 1990 and .95 percent from 1990 to 1997. Unemployment rates in Ka'u were 9.20 percent in 1980, 6.10 percent in 1990 and 14.80 percent in 1997. The increase in unemployment rate from 6.1% in 1990 to 14.8% in 1997 was due in large part to the departure of the sugarcane industry in the early/mid-1990's and a population growth rate much higher than the growth in employment. Median household income in Ka'u increased from $15,288 in 1980 to $22,229 in 1990, representing a 3.81 percent annual compounded growth rate (last only to the District of Puna). The Ka'u Sugar Company once provided the income and employment for the majority of the residents. The high unemployment rate in Ka'u is not surprising as the cattle, macadamia nut, and forestry industries, which are considered major in the Ka'u district, are non -labor intensive industries. III -18 Although employment figures are not expected to change drastically, the forestry industry looks to be promising as U.S. mainland firms have expressed interest in developing a forestry industry on the Island of Hawaii. One such company, PruTimber, is planning to invest $5 million in Ka'u in each of the next two years and create an additional 30 to 40 jobs. In addition, C. Brewer Co., which has extensive land holdings in Ka'u is also pursuing diversified agriculture in the area. FUTURE OUTLOOK The County of Hawaii has been without doubt, the most innovative county in Hawaii as far as expansion into new fields of industries such as astronomy, renewable energy, O diversified agriculture, and aquaculture to name a few. Many of these new fields have very promising futures and the Island of Hawaii will be the beneficiary of this success because of its investment into the research and development in these emerging fields. With the increase in direct national and international flights to the Island of Hawaii, tourism is expected to increase moderately as the Hawaiian economy slowly recovers from its recessionary state. With the prospects of developing new diversified agricultural products such as forestry, kava and possibly industrial hemp, as well as the development of an irradiation or x-ray plant to treat agricultural products, the growth of diversified agriculture is expected to also improve, with longer term prospects looking very favorable. III -19 There are many promising activities and programs being considered or implemented, which could have major impacts to the Island of Hawaii. The relocation of C. Brewer headquarters to Hilo; establishment of Agricultural Research Center of the Pacific; conversion of the old sewer treatment plant near Puhi Bay to an aquaculture facility; hold cargo facilities at the Hilo Airport; and the construction of an agricultural water system in Ka'u are just a few the promising activities and programs that may have a positive economic impact to the future of the Island of Hawaii. Inasmuch as the future in the above areas are looking bright, the overall outlook for the economy of the County of Hawaii is mixed, primarily due to the County's dependence on Othe economy of the rest of Hawaii, which has been in a protracted state of growth for the past nine years since 1990, with no near end in sight. While there are opportunities for expansion into new and existing industries as described above, there are several external factors which may have an impact on the County's future economy. First of all is the current Asian economic crisis which has hampered tourism and investment in Hawaii. It is expected to take at least several years before the Asian economy rebounds and once again benefits Hawaii and the Island of Hawaii. Secondly, with the exception of the mainland United States, many other major countries around the world are also dealing with economic crises. This worldwide dilemma will eventually impact the economy of the mainland U.S. Many U.S. companies are already O III -20 feeling the pinch of this global economic crisis as earning levels have been dropping O resulting in the need for cutting back operating expenses and laying off employees. This has also led to the substantive increase in major company mergers, which has also resulted in the laying off of employees due to economies of scale. Compounding this is the unprecedented strength of the U.S. stock market which has recently topped the 10,000 mark. As seen in the newspaper article at Exhibit III -6, the U.S. stock market has been skyrocketing over the past 15 years and is in an "economic bubble" of its own. If this "bubble" bursts anytime in the near future, especially if it happens before the recovery of the Asian economic crisis, Hawaii will be in for more tough economic times. The Hawaii economy is very dependent on the tourism industry and currently, nearly 85 percent of Hawaii's visitor arrivals come from either the U.S. O mainland or Japan. If the mainland U.S. drops into an economic downturn in the near future, the economic impact to Hawaii and the Island of Hawaii will be devastating. Complicating these economic matters is the unknown impact of the Year 2000 computer problem (Y2K). Some experts are predicting that Y2K will have a major global economic impact, with the top economist from one of the world's largest banks predicting a 70 percent chance of worldwide economic downturn as a result of global Y2K unpreparedness. Unlike the U.S. and Hawaii, who have taken great strides in the past year in becoming Y2k ready, many Asian countries including Japan are behind on their Y2K remediation III -21 Oefforts. With Hawaii's dependence on air travel for both tourism and the shipping of cargo, any extended delays or grounding of aircraft in -bound or out -bound could have debilitating impacts on Hawaii's economy. The impacts of these three potentially crippling threats to Hawaii's economy are real with the Asian economic crisis already impacting the Hawaiian economy. Because of these unprecedented economic events occurring or possibly occurring, the future economic outlook is somewhat cloudy and is not as predictable as would normally be. If these potential economic threats do not ;materialize, the future economic outlook for the County of Hawaii, due to its innovative diversification efforts, will be very positive. III -22 OECONOMIC INDICATORS EXHIBIT III -1 COUNTY OF HAWAII Source: Hawaii Visitors & Convention Bureau, Hawaii State Department of Labor, PKF-Hawaii, Hawaii County Data Book im M im Average Employment 40,850 55,200 61,750 Resident Population 92,053 120,317 141,458 (est.) Visitor Arrivals -Total 761,000 1,171,000 1,205,000 Westbound 715,000 983,000 915,000 Eastbound 46,000 188,000 290,000 Hotel Occupancy 47.31% 61.97% 65.43% Retail Trade $356,056,000 $900,200,000 $560,594,000 Total Agricultural Production $215,640,000 $198,310,000 $141,910,000 (1996) Sugar Production $137,500,000 $55,000,000 $0 Value of Building Permits $146,935,000 $493,788,000 $219,288,000 Construction Completed $78,707,000 $350,810,000 $164,279,000 O Source: Hawaii Visitors & Convention Bureau, Hawaii State Department of Labor, PKF-Hawaii, Hawaii County Data Book EXHIBIT III -2 EMPLOYMENT BY DISTRICTS COUNTY OF HAWAII Source: Hawaii State Department of Labor & Industrial Relations, Hawaii County Data Book District Zone 1980 1990 1 �2Z Puna 1 5,850 8,432 8,850 South Hilo 2 14,750 20,561 22,250 North Hilo 3 450 610 650 Hamakua 4 1,850 2,565 2,750 North Kohala 5 1,500 2,044 2,250 South Kohala 6 3,550 4,882 5,400 North Kona 7 8,650 11,898 13,100 South Kona 8 2,850 4,029 4,300 Kau 9 1,400 1,965 2,100 Total 40,850 56,986 61,650 Average Employment 40,850 55,200 61,750 O Source: Hawaii State Department of Labor & Industrial Relations, Hawaii County Data Book UNEMPLOYMENT RATES BY DISTRICTS COUNTY OF HAWAII Source: Hawaii State Department of Labor & Industrial Relations, Hawaii County Data Book Note: Unemployment rates as reported by the Hawaii State Department of Labor & Industrial Relations are based on individuals who are listed on the unemployment insurance rosters as currently receiving unemployment insurance benefits. Unemployment insurance benefits expire after 26 weeks. Unemployed individuals who have exhausted all of their unemployment insurance benefits would thus not be included in the unemployment rates. As such, the above unemployment rates are likely to be understated. EXHIBIT III -2A O District Zone 1980 1990 1997 Countywide 6.20% 3.80% 10.20% Puna 1 9.90% 6.90% 15.60% South Hilo 2 6.30% 3.40% 9.50% North Hilo 3 6.40% 3.70% 10.40% Hamakua 4 5.00% 3.30% 9.70% North Kohala 5 5.30% 5.10% 8.70% South Kohala 6 3.70% 3.40% 6.20% North Kona 7 3.90% 2.80% 6.40% South Kona 8 8.10% 3.10% 13.10% Kau 9 9.20% 6.10% 14.80% Source: Hawaii State Department of Labor & Industrial Relations, Hawaii County Data Book Note: Unemployment rates as reported by the Hawaii State Department of Labor & Industrial Relations are based on individuals who are listed on the unemployment insurance rosters as currently receiving unemployment insurance benefits. Unemployment insurance benefits expire after 26 weeks. Unemployed individuals who have exhausted all of their unemployment insurance benefits would thus not be included in the unemployment rates. As such, the above unemployment rates are likely to be understated. EXHIBIT III -2A O r; POPULATION BY DISTRICTS COUNTY OF HAWAII Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Hawaii County Data Book im 11,751 42,278 1,703 5,079 3,274 4,669 13,690 5,902 1990 20,781 44,639 1,541 5,545 4,291 9,140 22,284 7,658 3,707 4,438 92,053 120,317 EXHIBIT III -3 19�Z N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 141,458 (est.) District ZQM Puna 1 South Hilo 2 North Hilo 3 Hamakua 4 North Kohala 5 South Kohala 6 North Kona 7 South Kona 8 Ka'u 9 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Hawaii County Data Book im 11,751 42,278 1,703 5,079 3,274 4,669 13,690 5,902 1990 20,781 44,639 1,541 5,545 4,291 9,140 22,284 7,658 3,707 4,438 92,053 120,317 EXHIBIT III -3 19�Z N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 141,458 (est.) OINCOME CHARACTERISTICS EXHIBIT III -4 COUNTY OF HAWAII 1980 1990 1996 Total Personal Income $901,300,000 $1,948,000,000 $2,662,000,000 Per Capita Income $9,682 $16,039 $19,056 MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Hawaii County Data Book Total Annual Dollar Percent Compouded 19 4 1990 Increase Increase Increase Countywide $16,975 $29,712 $12,737 75.03% 5.76% Puna $14,359 $18,360 $4,001 27.86% 2.49% South Hilo $17,944 $29,967 $12,023 67.00% 5.26% North Hilo $15,719 $27,118 $11,399 72.52% 5.61% Hamakua $17,270 $31,431 $14,161 82.00% 6.17% North Kohala $13,987 $31,026 $17,039 121.82% 8.29% South Kohala $17,747 $39,857 $22,110 124.58% 8.43% North Kona $19,486 $35,364 $15,878 81.48% 6.14% South Kona $16,273 $31,292 $15,019 92.29% 6.75% Kau $15,288 $22,229 $6,941 45.40% 3.81% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Hawaii County Data Book OH Ln U) W O oLL Z QV) F-::) 0 N LL a>0 .W CL Z 0=o 1-0 U F- LL Q F - fn co (n m N d' m f- (n N co 0 0 0 O 00 O O N (o t- IQ W oc co f` m N I--� (D 00 (n N (0 Oct � It M O (00_ m It co (n (O (n 'Q M n O (o r M (D O O (D f• Cl)00 1 n M co N r N O h M 3 (0 M (O N (n (0 N o 0 0 N 0 m M ON v n m (n m 0 'r 0 0 0 O m O m V' n N W) (D 00 V M ' O (D (D m r V_ m I` N O O r` O N h 14 N N r N 00 M c O m m Er r m M r O N f` e- m r, in r m m m 00 r` to o a o r (n Q m CO N m N m .- m m N r r - 0 N fD V N O N N N (o v v (D o 0 0 N a) M N am0 Go N r 00 00 r%r- to N O r > r N Cl) 1` N O O N Q r N O c 0 � (p C O M(n O co N m r M r` _M (n m (n (n O M (n o 0 (n (n 0 O O 00 CO r 00 M (n M 0) 00 ti O r 00 O (00_ m N n N 0 0 M (n n fl- 1-t m (0 Lo (n m V' (D (o ^ V (n co M O O O r CS, m_ N Cl) co N a h M Mr (0 M (O N (n (0 N o 0 0 N 0 m O M co CO N (` O N O N M 1` N M (On M M N N r' N 00 O Cl m m ro M O (0 M r N o_ o e Q M r O r f` e- m r, in r m m m 00 r` to o a o r (n r m CO N m N m .- m m N r r - 0 N N f` O O m m to N M (D O r N M t00 ao M O r > O O rn 1` N O N Q o (n N n 00 N co (n O 00 0 0 0 to m (N (00_ O CO N cr) N Go Nl'1 O O gym} QJ 10n O CY O m_ r (n Cl) co N a h M M t0 In d' M It O CA 'Q O O in O N 0 N O (nO r- t` O M O (0 M M o_ o e M r O r f` e- V N (n (D m O O Cl r r (n r m CO 0 (O m N m .- m m N r r - 0 N (D (i O m m r N t00 ao M O r > O rn N Q o c 0 � (p C N F- N (A ^ U 00 M O A r M F.. T3 U a) m c N (ND (n N (� O Om0 O O Nd a tl C h N f` N O C V N o O~ u) N 0) 0) � N W N 0 O _ (0 C C m E y r w 2 O rn N U o c 0 � (p C N F- N (A U O ate+ F.. T3 U a) m c c r w N Nd a tl C h N C V N o O~ u) 2 N z ii Q � F F°- IL • Section The blue-chip index surges 184.54 points today to finally close above the milestone BWM&bV p New NEW YORK — The Dow Jones industrial average closed above 10,000 for the first time, after flirting with the milestone for two weeks. Oil shares, among the market's worst performers for the past two years, post- ed the biggest gains, after BP Amoco Plc said it's in talks to buy Atlantic Rich- field Co. New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani joined New York Stock Exchange Chairman Richard Grasso and John Preslbo, markets editor at Dow Jones & Co., in throwing Dow 10,000 hats to the crowd on the trading floor at the mar- ket's close. "We'll stay above the 10,000 level, though it's go- ing to be a volatile mar- ket," said Andrew Damm. a fund manager with Black - Rock Inc., which oversees $132 billion In Philadel- phia. "It does seem the market is broadening out" The Dow average rose Inside 18tK or 1.9 per - How the dow is cent, to cakulaw. G3 close at > A list of Dow 10,006.78 stocks, G4 today. The 30 - stock av- erage crossed trading dur- ing three sessions the week before last, failing to stay there until today. Interna- tional Business Machines Corp. led the Dow in its fl - nil push above the mile- stone, after Goldman, Sachs & Co. investment strategist Abby Joseph Cohen said In a New York Times interview that IBM and Dell Computer Corp. are undervalued. It was the average's ninth 1,000 -point milestone since 1982 Technology is "going to be a more and more Important part of our gross domestic product," said Mark Lap - man, a money manager with Independence Investment Associates, which oversees about $33 billion In Boston. Lipman owns shares of Dell, 1 11, Microsoft Corp. and Intel Corp. The Standard & Pooes 500 Index rose 27.37, or 2.1 percent, to 1310.17. The Nasdaq composite index gained 73.67, or 3 percent, to 2.49284 Advancers beat decliners by an 8 -to -5 margin on the New York Stock Exchange, with 1,830 up, 1,127 down and 553 unchanged. NYSE volume totaled 748.81 million shares, vs. 6944 million million Friday. The NYSE composite in- dex rose 10.81 to 613.16, but the American Stock Ex- change composite index fell 0.86 to 717.88. And the Russell 2000 in- dex, which reflects the per- formance of smaller compa- nies, rose 5.84 to 399.76. ' The price of the Trea- sury's main 30 -year bond was down 22/36 point, or :6.871/2 per $1,000 In face value, by late afternoon, while Its yield rose to 5.64 percent from 5.59 percent late Friday. Prices and yields move in opposite di- rections. On Wall Street, Arco Jumped $8.68 to $74.06 and American depositary re- ceipts of BP rose $4.56 to $105. A source familiar with the talks said the acquisi- tion could be worth $25 bil- lion In stock, or 19 percent above Arco's value on Fri- day. An announcement could come later this week atter the boards meet, the person said. The talks are the latest sig: of consolidation in the oil industry, which is strug. Kling to cut costs atter crude prices fell by a third last year. Other oil stocks ral- lied, helped by crude's rise to a one-year high. Overseas, Japan's Nikkei stock average fell 0.4 per- cent Germany's DAX Index soared L4 percent after Fri- day's selloff BriWn's FTSE 100 was up 125 percent, and France's CAC -0 was up 0.92 percent VISITOR INDUSTRY BACKGROUND OF INDUSTRY The worldwide visitor industry has been expanding rapidly over the past 30 years and today, is considered one of the world's largest industries that makes substantial contributions to the economies of many countries by providing employment, income and economic growth. The relatively free movement in travel around the world and the improvements in worldwide infrastructure, travel, accommodations, and disposable income have all contributed to the rapid growth in this industry. According to the World Travel and Tourism Council, the worldwide visitor industry generated approximately O$4.4 trillion in economic activity and employed 231 million people in 1998. The World Travel and Tourism Council estimate that in 1998 the visitor industry will: • employ approximately 10 percent of the world's employees, • account for nearly 12 percent of the worlds' capital investment, • and contribute 11.6 percent of the world's Gross Domestic Product. In Hawaii, the visitor industry is the driving force of the economy and contributes $14.6 billion of economic activity, employs nearly 180,000 people (31.6 percent of the total workforce), accounts for 28 percent of statewide tax revenues and contributes nearly 28 percent of the Gross State Product (source: World Travel and Tourism Council). IV -A-1 HISTORICAL TRENDS O STATEWIDE According to statistics from the Hawaii Visitors and Convention Bureau (HVCB), visitor arrivals to the state increased at a phenomenal rate since 1950 when visitor arrivals totaled only 46,593 (see Exhibits IV -A-1 and IV -A -la). As of 1998, visitor arrivals stood at 6,738,220 representing an annual growth rate of 10.92 percent since 1950. The greatest percentage growth in visitor arrivals occurred during the 1950 to 1960 period (536.40 percent) and the 1960 to 1970 period (489.16 percent). Visitor arrivals first topped the one million milestone in 1967 at 1,124,818 and peaked in 1990 at 6,971,180. It should be noted that the HVCB statistics only tracks visitors arriving via the airlines and does not monitor visitors arriving via cruise ships. From 1950 to 1990, visitor arrivals to the state increased every year with the exception of 1980 when arrivals dropped a mere .7 percent primarily due to the recession on the U.S. mainland. Due to a combination of the 1991 economic downturn in both the U.S. mainland and Japan as well as the impact of the 1991 Persian Gulf War, visitor arrivals dropped in 1991 to 6,873,890 and continued its three-year slide until 1993 at 6,124,230. Visitor arrivals increased from 1994 to 1997 (6,876,140 arrivals) and once again slipped in 1998 to 6,738,220. The drop in arrivals in 1998 was primarily caused by the 1997 Asian economic crisis which began hurting Asian travel to Hawaii in 1997 and reached full impact in 1998 when eastbound visitor arrivals dropped 10.9 percent from 2.8 million in 1997 to nearly 2.5 million in 1998. IV -A-2 EXHIBIT IV -A-1 STATEWIDE VISITOR ARRIVALS FOR YEARS 1977 THROUGH 1998 YEAR TOTAL OAHU BIG ISLAND KAUAI MAUI 1977 3,434,000 3,100,000 939,000 960,000 1,374,000 1978 3,670,000 3,258,000 1,001,000 1,034,000 1,516,000 1979 3,960,000 3,461,000 951,000 1,035,000 1,530,000 1980 3,934,000 3,375,000 807,000 953,000 1,492,000 1981 3,935,000 3,351,000 719,000 912,000 1,477,000 1982 4,243,000 3,779,000 725,000 898,000 1,706,000 1983 4,368,000 3,654,000 756,000 824,000 1,829,000 1984 4,856,000 4,039,000 814,000 948,000 2,014,000 1985 4,884,000 4,004,000 760,000 983,000 2,002,000 1986 5,607,000 4,497,000 866,000 1,199,000 2,210,000 1987 5,800,000 4,588,000 873,000 1,135,000 2,137,000 1988 6,143,000 4,847,000 885,000 1,182,000 2,206,000 1989 6,642,000 5,050,000 1,121,000 1,291,000 2,469,000 1990 6,971,000 5,351,000 1,171,000 1,286,000 2,345,000 1991 6,874,000 5,048,000 1,189,000 1,267,000 2,272,000 1992 6,514,000 4,884,000 1,142,000, 877,000 2,285,000 1993 6,124,000 4,505,000 1,120,000 572,000 2,210,000 1994 6,430,000 4,693,000 1,079,000 874,000 2,303,000 1995 6,589,000 4,833,000 1,084,000 915,000 2,248,000 1996 6,830,000 4,989,000 1,165,000 962,000 2,266,000 1997 6,876,000 5,018,000 1,214,000 1,011,000 2,280,000 1998 6,738,000 4,718,000 1,271,000 1,040,000 2,303,000 Average Annual 3.26% 2.02% 1.45% 0.38% 2.49% Growth Note: Figures are rounded. Total visitors do not represent the sum of the islands due to multi -island visits. Source: Hawaii Visitors and Convention Bureau EXHIBIT IV-A-Ia O STATEWIDE VISITOR ARRIVAL STATISTICS YEAR TOTAL ARRIVALS INCREASE IN ANNUAL ARRIVALS AVERAGE ANNUAL GROWTH RATE TOTAL GROWTH RATE 1930 18,651 ---- ---- ---- 1940 25,373 6,722 3.13% 36.04% 1950 46,593 21,220 6.27% 83.36% 1960 296,517 249,924 20.33% 536.40% 1970 1,746,970 1,450,453 19.41% 489.16% 1980 3,934,504 2,187,534 8.46% 125.22% 1990 6,971,180 3,036,676 5.89% 77.18% 1998 6,738,220 -232,960 -0.41% -3.27% Source: Hawaii Visitors & Convention Bureau OFor the period 1977 through 1998, total statewide visitor arrivals increased at an average annual rate of 3.26 percent. The island of Maui showed the largest annual average increase of all islands of 2.49 percent for the same period with the island of Oahu at 2.02 percent, the Island of Hawaii at 1.45 percent and Kauai at .38 percent. Total visitors is further segregated by the direction of travel to Hawaii as either Eastbound such as from Asia or Westbound such as from the United States. Westbound visitors have historically represented the majority of the visitors to Hawaii representing approximately 75 percent of the total visitors in the early 1980's. However, in the 1990's, eastbound visitors have substantially increased resulting, in westbound visitors comprising approximately 63 percent of the total visitors to Hawaii. Westbound Visitors Westbound visitors by the different counties for the period 1980 through 1998 are summarized on Exhibit IV -A-2. Statewide westbound visitors have fluctuated over the years with a high of 4,719,730 in 1990 and a low of 2,974,790 in 1981. Currently, statewide westbound visitors total 4,245,270 in 1998. Each counties share of westbound visitors has fluctuated over the years with Oahu currently receiving 53.8 percent, County of Maui receiving 45.8 percent, County of Hawaii at 22.6 percent and the County of Kauai at 21.3 percent. This differs from the early 1980's when approximately 80 percent of westbound visitors would visit the island of Oahu. IV -A-5 rA F U) A z F Ut w 00 0\ O\ ti F 0000 D 0 U PO �. a 0 w o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0� o O C' .I: � tt 00 IR Yl N t` t` O 00 M ^ h O m v) Vl N OQ N M Nr V' V' M M 00 00 O O N N N N N N N N N N N N ^ ^ ^ N N N N V] [r O� 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O o O O ° O, 00 O, O It �t M VrCD 00 N On Iq vi ,O oo h N Qw N oo �O 00 �D M O, oo rl M tt N d' N M oo 00 vl et 40� O, 00 "O M O M --� M V' M 00 ^ N o0 N h oo 0o O O O O h "t h [— 00 0o Q\ O F N h cn V' oo V: O V NQ� M F to �c h o0 O\ O, h vi -�r -q- 0 0 wl O o o O o 0 o O o 0 0 0 o O o CD O, O, 00 O O, h 00 h O ,O ,O 00 00 M M V' M O ° .-r oo O I�O % .-. oo h O ..i �O M h •--� M O, 0 4 4 �' � 00 4 m t h� O O tf O d• cK 00 N ^ H h 00 to � h M O O 00 O,N. " 0, O" M 1-4- Q r- en M Vw ,O 00 oo ON 00 .-� O� a^ o0 ( - O^ o0 o0 o0 O\ O F (,� 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E„y O IO (' O 'ct Oo V1 ,O M ^+ oD M O, M n IO O V' 10 h N OO oo oo 00 00 O C f`I M N fV N H Q N N N N N — — —^ N N N N N N N N. N � F O 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Cl O w t— o0 V' oo M " �O V' O .-. O, C� O N � N ° ►r t0 M a� M O, v, M v7 cl ,0 V� ,0 c% 00 O, ►"" N o0 N O N E N3 N�o N %n O\ vi 1D O" h � oo ON w w oo "t h o h ,0 v, oo t- O, a, a, rn w 00 oo 0o a rn o� E,y ll ,O O ri O M O, N n -+ N N [-� N O\ N O� O, o0 ¢ 00 O O, �O 00 k.0 M M O 00 h M M M ON O, o0 h M � F v1 h .v1 to 0 O Cl O h 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0O_ O O O O O N M n d' M b O h oo0 ool .h+ v'1 S oo0 l o0 00 O, .-+ o0 ,O o0 M h O, O, M o0 I— O, M F D\ O\ o0 O, O N 't n O O\ M h O, N v1 h oo M M v1 v> O o0 --� O O N 00 v7 rl M M M N N O N N N N N N M M M M M N N N N N N N N H C O O O O O O_ O O O O O O O O O O O O O M_ a, N .-� 00 O, M N M �0 N N N ::: h vl h ° ra (Sj �O d' 00 00 ,O V^ �t vi O, It O 'IT M IT h In d h h O, N O h O O— oo 00 �o O` r1 0 h It F Q O Ok N M h N N N h h v^ O\ n O) O^ O O N F cn � ao a 00 O, ^ 1 ,O 00 O N 00 h O N M h M 0t oa 0) 0 00 00 0o as 00 00 00 00 00 0o O, 0, O, O, O, O, O, O, 0, U ¢ a «`3 y 0 z OThe majority of westbound visitors originate from the United States with others from Canada, Europe and other foreign countries. Exhibit IV -A-3 compares the area of residence of westbound visitors from 1982 to 1998. A significant change from westbound visitors in 1982 to 1998 is that the United States represents a significantly larger proportion of westbound visitors increasing from 67.9 percent in 1982 to 84.3 percent in 1998. Canadian travelers have decreased slightly, however, the bulk of the difference is from other foreign visitors who decreased from 22.1 percent or 836,000 visitors in 1982 to 9.4 percent or 389,000 visitors in 1998. Nearly 60 percent of the U.S. visitors are from the Pacific and Mountain regions. These regions would include the states of Alaska, California, Oregon, Washington, Arizona, OColorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming. Exhibit IV -A-4 summarizes and compares the social and demographic characteristics of westbound visitors for the years 1982 and 1997. The major changes between the two periods of time are in the number of trips, sex of the visitor and median age. In current years, the number of trips has changed to where repeat visitors are nearly twice as much as first time visitors, whereas, in 1982 first time visitors was greater than repeat visitors and represented approximately 55 percent of westbound visitors. The sex of visitors has also changed significantly with approximately 45 percent of westbound visitors being male in 1982 whereas in 1997 approximately 55 percent are males. The median age of westbound visitors has increased from 39.1 years in 1982 to 43.3 years in 1997. IV -A-7 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a o 0 0 0 0 0 M O M M It O O [z 'Y 00 d 00 N n [- � �o Q\ O 00 a, 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 _o o > �O h m 00 M 00 [� N 00 O\ 00 a+ N n011c� h N N 0 �1.0I-oW)��00 cs �� 3 h M N m N N 'IT N m a. bA F, a 0 00 V N� h N M N v1 ONJI O� Nfl Y A Q\ cyll N V1 V1 h .-• N o0 R [� N N O O 7 A G A > 0 p b 0 0 ON 00 VI N D, t+1 �O h 00 z oo \0 o0 .-. V•1 O !h oo O N �O r W W O r. .r �o M a1 00 N h .-. .r Q\ e} .0 .X 61 F Z V] F+ O Obi vii N N o vhi N 00 � � ❑ y Q, 'co .� _. rn o :2 az o O O y .D (� Q o , N A 0 ,?� U op�`"�-_ b �.a W > U o�x�z>� .14 o m 0 CY. > W W z U 0 0 `�U Q t: o W WA Cq ni a5" iC is U U W Z .. e0 M[ 30 00 U X Q Z [- C7 F- > U O ami ami K U a� p a o E [�, cd '� U U U U 2000 .DQE. OW 3 �a= = c o U�zv�Z�z.aQ�,¢ ¢44 Qco) x o 0 0 0 ay� ':� Q y ¢OwW ¢Qw�0F. dFx-O OF o i i o yd a 33wwz �o Uoz o, 33wwz �0z w EXHIBIT IV -A-4 - STATE OF HAWAII SOCIAL AND DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF WESTBOUND VISITORS FOR YEARS 1982 AND 1997 Source: Hawaii Visitors and Convention Bureau 1982 1997 NUMB PERCENT NUMBER PERCENT Accommodations Hotel/Apt. Hotel 2,192,338 66.9% 2,490,310 61.1% Condominium 752,332 22.9% 1,076,430 26.4% Friend/Relative 275,011 8.4% 459,850 11.3% Other 58.838 1.8% 51.360 1.3% .Total Responses 3,278,519 100.0% 4,077,950 01 0.0% Purpose of Visit Pleasure 2,647,599 80.8% 3,187,090 78.2% Business 76,514 2.3% 176,250 4.3% Pleasure and business 357,423 10.9% 0.0% Convention 72,843 2.2% 340,400 8.3% Others 124.140 3 a% 374,210 UN Total Responses 3.278.519 100.0 ° 4,077,950 100.0% Number of Trips First time visitors 990,312 54.5% 1,502,360 36.8% Repeat visitors 827.924 45.5% 2,575,590 63.2% Total Responses 1,818,236 100.0% 4.077.950 100.0% Traveling Status Individually arranged 2,475,403 75.5% 2,537,210 62.2% Organized tour group/Incentive trip 785,427 24.0% 1,540,740 37.8% Others 17.689 ON 0 M% Total Responses 3,278,519 100.0% 4.077.950 100.0% Occupation Professional and technical 645,871 35.5% 1,103,290 28.8% Business, managerial, official 475,422 26.1% 883,040 23.0% Clerical, office, sales 186,556 10.3% 564,460 14.7% Retired 198,232 10.9%- 531,250 13.8% Others 312,149 17.2% 57 4.020 19.7% Total Responses 1,818,230 100.0%83. 36.060 100.0% Sex Male 1,486,088 45.3% 2,251,673 55.2% Female 1392,431 54.7% 1.826.277 44.8% Total Responses23. 78.519 100.0% 4.077.950 100.0% Age Median 39.1 years 43.3 years Source: Hawaii Visitors and Convention Bureau Other characteristics of westbound visitors include the majority (61.1%) stay in a hotel or O apartment hotel, come to Hawaii for pleasure (78.2%) and individually arrange their traveling plans (62.2%) versus traveling with an organized tour group. Eastbound Visitors Eastbound visitors by the different counties for the period 1980 through 1998 are summarized on Exhibit IV -A-5. Statewide eastbound visitors has been increasing for the period 1980 through 1992, then in 1993 there was a decrease of approximately 7 percent then consistent increases until 1997 and 1998 when both years showed decreases of approximately 1 percent and 11 percent, respectively. The statewide average annual increase for eastbound visitors was 5.9 percent with the County of Hawaii and the County of Maui showing significant average annual growth of 11.2 percent and 11.3 percent, O respectively. The eastbound visitors to both Hawaii and Maui counties increased in terms of the percentage of the total eastbound visitors to those counties with the County of Hawaii increasing from 5.2 percent of the total in 1980 to 12.4 percent in 1998 and the County of Maui increasing from 6.9 percent in 1980 to 16.7 percent in 1998. The majority of eastbound visitors originate from Japan with others from Korea, Taiwan and other Asia and Oceania countries. Exhibit IV -A-6 summarizes the Japanese visitors to Hawaii for the years 1983 to 1998. Over the years, Japanese visitors have fluctuated to a high of 2,223,000 visitors in 1997 before decreasing to 2,008,000 visitors in 1998 for a 9.7 percent decrease in that year. The average annual increase for the 1983 to 1998 period was a very strong 8.7 percent. The decrease in visitors in 1998 is due to the Asian O IV -A-10 a� o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W F O h 00 O t` t` V1 M M CT t` o0 l0 h h 4 -7 Vl h � O a 0 0 C. Cl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O M t` M CT N r: 00 M t` N N t` lzt In "t l0 Q O M 00 O M h lO OO lO N d' N M h M O E„i CT Oo M OO Yl M v, l0 W? 00 I` l0 t- O, N m -�t h d t- N t- l-- oo O� 00 to t-. l0 "o - - .-. .--� .--� r, .-. - V1 F OE* e O O O OO O O O O O O O O O O O O O O \° ° O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O r'? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o d o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o to O M W r 10 O M d O m d O P 'T l0 Q lD t, C\ N h l0 O N N O, O, O, t- \0 h 'IT CT t- •• F W O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O OO 10 h O d: M N M Vl 'fit h h h h CT w C% CT O 00 a0 C O N OF O ° 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ° O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O d O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N „y M_ M It M_ M N Ch CT %0 1.0 t- Itr M M CT O M �* 00 QH j O N N N N N OM N N 09 E,,,, r�rt��nv„loloMv�cy000;r--�lorn-;o�� CT 0:1 F Q O\ m O, O, O, Ql O, O, O, CT CT 01 Q\ O, CT CT O, � F O FO 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O ° O O O O O O O O O O O O O O o O O O O O O O- O O O O O O O O O O d O O O O O °O v� t- t- t- - h h CT CT O ,O O h - CT h o0 h to l0 N t- et O M t- at h N O O M M M h x F oo CT O\ C7, oO 00 .--i .--� M .--� M n 1p tl d' N N N N N o Q O N N N N F O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O o 0 0 0 C ° O; 00 O N et ,0 �b 00 t- -� a, :fO N l0 h w M h 00 l0 O, M h M M CT N ON CT 'c1' Q N h m l0 OO [- It 00 ON , D\ � ^” M V'� DD O\ N N M O N N .hi N N N N N N N F■ � o cu Q Q h l0 n 00 O, O- N M It h 1p t\ 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 0o 00 00 00 25 a, o, o, o, o` Q` o, rn .0 U W rno o,o o a,o 0, ON0�o,0,o,o,rno,a,0,0, a a� EXHIBIT IV -A-6 O STATE OF HAWAII JAPANESE VISITORS FOR YEARS 1983 - 1998 YEAR JAPANESE VISITORS ANNUAL PERCENT INCREASE/DECREASE 1983 572,000 --- 1984 638,000 11.5% 1985 709,000 11.1% 1986 731,000 3.1% 1987 904,000 23.7% 1988 1,072,000 18.6% 1989 1,319,000 23.0% 1990 1,439,000 9.1% 1991 1,385,000 -3.8% 1992 1,637,000 18.2% 1993 1,592,000 -2.7% 1994 1,756,000 10.3% 1995 1,999,000 13.8% 1996 2,090,000 4.6% 1997 2,223,000 6.4% 1998 2,008,000 -9.7% Average Annual Increase 8.7% Source: Hawaii Visitors & Convention Bureau Oeconomic crisis in which many Asian countries experienced significant devaluation in their currencies and other economic crises. Summarized on Exhibit IV -A-7 are some of the current social and demographic characteristics of eastbound visitors. An overwhelming majority of eastbound visitors stay in a hotel (84.2%), come to Hawaii for pleasure (91.5%), travel in a tour group (70.0%) and are male visitors (70.3%). There are approximately equal number of first time visitors (49.2%) versus repeat visitors (50.8%) and approximately 44 percent have professional, technical, business, managerial or official occupations. The median age of eastbound visitors was 36.0 years. Visitor Accommodations In concert with the increase in visitor arrivals to Hawaii, the number of visitor accommodations also increased accordingly. According to the HVCB, statewide visitor accommodation units increased from 12,903 in 1965, tripling by 1975 to 39,632 units and by 1985 reached 65,919 units (see Exhibit IV -A-8). The number of statewide visitor accommodation units peaked in 1992 at 73,089 and currently in 1998, stands at 71,480. The drop in units from 1992 is primarily due to the closing of hotels caused by the protracted statewide economic downturn as well as the impact of hurricane Iniki, which devastated the island of Kauai in 1992. The average annual increase for statewide visitor accommodations was 5.3 percent for the period 1965 to 1998. The County of Oahu visitor accommodations increased from 10,031 units in 1965 to 36,206 units in 1998 for a 4.0 percent average annual increase. The counties of Hawaii, Kauai and Maui increased O IV -A-13 EXHIBIT IV -A-7 STATE OF HAWAII SOCIAL AND DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF EASTBOUND VISITORS 1997 1997 Accommodations NUMBER Hotel/Apt. Hotel 2,322,780 Condominium 316,810 Friend/Relative 70,340 Other 49.880 Total Responses 2.759.810 Purpose of Visit Pleasure 2,509,780 Business 23,430 Meetings, Convention & Incentive 103,170 Others 106.960 Total Responses 2,743,340 Number of Trips First time visitors 1,377,930 Repeat visitors41, 20.260 Total Responses 2,798,190 Traveling Status Individually arranged 825,660 Organized tour group/Incentive trip 1.925.720 Total Responses 2,751,380 Occupation Professional and technical 572,500 Business, managerial, official 577,190 Clerical, office, sales 507,180 Retired 55,540 Others 885:640 Total Responses 2,528,050 84.2% 11.5% 2.5% 1.8% 100.0% 91.5% 0.9% 3.8% 3.9% 100.0% 49.2% 50.8% 100.0% 30.0% 70.0% 100.0% 22.0% 22.2% 19.5% 2.1% 34.1% 100.0% Male 1,967,859 70.3% Female 830.331 29.7% Total Responses 2,798,190 _ 100.0% Age Median Source: Hawaii Visitors and Convention Bureau 36.0 years EXHIBIT IV -A-8 STATE OF HAWAII VISITOR ACCOMMODATIONS BY COUNTY FOR YEARS 1965 TO 1998 YEAR STATE TOTAL OAHU HAWAII COUNTY KAUAI COUNTY MAUI COUNTY 1965 12,903 10,031 865 776 1,231 1966 14,827 11,083 1,387 860 1,497 1967 17,217 12,598 1,790 1,115 1,714 1968 18,657 13,166 2,188 1,260 2,043 1969 22;801 15,992 2,480 1,914 2,415 1970 26,923 18,449 3,166 2,565 2,743 1971 32,289 22,531 3,435 2,628 3,695 1972 35,797 24,742 4,241 2,719 4,095 1973 36,608 25,108 4,796 2,629 4,075 1974 38,675 25,365 5,234 2,868 5,208 1975 39,632 25,352 5,348 3,102 5,830 1976 42,648 25,851 6,045 3,520 7,232 1977 44,986 27,363 5,929 3,657 8,037 1978 47,070 28,546 6,002 3,786 8,736 1979 49,832 30,065 6,093 4,202 9,472 1980 54,246 34,334 5,889 4,322 9,701 1981 56,769 33,967 6,705 4,738 11,359 1982 57,968 33,492 7,167 5,147 12,162 1983 58,765 34,354 7,469 4,193 12,749 1984 62,448 36,848 7,149 5,313 13,138 1985 65,919 38,600 7,511 5,656 14,152 1986 66,308 39,010 7,280 5,922 14,096 1987 65,318 38,185 7,328 5,956 13,849 1988 69,012 37,841 8,823 7,180 15,168 1989 67,734 36,467 8,161 7,398 15,708 1990 71,266 36,899 8,952 7,546 17,869 1991 72,275 36,623 9,383 7,567 18,702 1992 73,089 36,851 9,170 7,778 19,290 1993 69,502 36,604 9,140 4,631 19,127 1994 70,463 36,194 9,595 5,870 18,804 1995 (A) (A) (A) (A) (A) 1996 70,288 36,146 9,558 6,760 17,824 1997 71,025 35,971 9,913 6,589 18,552 1998 71,480 36,206 9,655 6,969 18,650 Average Annual 5.32% 3.97% 7.58% 6.88% 8.59% Growth Note A: Hawaii Visitors & Convention Bureau did not conduct an update survey in 1995. Source: Hawaii Visitors & Convention Bureau O its visitor units substantially with the County of Hawaii increasing from 865 units in 1965 , O to 9,655 units in 1998 for a 7.6 percent average annual increase. The Counties of Kauai and Maui showed an average annual increase in visitor accommodations of 6.9 percent and 8.6 percent, respectively. Visitor accommodations in Hawaii include hotels, resort condominiums, apartment hotels, bed and breakfast, hostels and other individual vacation units. In recent years, the bed and breakfast industry has been growing primarily on the islands of Maui, Kauai and Hawaii. Bed and breakfast units throughout Hawaii has more than doubled since 1990 growing from approximately 212 units in 1990 to 475 units in 1998. Occupancy and Average Daily Rate With supply and demand factors impacting the growth of visitor accommodation units, O statewide hotel occupancies has remained relatively stable over the years. According to statistics compiled by PKF-Hawaii (see Exhibit IV -A-9), statewide hotel occupancies have averaged approximately 75 percent over the past 26 years, ranging from a low of 68.11 percent in 1981 to a high of 81.20 percent in 1986. The low and high occupancy years were primarily a product of the strong or weak economies of the U.S. mainland and Japan, which as previously mentioned, account for the majority of visitor arrivals to Hawaii. The island of Oahu shows the largest average occupancy at 79.6 percent with the islands of Maui, Kauai and Island of Hawaii showing an average occupancy of 75.1 percent, 71.1 percent, and 58.2 percent, respectively. IV -A-16 .00,009e.ze ,00 000 000000,0, t-- 00 cV 00 ul 00 00 N °. 00 O v1 7 O, vl 00 vl 00 M V 00 c'100 ? h 0 0 0 0 o e o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o e e o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 o e M -- b Q` M 00 O M N N 'n h N O O O\ 'n t-- 00 ^ o O O o0 M o0 D` O o0 ^ M o0 N 7 v1 h N h N N ^ In ^ O� O� M v! 00 ^ M O^ N O V' N n it O M h O 0[i N %O M as O IT IT r- N M MN t- 00 00 00 00 00 00 t- h t- t- t- 00 h00 t.- h �o h 10 b b h h h t� h kn t- o 0 M N e T O oo h O M W M 'n V M r h'� b Vn b �. n 0 'o en O nj r. .--: iM O "q' .Mr O .6 O O nj 00 M t 'n N O, M r+i c i N �r Q \ \e \e \ \ \e \e \ e e o \ \ \ \ \ \ 0 0 0 e 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 b N N b N O NN h V M R v1 M n M O Oi v1 vt o d ` b bt` h^ t� b N o0 b V: O O M [l O� Q\ Dh h� %q ^ O o0 O ^ _0 � � O ON N [� l� M b �t 00 N � D\ N h %n %n t- 00 b n r- r oo 0o ao 00 00 0o b b to h b b h t- b t, b 'n b r- t- b b b b ; a o 0 0000 n� eo\j 000 eoo" d v o (7,, 'n v Zo m na M t�1 C? M Oi ^ N M h N O 00 Q e o 0 o e e o 0 0 0 0 0 0 ao000o00�0ooeONo°00e000000M 0 r N O� M N 00 �o O� oq O kn Ooo 7 b 00 v) M vt t� r W 00 h M 00 M N Ob � t--ooO 00 �O �D O\ �O V1 v1 ^ 00 % W C� M ^ 'I KI vl (h 7 N h ^ a0 U t� b o0 tcl OG O kn t� N O No O h o0 00 Nl O V 'n oo v7 b v1 'n Vl vl b In v) Vl v) b b h b b w) V> to b b b b b oo 'n o \ 0 0 e o e o 0 0 0 \e o 0 o e e o 0 0 0 \ 0 0 o 00 'ItO h ul :. b b b 'n N O ' ;' N vn N t- C "i O O O - 00 rq M �p M cV c? �O \ \ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 \e 0 0 \e \ \ \ 0 0 0 \ \ \ \ \ \e e e a o e o e o 0 0 0 0 0 O O O, b v1 O b 0o M N of M r^ b N N N N O� b b a0 M ^ vl ON ON ^ N CD O M O� oo CO N h ^ vt O, oo b oo O� '• h h h oo b N^ t, N O O NO N M t` vi ^ h N d' 'cY M boo b O M 00 M [� o0 0o h oo oo oo h h t- t- h o0 00 0o oo oo 00 oo h t- t- oo oo 00 t- h Oh h 0 0 e 0 \\ 0 0 0 e \\ \e e e o o e \ 0 0 \e e e e p n%0 N t� O 00 l� b N `Q ^ M ^' O� O b ^," M O ^' n -i O ... O N N F7 3 00000000e 00000 000 00 000 0e 000 yM 'IT ut N O, N -- N �o tt� N^� l� ^ N o0 M n N O� V Q O� b Q\ O " � 'n ClO-oo O h M Ob h bb M M M M O ' ^ OO C5 N b O oo oo kn W b 0o M ON oo O O. b b^ O\ h b" O% --� O v7 b� M" t-- N t� t� l� h [� l� b b t-- b t- t� W fl- t� t-- t- b t- h h t- h t- 'Ir t - W �aa kn b tl- o0 CN O ^ N M IT vl b t- Co 0\ O N M V v1 b h oo h hh h t-- r- h n oo 00 oo oo oo 0o oo oo oo oo rn rn rn rn rn o. a, C, ON •^c r FQ rnrnC'N rnrnON rno �rnrnD 3, o 0 o,o�rn b Q N The statewide average daily room rates (ADR) for the period 1972 to 1998 are O summarized on Exhibit IV -A-10. The statewide ADR has consistently increased over the years except for two years that showed decreases in ADR in 1991 and 1993. The statewide average annual growth rate for the period 1972 to 1998 was 8.0 percent. All major islands likewise showed similar average annual growth rates in ADR with Oahu at 7.7 percent, Island of Hawaii at 8.6 percent, Kauai at 8.4 percent and Maui at 7.8 percent. Hotel Employment The hotels in Hawaii currently employ approximately 38,450 people (see Exhibit IV -A- 11). Over the years the jobcount for the hotels has fluctuated from 24,800 in 1981 to a high of 40,950 in 1992 to the current count of 38,450 in 1997. This growth represents an average annual growth rate of 2.8 percent. Hotels provide a sizable amount of jobs next O to other services, retail and state government. The majority of the hotel jobs are located on Oahu with 17,500 in 1997, although, Oahu experienced the lowest average annual growth rate of 1.2 percent for the period 1981 to 1997. The County of Hawaii experienced the largest growth in hotel jobcount with an average annual growth rate of 5.2 percent increasing from 3,000 jobs in 1981 to 6,750 jobs in 1997. The County of Maui also has a sizable jobcount of 11,000 jobs in 1997, increasing from 5,300 jobs in 1981 at an average annual growth of 4.7 percent. The County of Kauai increased from 2,000 jobs in 1981 to a high of 4,550 jobs in 1991 but due to hurricane Iniki in 1992 the jobs substantially decreased in 1993 to 2,100 jobs. IV -A-18 S ,00aoe0000eoc000000Cooa 00 o M h O N V M V. h N oo a,00 �--� N aN 01 vl 01 10 C4 v1 v) N � 00 l- O M h O M v1 vl N O� O+ h 10 M vl 7 h h 00 O V 1D h 00 M� O� 0000 V) M O h M 00 O 'O 00 'O 10 Vl m e h o0 00 h 'O N N N M M `7 h h h W 00 O, .--� .M. .M.r .M. .N -r .�. .�-� bR V 6v9 o e 00 F� `O M. ..� Q`�„ .- v- N o0 h N V' N O N N .� .-. 'R h 00 y O 1O 00 00 vl '0 1O Vl Oo v1 V' V' 10 h 00 �O %0 O N �D -- 00 h M 1O No O N N V' O� O O V v-1 V' N d\ N M 1C O 00 N h w'1 �O 00 ON V1 O '-' ... O M c O M DD N 00 00 �O h 00 O\ O\ oo M Mr �- � y3 N N M M M V V1 V7 h Vl h — — — d~9 D o e o e e a o 0 0\ o a o 0 0 0 0 o e o h D1 M [o-- M M M Op O O ON„ a\ 00 O O •--� O M h,. .--. h O� M r� ,-. ri h h„ h 00 a Ci N�» 'o N N 00 O M O D oo h N O N N 00 v N NF- oo O 00 h oo in O h D\ zr ^ cel r+ N O N t h O M "O �O h t-:00 h .N o0 O N 'T <t ZE [- 00 00 N N N M M M 'r 4 V N .-. .N. .- -r .V-. .tel+ V' M N' M e 00 00 V' h o. V' M N 00 a0 M O\ 00 V' M h 1 .~-� VNi n M .-. M h h N 00 �2 O cil N O h n o0 N M O h O N O M h O 01 ON h '0- N� 00 Cq N Vim_' V 00 N OMO V; O 10 r 00 a` M h o0 O� V' c� O� rn M h V 0000 O M Y110 �--' Vl �--� N M 'C �O O, h 00 �/'1 10 N N N N M M V' 7 h 00 O- O O O cn c-4 o I N [- M 00 00 N N Z �o N O, v? O O S, 01 �D C) 'n O 10 Vl M h wV1 N O h b h M C'4 a0 R Q F �O M V 00 1O h h 00 Go v1 00 h 1O CN M M a'P �n C h N v1 C M 0o h h N W h M M V] N - O V .�. .N. .M. N � h 01 V oo � h O+ �-^ �t O� oo N oo �O N N N N M M 'cY � V V'1 �/1 h �O h 00 D` yy � � .Nr .M. Vj 00 a, O -; N M V V1 'o h 00 O\ O N M V' �/1 �O h W h h W DO 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ON O� O\ Q\ 01 01 O\ O\ O1 N a. E cn y Q` 01 O1 01 01 O. Q\ Q\ 01 ON � Q N EXHIBIT IV -A-11 O HAWAII ANNUAL AVERAGE JOBCOUNT HOTEL INDUSTRY, BY COUNTY FOR YEARS 1981 THROUGH 1997 YEAR STATE TOTAL OAHU HAWAII MAUI KAUAI 1981 24;800 14,500 3,000 5,300 2,000 1982 26,500 14,700 3,250 6,350 2,200 1983 27,000 14,900 3,550 6,350 2,200 1984 28,250 15,800 3,800 6,450 2,200 1985 29,000 16,100 3,950 6,550 2,450 1986 29,250 16,250 3,950 6,400 2,650 1987 31,250 16,850 4,050 7,300 3,050 1988 34,350 17,550 4,700 8,000 4,100 1989 37,000 18,650 6,000 8,100 4,250 1990 38,750 19,650 6,250 9,050 3,800 1991 40,800 19,950 6,600 9,700 4,550 1992 40,950 19,600 6,200 11,100 4,050 1993 38,000 18,250 6,000 11,650 2,100 1994 38,000 18,350 5,600 11,350 2,700 1995 37,750 18,100 5,550 10,950 3,150 1996 38,450 18,150 6,000 10,900 3,450 1997 38,450 17,500 6,750 11,000 3,350 Average Annual 2.78% 1.18% 5.20% 4.67% 3.28% Growth Source: Department of Labor and Industrial Relations OWith the reopening of most of the properties on Kauai, the jobcount has since been increasing and is currently at 3,350 jobs in 1997. COUNTY OF HAWAII From 1980 to 1990, visitor arrivals to the County of Hawaii increased from 807,000 to 1,171,000, an average annual growth rate of 3.43 percent (see Exhibit IV -A-12). Westbound visitor arrivals to the County of Hawaii increased a moderate 2.21 percent over the 10 year period while eastbound arrivals, primarily from Japan, increased at a double digit annual rate of 15.12 percent. Back in 1980, eastbound arrivals accounted for only 5.5 percent of total visitor arrivals to the County of Hawaii whereas by 1990, eastbound arrivals accounted for 16.05 percent of total arrivals. Visitor arrivals to the County of Hawaii peaked in 1991 at 1,189,000 and subsequently declined to a low of 1,079,000 in 1994 before rebounding to a new high of 1,286,000 in 1998. As of 1998, eastbound visitor arrivals totaled 309,000 accounting for 24.31 percent of total arrivals to the County of Hawaii. Visitor arrivals from cruise ships totaled approximately 184,000 in 1998 to the Island of Hawaii. This includes approximately 94,000 from foreign cruise ships and 90,000 from domestic cruise ships. Visitor accommodation units within the County of Hawaii totaled 9,655 units as of 1998, increasing from 865 back in 1965, 5,348 in 1975, 5,889 in 1980 and 8,952 in 1990 (see O IV -A-21 OVISITOR ARRIVALS EXHIBIT IV -A-12 COUNTY OF HAWAII YEAR TOTAL WESTBOUND EASTBOUND 1980 807,000 ---- 761,000 ---- 46,000 ---- 1981 719,000 -10.9% 673,000 -11.6% 46,000 0.0% 1982 725,000 0.8% 678,000 0.7% 47,000 2.2% 1983 756,000 4.3% 712,000 5.0% 44,000 -6.4% 1984 814,000 7.7% 761,000 6.9% 53,000 20.5% 1985 760,000 -6.6% 697,000 -8.4% 63,000 18.9% 1986 866,000 13.9% 787,000 12.9% 79,000 25.4% 1987 873,000 0.8% 783,000 -0.5% 90,000 13.9% 1988 885,000 1.4% 782,000 -0.1% 103,000 14.4% 1989 1,121,000 26.7% 947,000 21.1% 174,000 68.9% 1990 1,171,000 4.5% 983,000 3.8% 188,000 8.0% 1991 1,189,000 1.5% 976,000 -0.7% 213,000 13.3% 1992 1,142,000 -4.0% 909,000 -6.9% 233,000 9.4% 1993 1,120,000 -1.9% 876,000 -3.6% 244,000 4.7% 1994 1,079,000 -3.7% 866,000 -1.1% 213,000 -12.7% 1995 1,084,000 0.5% 851,000 -1.7% 233,000 9.4% 1996 1,165,000 7.5% 883,000 3.8% 282,000 21.0% 1997 1,214,000 4.2% 915,000 3.6% 299,000 6.0% 1998 1,271,000 4.7% 961,000 5.0% 309,000 3.3% Source: Hawaii Visitors & Convention Bureau OExhibit IV -A-8). Bed and breakfast units, although not significant to the total visitor units within the County of Hawaii, has been a fast growing segment of the industry, growing from 55 units in 1990 to 171 units in 1998, an increase of over 300 percent. Hotel occupancies averaged approximately 58 percent over the past 26 years, fluctuating from a low of 44.04 percent in 1982 to an all time high of 68.24 percent in 1998 (see Exhibit IV -A-9). Historically, the Island of Hawaii has recorded the lowest occupancies of the major Hawaiian Islands (Oahu, Maui, Kauai and Island of Hawaii), however in 1998, the Island of Hawaii finally surpassed the island of Kauai by achieving a 68.24 percent occupancy versus Kauai's occupancy of 66.95 percent. OThe ADR for the Island of Hawaii increased from $20.20 in 1972 to $157.64 in 1998 for an average annual growth rate of 8.6 percent (see Exhibit IV -A-10). The largest ADR growth for the Island of Hawaii took place in 1989 when the ADR increased by 37.5 percent from $88.17 to $121.27. The primary reason for this large increase was due to the impact from the Hilton Waikoloa Village which opened in 1988. The Hilton Waikoloa Village is a high -activity luxury property and the largest hotel property on the Island of Hawaii with 1,240 visitor units. In recent years, the Island of Hawaii has shown significant growth in its ADR increasing by an average annual growth of approximately 10 percent over the last four years, substantially surpassing any other Hawaiian Island. The hotels jobcount for the County of Hawaii increased from 3,000 jobs in 1981 to 6,750 jobs in 1997. Once again the effects of the opening of the Hilton Waikoloa Village in O IV -A-23 1988 can be seen in the increase in jobcount in 1989 growing from 4,700 jobs in 1988 to O 6,000 jobs in 1989. Since then hotel jobs have fluctuated from a low of 5,550 in 1995 to a high of 6,750 in 1997 (see Exhibit IV -A-11). CURRENT CONDITIONS Since 1990, the Hawaiian economy has been in a downturn due to some of the external factors mentioned above., Headed into its 9`" straight year of economic downturn, Hawaii's over -dependence on the visitor industry, which in the past 40 years had been its economic lifeline, has turned Hawaii into a relatively one-dimensional economy. In recent years, Hawaii's visitor industry and economy has been significantly impacted by the Asian economic crisis. Southeast Asian countries that had experienced economic O booms in the early 1990's suddenly was in the midst of an economic crisis in the third and fourth quarter of 1997 with substantial devaluation of their currencies. Countries such as Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Korea, Philippines and even Japan were facing drastic economic challenges. The devaluation of the yen and the falling of the Nikkei stock market caused noticeable Japanese visitor spending drops in Hawaii since 1996 and substantial decreases in visitors from Japan to Hawaii since that time. Japanese visitors to Hawaii in 1997 showed a negligible increase of .10 percent and Hawaii was even harder hit in 1998 with a decrease of 6.3 percent in Japanese visitors. Total eastbound visitors to Hawaii showed even larger decreases with 1997 decreasing by approximately 1.0 percent and 1998 decreasing by a substantial 10.7 percent. IV -A-24 OThe Asian economic crisis has affected all Hawaiian Islands but most noticeably the island of Oahu which currently derives over 50 percent of its visitors from the eastbound market. Further exacerbating this downturn has been the fact that Hawaii has not adequately re- invested in the visitor industry. According to industry experts, the tourism industry in dominant or primary tourist destinations such as Hawaii, has a relatively short life cycle of approximately 30 years upon which time substantive improvements in infrastructure, re -investment, and reinvention is needed to sustain and increase the industry. Hawaii's tourism market reached maturity in the 1980's and peaked in 1990. Without making substantive changes as described above, Hawaii has faced stiff competition from other Oemerging tourist destinations around the world. A good example of a tourist dependent market that faced maturity and adversity but reinvested in infrastructure and reinvented itself is the city of Las Vegas, Nevada. Back in the 1970's, Las Vegas was known primarily as an adult playground for the rich and famous and was notoriously dubbed "sin city". With visitor arrivals dwindling and infrastructure deteriorating, Las Vegas started a reinvestment and reinvention campaign in the 1980's, targeting family travel. A newly renovated and improved international airport, new theme hotels, theme and amusement parks, golf courses and shopping complexes all contributed to changing the image of Las Vegas from "sin city" to entertainment capital of the world. IV -A-25 Another challenge to Hawaii's visitor industry is the fact that approximately 85 percent O of Hawaii's visitor arrivals come from either the U.S. mainland or Japan, effectively placing virtually all of its tourism "eggs" in only two baskets. The over -dependence on these two markets has made Hawaii very vulnerable to the economies of these two markets. This was clearly evident back in 1980 when the U.S. mainland was in a recession (visitor arrivals remained stagnant from 1979 to 1981), in 1991 when both the U.S. mainland and Japan were in economic downturns and further in 1998 as the impacts of the Asian economic crisis peaked. The Island of Hawaii, unlike the rest of the major islands has been experiencing record increases in visitor arrivals at 1,271,000 in 1998. Hotel occupancies have also experienced record highs at 68.24 percent in 1998, indicating that the Island of Hawaii O has reached a level of competitiveness with its neighboring islands like never before. One of the primary reasons for the increase in visitors is due to the expansion of the runway and terminal facilities at the Kona International Airport at Keahole. Expansion of the runway was necessary in order to accommodate the landing and take -off of wide- bodied jets. Currently, United Airlines and Japan Airlines have direct flights into the Kona International Airport at Keahole. Japan Airlines started its Tokyo to Kona flights in June 1996 with two flights per week. Since then the flights have gradually increased and are currently daily flights. United Airlines has two flights daily from San Francisco and Los Angeles. Canada 3000 provides chartered flight service direct to Kona from Canada. These direct flights to the Island of Hawaii have been extremely beneficial to the island economy. IV -A-26 FUTURE OUTLOOK Visitor Projections The Hawaii visitor industry is impacted by a number of variables. For leisure -oriented travelers, the economic condition of their country of origin plays an obvious role in discretionary spending. Competition from other resort destinations also has major impacts on visitor performance. Other variables such as weather conditions and fuel prices and currency exchange rates can also have dramatic effects. Hawaii's reinvestment in infrastructure in matured areas such as Waikiki, Kona and Hilo will be critical to the continued success of the visitor industry. Its ability to protect and maintain the environment, ambiance and "Aloha Spirit" of the islands are also key determinants in Othe visitor industry's future performance and growth. For the business traveler, government restrictions and trade can play an integral role in business travel. Any restrictions in business either perceived or real, can have a detrimental effect on business development and investment. Conversely, an aggressive posture to foster business, including establishment of free trade zones in Hawaii, encouragement of foreign and mainland investment in Hawaii businesses can have a positive effect on the Hawaii business travel market. Other variables that can affect business growth and, therefore, business travel are tax policies, interest rates, savings in the capital markets and overall strength in both the Hawaii, U.S. mainland and international economies. IV -A-27 Hawaii's mature tourist industry faces growing competition from other world O destinations. In order to overcome this competition, large marketing expenditures by both private and public sectors will be required. On balance, it would appear that the positive growth factors may, in the long-term, outweigh any potential opposing forces; however, political and industry leaders must not become complacent, but instead must constantly strive to improve Hawaii as a vacation and business destination. Presented on Exhibits IV -A-13 and IV -A-14 are the visitor forecasts for the State of Hawaii and the Island of Hawaii. These visitor forecasts are based on historical trend analysis, augmented with extensive research and interviews of travel professionals and economists. Projection Methodology The number of visitors is the primary variable that influences projections of demand for hotel rooms in all visitor destination areas. Secondary variables include the portion of visitors utilizing hotels, average lengths of stay and double occupancy factors. • Percentage of Visitors Utilizing Hotels - Based on the Hawaii Visitors & Convention Bureau (HVCB) annual research reports, about 89 to 90 percent of overnight and longer westbound visitors and 97 to 99 percent of overnight and longer eastbound visitors historically stayed in hotels, condominiums or a combination of both. We have projected this utilization factor to average approximately 89 and 97 percent for westbound and eastbound visitors, respectively. • Average Length of Stay - This was obtained by PKF-Hawaii from its monthly Trends in the Hotel Industry - Hawaii (Trends) survey. Average length of stay has been relatively stable over the past several years with a slightly decreasing trend. IV -A-28 aQOF C. 00 � � ,.r 0 '� N O O v') t` !` O � � �O d: d• t` a\ O d' � O Z h N M O O �--� ^ -- -r CJ (V (V d � a w 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 x0 0 0a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -or ri N 4 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 d' )Fi N t- t- M 00 N N d' 00 M O\ 00 Z 00 (7, 00 V1 r+ d• h 00 00 t- ( w a1 O N M d' 00 Q\ �o�c�t�t�t�t�t�r""� 7a,0q�o'nNd.t"n h O h V1 M N^ o 0 F W M N M d O U V C, O .- r- N l� T r. N d O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C. Z A .fie M O� �D G --� N lV (V m M M M d v d w O O O O O O O O O O O O O Cl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 w F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 o O o 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 kf -: �O 06 r- -� O 4 O N z vi 00 M O O O O O O O O O N FF+ wr l� Vl O� t- M Vl ON M �D M W) N ON ON N N d• (71 d' O\ �O d' N O 00 01 N N ,n M -t �D oo F- d' M M M M d• v', 'D t- 00 . r M -i �. N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N W 2 F — .-..-. -. o 0 0 W .3 q r oo N O d �D �n N 00 O r � ) O .--� N Nm 0FC07 r, O U N ,n M M O� N d: N 0000 -- O O O O O V1 Yl V') O O / �il 3d O O O O O O O O O O O O O Cl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 w F O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C. o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ON�0.vvivio4od:0 ritn00'n o0000000oN FF rA O h O %0 O N 00 00 �o ON M O t- d' \.O ON 00 M 00 h N O, ON ON N N N t l t- v) O� t� O� O\ O O N d' h lD t� t� 00 O1 O� O -- � M d' d' d- .t d' M M M M d' d' d' d• d' d' d' d' d• et It Vi h In \D t- 00 01 ON M � h t- a0 O� O N M d' kn � t- 00 d 00 DD DD 00 00 O, a\ O1 a ON C% O, O\ O1 as O O o O Cl O O O O (7\ D\ O+ Q1 O� O� T O� 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 �--� �--, -+ �--� N N N N N N N N N a a H U a d d O, O, ,O '4q r 01 U d' d' d M00 00 M d Ln M N 000 r- 00 O z Z O N� "� O t- M v1 N O N N N N N � d O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 d4 3 o o 0 0 at 'i C� v; ; 6 (:5C r-:� ao c O 10 M In ty t` 00 N t- 00 ,O O t- M �D P •-� M t-, O N v) D\ O O N N N N N M M M I� 0 CA It m - O kn ,0 r O M M W O t- N O 000 d• O, o0 m z pZy N - ,O O, d' v 6 N N 6 O O 4 N 4 N M N N d H O'-' F., 0 0 0 0 Co 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 � ,00 X 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O C) O C) C> O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O M M 00 M_ M d' M_ MM_ N Z 00 N m N N N 0M N N M O N N Cl N N N N N M CH/J H ~ O Q �c0o to W H O O O O " O O O O O h d 00 00 V) �,� t` t-- 00 M et O O O N N to kn In In k.1 ,O r. -t-- e Q� M d; 00 O, M M �--� F _ V1 V'1 N V7 00 00 6 O� CD 00 00 Q; C, W W g O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 H O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 Cl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 d tf _ ,O oc t C; 4 O N ,O vi os M O O O C O O O O O N r--� V1 O, t- M N O, M ,D M v1 N cr, O, N N dt 01 It C1 �o d• N O to N kn \D 00 ,O M 00 a^ N M d' t- d' M M M M dw � N t- 00 N N N N N N N N N N N N N 14 V M O O ,O M d M \p N M 00 t0 O, \D •+ d t- W) �o O, to .-. ^ 00 r� 00 \�O -- t� t- ,O O O O1 t- N N V) Kt d: Q1 O 4z C� 0 0 N M m M M vi N N O N (V d O "" 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (� 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C C 0 0 0 0 0 3 _ _ M � M � ON z \O O\ �O �O .-.-- M N t- kn a1 O N a` 00 00 00 d• o0 h o 0 o c- Z 'n 00 ,0 00 C) CCl �O r- t- o, CN a, (71, 00 00 00 00 0, CN a, O -; W O d H a\ a, M d M N O V1 �,O n M kn Vl to O O kn O to O O O O O ,D '0 ,O \G -n Vn 3 e 3 V� d M ---: 0o 'I 00 N O a O O t� O N n Wn �n o0 00 00 00 O O N M N N N cV (V N N• N N N N o -+ -- N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N to p; 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 H 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C. 0 0 0 0 O O o 0 0 0 0 o O o Ci00000CSooN F�o��Odrknviovov.oMvioovi O kn O ,O O N 00 00 ,0 O, M O � d ,O O, 00 M 00 v) N O, a1 O\ l N N N t � t, �n a� l C' O� O O N dw n r- t-� o0 (0 Cl O w kn �o t- 00 Q\ O N M It Wn �O t- 00 a, O N M It kn \O 00 w00000000000,0,0,o,o,O,o,o,a, 0,000000000 O, O, O, 0, O, 0, 0, 0, 0, C, O, 0, O, O, cl, O O O O O O O O O N N N N N N N N N a o a O• Double Occupancy Factor - This factor represents the number of persons occupying each room. The hotel participants in the PKF-Hawaii monthly Trends provide the total number of guests and the number of occupied rooms for their respective hotels and from these factors the double occupancy factor is derived. We have projected the double occupancy factor based on these consistent historical trends. Room Night Demand The annual room nights achieved for years 1985 through 1998 and estimated for 1999 through 2008 for the State of Hawaii and Island of Hawaii are presented in Exhibits IV - A -15 and IV -A-16. State of Hawaii Since 1985 annual room night demand in the State of Hawaii has grown from nearly 16.6 million room nights to over 18.7 million room nights in 1998. This growth represents a Ototal increase of 12.9 percent, or an average annual growth rate of .9 percent. During this time, State hotel occupancy rates have ranged between a low of 69 percent and a high of 81 percent, with 1998 registering a 72.0 percent annual occupancy. For the future, growth in room night demand is expected for the future at a moderate rate, reflecting the maturity of Hawaii's visitor industry and the current instability in the U. S. Mainland and Asian markets. Due to the Persian Gulf War and U.S. mainland recession, there was a decrease in room night demand in 1991 of approximately 6.1 percent and virtually flat demand in 1992 and 1993. Demand for rooms increased 9.4 percent in 1994, as Hawaii's three-year visitor industry slump came to an end. Statewide occupancy, which had ranged between 76.0 and 81.2 percent from 1985 through 1990, Ofell to the 69.3 percent to 71.4 percent range during the 1991 to 1993 slump. IV -A-31 r y 8 8 8 3 a= m r= rr^ V' n N m < ° a Q t a u asi o=_ Rv.ro -'e�pry aen O S C Q v s v o n Y++ ., n .. n n r n r r .• e v t aiCgF S25, T�,S gSo25 S, �.80 �25�8�'S,S'5,3� F 80Orye +Yinn.%1 n,n g& qa a'4 `Y Z t"d'Z e� n S�G��a��ss.�N�asss as8aasagsa � _ Z Jy� n w q Op Q T � P .� - � h � 1� - m. � o � h P P o o. � of eP,• w _ RI Z N N N 4 N « N N N` rl N '� 88q.8Pp8,8,8€,88,8'08,88 88818,888888 O� P T?�c, ,QP gc QP 8a Q$P QP ggP QQP gP QP QP gP QP gP QP gP ,4�,CQ$� ,PP, ggA S a S 2S O ZS O� S S O E O S a 0 a 0 a a 0 a 0 a �".n1�bPN�n��{nnsP,Y .�•N��RaR��},p �- � N N N 1`r N N N N fJ N� N' N N •`I N OZ zaz�;a.`a.=.res m Ca aaae roe€= - 2 - ---- -- G o> z m N N N r M ry N N ry r 8 M I, I } < - < <a -��,85=3888885.88.88 585,885=8.88 --- - - - - - - - -- --sss s $m8 a - < C O O •O •p 16 h n 6 OX j •7 Q= •p04 O .] F O < � � =ri = � m n m �o = $ r � � ry rn o r ry •�' � � z O= W .r", �i e e Q n n n n n n v; b b •de •c e r n r G 4 �! V> V _ r .0 00 �? � S P � N •o m y b i n G Q VQ' fJ aQ (V O o5Q`�i ^ N Oq NQ .5-�� Og PQ P OQ Ng r5�� g� 5P� 5C� 5N� 5N� 50� 0o08,g00000 F�ZO�000000252525252525250 O< C U m r "' Q m a rn m �, = N. a °; a N •an r "' F < Z N N u U • G C Q m„ O M P omo Q Q N O P N N z Q r eV V< m v M �' gypp/ 000250252525025""Y qv Q gv g gg Q 55�� QQ QQ gg q Q gg QQ 252525gS SS0o00og2525 C Q O W ^q 15V2 1QV fQV lQV Nq NQ fQV f5V2 N —g l5V2 f5V2 f52i < (�0.• 5N2 QN 5N2 5P2( 5^2 Q�C21 52 Q 25 25 25 7 2� 25 25 25 g 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 8 25 8 �2�pp5 -1 Veme O. N N Q r n m o0 m aP0 ^ N N N 0 N N N Q w• n Q O n n Q Q Q n n n b O } b b b b- -- - --- ^ ^ ^ a o c Z f PP pp yy N re P O r 0O n •in b ^ N N N N N N N N N N N N� N N^ W 8$ 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 S, 8, 8 .! O Q P a P P P P P T P P P P P P P P P P p• P T P P x OpH� 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 011 O" O O1 O” 5 pOppp�. p yp r b r �` O� m N N� N '•J N N n !n'o N N (^V emV N^ rppf U U ..Npp yO O V aNe + ao m O n r N Y a w � P 0^0 m N N •Pi• V O O eZ.• Q OO •8O O� X81 t8� NN "pp" [V NN O �• 8O 8^ 8G 8i 8 SG 8G 8V 8 SO". 8 8O 8< 8 8 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O � O O O O O O O O O z nn^ •'+ h <99n r cIN CIN �.. mUe^a&o^mo^oSNOCNo`:$80 00=oo�8Y'$ 00 ^ fQV fQQV IQV fQ`3 fSV� fSV� N4 fV fSV� fqV lQQV tQQJ fSV� lQV fQV lV 15V� fQV (5QV� lQQV < O 5� 5-��" $ $ 25 25 a 0 25 0 0 25 0 25 25 E E, 0 "0 25 0 25 0 E E Q zS, = o^ •D Q N Q N P„ O �^ •"� P �� P r„$� �< Q<� Z I`I N (f N h N n rn r1 < Q Q O O Q •rl N n 0 fN” r 0 0 O w V Y U42 .404 n n n n n p F W$ q Q Q5�5�QQq Q 00 0p00E 0 S g S 0 25 0 25 25 25 S i sp Ep.� 0 � ri O -4QQg5�5�QQ pS�,25 n m ro ppb orpq p N O O n n m � l� n h m P P r a •F 1� aN0 ebo 000 m P P b P ^ x h 99 �880�80§�� O O b t- � H P 0p�0.. aqq0 apm0� P q IC 8O pO 8O p^ p— pp -- qq pP,. ppP�� ppm�� P- P P— P P P— P P I ^ r .d -C a 4 Occupancies rebounded in years 1994 through 1996, averaging approximately 76 percent O each year. However, in 1997 and 1998, occupancies declined for both years to 74.0 percent in 1997 and 72.0 percent in 1998 due to the current Asian economic crisis. Therefore, occupancy is expected to remain stable at 72.0 percent in 1999, then is projected to gradually increase through 2008 reaching the 79.0 percent level in 2008. Island of Hawaii On the Island of Hawaii, hotel room night demand has grown from nearly 1.4 million room nights in 1985 to 2.4 million in 1998. This growth reflects a significant total increase of 77.6 percent, for an average annual growth rate of 4.5 percent. Occupancy rates during this period have fluctuated between a low of 56.9 percent and a high of 68.3 percent. O The room night demand is projected to grow steadily through the next ten years at an average annual rate of 1.5 percent. In 1999 occupancy is projected to reflect a slight decrease to 67.0 percent and thereafter gradually increase to 70.0 percent in year 2008. Projected Room Supply There are several planned hotel developments on the Island of Hawaii with the majority of the projects still in the planning stages with indefinite completion dates. Based on our review of planned projects on the Island of Hawaii as reported by the Hawaii Visitors & Convention Bureau and discussions with various developers, we have identified 3,272 IV -A-34 Oplanned additional units on the Island of Hawaii. The following table summarizes the anticipated additions to the Island of Hawaii visitor plant: Lodging Facilities Proposed for Development Island of Hawaii Based on discussions with some of the developers, there is a possibility that some of the developments will take place over the next ten years, however, it really depends on the future demand for additional units and the availability of funding for the development. There are several undeveloped parcels currently zoned for resort development in the Keauhou Resort, Waikoloa Resort, Mauna Lani Resort and Mauna Kea Resort areas. There are also several bed & breakfast type units that have recently received their use permit approval. Global The global economy of the 21s' century is expected to be driven by three major service industries: information technology, telecommunications, and travel & tourism. According O IV -A-35 Planned Estimated Hotel/Condominium Project Location Rooms Completion Princess Hotel Kaupulehu 600 Indefinite Chalon's Mahukona North Kohala 240 Indefinite Regent Kona Coast Kuki'o 350 Indefinite Punalu'u Resort Punalu'u 100 Indefinite Kaupulehu Development Kaupulehu 530 Indefinite Kohanaiki Resort Kohanaiki 1,050 Indefinite Mauna Lani Cove South Kohala 355 Indefinite Amanresort Hamakua 47 Indefinite 3,272 Based on discussions with some of the developers, there is a possibility that some of the developments will take place over the next ten years, however, it really depends on the future demand for additional units and the availability of funding for the development. There are several undeveloped parcels currently zoned for resort development in the Keauhou Resort, Waikoloa Resort, Mauna Lani Resort and Mauna Kea Resort areas. There are also several bed & breakfast type units that have recently received their use permit approval. Global The global economy of the 21s' century is expected to be driven by three major service industries: information technology, telecommunications, and travel & tourism. According O IV -A-35 to the WTTC, by the year 2010, the global travel and tourism industry is expected to O create $10 trillion of economic activity and employ 328 million people, accounting for 12.5 percent of the worldwide Gross Domestic Product. The travel and tourism industry is also expected to grow at a rate of 4.1 percent per annum through the year 2010 and is expected to contribute 12 percent of the worldwide capital investment in the year 2010 or approximately $1.8 trillion in investment, and contribute another $1.8 trillion in global taxes. Hawaii In Hawaii, the WTTC estimates that the visitor industry will grow at 2.9 percent per annum through the year 2010. By then, tourism is expected to account for 32.2 percent of Hawaii's Gross Domestic Product, producing $28.2 billion of economic activity and over O 233,000 jobs or 37.8 percent of the total employment in Hawaii (see Exhibit IV -A-17). The visitor industry is considered a major export industry because of inbound visitors injecting substantial dollars and foreign exchange directly into the economy. WTTC estimates that by the year 2010, the visitor industry in Hawaii will account for 70.6 percent of the statewide total exports generated, up from 64.3 percent in 1998. Capital investment to support Hawaii's visitor industry is expected to total $1.9 billion by the year 2010 accounting for 19.4 percent of the statewide capital investment. Total taxes generated from the visitor industry in Hawaii are expected to grow to $3.7 billion or 32 percent of total taxes. IV -A-36 C/] Lu FYi 0 w H C4 w � w\w 0 0 ON � N a H o 0 0 c 00 N 00 N O M N M M O ^, o O N fn O 00 r - m N v� a\ O1 N 110 �D V O �D 00 — N N O tD ss Gn Cy .-+ r+ N 00 00 O M M t-+ N (y •--i r. M N a 0 o o a o a o o 00 M i 00 N �D � � 0 O N N M 00 � .-r o a •-• M N 00 Q\ O ON %D C� .r ► . C/) rW w z > A z ¢ c� V U H W � W PAG C07 0 F. 0 4 As mentioned in the Current Conditions section above as well as in Section III of this O report, there are or will be several near term challenges for Hawaii's economy and its dominant visitor industry as follows: • the aging tourism infrastructure and need for reinvestment and reinventing, • the fact that 85 percent of Hawaii's visitors come from the U.S. mainland or Japan, • the impacts of the current Asian economic crises, • the over -inflated U.S. economy and stock market, and • the potential impacts of the Year 2000 computer problem. In order to compete effectively with the growing worldwide visitor industry market, O Hawaii will have to address the above challenges and take proactive steps to improve its aging tourism infrastructure, reinvest and reinvent tourism, and diversify its tourism base to other major target markets such as China, Europe and India, which together accounts for nearly 3 billion residents (over 8 times the population of the U.S. mainland and Japan combined). Collectively, China, Europe and India accounted for only 290,000 visitor arrivals in 1997 or about 4.3 percent of the 6.8 million total visitor arrivals. Europe accounted for the bulk of the arrivals at 260,000 followed by China with 30,000 arrivals and no arrivals indicated from India (see Exhibit IV -A-18). IV -A-38 w z 0 r. R, O 0-, O H 0 a 0 U 0 'mss Cd 3 0 H O QQQ p � N cqM 0~G M O Q O 0 r -r ry" z Q a P1„ h to r+ M O O O d O O O C7 0 Oc5 Q o d o o O o 0 0 0 O O O M N O tn W Q O CIO 0 a 0 U 0 'mss Cd 3 0 County of Hawaii O The future outlook for the visitor industry within the County of Hawaii is expected to generally follow the trends of the rest of Hawaii. Much of the economic and visitor industry challenges faced by the state of Hawaii, as described above, will have a direct impact on the County's visitor industry. With the County's uniquely diverse geographical, physical, cultural and historical attributes, the Island of Hawaii will be well suited to face the challenges mentioned above if it is willing to take proactive steps in doing so. With direct international flights now occurring within the Island of Hawaii, it would behoove the local community to nurture and expand this vital area of opportunity for the O County. Also, as mentioned above, with its unique and diverse attributes, the County can capitalize on these unique attributes and clearly distinguish the Island of Hawaii as a separate and unique travel destination from the other Hawaiian Islands. The cruise ship industry provides potential growth for the Island of Hawaii. In recent years the total visitors from cruise ships to the Island of Hawaii has increased substantially from 124,000 in 1997 to 184,000 in 1998. Based on these visitor counts in 1998, cruise ship visitor expenditures are estimated to range from $16 million to $23 million. Cruise ship visitors are expected to continue to increase in the future due to the recent resurgence and popularity of this industry along with additional new cruise ships projected to be built in the future. IV -A-40 The Island of Hawaii's natural beauty, historical and cultural attributes and numerous educational institutions and programs all lend themselves to provide the catalyst to allow new niche markets to flourish. Niche markets for the visitor industry such as ecotourism, health and wellness tourism and educational tourism have growth potential for the Island of Hawaii. One example of this niche market is the development called The Five Mountain Medical Center located in northwest Hawaii. This medical center is made up of a unique consortium of traditional and non-traditional health and healing organizations (including the North Hawaii Community Hospital, the North Hawaii Center for Integral Healing, the North Hawaii Hospice, and health and fitness resources of various luxury hotels on the Kohala coast) which have as one of its target markets, health and wellness Otourism. With information technology and telecommunications expecting to be part of the "super three" service industries of the future (together with the visitor industry), strong consideration should be given to tying in the visitor industry on the Island of Hawaii with the expansion of the information technology and telecommunications industries. For example, the development of a state-of-the-art, world renown Island of Hawaii information technology and telecommunications center, utilizing this center for educational seminars and conferences targeted to European ,and Asian countries such as China, Korea, Taiwan and even Japan (that are not on par with U.S. information technology and telecommunication advances), and tied in with a vacation for the attendees would create a unique blend of all three super industries. The Island of Hawaii O IV -A-41 has already proven that it can successfully create such a world-class environment as it has O done in the area of astronomy. As previously mentioned, the County of Hawaii will face future challenges in the visitor industry, however, taking proactive and innovative steps will minimize the impacts of these challenges and could in fact propel the County of Hawaii into substantive economic gains. Tourism by Judicial Districts Presented below are brief comments regarding the current tourism industry and outlook by judicial district. Summarized on Exhibit IV -A-19 are the visitor units for the Island of O Hawaii by the judicial districts. The island totals differ from those disclosed on Exhibits IV -A-8 and IV -A-16 due to the inclusion of Keauhou Beach Hotel visitor accommodations in Exhibit IV -A-19, whereas, these units were excluded from the 14VCB figures due to the hotel being temporarily closed for renovations during 1998. Puna Judicial District The tourism industry in the Puna district is primarily composed of visitor units in the volcano area, including Volcano House (42 units), and numerous other bed & breakfasts and individual vacation units totaling 159 units. The majority of the units in the area were added between the years of 1980 and 1998 with 141 of the 201 units added during IV -A-42 Source: Hawaii Visitors & Convention Bureau EXHIBIT IV -A-19 VISITOR ACOMMODATIONS BY JUDICIAL DISTRICT O ISLAND OF HAWAII FOR YEARS 1982 AND 1998 PERCENT JUDICIAL DISTRICTS 1982 1998 CHANGE South Hilo Hotels 1,623 931 -42.6% Resort Condominiums 120 159 32.5% Other 0 75 --- 1,743 1,165 -33.2% North Hilo Hotels 0 0 --- Resort Condominiums 0 0 --- Other 0 0 --- 0 0 --- Hamakua Hotels 20 19 -5.0% Resort Condominiums 0 0 --- Other 0 21 --- 20 40 100.0% North Kohala Hotels 32 38 18.8% Resort Condominiums 0 0 --- Other 0 2 --- 32 40 25.0% South Kohala Hotels 872 3,389 288.6% Resort Condominiums 151 562 272.2% O Other 0 10 1,023 3,961 287.20/. North Kona Hotels 2,725 2,506 -8.0% Resort Condominiums 1,432 1,465 2.3% Other 0 428 --- 4,157 4,399 5.8% South Kona Hotels 64 64 0.0% Resort Condominiums 0 0 --- Other 0 24 --- 64 88 37.5% Puna Hotels 37 87 135.1% Resort Condominiums 0 0 --- Other 0 114 --- 37 201 443.2% Kau Hotels 13 0 -100.0% Resort Condominiums 28 56 100.0% Other 0 23 --- 41 79 92.7% Island Total Hotels 5,386 7,034 30.6% Resort Condominiums 1,731 2,242 29.5% Other 0 697 -- --- 7,117 7,117 9,973 40.1 Source: Hawaii Visitors & Convention Bureau that period. The volcano area with its unique and picturesque scenery is very popular O with both overseas and local visitors. South Hilo Judicial District The city of Hilo in the South Hilo District is the center of business and governmental activity for the County of Hawaii. In the early seventies Hilo was envisioned as the gateway to the Island of Hawaii for overseas visitors. In anticipation of that status the airport terminal at General Lyman Field, now known as Hilo International Airport, was modernized and the runway adopted for jumbo aircraft. Additional transient accommodations were developed to house and service the greater number of visitors. However, the anticipated flow of visitors did not materialize. Hilo continues to attract its share of visitors with approximately 380,000 visitors in 1997 or 30 percent of the total Island of Hawaii visitors. Because it is the center of business and government for the Island of Hawaii, the Hilo area also accommodates numerous business and local travelers for special events such as hula competitions and sporting finals. South Hilo's visitor accommodations have declined from 1,743 units in 1982 to 1,165 units in 1998. It is anticipated that the visitor industry in the South Hilo area will continue as it has in the past and visitor units will probably remain at the 1,165 unit level in order to service the transient visitors, business travelers and local residents that it is currently servicing. IV -A-44 North Hilo Judicial District Currently, there are no visitor accommodations in the North Hilo Judicial District. Given the topography and current land uses, it is not anticipated that this area would provide overnight facilities. Hamakua Judicial District Located in the historic plantation town of Honokaa is the 19 unit Hotel Honokaa Club. For the most part, this facility provides overnight accommodations to local travelers. Several Bed & Breakfast facilities were established in the district approximating 21 units. At this time, it is not anticipated that additional large transient facilities would be developed in the area. Like the North Hilo area, the Hamakua Coast provides an Oenjoyable and scenic drive with the remnants of sugar cane fields and macadamia nut groves. North Kohala Judicial District Currently, the North Kohala district provides overnight accommodations for local travelers and a select number of overseas visitors. There are approximately 40 transient accommodation units in the district. The area, which was once supported by the sugar cane industry, continues to search for an economic identity. The area is now primarily diversified agriculture and cattle. Many residents in the area are employed in the visitor industry for the South Kohala resorts. Although not destined to be a mainstay of tourism, several entrepreneurs are examining the area for possible resort development at Mahukona and retreat type resorts for the adventurous traveler. CHALON International, O IV -A-45 Inc., a major landowner in the area, has plans for future resort development in North O Kohala. However, these plans have been delayed due to the poor economic conditions in Hawaii and Japan. South Kohala Judicial District The coastline of South Kohala has developed into a major destination resort area. Visionary land developers created master planned resorts at the Mauna Lani Resort, the Waikoloa Resort and the Mauna Kea Resort. During the period 1980 to 1998, the area experienced significant growth with approximately ten new properties developed in the area totaling 3,400 visitor units. The larger properties included: the Outrigger Waikoloa Beach Hotel (547 units), Mauna Lani Bay Hotel & Bungalows (350 units), Hilton Waikoloa Village (1,240 units), Orchid at Mauna Lani (539 units) and Hapuna Beach O Prince (351 units). The majority of the hotel properties in the area are first-class to luxury resort properties. The area still has several parcels that are zoned for resort use, however, at this time there are no firmly planned additions to the supply in the near future. The South Kohala district has greatly benefited from the expansion of the Kona International Airport at Keahole with numerous direct flights from Japan and the U.S. mainland bringing significantly more visitors to the area. With the significant added visitor unit supply and the capacity for future accommodations, the majority of the anticipated visitor industry growth should occur in the South Kohala district. IV -A-46 OThese well -conceived master planned resorts coupled with the excellent climate of the area and access from Kona International Airport at Keahole via the Queen Kaahumanu Highway combine to provide an optimistic premise for the areas future. North Kona Judicial District The North Kona district was once the major visitor industry area on the Island of Hawaii. However, in recent years with the numerous hotel developments in the South Kohala district, North Kona and South Kohala now share in the visitor industry titles. Historically, where a small number of visitor accommodations centered in Kailua-Kona, today facilities stretch from the Kona Village Resort at the northern end of the district to the Keauhou-Kona Resort to the south. The North Kona district includes approximately O4,081 visitor units including hotels, resort condominiums, bed & breakfasts and other transient units. The Keauhou-Kona Resort provides approximately 1,300 hotel and resort condominium units and the area has two other undeveloped parcels that are resort zoned. During the period 1980 through 1998 six new resort properties were developed in the North Kona area for a total of approximately 900 visitor units. The larger additions included the Kona Coast Resort (263 units), Royal Seacliff Resort (150 units) and the most recent addition in 1996 of the Four Seasons Hualalai (243 units). The visitor accommodation units in the North Kona area includes a significant amount of resort condominium units with approximately 1,465 units and 2,188 hotel units. Included in these are timeshare units with approximately 500 units operated as timeshare with the O IV -A-47 largest timeshare project being the 263 unit Kona Coast Resort. Several Bed & Breakfast O units have also been established with approximately 50 units. The visitor accommodations in the North Kona district and the South Kohala district are very distinctive with the South Kohala area primarily first-class to luxury accommodations and the North Kona area with standard to deluxe accommodations with a sizable amount of resort condominiums. Many of the North Kona area hotel properties are in need of major refurbishment to their physical plant and interior renovations. This refurbishment has recently begun with the renovations to the Keauhou Beach Hotel, recently reopened in March 1999 after ten months of renovations. The future looks promising for the North Kona area, which is projected to share in the growth of visitors to the Island of Hawaii. South Kona Judicial District O The district of South Kona is the seat of significant Hawaiian history. These activities are centered at the City of Refuge and numerous fishing villages along the coastline, which are of great interest to visitors and local residents alike. Currently, there are approximately 88 visitor units located at Captain Cook, which cater primarily to local business travelers and agricultural workers. There is a luxury residential development proposed for the area called Oceanside 1250 (Villages at Hokukano). This development will cater primarily to out-of-state second homebuyers and could have an impact to the visitor industry in the area. IV -A-48 OKa'u Judicial District The center of tourism activity in Ka'u is at the Colony One at Sea Mountain (56 units) in the Punalu'u Resort. Other visitor units include the Shirakawa Motel (12 units) and several Bed & Breakfasts (1I units). In the early 1990's, a large-scale resort development, Hawaiian Riviera, was being planned in the area, however, that project never materialized and is inactive at the current time Future resort development within the Ka'u District will most likely to occur at Punalu'u Resort, where infrastructure and land use zoning is currently in place. IV -A-49 SUGAR BACKGROUND OF INDUSTRY Sugarcane, which is a member of the grass family, grows best in warm climates where there is strong sunlight and plenty of water. Sugarcane can grow up to 15 feet tall and is usually ready for harvest within one and a half years of planting. Koloa, Kauai was the site of the first successful sugar plantation in Hawaii dating back to 1835. The first harvest in 1837 produced 2 tons of raw sugar, which sold for $200. From Kauai, plantations began opening up on the islands of Hawaii, Maui and Oahu. By 1876 sugar production had only increased to 13,000 tons of sugar, but by 1898 that number increased substantiallyto 225,000 tons. In 1932 production reached 1 million tons, and O increased steadily until it peaked in 1983 at nearly 9 million tons. The sugar industry in Hawaii has been a significant economic contributor for over a century. Currently, however, the industry is clearly in a steep decline due to competition in other third -world and developing countries where the cost of labor and the cost to produce sugarcane is very low. Due to these and other factors which will be mentioned later, the sugar industry, which at one time was the leading economic activity in Hawaii, has dramatically declined since the mid-1980s and will likely disappear completely as a viable commercial activity (see Exhibit IV -B-1). IV -B-1 Exhibit IV -B-1 OSugar: Number of Farms, Acreage, Yield, Production, Price, and Value, 1983-1997 Acreage Acreage in Harvested for Yield per Production of Value of cane for crop Sugar acre sugar canesugar Farm Price sugar Year Farms, (1,000 acres), (1,000 acres) (tons) (1,000 tons) (Dollars per ton) (Million Dollars): State 1983 230 194.3 92.8 96.2 8926 29.90 266.9 1984 185 188.4 89.5 94.5 8454 30.30 256.2 1985 155 187.9 83.0 95.4 7916 28.10 222.4 1986 120 184.3 83.6 100.2 8379 27.90 233.8 1987 100 181.1 79.5 100.8 8014 27.20 218.0 1988 75 176.5 78.9 96.4 7606 27.60 209.9 1989 70 170.8 74.7 94.8 7082 29.70 210.3 1990 55 162.0 72.0 90.8 6538 32.70 213.8 1991 55 155.6 67.4 86.9 5857 29.90 174.9 1992 55 145.7 61.7 88.0 5430 28.30 153.7 1993 35 132.2 64.8 85.0 5508 29.60 163.0 1994 24 121.1 64.3 81.9 5266 30.40 160.1 1995 9 83.8 48.5 81.5 3953 32.30 127.7 1996 7 68.8 42.9 82.6 3544 30.50 108.1 1997 4 67.8 32.0 91.4 2925 29.20 85.5 O Hawaii 1983 219 75.6 35.7 107.6 3840 26.00 100.0 1984 174 70.9 33.6 101.8 3420 27.50 94.0 1985 144 69.9 28.7 93.6 2686 26.00 69.8 1986 109 61.9 28.7 97.5 2797 26.50 74.1 1987 89 68.5 28.4 90.4 2566 25.10 64.4 1988 64 66.7 26.2 87.8 2300 26.10 60.0 1989 60 63.1 23.1 92.2 2130 26.70 56.9 1990 45 57.9 20.6 94.4 1945 28.30 55.0 1991 45 56.1 18.1 95.3 1725 25.30 43.6 1992 45 47.3 19.0 88.1 1674 22.80 38.2 1993 25 33.9 18.4 81.5 1499 26.00 39.0 1994 15 22.4 18.2 73.9 1345 26.60 35.8 1995 I 2.4 6.5 66.2 430 28.40 12.2 1996 1 0 1.3 62.3 81 21.50 1.7 1997 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 At end of year Value of cane for sugar estimated by deducting processing and marketing costs from value of sugar and molasses. Statistics of Hawaiian Agriculture Prepared by Hawaii Agricultural Statistics Service The sugar industry in the County of Hawaii also peaked in 1983 with a production of 3.8 O million tons and steadily declined thereafter until its total demise in 1997. HISTORICAL MARKET TRENDS Hamakua Sugar Company hit its peak producing years in the early 1980's and at that time, became the second largest plantation in the State of Hawaii. The year of 1984 produced the largest crop of 11.57 tons per acre for the Hamakua Sugar Company. In comparison, the last harvest (known as the Final Harvest which spanned a period of thirteen and a half months) in 1994 produced only 7.2 tons per acre. The decrease was brought on by poor operational practices, and partly due to difficult financial conditions during the last few years when the plantation struggled to survive. The end of a once prospering sugar industry occurred with the closing of the Hilo Coast Processing O Company in August of 1994 and the Hamakua Sugar Company in October of 1994, as well as 12 other sugar plantations. The 1995 and 1996 harvests of C. Brewer & Co.'s Ka'u Agribusiness Company sugar division proved to be the final sugar harvests ever in the County of Hawaii. Several factors have contributed to the demise of the sugar industry in Hawaii, with the most significant factor being the high cost of labor (see Exhibit IV -13-2). Hawaii had the highest average daily cost for a sugar worker in the world at over $125, including overtime and benefits, and with guaranteed year-round employment (Bouvet, The Final Harvest, p. 41). This compared to daily wages varying between $1 to $10 in third world IV -13-3 Exhibit IV -13-2 OState of Hawaii Sugar Plantation Employment Average and Payrolls AVERAGE EMPLOYMENT: Production Processing Total 1985 1,253 920 2,173 1986 1,241 972 2,213 1987 1,188 845 2,033 1988 1,165 819 1,984 1989 1,007 758 1,765 1990 785 734 1,519 1991 798 699 1,497 1992 832 631 1,463 1993 2,151 1,653 3,804 1994 2,101 1,469 3,570 1995 1,597 1,159 2,756 1996 1,578 1,057 2,635 TOTAL ANNUAL WAGES: 1985 $22,010,629 $19,875,035 $41,885,664 1986 22,656,189 19,006,056 41,662,245 1987 22,949,949 18,237,127 41,187,076 22,309,567 17,566,368 39,875,935 01988 1989 19,412,418 17,357,159 36,769,577 1990 15,883,731 17,744,997 33,628,728 1991 18,064,526 16,676,317 34,740,843 1992 17,839,170 16,552,274 34,391,444 1993 35,970,871 33,483,046 69,453,917 1994 36,095,145 30,257,076 66,635,221 1995 26,177,089 21,048,595 47,225,684 1996 26,164,750 19,134,834 45,299,584 AVERAGE ANNUAL WAGES: 1985 $17,565 $21,597 $19,726 1986 18,256 19,554 18,826 1987 19,318 21,582 20,259 1988 19,150 21,449 20,099 1989 19,277 22,899 20,833 1990 20,234 24,176 22,139 1991 22,637 23,857 23,207 1992 21,441 26,232 23,507 1993 16,723 20,256 18,258 1994 17,180 20,597 18,586 1995 16,391 18,161 17,135 1996 16,581 18,103 17,191 Source: Hawaii Agricultural Statistics Service, Statistics of Hawaiian Agricultural (annual) and developing countries where most cane sugar is produced, and laborers are employed O for only four to six months during the year. Other reasons for the decline of sugar in Hawaii were the increasingly low cost of sugar around the world, and competition from corn sugar, which can be produced at a cheaper .cost than cane or beet sugar. Corn sugar, which comes from grape juice, honey and certain vegetables, is about half as sweet as regular sugar and is used in various products, including candies, frostings, baked goods and soft drinks. Federal legislation in the late 1980's removing tariffs from imported sugar also played a significant role in the decline of sugar production in Hawaii as competition increased resulting in a decline in sugar prices. CURRENT CONDITIONS Currently there are 121 countries worldwide that produce sugar, and global production is in excess of 120 million tons a year, expanding at a rate of 2 million tons a year. The European Union, Brazil and India are the top sugar producing areas in the world, together accounting for approximately 40% of the worldwide sugar production (see Exhibit IV -B- 3 and Exhibit IV -B-4). There are approximately 70,000 acres of sugar plantations on Kauai and Maui, which yields about 340,000 tons of raw sugar a year. Currently there are no sugar -producing farms in the County of Hawaii, compared to 15 years ago when there were 219 farms at a value of $100 million (see Exhibit IV -B -S). The last County of Hawaii sugar farm to O IV -B-5 I suol 3iijeW puesnoyl 0 0 0 X (Lf M U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 to d N O 00 CO ' N suol 3iijeW puesnoyl 0 0 0 X (Lf M U co 1 0 m O Q 0) ZZ O o co co to— a) CC) 0 0 DO co 1 0 m O OC6 W V♦ I � W o = CL _ — co i 0 M 0 r N 0 0 r o r rn L rn � O ci O 0 0 O O O O O O O N 0 00 C0 'q N r r suoiIIiw ul O 0 00 r- 00 co 0 rn 0 CD c 0 M 00r N 0 I 1 I I close was in Ka'u in March 1996. It was an emotional and unforgettable event in which O many of the town's 1,500 people showed up to watch. On June 19, 1997, equipment from the closed -down sugar mill in Pahala owned by C. Brewer & Co.'s Ka'u Agribusiness Company was put on auction. FUTURE OUTLOOK The once prosperous County of Hawaii towns in which sugar farms became a central part of the community have had to struggle with recuperating from the shut down of their sugar mills. Although some former sugar workers have found jobs at hotels, farms and even in the health care fields, many sugar workers are still without jobs today, due to a lack of available alternative jobs, further exacerbated by the unprecedented eight straight years of economic doldrums throughout Hawaii. O In 1996, when 240 sugar workers lost their jobs with the closing of C. Brewer & Co.'s Kau Agribusiness sugar farm in Pahala, alternative employment generators on former sugar lands were proposed. An alcohol fuel plantation and refinery was one option considered which would generate about 90 jobs. Another potential was forestry, but most forestry companies are focusing in areas north of Hilo where Prudential Timber has started to develop a 24,000 -acre forestry plantation. Forestry has potential since existing lands are readily available for immediate planting due to its "ready to plant" conditions. In 1997, about 1,800 residents of Kea'au, a former Hawaii County sugar town, began to see some long-awaited changes with five government and three private projects in the O IV -13-9 Omaking. Included were a bypass road, two public schools, one private school, and a retail development project. These welcomed changes are helping to revitalize Kea'au towards becoming a full-service town once again. On the Hamakua coast, an old sugar warehouse in Hakalau will be transformed into a factory for processing extracts from tropical crops such as ginger, kava and guava. This change is led by J.W.A. "Doc" Buyers, chairman of C. Brewer & Co., one of Hawaii's leading companies in agribusiness and land development, and will be named Mauna Kea Nutraceuticals. Buyers intends to utilize 1,200 acres of former sugar plantation. The 10,000 -square -foot facility could provide jobs for as many as 35 people. Hawaiian Vintage Chocolate, Co., who produces the only chocolate grown in the U.S. has also planted 400,000 cacao trees, mostly on former sugar lands in Kea'au, Kona, and Pahoa. With their proposed development of a chocolate factory in Kona, the goal is to eventually plant one million trees. Perhaps looking at other economic alternatives such as described above, can eventually provide jobs for former sugar workers. The Hawaii Agriculture Research Center (HARC) has been researching smaller crops such as sweet Hawaiian corn and green coffee berries. Presently there is a 78 -acre experimental station in Kunia, Oahu with such crops as chili peppers, watermelon, asparagus, dwarf elephant grass, dry -land taro, spring barley, coffee trees, neem tress, haole koa, banagrass and other assorted plants being tested. IV -B-10 In any event, the sugarcane industry in the County of Hawaii for all intents and purposes, O is gone. IV -13-11 MACADAMIA NUTS BACKGROUND OF INDUSTRY The macadamia is an evergreen, nut -bearing tree belonging to the Proteaceae family. It is native to the rainforests of eastern Australia and was brought to Hawaii in the early 1880's by William Purvis of Kukuihaele. There are at least six different types of macadamia nut trees, however, most of the world's production is derived from two species. The Macadamia integrifolia, the smooth -shelled macadamia, and Macadamia tetraphylla, the rough -shelled macadamia. Hybrid forms exist between the two species. Typically, both species often grow to as tall as 60' spreading as wide as 40'. The smooth -shelled variety accounts for the majority of the world production because of its O superior roasting quality and higher oil content. The University of Hawaii's Agricultural Experiment Station (HAES) has been the world leader in macadamia nut research, development of new varieties, and optimization of cultural practices. The practice of grafting (for superior production) was developed by HAES dating back as far as 1938- 1941. The macadamia nut tree can be harvested within 6-8 years from planting and is capable of producing for 40-60 years or more with proper care. (source: Jasper Guy Woodroof, Tree Nuts: Production, Processing, Products, 2d ed. (Westport, CT: Avi, 1979), p 301). The macadamia tree is highly sensitive to frost and prefers a fairly pronounced seasonal Ovariation in temperature and rainfall regimes, with the dry or cool season inducing IV -C-1 flowering. Optimum yields occur in areas with maximum temperatures less than 90° F O and minimum temperatures greater than 55° F. Macadamia trees can thrive on a wide variety of soil types from open sands and lava rocks to heavy clay soils, as long as the soil is well drained. Areas with rainfall between 60 to 120 inches a year is preferred for best macadamia nut tree growth and nut yield. The harvesting season for macadamia nuts in Hawaii covers about an eight-month period starting with a slow start in July, peaking in October/November, declining in December/January and ending in March. Macadamia nut harvesting is very labor intensive with most of the harvesting done by hand, after the nuts have matured and fallen to the ground. Some of the larger growers are able to harvest some of the nuts with either a mechanical sweeper and pick-up device or by mechanical shaking of the trees with a net -catcher. Once the nuts are gathered, they O are husked and air-dried. The drying process shrinks the kernels inside the nut. Due to the extremely hard shell, most of the macadamia nuts are cracked by commercial processors. The recovered kernels then go through a series of mechanical and electronic sorting devices that remove excess shell fragments and discolored kernels before going through a final sorting by hand. Although kernels are the main product of macadamia nut processing, there are other uses for the by-products of the nut. For example, the husks and shells can be used as mulch and soil compost. The culled kernels can also be used to produce, macadamia nut oil, which is now believed to be helpful in lowering the risk of heart disease. After the macadamia nuts are processed and are in raw -form, they are usually stored in vacuum-packed foil pouches and stored in cooling storage for up to a year before any loss in quality is noticeable. O IV -C-2 OMacadamia nut yields varies widely depending upon the age of the tree, tree variety, rainfall, night temperatures, year-to-year weather variations, diseases, pests, and horticultural practices. Tree age and variety are commonly the most significant factors affecting yields in commercial plantings. Macadamia are usually sprouted and planted in a nursery and after one year, it is grafted onto rootstock. It is then transplanted unto a commercial orchard in the second year. The first yield is anticipated five to six years after transplanting of the grafted seedling (seven to eight years after germination). First yields run only about 200 pounds per acre. By the twelfth year a commercial orchard, assuming optimum location and care, may yield 6,000 pounds/acre. While some of the trees imported into Hawaii over 100 years ago are reportedly still alive and bearing, Opeak yields are thought to be achieved when trees are approximately 25 years of age. For irrigated orchards, peak yields may be reached at 17 to 18 years tree age. In addition to supplemental irrigation, if required, other agricultural management practices that help to increase yields include proper fertilization and pruning techniques. HISTORICAL MARKET TRENDS Global demand for macadamia nuts peaked during the 1980's in both the United States and foreign markets, due largely to increased global incomes along with increased consumer awareness of macadamia nuts. Production numbers during this same period reflected this increase in demand as world production increased approximately 75% from 1990 to 1997. During this period, U.S. production increased at a modest rate compared to Oforeign production with production increasing 36% in the 1980's and an additional 16% IV -C-3 from 1990-1997 (source: HASS, Hawaii Macadamia Nuts, Final Season Estimates, July O 7, 1998 pg.l). Macadamia nut prices escalated in the 1980's as supply of macadamia nuts could not meet the increased demand. Prices, however, dropped sharply in the early .1990's due mostly to the increase in competition and an increase in total world production. In addition to the increase in competition, there are other factors such as the much - publicized Asian -economic flu, which may have adversely affected the macadamia nut industry resulting in a significant drop in world demand and prices for macadamia nuts. Japan and Hong Kong alone account for approximately 22% of total world consumption. These factors are discussed in further detail later in this report. The State of Hawaii is the largest producer of macadamia nuts in the United States, accounting for approximately 99% of U.S. macadamia nut production, with more than 95% of Hawaii's macadamia nut production located on the Island of Hawaii. The islands of Kauai and Maui account for the remaining production. As of 1996, amongst other diversified agriculture in the State of Hawaii, macadamia nuts ranked second only to flowers and nursery products in total value (see Exhibit IV -C-1). Macadamia nut farming on the Island of Hawaii is located in the districts of Ka'u, Puna, North Hilo, South Hilo, Kohala, and South Kona districts. IV -C-4 DIVERSIFIED AGRICULTURE RANKED BY VALUE Exhibit IV -C-1 STATE OF HAWAII, 1995-1996 O i COMMODITY RANK OF PRODUCTION PERCENT OF DIVERSIFIED AGRICULTURE _ _ _ Flowers and nursery products 1996_ 1997 Number_ 1 _1 2 3 _VALUE 1996 1997 1,000 dollars 68,870 68,160 Year-to-year percent change _ 1996 1997 _ Percent — -2 24.4 22.1 -1 15.5 14.1 Macadamia Nuts 44,070 43,500 Vegetables and melons (1) 3 2 40,672 44,626 9.7 14.3 14.5 Milk 4 5 29,234 29,479 1 10.3 9.6 Fruits (excl. pineapples) 5 4 26,521 29,564 11 9.3 9.6 Coffee 6 6 20,800 28,200 36 7.3 9.1 Seed crops and.forage 7 7 20,250 22,800 61 5.0 7.4 Eggs 8 9 12,963 12,914 -.5 4.6 4.2 Cattle 9' 8 11,905 14,323 20 4.2 4.6 Hogs 11 ___ 6,732 5,7411 2,793 _ 4,902 7,249 2,805— -26 O _ 44 .5 _ 2.3 1.6 2.3 0.9 Other livestock Taro , _ -1-01 11 _ _ 10 1.8 1.0 X12 12 Total 290,5511 308,522 9 100.0 100.0 (1) Includes ginger root and herbs Source: Hawaiian Agriculture Statistics Service Statistics of Hawaiian Agriculture In 1993, there were approximately 650 macadamia nut farms in the State of Hawaii and the total acreage devoted to macadamia nut orchards was about 20,000 acres. When comparing data from 1993 to 1998, statistics show that not much has changed in the total state's acreage over the past six years. In 1998, although the number of macadamia nut farms increased to approximately 700, the total acreage remained about the same at 20,200 acres. Gross production, however, during this period increased approximately 23%, from 53 million lbs. to 65 million lbs. (see Exhibit IV-C-2).Exhibit IV -C-3 shows that macadamia prices increased 8.7% during 1992-1998 versus a 125% increased in coffee prices for the same period. This difference in pricing is partially responsible for some macadamia nut farmers replacing their orchards with coffee (source USITC staff interview with S. Agoot, general manager, Kona Pacific Farmers' Cooperative, Captain O Cook, HI, Mar. 24, 1998). CURRENT CONDITIONS Macadamia nuts account for less than 0.5% of the world tree nut production and is not currently considered a major nut in the world market of tree nut production. Australia is the largest producer of macadamia nuts, producing approximately 38% of the world output of macadamia nuts. The United States is the second largest producer of macadamia nuts accounting for approximately 36% of total world production (see Exhibit IV -C-4). The United States, however, is the largest consumer of macadamia nuts in the world (see Exhibit IV -C -S). IV -C-6 K W q m aw; u. 0 (n ZaW U m LL W N O aix z W O U LU w C9�Q� S Q O CL CL LU uijxa 0 P 0 aow� 0 2 � J 00 0�CL _O V 0 Q m � ix IL Qm C) J J O W c CD, (D 100 00' O O l ao c) (n O 1 0 O O' tq O' OO co N aD to 1 O (D to V' O t17 W N V' ti O4:71 q VL i Ci Ili I � M (D C) LO to C) �tIO YII(VI(,0 t--Itco N N N coIM co `ct, 'V' :Fi M "MI MIM I I O fes- N t!7 O O- O 0� 0 Ha 00-{;— 0 0 0M tt7 rn o op l aNO (MO (OO tOD n to ;— l I I ji I � II C C C C6 C r. (D N to M (D N to �- O O i ��m��(0(D(Dr� i 0 0 1 0 N I N N I m N N 1 N N+ N I 0 I O` O II m N !� M O a0 r N C—', ap O '—I'C—') fD to o co (Y) o) o ai co ai of of ai of cd ao ao ai NtD M � .- N �'" O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O0 O N W)0 0 0 0 0 0 Co 0 Cl 00 0 0 0 n '� O O ti to to O to O to to O to O cD (D N tl' N (n O O a) O W N tD 0 M M M st 'V V V' to to R R C' to to to LO I iI Ii I rr0 0 0 0 0 oto t o 0 C', I (on m C) ocri o m 0. o 0 0 0 0 0 M M -TV(O i �! to LOLO to O t0 fP I co MIMIMIMIMININININI(VI(VININININI`" 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c OI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0(D 3 w N (q O to v (D (a N qI N to to to M N N O m O O N M v W) (O O M co n co co (b a) a), O I rr r e -I r�r rrl O U I NI U ! Z cq CD I C) C)d 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -') C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0�0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 rA p O O N (o V tD lT to a)�M (D (n I� N M N N I C U QI Q Q (gyp O to (o N O �" r r N N C41 O O O O O O lU M N >_ r i �'- N N N N I N N N j N j N N i N N N. •� pt O O N '_'' ' ! c' o. 0o C) Lr) I of u� o o I o O o 0 0� 0 � � m �' a c��' e1f 0100.-vI(n (DI�Irnrncotc)totn; 00o y. > > to (o co (D (D (D I (D (D W co; (D n (D (D I (D . (D o y a '> '> ! N 3 c @ v v -e EI Q C 0 co =O o ? 2 3 = �^. W M �t tD (D !- (A O O N M d to (D 1- co c O 'o O p. O_ > O I l6 O Q a0 t N 00 1 M aQ a0 t a4 (D aQ I� aD t O O O � .- Im N G) t M O) O> uy O> (o 01 t r. - N N N d N (� In d j N V Q Nco rn m 0 m m rn ao rn 00 rn 00 a> 0o rn rn rn rn a) a) a) rn 0) rn 0 rn 0) rn rn rn rn 2 O o ^� � in W U) U U' 0 tO Z Annual and total changes in Exhibit IV -C-3 selected commodity and food prices Year Macadamia Price World coffee price U.S. sugar price World sugar price World food price index Percentage 1993/94 0.0% 15.6% 1.5% 11.0% -2.0% 1994/95 1.3% 118.2% 1.9% 20.3% 6.1% 7.7% 1995/96 7.2% — 2.9% 4.1% 11.2% 1996/97 5.5% -26.2% _ 12.5% 1997198 -5.2% 17.4% --2.4%-----9.1% -2.0% -1.5% -11.1% Total change since 1993/94 8.7% 124.7% 3.0% 33.0% 12.0% Source: USITC, Macadamia Nuts: Economic and Competitive Conditions Affecting the U.S. Industry Report on Investigation No. 332-386 Under Section 332 (g) of the Tariff Act of 1930, Pub. 3129, Oct 1998 � 4) M CU I I E :0 0 a) i � 4) M F hl .. E .� A r•1 U U) -o-R �LO C Z) ol C: CL Q CIO O O C �. 0 D W 1 o .�co �E�C�o i Z)< WT— A r•1 U U) -o-R �LO C Z) CO O -F-' M ol C: CL Q CIO O O C �. D W CO O -F-' M As mentioned earlier, the United States production of macadamia nuts is primarily concentrated in Hawaii, which accounts for approximately 99% of the total U.S. production and California contributing the remaining 1%. According to industry sources, more than 95% of Hawaii's macadamia nut production is located on the Island of Hawaii. See Exhibit IV -C-6, which shows a breakdown of world production of macadamia nuts by country of origin. It is estimated that the macadamia nut industry employs over 2,000 people in Hawaii, generating gross revenues between $250 million to $300 million annually (source Hawaii House of Representatives, testimony presented by M. Crawford, transcript of the hearing, OMar. 25, 1998, Kailua-Kona, HI pp. 13-14). Since the early 1980's, Hawaii's macadamia nut farming, processing, and manufacturing have become an increasingly important source of agricultural labor and land use with the contraction of the sugar cane and pineapple industries (source: D. Quitiquit, director, County of Hawaii Research and Development Board, transcript of the hearing, Mar. 25, 1998, Kailua-Kona, pp. 29-31). Although figures in Exhibit IV -C-2 may suggest that the macadamia nut industry in Hawaii is healthy, current trends indicate that the Hawaii market may be headed for decline. Industry sources say that export sales have started declining; prices are falling; and competition has increased, particularly in Europe and Australia. These trends in 1998 are alarming, as the concern for sustaining a profitable macadamia nut operation O IV -C-11 Production of Macadamia Nuts Exhibit IV -C-6 by Country of Origin Country and Item United States (Hawaii): 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 Production (metric tons): NIS (1) Kernels Planted hectares Australia: 21,773 4,672 8,300 21,999 5,080 8,138 23,814 _5,035 8,178 23,133 5,171 8,219 25,628 6,486 8,175 26,309 (2) 8,175 Production (metric tons): NIS 12,000 16,000 18,000 19,500 25,000 27,500 Kernels (3) 3,480 4,640 5,6551 250 7,975 Planted hectares 6,020 8,900 _5,220 9,000 11,9001 12,000 12,050 Brazil: - Production (metric tons): NIS . 360 6001 I L i._ 930 9501 -- 1,300 1,600 Kernels (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) Planted hectares 4,500 5,350 5,800 6,000 6,300 6,500 Costa Rica: Production (metric tons): NIS 2,700 3,000 2,300 2,300 2,500 2,500 Kernels (4) 540 600 460 460 500 500 Planted hectares 6,500 6,500 6,600 6,000 4,250 5,000 Guatemala: Production (metric tons): _ NIS 1,588 1,943 2,13 2,272 2,507 2,745 Kernels (5) 302 369 4050 432 476 522 Planted hectares 2,800 2,800 3,080 3,200 3,300 3,400 Kenya: - Production (metric tons): - - NIS 3,555 3,299 4,070 4,100 4,900 6,800 Kernels (6) (2) 511 570 574 686 952 Planted hectares 5,314 5,4141 5,600 5,750 6,050 6,150 South Africa: Production metric tons): NIS 1,715 1,260 _ 3,115E4,300 3,920 5,460 Kernels Planted hectares 3,497(7) 3,830 3,830 3,533 4,265 Total: (8) Production (metric tons): i NIS 43,691 48,1011 54,35954,710 65,755 72,914 Kernels (2) (2)� -- (2)1_ (2) _ (2) Planted hectares 37,031 40.9321 42,0881 45,369 43,608 (1) NIS- Nuts in Shell (2) data not available (3) Est. from in -shell production ata recovery rate of29% (4) Est. from in -shell production at a recovery rate of 20%_ _ (5) Est. from in -shell production at a recovery rate of 19% } J (6) Est from in -shell production at a recovery rate of 14°/% (7) Official data for 1992 not available. Data on planted hectares is est. by taking averages for 1991 and 1993 (8) Data on other world producers are not availabel for 1992-1997 Source: USITC, Macadamia Nuts: Economic and Competitive Conditions Affecting the U.S. Industry (2) 45,540 [Report on investigation No. 332-386 Under Section 332 ( of the Tariff Act of 1930, Pub. 3129, Oct. 1998 Omay lead toward a continuation of the "leveling -off' of Hawaii production and may eventually lead to a decline in macadamia nut operations. Another trend, which may help to explain the "leveling -off' of Hawaii production, is the shortening of leases on lands zoned for agricultural uses (source: USITC interview with S. Agoot, general manager, Kona Pacific Farmers' Cooperative, Captain cook, HI, Mar. 24, 1998; and interview with D. Martin, Hawaii State statistician, HASS, Honolulu, HI, Mar. 30, 1998). Agricultural leases, which were once written for as long as 45 years, currently are written for 19 years or less (source USITC staff interview with S. Agoot, general manager, Kona Pacific Farmers' Cooperative, Captain Cook, HI, Mar. 24, 1998). This change in lease terms is a significant one due to the typical nature of the macadamia Onut crop. As mentioned earlier, a macadamia nut crop can usually be harvested 6-8 years following initial plantings and may take up to 10 years to break even, thus the 19 years may be too short a lease period to fully realize the potential of the high initial investment. As a result, alternative crops with quicker turnover and production becomes a more viable investment for prospective farmers. MAJOR PRODUCERS/PROCESSORS This section describes the major macadamia nut growers and processors currently operating on the Island of Hawaii (see Exhibit IV -C-7), with a focus on the two major producers which account for approximately 65% of the total state production: C. Brewer/Maunaloa and MacFarms of Hawaii. These,two producers account for roughly Othree fourths of the State's 1997/1998 macadamia nut processing and employs IV -C-13 re 0 N co w 0 w CL a S a 0 a7• "' ! tx E i o = I ci LU o �!I 3 L ` M E E U') cco n cm rl vi m o oai IM V r N N N N N .0 C C C -. 4 - -1 > I E C - y O Y C"o N I O g " U- O � uaT) oi �� 1 CC'4 cc >I M a�W A Z H f`p E lC " d of a) " O �. O m LL. �= Gm CL O a) " U C N d i N •C �5 a3 0l a) C 1 O Y U ;° 42 a .N. � Lo Z c coi �� in >, .01 Q S c in I a7 U) " IC " C O O N w IEC c U) O. Cp CD c E I 0 C1 v a v d ro E c 3 _ Y c .v S U O O) .r+ N co T C: CL o c IC C O I I Rf T " oI�o�jM S a o o N co ID 2� W+ x( m O " .0 O 0 0 m m S ' N~ l0 " to - 10 .-- L w N N Ol C LL. y N 7 N O = O C C a cc c o O o Cl cor. "' o Y Y Z u d 3 .O .a N N O 7 O ca a) Z' O O cc N N r fA �a' .0 U) N> 10 O. r.. I� E 3 y c 0 I`on U m I 3 a �Ib t oI� C aj o N N O 0 'S Y c c p ' p 3 0 of r o o of o ca a) E " C W r z O! .co 7 C cul .Z E co Z E E a 5l c �to.I o v c� y O a C .7 N EO I y a) I •� > CL w o E o " �' I? o E w 3 m m c, N a1 c N 0 0. rn 0 'C rY o H 2i E o 0 c�i `m c o_ m o o_ p" a. U) a CL Q ` N N c O `> �` U ° x O o N � ' C o E" o Y CL a m r 0 o =' f rn Z Y (n o G > +! c Z 3 c C) m o •ca m y-6 2 wu o 0 U- — CL m� z m m . I w 0v Oapproximately 750 people (source: USITC, Macadamia Nuts: Economic and Competitive Conditions Affecting the U.S. Industry, Report on Investigation No. 332-386 Under Section 332 (g) of the Tariff Act of 1930, Pub. 3129, October 1998). C. Brewer/Mauna Loa C. Brewer and its affiliates farm nearly 8,000 acres (3,275 hectares) or roughly 46% of Hawaii's Macadamia orchards. These affiliates include: Mauna Loa Macadamia Partners, LP, Mauna Kea Agribusiness Co., Kea'au Agribusiness Co., and Ka'u Agribusiness Co. Combined, C. Brewer and its affiliates exclusively supplies Mauna Loa Macadamia Nut Corp (Mauna Loa) with macadamia nut kernels, making Mauna Loa, Hawaii's largest processor of macadamia nuts. In addition to receiving nuts -in -shell from C. Brewer and its affiliates, Mauna Loa also purchases macadamia nuts from other growers. C. Brewer's first plantation was founded in 1948, the first macadamia nut trees were planted in early 1949 near Kea'au. In 1954, the macadamia nut trees began to bear nuts with and the first commercial crop harvested in 1956. Mauna Loa processed 19,225 metric tons NIS (Nuts -in shell) into 3,722 metric tons of kernel in 1997/1998. Their peak time employment reaches as high as 500 people (source: USITC, Macadamia Nuts: Economic and Competitive Conditions Affecting the U.S. Industry, Report on Investigation No. 332-386 Under Section 332 (g) of the Tariff Act of O IV -C-15 1930, Pub. 3129, October 1998). Mauna Loa processes and markets its macadamia nuts O in two general categories; bulk products and retail products. Their bulk products represent approximately 5 to 6 percent of revenues since the early 1990's. The bulk products are primarily sold to "ingredient nut" users in 25 and 50 pound vacuum-packed cartons. The product is generally kernel halves and pieces and diced kernels. Mauna Loa's retail products range in variety from kernels sold in jars and cans in different flavors; bags, cans, and jars of kernel mixes; boxes of chocolate -covered kernels and other macadamia candies; macadamia cooking oil; and roasted kernel snack packs of which about 40 percent is packaged in Hawaii with the remainder done on the U.S. O mainland. The Hawaii -packed products are sold primarily in Hawaii and Asia. Most of Mauna Loa's exports were to Japan and other Asian countries. In order to market their wide variety of products to tourists, Mauna Loa's Macadamia Nut Visitor Center, processing plant, and plantation located near Hilo has been offering educational tours of their facilities. Mac Farms of Hawaii MacFarms of Hawaii, Inc. (MacFarms) is a wholly owned subsidiary of Arnotts Ltd., which is a subsidiary of the Campbell Soup Company, USA. MacFarms has its corporate and grower operations in South Kona in an area known as Kapu'a. MacFarms owns, leases and operates roughly 4,000 acres (1,619 hectares) of macadamia orchards with O IV -C-16 Oapproximately 237,000 trees in South Kona. MacFarms is the second largest macadamia nut processor in Hawaii accounting for 20 to 25 percent of macadamia nuts processed in Hawaii (source: USITC, Macadamia Nuts: Economic and Competitive Conditions Affecting the U.S. Industry, Report on Investigation No. 332-386 Under Section 332 (g) of the Tariff Act of 1930, Pub. 3129, October 1998). MacFarms processed approximately 6,000 metric tons NIS (Nuts -in shell) into approximately 1,500 metric tons of kernel in 1997/1998. Their peak time employment reaches as high as 250 people (source: USITC, Macadamia Nuts: Economic and Competitive Conditions Affecting the U.S. Industry, Report on Investigation No. 332-386 Under Section 332 (g) of the Tariff Act of 1930, Pub. 3129, October 1998). Mac Farms' lands are located in a band above and below the main highway; the lower makai lands are drought prone and the elevation of the upper mauka fields is thought to be excessive for maximum production (too cold and cloudy). To supplement its own production, MacFarms purchases about 40 percent of its kernel requirements from 400 independent Hawaiian growers. MacFarms processes and markets its macadamia nuts in two general categories; bulk products and retail products. MacFarms has become increasingly retail -oriented as their percentage of retail sales have reached 45 percent of its kernel sales in 1997 compared to 15 percent in the early 1990's (source: USITC, Macadamia Nuts: Economic and O IV -C-17 Competitive Conditions Affecting the U.S. Industry, Report on Investigation No. 332-386 O Under Section 332 (g) of the Tariff Act of 1930, Pub. 3129, October 1998). Mac Farms bulk or industrial sales are distributed evenly among sales of kernel halves and pieces, various grades of diced kernels, and various sized grades of whole kernel. The MacFarms of Hawaii line of retail products include, among other products, roasted, roasted and salted, and natural kernels in a variety of cans and jars; boxes of chocolate- enrobed macadamias and macadamia candies; and a variety of snack packs of roasted kernels. MacFarms export markets include Japan, South Korea, and Europe (source: USITC, Macadamia Nuts: Economic and Competitive Conditions Affecting the U.S. Industry, Report on Investigation No. 332-386 Under Section 332 (g) of the Tariff Act of 1930, Pub. 3129, October 1998). O Hawaiian Host, Inc. Hawaiian Host, Inc. (Hawaiian Host) does not grow its own macadamia nuts that it processes. Hawaiian Host, based in Kona, works exclusively as a processor/retail marketer, unlike the two previous grower/processors. At peak season, they employ around 200 people. Hawaiian Host prefers Hawaii -grown macadamia nuts, but is unwilling to disclose actual figures on the amount of kernels processed or current sales figures. IV -C-18 OHawaiian Host processes kernels for two lines of retail products: The Hawaiian Host line and California Host line. The Hawaiian host line consists of macadamia -products as well as almond -based products which they market to the Hawaii market and exports to Asia. The California Host line consists of macadamia -products and almond -based products which they market to the U.S. Mainland. Both lines are sold at various retail stores and airports (source: USITC, Macadamia Nuts: Economic and Competitive Conditions Affecting the U.S. Industry, Report on Investigation No. 332-386 Under Section 332 (g) of the Tariff Act of 1930, Pub. 3129, October 1998). The retail products include chocolate -covered kernels, and dry -roasted macadamia and almond kernels which are available in various packaging sizes and types. Also included Oare boxes of candies combining macadamias, caramel, crisp rice, and different types of chocolate; a variety of candy bars with macadamia nuts and almonds; and roasted kernels in cans (salted and unsalted). Hawaiian Macadamia Co., Inc. The Hawaiian Macadamia Co., Inc. (HMC), a subsidiary of Mutual Benefit Insurance Life, was sold in 1998 to Island Princess as part of the purchase of the parent company. Although HMC has been retained by Island Princess, the company now operates as Island Princess Macadamia Nut Company (IPMNC). IPMNC continues to operate HMC facilities of growing and processing macadamia nuts in Puna (source: USITC, Macadamia Nuts: Economic and Competitive Conditions Affecting the U.S. Industry, OReport on Investigation No. 332-386 Under Section 332 (g) of the Tariff Act of 1930, IV -C-19 Pub. 3129, October 1998). IPMNC currently farms approximately 850-950 acres of O macadamia orchards and processing capacity roughly between 1,360 to 2,268 metric tons rank this orchard the fourth-largest grower/processor in Hawaii. In 1997/1998, HMC harvested and processed a substantial amount of macadamia nuts, although not disclosing actual figures. The firm did not use kernels from outside growers due to problems encountered with uncertain quality (source: USITC, Macadamia Nuts: Economic and Competitive Conditions Affecting the U.S. Industry, Report on Investigation No. 332-386 Under Section 332 (g) of the Tariff Act of 1930, Pub. 3129, October 1998). HMC supplied mostly raw, and smaller volumes of roasted kernels of various types to O Hawaiian candy makers and confectioners. IPMNC continues to market mostly to Hawaiian candy makers and confectioners, although they have put in substantial efforts in marketing their products overseas. However, the drop in macadamia nut prices due in part to increased competition from foreign growers, have impeded their efforts. HMC concentrated on supplying to a different customer base than that of the larger grower/processors. Their market consisted of smaller companies not buying in large bulk quantities or companies demanding certain kernel styles that the larger companies reserved for their own label. HMC carved out its own niche in the market by focusing its target market to smaller Hawaiian candy makers who base their product on high quality and premium macadamia candy (source: USITC, Macadamia Nuts: Economic and O IV -C-20 OCompetitive Conditions Affecting the U.S. Industry, Report on Investigation No. 332-386 Under Section 332 (g) of the Tariff Act of 1930, Pub. 3129, October 1998). Kamagaki Orchards and Kona Coast Nuts and Candy Kamagaki Orchards and Kona Coast Nuts and Candy (Kamagaki) is a family-owned grower, processor, manufacturer, and retailer of macadamia nuts and related products centered in the Kona district. Kamagaki owns approximately 65 acres of macadamia orchards planted in the 1960's, a processing plant, and a chocolate factory and retail outlet (source: USITC, Macadamia Nuts: Economic and Competitive Conditions Affecting the U.S. Industry, Report on Investigation No. 332-386 Under Section 332 (g) of the Tariff Act of 1930, Pub. 3129, October 1998). Kamigaki processes 454 metric tons of nuts -in -shell into roughly 136 metric tons of kernel. Of this total, approximately 75 percent are purchased from independent growers with the remainder coming from their own orchards. Kamigaki markets both bulk kernels and retail macadamia products. Bulk kernel sales represent about 75 percent of the total processed kernels and are marketed to other Hawaiian candy manufactures; 15 percent is sold as bulk kernels on the U.S. Mainland; and 10 percent is dedicated to the company's own line of retail macadamia products for sale in the company's retail outlets. IV -C-21 Kona Pacific Farmers' Cooperative O Kona Farmers' Co -Operative (KPFC) evolved from Sunset Coffee Company, which was established in 1956. In the late 1960's, coffee growers in the Kona area began to add or switch to macadamia production and the co-op was formed to process and market both crops. KPFC currently has about 320 members/farmers, which harvests approximately 800 acres of macadamia and Kona coffee orchards. The macadamia harvested by KPFC members is roughly estimated at about one half of the total acreage which equates to about 400 acres. It is quite common among the members to have a mixed crop of both macadamia nuts and coffee. KPFC is Hawaii's sixth-largest processor of macadamia nuts. In 1997, KPFC processed approximately 113 metric tons of kernels. During peak times, KPFC employs 55 people. KPFC's gross revenue is estimated at approximately $3 million annually from sales of both macadamia nuts and Kona coffee. KPFC offers its members harvesting, transporting, husking, and cracking services. As processing needs increase, KPFC also purchases nuts -in -shell from outside growers and normally compensates them at the same price as their members. Their standard agreement with their members is they purchase the nuts -in -shell with 70 percent of the payment due within 90 days of delivery, and the remainder by year's end. O IV -C-22 OKPFC produces both dried -raw and roasted macadamia nuts and sells on the wholesale and retail levels. Their marketing is focused primarily on three groups: small -to -medium sized candy maker and confectioner operations; Hawaiian wholesalers and store chains; and Asian and Far Eastern customers that package the KPFC product under their own labels. TRENDS IN PRODUCTION From a global perspective, the macadamia nut industry in Hawaii may be headed for some difficult times. World macadamia nut production is expected to increase dramatically in the first decade of the new millennium. This increase can be attributed to the maturation of foreign-based orchards planted in the 1980's and early 1990's. The OU.S. share of world -planted macadamia nut acreage (of which Hawaii represents 99% of production) decreased from 25 percent in 1992 to 18 percent in 1997. During this same period, U.S. macadamia nut acreage declined by about 309 acres while world producers planted almost 20,000 new acres, which is almost equivalent to Hawaii's total in 1997/98. Australia accounted for approximately 75 percent of the new plantings. Also, due to the relative maturity of Hawaii's orchards and the lower yields of foreign orchards, it is estimated that the U.S. share of the world production will decline markedly from its current 36 percent share (source: USITC, Macadamia Nuts: Economic and Competitive Conditions Affecting the U.S. Industry, Report on Investigation No. 332-386 Under Section 332 (g) of the Tariff Act of 1930, Pub. 3129, October 1998). O IV -C-23 Hawaii's production of macadamia nuts has increased steadily over the past 15 years. O Net production has increased almost 60 percent from 36,720,000 lbs. in 1982/83 to 58,000,000 lbs. 1997/98. During this same period gross production increased almost 70%. Bearing acreage has almost doubled from 10,200 acres in 1982/83 to 19,200 acres in 1997/98. According to the Hawaii Department of Agriculture, there were some new plantings that occurred from 1992-1997 but not much. Most of the replanting activities were for renovation of existing orchards. Therefore, the bearing acreage may contain trees that are not yet bearing macadamia nuts (source: USITC, Macadamia Nuts: Economic and Competitive Conditions Affecting the U.S. Industry, Report on Investigation No. 332-386 Under Section 332 (g) of the Tariff Act of 1930, Pub. 3129, O October 1998). Hawaii's production in 1998/99 is showing signs of decline due in part to a rain drought on the Kona side of the Island of Hawaii. The Hawaii Agricultural Service reported in the Honolulu Advertiser on January 22, 1999 a projected 9 percent drop in Hawaii macadamia nut production due to the drought. The same article reported the total production of nuts is expected to total 53 million pounds in 1998/99 down from 58 million the previous year. Prices have also fallen to a 15 -year low of 67 cents per pound due to an increase in world production, weakness in the Asian economy, and more aggressive marketing of foreign -grown nuts in the United States. The value of farm level sales statewide has increased steadily from about $27.1 million in 1983/84 to $43.5 O IV -C-24 Omillion in 1997/98 (see Exhibit IV -C-8). However, Farm values are estimated at $35.5 million in 1998/99, down 18 percent from the previous year. INDUSTRY THREATS Foreign Competition As noted throughout this section, the increase of foreign competition in world macadamia nut market may have a tremendous negative impact on Hawaii's macadamia nut industry. Due to the dramatic increase in planted macadamia nut acreage throughout the world in the later 1980's and 1990's, Hawaii can anticipate further market loss and substantial variations on farm value and price. It is already evident that foreign-growers/processors like those in Australia are willing to sell their crops for prices sometimes below cost Orather than holding on to its macadamia nut inventories and risk taking larger losses. With the current oversupply of worldwide inventory and the abundance of foreign - planted orchards in the late 1980's and early 1990's, it is expected that world production of macadamia nuts will continue to increase at potentially record levels, while worldwide demand will not be sufficient to absorb this increase in production. The increase will lead to a continual flooding of the already saturated market. Laws of supply and demand will force prices down, thereby, dropping prices to a level at which Hawaii will have a very difficult time competing. Hawaii's macadamia nut growers/processors may not be able to sustain viable or profitable operations as a result. IV -C-25 �. _.�, �....s.. AWAN >0 -.. s PAMa S �. Y � �, .+s t✓.u.i Y xs:. s�� d....��n.,'�` �.' i� _....+ & - <� �, -_.G__ +.cu�1'�`v�l.��. >w�'"'�.� � r S'. t 7 ,Tqn t � f . OCompounding this problem of increased foreign competition is the trend of Japan's purchasing of macadamia nuts. Although the U.S. is the leading supplier to Japan in terms of value, Australia by-passed the U.S. in 1993 in total volume sales to Japan. Furthermore, Japan has shifted away from its purchases of prepared or preserved nuts from the U.S. and Hawaii to fresh or dried macadamia kernels supplied by Australia and Kenya (source: USITC, Macadamia Nuts: Economic and Competitive Conditions Affecting the U.S. Industry, Report on Investigation No. 332-386 Under Section 332 (g) of the Tariff Act of 1930, Pub. 3129, October 1998). In order to overcome the foreign -grown product and its "generic -based" sales approach, Hawaii will need to continue to aggressively and creatively promote its high-quality Omacadamia nut products and find opportunities to differentiate its quality from others around the world. Worldwide demand for macadamia nuts must increase substantially to keep up with the dramatic increase in worldwide production. Trends in Hawaii -Bound Tourists Hawaii's tourism industry is the driving force behind Hawaii's economy. Tourism also plays an essential role to the macadamia nut industry in Hawaii. Hawaii's visitors account for the purchase millions of dollars of macadamia nut retail products and have been a strong source of sales in Hawaii. Tourists taking back home the Hawaii -based macadamia nut products actually help to extend the marketing reach for our macadamia nut industry by introducing the macadamia nuts to areas not currently being marketed to. O IV -C-27 Hawaii receives over 6.8 million visitors annually, of which, approximately 85 percent O come from just two major destinations: the United States and Japan. Coincidentally, the U.S. and Japan also represent the two largest consumers of macadamia nuts in the world, representing approximately 51% and 15% of total consumption respectively. The dependency on just two major markets is concerning to tourism industry experts. Japan accounts for over one-third of all visitors to Hawaii. Due to the much -publicized troubles to the Asian economy, Hawaii's tourism industry has had one of its worst years in recent history. According to the Hawaii Visitors and Convention Bureau, total number of visitors dropped 1.9% in 1998 compared with 1997. A 4.1% increase in westbound visitors was not enough to offset a 10.8% decrease in eastbound visitors from the Asia- Pacific area. The sharp decline in the Japanese yen in 1998 is also significant to Hawaii's tourism industry. Mainly, Japan travelers have chosen closer and less expensive travel destinations over Hawaii, which is evident in the decrease in eastbound travelers in 1998. The visitors who choose Hawaii have become more budget -minded and is spending less than in previous years. Fewer visitors and less spending money will result in less sales for Hawaii's macadamia nut products. FUTURE OUTLOOK The negative impacts to Hawaii's macadamia nut industry are yet to be fully seen, however, if indications are correct, Hawaii may experience once again the effects of foreign competition edging Hawaii out of its niche market (as was the case with sugar O IV -C-28 Ocane and pineapple). The major producers/processors, mainly Mauna Loa Macadamia 0 Nut Corp. and MacFarms of Hawaii, have spent decades and millions of dollars brand marketing their products and endorsing the "made -in -Hawaii" labels. The image of the Hawaii -grown macadamia nut is that the nuts are a luxury, high-quality item, while competition from emerging producers in Australia and other countries are marketing macadamia nuts as a generic product and are offering lower prices to worldwide consumers as a cheaper alternative to the Hawaii product. A recent article in the Honolulu Advertiser dated January 3, 1,999 noted that Agrimac International Enterprises Pty. Ltd., an Australian producer, has begun warehousing their macadamia nuts in Hawaii and started to market its nuts to local candy manufacturers as a Ocheaper alternative to Hawaii -grown macadamia nuts. In the same article, representatives of Hawaii's macadamia industry say that they have the organizational stability to weather the current downturn in demand and increase in supply of macadamia nuts and worry that the competing processors abroad do not have the staying power and therefore will unload their crops on the international market at prices far below the cost of production in Hawaii. Rick Vidgen, president of MacFarms of Hawaii was quoted as saying, "the problem is that while Australia's macadamia nut orchards have matured in the past decade, its macadamia nut industry has not reached the financial maturity that would allow it to hold off in selling its inventories during down times." As was the case for both sugar and pineapple, the scenario is all too familiar with foreign O`producers and growers following similar suit as factors such as lower production costs IV -C-29 and lower land leases have helped to keep costs of production far below that of Hawaii, O thereby dropping prices at times even below the cost of production in Hawaii. IV -C-30 O FLORICULTURE AND NURSERY PRODUCT BACKGROUND OF INDUSTRY Hawaii has always enjoyed an abundance of beautiful flowers and decorative plants. The climatic and environmental conditions in Hawaii allow for the propagation of a multitude of native and exotic flora. The expanse of the industry's flower and nursery products include cut flowers, cut orchids lei flowers, cut foliage, potted plants, ornamentals and trees, unfinished flower and foliage stock and other nursery products. The major cut flowers of importance are anthuriums and orchids. Cut orchids include dendrobium and cymbidium sprays. Others of significance are birds of paradise, carnations, heleconias, gingers, and proteas. Lei flowers are cultivated for the local market and include flowers Osuch as carnations, vanda orchids, tuberrose, pikake, and plumerias. Cut foliage includes ti leaves, leather -leaf ferns and other greenery used for floral arrangements, luaus or bouquets. Potted plants are anthuriums, orchids, poinsettias, potted foliage grown and sold for indoor and patio use, and other plants sold for landscaping and other outdoor purposes. Ornamentals and trees include those serving commercial and specialty needs, such as bonsai pines and fruit trees. Unfinished flower and foliage stock includes cuttings, seedlings and grafts that are exported or needed to replenish stocks. Other nursery products are used for bedding material and plant rentals, and other plant material not mentioned above. The United States produces an estimated value of $3.3 billion in flowers and nursery Oproducts annually. The State of Hawaii represents over 2.0 percent of the nation's annual IV -D-1 total production value with $68.16 million and is among the leading producers of quality O tropical plants and flowers. A majority of Hawaii's flower and nursery industry consists of independent growers averaging 3.22 acres with 670 farms statewide in 1997. More than half of the total acreage used in flowers and nursery products are located on the Island of Hawaii, the home of 312 farms utilizing 1,363 acres, as indicated in Exhibit IV - D -1. HISTORICAL MARKET TRENDS The flowers and nursery industry has been the top producer in the state's diversified agriculture sector from the start of 1990's until the present. All through the 1990's, the flower and nursery industry has maintained an average of 25.1 percent of the diversified agricultural production. Exhibit IV -D-2 shows flowers and nursery products accounting O for the largest share, 22.1 percent, of diversified agriculture production in 1997. Vegetables and melons ranked second at 14.5 percent of the market and macadamia nuts ranked third at 14.1 percent of total diversified agriculture production. The flowers and nursery industry has more than doubled since 1982 when the value of production was about $30.6 million in comparison to the 1997 figure of $68.1 million. The value of production rose steadily until 1990 when the industry posted a 13.2 percent increase over 1989 to a peak of $70.3 million. Since 1990, the industry has been holding steady, averaging a value of over $68.8 million. l) IV -D-2 EXHIBIT 1V -D-1 FLORICULTURE & NURSERY PRODUCTS: NUMBER OF FARMS AND GROWING AREA BY ISLANDS 1982-1997 Year Farms Total Area (Acres) Greenhouse(1) 1,000 Square Feet Artificial Shade 1,000 Square Feet Natural Shade Acres Open Field (Acres) Value of Sales ($1,000) State 1982 650 1,628 2,399 25,126 119 877 30,600 1983 680 1,786 2,327 26,329 106 1,022 36,165 1984 670 1,715 2,414 26,817 92 959 38,905 1985 675 1,761 2,836 29,643 91 924 44,162 1986 635 1,652 2,535 27,610 55 905 49,132 1987 670 1,840 31314 27,394 55 1,080 54,731 1988 675 1,833 4,690 23,800 70 1,109 59,551 1989 710 2,206 3,615 25,395 50 1,490 62,206 1990 710 2,364 3,950 24,775 35 1,670 70,393 1991 735 2,555 4,145 27,665 35 1,790 68,078 1992 686 2,497 3,880 22,025 13 1,890 69,679 1993 662 2,384 4,565 19,955 21 1,800 69,513 1994 660 2,290 3,770 21,600 18 1,690 67,005 1995 705 2,698 3,770 24,215 15 2,040 68,175 1996 690 2,212 2,820 23,405 10 1,600 68,870 1997 670 2,158 2,805 23,885 10 1,535 68,160 Hawaii 1982 310 912 1,270 19,425 104 333 13,559 1983 320 987 1,164 19,252 98 420 14,316 1984 315 998 1,195 19,264 83 446 16,944 1985 310 966 1,439 19,087 82 413 19,605 1986 300 965 11360 19,330 70 420 22,797 1987 320 1,002 1,670 19,983 55 450 23,668 1988 325 1,094 2,603 18,624 65 541 29,036 1989 320 1,139 2,772 17,720 49 620 28,888 1990 325 1,176 3,055 16,815 35 685 33,794 1991 335 1,361 2,855 17,230 35 865 31,329 1992 314 1,460 2,815 16,665 13 1,000 34,710 1993 307 1,320 3$55 15,135 21 875 33,902 1994 304 1,175 2,715 16,330 18 720 31,337 1995 333 1,630 2,910 18,880 15 1,115 32,608 1996 316 1,240 1,990 17,815 10 775 34,275 1997 312 1,363 2,000 18,805 10 875 35,290 (i) Glass or Glass Substitute Structure Source: Statistics of Hawaiian Agricultrue, Hawaii Agricultural Statistics Service N Q > W O` O+ O, h tt 4 N .- ���••---111 000 n M N N X00 0 0 T b O O O O b N S ` O n O O N^ K O vi �O P -^ O h o0 00 O h N M .-1 u i� O �O v^ _ vi v fV oo O. ry rn 'C 0. V9 '0 V N b M M N N b O+ 'O vi V b N M N �O 'C ; fFf 00 M �O V O. O. 00 N t ry r 7 N N N N^ I t0 x x of Y1 'O [- 00 m O^ V.• w h N N'i ^ `S N h O� O� O� �D h W� M .•• O h .+ C'4 O o0 u 7 1l O N N .+ .� .• O^ v1 O t�1 f- 1- f V' N N W o O w W 70+ O ^I > u oa Aa �0 O O O Ol '•' O vl 7 00 a, $ N v' '10 T M et T N o O O O N O h h h .O -JI rl h 'Q et 'V V N 00 �- h 00 O h N 00 N Q• O� 7 a ; i9 O� `O N b M N N �t O O� h at b l� b N 7 � V ; a H9 00 O 7 b d' ? `C O� O O •- N h b N N N N •-- ^ W Oyu. ^ N M b -t r w h h O fT .•+ M N Vl V b h O. 00 O N ' .+ fA Q C3 v u �v,m or1f� �- rn v,qo o u 00oh f�t`rn.-Mrn� vNJ C�� w 7 N V' M O Yl a %e;O •-' N ----ii O, �000 A¢ iaa U ~ w C p DD til O O b `O 00 w O O t, 'O O, N O O� 00 O. Za+ �O M M b T t% U �O R O vt p .� 0^ O of h R .••• �O l% .• O N 1'1 N N" 'O V� 10 lO u V O O ? w O� h 7 b Oi 'O^Vi u 7 7 O 00 00 r, 00 N 10 .-. V b N N ; p v 10 M m N m �•-� .�..^ .M.. WR a x x M 10 V M v1 C b T f- 00 ^ O N 0 •p u b O 0. Mf '7 0o N M N .• O Vi fV (J r�i T fV t�1 1 i� Vi .•+ C4 O N ^ = 00 w W .�. O 7 N .M+ ^ ^ o i 'c 34 : •c Q a Q Q dd 0, O O O n N h N vt w C •� O^ O V1 h vl O O ry .-• h O o0 O rn 4` h Q b O h N Gj �On$rlhTO o l� , V u U p O °N0. O ^•� obo C O N r z 7 'O v O N h M et d' O h v1 00 b h h N N ^• 7 1� 7 'O \A b b 1O M M l+j .•. N (��jl� N r'l -� -- -- -- v ( C cV O ; N rA !s w u c u O Id G 0uq C u V v W •4 u G a G L� x Q 4d x z "dz 5 �N rJ' ^ O W 0�0 A U W 0�." FF wo.> �w ,C y Id aUv�U W OxFF In OThe latest figures for the County of Hawaii show flower and nursery products at $35.3 million in 1997, accounting for over 51 percent of the State's total. Exhibit IV -D-3 shows the eventual emergence of flowers and nursery products as one of the leading agricultural crops in the County of Hawaii where today it is second only to macadamia nuts. Growth in the flower and nursery industry increased significantly in the 1980's, but has tapered off in the 1990's with little or no growth. Output for the flower and nursery industry in recent years has remained fairly constant as farmers compete with growing competition from foreign countries. CURRENT CONDITIONS A total of 2,158 acres were used for growing flower and nursery products in the state in O1997. The bulk of total acreage utilized, 1,535 acres, comprised of open field areas. Artificial shade structures made of black mesh or other shading materials accounted for about 550 acres. Natural shade areas amounted to 10 acres, and only 65 acres were dedicated to greenhouse production systems. Approximately 670 farms are in operation in Hawaii. Of this amount, the Island of Hawaii contains 46.6 percent of the state's farms and 63.2 percent of the total acres used for growing flower and nursery products in the state in 1997. The Island of Hawaii contains 57.0 percent of the state's agricultural open fields with 875 acres and 100.0 percent of the state's natural shade areas with 10 acres. Roughly 78.7 percent of the state's farm land with artificial shade and 71.3 percent of farm land dedicated to greenhouse production are located on the Island of Hawaii. IV -D-5 U1 (3a ¢ po 0 04 U w 0 W a C-- N O %o 'IT O O O vI)¢ O kn 00 O O to oo Q d\ O� O N%0 O%0 O O oo — O a1 4 O v'^ �D V) Vl .--• N 00 z V r O O N N �o z V) '[f (:t\ M 00 CO N V) �D oo It N It �D N N C' M O O It O d' O O+ M RS x w 0 > co C) I'll 00 Cl N r. w h �4 o V) O 00 00 h 00 h r+ �o O h a0 �D U Q 00 O %0 VT 00 O N M ..-� �O O N V O U U O 'IT N d �o N - N d' M— O lzt w Co V1 O 'ct o0 O h V1 O w O h N V1 O, O O •-+ 7 h O O O "o V1 0 0 0" 0 h N N N N N - O to V) 110 -- r- '00 o0 r-� 00 �6 M N N 'O N r~ N M N M �o — r+ Cl M cn to� V) V1 O �o 00 O --. Cl r-O O ry 0\ (2 ;z O , N O Ch Cl 7 O N hO M 0 a, v7 ON r-. — 10 N O Cl 00 O 00 r+ N O M 'd' h N C O ul M 00 dt o0 O O 69 M O V) M O O N O 00 V1 ON O o h 00 .-+ N �o O O Os O %D — ON h V7 t'- 00 O N (=> O, 00 r- 4 N N O, �O N cp o N 00 r. M Vi 4 O 0010 110 O N N Co V) N O O K C, r+ N z 00 00 ON t- ,t "t �o h --� O er N h h O [ �o �o 'ct M O 00 M 00 .-+ 4M V) M N to �O �+ M �--� ^ M M ON O) O O) V) V7 h O O. -t O M O N O I- V) O� O' ko O [� %0 M �o (D M 'D V) vN ao N N M N m %D r .�-. M M N_ M_ O V) O� O M O C O� O (4 h O O, �o �o tp N o0 ON 0o 00 O O M V1 N O O 00 00 O t- kn V) .-+ M V) d' ^' O rl-I N V) V) M 00 C� M h r" M Cl) M N U U U U tC O Id O .a�°��� �zz 0z U S N U y H O 72 S- o c CO v o o Ucnv>>w u.UE-�iJ. xv>>w wUHw N U .di RS x w 0 > co h v �4 o U Q U U ���'z 0 OHawaii's natural environment is instrumental toward growing marketable tropical foliage, potted plants and exotic flowers. Hawaii's global location, near the equator, provides a tropical climate suited for the production the tropical products. Lacking extreme variations in weather conditions, costs for heating, cooling and other environmental controls, which are prevalent in other global markets, are not a critical part of the farmers' variable inputs in Hawaii. These factors help to offset the high cost of land, labor, and raw materials, thus making Hawaii cost competitive with other competitive high-quality floral product markets. The flower and nursery industry produces close to $70,000,000 in sales per year, making it the leading industry in diversified agriculture in the State of Hawaii. Exhibit IV -D-4 Olists the sales value of flower crops and nursery products. Potted foliage (for indoor or patio use), potted dendrobium orchids, and cut anthuriums, top the list posting values of $13.4 million, $6.4 million, and $7.4 million, respectively, in 1997, likewise, these three sectors are points of focus in the allocation of resources. These products also lead the way in exports to the U.S. mainland and abroad. Foliage Foliage has moved into the forefront, producing the largest value in terms of sales within diversified agriculture. In 1997, foliage produced nearly $17.8 million statewide, with $11.3 million coming from the Island of Hawaii, as shown in Exhibit IV -D -S. The foliage industry reached its peak in 1991, producing sales of $20.1 million. Foliage producers are hoping to surpass this mark once foreign markets recover from the current O IV -D-7 EXHIBIT IV -D-4 FLOWERS & NURSERY PRODUCTS VALUE OF SALES STATE OF HAWAII 1993-1997 (1) Included with "Other Lei/Individual" to avoid disclosure of individual operations. Source: Hawaii Agricultural Statistics Service O Hawaii Flowers & Nursery Procucts (annual summary) 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 Crop 1,000 Dollars Cut Flowers Anthuriums 7,156 7,335 7,042 7,056 7,421 Birds of Paradise 728 702 754 554 494 Carnations 455 478 383 390 320 Chrysanthemums 565 588 554 479 409 Ginger, pink 493 483 564 528 488 Ginger, red 529 474 599 444 473 Ginger, other 73 62 48 100 86 Heliconias 587 547 495 477 510 Proteas 721 869 1,071 1,233 1,166 Other Cut Flowers 1,719 4,289 3,823 3,840 3,303 Orchids Cymbidiums, cut 143 142 159 189 137 Dendrobiums, sprays 2,995 3,017 3,078 2,797 2,547 Oncidiums, sprays 282 279 271 386 356 Other Orchids, sprays 40 142 30 37 25 Dendrobiums, potted 4,555 3,922 4,358 5,185 6,388 Other Orchids, potted 3,442 3,742 4,994 6,819 6,020 Lei Flowers & Individual Blooms Carnations 536 505 590 538 4I0 Dendrobiums 927 752 716 740 725 Pikake 139 123 169 86 (1) Plumerias 429 519 489 717 833 Vanda, Miss Joaquim 885 692 677 627 657 Other Lei/Individual 750 933 1,294 1,235 1,188 Foliage Potted, for indoor or patio use 14,545 12,008 11,812 13,000 13,362 Potted, for landscape use 3,381 3,982 3,902 3,527 3,515 Ti Leaves, cut 495 385 142 218 153 Unfinished Stock 655 708 622 664 511 Other Greens, cut 229 102 98 171 258 Potted Flowering Plants Anthuriums 283 101 97 155 390 Poinsettias 903 961 904 952 900 Other Potted Flowering Plants 1,779 2,370 2,294 2,747 2,461 Ornamentals & Trees 3,967 3,868 4,112 1,741 1,561 Plant Rentals 4,185 3,860 3,293 3,690 2,925 Other Nursery Products 7,136 6,625 7,218 6,182 6,764 Unspecified Sales 977 1,440 1,523 1,366 1,404 Total 69,513 67,005 68,175 68,870 68,160 (1) Included with "Other Lei/Individual" to avoid disclosure of individual operations. Source: Hawaii Agricultural Statistics Service O Hawaii Flowers & Nursery Procucts (annual summary) EXHIBIT IV -D-5 OFLORICULTURE AND NURSERY PRODUCTS: VALUE OF GROWER SALES State of Hawaii and County of Hawaii 1987-1997 Year Cut Flowers (1) Orchids Lei Flowers Foliage (2) Potted Flowering Plants All Other Nursery Products (3) Unspecified Sales (4) Total State --- I,000 Dollars --- 1987 16,510 7,027 5,347 17,955 2,741 5,151 NA 54,731 1988 17,471 7,164 4,609 20,072 3,040 7,195 NA 59,551 1989 17,260 8,397 4,608 18,072 3,361 10,508 NA 62,206 1990 18,464 10,144 4,418 19,902 3,469 14,096 NA 70,393 1991 17,101 10,886 4,588 20,099 3,532 11,872 NA 68,078 1992 16,504 10,907 4,641 18,206 3,905 14,426 1,090 69,679 1993 15,846 11,466 3,666 19,305 2,965 15,288 977 69,513 1994 15,827 11,244 3,524 17,185 3,432 14,353 1,440 67,005 1995 15,333 12,890 3,935 16,576 3,295 14,623 1,523 68,175 1996 15,101 15,413 3,943 17,580 3,854 11,613 1,366 68,870 1997 14,670 15,473 3,813 17,799 3,751 11,250 1,404 68,160 Hawaii 1987 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 23,668 1988 11,266 3,158 1,273 11,373 754 1,212 NA 29,036 1989 12,870 3,556 1,213 8,610 981 1,658 NA 28,888 1990 13,948 4,539 1,207 9,535 826 3,739 NA 33,794 1991 13,267 5,037 1,278 9,168 594 1,985 NA 31,329 1992 13,282 4,899 1,546 10,223 1,401 2,889 470 34,710 1993 12,600 1,329 1,426 10,424 618 3,070 435 33,902 1994 12,298 4,988 927 9,426 573 2,540 585 31,337 1995 12,082 6,197 977 10,187 564 2,082 519 32,608 1996 11,676 8,569 1,136 10,250 595 1,958 540 34,724 1997 11,536 8,057 1,226 11,322 882 1,726 541 35,290 NA = Not Available (t) Cut orchids included in "Orchids" category (2) Includes potted, cut and unfinished (3) Includes bedding plants, plant rentals, sod, trees, and any other nursery products not elswhere classified. Sum of islands may not add to total (4) Includes grower sales greater than $999 but less than $10,000 which were not catagorized. Statistics of Hawaiian Agriculture Prepared by Hawaii Agricultural Statistics Service world economic crisis. Japan's enthusiasm for tropical plants and their high production O cost due to the cold climate presents an opportunity for Hawaii to be a major source of potted and cut foliage to Japan. Exports to the mainland United States are sustaining the increases to the island's foliage industry. Continued growth is expected as demand for potted foliage escalates, particularly in the northern and western United States. Hawaii's share of the United States' market for foliage was 2.9 percent in 1997, slightly behind third place Colorado with 4.0 percent. The leading producer in 1997 was Florida with 63.3 percent of the market, or $330.4 million of the United States' total of $521.6 million. Anthuriums Anthuriums were first brought to Hawaii in the late 1800's from South America via London. Growers soon found that the flower thrives in the warm Hawaiian climate and blooms year-round, peaking in the summer months. During the 1980's, Hawaii was a leading supplier of anthuriums to the world. Hawaii growers enjoyed this distinction until a blight infection severely reduced production, resulting in market share losses. Presently, the anthurium industry accounts for approximately 10.9 percent of the State's flowers and nursery industry. Statewide in 1997, approximately 838,000 dozens of anthuriums were sold. The Island of Hawaii sold approximately 834,000 dozens in 1997, 99.5 percent of the statewide total. Nearly all of the 11,410 acres of farmland (listed on Exhibit IV -D-6) used for the O IV -D-10 EXHIBIT IV -D-6 ANTHURIUMS STATE OF HAWAII 1982-1997 Year Artificial Natural Value of Out of State Farms Shade Shade Total Sales Sales (1) 1,000 Square Feet $1,000 225 16,168 4,400 20,568 5,633 6,370 1982 1983 210 16,625 4,283 20,908 6,035 7,005 1984 205 16,446 3,521 19,967 7,351 7,050 1985 195 16,196 3,439 19,635 7,645 7,581 1986 175 16,144 3,014 19,158 9,878 8,653 1987 167 16,160 2,480 18,640 8,652 9,170 1988 156 14,250 2,850 17,100 8,022 8,816 1989 155 12,870 2,110 14,980 7,811 9,280 1990 141 NA NA 13,700 7,527 11,185 1991 133 NA NA 12,570 6,707 10,595 1992 69 9,920 465 10,385 6,360 11,355 1993 64 10,060 830 10,890 7,156 11,115 1994 62 10,275 540 10,815 7,335 10,310 1995 69 10,670 640 11,310 7,042 10,395 1996 65 10,665 435 11,100 7,056 9,705 1997 61 10,975 435 11,410 7,421 10,945 (i) Based on F.O.B. island value. Includes both wholesale and retail sales. Does not include sales of cut flowers, leis, etc., purchased within the State of Hawaii Source: Statistics of Hawaiian Agriculture commercial production of anthuriums is located on the Island of Hawaii. In 1997, the O state's anthurium industry produced a sales value of $7.4 million, with nearly all produced on the Island of Hawaii, mostly in the Puna and South Hilo districts. Over the last ten years, the Island of Hawaii had produced approximately 98.5 percent of the state's anthurium industry. As with other potted plants, the potted anthurium sector is finding an expanding export market. Over the last ten years (1987-1997) the annual production value for potted anthuriums increased from $229,000 to 390,000, an increase of 70.31 percent. Hawaii's export of anthuriums are far from reaching the 1980 record high sold of 2,532,000 dozens. Since then, Hawaii `s quantity sold has held within the 800-900,000 dozen range. Exports for 1997 were estimated at 703,300 dozen, a 4.15 percent increase O over 1996, but a decrease when compared to 1995's 758,800 dozens. While foreign shipments have held fairly steady, mainland sales have been showing decline with exports of 376,600 dozens. The decline of the anthurium industry in Hawaii is mainly due to problems in the production phase and the increase in foreign competition. Bacterial blights, bleaching, and drought are also key factors in limiting production. Bacterial blight severely affected production in 1987, substantially reducing production and revenue. At the time, Hawaii and Holland were the only quality producers of anthuriums. The result of Hawaii's misfortune affected prices, which escalated as the world supply dropped. Aware of the sky rocketing prices and high demand, other countries began cultivating anthuriums in IV -D-12 Oorder to reap the rewards of the cash crop. Asian countries filled the voided market supply and have held on with lower prices. As a result, Hawaii farmers were unable to regain market share of the anthurium market. Orchids Potted orchids in the United States produced approximately $64.3 million in 1997, an increase of 36.8 percent over 1996, indicating strong demand and suggesting prospects of future growth in exports for this sector. The value of production for the dendrobium orchid industry within the State of Hawaii in 1997 was nearly $9.7 million, as shown in Exhibit IV -D-7. In 1997, the State of Hawaii had 117 farms with sales of over $10,000 utilizing nearly 4.7 million square feet for the production of dendrobium orchids, an Oincrease of 12.4 percent in production area over 1996. Out -of -State sales for the orchid industry have increased greatly since 1982 when sales were at $456,100. In 1997, exports of dendrobium orchids boomed into a $7 million industry. Through most of the 1980's, dendrobium orchid sales have predominantly been in the cut spray sector, out -producing individual blossoms and potted orchids. Recently greater emphasis has being geared towards potted orchids. With consumer demand on the continental United States for potted orchids wide open, potted orchids are expected to overtake cut orchids in the near future. IV -D-13 EXHIBIT IV -D-7 DENDROBIUM ORCHIDS VALUE OF SALES STATE OF HAWAII 1982-1997 Source: Statistics of Hawaiian Agriculture Individual Potted Plants Year Blossoms Cut Sprays Total Value In Bud/Bloom j Community $1,000 1982 179 440 622 155 1,396 1983 234 774 873 159 2,040 1984 314 1,278 709 145 2,446 1985 458 1,687 802 259 3,206 1986 488 2,115 982 187 4,051 1987 500 2,352 2,037 171 5,060 1988 536 2,639 1,841 178 5,194 1989 709 2,798 1,995 165 5,667 1990 755 2,656 2,748 137 6,296 1991 808 2,980 2,826 235 6,849 1992 1,119 3,147 3,265 138 7,669 1993 927 2,995 4,052 503 8,477 1994 752 3,017 3,510 412 7,691 1995 716 3,078 4,137 221 8,152 1996 740 2,797 5,495 590 8,722 1997 725 2,547 5,595 793 9,660 Source: Statistics of Hawaiian Agriculture OFUTURE OUTLOOK South American and Asian countries with similar climates are challenging Hawaii's farmers locally and abroad for dominance in market share. The foreign competitors are able to raise their crops with lower costs of production. The land is cheap, abundant, and easier to manage in comparison to Hawaii's limited and sloping terrain. The farmers endure less labor costs and have less environmental and government restrictions to adhere. Hawaii's high production costs and limited resources force growers to rely on high quality products to sustain their share of the industry's market. Buyers of Hawaii products can anticipate that each shipment will have the same quality and consistency. OThis reliability separates Hawaii from Asian and South American suppliers. Hawaii needs to stay ahead technologically in order to maintain success. The world economy is adversely affecting foreign exports. As world markets continue to weaken and currencies deflate, the stability and strength of the American dollar makes it difficult to export goods and services to foreign markets. The already high priced Hawaii goods have little chance of competing with foreign goods and services that are relatively very inexpensive. The United States government struck a blow against the flower industry as well as textiles and other manufactures. In 1992, the Andean Trade Protection Act went into effect between the United States and Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, and Venezuela. O IV -D-15 The act lifts import tariffs of 3 percent to 7 percent on cut flowers, textiles and other O goods. The measure was meant as an incentive to South American farmers to raise legal cash crops other than crops for narcotic purposes. But to the effect, the law accomplished little in limiting the inflow of South American drugs into the United States. Instead, the act managed to successfully reduce the number of flower farmers in the United States. As an example, from 1992 to 1997, the number of farmers growing roses dwindled from 225 to 159, while the market share of South American roses grew one percent of the national market in the 1970's to 50 percent in 1992. Other examples of flower industries affected by the change in tariff are carnations, 92 percent of the national market, and chrysanthemums, 81 percent of the national market imported from South America. Locally, we have seen the departure of the Hawaii rose industry. Roses from South America grown in altitudes reaching 10,000 above sea level reach a quality which is O difficult to surpass. Rose experts say with higher altitudes, the quality of the rose improves. Two major rose growers in Kamuela, which is approximately 2,000 feet above sea level, saw their market share diminish with the influx of imports. The local products could not compete with the larger flowers and longer stems. In 1994, the United States, Canada, and Mexico initiated a trade agreement called NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) to eliminate trade barriers and create a free trade area to compete with the EU (European Union). Consequently, Mexico, which has a lower production costs than Hawaii, enters its exports into the United States at even lower prices, increasing market share. While documented information is not available, IV -D-16 OHawaii producers will experience greater difficulty in marketing products to the U.S. mainland as cheaper Mexican imports gain consumer acceptance. The flowers and nursery industry could see the possibility of rapid expansion due to the availability of added resources and technology. With the passing of the sugar industry, a vast amount of prime agricultural land have been made available. Most of the available land would likely remain zoned for agricultural use to maintain the unique landscaping of the Island of Hawaii and also to provide jobs for the community. A constant inflow of technology offers improvements on production and quality, offering an edge over foreign competitors. IV -D-17 KAVA/ INDUSTRIAL HEMP/ MARIJUANA O KAVA The public demand for medicinal plants is popular with a market interested in natural products versus synthetic drugs. An increasingly popular herbal drug called Kava or Ava is a legal, medicinal plant that is derived from the root and stem of the pepper plant, Piper methysticum, found originally in Polynesia, Melanesia, and Micronesia. Kava was used by ancient Polynesians for easing symptoms such as anxiety, sleeplessness and pain relief. Local medicinal plant researchers, preservationists, and growers are utilizing vacated sugar cane fields in order to become players of the 12 billion dollar global medicinal plant industry (source: Pacific Business News; 1998). The enormous potential of Kava, from which Fiji alone generated approximately $40-60 million in sales in 1996, O has resulted in Kava growers sprouting throughout Hawaii (source: Pacific Business News, 1999). One mainland company hoping to utilize Hawaii -grown Kava is New Jersey -based Quality Botanical Ingredients, Inc. who uses Kava in its dietary supplements. In 1998, Quality Botanical purchased the Island of Hawaii -based Botanical Products International and renamed it the QBI Tropical Division (source: Pacific Business News, 1999). Locally, C. Brewer has leased land to many Kava growers in the Ka'u district. C. Brewer, itself, has created a separate company in 1997, Mauna Kea Neutraceuticals, through a joint venture agreement with Capital Program Management ,to develop and O IV -E-1 Osupport this growing industry by operating a 10,000 square foot facility in Hakalau that will produce extracts from raw materials that can be used in dietary supplements and herbal medicine. C. Brewer also established Hawaiian Pacific Kava Co. in 1998 with plans to develop Kava as a large-scale commercial crop in Hawaii. The company plans to produce nursery plants for contracted growers leasing C. Brewer land. Kava is a potentially viable cash crop that could thrive just as well as any other native plants and fill the thousands of cultivatable acres of land abandoned from the demise of sugar. Kava is considered to be a natural herbal supplement and therefore, would not be under such stringent regulations by the Food and Drug Administration. It is an herb that has long been used in Melanesian and Polynesian societies with no known long-term Oafter effects. Medicinal plants (such as Kava) are high in value, low in shipping volume, popular with the growing population of naturalists and strong competition with synthetic drugs developed at high costs. Dollar values from 1994 also provide strong support: $6.5 billion in Europe, $2.1 billion in Japan, $2.3 billion in rest of Asia, and $1.5 billion in North America (source: Pacific Business News, 1998). INDUSTRIAL HEMP The public debate regarding legalizing industrial hemp, a non-toxic relative of the marijuana plant, has been on-going for the past five years on the Island of Hawaii. IV -E-2 Although the debate continues, the governor approved House Bill 22, also known as the O Hawaii Strategic Industrial Hemp Development Act, legalizing privately funded hemp research by the State. The first plantings are scheduled for December of 1999 on a quarter -acre plot of highly secured lands at Whitmore Village, just outside of Wahiawa. Hawaii's experiment of cultivating industrial hemp is the first of its kind in the United States. The experiment will help determine if industrial hemp can be a viable crop for Hawaii. North Dakota and Minnesota also passed similar legislation this year, and legislatures in Montana, Virginia, Vermont, Illinois, Oregon, and Colorado are considering passing similar measures (source: Pacific Business News, 1999). Alterna, a mainland -based hemp hair -care product maker, is backing the experimental crop at the University of Hawaii by investing $200,000 in the project. Alterna purchases O hundreds of barrels of hemp oil from overseas suppliers for its line of beauty products. The growth of industrialized hemp is far different than that of marijuana. Hemp grown for industrial purposes does not have the same THC drug potency of marijuana. Due to its miniscule levels of THC, industrial hemp does not provide the drug chemical reactions that marijuana does. Unfortunately, the Federal Drug Enforcement Agency and the Honolulu Police Department does not make any distinction between high -content THC or low -content THC hemp plants, thus current growing of industrial hemp outside of the recently enacted hemp law would be deemed illegal. The new law does not give Hawaii farmers free reign to grow hemp and only allows for the approved quarter -acre experimental crop to be raised at the Whitmore Village site. The Federal penalty for IV -E-3 Ocultivation of marijuana or hemp is a maximum 10 years in prison, regardless of the THC content of the hemp (source: Pacific Business News, 1997). Hemp grown in Hawaii could be processed into goods such as textiles, fabrics, building materials, food, soap, and shampoo. Retail industry giants such as Ralph Lauren, Calvin Klein, Nike and Adidas are currently using hemp in its products. The United States imports hemp fiber, oil, seeds, and stalks from China, Canada, Hungary, Chile, Germany and England (Honolulu Star -Bulletin, 1999). Industrial hemp could prove to be an important agricultural industry for the County of Hawaii if demand for hemp products continue to grow. A recent Wall Street Journal article projects that hemp imports are expected to increase 300 percent from $75 million in 1997 to $250 million in 1999. MARIJUANA According to previous estimations, the marijuana or "pakalolo" industry is perhaps the largest agribusiness in the County of Hawaii. It was once valued anywhere between $1- 10 billion a year, surpassing in 1989 the value of sugar, pineapple, and tourism combined (source: Star -Bulletin, 1996). The volume figures for this illegal business are speculative at best. An economic assessment of Hawaii's marijuana industry is a difficult topic to address since it raises highly charged legal and controversial issues. Long-term implications of the industry's growth can more appropriately be looked upon for its impact on economic base IV -E-4 parameters (of income generators) and the development of new business and industry O within the County. The debate for legalizing the growth of marijuana for medicinal purposes has received national publicity as there are some states in the United States that have legalized the growth and use of marijuana for medicinal reasons. Opponents for legalizing the medicinal use of marijuana have taken the position that there is insufficient clinical evidence that support the effective use of marijuana as a prescription drug. Most of the marijuana production is believed to occur in the Puna district. The economic and financial magnitude of this covert industry is speculative at best as there is no accurate accounting for this illegal drug. The results of programs run by local police and O DEA, such as Green Harvest and Operation Sweep, have reported confiscation amounts ranging from 122,000 to over 1,200,000 marijuana plants with estimated values ranging from $122,000,000 to 1,244,800,000 (see Table IV -E-1). The marijuana industry presents a philosophical dilemma. That is, while the marijuana industry unquestionably contributes to the economy of the County of Hawaii, over the long term, it could have tremendous negative sociological and psychological effects on normal economic growth of the County of Hawaii, more specifically to the Puna and Hilo regions. IV -E-5 Marijuana Confiscated by Hawaii County Exhibit IV -E-1 Year Number of Plants 546,403 Estimated Value 1985 $566,404,440 746,540 _ $743,229,190 _1986 1987 _ 1,210,762 $1,244,876,290 $871,749,200 _ $485,597,200 1988 782,646 1989 _ 484,918 1990 _i 138,550 $138,675,600 1991 218,198 $218,371,480 1992 173,994 _ $349,951,860 1993 209,208 $418,416,000 1994 122,044 $122,853,400 1995 155,153 $155,612,600 1996 139,336 $139,000,000 1997 261,958 $261,958,000 Source: Hawaii County Police Department It is not possible to forecast an economic prognosis for the industry since its growth or IO decline will depend directly upon public policy and the resulting vigor with which law enforcement is carried out. IV -E-7 BEEF CATTLE BACKGROUND OF INDUSTRY In recent years, the cattle industry has been experiencing changes in production and marketing. Traditionally, all phases of production were available within the State of Hawaii. Ranchers were able to send locally bred cattle to feedlots within the State to be finished, or fattened in preparation for slaughter. Hawaii slaughterhouses would receive the finished cattle and prepare the carcasses for marketing. With this process, Hawaii cattle remained in the islands and allowed the economic benefits to passed on to support industries related to the means of production. After 1993, cattle producers found that exporting cattle at a lighter weight to be finished elsewhere increased profit margins. OThis resulted in a loss of revenues from related cattle industries. Hawaii's cattle industry originated on the Island of Hawaii with the second arrival of the HMS Discovery in 1793 from California. Captain George Vancouver had delivered a total of seven cows and two bulls as gifts to King Kamehameha the Great. Since then, the cattle industry has grown to encompass all the major Hawaiian Islands with 62.8 percent of the cattle sold coming from the Island of Hawaii, 24.8 percent from Maui, 5.0 percent from Kauai and Niihau, 4.0 percent from Oahu, and 3.4 percent from Molokai. In 1997, the cattle industry accounted for 18.11 percent or $14.3 million, of the total livestock industry for the State of Hawaii. The cattle industry also contributes to the OHawaiian culture through the endearing paniolo lifestyle which developed Hawaii's IV -F-1 unique slack key music style. Adding to Hawaii's panoramic landscape, cattle ranches O also provide open pastures and helps to preserve Hawaii's rural setting. HISTORICAL MARKET TRENDS The United States produced an average of 50.2 million head of beef cows and 22.4 billion pounds in beef production in 1982. By 1997, the number of beef cows decreased to 43.6 million head, but beef production increased to 25.4 billion pounds. The average production per cow increased 31.01 percent from 1982 through 1997 reflecting a clear trend towards developing larger cows. The majority of cattle produced within the State of Hawaii originate from the Island of Hawaii, which accounts for 62.8 percent of Hawaii's total cattle production today. In O 1982, the State of Hawaii had approximately 1,000 cattle operations which sold approximately 56,000 head of cattle. By 1997, these figures changed to approximately 800 cattle operations producing 58,000 head of cattle. The cattle industry on the Island of Hawaii accounted for 490 operations which sold 37,700 head of cattle in 1982. As of 1991, cattle operations on the Island of Hawaii contracted to 410 operations producing 36,400 head of cattle. Exhibit IV -17-1 and Exhibit IV -17-2 provides records of production from 1982 through 1997 for the State of Hawaii and the Island of Hawaii. Conditions of the Hawaii cattle industry during the early 1980's displayed signs of optimism. Beef consumption in the State had increased in the early 1980's. Plans for the IV -F-2 EXHIBIT -IV -F-1 O CATTLE & CALVES: NUMBER SOLD, POUNDS, PRICE, & VALUE STATE OF HAWAII 1982-1997 Number Pounds Sold Farm Price Value of Year Operations Sold(i) (Live Weight)(2) (Live Weighth3) Sales 1,000 Head 1,000 lbs. $/hundredweight $1,000 1982 1,000 56 52,910 $ 52.20 $ 27,619 1983 950 60 59,100 49.60 29,308 1984 850 65 60,600 46.40 28,101 1985 850 74 65,160 40.90 26,632 1986 800 67 62,300 39.60 24,645 1987 900 62 62,940 43.50 27,401 1988 900 62 59,300 47.20 27,984 1989 900 68 64,750 48.60 31,483 1990 900 65 58,990 48.70 28,735 1991 900 73 60,460 49.30 29,787 1992 900 84 59,520 49.10 29,235 1993 850 75 46,730 57.50 26,860 1994 800 62 37,830 52.10 19,700 1995 800 62 34,020 43.00 14,639 1996 800 58 34,870 34.10 11,905 1997 800 58 36,470 39.30 14,323 (i) Includes custom slaughter for home use on farms where produced & out -of -State sales of cattle and calves; but, excludes inter -farm sales. State totals may not add due to rounding. (2) Excludes custom slaughter for use on farms where produced. (3) Prices are equivalent delivered slaughterhouse for sales on island of production & delivered shipper's dock for interisland & out -of -State sales. Source: Statistics of Hawaiian Agriculture EXHIBIT -IV -F-2 CATTLE & CALVES: NUMBER SOLD POUNDS PRICE & VALUE O HAWAII COUNTY 1982-1997 Year Number Pounds Sold Farm Price Value of Operations Sold (i) (Live Weight)(2) (Live Weight)(3) Sales 1,000 Head 1,000 lbs. $/hundredweight $1,000 1982 490 37.7 36,211 $ 52.20 $ 18,907- 1983 450 38.0 38,188 49.30 18,831 1984 395 43.0 39,802 45.50 18,126 1985 400 49.5 42,567 39.60 16,870 1986 365 42.1 41,244 39.70 16,385 1987 465 45.5 47,165 43.50 20,535 1988 450 49.3 49,052 47.40 23,274 1989 440 55.9 54,368 49.10 26,711 1990 440 49.1 46,954 49.20 23,101 1991 460 58.0 48,892 49.50 24,192 1992 460 63.9 43,222 49.90 21,578 1993 430 52.1 29,835 60.70 18,112 1994 410 44.2 24,324 54.50 13,254 1995 410 44.3 21,585 42.90 9,265 1996 410 42.2 22,821 32.60 7,433 1997 410 36.4 21,743 38.70 8,404 ti> Includes custom slaughter for home use on farms where produced & out -of -State sales of cattle and calves; but, excludes inter -farm sales. State totals may not add due to rounding. (2) Excludes custom slaughter for use on farms where produced. (3) Prices are equivalent delivered slaughterhouse for sales on island of production & delivered shipper's dock for interisland & out -of -State sales. Source: Statistics of Hawaiian Agriculture Oconstruction of an additional feedlot in the Kona or Kohala region gave the expectation of increased capacity for Hawaii producers. Innovations in cattle feed and pasture resource management allowed for intensive grazing of cattle, which corresponded to greater cattle production per acre. Bound by higher than average factors of production, Hawaii cattle prices had difficulty competing with lower priced imports. Therefore, as consumer demand for beef increased, U.S. mainland producers and foreign competitors secured the growth in market. Incremental increases in the cattle weight and cattle sold were evident during the 1980's and early 1990's. Unfortunately, by 1993, the last feedlot had closed operations, forcing producers to forego the innovations in cattle feed and grazing, by exporting the Ocattle at an earlier age. Cattle producers were forced to adapt to the changes in the industry, dramatically reducing production levels. From 1982 through 1993, cattle ranchers statewide produced an average of 60.5 million pounds of cattle with ranchers from the Island of Hawaii contributing an average of 44.3 million pounds. By the end of 1993, the last of Hawaii's cattle feedlots had closed operations and the vast majority of cattle ranchers began exporting cattle at a lesser weight and at a younger age to the continental United States and other countries to be finished before slaughter. This resulted in a substantial decrease of 37.4 percent in the total weight of cattle sold statewide from 1991 to 1994, (60.46 million pounds down to 37.83 million pounds). In 1991, the average weight per cattle sold was at 828.2 pounds. In 1994, the average weight per cattle sold decreased to an average of 610.2 pounds. O IV -F-5 The statewide cattle industry peaked in 1989, producing $31.5 million in sales value. O The next four years, 1990 to 1993, saw a relatively stagnant sales value averaging a consistent $28.6 million. With the closing of the last feedlot in 1993, sales value dropped dramatically in 1994 to $19.7 million and reached its modern-day low point in 1996 at $11.9 million. The cattle industry on the Island of Hawaii followed the statewide trend, peaking in 1989 with $26.7 million in sales value and eventually dropping to a low of $7.4 million in 1996. CURRENT CONDITIONS The United States had 1,148,050 cattle operations in 1997 with over 100 million head of O cattle of which approximately 43.5 million were beef cattle (see Exhibit IV -F-3). A leading exporter of beef, the top five markets for the United States are listed on Exhibit IV -17-4. Japan is the leading export market, worth nearly $1.4 billion for the United States in 1997. The State of Hawaii represents less than .07 percent of the United States cattle operations and produced roughly 0.16 percent of the nation's cattle inventory, with 800 operations and 58,000 head of cattle in 1997. There were 410 cattle operations located on the Island of Hawaii, utilizing approximately 700,000 acres with approximately 36,400 head of cattle sold in 1997, resulting in a sales value of $8.4 million for the Island of Hawaii. In IV -F-6 EXHIBIT -W -F-3 CATTLE PRODUCTION UNITED STATES 1982-1997 Year Fotal Retail Beef Production Production Value of Beef Total Cattle Cows (Carcass Weight) per Cow Consumed 1,000 Head Pounds S Billion 115,444 50,216 22,366 445 42.6 1982 1983 115,001 48,986 23,060 471 43.1 1984 113,360 48,543 23,418 482 43.7 1985 109,582 46,182 23,557 510 43.2 1986 105,378 44,869 24,213 540 43.0 1987 102,118 44,412 23,405 527 42.8 1988 99,622 43,494 23,424 539 44.6 1989 96,740 42,626 22,974 539 45.6 1990 95,816 42,470 22,634 533 47.6 1991 96,393 42,485 22,800 537 49.0 1992 97,556 42,735 22,968 541 48.7 1993 99,176 43,023 22,942 537 49.3 1994 100,988 44,178 24,278 564 49.7 1995 102,755 44,643 25,117 569 50.3 1996 103,487 44,644 25,421 569 50.1 1997 101,406 43,580 25,401 583 50.6 Sources: USDA and Cattle -Fax W H Os lfl a M M N N CK .- N O � N N a0 M � Q . . ^✓ Q\ CS D •' r,D1 M r - M h 6R ~. � p Q Vl ^ N >W u CNcq` Ge xg n w r 0000 c r; cy ya r1 Lr N r- M r+ V y O V M Q 't F w a rn � N � fin O 0 � In M M r-� N M M r4 y O M' 00 M M O N V' Cd W o � w js„ a C. aso Al U ItEo- O1996, farm prices were at a low for cattle for the State of Hawaii, posting $34.10 per hundredweight. 1997 showed an increase of 15.25 percent over 1996 at $39.30 per hundredweight. This, however, was still well below the high of $57.50 in 1993. As shown in Exhibit IV -F -S, commercial slaughterhouses have witnessed a downturn in activity during the 1990's with 1997 reporting 19,200 head of slaughtered cattle within the State of Hawaii, a major drop from the high of 64,600 head of slaughtered cattle in 1985. The State's market supply of beef and veal produced by local producers follows a similar pattern to the number of commercial slaughter in the State, as illustrated Exhibit IV -F -S's Ograph and Exhibit IV -F -6's graph. As previously mentioned, cattle production dropped after the 1993 closing of the last feedlot in Hawaii. Since then, the mainland United States producers have been gaining a much larger share of the Hawaii market, consistent with the decline of the local cattle market. Exhibit IV -17-6 shows an increase of 77.84 percent to 91.9 million pounds from 1982 to 1997. While the total amount of cattle and calves in Hawaii has decreased substantially since 1982, the amount of beef cattle has remained fairly consistent. Exhibit IV -F-7 shows the decrease in numbers is a direct result of a diminishing milk cattle inventory. In addition, Exhibit IV -F-7 shows the trend of exporting lighter cattle to out-of-state feedlots for finishing. This same table reflects an across the board decrease for all "500 pounds and over" categories statewide. A decrease in head count also occurs with steers, heifers, and O IV -F-9 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 0 40.0 0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 EXHIBIT -IV -F-5 COMMERCIAL SLAUGHTER STATE OF HAWAII 1982-1997 Year Total Cattle Dressed Weight 1,000 Head 1,000 Pounds 1982 54.0 28,527 1983 56.0 31,280 1984 57.6 31,160 1985 64.6 33,461 1986 62.0 32,912 1987 60.0 33,987 1988 57.0 31,949 1989 63.0 34,933 1990 54.5 29,554 1991 45.9 26,681 1992 38.2 21,912 1993 20.8 11,407 1994 18.2 9,779 1995 15.6 8,411 1996 17.3 9,376 1997 19.2 10,545 Source: Statistics of Hawaiian Agriculture Total Cattle 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 Total Cattle L - -I y "0 C'. 0 0 CL 0 0 0 EXHIBIT -IV -F-6 MARKET SUPPLY OF BEEF AND VEAL STATE OF HAWAII 1982-1996 Year Mainland Foreign Hawaii(i) Total(2) 1,000 pounds (carcass weight equivalent) 1982 51,709 16,273 29,048 97,030 1983 53,259 14,555 31,985 99,799 1984 55,724 16,548 32,116 104,388 1985 55,893 15,263 33,928 105,084 1986 58,519 15,764 33,764 108,047 1987 -56,952 17,728 34,335 109,015 1988 59,437 19,749 31,403 110,589 1989 61,858 17,345 34,450 113,653 1990 62,320 20,146 29,071 111,537 1991 68,666 18,326 27,328 114,320 1992 78,121 15,581 21,429 115,131 1993 84,466 17,863 10,924 113,253 1994 92,673 13,583 9,324 115,580 1995 92,678 15,271 7,895 115,844 1996 91,961 15,250 10,161 117,372 (j) Excludes custom -slaughter cattle and calves shipped out -of -State. X21 Total supply was estimated amd mainland shipments derived for beef and veal beginning 1971. Source: Statistics of Hawaiian Agriculture 100,000 90,000 80,000 70,000 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0 Market Supply 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 F -i - Mainland i - Foreign -Hawaii(l) O _y �!C O kn Qa O O ��yy V1 "V y a0 00 l— �O �O v1 v1 v1 V'f �O vl kn tn %n vl d' a 0 M O M N b ao p N o0 l- 00 w d " o 0 � O tn L I� �O 00 O\ N r- 01 00 (- N v1 N C� r- 00 \0 O OV wi u cc ++ o d in c " x IC " U O --t- o �o v CD "r W) - �o � �c N .-�. N .-�. �--� N — .--i d � O xa�a� iA �O .-+ v1 r• O, N ON 110 (ON N h 00 O M M M M r!' M N N N N N F F y 00 00 )0 00 00 �D (- 00 [- 00 [- [- r- 00 00 00 'y c V u Q O V Fl. MW) M kn N O O� M �O [� O\ 01 N O (71 CSO� C7,O` 00 oo ON 00 a\ 00 00 00 a` (71 i 00 O �o ON V1 M — N_ to �7 O 00 Vl v1 �p N CD O\ N �-o NmN t U U N --- ed 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 O\ 01 O\ O\ m O\ ON O\ Q\ ON ON O, ON O\ O, O, ON O\ O\ O1 O, ON ON cn Obulls weighing less than 500 pounds, down to 30,000 in 1998 from 54,000 in 1982. Similarly, for the County of Hawaii, Exhibit IV -F-8 reflects this trend with decreases in nearly all "500 pounds and over" categories and a decrease in "under 500 pounds" from 34,200 heads in 1982 to 21,400 heads in 1998. Much of the land used for cattle ranching utilizes acreage unsuitable for other agricultural industries. Pastures are optimized by the practice of intensive grazing management which employs the use of many paddocks per herd, short grazing periods, variable paddock rest periods, and high stocking densities. The result is a decrease in the cost of production on a per-unit land basis, an increase in cattle performance, and an increase in production per acreage. Grazing pastures convert acreage which may have poor soil Oquality, insufficient irrigation, or adverse temperatures into productive economic resources. Historically, the cattle industry has followed a ten to twelve year price cycle based on supply and demand. Ranchers increase the supply of cattle until supply surpasses demand, causing prices to drop below profitable levels. Producers then liquidate supplies, reducing the cattle inventory until demand is greater than supply, therefore, increasing prices back to profitable levels. The increase in prices causes ranchers to increase the supply of cattle thus perpetuating the cycle. The price for beef is currently at a low -point, allowing only the most efficient producers to remain in business. Increases in future price may be expected if the cattle industry follows its traditional cycle. IV -F-13 CN •-• M to M kn M O �o 00 M d' d 4 M O\ N06 M IO Il O\ V) M �D M M N M M M N M N N M M N aU+ y p M M M x=� p 'n kn y 'ct M DD C cr D1 7 M O [- �o ,O �O o� Vl W) 4 4 V M M M M V M M M M M M O M h o0 Vl t- ON M N V M Ci V) N O, t- 00 00 4 00 M �O 4 4 4 4 U a.+ f.. U vi O w g cd y E wn N "n o rn h o o -� v o 0o t� o o cv U u o o r y?? �Q x�a p �o V r O 110 N V 00 N t� V� %O t� E. N N N N N N N N N N N � y F � y U O 1n W M o0 V'1 O O O M M v) Vn h Vh00 l- O -' O n 00 W) V) W) " kn et Vl �O h w Wn •n 10 %O �o �O � y 3 O 00 Mq, W) "o as t-: C� 00 M N N y ON N O (0 O C>-ItM w W N M to 00 M C� V) a, U U M M - .N. .N. -N-y - -M-. .M-. �--� M .. .--i y d OY, � h �O 1� o0 00 00 00 00 00 00 0o a\ a\ oll GN (71 CN O\ p, Q1 O1 Ol� O� Q\ O� 011 ON O� O\ O\ O\ ON C% ON ON OThe downturn in revenues witnessed by the cattle industry can be directly attributed to the disappearance of cattle feedlots within the State of Hawaii. The disappearance came about from the high price of importing feed from the mainland United States and the resulting higher cost of production for Hawaii grain -finished beef. In order to remain competitive on the market, Hawaii grain -finished beef producers lowered profit margins to maintain their market share. The elimination of feedlots in Hawaii left ranchers with the option of natural forage grazing or exportation of calves to feedlots outside the State to be finished before slaughter. Ranchers were able to increase profits and lower production costs by exporting calves to feedlots on the continental United States or in foreign countries. The shipping costs incurred for exportation of calves were far less than the shipping costs for importing cattle feed to finish cattle in Hawaii. Exportation of Ocalves is also foreseen as a favorable direction due to the higher grade -qualities given to grain -finished cuts of beef, therefore increasing market value. A report published by the University of Hawaii, Department of Animal Sciences in 1996 declared a slight preference was given to cuts of meat originating from grain -finished cattle in regards to superior texture, color, and shelf life. Grain -finished meats are more apt to be tender, have better texture, and have a better marbling of fat within the meat. With the cattle feedlots in existence, prior to 1991, approximately 90 percent of all cattle raised in Hawaii were fed, slaughtered, and consumed in Hawaii. By 1993, with the closure of all feedlots in Hawaii, approximately 90 percent of all Hawaiian cattle were being exported. When Hawaiian cattle remain in the islands, a multiplier effect takes place, adding revenue to each segment of the industry. Revenue is generated for O IV -F-15 ranchers, slaughterhouses, meat packers, and wholesalers/retailers. The majority of the O money generated remains in the islands, benefiting the local economy. In order for Hawaii's cattle industry to strengthen, new techniques need to be developed for raising forage -finished cattle so that it may compete in quality with grain -finished cattle. Hawaii cattle would then be able to finish grazing on island pastures and remain for consumption within the local markets. Local producers also need to find new venues such as processed meats and pre -fabricated meals to market locally raised cattle. By creating a market niche for forage -finished beef, ranchers will be able to keep cattle in Hawaii, increasing production weights and revenues for the State economy. THREATS TO THE INDUSTRY O Outbreaks of disease in Hawaii's beef cattle industry are less significant than in other states due to Hawaii's isolation and limited herd additions. However, Hawaii is not without its share of malaise. Reproductive failures are of the greatest economic concern in the Hawaii cattle industry. This includes failure to breed, reproductive infections, miscarriages, difficult labor or delivery losses, and losses in pounds of beef produced per cow per year because of extended calving intervals. Metabolic diseases and mineral deficiencies are also of concern due to limitations of growth for finished cattle. Insects and other parasites are of great concern due to their debilitating effects on cattle. Resolving these problems would increase the economic gain for the industry. IV -F-16 FUTURE OUTLOOK Cattle rustling is one of the most constant problems ranchers face with losses estimated from anywhere between one to 20 percent. Enforcement of existing laws to control rustling seems to be ineffective and the vast amount of land makes patrol very difficult. Drought is a major concern to ranchers located in the drier regions of Ka'u and Kona. Drought conditions restrict the number of head to a herd and also reduces the size and health of the cattle, limiting potential earnings of production. Irrigation and improved water management may help to alleviate the restrictions for water. Trucking in water is a very costly solution and will add to the cost of production. Mainland United States and foreign competitors are also a source of concern and threat for Hawaii cattle producers due to their high output levels and lower prices. Mainland United States and foreign competitors have lower costs of production due to centralization of industry resources and larger scales of production. Hawaii cattle producers face smaller scales of operation and isolation from markets and resources. The result is a higher cost of production in comparison to out-of-state competitors. To offset the differences in cost, the Hawaii cattle industry has been able to produce high quality cattle and calves and has efficiently operated at lower profit margins. Hawaii's isolation is of key importance in maintaining the health of Hawaii -bred cattle by allowing for the strict quarantine of diseased or imported cattle. A disease-free breeding O IV -F-17 stock and the high-quality of Hawaii -bred cattle provides an advantage over the more O accessible foreign and U.S. mainland cattle and presents the Hawaii cattlemen a choice of selling or maintaining ownership of the shipped cattle. Maintaining ownership until the cattle are finished and ready for slaughter will allow for a larger return of investment. Hawaii cattle producers need to expand their presence in the local market in order to revitalize the industry. Finding niches in the market, such as pre-packaged meals, and processed meats, are trends with great opportunities of expansion. Health conscious trends in society could offer a venue for forage -fed by presenting a quality "all natural" product. Improvements made in raising forage -finished cattle will allow Hawaii producers to keep their cattle in the islands for sale and consumption. Forage -finished cattle producers are producing beef cattle with higher quality meats. Adjustments made O with the mixture of forage grasses have lowered the fat content of the meat and improved taste texture and tenderness. The pale color often associated with forage -finished cattle has been eliminated with the right mixture of forage grasses and legumes. Further improvements will allow additional Hawaii cattle to stay in the islands for consumption and compete with the quality cuts of grain -finished beef. Approximately 80-85 percent of the nutrients consumed by beef cattle come from forage, roughage and food by-products not edible to man. Cattle, and other ruminants, are able to transform plant cell carbohydrates into a form of proteins which may be easily digested by humans. Most of the nutrients consumed by ruminants are from plant feed not eaten by humans. Less than one-half of the dry matter produced by crops is edible for humans. IV -F-18 OThe remaining by-products, stalks, leaves, and residues, are fed to cattle and converted into beef. With proper management, the cattle industry could greatly reduce the amount of agricultural waste produced on the Island of Hawaii. Ranchers may collect fees for eliminating the organic waste, therefore lowering production costs and increasing profit margins. IV -F-19 COFFEE BACKGROUND OF INDUSTRY The climate of Kona is particularly beneficial for the growth of the distinctive, world - renown, high quality Kona coffee beans. The morning sun, gentle winds, and light afternoon rains and cloud covering are ideal for the cultivation of Kona coffee. The rich, dry volcanic soil is extremely hard, and pick axes must be used to dig holes for the coffee trees. Kona farmers have traditionally relied on rain for growing coffee, but some orchards now utilize drip irrigation. The fresh coffee fruit is called a "cherry" due to its resemblance to the cherry fruit. Each coffee cherry contains two flat beans (seeds) adjacent to one another. Coffee beans are O covered with a red skin and pulp that surrounds the two beans. This skin must be soaked in water for 8-12 hours before being run through a "pulper" to remove it. The beans are then rinsed and dried by the sun for 6 to 8 days on large decks and being raked frequently to dry evenly. Some producers dry their beans in a rotating hot drum dryer for 3 to 4 hours, although the overall consensus is that sun-dried beans produce better coffee. The dried beans are then taken to the "green mill" where the parchment skin is removed and the beans are polished. The beans are now in its "green" state where it can be stored for long periods of time. The beans are sorted and graded, bagged and ready to be roasted, either by the farmer, or processor. IV -G-1 OThe "green" coffee bean is typically roasted electronically in a propane gas -heated machine. The approximate roasting time for twenty to twenty-five pounds of coffee is fifteen minutes, which varies, depending on the moisture content, weight, grade, and the preferred darkness of the roast. While there are many coffee orchards throughout the Big Island, most of the Big Island's coffee is grown along a 20 mile long by 2 mile wide region in the Kona districts on the slopes of Hualalai and Mauna Loa. It is here that Kona coffee has been grown and harvested since the 1800s. The harvesting season for Kona coffee usually runs from August to January. During this Operiod, the coffee blossoms ripen at various times, therefore farmers must go through the fields up to eight different times in one season to pick the ripe berries. The labor requirements can range from one person per acre during the early and late stages of the season, to three or four people during peak periods. This process is not currently done mechanically for various reasons including: • The cost of machinery • The lack of machinery technology • The small size of coffee farms (economic viability) • The volcanic, rocky and sloping terrain of coffee farms • The coffee trees are not planted for use of mechanical picking • The machinery's inability to pick only ripe cherries and/or to separate ripe cherries from green, dried or rotten cherries. O IV -G-2 Coffee was first discovered in Northern Africa, in the region that is now known as O Ethiopia, and taken to the Arabian peninsula where it was first cultivated in the area currently known as Yemen during the 15`h and 16`h centuries. It was first introduced to Oahu in 1825 from Brazil by an English agriculturist named John Wilkinson, and planted in Manoa Valley. In 1828, an American missionary, Reverend Samuel Ruggles took a cutting from the original plant in Manoa, a strain of coffee arabica acquired in Rio de Janeiro, and took it to Kona. Although still cultivated in Hawaii today, this strain is not the most common type of coffee bean in Kona. In the late 1800s a strain of Guatemalan arabica coffee was introduced to Kona, which is the predominate strain of coffee in Kona today. HISTORICAL MARKET TRENDS Coffee exportation from the major coffee producing countries around the world has generally remained steady, between 8.4 billion pounds and 10.2 billion pounds of green coffee per year for the last 10 years. The U.S. alone imports anywhere from 2 million to 2.9 million pounds of green coffee each year. Commercial production of coffee in the United States occurs only in the State of Hawaii, and prior to 1990, the Big Island was the only place in the state where coffee was grown commercially. Although Kona coffee has enjoyed a long and profitable history, the industry has had its fill of ups and downs. In 1982 the value of sales of Kona coffee was $2.1 million dollars, and until 1995, that number has fluctuated between $4 million and $8.7 million. Since then, the value of Kona coffee sales has steadily increased. This can O IV -G-3 Obe attributed to various factors, including the increasing demand of Kona coffee beans as a premium specialty coffee, and the fact that many companies now buy Kona coffee and blend it with harsher types of coffees, such as those from Latin America. Previously, Kona coffee was handled primarily through three processors and distributors: The Kona Farmers' Co -Operative (KFC), Pacific Coffee Co -Operative (PCC), and United Coffee Company (UCC). These co-operatives purchased cherry and parchment coffees from the farmers, processed it into green coffee, and distributed the green coffee to their buyers. However, in recent years, cherry and parchment processing has grown increasingly competitive. In 1980 there were only five processors in Kona, while currently there are approximately twenty-five new processors and/or roasters, including OBayview Farms, Captain Cook Coffee Company, and Bong Brothers Coffee Company. In the 1980s, the Kona coffee market changed dramatically. Lion Coffee and Hill and Hill were added to the likes of Superior Coffee and Foods Company Hawaii as competitive roasters. Also, in 1988, Japan's Ueshima Coffee Company increased its Hawaii operations to include production and processing in Kona. Superior Coffee Company is the leading marketing body for Kona coffee, selling primarily to hotels and restaurants at wholesale prices (although they sell primarily Kona coffee blends). The state has worked closely with Superior to promote Kona coffee's uniqueness in the marketplace, and after years of building the industry their efforts are said to be producing results. IV -G-4 CURRENT CONDITIONS After water, coffee is the most popular beverage in the world, with over 400 billion cups consumed annually, and over 25 million people worldwide employed by the coffee industry. The coffee industry is so profitable that the export of coffee beans contributed approximately $2 billion to the Colombian economy and $2.4 billion to the people of Brazil in 1996. The major regions for growing coffee are Latin American and the Caribbean Islands, Africa and the Arabian Peninsula, and Indonesia. Brazil leads the world in coffee production, growing approximately 25% of the world's coffee in the 1997-98 season, followed by Columbia with 12% and Indonesia. In total, the world production in the 1997-98 season was approximately 12.4 billion pounds of coffee. Statewide, production of parchment coffee increased in 1997-98 by 40% from the O previous year to 9 million pounds (see Exhibit IV -G-1). The value of sales also increased substantially from the previous year, up 41% from the previous season to $29.25 million. The combined 6.6 million pounds produced by Maui, Molokai, Oahu and Kauai is the all- time high for these four islands. The 60% increase from the previous season can be attributed to the increase in harvested acreage, as well as the improved weather and maturing trees. Coffee trees generally produce their first full crop when they are approximately 5 years old. The majority of the harvested acreage on these islands is also mechanically harvested, as opposed to the manually harvested acreage on the Big Island. IV -G-5 Exhibit IV -G-1 OCOFFEE: NUMBER OF FARMS, ACREAGE, YIELD, MARKETINGS, PRICE AND VALUE BY ISLANDS VALUE YIELD MARKETINGS FARM OF GREEN PROD ACREAGE ACREAGE 1,000 1,000 PRICES SALES 1,000 YEAR, FARMS IN CROP HARVEST POUNDS: POUNDS3 $/LBS, $1,000 POUNDS STATE 1982 620 2,000 1,900 0.5 990 2.15 2,129 N/A 1983 610 2,000 1,800 1.6 2,800 2.25 6,300 N/A 1984 615 2,000 1,700 1.0 1,750 2.75 4,813 N/A 1985 620 2,100 1,650 1.1 1,850 2.80 5,180 1,535 1986 620 2,300 2,000 1.5 2,900 3.00 8,700 2,180 1987 630 2,400 2,050 0.9 1,800 2.70 4,860 1,400 1988 635 2,600 2,150 0.9 - 2,000 3.30 6,600 1,600 1989 635 3,000 2,300 1.4 3,200 3.90 12,480 2,500 1990 630 5,300 2,400 1.2 2,800 2.70 7,560 2,300 1991 615 7,200 2,400 1.2 2,800 1.75 41900 2,300 1992 600 7,000 4,000 0.6 2,400 1.70 4,080 1,900 1993 580 7,000 4,200 0.7 2,900 2.25 6,525 2,200 1994 585 6,800 4,400 1.0 4,300 2.80 12,040 3,400 1995 580 6,700 5,400 1.0 5,400 3.00 16,200 4,320 1996 560 6,900 5,700 1.1 6,400 3.25 20,800 5,000 1997 585 6,800 5,600 1.6 9,000 3.25 29,250 7,000 HAWAII O 1982 620 2,000 1,900 0.5 990 2.15 2,129 N/A 1983 610 2,000 1,800 1.6 2,800 2.25 6,300 N/A 1984 615 2,000 1,700 1.0 1,750 2.75 4,813 N/A 1985 620 2,100 1,650 1.1 1,850 2.80 5,180 1,535 1986 620 2,300 2,000 1.5 2,900 3.00 8,700 2,180 1987 630 2,400 2,050 0.9 1,800 2.70 4,860 1,400 1988 635 2,600 2,150 0.9 2,000 3.30 6,600 1,600 1989 635 3,000 2,300 1.4 3,200 3.90 12,480 2,500 1990 630 5,300 2,400 1.2 2,800 2.70 7,560 2,300 1991 609 2,030 1,740 1.4 2,320 1.97 4,583 1,900 1992 594 1,980 1,530 1.2 1,790 2.06 3,687 1,420 1993 574 1,865 1,370 1.4 1,960 3.00 5,880 1,548 1994 575 1,820 1,425 1.5 2,100 4.00 8,400 1,640 1995 570 1,780 1,370 1.8 2,500 4.60 11,500 2,000 1996 550 1,960 1,620 1.4 2,300 4.70 10,810 1,850 1997 575 2,490 1,900 1.5 2,850 5.70 16,245 2,300 EXTENDS TO THE EARLY PART OF THE FOLLOWING YEAR. i AVERAGE YIELD BASED ON PARCHMENT EQUIVALENT MARKETINGS AND HARVESTED ACREAGE. a EXPRESSED IN PARCHMENT EQUIVALENT POUNDS. 4 REPRESENTS AN AVERAGE FARM PRICE FOR PARCHMENT EQUIVALENT SALES. OF HAWAIIAN AGRICULTURE OSTATISTICS PREPARED BY HAWAII AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS SERVICE I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 (0 'IT N 0 OD (D Iq Cj 0 CO (0 (D CD t-0 LO LO LO U') swje=l Cl) E Elm. • O O O LM E =1 Z 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 (0 'IT N 0 OD (D Iq Cj 0 CO (0 (D CD t-0 LO LO LO U') swje=l Cl) Elm. • • in. n • • • • • • 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 (0 'IT N 0 OD (D Iq Cj 0 CO (0 (D CD t-0 LO LO LO U') swje=l Cl) CL O L tm C LM V a� N �o V O O O O O O O U) O U) O In O U) ' M M N N r- 1- Sal�b/ O O r CO a) LO rn rn ce rn 0) V- 04 O � r 0) O 1 O 0) O W 0) O r co co r` co 0) co 0) 0 r i M 00 N co O r N (U d U Mn co U) (0 3 U tm Q 3 0 U) I rn rn T , T I O L O O T ; � O T I CO O O T I N rn m I T rn rn T � I I O i V I I i rn rn O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 00 (O 'V'N O 00 (O 'i N X- N- r T T spussnoul rn rn T , T I L O O T ; � O T I CO O O T I N rn m I T rn rn T � I I CD rn rn i rn rn W L T 0 000 T � �, O 00 c () L 00 0) T 00 T i (J M O U) T N � � U N +- � U) m U rn Q ca T 3 0 Othe market for Kona coffee is continuing to grow. This rise in prices can be attributed to the fact that Kona coffee has a distinct taste and quality and only a small amount of acreage is devoted to coffee farming, in addition to the high labor costs as compared to wages in other coffee growing regions. Because of the increase in prices, gross sales has also gone up, from an average of a little over $10,000 per farm 10 years ago to an average of over $28,000 per farm in 1998. Most farmers in Hawaii are multiple -income families. The coffee farmer fits many different profiles. They are the elderly farm families, those recently retired, and the new but economically secure farm families that are either earning a portion or all of their income from coffee. Some of the younger farm families are new to Kona, while others Ohave taken over a family -run farm and may be up to fifth generation farmers. Labor costs per acre of farm ranges from 60% to 90% of the total operating cost, but that number is considerably lower if family labor is used. However, family labor is extremely limited due to the fact that many farmers are elderly, and their children have grown and left home. For labor workers the tourism industry is more appealing because of its wages and the fact that it is a year-round industry, unlike coffee which uses laborers for only four or five months. In the past schools also had provisions to release children to help with labor, however that does not exist anymore. This lack of harvesting labor is one of the key reasons that the coffee industry in Hawaii is not expanding. IV -G-11 Harvesting requires as much as 75% of the labor in coffee production and in recent years, O the labor situation has become increasingly worse. This shortage results in high labor costs, and in return, less profits for growers, and even a loss in quality of harvested coffee. Since statehood, this trend has led to a decreased yield per acre in Kona. Some growers even choose to reduce the size of tree and farm harvested. If local labor is not available, growers are forced to hire foreign or mainland laborers. In the 1989-90 season, the hourly wage for Mexican farm laborers was about $7.70, which also included transportation and lodging. Many farmers pay their temporary laborers in cash to avoid paying such things as fringe benefits, workers' compensation and temporary disability insurance. However, the major problem in using migrant labor is the lack of housing. Most of the coffee in Kona is grown on leased land, the major landlord being Bishop O Estate. Newer leases for these lands are for less than 20 years, and they do not guarantee a renewal, even if the land has been profitably farmed. Because the demand for land for residential or resort development has substantially grown, the uncertainty of the future of leasehold coffee orchards has increased, which serves as a disincentive for capital investment in these farms. As a gourmet product, Kona coffee commands a high price in the growing coffee connoisseur market. Because of its superior smooth taste, aroma and other qualities, Kona beans are also blended with harsher Colombian and Brazilian beans resulting in a "Kona Coffee Blend" which sells at a somewhat lower price. This trend of "counterfeiting" has grown so severe that in most years, 20 million pounds of Kona O IV -G-12 Ocoffee is sold, although only approximately 2 million pounds is grown. This situation came to a head in November 1996, when a California coffee distributor was indicted for selling 3.5 million pounds of counterfeit Kona coffee beans to retailers such as Starbucks and Gloria Jean's since 1993. This distributor allegedly sold lower priced Central American coffee, valued at approximately $2 a pound, for $6 to $8 a pound. In 1997 a law was introduced making it mandatory for all green coffee leaving North and South Kona to be certified. This certification process ensures that the green coffee was grown within the boundaries of North and South Kona and meets the state's grading standards. The grading standard takes into consideration several factors, including bean size, moisture content, and number of imperfections. Department of Agriculture Oinspectors sample each bag of green beans, checking for size and defects. Certified bags are labeled with a Hawaii Department of Agriculture seal and registration number. However, this certification process guarantees that the beans are 100 percent Kona to the roasters only. The roasters themselves may combine Kona green beans with those from another region. Therefore, this certification process is not completely fool -proof. The County of Hawaii has also implemented their own coffee certification process. Similar to the state law requiring certification of green beans, the County of Hawaii process takes it a step further. Green coffee is first certified as 100 percent Kona coffee by the Department of Agriculture. Next the certificate is taken to the roaster, along with the green coffee beans. Once the Kona green beans are roasted, the roaster stamps the certificate, ensuring that the Kona beans brought in with the certificate were the ones O IV -G-13 roasted. The Kona Coffee Cultural Festival then sells seals at 3 cents each for placement O on bags of 100 percent Kona coffee. This process ensures that consumers are buying 100 percent pure Kona coffee. In addition to the above certification process, the Kona Coffee Council has established the 100% Seal of Approval, guaranteeing 100% Kona coffee. In addition to being certified Kona coffee, the producer of coffees with the 100% Seal of Approval must voluntarily fill out a green miller's audit trail, establishing a trust between producer and buyer. The Kona Coffee Council also helped to legislate the truth -in -labeling bill, ensuring that packages labeled Kona Blend states that it needs to contain only 10% pure Kona coffee. Previously Kona Blends could contain as little as 3 Kona coffee beans. O Currently there are no serious threats to Kona coffee. Green coffee is prohibited from being imported to the Big Island, and permits and a one-year quarantine are also required for all seeds or plants imported for production. These strict rules, along with Hawaii's isolated location, has prevented the introduction of serious coffee diseases to Big Island coffee farms. The greatest pest of coffee in Hawaii are weeds. An estimated 4% to 10% of total production costs is spent on weed control. FUTURE OUTLOOK Although there are fluctuations in the amount of coffee produced globally each year, with 25 million employees worldwide, the coffee industry is showing no sign of slowing IV -G-14 Odown. With the maturation of trees grown on Kauai, Maui, Molokai and Oahu, coffee production has also been steadily increasing statewide. Although coffee farming is increasing on Kauai, Oahu, and other parts of the Island of Hawaii, the demand for Kona coffee, with its unique taste and quality will ensure the continued success of the County of Hawaii's coffee industry. With the growing number of coffee houses across the nation, "Hawaii coffee," although not necessarily Kona coffee will definitely be a draw. In addition to this, Kona coffee can be mixed into coffees from other parts of the island to create "Kona Blends." New markets can also be explored in countries where Kona coffee is not typically marketed to promote and sell coffee from other districts of the Island of Hawaii. According to industry sources, a major landowner Oin South Kona has tentative plans to establish a Kona coffee farm on 500 acres of its lands, which will increase Kona coffee lands in production by approximately 25percent. Because of the large amount of land that can be dedicated to coffee, the lands could be cleared and leveled, thus allowing for potential cost-efficient mechanical harvesting of the coffee. This potential farm will be the largest coffee farm, by far, in Kona. IV -G-15 PAPAYA O BACKGROUND OF INDUSTRY Papaya, a native to Central and South America, is grown in the warmer climates of the tropic and subtropic areas worldwide. The papaya is a larger herbaceous plant, usually with a single, straight trunk that can reach 30 feet. Its fruits are round to oval-shaped and have a smooth, thin, pale yellow to reddish -orange skin. The most commonly traded varieties have a firm, sweet flesh that is yellow-orange to red in color. Papayas were first discovered in 1513 by Ponce de Leon, and are thought to have been introduced to the Hawaiian Islands in the early nineteenth century by Don Marin, a Spanish horticulturist. Early introductions to the Hawaiian Islands were of the large -fruit variety known as the "common" papaya. In 1911, Gerritt Wilder introduced a distinctive pear shaped, small O fruited variety, called the "sold' papaya; it has since become the only variety in the state to be grown on a large-scale commercial basis. The solo papaya has several varieties which are grown within the State of Hawaii. The red -flesh papaya is represented by the Sunrise papaya, grown on the island of Kauai and comprises approximately 250 acres. The yellow -flesh papaya consists of the Kapoho (cultivated on the Big Island), the Camila (cultivated on Oahu), and the newly introduced Rainbow variety. The Kapoho is currently the most cultivated variety, comprising nearly 70 percent of the total production. Industry officials soon expect the genetically engineered Rainbow papaya, which is superior in taste and appearance, to replace the Kapoho as the dominant papaya. IV -H-1 Papayas grow well in Hawaii from sea level to approximately 700 feet; most plantings are done below the 300 -foot elevation. These plants thrive best in warm, humid conditions, and will generally tolerate a range of rainfall settings. Fruit bearing is year- round, and an evenly distributed rainfall of 60 to 100 inches per year is optimal. The papaya plant is shallow -rooted and does not tolerate excessive moisture, this is why papaya are planted in volcanic silt which is known for its excellent drainage. Fruit harvesting generally begins a year after seed plantings. Workers walk through the orchard and pick the fruit. Harvesting tools are used, as trees grow taller to aid workers in the picking process. The fruits are then transported in bulk to a culling station and/or Opacking plant for sorting, processing, and treatment. HISTORICAL MARKET TREND Global production of papaya reached an estimated 5.7 million metric tons in 1993 (the latest worldwide estimate available). Brazil and India, the world's leading producers harvested nearly 1.8 million metric tons and 1.2 million metric tons in 1993. Brazil is the primary supplier to Europe while India supplies the Middle East. Mexico, which produced 0.3 million metric tons in 1993, is the main supplier to the United States. The papaya produced in India and South America are of the Meridol variety and of the Sunrise variety, both red -fleshed papaya. In most cases the imported papaya are of a poorer visual quality and lower price in comparison to Hawaii papaya. IV -14-2 Commercial papaya production in the United States is concentrated in Hawaii. Of the 35.7 million pounds of papaya produced by the State of Hawaii, 13.7 million pounds remain in the Hawaiian market. Nearly 22.0 million pounds, 61.6 percent of the total fresh' papaya produced, had been exported, primarily to the United States, Japan, and Canada, in 1997. Quarantine protocol agreements and marketing efforts have recently opened New Zealand's market for the import of Hawaii papaya. Exhibit IV -H-1 provides a listing of the Hawaii market and exports. In the 1960's, the papaya industry in Hawaii experienced the threat of the papaya ringspot virus, a disease which produces deformed and inedible fruit and eventually kills the stunted plant. The industry, at the time, was concentrated on the island of Oahu and, fortunately, so was the infestation. To escape the virus, papaya production shifted to the Island of Hawaii and currently remains centralized in the Puna district. The industry is O dominant by two major producers, Amfac Tropical Products and Del Monte Corporation. By the late 1970's, the papaya industry rebounded to produce 64.0 million pounds in 1978. Papaya production peaked in the State of Hawaii in 1984 at 80.5 million pounds. In 1982, the Island of Hawaii accounted for 90.8 percent of the State's papaya production with 47.9 million pounds and 88.4 percent of the production value with $10.2 million. Exhibit IV -H-2 and Exhibit IV -H-3 show a breakdown of the papaya industry's statistics for 1982 though 1997. AW&I PAPAYAS MARKET SUPPLY 1982-1997 Year Total Production of Fresh Papaya Marketed Fresh Papayas in Hawaii Total Outshipments 1,000 Pounds 1982 44,770 11,460 33,310 1983 46,300 10,660 35,640 1984 67,000 14,190 52,810 1985 49,250 16,200 33,050 1986 50,100 16,075 34,025 1987 56,000 15,910 40,090 1988 57,000 16,875 40,125 1989 64,000 18,400 45,600 1990 58,000 16,675 41,325 1991 48,150 14,600 33,550 1992 55,800 18,290 37,510 1993 58,200 19,990 38,210 1994 56,200 18,400 37,800 1995 41,900 13,935 27,965 1996 37,800 13,300 24,500 1997 35,700 13,710 21,990 Source: Statistics of Hawaiian Agriculture TOTAL PRODUCTION OF FRESH PAPAYA -1997 Total Outshipment 62% Fresh Papaya ?vlarketed in Hawaii 38% EXHIBIT IV -H -I N x .lo O 0�0 ON T t-- N Vl Wn W O N M O, kr) t` DO N "'t 'D OO `4 O o w 00 a, O0 C\ a' Cl N kn O� V 10 M N n Cl 11: 00 D\ 00 O, O, O N �O O 00 N— N N N N N M� Nr b C 0 0 CO) C M tt M N N N m M N N ri cl1 cn M M m coQ;U CJ V V a t` M O O O M O N M to 00 O\ Q vi cci cn orn .: N vi m v i cn 4 cci 4 N &. N N h O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 00 0 0 V7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6i O�l --il h O� O O O V1 N V1 to c0O� O -� �'+ V t- .M. O N O O t- W) kn v) 00 It M �a N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O ,C Vl y t- l w 0 M 0 O to N 0 •--' (D O 0 O 0 O 0 O v1 •-- 0 00 0 N o N 0 S 0 00 0 � C 'V 'T -%o -%oV' U1 V1 V'1 �p 4n ,I- W) W) V1 c 0 a c 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N •0 Q0 kn t- 0 't7 0 " 0 er 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 V1 V1 M 0 M 0 r^ 0 O 0 00 0 00 0 00 r� b "� N O O r O, 4 00 to -- M N O �--� 00 ►: 2 V1%0 00 �o �O %O �o r- W) [- %.O %O h 't M a 41 v M O •--� 00 C\ V'1 O Q, N O\ av Vl O O O OW) O O O Owl vl �n O tn to to cvV .2 y t� N O, kn kn vi O O O N - kn O M Cn 00 y L WL lc M M M vi ' OItn N "q OC O� V > N N N N CV N N N N N N N Q A x W) M Vl kn .• T �o �O It r-. O� O t- W') W) vl 00 0.t (:r [� 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 11-N 01 ON Q\ (71 O� 011 ON ON O\ O" 01 111 O\ oll tom.. O .V Q :CO 3 x w O V1 En N O V) M O� 'n N O 'n 'O 00 ^ O h h h N 00 a' to O M O 00 O •-r O\ v) lD oo N V M oDN h 6 N h �; r� u O O -0 as � a 6R O lO N M 00 h T V1 It O O� 00N O1 O - vi O1' "�tO N N N N M4-1 � .b G aPa h a 0 d �a a 00 M N �O O h 00 h 00 M h W1 h M w 0� O .-+ 4 N 4 N M fV q -� L N N •--� N N N N M N N N V Q h G4 PC dO O O O O tn M 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 H %o a% b U Z to N 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 d O^ v1 N h h 00 cl O --� G � [� ♦t O O O� O h w) vl h o0 d' r1 O L � � .� Ca vl O O to 0 V1 h h vl to N ul O y in w 00 — M M w d' 00 kn 00 N O\ .4 n to kO to -,t VS Vl V'I M M N O �a O O O %n O vi 00 w " in to vn kn �n o •.• O� O .-� � N O M O O�o NT N N M •--� -� O� 00 o0 L h kn V1 \O b h W to �O b V'1 d' M M a L 0 4 C� C 00 O O O�*cA 00 O h 00 c*i O� � Q N N M N N N M M N N M N N N N O tn to O w M N M O kn wn tn w O O V1 R y V1 O �O to h 00 h 00 .-. h N qT 00 %-0 a1 O .-+ .h.. M N T N d' O N .-� N N N N N N N N --� N N N N— c x �+ M O O, w h �.O O1 M •-+ O O O O N M V M h h b N O 't O 1 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Cd w O �O h o0 00 00 00 0o w w w o, rn m O\ rn rn a, rn Q\ O, 01 ON O\ O1 Q\ as (1 O1 O1% -. - — ,-. .-. .-. --. — -. .-. — ..-. .-. r a From 1982 through 1989, the number of farms on the Island of Hawaii increased steadily from 123 farms in 1982 to 277 farms in 1989, likewise, production also increased for the Island of Hawaii from 47.9 million pounds in 1982 to a high of 72.1 million pounds. In the early 1990's, the papaya ringspot virus found its way to the Island of Hawaii and wrecked havoc in the industry. Production levels on the Island of Hawaii began to fall in 1993 with a 10.5 percent decrease from 1992's production of 68.4 million pounds. Without a cure for the papaya ringspot virus, production levels have continued to decrease until the present. CURRENT CONDITIONS In 1997, production levels on the Island of Hawaii were at 30.9 million pounds, a 54.8 O percent decrease from 1992's production of 68.4 million pounds. Although production levels have decreased, the value of production has remained fairly constant as the price levels per pound increased and countered the decrease in production poundage. In 1992, the price per pound for fresh papaya was at 24.3 cents whereas the price per pound more than doubled by 1997 to 51.8 cents. With Hawaii's Papaya industry in the midst of a catastrophe, the Papaya Administrative Committee (PAC) led a collaborated effort to overcome the effects of the ringspot virus. In 1996, the University of Hawaii College of Tropical Agriculture, Cornell University and the United States Department of Agriculture developed the nation's first genetically engineered fruit approved for commercial production called the "Rainbow". It is O IV -H-7 Odescribed as a mixture of the Kapoho "Solo" papaya grown throughout Hawaii and the genetically engineered "SunUp" papaya. The fruit has the desired color and taste of the "Solo" papaya and the disease -resistant quality of the "SunUp". The Rainbow papaya will allow for improvements in production with shorter maturity time and higher yield per tree. These seeds are produced by the Hawaii Agriculture Research Center and were projected to enter the market in 1998. With the papaya industry being the fifth most important crop produced in Hawaii, control of complex plant diseases, soil organisms and insects that attack papaya constitutes a major economic factor in determining industry viability. Fungal and viral diseases, reniform nematodes, mites and fruit flies all require preventive or treatment measures to Opropagate crops economically and to allow the fruits to be sold outside Hawaii. In addition, the fruit fly is a post-harvest and export problem. In September 1984, the Federal Government withdrew Ethylene Dibromide (EDB) from use as a quarantine treatment of papayas. To combat this problem, the United Stated Department of Agriculture Tropical Fruit and Vegetable Research Laboratory in Hilo developed a new treatment system. This system has two equally important components: 1. Fruit selection and harvest interval to minimize fruit fly infestation, especially larval infestation. 2. A two-stage heat treatment. Irradiation treatment is another viable technique for controlling three species of fruit flies. Gamma rays generated by radioactive Cobalt -60 have proven to sterilize fruit fly larvae. O IV -H-8 FUTURE OUTLOOK Of the over 90% of the State's papaya production that comes from the County of Hawaii, the majority comes from the Puna District. However, with the Puna district's infestation of the ringspot virus in 1990's, papaya acreage dispersed on the Island of Hawaii in an effort to escape the virus, resulting in gained papaya acreage in the Hamakua district and the Kapoho area. Along with consumer acceptance of the Rainbow variety, the overall effect should be an increase in production. IV -H-9 BANANAS BACKGROUND OF INDUSTRY The history of bananas in Hawaii dates back to prior to Captain Cook's arrival in the islands in 1778 as the fruit already existed as a staple part of the Hawaiian diet. Hawaii has ideal soil and climatic conditions for the production of bananas and during the first half of this century, Hawaii was exporting large quantities of bananas to the U.S. mainland. However, by mid 1940's, Hawaii had lost much of its mainland banana market to the Central and South American countries. Half of the world's banana supply is grown Oin Africa with much of that produce consumed locally. Hawaii is the only state in the United States that produces bananas. All of the major commercial banana species are grown in Hawaii, including: (1) "Brazilian" (erroneously referred to as "Apple") and "Chinese" ("Dwarf Cavendish") imported from Tahiti in 1855. (2) "Bluefields" ("Gros Michel") imported from Nicaragua in 1904. (3) "Williams" ("Giant Cavendish") and "Cocos" ("Dwarf Bluefields") imported from Australia and Guatemala, respectively, in 1953. (4) "Phillippine Lakatan" imported from the Philippines in 1958. (5) "Dwarf Lakatan" ("Berangan") imported from Malaysia in 1972. (6) "Hamakua" ("False Lakatan") and "Valery" ("Robusta") imported from Puerto Rico more than 50 years ago under different names. Valery's other O IV -I-1 names are "Congo", "North" and "Taiwan". It is similar to Williams but O taller and therefore more susceptible to wind damage. (7) "Santa Catarina Silver" ("Dwarf Brazilian") imported in 1979. Its fruit is similar in size and other characteristics to that of the Brazilian, but the plant is only half as tall. This cultivar is of great interest in that its shorter stature should contribute greater wind resistance and facilitate harvesting and grove management. HISTORICAL MARKET TRENDS Banana production in the State of Hawaii increased from 5.7 million pounds in 1982 to a peak of 13.7 million pounds in 1994. Since then, banana production has remained relatively stagnant at the 13+ million pound level. Exhibit IV -I-1 summarizes the State of Hawaii banana production and sales for the years 1982 through 1997. The statewide banana farms have fluctuated from 179 in 1982 to a low of 130 farms in 1993 and dramatically increasing and stabilizing at 170 by 1995. O In 1982, there were 940 acres of land dedicated to banana crops. By 1997, banana acreage increased to 1,590 acres. The price per pound has increased fairly consistently over the period increasing from 28.6 cents per pound in 1982 to 38.0 cents per pound in 1997, about a 2 percent per annum increase. Banana production and sales for the Island of Hawaii are summarized on Exhibit IV -I-2. The statistics show a strong banana industry on the Island of Hawaii, accounting for 71.5 percent of the statewide banana crops produced at 9.8 million pounds. Banana production has increased significantly on the Island of Hawaii over the years with n production increasing from 2.5 million pounds in 1982 to 9.8 million pounds in 1997. �J IV -I-2 t - ON o� 00 ON a d O Pk w W ►.a — O V) kn O N O ,D�D d' d' d O ,D O, O O %D r- �O N r- N N w M kn d- It It o, 'IT r- �t N d It �t ,D Vi 0 kn 0 kn 0 vi O aW� U H a� V ,D 00 N O O m O 0 O l- O, Cl M kn \D 0 00 0 —t7 0 0 00 0 .[- 0 O 0 O 0 00 a z 0 0.4 VO ►�- AO v to O "t00 O o Q^ O ,D 00 O 0 [� O� O 0 d .-. O 0 Ncl M O 0 .-- O 0 M .-. O 0 d '- O 0 O N O 0 l '� O 0 t ^ O 0 O C2 O 0 O f2 Cl 0 [- M-� a a a A a' A H (� rA w a U o 00 to O a1 O, Q r ON - M ON — N N — o0 N — 00 cM - m M — [- 4 - Otn 4 — N - d: M - d >4 x W H CODA 0 N,D 0 0 t- 0 d 0 w 0 r- 0 t- 0 O 0 M o O, O t` o 00 0 M Co M 0 d 0 N W a t- o0 00 00 c, O O O O , 00 00 00 O� Os O O U d a U o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O o o 0 0 0 0 0 'c * O, O O, a, ,D O dt N N N N V) O O t` O\ ,D O, 00 O\ N O N Kt N O, kn a� W Q� O, t� m 00 0 00 00 h kn 00 to t- o ,D 0 " 0 V) 0 V1 to M O M vl 'IT O r- O h O r - (7y •--i - - - .-. - - - - .-r - - - .--i .-. .-. zw 0 d o0 w o0 V, 00 �D w l- w w 00 O, w O rn - o, N ON M C, d' O, in O, ,D 0, t- O, w o, rn rn c, O, all o, o, rn c. (7\ c, o, c, O, O, w 5 O Cl) W �a d > a O O p (A �.. O 00 to 00 \O O\ 00 00 01 00 O 0o Q, M M \O Vl \O v� O V O\ .. M O\ M M 00 M oo M M v t O M N oo a, N N ul M M � W w U ti � C. U M 'K:r 110 M 00 kn t-- O 00 O\ N O Vl M 4 kn 00 00 4 v1 M to tn Vl O rt' z' o � ^p V AO gyp,^ O N O 00�d-0 N O M O M O M O G N 'n x0\00000000 00 O l� O t� O 00 O 00 O ON O O O 00 O 00 O O; �r a A U o M ONN - - M O . V� N N O., 00 x O N M t` h ON O N M N tom' N ¢ 00 (V — 00 (7\ x M � 1-4 >' x A w O toV) O O O O kn h" O O W) o W) O O O H t- M " o o x o0 00 \o O w rhW w N `r" N M N M M "It M 7 'ch x et d' v1 U d a oa' OtnOtnOokntnO(D W)(DW)OknO U N M M M x tn O x x x x � to %O � 0000 Fa a� zw 0 O\ N — M N M kn M d N M 00 N IT N r N kn M h N .� N �' M --� .� x 00 x N M W t- M O\ 0 N M x V 1 \O l� 00 00 00 00 00 00 M M O\ O\ O\ O\ O\ O\ O\ Q\ (� O\ — O\ — O\ — O\ — O\ — O\ .--. C� .-. (7\ .-. O\ — O< '-. 0� — C� .-. O� .-. O) — ON .-+ O\ — w 5 O Cl) OSales value has also increased tremendously from $580,000 in 1982 to $3,352,000 in 1997. Two main commercial banana species dominate production statewide, the Cavendish group (consisting of the Williams, Valery, Chinese, Grand Naim, Bluefields and Dwarf Bluefields varieties), and the Brazilian (includes Dwarf Brazilian and Apple varieties). At present the Cavendish group constitutes 70.8% of the supply with Brazilian at 29.2%. Comparing the variety distribution in 1982 with that in 1997, production of Brazilian varieties has picked up an additional 5% of the market while Cavendish's production has fallen by a like amount. Actual acreage and production by the type of species are shown on Exhibit IV -I-3. The Cavendish group has the highest yield potential with an average production of 17,200 pounds per acre versus the Brazilian varieties which average production .of 8,800 pounds per acre. CURRENT CONDITIONS Exhibit IV -I-4 summarizes the 1997 banana production and sales statistics statewide and by island. Bananas are produced and sold on all the major islands with the bulk of the acreage and production on the Island of Hawaii. The island of Oahu consists of the highest number of banana farms with 75 out of a total of 170 banana farms statewide. Based on sales value, the Island of Hawaii comprises the majority at 64%, Oahu at 25%, OMaui County at 7% and Kauai at 4%. IV -I-5 - N -14 O Ea' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Uo F �--� DD 0\O: 00 N N N kr) M 00 O, V1 M C ;--1O LTr A 4 N N O T N 4 O O, 00 00 N O, N -- N N N� •-- N N N N N M N p O a z O ., F� V O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N O t- kn -9 h M N M 'IT V' m N 0 0 0 0 0 M S N 00 O OI N%10 r M M N C) t- N O z AO r N N N N N N M M -, d' N A w cn W) O to (D vt v, M %n 0 O Oy, O O wl W1 W M M M M S VO M W) ; C 4 W' w� vQ Qx a 0 0 0 kn 0 0 a -1 0 v, C) 0 0 N �O oo N �O .-• oo h h �O O O, M "O v Fa" O o 0 o e o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 e Fy O ON N N 00 00 00 vl t` N — to t\ 00 OA '.O t\ v, h O, M O h h O; O -; 00 h O h 00 h h h 00 00 t- h h 00 00 h h �O h O oa A. z oN c 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cl 0 0 NO 1.0 M0� O` h 00 h �O 00 O O O O O O� N lO 'dam �O N h O% n h M 00 [ i (1)0-d A M�O�O nO�OO\000\O,O,OO, 00"O, — — z pa, Q A U w F Ow -n O V1 to V1 O O Vn O O v) O O 'n N w h t- v1 O O, et 00 h �O "0 l0 ZO .-• r- M V' v'1 v1 v, l0 v, " d' 't c� Qx Qa O V) h v1 O O V) V'1 O v) 0 0 0 0c, O O v, O M 00 to 0 00 O 00 M 00 00 v, v1 � � �O h h �O �O to In Itt v1 ke) �O O z ,►r N 00 O, N M 'c - h 10 h Q w oo 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 rn ON O\ CN O\ O, (71 CS rno rnrn0,c,o,0,o,a,0,o,o.o,rno, - N Q O M N O aCl) U Vel VN' z 0 o a a � W A� A � a a o tet; M rn o cy �x A W H O N O M M W � o yrs M d a U d � v 00 rn z a� � a� zo � a °T � ti o 3 c% x U O Forty-eight of the state's 170 banana farms are located on the Island of Hawaii, centered O in Hilo and Kea'au, Kurtistown and the Kapoho area in the Puna District. The County of Hawaii produced 71.5% of the 1997 banana supply in Hawaii. Oahu dominates the industry in terms of number of farms (75) but falls well below the Island of Hawaii in all other banana statistics such as acreage, production and sales value. Oahu's yields are also very low at 8,200 pounds per acre compared to the Island of Hawaii yield of 16,300 pounds per acre. Factors contributing to the decline of the industry on Oahu include marginal locations, over -age plantings, low yielding varieties, inadequate agricultural practices, diseases such as the banana bunchy top virus, and lack of capital investment for rehabilitation of plantings or the solution of production problems. O Even with the production of 13.7 million pounds of bananas statewide, the importation of bananas have continued to increase and aggregated 15.8 million pounds in 1997. From 1993 through 1997, imported bananas constituted between 51% to 58% of the state's supply. In order to produce bananas locally which can compete successfully with imported fruit, a number of ecological, financial and management conditions must be met. A University of Hawaii study established that a gross farm site of 10 to 20 acres should be the minimum to support fully a typical farm family here. A long-term lease (20+ years) is also required to secure bank financing. Guidance on agricultural practices and provision O IV -I-8 Oof high yielding cultivars are available from the University through its agricultural extension service. Site conditions required include: • Reasonably flat or gently sloping terrain to permit some mechanized operations and to minimize runoff and erosion; • Adequate rainfall or an assured supply of good -quality irrigation water at an economic cost; • Protection from wind damage (blowdowns); and • High temperature and sunlight, usually synonymous in Hawaii with relatively low elevations. Seasonality of banana production, which is low during the January through June period and generally higher from July through December, is associated at least partially with Owind damage. This may be minimized through selection of new lowstature varieties, a naturally protected site, and/or use of vegetative windbreaks. Bananas are produced and sold on all the major islands, and this is thought likely to continue. Due to the concentration of population on Oahu, the largest market is in Honolulu, but markets on the other islands are also substantial. For example, production from the Island of Hawaii is barged to Maui as well as to Oahu. Most recently, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has lifted its requirement that all bananas be treated for fruit flies before being shipped to the U.S. mainland. This has allowed some varieties to be shipped without the treatment. The rule changes apply to IV -I-9 the shipping of four varieties of bananas, including three of the Cavendish type and one O of the Brazilian type. The bananas must be full size, green and without cuts or punctures. Banana growers who would like to export their crops must receive USDA certification. The most serious land -related problem on Hawaii is the reluctance of private sector banks and federal lending agencies to make loans to farmers whose lands are located in rift zone areas, which is approximately 25% of the Island of Hawaii's banana farms. The problem is not unique to the banana industry. The county government and Big Island Banana Growers' Association are working to alleviate the problem and to apprise growers of alternative sources of financing. Supplemental irrigation and optimum fertilization regimes have been identified by the O University of Hawaii as the two items of agricultural management most likely to increase yields. Only 10% of the Island of Hawaii's banana farms are irrigated, generally due to lack of water sources. (Most banana farms on other islands are irrigated.) For maximum yields, bananas require 100% replacement of evaporated moisture on a daily basis. The Kea'au area's normal average rainfall is approximately 80 to 120 inches per year; supplemental irrigation would be beneficial, particularly when the amount actually received is reduced by drought as in recent years. However, well drilling costs are high and salt content may also be high; these are considered high costs and risks for supplemental irrigation, which may be required only two to three months per year. I V -I-10 OHeavy and frequent fertilization, especially of nitrogen, correlates directly with high yields. Critical nutrient levels have been established by researchers and can be monitored by means of leaf tissue analysis; this technique is seldom used by small farmers. Multi- year experiments at the Waimanalo. Experimental Farm have achieved sustained annual yields of 80,000 pounds per acre using drip irrigation and optimum fertilization. Threats to banana production from pests and diseases include lack of effective chemicals to control borers, thrips, and black leaf streak; introduction on imported bananas of new pests (such as mealy bugs from Central America); and inadequate control of nematodes which contribute to yield declines in older orchards. The banana bunchy top virus has also recently threatened banana production in North Kona. In order to prevent the spread Oof the disease to the Hilo and Puna areas, a massive eradication program has begun to kill every banana plant in a 10 -square -mile of North Kona. Although not a major site of banana production, there are approximately 1,600 homes and three commercial growers in Kona that will be affected. It is estimated that the eradication will take six to nine months, with another three months allowed to pass before replanting begins. Officials plan on planting the new plants in January 2000. A minimum of two shipping days per week is required for Island of Hawaii banana growers to barge product to Oahu and Maui. Most of the Island of Hawaii shipments of bananas are done by barge due to the significant cost savings compared to air freight. Transportation adequacy, both in terms of frequency and temperature control for quality IV -I-11 protection, has been identified as one of the foremost requirements of the Island of O Hawaii banana industry. FUTURE OUTLOOK The future outlook for the banana industry in Hawaii appears somewhat optimistic especially in light of the USDA recently lifting its requirement for bananas to be treated for fruit flies before being shipped to the U.S. mainland. This will open up new avenues for farmers to export some of their banana produce to the U.S. mainland. Farmers have also begun exporting large quantities of bananas to Guam where they can compete in both price and quality. One Kea'au farmer expects to ship one container of bananas to Guam a week, accounting for approximately 15% of production. There continues to be substantial potential for the local market with over fifty percent of the statewide banana O supply being imported. The banana farmers need to produce a quality fruit in order to compete with the quality of the imports. However, there are significant threats to the industry with pests and viruses infecting the plant and fruit to the point of destruction to numerous plants. The banana industry for the County of Hawaii is expected to continue to grow at a moderate rate and continue to produce the majority of the bananas for the State of Hawaii. IV -I-12 AVOCADOS BACKGROUND OF THE INDUSTRY The avocado is a large pear-shaped fruit with green to blackish skin color. It has a single small seed which is surrounded by a soft, light green flesh that is "nutty" in flavor. It is rich in potassium, phosphorous, protein, vitamin A and niacin. Avocado trees normally grow to heights of 30-65 feet, but are typically pruned to 20 feet or less in commercial settings. The avocado was a traditional crop of Central America and the Caribbean and was first introduced to Hawaii in the early 19th century. Of the different types of avocado, the two Omost important (from an industry point of view) are the Hass and Sharwil. The Hass, grown mainly in California, is small (5-12 oz.) in comparison to the Sharwil (12-16 oz.) but is preferred in western and southwestern markets which account for 75% of total United States consumption. The Sharwil is the most widely planted species in Hawaii because of the high quality of its fruits when grown in the State. The Sharwil originated on a farm in Queensland, Australia in 1951 and was introduced in Hawaii in 1966. Although Sharwil is widely accepted in Hawaii, it is not as popular as the Hass in most parts of the Mainland. IV -J-1 HISTORICAL MARKET TRENDS In Hawaii, production of avocados is centered in the Island of Hawaii, which accounts for 95% of Hawaii's total avocado output. Avocado production is year-round with its peak season running from March through June. As shown on Exhibit IV -J-1, in 1982 there were 160 avocado farms statewide, of which 145 were located on the Island of Hawaii. As of 1997, the Hawaii Agricultural Statistics Service (HASS) reported only 95 avocado farms in the State of Hawaii which represented a 40.63 percent decrease in .fifteen years. On the Island of Hawaii, 60 major growers produce 1.5 million pounds of avocado per year with a retail value of $2 million. Coinciding with the decline in avocado farms, the total acreage or size of these farms has also decreased in recent years. Total acreage has decreased from a high of 580 acres in 1988 to 340 total acreage in 1997 of which, only 220 acres were reported as cropO bearing. The result of the dwindling industry is a 68.75 percent decrease in production from 1982 through 1997. Production in 1982 was 1.6 million pounds and reduced to 0.5 million pounds in 1997. Nearly all the avocados produced in Hawaii are sold within the local economy. Hawaii has not been able to export to the United States due to market preferences for the Hass variety and restrictions due to fruit fly infestations. IV -J-2 O O kn 00 O� M It 00 00 to kn N O O M d' to to 4.Q O O a, a, M o0 M - O M M N N M N dt It 't a, N N M M N r- - ,O N N. N 0 69 CC •U W) — � vi 1,0 v1 kn O O O O O O Ln v1 O -N �- �wn O 4 vi .- .6 oo wn l- %,6 4 O 4 M M a N N N N N M M M t It �r v kn to Wn Ln L O c O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ++ O l— kn N O O O O O dt 0 0 0 0 0 0 M ON to kn kn I�t kn O i. a 0 o � o d r- M 00 O� O—�t �O O N O M't N M Q '1„ �O -4 V M M ri 4 4 ri M r'i N N N N cV aca 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O O o O r- N M O ON V1 00 N cl N e� el y � U U d O O N tn O O O O O O O O O O O O d to O N qt O 00 kn C) VI O 1,0 q�t v1 M �t .w Zt qZt kn kn In to to kA kn V1 1n IT t M M M O H wl 0otnoovnkn00000oo0Wn �O ,D 'O qt d' 'T N O O\ 00 00 = O\ I.. m w N M .t M I'0 [- 00 01 O "0 l� 00 w 00 00 00 00 00 00 O\ O\ ON O\ (71 O\ U ON O� O\ (7, ON O� O, 01 ON as .--i '-. .--i .--i .--� �--i - .--i- ON a, D\ O,Q\ O\ ON .--� .--i .-r �--� �--� .--i - CURRENT CONDITIONS Commercial production of avocados in the United States is concentrated in California, Florida, and Hawaii. The avocado production for the last five years is broken down by state in Exhibit IV -J-2. California is clearly the leading producer in the United States, producing 86.4 percent of the nation's total. Florida follows with 13.5 percent of the total production. Hawaii represents less than 1 percent of the total United States avocado output, and has limited out-of-state shipments. In 1997, Hawaii's avocado production was up 25%, an increase of 100,000 pounds from the previous season. Improved weather conditions and a 22% increase in harvested acreage were contributing factors to the increase. Even with the increase in overall production, prices in 1997 declined I% from 1996 to an average of $.53 per pound. This represented the lowest farm return since 1994. Factors such as a limited market for local avocados and increased imports from the mainland played heavily in the overall decrease in prices for the local avocado producers here in Hawaii. Production and marketing factors are unlikely to affect the future of the Hawaii avocado industry. In production, problems exist with breeding and selection, land and water availability, and disease control. Expansion of sales will require improvements in handling and transportation and in market identification, development and advertising. IV -J-4 EXHIBIT IV -J-2 AVOCADOS STATE TOTALS 1992-1997 Year State Acreage arvested Yield per Acre (Bearing)(1) Production Value of Sales 1,000 Acres Tons 1,000 Tons $1,000 1992 California 72,900 3.90 284.0 113,600 Florida 8,400 0.86 7.2 4,198 Hawaii 224 1.5 Q,_4 3322 Total United States 81,520 3.58 291.6 118,120 1993 California 72,500 1.92 139.0 251,590 Florida 5,800 0.76 4.4 3,608 Hawaii 25Q L44 01 224 Total United States 78,550 1.83 143.7 255,418 1994 California 67,600 2.29 155.0 228,359 Florida 5,700 3.51 20.0 12,320 Hawaii 224 L14 4l m Total United States 73,520 2.38 175.3 240,929 1995 California 59,900 2.85 171.0 233,136 Florida 5,800 3.28 19.0 11,324 Hawaii 214 L12 U 273 Total United States 65,910 2.89 190.3 244,733 1996 California 59,900 2.79 167.0 260,162 Florida 5,700 4.12 23.5 12,408 Hawaii m Lm 22 2.L4 Total United States 65,800 2.90 190.7 272,784 1997 California 59,900 2.57 154.0 263,473 Florida 5,900 4.07 24.0 14,016 Hawaii Im 9-1 261 Total United States 66,050 2.70 178.3 277,754 (q Yield is based on total production. Source: NASS, USDA Exhibit IV -J-3 shows that Hawaii's share of the State market supply has dwindled by O 68.8 percent from 1982 through 1997. During this same period, imports of avocados increased by approximately 100.0 percent. These numbers reflect a smaller market for avocados in 1997 in comparison to 1982. Avocado producers are searching for export markets to counter the smaller market in Hawaii. However, Hawaii avocados must be able to compete with those from California and Florida. University of Hawaii agricultural and marketing research personnel suggest the need to develop a summer - bearing species to supply North America during the peak demand period of June through September. Hawaii's most promising species is the Sharwil variety which bears from November to May. Although the Sharwil was approved for shipment to the continental United States O in 1996, the fruit must still undergo treatment to ensure the eradication of the fruit fly larvae. Because of this and other logistical problems, export numbers to the mainland remain lackluster. The only serious disease of avocado in Hawaii is Phytophthora root rot (Phytophthora cinnamomi). Infection occurs at any age and results in a lack of new growth, dieback, and death of the tree in severe situations. Symptoms include trees with sparse foliage, branches without leaves, branch leaves only at the tips, wilting, and pale green to yellow leaves frequently with the dead leaf margins. It is exacerbated by excess soil moisture and poor drainage. Beneficial factors that help to suppress disease development include maintaining high levels of organic matter, soil pH between 5.7 and 6.5, and high levels of IV -J-6 2000 1600 1200 0 6. 0 800 0 400 MARKET SUPPLY STATE OF HAWAII 1982-1997 Year Hawaii lnshipments 1,000 lbs. 1600 439 1982 1983 1170 634 1984 1150 820 1985 1220 726 1986 1300 576 1987 900 1091 1988 1200 684 1989 1100 623 1990 900 529 1991 840 613 1992 700 644 1993 500 1109 1994 500 804 1995 500 700 1996 400 882 1997 500 (1) (I) Inshipment data not available at time of printing Source: Statistics of Hawaiian Agriculture Avocado Market Supply 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 —Hawaii—Inshipments I EXHIBIT IV -1-3 calcium. There is low-level infestation of Phytophthora root rot in Kona largely due to O favorable environmental conditions such as moderate acid soil pH, high organic matter, and good drainage. Land and water availability at economic rates may become limiting factors to the growth of the avocado industry. The avocado industry is currently centered in the North Kona District which is also experiencing urbanization and resort pressures keeping land prices high and lease terms short. This restricts long term availability of productive agricultural use of land for avocado growing in the North Kona District. Future expansion or transfer of the industry include South Kona and Kau, where larger parcels of land, lower land prices, and longer leases are offered. However, availability (via irrigation and rainfall) and quality of water present problems. O FUTURE OUTLOOK The greatest challenge for the local avocado industry lies in the marketing realm. Because of the lack of export opportunities for local producers, over 90% of the avocados produced on the Island of Hawaii (where the majority of the local farms are located) are marketed mainly in Honolulu, with 85% going to supermarkets and the rest to food service. Further, imported avocados command a premium price over locally produced fruit in Hawaii markets. In proximity, price, and quality, Hawaii avocados would have difficulty competing with those from California and Florida in the mainland U.S. markets. Mainland producers IV -J-8 Ohave the advantage in large-scale operations to keep production cost down and have immediate access to large markets. Hawaiian exports to the U.S. are hampered by the trend of consumer tastes towards the Hass variety over the island -grown Sharwil variety. Further, methyl bromide fumigation used to control fruit flies is required for Hawaii avocado exports to the mainland U.S., and as such, this adds to the cost of production to market as well as diminishing competitive market value as a chemically treated product. The Hawaii avocado industry has begun to carve out an export niche in Alaska and Canada, but these markets are small when compared to the mainland U.S. There are several obstacles that are preventing the local avocado industry from rapid Ogrowth. Geological isolation and shipping expenses incurred are among the major downfalls with production based in Hawaii. Other problems such as the lack of a effective marketing in the mainland U.S., as well as Hawaii's current economic downturn presents uphill battles for local avocado producers. Avocado producers are awaiting the completion of an irradiation facility to counter the limiting export effect of fruit flies. Banking on the acceptance of irradiated fruit on mainland markets, Hawaii could experience future increases in avocado production. IV -J-9 FRESH VEGETABLES BACKGROUND OF INDUSTRY 0,TeTPUITTIP The fresh vegetables industry in Hawaii is a $45 million business producing over 100 million pounds of fresh vegetables (FV) per year. Back in the early 1980's, farmers throughout the state of Hawaii produced approximately 40 percent of the statewide market supply of fresh vegetables. With strong global competition for fresh vegetables, out-of-state producers have been able to cut into the local fresh vegetables market where today, local farmers now account for approximately 30 percent of the statewide FV market supply. The greatest market consumption of FV in the state is potatoes at approximately 41 million pounds consumed per year, followed by dry onions, tomatoes, lettuce, head cabbage and carrots (See Exhibit IV -K-1). Of the locally produced FV, ginger root is the leader with over $8.1 million in annual sales on 12.1 million pounds of production followed by tomatoes, head cabbage, cucumbers, Chinese cabbage and dry onions (See Exhibit IV -K-1). IV -K-1 Exhibit IV -K-1 1997 Statewide Consumption of Top Fresh Vegetables Vegetable Market Consumption (pounds) Potato 41 million Dry Onion 20 million Tomato 19 million Lettuce 18 million Head Cabbage 14 million Carrot 13 million 1997 Statewide Production of Top Fresh Vegetables Vegetable Production (pounds) Farm Value Ginger Root 12.1 million $8.1 million Tomato 10.2 million $5.5 million Head Cabbage 13.0 million $2.7 million Cucumber 5.5 million $2.2 million Chinese Cabbage 7.7 million $1.8 million Dry Onion 1.7 million 1$1.7 million COUNTY OF HAWAII The County of Hawaii currently produces approximately 35,465,000 pounds or 35 percent of the statewide production of FV and accounts for nearly $17,585,000 or 40 percent of the annual statewide value of sales (see Exhibit IV -K-2). Back in 1982 the County produced over 47 percent of the annual production and value of sales of FV. FV production within the County has remained relatively stagnant over the past 15 years, as back in 1982, total production was 34,510,000 pounds. The value of sales, however, has been increasing steadily over the same period primarily due to the steady rise in the farm price per pound for FV. Farm price of FV on the Island of Hawaii increased from 31.3 cents per pound in 1982 to 49.6 cents per pound in 1997, an annual growth rate of O 3.12 percent. On the Island of Hawaii, FV is grown by primarily by 30 farmers on approximately 800 acres of land. FV products grown in quantity on the Island of Hawaii include cabbage, lettuce, tomato, ginger, celery, radish, cucumber, and taro. As of 1997, ginger root was the Island of Hawaii's top vegetable crop with a volume production of approximately 11 million pounds and sales value of over $7 million. Ginger is followed by Chinese cabbage ($1.24 million), tomatoes ($959,000), head cabbage ($820,000), and taro ($698,000). Other high value vegetables produced on the Island of Hawaii include radish ($550,000), lettuce ($503,000), and celery ($273,000). IV -K-3 Exhibit IV -K-2 OTotal Vegetables, Melons and Ginger* '`includes herbs Source: Hawaii Agricultural Statistics Services Harvested Acreage Yield Per Acre (1,000 pounds) Production (1,000 pounds) Farm Price (Cents/pound) Value of Sales (1,000 dollars) State 1982 4,100 17.7 72,740 31.7 23,024 1983 5,100 17.5 89,400 29.1 25,996 1984 5,300 16.5 87,350 30.5 26,609 1985 5,400 16.6 89,620 33.5 30,034 1986 5,400 17.0 91,950 32.5 29,877 1987 5,600 17.0 95,330 32.1 30,556 1988 5,200 17.8 92,730 33.3 30,917 1989 5,000 16.7 83,250 39.3 32,719 1990 5,300 16.0 84,920 42.2 35,825 1991 5,200 17.6 91,740 42.2 38,693 1992 5,100 15.9 81,080 45.0 36,451 1993 5,300 15.6 82,880 41.8 34,645 1994 5,300 15.2 80,350 44.9 36,105 1995 6,000 14.9 89,110 43.3 38,604 1996 6,200 14.9 92,420 44.0 40,672 1997 6,500 15.5 100,850 44.2 44,626 Hawaii 1982 1,500 23.0 34,510 31.3 10,792 1983 1,900 21.1 40,100 26.8 10,731 1984 1,920 19.9 38,170 27.2 10,384 1985 1,910 19.5 37,150 33.8 12,549 1986 1,865 17.9 33,360 35.9 11,988 1987 1,920 19.4 37,220 32.4 12,074 1988 1,820 18.4 33,420 39.0 13,035 1989 1,710 18.3 31,320 45.6 14,279 1990 1,580 18.2 28,680 48.3 13,849 1991 1,500 21.7 32,490 47.2 15,331 1992 1,600 19.3 30,940 44.5 13,765 1993 1,700 17.4 29,640 41.9 12,411 1994 1,700 15.6 26,565 49.4 13,121 1995 2,000 14.4 28,760 49.6 14,267 1996 2,100 15.3 32,030 50.4 16,140 1997 2,100 16.9 35,465 49.6 17,585 '`includes herbs Source: Hawaii Agricultural Statistics Services Four of the larger FV's produced on the Island of Hawaii, ginger root, Chinese cabbage, tomato and taro are discussed below. GINGER ROOT The ginger root can be traced back as long as 2,500 years ago when it was utilized in China as a medicinal agent to treat coughing, vomiting and toothaches. Ginger is an all- purpose spice that is used in cakes, cookies, and food ingredients, flavoring and for medicinal purposes. Ginger grows best in tropical climates like Hawaii and is usually planted in the early spring and harvested 8 to 10 months later. Hawaii is the only state that reports production of ginger to the U.S: Department of O Agriculture. According the Hawaii Agricultural Statistics Services, ginger in Hawaii accounted for over $8.1 million in value of sales in 1997 on 12.1 million pounds of production (see Exhibit IV -K-3). Over 90 percent of the statewide ginger are produced in the County of Hawaii, primarily in the districts of North Hilo, South Hilo and Hamakua. Since 1982, the ginger industry in Hawaii has more than tripled in production (from 3.6 million pounds to 12.1 million pounds) with value of sales increasing from $3.35 million in 1982 to $8.1 million in 1997. Due to global competition, the average farm price for ginger, however, has declined substantially from 92 cents per pound in 1982 to 75 cents per pound in 1997. IV -K-5 Exhibit IV -K-3 Ginger Root 'State of Hawaii totals O"`The County of Hawaii accounts for over 90% of the State's ginger root output Source: Hawaii Agricultural Statistics Services Harvested, Acreage Yield Per Harvested Acre (1,000 pounds) Production (1,000 pounds) Average Farm Price (cents/pound) Value of Sales (1,600 dollars) 1982 100 36.3 3,630 92.3 3,350 1983 160 32.1 5,140 54.6 2,806 1984 135 37.4 5,050 45.1 2,280 1985 125 43.4 5,425 82.3 4,465 1986 145 40.7 5,900 81.0 4,779 1987 215 46.7 10,050 45.0 4,523 1988 165 49.1 8,100 62.0 5,022 1989 180 50.0 9,000 71.5 6,435 1990 190 50.0 9,500 71.5 6,792 1991 250 48.0 12,000 63.0 7,560 1992 290 40.0 11,600 55.0 6,380 1993 360 27.5 9,900 53.0 5,247 1994 150 40.0 6,000 87.0 5,220 1995 135 43.0 5,800 87.0 5,046 1996 200 47.0 9,400 87.0 7,050 1997 275 44.0 12,100 75.0 8,107 'State of Hawaii totals O"`The County of Hawaii accounts for over 90% of the State's ginger root output Source: Hawaii Agricultural Statistics Services On a worldwide basis, India and Jamaica are the largest producers of ginger, followed by Africa and China. CHINESE CABBAGE Chinese cabbage is an oriental vegetable with a cylindrical head up to 4 inches thick and can grow up to 18 inches long. Generally a year-round crop, Chinese cabbage is normally planted in cooler climatic area about 1,500 feet above sea level. A fast growing crop, Chinese cabbage can be harvested in approximately 60 to 80 days from seeding. Over the past 15 years, the production of Chinese cabbage in Hawaii has remained relatively stable at about 7.7 million pounds per year (see Exhibit IV -K-4). In 1997, O Chinese cabbage's farm price was at 23 cents per pound and producing sales value of $1.77 million. The farm price per pound has remained relatively stable since 1990 fluctuating between 23 cents per pound to 24 cents per pound. The County of Hawaii currently produces about 70 percent of the statewide production of Chinese cabbage, with approximately 95 percent grown in Waimea and the remaining 5 percent in Volcano. Back in 1982, the County accounted for 95.7 percent of the statewide production and since then has consistently seen production decline to a low of 4.4 million pounds in 1992 (57 percent of the statewide total) and eventually stabilizing between 5.4 million and 5.6 million pounds in the last several years. IV -K-7 Exhibit IV -K-4 Chinese Cabbage Source: Hawaii Agricultural Statistics Services Harvested Acreage Yield Per Acre (1,000 pounds) Production (1,000 pounds) Farm Price (Cents/pound) Value of Sales (1,000 dollars) State 1982 330 23.7 7,820 14.5 1,134 1983 370 23.6 8,750 10.8 945 1984 400 19.8 7,910 13.1 1,036 1985 370 22.4 8,300 13.6 1,129 1986 350 20.6 7,200 14.2 1,022 1987 400 20.0 8,000 15.9 1,272 1988 450 18.4 8,300 17.3 1,436 1989 430 17.9 7,700 21.4 1,648 1990 390 17.7 6,900 22.8 1,573 1991 460 17.8 8,200 23.1 1,894 1992 420 18.3 7,700 23.8 1,833 1993 400 19.0 7,600 23.0 1,748 1994 400 18.8 7,500 24.0 1,800 1995 370 21.1 7,800 23.5 1,833 1996 410 18.8 7,700 23.5 1,810 1997 390 19.7 7,700 23.0 1,771 Hawaii 1982 310 24.1 7,480 14.4 1,077 1983 355 23.9 8,490 10.7 908 1984 380 19.6 7,460 12.7 947 1985 330 22.7 7,480 13.0 972 1986 330 20.6 6,800 14.1 959 1987 330 21.0 6,920 15.6 1,080 1988 250 25.6 6,400 17.0 1,088 1989 300 17.7 5,300 21.0 1,113 1990 280 16.6 4,650 22.6 1,051 1991 250 18.2 4,550 23.4 1,065 1992 230 19.1 4,400 24.4 1,074 1993 240 19.6 4,700 23.8 1,119 1994 250 20.0 5,000 24.4 1,220 1995 260 21.5 5,600 23.7 1,327 1996 290 19.3 5,600 23.8 1,333 1997 270 20.0 5,400 23.0 1,242 Source: Hawaii Agricultural Statistics Services .J TOMATO R Tomatoes originated in South America and are one of the world's most widely grown crops. Tomatoes used as fresh vegetables are generally field -grown in Florida, Texas, California and Mexico with greenhouse processing done in the north during the winter season. Tomatoes used for canning and processing into soups, ketchup and sauces are widely grown in the Midwest and Western states, with California the largest producer in the U.S. Most tomatoes produced for European markets are grown in the Mediterranean and North African regions. A relatively fast growing crop, tomatoes can be harvested in 70 to 90 days. In Hawaii, tomatoes are the second largest vegetable produced (next to ginger) in terms O of annual sales value ($5.5 million). Tomato production in Hawaii has had a relatively volatile history with production fluctuating quite substantially from year to year (see Exhibit IV -K-5). For example, in 1982 the state produced 7.8 million pounds of tomato increasing to 8.7 million in 1983 and dropping to 7.7 million in 1984. Tomato production reached a low of 4.6 million pounds in 1990 and had a record year of 10.2 million pounds in 1997. Back in 1982, the County of Hawaii accounted for over 65 percent of the statewide tomato production, but since then, has consistently seen this industry decline to where it produced on 2.13 million pounds in 1997, accounting for only 21 percent of the statewide total. Most of the Island of Hawaii tomatoes are grown year-round in the areas of North IV -K-9 Exhibit IV -K-5 Tomatoes *Combined with Kauai and Oahu Source: Hawaii Agricultural Statistics Services Harvested Acreage Yield Per Acre (1,000 pounds) Production (1,000 pounds) Farm Price (Cents/pound) Value of Sales (1,000 dollars) State 1982 260 34.7 7,800 30.0 2,707 1983 290 38.7 8,700 30.0 3,367 1984 280 27.5 7,700 40.3 3,103 1985 300 26.0 7,800 40.2 3,136 1986 240 27.9 6,700 41.0 2,747 1987 250 28.0 7,000 42.6 2,982 1988 250 28.0 7,000 48.5 3,395 1989 250 22.0 5,500 55.4 3,047 1990 230 20.0 4,600 65.0 2,990 1991 250 24.0 6,000 52.0 3,120 1992 240 20.0 4,800 62.0 2,976 1993 240 22.5 5,400 56.0 3,024 1994 200 24.5 4,900 52.0 2,548 1995 240 25.0 6,000 48.5 2,910 1996 280 25.0 7,000 53.0 3,710 1997 340 30.0 10,200 54.0 5,508 Hawaii 1982 125 40.8 5,100 35.7 1,821 1983 125 41.5 5,190 39.8 2,066 1984 130 34.7 4,510 41.9 1,890 1985 140 33.2 4,650 41.8 1,944 1986 110 33.2 3,650 42.5 1,551 1987 90 32.7 2,940 46.4 1,364 1988 90 36.2 3,260 51.8 1,689 1989 85 35.3 3,000 60.6 1,818 1990 95 23.2 2,200 69.5 1,529 1991 95 25.9 2,460 53.2 1,309 1992' 100 22.0 2,200 63.5 1,397 1993* 85 21.2 1,800 56.6 1,017 1994" 70 23.3 1,630 55.4 903 1995` 50 22.0 1,100 61.0 671 1996* 65 21.8 1,420 67.5 959 1997* 95 22.4 2,130 67.8 1,444 *Combined with Kauai and Oahu Source: Hawaii Agricultural Statistics Services and South Hilo, Puna, Waimea,Volcano and Kona (although mainly during the winter months). TARO The taro root, a native of Southeast Asia, has been grown extensively in Hawaii since the arrival of the early Hawaiians. For many years, only wetland taro was grown as used specifically for making poi. However, in recent years, dryland taro, also known as Chinese taro has been significantly increasing in production. Chinese taro is used for making taro chips, a recently popular alternative to potato chips. Chinese taro is also fried, baked, roasted or boiled. O Hawaii is the only state reporting taro production to the U.S. Department of Agriculture with over 5.5 million pounds produced in 1997 at a sales value of $2.8 million (see Exhibit IV -K-6). The production of taro in the state has remained fairly steady over the past 15 years fluctuating from between 5.5 million pounds to 6.9 million pounds with an average of 6.6 million pounds per year. Farm price of poi taro, however, has consistently increased from 22.4 cents per pound in 1982 to 51.5 cents per pound in 1997, a healthy average annual growth rate of 5.71 percent. On the other hand, the farm price for Chinese taro has fluctuated inconsistently over the years and averaging an annual growth rate of only 2.11 percent. The acreage of poi taro grown has also been somewhat consistent averaging about 350 acres. Chinese taro, on the other hand, has seen dramatic IV -K-11 Exhibit IV -K-6 Chinese Taro *includes poi taro OSource: Hawaii Agricultural Statistics Services Farms* Acreage in Crop Production Farm Price (Cents/pound) Value of Sales Chinese Chinese Poi Taro Taro (1,000 pounds)* Poi Taro Taro (1,000 dollars)* State 1982 127 340 10 6,460 22.4 NA 1,447 1983 155 350 20 5,440 22.2 35.0 1,227 1984 137 350 20 6,310 21.4 34.2 1,382 1985 155 340 60 6,860 21.6 37.9 1,578 1986 140 330 60 6,330 22.2 33.9 1,462 1987 140 330 70 6,300 24.2 41.7 1,676 1988 155 310 110 6,800 25.8 39.4 1,904 1989 150 290 140 6,500 28.5 40.1 1,996 1990 140 270 150 5,800 38.1 42.6 2,262 1991 180 310 240 6,500 43.7 39.4 2,795 1992 175 305 245 6,900 44.1 40.9 3,002 1993 190 295 215 6,000 47.6 40.3 2,760 1994 180 310 180 6,100 48.3 38.9 2,806 1995 190 350 200 6,800 48.1 47.4 3,264 1996 180 350 180 5,700 49.6 45.8 2,793 1997 160 370 80 5,500 51.5 46.9 2,805 Hawaii 1982 45 45 10 880 22.4 NA 197 1983 67 45 20 740 22.5 35.0 182 1984 57 45 20 795 23.4 34.2 205 1985 72 35 50 1,010 23.4 37.2 290 1986 65 35 50 840 22.6 34.2 236 1987 68 45 65 1,280 23.8 42.0 452 1988 92 40 100 1,530 25.3 39.3 534 1989 87 35 130 1,620 27.0 40.1 591 1990 86 30 140 1,300 34.6 42.3 528 1991 100 40 170 1,420 42.3 39.6 575 1992 100 45 190 1,610 43.1 42.6 689 1993 110 45 180 1,790 44.9 40.3 748 1994 105 45 170 1,960 44.8 38.9 790 1995 109 65 190 1,400 46.2 47.2 657 1996 100 60 170 1,400 56.0 44.7 689 1997 85 80 70 1,300 60.0 46.1 698 *includes poi taro OSource: Hawaii Agricultural Statistics Services increases and decreases in acreage grown from 10 acres in 1982 to a high of 245 acres in O 1992 and then back to 80 acres in 1997. The vast majority of Chinese taro is grown on the Island of Hawaii, primarily in the North and South Hilo areas, accounting for more than 90 percent of acreage. Puna is the only other district that grows a relatively large amount of Chinese taro. The center of poi taro production in the County of Hawaii occurs in Waipio Valley, where there are approximately 20 farmers growing poi taro on 80 acres of land. In Hawaii, Chinese taro was originally grown only on the Island of Hawaii on 10 acres of land back in 1982. Chinese taro grew at a rapid pace on the Island of Hawaii, topping production on 190 acres of land in 1992. In 1997, Chinese taro production on the Island of Hawaii decrease by more than 60 percent from 170 acres in production to 70 acres in production, primarily due to severe drought conditions on the Island of Hawaii which also bred increases in the O taro root aphid which feeds on the root of the taro and causes extreme damage to taro crops. Currently there is no insecticide available to effectively treat the aphid infested taro root. FUTURE OUTLOOK The fresh vegetables market in Hawaii as well as on the Island of Hawaii is on a positive rebound in the past couple of years, with record production occurring in 1997 at over 100 million pounds. The future outlook for the overall fresh vegetables industry in Hawaii and the Island of Hawaii is bright. Over the past five years the FV industry in Hawaii and the Island of Hawaii grew (production -wise) at an average rate of 4 percent and 3.7 IV -K-13 Opercent, respectively. In terms of sales value, the FV industry grew over the past five years at a rate of 5.2 percent and 7.2 percent statewide and for the Island of Hawaii, respectively. While continued growth at these levels in the long term will be difficult to sustain, barring unforeseen circumstances such as drought conditions, worldwide oversupply and competition, etc., the FV industry can expect to continue growing at a moderately high rate. Of the four major fresh vegetables discussed, ginger root is the only one shipped in large quantities to the mainland U.S. Very little ginger root harvested in Hawaii stays here. With the large population of Asians in Hawaii, the market for ginger root is high, and rather than importing foreign -grown ginger, Hawaii -grown ginger should be sold to local Oconsumers. A portion of the Chinese taro crop is exported to the U.S. mainland, and the rest remains in Hawaii. The majority of poi taro and all Hawaii -grown tomatoes remain in-state, while Chinese cabbage also remains in Hawaii, although there are occasional shipments to the U.S. mainland. With only 30 percent of the statewide consumption of fresh vegetables coming from locally grown farms, the potential to increase local production and consumption in Hawaii is great. IV -K-14 IRRADIATION PLANT BACKGROUND OF INDUSTRY Fruit irradiation has been discussed in Hawaii for over 10 years, and in May, 1997, the Hawaii County Council voted to approve Bill 62, which would authorize the government to build an irradiation facility using taxpayers' money. The irradiation facility would sterilize fruit fly larvae, enabling producers to ship tropical fruit to the mainland United States. Hawaii's fruit is currently limited from being shipped to the continental U.S. without post harvest fruit fly treatment because of the fruit fly threat to U.S. mainland agriculture. With this Iimitation, Hawaii's diversified agriculture has had difficultids expanding over the past 50 years. With the closing of the sugar industry, there are thousands of acres of land available for planting tropical fruits, but ' currently it is not O feasible because shipment of these goods to the mainland U.S. untreated is not allowed and local consumption would not be able to absorb the supply. Hawaii's irradiation plant would treat crops such as papayas, lychee, rambutan, atemoya and starfruit to kill the Mediterranean fruit fly, and enable exporting of these products abroad. Food irradiation was first developed in the 1950s for the "Atoms for Peace" program, developed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (formerly the Atomic Energy Commission), that was looking for non-military uses for radioactive waste products of nuclear waste production. Now the food irradiation industry is a for-profit private business regulated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. IV -L-1 OIrradiation is the process in which foods are exposed to radiation in order to kill bacteria, insects and to extend shelf life. It kills most of the E. coli bacteria and salmonella present in food. Foods that are treated by radiation do not become radioactive, although some of its cells may become altered by it. Irradiated food is exposed to approximately 3,000,000 rads of radiation (compared to a chest X-ray which emits approximately 20 millirad of radiation). There are currently no commercial irradiation facilities in Hawaii that treat only food products. Most facilities sterilize medical supplies, pharmaceuticals and other products. The radioactive materials used in an irradiation plant are used as a source of energy for treatment, not to treat the fruit. However, because of the use of radioactive materials for Otreatment, opponents to irradiation plants claim that workers and nearby communities will be at a risk of exposure and contamination in the event of radiation leaks. Critics of food irradiation contend that although it does kill the dangerous E. coli bacteria and salmonella, so does proper cooking and hygienic food preparation. Radiation also kills the bacteria that emit the foul odor that signal spoilage, but it is not strong enough to kill the bacteria that cause botulism. Therefore, even if irradiation kills harmful bacteria, it also removes the warning signs people depend on to determine whether foods are spoiled. Critics also contend that U.S. consumers may be unwilling to eat irradiated fruit, and this could eventually harm the reputation of Hawaii's produce. There are also other treatments to kill fruit fly larvae that are less harmful, such as quarantine cold treatment for avocados, forced hot-air quarantine treatment technology for papaya (which is now IV -L-2 used on exported papaya, although this treatment appears to affect the fruit's quality), and O a hot water immersion treatment for lychee. Since 1995, some papaya growers have been sending their fruit to a Chicago irradiation plant where it is treated, and then sold in Southern California. Treating the fruit at a local irradiation plant would lower the cost considerably. Food irradiation can also, result in the production of new chemicals, called unique radiolytic products, including carcinogens such as benzene, formaldehyde, and certain peroxides which are also by-products of frying, broiling and grilling. However, although the FDA has concluded that the amount of these chemicals created by allowable levels of radiation are too small to cause any problems, food cannot be tested to determine that the correct amount of radiation was used. Another potential danger is studies that suggest O that irradiation is linked to cancer, birth defects and destroys essential nutrients such as vitamin C and E, thiamin, and polyunsaturated fats, although the destruction of certain essential vitamins also occur with other cooking methods. Currently spices are irradiated regularly in the U.S., while vegetables, fruits, poultry, pork, red meat, nuts and teas have all been approved to be irradiated by the FDA. The FDA estimates that eventually 40% of foods will be irradiated. The type of irradiation that would be used in Hawaii's facility is Cobalt 60 gamma sterilization. The reliability of this process is unmatched, and there are no chemical residue left on products after sterilization. IV -L-3 A newer technology is also being considered for the disinfestation of fruits. "E-beam" technology, also known as the Sure Beam System uses electricity to turn electrons into X-rays that kill fruit flies. The X-ray system used can be compared to units in hospitals and dental offices. Titan -Scan of California has joined with a County of Hawaii business group to build an e-beam facility on 20 acres of land in Kea'au, with the expectation of treating approximately 20 million pounds of fruit a year, beginning in nine months to a year. The X-ray system has been generally accepted by those who have previously campaigned against irradiation facilities. "E-beam" treatment also apparently does not affect the quality of fruits. Preliminary testing of treated papaya and rambutan has shown that there is no distinguishable difference in taste between the treated and the untreated Ofruit. One drawback of e-beam is the high cost. An irradiation facility would cost . approximately $2 million, while the e-beam facility would cost anywhere from $6-10 million. FUTURE OUTLOOK The County of Hawaii irradiation plant has been a hot topic in the County, especially over the last few months. In the November 1998 election, the initiative to ban the facility failed by 473 votes, less than one percentage point. However, the election results were being challenged by 48 opponents of the facility, who alleged that public money, employees and equipment were improperly used to influence the voters. In February O IV -L-4 1999, the State Supreme Court unanimously rejected the request by the voters to nullify O the vote. Now that the County of Hawaii voters have rejected the ban on an irradiator, plans are moving forward to quickly build one. The County has been working in conjunction with private companies interested in building an irradiator, although there is no clear-cut choice at this time. Unlike an irradiation facility, the e-beam facility should be up and running within a year. It is anticipated that once the irradiation plant is built and operating, substantial increases in export of fruits can be expected. The state Department of Agriculture estimates that fruit flies costs Hawaii agriculture approximately $300 million a year because of O limitations on overseas sales. IV -L-5 O RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES BACKGROUND OF INDUSTRY The State of Hawaii has strongly supported the use of alternative energy sources in an attempt to gain independence from fossil fuels such as coal and oil. In 1996, the State of Hawaii spent $2.6 billion to meet the energy needs of all market sectors, an increase of 7.01 percent over 1995 total energy expenditures. Hawaii's electrical consumption (shown on Exhibit IV -M-1) has been growing at an annual rate of 2.85 percent since 1982 to a record 9.38 million in 1996. The development of natural alternative energy sources would give the state a buffer zone Oof economic stability and would greatly benefit the state economically and environmentally. With nearly 87.71 percent of the total energy expenditures directed toward oil imports, Hawaii consumed approximately 48.4 million barrels of petroleum in 1996. Hawaii imports thirty-four percent of its oil from Alaska while the remainder comes from foreign countries, Australia, Indonesia and the Middle East. As a result, Hawaii's oil prices experienced serious increases with the global disruptions such as the Gulf War. Such dependence on foreign countries and the continuous disturbances in the Middle East affirms the development of internal sources for energy production. IV -M- I EXHIBIT IV -M-1 ELECTRICAL SALES STATE OF HAWAII 1982-1996 Year Total Residential Other Electrical Sales Electrical Sales Electrical Sales Dollars 1982 6,332,707 1,801,297 4,531,410 1983 6,425,578 1,814,336 4,611,242 1984 6,606,255 1,837,954 4,768,301 1985 6,635,158 1,879,027 4,756,131 1986 7,025,739 1,959,447 5,066,292 1987 7,298,178 2,070,052 5,228,126 1988 7,719,029 2,148,275 5,570,754 1989 7,970,360 2,239,356 5,731,004 1990 8,310,537 2,320,550 5,989,987 1991 8,564,032 2,385,276 6,178,756 1992 8,643,562 2,430,152 6,213,410 1993 8,657,905 2,453,830 6,204,075 1994 8,948,458 2,551,240 6,397,218 1995 9,187,429 2,597,010 6,590,419 1996(1) 9,378,962 2,669,654 6,709,308 (t) Preliminary figures. Source:Energy Resources Coordinator's Annual Report 1997 The Department of Business, Economic Development, and Tourism (DBEDT) oversees the development of dependable, efficient, and economical energy systems through the Energy, Resources, and Technology Division (ERTD). ERTD actively supports the research and development of renewable energy sources within the following fields: Biomass Energy Geothermal Energy Hydroelectric Energy Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion Photovoltaic Energy Solar Thermal Energy Wind Energy Each renewable resource helps to maintain the quality of life in the islands by reducing pollution. The use of these resources minimizes the release of toxic emissions and chemical wastes into the environment. Displacement of fossil fuel results in less carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere, minimizing the effect of global warming. Exhibit IV -M-2 lists the amount of oil saved in the County of Hawaii due to utilization of renewable energy resources. Exhibit IV -M-3 shows the amount of renewable energy consumption in the County of Hawaii. Biomass Energy Hawaii has been producing energy from biomass resources for the most part of the twentieth century. Biomass resources includes trees, plants, agricultural and food processing wastes, manure, and garbage. These resources are burned to produce heat or processed into a liquid or gas and used as fuel. Biomass production which utilizes waste materials help to alleviate landfill disposal volumes and acts as a comparable substitute IV -M-3 x W 0 ��n�o00o�o,rnnNhrnh b bh M CC O O, lc� 00 N Q N a� 00 It N M O 'IT u � W v �n O, �D It 41t v� h vl� .- p v, a U > w tD t lD f� Ctt 00 ,D O\ 'o wV +-� r kn t- t- M O •d• ++ 04 00 O O O a, O1 h N O, N a, b O •-+ N 4 00 m 00 Os O Ko 00 Q; N en V y N Rt � � O O O nvhoovMhnooVnNpO as y4 M 01 �D h N DD N h b --+ O, oo O O� ,O Cl O l� 00 M •y' d• IT M N M M n O, N .a Q En d v o O N � .rS Ln * N n ,D ,D n (O Q � Vl m Y1 !t in N 00 N � M O N Oct 3 N v vNi tit M N � O � OlJ y u �N R% O utT tj W oo �n n h wn O N �o o to M -� v M 6t �}' N N M M O, w M �o 00 M +n t� \O 'dam I'D O, 'T v1 M W N M O: 00 M d H 4 t- as a` O a0 h vi cp� L Y1 M M cl' N `7 M �D 10 V7 N M cJ' h A z �x x w O on qqN� m V It O M '-+ --+ O Vi 1, Tt � L R cpsN O �-+ tt to 'lt m ,:r O N M !h y ++ 1. `� --+ O0 ^" N •-+ M N 00 n �O 00 ct N V1 V1 • Ct -t r M' t C M M M N N N t% '['t vl O DD '.D ,O pip N 00 N O1 M h O dt t: cD " Q "t M �t O, M N n �I c� n in R y o a 00 00 rn w�,o ,D kn to v -- ��a Ob ° c"a N M h 00 ON O N M V kn 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 O, O, O, CN O, 0� O\ O, d,o\ O\ g o, � a, O, Q` O, O, o, _, — — .-• — 0 b bh N Q u � W a U > w N � i -r Qom" N � O O y4 W � Cl O l� 00 N Q C N Q En v o N � .rS 'o a� W � O � N v N � O � OlJ y �N R% O N� H . � w a Ci. O ii A z �x W O M N M O V1 p d d 00 .-y Cf M --i vl •--� O[ M M N N ^" O r- 00 t` \o \o \o vi to (Q d d M M d -,zr d' d 1 Vl h N b b C x 0 0 H\O \O O d O oo r, kO 1 r- Go ON 0 c� C 3 0 p M O O1 kn O\ \O O d N 00 N M t-- 110 %O \O \O V1 O •y d d r- t- r- N M ••r O M 00 O N 00 \O V1 t� d \O \O O\ ON 00 't Vy N N rj rj C cu H V W M L00 O M'r h O\ O N t- 'n M 00 M In d M cpM 00 00 00 \O \O N y L' \O 00 t -O 00 00 W Ct V M h M O\ a h a 0D 0 O O kn O ON d d M d vl to b C� O^ .-. d^ v N o0 N •-+ O� h lO •--+ O\ O i �O n h vi V-1 d ti' M M M M N A C :3 t^ N M d h \O t- 00 Or, N M d v-) o0 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 O\ 0\ 0\ O\ 01 0� O\ 01, ON Q\ ON Q\ O\ 0, O\ O\ O\ O\ ON ON - - - for fossil fuels. Sugar plantations have produced and utilized bagasse (the woody O remnants of sugarcane after the sugar has been extracted) to fuel operations and provide electricity on the plantations. Excess energy was sold to public utilities providing an added value to sugar production. While the sugar industry was in its prime, bagasse was the chief alternative source of energy for the state. Unfortunately, with the exit of the sugar industry on the Island of Hawaii, bagasse is no longer readily available as a fuel source. Other biomass resources such as waste materials, energy crops, and macadamia nut husks are being looked upon as viable replacements. The availability of open. agricultural lands provides an opportunity to raise energy crops such as fast-growing trees, plants, and grasses. Although the burning of organic materials also releases carbon dioxide, the emissions are cleaner than that of fossil fuels. In 1982, the Mauna Loa Macadamia Nut Corporation installed a boiler in their nut processing plant that was capable of using macadamia nut husks as a fuel. Although, Mauna Loa Macadamia Nut Corporation does not disclose the volume of macadamia nut husks burned and the electrical capacity generated by the plant, the boiler does provide heat and powers a 750 kW electric generator for the plant. Currently, the Island of Hawaii produces no significant amount of electrical production from biomass resources for public usage. Geothermal Energy Geothermal energy, stored deep below the earth's surface in the form of steam or hot liquid, is accessible by the drilling of wells deep into the earth's surface. The used O IV -M-6 Ogeothermal liquids or gases are re -injected back into the ground, replenishing the energy supply and eliminating surface disposal and air pollution. Due to its vicinity to an active volcano, the Island of Hawaii has an abundant supply of geothermal energy to alleviate its dependence on fossil fuels and has the potential to commercially supply the electrical needs for the island on a consistent basis. In 1976, the first geothermal well on the Island of Hawaii that produced steam was drilled to a depth of 6,140 feet deep and produced one of the hottest temperatures in the world. In 1982, a 3 -megawatt generating plant using steam from this well began operation and continued until the plants closure at the end of 1989. From 1990, little geothermal energy production occurred until 1993, at which time the OPuna Geothermal Venture developed a 30 -megawatt geothermal plant in the Kapoho section of the Kilauea East Rift Zone. The geothermal plant sells electricity to Hawaii Electric Light Company (HELCO) and provides nearly one-fourth of the island's electrical needs. In 1997, Puna Geothermal Venture estimates the plant has the potential to displaced 500,000 barrels of oil per year and eliminates the carbon dioxide released the fuel in burned. The State of Hawaii had designed a project in 1987, which called for a large-scale 500 - megawatt geothermal inter -island cable to provide electrical power from geothermal plants on the Island of Hawaii to power utilities on the remaining islands. However, in 1994, with decreasing oil prices, the state's energy policy shifted to support geothermal IV -M-7 energy exclusively for the Island of Hawaii and no longer planned for a geothermal inter- O island cable project. Hydroelectric Energy Hydropower for electrical purposes harnesses the energy in moving water to spin turbines. The strength of the water flow determines the rate at which the turbines spin generators and the amount of electricity produced. Hydropower relies on the natural cycle of evaporation and rainfall for a constant renewable supply of water. Drought and the differences with seasonal rainfall, which affect the flow of water, is a constant threat to efficient hydroelectric production. Exhibit IV -M-2 shows the inconsistencies related to hydroelectric production for the years 1992 and 1994. In 1992, Hawaii experienced very limited rainfall, dropping the water levels in lakes and reservoirs and reducing the flow of rivers and streams, resulting in the drop in hydropower production, likewise, heavy rains in 1994 produced a surge in hydropower energy. In order to produce hydropower on a large-scale, a dam would be needed to provide a reservoir for consistent water flow during dry seasons. A total of nine hydropower plants are located on the Island of Hawaii, producing approximately five percent of the island's electrical needs. HELCO owns and operates four hydropower plants located along the Wailuku River. The four plants range in size from 0.4 megawatt to 1.8 megawatt capacity for a total output of 3.7 megawatt. A fifth hydropower plant is located along the Wailuku River and is operated by the Wailuku River Hydroelectric Power Company. The 12 -megawatt facility is the largest in the state O IV -M-8 Oand began its operation in May 1993. In 1996, it generated about 22 million -kilowatt hours of electricity, displacing 36,000 barrels of oil. The Department of Water Supply operates the Waimea Water Treatment Plant for the County of Hawaii, generating electricity with a 37.3 -kilowatt hydroelectric turbine. Electricity generated from this plant is used primarily to run equipment within the plant, with excess wattage sold to HELCO. The Hamakua Sugar Company contained a hydroelectric facility, which provided 800 kilowatt of power. Unfortunately, the company ceased operations in 1995 and power production has been suspended. The remaining hydropower facilities are smaller -scaled Oand supply power for private operations. Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion For two decades the Natural Energy Laboratory of Hawaii Authority (NELHA) at Keahole Point has been performing research on ocean thermal energy conversion (OTEC) and related technologies. OTEC technology produces energy using the natural differences in temperature for surface ocean water and deep ocean water. A 210 -kilowatt OTEC facility has been in operation since 1992 at NELHA. An added benefit of the OTEC plant is the ability to produce fresh water via desalination process involving low- pressure steam condensation. Approximately 7,000 gallons of fresh water is produced daily at the 210 -kilowatt OTEC power facility. Plans are currently underway for the construction of a 1 -megawatt OTEC power plant at NELHA. However, the completion O IV -M-9 date is dependent upon the installation of additional ocean pipelines for sufficient water O supply. In addition to the OTEC electrical plant, NELHA also incorporated a deep -ocean water cooling system within its facilities. By utilizing the developing technology to provide a working -model of the deep sea cooling system, NELHA demonstrated the cooling system's efficiency. The cooling system saved NELHA between $3,000 and $4,000 a month in electricity costs for 12,000 square feet of buildings. Extension proposals for the Kona International Airport at Keahole may provide the opportunity to a large-scale application of the ocean cooling technology. However, the construction industry is slow to integrate deep -ocean cooling technology due to preferences to traditional AC cooling units. Initially costs are high for installation, but savings are realized almost immediately O with reduced energy expenses. Photovoltaic Energy Photovoltaic technology (PV) uses solar cells that convert the sun's light directly into electricity. Most often the solar cells are attached to styrofoam tiles and placed on the roof of buildings. The styrofoam tiles act as insulation to keep heat out of the buildings and help lower cooling costs. In May of 1998, the Mauna Lani Bay Resort installed a 100 -kilowatt photovoltaic system on the rooftop, covering 10,000 square feet. Expected energy production is expected at 423 kwh per day and the measured roof temperature reduction was over 60 degrees, from 160 degrees to about 100 degrees. The project is expected to save operation's cost for the hotel by providing electricity to 20 percent of O IV -M-10 Othe 350 hotel rooms and by reducing air conditioning costs. Success of the project lead to the installation of PV systems to the resort's golf facilities. The PV system will also be used to recharge all Mauna Lani golf carts. The Kona Gym has a 15 -kilowatt PV system that was installed in 1995. The system is owned and operated by HELCO and is connected to the electric power grid. The system feeds electrical energy back into the power grid and, at the time, it was the third of its kind installed in the United States. The intent of this project was to provide an opportunity to evaluate the feasible use of building integrated PV systems. Currently, schools statewide are being selected for installation of PV systems. OKahua Ranch installed a 360 kwh per day village power system consisting of PV technology as well as wind energy resources. The village's power system is being used as a test site to evaluate reliability and commercial usage. The power system will act as a prototype for larger -scaled versions to be applied elsewhere in the Pacific. Residential applications of PV systems are increasing on the Island of Hawaii. Most users of the system are located off the utility power grids and, therefore, rely on the PV systems for individual electrical usage. HELCO is offering PV systems on a lease or purchase agreement to residents of the Island of Hawaii. PV panels, batteries, and inverters are included and the PV systems are available in three sizes, 600, 900, and 1200 W, to fit the individual household needs. IV -M-11 Capturing the spotlight are the PV -powered vehicles built and designed by the students of O Hawaii Preparatory Academy Konawaena High School, and Naalehu Intermediate School. The vehicles participated in the Kaahele La (Tour of the Sun) Interscholastic Photovoltaic -Powered Vehicle Competition sponsored by DBEDT and the State Department of Education. In 1989, the Naalehu entry won and was exhibited at the Indianapolis Motor Speedway. In 1990, Konawaena won the local event and then competed and finished eighteenth out of 36 teams in the 1990 World Solar Challenge in Australia. A team of Konawaena students drove a PV -powered vehicle 3,840 miles across the United States in 41 days to set a new record in 1993. This set the stage for TriStar Pictures, which released a movie in 1996 based on the Konawaena team and their participation in the 1990 World Solar Challenge in Australia. Although highly fictionalized, the film brought national attention to the Island of Hawaii and the O achievements of the Konawaena students. Solar Thermal Energy A solar thermal system absorbs the sun's energy to heat a working fluid and create steam. The steam is used for processed heat or for operating a turbine generator to produce electricity. The principle for solar water heaters is the storage of solar -heated water in tanks for latter use. The State of Hawaii currently offers a 35 percent tax credit for solar water heaters and will be available until June 30, 2003. Incentives of up to $800 per system are being offered by the electric utilities for customers who replace electric water heaters. Over 60,000 households statewide are currently serviced by solar thermal water heaters. IV -M-12 li Current application of solar thermal technology is being tested at the Natural Energy Laboratory of Hawaii Authority (NELHA) at Keahole. A small-scale solar -powered water desalination project has been conducted and will be applied in the community of Milolii on the Island of Hawaii. The solar thermal water desalination system in Milolii is expected to produce approximately 1,000 gallons of fresh water per day. A commercial venture, Hawaiian Solar Dried Fruit of Rainbow Harvest Inc., located in Pahoa, specializes in drying tropical fruit using solar energy. The processing plant makes use of several large solar dryers and estimates indicate an annual displacement of up to 100 barrels of oil. Wind Energy Wind energy harnesses the air's natural movement across the earth's surface to. turn rotating blades. The blades are attached to a shaft that can either provide power for a pumping mechanism or turn a generator to produce electricity. Exploiting wind energy is free of costs and produces no emissions or chemical wastes. Wind energy has been used for hundreds of years in Holland and the United States and has been used as a source of electricity in Hawaii since the 1980's. The downside of wind energy is the inconsistency of wind strength and the periods of intermittence. Electrical grids cannot rely solely on wind generated devices for power and must utilize a back-up supply from another source of energy. IV -M-13 As of 1997, Hawaii registered the fourth largest capacity in wind generated electricity in O the United States. California leads the nation with 16,000 wind machines producing about 1,600 megawatts in total capacity. The State of Hawaii has about 134 wind machines producing a total wind generating capacity of 12 megawatts. Most of Hawaii's wind machines are out -dated and deficient in technological maintenance and cuts in research spending have limited current production and will likely result in lower output in the future. Kahua Ranch utilizes three 10 -kilowatt wind turbines along with a 10 -kilowatt PV system and a 30 -kilowatt diesel generator to provide power to a greenhouse, eleven homes, and shops on the ranch. The village's power system is not connected to the utility power grid and is a prototype for larger -scaled versions to be applied elsewhere in the Pacific. O Lalamilo Wind Farm in Waikoloa is owned by Hawaiian Electric Industries and operates 93 wind machines. Lalamilo has a total capacity of 1.8 megawatt, generating about 3,000 -megawatt hours of electricity in 1996. Elsewhere at South Point, Kamaoa Wind Farm operates 37 wind turbine generators. Each wind -powered generator at Kamaoa has a 250 -kilowatt capacity fora total capacity of 9.3 megawatt. Increased research spending and improved technology will allow greater availability of wind energy systems for commercial and individual use. To defray expenses, Hawaii offers a 20 percent tax credit for the cost of buying and installing a wind energy device. IV -M-14 FUTURE OUTLOOK With the closing of the sugar industry on the Island of Hawaii, bagasse is no longer available as a major alternative fuel source for the island. Power plants that relied on bagasse as a fuel source have turned to coal and oil to compensate for the loss. Energy crops, such as trees and grasses, have been suggested as alternative energy sources and may be possible with the open agricultural lands vacated by the sugar industry. Macadamia nut husks and waste disposal may also become viable replacements for bagasse. However, it is unlikely in the foreseeable future that significant biomass resources will be produced that would attain the levels produced by bagasse prior to the 1990's. OStatewide plans for further geothermal energy production were withdrawn due to project expenses and the decline in oil prices. Since then, State funding for geothermal programs has been drastically reduced. However, the State believes geothermal energy from the Island of Hawaii has the potential to provide the majority of the island's electrical needs. Effective regulation and management, increased funding, as well as further development of this resource need to be continued in order to achieve maximum potential as a viable source of alternative energy production. Hydroelectric production has had a restricted role -in power production for the Island of Hawaii. Due to limited rainfall and lack of consistent water flow, hydroelectric power is expected to have only a minor role in increasing the County's available energy resources IV -M-15 Future applications of OTEC technology are likely to increase as further development O improves commercial possibilities. Plans for a new 1 -megawatt OTEC facility at NELHA are underway and applications of OTEC technology may be included in the Kona International Airport at Keahole's expansion. Also, a bid to construct an OTEC power plant at the Diego Garcia Naval Facility in the Indian Ocean has been submitted by a Hawaii group representing five Hawaiian companies. The proposed OTEC plant would create 5.5 megawatts of power, 1.2 million gallons of potable water per day, and 1.4 megawatts of seawater air conditioning, providing a large-scale model of OTEC technology. Photovoltaic energy and solar thermal energy production should continue to increase as commercial development lowers start-up expenses, however, these sources of alternative O energy are not expected to play a major role in increasing the County's energy resources in the foreseeable future. Individual household applications on the Island of Hawaii should increase as a result of lower expenses and improved efficiency in energy production. At a time when wind energy exploitation is increasing worldwide, Hawaii's wind energy production levels have stagnated. Research and development of this technology has diminished throughout the State due to lower costs and greater efficiency of other energy resources. IV -M-16 OThe County of Hawaii has promoted the use of demand side management in cutting fuel costs. Demand side management modifies utility customers' energy use through conservation and efficiency measures. The County is actively supporting performance contracting to achieve this goal. Performance contracting is an arrangement in which a private company finances and installs building improvements for a fee determined by future energy savings. In 1997, the County contracted energy efficiency measures in the Hawaii County Building and found the results favorable. Electrical consumption dropped by 30 percent over the course of the year. Plans to incorporate energy efficient measures towards the remaining buildings owned and operated by the County are in progress. Although renewable energy sources have an optimistic future on the Island of Hawaii, Oespecially in geothermal energy, renewable energy sources have been dealt a major setback with the closing of the sugar industry, which was producing the majority of alternative energy sources via biomass bagasse. Therefore, continued State support is critical for the development and commercialization of renewable energy resources. Further efficiency and diversity in alternative energy resources is a necessity for the security of the State, for the increased displacement of fossil fuel with renewable resources benefits Hawaii economically and environmentally. IV -M-17 ASTRONOMY BACKGROUND OF INDUSTRY Astronomy, the oldest of all natural sciences was first studied by the Babylonians, and developed by the Greek and Arabs. The telescope was developed in 1608 by a Dutch spectacles maker, and first used for astronomy by Galileo Galilei in 1609 when he discovered craters on the moon and the Milky Way. In 1951, Dr. Grote Reber proclaimed that Hawaii was one of the best sites in the world for radio astronomy experiments, and this marked the beginning of astronomy in Hawaii. There are hundreds of observatories around the world, but Mauna Kea is among the finest sites in the world for obtaining the data required in modern astronomy. Because of its O unique position and exceptional viewing, Mauna Kea houses 12 of the world's most state-of-the-art telescopes. Favorable attributes making this area a major international astronomical site include: high altitude, atmospheric dryness, minimal seasonal variation, isolated location, tropical latitude ensuring minimum cloud cover, and a large portion of total sky -availability. Mauna Kea's distance from the city lights, as well as a restrictive island -wide lighting ordinance insures dark skies, which allows astronomers to observe the farthest galaxies at the edge of the universe. Also contributing to the attractiveness of the Mauna Kea site are the local availability of support technicians and related personnel, and the relatively flat terrain which aids construction of telescope facilities. IV -N-1 OIn 1968, the University of Hawaii was granted a lease of all lands within a 2.5 -mile radius of the site of the UH 2.2 meter telescope above the 12,000 -foot elevation of Mauna Kea to create the Mauna Kea Science Reserve which is made up of 11,216 acres. Soon thereafter, Mauna Kea's first two telescopes were completed, both owned by the University of Hawaii. In 1992 and 1996, the twin Keck Telescopes were completed, standing at eight stories tall, and weighing 300 tons, making them the largest optical and infrared telescopes in the world. CURRENT CONDITIONS Currently Mauna Kea and Haleakala offer the finest astronomical viewing in Hawaii, if not the world. Haleakala houses observatories such as the Lure and, Mees Observatories, Oand the upcoming University of Tokyo Multicolor Active Galactic Nuclei Monitoring (MAGNUM) project which will determine whether the universe will expand forever or eventually begin to contract. To date the national and international scientific communities have established 12 telescopes in 13 observatories at Mauna Kea (See Exhibit IV -N-1). The Mauna Kea site is considered the best international center for observational astronomy with over 1,000 astronomers from all over the world using the various telescopes each year. There are more major telescopes located on Mauna Kea than on any other mountain peak, and Mauna Kea is widely recognized as the best developed site for offering better observations for infrared, optical and millimeter/submillimeter measurements. IV -N-2 Exhibit IV -N- I Summary of Telescopes and Related Facilities, O In Operation and Planned, On Mauna Kea: 1998 Telescope (Diameter in Meters) Year Completed Capital Costs (In Millions) Operating Costs (In Millions) Local Staff (No. of People) Completed: UH 0.6-m (optical) 1969 NA NA NA UH 2.2-m (optical/infrared) 1970 5.0 0.75 8 Canada -France -Hawaii 3.6-m (optical/infrared) 1979 30.0 6.2 50 NASA IRTF 3.0-m (infrared) 1979 10.0 3.0 12 United Kingdom Infrared 3.9-m 1979 5.0 2.7 31 James Clerk Maxwell 15-m submillimet 1986 32.0 3.5 43 Caltech 10.4-m submillimeter 1986 10.0 2.1 11 W.M. Keck Observatory (Keck I&II) 10-m x2 (optical/infrared) 1992/1996 170.0 '11.0 85 VLBA Antenna 25-m (radio) 1992 7.0 0.25 2 Under Construction: Smithsonian Submillimeter Array 8x6 -m 1999 80.0 6.0 26* Subaru (Japan Natioanl Large Telescope 8-m (optical/infrared) 1999 170.0 8.0 30* Gemini Northern 8-m (optical/infrared) 1999 100.0 5.0 30* Mauna Kea Observatories Support Services NA NA 1.9** 24 TOTAL $619.00 $48.50 266 *Expected number when in full operation ** Not included in total since derived from facility operating funds Source: University of Hawaii at Manoa, Institute for Astronomy, Fact Sheet, (February 1998), p.2. The newest telescope atop Mauna Kea is the Subaru telescope, the first large Japanese scientific instrument located outside of Japan. It took more than 15 years to be developed by the National Astronomical Observatory of Japan. The Subaru uses a piece of glass 8.3 meters across and 8 inches thick. In order to make something of that size, the company that made the mirror, Corning Glass Works, had to first create a special factory. The glass took three years to make, then was taken to another company, Contraves, to be ground and polished, which took another 4 years, and finally transported to Mauna Kea. The total cost, including the construction of the major mechanical components of the Subaru telescope approximated $300 million. OIn September of 1998, construction on the University of Hawaii -Hilo Institute for Astronomy building was started, and it is expected to be ready in the fall of 1999. This 35,000 square foot building located in the University Research Park area of the UH -Hilo campus will house astronomers, engineers, technicians, and administrative staff. It will also have fiber-optic links to the summit of Mauna Kea. Institute for Astronomy staff currently based at UH-Manoa will gradually transfer to Hilo, reaching approximately 80% in eight to ten years. With the Institute for Astronomy based in Hilo, undergraduate students will be able to interact more with astronomers and utilize the facilities atop Mauna Kea. UH -Hilo is also in the process of offering a bachelor of science degree in astronomy, which was previously not offered at UH -Hilo or UH-Manoa. By offering a degree in astronomy, observatories will be in a position to hire local astronomers rather IV -N-4 than mainlanders, which they prefer due to the fact that many mainlanders cannot adjust O to living on the Island of Hawaii and return to the mainland. FUTURE OUTLOOK The County of Hawaii is expected to remain the state's operational center for astronomy - related activity. Economic conditions or impacts that this activity generates will be experienced most directly within the county. With the completion of the Smithsonian Submillimeter and Gemini telescopes, astronomy has generated over $619 million in capital investments into Hawaii, approximately 270 permanent jobs, and numerous short- term construction jobs. The range of positions held by workers at the facilities is broad, including highly trained astronomers, electrical and mechanical engineers, computer programmers, numerous midlevel technical and support positions, as well as O administrative, clerical and maintenance jobs. Currently, plans for Mauna Kea, adopted by the Board of Land and Natural Resources (BLNR), specifically limit the number of telescopes on Mauna Kea before the year 2000 to 13 -- 11 major and 2 minor (24 inch) telescopes. Any further expansion will require amendments to the Mauna Kea Science Reserve Complex Development Plan and the master Environmental Impact Statement which was written in the early 1980s. The University of Hawaii Institute for Astronomy is performing astronomical and technical studies that will form the basis of a new science plan for Mauna Kea for the first few decades of the next millennium. After this science plan is finished, a new master plan, as well as an Environmental Impact Statement will be done if more development atop O IV -N-5 OMauna Kea is planned. Further development will be directly influenced by the need for additional facilities, as well as the scientific community's consciousness and sensitivity to the geological, cultural, biological, and religious aspects of Mauna Kea. The Department of Land and Natural Resources lacks the resources needed to ensure that regulatory provisions for proper management of the resource are sufficiently reinforced and because of this, there have been several complaints by the Hawaiian community regarding construction of the newer observatories and telescopes. These complaints have included the destruction of rare insect habitats; the excavation of Puu Poliahu, a sacred site to native Hawaiians, and the cinder cone home to the legendary snow goddess; the disturbance of burial sites of the highest born and most sacred Hawaiian ancestors atop Mauna Kea; and the lack of staff at the Hale Pohaku visitor information center. Other Orisks to Mauna Kea include construction debris from telescope development, litter, four- wheel-drive off-roading, unrestricted public access and casual hiking. A Mauna Kea advisory committee, made up of community members, DLNR representatives and UH- Manoa and UH -Hilo administrators, has been put together to seek solutions to these problems. In the next 10 years, the University of Hawaii Institute for Astronomy believes that there will be a lot of need for upgrading of existing astronomy facilities. Although all of the instruments are of good quality, some of the telescopes have been there for approximately 20 years and there have been significant strides in technology and telescope construction since then. Newer telescopes such as the Keck, and the newly finished Subaruand Gemini telescopes are more sophisticated, bigger and more powerful. The Subaru, an 8.3 IV -N-6 meter telescope is the largest optical mirror in the world. Until now, the standard size for O a high powered telescope was 5 meters, with anything larger being too heavy to support. However, the Subaru uses special technology to prevent the 22 ton mirror from sagging. Other projects planned include: • A trend toward remote astronomy — approximately 75% of Keck observers work from the company's base in Waimea, and other telescopes such as the Subaru and Gemini expect to use remote operations. • Development of instruments for upcoming telescopes, including an infrared camera for Gemini, spectrographs for Subaru and Air Force telescopes, and large charge - coupled device mosaics for imaging instruments for telescopes. • Six antennas, about 20 feet across each, are being made for the Smithsonian O Astrophysical Observatory's $40 million submillimeter array telescope. • The Keck Observatory is planning to put four 2 -meter telescopes next to the two' 10 - meter telescopes already there. The Gemini should open by February or March of 1999, and the Smithsonian radio array, the 12'h observatory on Mauna Kea should be completed in approximately 2 years. According to the Hawaii Island High Tech Strategic Plan, developed in January 1997 by the Hawaii Island Economic Development Board, it is estimated that by the year 2000 approximately $50 million will be contributed annually to the Island of Hawaii economy as a result of astronomical activities. This is in addition to the over $600 million that has already been spent on construction of the observatories and telescopes. Also, 85% of the O IV -N-7 Oestimated 300-400 permanent jobs dealing with the technical, scientific and support areas is expected to be filled by local residents. IV -N-8 SATELLITE LAUNCHING FACILITY O BACKGROUND OF INDUSTRY In the mid 1980's, Space Services, Inc. (SSI), a private corporation based in Houston, Texas, was the first organization to seek approval for establishing a permanent satellite launching facility in the County of Hawaii. The firm's proposal provided for methods of space transportation and services for the development of space and non -terrestrial resources. It was also intended for these services to be made available to other agencies desiring to place communication, scientific or observation satellites into orbit. Opposition by environmentalist and community activists later caused SSI to abandon its efforts, although other groups have continued with their attempts to develop South Point O as a satellite launching facility. From 1990 until 1994 former Governor John Waihee's administration established the Office of Space Industry (OSI) and spent in excess of $8 million on studies for the Ka'u satellite launching project. Funding for the OSI ceased in 1995 and the satellite launching industry on the Island of Hawaii has since been at a stand still. Despite the failed attempts to develop a satellite launching facility, prospects for further development of this sector of commerce has continued. In the summer of 1998, Hawaii entered into a competition with 17 other states to launch NASA's new space shuttle; a single stage triangular rocket ship called the Venturestar. This project is being developed O IV -O-1 Oin conjunction with the Lockheed Martin Corporation. Upon assessment, it was determined that Hawaii was not able to meet the financial and time requirements needed to complete the launching and landing facilities by the required 2003 deadline. Though the State did propose the use of Kona International Airport at Keahole's 11,000 -foot runway for use in the project, project developers opposed sharing the commercial facility with others and wanted its own runway developed. For this reason Hawaii withdrew from the competition. If the State were able to accommodate the Venturestar effort, it would have generated approximately 3,000 new jobs for isle residents. Optimal sites for satellite launching are few, however, there are other sites that would be competitive with Hawaii such as the recent test site of a converted oil platform located Oapproximately 1,400 miles south of Hawaii. This site is located very near the equator, which allows a rocket to carry more weight into space than from other latitudes. FUTURE OUTLOOK As for the future, the Island of Hawaii is still considered a superior location for satellite launchings. Its close proximity to the equator allows for one of the shortest routes of orbit. SSI previously stated that this site allows for space launching into low -earth polar orbits without having to cross any landmasses for approximately 1,000 miles. This allows satellite boosters to drop safely into the ocean. Hawaii's consistently good weather also provides a marketable advantage in the satellite/space sector. IV -0-2 With its unique and optimal location, weather conditions, and reputation as a world-class O site for astronomy and space exploration, it would be to the Island of Hawaii's benefit to continue pursuing opportunities within the multi -billion dollar space industry that has the potential of creating thousands of new jobs and injecting millions of dollars into the Island of Hawaii economy. The recent lack of state government commitment and funding for this potentially lucrative future economic activity will likely stall the development of the space industry/satellite launching economic sector in the near future. IV -0-3 MILITARY ACTIVITIES Military expenditures in the County constitute a primary economic sector income generator. These are expenditures made in the County by the Department of Defense for goods and services purchased. They do not constitute a service in themselves, but rather the effect is similar to expenditures made by tourists. The State of Hawaii is the location of nine major military installations. Two smaller camps located on the Island of Hawaii are the Pohakuloa Training Area and Kilauea Military Camp, Joint Services Recreation Center, both are void of permanently stationed fighting units. According to Exhibit IV -P- 1, the Department of Defense appropriated direct expenditures or obligations of $37.8 million to the County of Hawaii in 1997, an increase of 84.4 percent in comparison with appropriations of $20.5 million in 1987. The Department of Defense's direct expenditures to the Island of Hawaii is equivalent to 1.19 percent of the total funds appropriated to the State of Hawaii. !�' Military presence on the Island of Hawaii is represented by the United States Army. The U.S. Army operates a field training facility at Pohakuloa and operates a military recreational camp at Kilauea. The Pohakuloa Training Area was established in 1955 and resides halfway between Hilo and Kona, incorporating 108,000 acres. The base camp employs 25 active duty personnel and 119 civilian personnel. Fighting units stationed elsewhere, such as the 25th Infantry Division (L), the 3rd Marine Regiment, the 29th Brigade (SEP), and the Hawaii National Guard, travel to Pohakuloa to utilize the base's combat training facilities for various periods of time. An estimate of 27,000 IV -P-1 EXHIBIT -IV -P -I DIRECT FEDERAL EXPENDITURES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE STATE OF HAWAII AND HAWAII COUNTY 1987-1997 Year State of Hawaii County of Hawaii $ million 1987 2,502.9 20.5 1988 2,564.1 32.3 1989 2,804.8 25.0 1990 2,602.6 20.1 1991 2,935.7 55.7 1992 2,895.6 41.7 1993 2,928.0 38.4 1994 3,212.2 49.1 1995 2,900.6 32.8 1996 3,258.1 41.1 1997 3,178.6 37.8 Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Consolidated Federal Funds Report. troops train at Pohakuloa each year. While the Army, for security reasons, is unable to disclose the exact nature of its training plans and the timing thereof, it is estimated that the military payroll expenses are about $1 million per year and contract expenditures are about $20 million at Pohakuloa. The Kilauea Military Camp, Joint Services Recreation Center consists of 52 acres atop Kilauea Summit, roughly 30 miles south of Hilo. The recreational camp has been operated by the army since 1921 and consists of cabins and apartments totaling 68 available units, along with two large dormitory units. The army employs 14 active duty O IV -P-2 Opersonnel and 120 civilian personnel to operate and maintain the lodgings and recreational facilities available, which includes a bowling center, gym, golf course, tennis courts, softball field, basketball and volleyball courts, a mini health center, a library, and a recreational center. FUTURE OUTLOOK For the County of Hawaii, military activities are not considered a major primary economic sector accounting for less than $40 million in direct expenditures. The current position of the Federal government calls for the downsizing and the restructure of the U.S. military. The Island of Hawaii has been experiencing a decrease of military personnel and dependants, as depicted in Exhibit IV -P-2. Further downsizing, funding Oand even base closings may occur on the Island of Hawaii as the Federal government pursues limiting military spending. As a result, military activities will not be a major economic sector on the. Island of Hawaii in the foreseeable future and will more than likely show a decrease in economic activity IV -P-3 a. 0 L rA b A U t V1 ON M Vl 00 00 M .-. 00 �o rf •-' h W m N 'n M Cl) �D N M IC N N V .. -+ M to A O V m N 00 (31,h t— O� `o �--� N M Vl \O O O O E01 N tt h h 00 110 00 M '/1 D, d' d' O` m 'd' �o O v U L 00 FO d 00 t v1 O t- h "O M ON O a, 011 t-00 V1 O 00 00 +A+ t- 00 �O m N Vl h N D\ 00 N 4 � O — 00 �O 1, m F O C Ori. Ca N N a, � N H N H Y N aye H1-. H N 4 N O O cd O A O O V 00 U .. a, O1, 9 (1 FILM INDUSTRY BACKGROUND OF INDUSTRY The film industry in Hawaii started with humble beginnings in 1898 with the filming of three one -minute travelogues. The first Hollywood production occurred in 1913 with the filming of Hawaiian Love and The Shark God. Since then, over 150 movies have been shot, partly or entirely, in Hawaii, including such memorable ones as From Here To Eternity, South Pacific, and Blue Hawaii. The first television series to be filmed in the islands was Adventures In Paradise in 1959, with over 100 other programs filming either single episodes, such as Full House, Growing Pains, and The Brady Bunch, or serials in the isles, including the two most successful to date, Hawaii Five -O and Magnum P.I. OMost recently (March 1999), the State of Hawaii attracted the producers of Baywatch, the world's most watched syndicated television series, who will relocate their show to Hawaii for at least 2 years (and possibly 6 years) and rename the series Baywatch Hawaii. Baywatch currently draws about 9.25 million viewers weekly in the United States and about 100 million viewers in 148 countries. The producers of Baywatch Hawaii have committed to filming 44 one-hour episodes over the next two years and it is estimated that the economic benefit to Hawaii will be about $20 million per season. The first film ever to be shot in the County of Hawaii was The Hidden Pearls in 1918. OSince then, there have been over 20 films, one weekly television series, and numerous IV -Q-1 television commercials, music videos, documentaries, and magazine and calendar shoots O that have used the Island of Hawaii as a background. Besides the film industry, there are various industries that benefit from these big productions. For example, when Waterworld was filmed, Honolulu Shipyard, Inc. built the set for the film in Honolulu and towed it to the Island of Hawaii, thus bringing in millions of dollars into the shipping industry. The tourism industry also benefits from the "free" advertisements received through television shows, commercial shoots and movies shot in Hawaii, as well as hotel accommodations, food, beverage and retail spending and related tourism activities. The film industry in the County of Hawaii has recently been booming, thanks in large part to the 1994 filming of Waterworld, which brought a total of $35 million into the economy, or approximately $250,000 per location day. Because of this surge in the film O industry, a Big Island Film Office was established in 1995, with commissioner Marilyn Killeri at the helm. The office is funded by both the State and the County of Hawaii, with the expectations that it will promote the Island of Hawaii to filmmakers, and provide resources and services to filmmakers worldwide. Although a one-person office, Ms. Killen gets information requests from filmmakers anywhere from thirty to fifty times a month, responding to over 300 inquiries regarding filmmaking on the Island of Hawaii each year. Depending on the type of shoot, film productions contribute various amounts of money into the economy. For example, domestic and international commercial shoots can bring in anywhere from $150,000 to $500,000, while documentaries bring in up to $20,000. IV -Q-2 OPhoto shoots, both domestic and international, such as the ones done by Honda, Jeep and Marlboro in 1998, also bring in a substantial amount of money, along with hiring crews of as many as 60 people. Feature films also make a significant contribution to the economy, depending on the length of their stay, and as mentioned before, Waterworld brought $35 million into the Island of Hawaii economy. The Big Island Film Office has developed various resources to aid the film industry. Creating data bases of a wide selection of local businesses and individuals for crew and production support, and expanding their photo library to include private lands, as well as County, State and National Park lands are just a few things that the office has been doing to boost the film industry. Outside of the Big Island Film Office, other businesses are Ohelping by doing things such as doubling the availability of rental equipment (from 1996) and local production houses have been upgrading their equipment to remain technologically up-to-date. The Big Island Film Office also increases its efforts by participating in numerous trade shows, festivals and conferences each year, including the Association of Film Commissioners International Cineposium, the Film Hawaii USA/Tokyo trade show, the Locations international trade show, and various other functions. Ads promoting the Island of Hawaii as a first-class film location have also appeared in Locations Magazine and the Hawaii Production Index. Additional listings have been published in such industry directories as The Hollywood Reporter Blue -Book Film and TV Production Directory, Motion Picture TV and Theatre Directory, Shots -Location Service Guide, and O IV -Q-3 Creative Industry Handbook. Film Commissioner Marilyn Killeri has also contributed O articles and columns in several publications such as Hawaii Business, The Honolulu Advertiser, Pacific Business News, Location Update, and Media Inc. The Big Island Film Office website also features hundreds of location photos, crew listings and permit information for filmmakers researching the use of the Island of Hawaii as a potential film site. In 1997 Governor Ben Cayetano proposed a bill that would grant producers tax credits to bring their productions to Hawaii. The new incentives include a 4 percent credit on all production costs, and a 7 percent hotel room tax credit. Governor Cayetano credited these incentives as the reason the film industry was so successful in 1998. In addition to the incentives, many local companies donate products and services in exchange for a O mention in the credits and/or on -air exposure. For example, the Hilton Waikoloa provided Baywatch cast and crew with 47 rooms, worth approximately $100,000, when the production was there to film an episode about the hotel's Dolphin Quest program. The Hilton was mentioned during the episode, as well as being promoted visually. A Hawaiian Airlines airplane was also shown in the episode in exchange for free transportation for the cast and crew from Los Angeles. HISTORICAL MARKET TRENDS From 1988 to 1997, over $557 million in production costs have been spent in the state (see Exhibit IV -Q-1). 1989 was a profitable year for the industry in Hawaii, bringing in $61.6 million, due in large part to the filming of Jake and the Fat Man, and the Richard IV -Q-4 Exhibit IV -Q-1 OState of Hawaii: Motion Picture and Television Production Expenditures/Tax Revenues In Millions Major projects affecting statistics: * Island Son (TV Series), Jake & The FatMan (TV Series) ** Raven (TV Series) *** WaterWorld (Motion. Picture), Byrds of Paradise (TV Series) One West Waikiki (TV Series), Marker (TV Series) Production Income Year Expenditures Sales Generated Generated Tax Revenues State/Local 1988 $24.8 $41.7 $26.8 $4.6 $3.810.8 1989* 61.6 103.5 66.7 11.3 9.3/2.0 1990* 58.3 97.9 63.1 10.7 8.8/1.9 1991 35.4 59.5 38.3 6.5 5.4/1.1 1992** 56.8 95.4 61.5 10.5 8.6/1.9 1993 45.0 75.6 48.7 8.3 6.8/1.5 1994*** 96.5 162.1 104.5 17.8 14.6/3.2 1995 49.0 82.3 53.1 9.0 7.4/1.6 1996 59.7 100.3 64.6 10.9 9.0/1.9 192Z 70.7 118.8 zu M 10.7/2.3 TOTAL $557.80 1937.10 $603.90 $102.60 $84.4/18.2 Major projects affecting statistics: * Island Son (TV Series), Jake & The FatMan (TV Series) ** Raven (TV Series) *** WaterWorld (Motion. Picture), Byrds of Paradise (TV Series) One West Waikiki (TV Series), Marker (TV Series) Chamberlain series, Island Son. Thanks to the televisions series Fantasy Island and Wind on Water, the film industry brought $70.7 million in 1997, the highest production expenditures since 1994 when Waterworld was filmed, in addition to 3 television series, Byrds of Paradise, One West Waikiki, and Marker. Because the Big Island Film Office was opened in 1995, prior to that there were no clear records of the impact of the film industry in the County of Hawaii. Before the opening of the Film Office, the film industry was not an organized effort. It was initially under the tourism department and it was a shared effort -- whoever was available would give tours to interested production companies. Since 1996, the amount of money brought into the Island of Hawaii economy has been O steadily increasing. In the fiscal year 1996, approximately $4.2 million was made from the various projects done there. In its first year in existence, the Big Island Film Office extensively promoted the County of Hawaii by creating a website, developing a logo, distributing a Island of Hawaii calendar, and advertising in publications such as Kempsey International, Locations Magazine, the Media Index, and Hawaii State Film and Video Directory. Some of the filmmaking highlights of the year were tapings of Wheel of Fortune, MTV's Beach MTV, and the Fox FX Breakfast Show, as well as numerous domestic and international commercials and print ads. IV -Q-6 ODuring the fiscal year 1997, filmmakers from around the world traveled to the County of Hawaii to produce over 150 print, video and film productions, which brought approximately $5 million into the Island of Hawaii economy. These crews came from places such as England, France, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, Australia and the mainland United States to utilize Hawaii's unique beauty and culture. Scouting representatives from several high-profile production companies, including 20`h Century Fox, Tri/Star Sony Pictures, Disney/Touchstone Pictures and Hollywood Pictures, and Universal and Victoria Film Production also visited the County of Hawaii. The fiscal year 1998 also showed an increase over the previous year, resulting in approximately $7 million that was brought into the Island of Hawaii economy. The Film OOffice continued its aggressive promotion and advertising and met with big name Hollywood studios such as Warner Brothers, Disney, Columbia Tri-Star, and DreamWorks. The industry was aided in part by the filming of an episode of the internationally syndicated series Baywatch and the filming of a pilot for NBC, Wind on Water, as well as numerous other film, television and print productions. CURRENT CONDITIONS Fiscal year 1999 is proving to be the biggest since 1994 when Waterworld was filmed on the Island of Hawaii. To date, approximately $10 million has been brought into the County of Hawaii economy, with a few more months still remaining in the fiscal year. Island of Hawaii Film Commissioner Marilyn Killeri is hopeful that by the end of the current fiscal year, $13 or $14 million will be brought in to the County. Although it was O IV -Q-7 cancelled, a large portion came in through the filming of Wind on Water, which shot 8 O episodes in the County of Hawaii, spending approximately $1.8 million an episode, 60% of which was spent in the Island of Hawaii. The show also hired 80-100 Hawaii residents, not to mention the numerous other industries that benefited from the production, including the tourism industry. FUTURE OUTLOOK According to Film Commissioner Marilyn Killeri, there are approximately 10 productions either on their way to the Island of Hawaii or already there. Within the next year or two a feature from Bandit films called Nemo is scheduled to shoot a portion of their film in the County of Hawaii, but the amount of money to be brought in by that production is unknown. The recent signing of Baywatch in Hawaii will also likely O benefit the Island of Hawaii film industry as the series is planning episodes and filming on all major islands. However, Ms. Killeri also stated that it is difficult to discuss the future outlook of the film industry for the Island of Hawaii because filmmakers can quickly change their minds about the location of their shoots. Ms. Killeri also mentioned that she is working on getting a potential series and potential feature to the Island of Hawaii. IV -Q-8 AQUACULTURE BACKGROUND OF INDUSTRY The term "aquaculture" refers to the production of plants or animals grown in salt, fresh or brackish water. Traditionally in Hawaii, producers have found that the mild year- round climate favors the growth of a number of economically important tropical, as well as, temperate -zone aquatic species. Research and commercial operations in Hawaii have focused on prawn, shrimp, algae, seaweed, trout, tilapia, mullet, catfish, abalone, lobster, oyster, opihi, frog and carp cultivation. Of these, algae and shellfish sales have shown to Oconsistently produce the largest value with algae producing over 1.2 million pounds totaling $9.1 million and shellfish producing over 600,000 pounds totaling $4.3 million in 1996. Aquaculture operations are located on all of the major islands and are primarily on the windward coasts of each island where fresh water resources are more readily available. A variety of aquaculture technologies are in use, ranging from small-scale (5 acres or less) earthen pond operations to large-scale "high-tech" concrete systems. HISTORICAL MARKET TRENDS In 1982 there were a total of 44 aquafarms in Hawaii. Employees numbered 155 full- or Opart-time positions in commercial operations and 96 positions in research, training and IV -R-1 technology transfer. In that year the value of products sold was $2.6 million. This O compares to preliminary figures for 1997 in which total production values rose to $21 million and employment grew to approximately 600 positions on 120 active aquafarms. An additional $14 million in revenues were received from research, training and technology transfer for a total industry value of $35 million for 1997. Over the past fifteen years, the State of Hawaii has shown tremendous growth in the aquaculture industry with major spurts in the value of the industry occurring in 1987 and the three most recent years of 1995 through 1997. As shown on Exhibit IV -R-1, the value of the industry increased from $3.5 million to $6.2 million between the years of 1986 and 1987. For the three most recent years, the industry increased in value from $9.0 million in 1994 to $13.3 million in 1995 to $15.7 million in 1996 and phenomenally to O approximately $21 million in 1997. The Island of Hawaii has likewise seen tremendous growth in the aquaculture industry growing from 8 farms and a value of $90,600 in 1982 to 43 farms and $13.2 million in value in 1996. The Island of Hawaii saw major growths in 1987, 1989, 1990, and 1995 (see Exhibit IV -R-2). Most of the 43 farms are small family -operated farms of less than 5 acres and some may receive government subsidies. Exhibit IV -R-3 shows a comparison of aquaculture production and values for the State of Hawaii and the various counties for years 1995 and 1996. The Island of Hawaii comprises 37% of the total aquaculture operations of the State and more significantly O IV -R-2 EXHIBIT IV -R-1 STATE OF HAWAII AQUACULTURE INDUSTRY OPERATIONS FOR YEARS 1982 TO 1996 YEAR NUMBER OF OPERATIONS ACREAGE PRODUCTION (1,000 lb.) VALUE ($1,000) 1982 44 643 551 2,625 1983 42, 496 345 1,605 1984 47 474 441 2,300 1985 48 465 583 2,780 1986 44 444 1,015 3,549 1987 45 437 1,689 6,263 1988 44 477 1,170 5,560 1989 46 479 1,264 6,835 1990 53 489 1,452 9,241 1991 71 595 1,207 6,884 1992 83 615 1,272 7,134 1993 90 640 1,296 7,469 1994 105 '605 990 9,036 1995 107 635 1,410 13,307 1996 115 695 1,992 15,656 Source: State of Hawaii Data Book - Hawaii State Department of Land and Natural Resources, Aquaculture Development Program Note: 1997 statistics have not been released by DLNR as of February 28, 1999. OCOUNTY OF HAWAII EXHIBIT IV -R-2 AQUACULTURE INDUSTRY OPERATIONS FOR YEARS 1982 TO 1996 YEAR NUMBER OF OPERATIONS ACREAGE PRODUCTION (1,0001b.) VALUE ($1,000) 1982 8 N/A 24.5 90.6 1983 8 34 22.9 90.9 1984 14 45 36.9 126.5 1985 12 54 33.4 196.5 1986 12 43 50.5 398.2 1987 13 29 79.2 762.1 1988 13 63 74.6 751.1 1989 19 63 272.8 1,967.0 1990 21 84 580.4 5,013.6 1991 .18 80 489.8 3,395.6 1992 23 92 617.4 3,968.3 1993 28 100 642.7 4,336.9 1994 34 150 630.3 6,865.5 1995 40 175 1,055.9 11,402.2 1996 43 230 1,612.5 13,197.3 Source: County of Hawaii Data Book - Hawaii State Department of Land and Natural Resources, Aquaculture Development Program Note: 1997 statistics have not been released by DLNR as of February 28, 1999. EXHIBIT IV -R-3 AQUACULTURE OPERATIONS ACREAGE, PRODUCTION, AND VALUE STATEWIDE AND BY COUNTIES 1995 AND 1996 Subject State total Hawaii Maui Honolulu Kauai 1995 Number of operations 107 40 18 38 11 Acreage (Dec. 31) 635 175 35 400 25 Production (1,000 Ib.) 1,409.60 1,055.90 50.1 303.6 (NA) Shellfish 414.6 262.1 40 112.5 (NA) Finfish 125.2 40 10.1 75.1 (NA) Algae 869.8 753.8 - 116 (NA) Other 1/ (NA) (NA) (NA) (NA) (NA) Value ($1,000) 13,306.50 11,402.20 279.1 1,625.20 (NA) Shellfish 3,462.40 2,569.60 240.2 652.6 (NA) Finfish 769.5 342.3 38.2 389 (NA) Algae 8,685.90 8,428.70 - 257.2 (NA) Other 1/ 388.7 61.6 0.7 326.4 (NA) 1996 Number of operations 115 43 19 42 11 Acreage (Dec. 31) 695 230 40 400 25 Production (1,000 lb.) 1,991.90 1,612.50 75.1 304.3 (NA) Shellfish 616.8 432.8 60 124 (NA) Finfish 129.2 66.6 15.1 47.5 (NA) Algae 1,245.90 1,113.10 (NA) 132.8 (NA) Other 1/ (NA) (NA) (NA) (NA) (NA) Value ($1,000) 15,655.70 13,197.30 402.8 2,055.60 (NA) Shellfish 4,315.50 3,188.70 350 776.8 (NA) Finfish 1,191.60 764.9 52.8 373.9 (NA) Algae 9,082.40 8,779.10 (NA) 303.3 (NA) Other 1/ 1,066.20 464.6 (NA) 601.6 (NA) NA Not available. 1/ Nonfood products: ornamental fish, seedstock, other Source: Hawaii State Department of Land and Natural Resources, Aquaculture Development Program, record Information provided by the State of Hawaii Data Book 1997. Owww.hawaii.gov.dbedt/db97/index.html accounts for over 80% of the total production and over 84% of production value for the O State. CURRENT CONDITIONS The market for seafood production is extremely strong due to local consumption that is estimated at 50 million pounds per year. While most of the production from aquaculture farms is now sold in this market, there are also large markets outside the state that producers would like to enter. In order to insure that this industry prospers, the State has an Aquaculture Development Program (ADP). This organization provides a variety of support services including: information dissemination, business counseling, marketing, animal health management and research and development funding. The Natural Energy Lab of Hawaii Authority (NELHA) located in Kona has been the site of a number of aquaculture -related research projects and large-scale operations. The cold, deep sea, nutrient -rich water available from the ocean thermal energy conversion activities at the site has provided a resource that has greatly encouraged aquaculture development in the area. As shown on Exhibit IV -R-4, numerous companies are based at NELHA. conducting research and development and commercial activities including microalgae, abalone, oyster, clam, shrimp, lobsters, sea vegetables and many others. NELHA is an investment by the State for future economic growth. The State designated $962,082 to NELHA during the fiscal year 1998, shown on Exhibit IV -R-5. Federal appropriation to NELHA was last received in the 1993 fiscal year after two prior years of O IV -R-6 EXHIBIT IV -R-4 NELHA TENANT AND PROJECT LIST Office Located at NELHA Properties as of September 1998 Project Description Aquasearch, Inc. Commercial aquaculture; research and development in microalgae Big Island Abalone Corp. Commercial aquaculture; research and development in California red abalone and Japanese northern abalone Black Pearls, Inc. Research, development, consulting and aquaculture of pearl oysters Coast Seafoods Company Commercial aquaculture: oyster and clam nursery Common Heritage Corp. Demonstration of deep ocean water integrated systems Coldwater agriculture, desalination, and industrial cooling Cyanotech Corporation Commercial aquaculture in microalgal products GTE Wireless Commercial transmitter antenna Hawaiian Bred Tropical, Inc. Research and development of tropical reef fish breeding High Health Aquaculture, Inc. Commercial aquaculture; research and development in shrimp Indo-Pacific Sea Farms Commercial aquaculture; research and development in clams and live rock Kona Bay Oyster & Shrimp Company Commercial aquaculture; research and development in shrimp stock and oysters Kona Cold Lobsters Ltd. Commercial aquaculture; research and development of Maine lobsters Marine Bioproducts International Research and development of specialty agar production Ono Take Research and development of gourmet and medicinal mushrooms Pacific Harvest, Inc. Commercial aquaculture; research and development of moi PICHTR Closed- and open -cycle OTEC research Royal Hawaiian Seafarms, Inc. Commercial aquaculture of sea vegetables, limu, sea cucumbers, opihi, and warm water abalone State University of New York (SUNY) Research of deep water copepods Taylor Shellfish -Kona Commercial aquaculture: oyster and clam nursery Thermal Energy Storage, Inc. Research of clathrate desalination UH Sea Grant Extention Service, West Hawaii Information dissemination Uwajima Fisheries Commercial aquaculture; research and development of Japanese flounder, moi, milkfish, mullet, ogo, and shrimp West Hawaii Explorations Academy (WHEA) Educational/operational laboratory school for secondary students Source: NELHA I �l a 0 0 1�0 M C14 00 ,., tn N t-- C^ r- r++ (n 00 �_ d N ON � y� Baa F7 C> O O �O O C? Y O O M O O kf) O O kin O O N O O N , O (=1 00 O O tO- -+ A + O V1 M •-+ O� N M CV A `Ov rn oma � a w O a r 00 o 4 0 00 ?.+ M 00 M GL, It - 00 cq O C> ON Tr N r- O O Q r.+ O �t b N n 000 -+ � o0 00 N O O N �. a� � 00 00 C� C� ON 01\ Q vZ �t I �l Ono funding. Ultimately, the State wants NELHA to become a self-sufficient operation, utilizing revenues and private funding. Revenue received by NELHA in 1998 totaled $845,986. One of the major producers of aquaculture is the Cyanotech production plant currently the largest tenant at NELHA in Kona, and earning a net sales of $7,627,00 for the 1998 fiscal year ending in March. Dr. Gerry Cysewski established this company in 1983. The company develops and sells natural products from microalgae. It is currently producing microalgae products for the nutritional supplement and immunological diagnostics markets in addition to microalgae-based products for the aquaculture feed/pigments and food coloring markets. The Company's technologies, systems, processes and favorable Ogrowing location permit year-round harvesting of its microalgae products in a cost- effective manner. Another tenant at NELHA is seeking to expand its operations and expects large returns from commercially raised abalone. The market for wild abalone is pegged at approximately $600 million (an estimate for black market sales included). With prices increasing as the world supply diminishes, Island of Hawaii raised abalone is expected to be a major export for Hawaii. Another potential market with aquaculture is the ornamental fish market. Ornamental fish would include freshwater tropical aquarium fish and plants. This market has just Orecently developed and is continuing to be researched. The majority of this market would IV -R-9 be for export purposes as there is a high demand from the United States and Canada for O ornamental fish. Diversification within the industry has also shown great benefits. Currently, Hawaii is making great strides in its continuous development of new production plants. Recently plans to convert the county's Puhi Bay Sewage plant into an aquaculture research and development center had commenced. The Pacific Aquaculture and Coastal Resources Center is a joint effort by the University of Hawaii at Hilo, the County, the State, and the Keaukaha Hawaiian Homelands Community Association. The focus for the center will be on research in the spawning of several fish species and providing a research and training facility for university students O and local farmers. The new center's distinction will be the capability to create water of any salinity or temperature necessary to raise fish, according to Kevin Hopkins, UH -Hilo aquaculture professor. "Because it rains so much in Hilo, we have a large freshwater resource that we can tap into," Hopkins said. "Hilo is one of the few places in the world where both warm sea water and fresh water are readily available." Users of the center will have access to freshwater and seawater through wells drilled at the site. The freshwater resource may prove beneficial for those raising freshwater ornamental fish, said Hopkins, adding the Island of Hawaii has the capability to become a large producer of aquarium fish. An expected $7.5 million will be spent on the development of the facilities. Operations are expected to add $650,000 per year to the local economy, with value added benefits expected to reach another $3 million. The Pacific Aquaculture and O IV -R-10 OCoastal Resources Center is being developed at two sites: a coastal site at Puhi Bay and an inland site at the university's agricultural farm in Panaewa, between Hilo and Kea'au (Pacific Business New, 1998). The Oceanic Institute, a 39 -year old private non-profit applied research organization for sustainable aquaculture technology, in conjunction with the University of Hawaii at Hilo, will build a fish food factory in Panaewa by the year 2000. With a $6 million budget, the Oceanic Institute pursues its ultimate goal to help alleviate impending ocean -based food shortages by developing and transferring sustainable aquaculture technologies to the public and private sector. (Pacific Business News, 1998). OFUTURE OUTLOOK The federal government has shown its support of Hawaii's aquaculture industry by approving $9 million for Hawaii aquaculture initiative in July 1997. Of this $1.6 million has been appropriated for Tropical Aquaculture Research. In addition, the venture capital partnership HMS Hawaii Management Partners announced in December 1998 that they would contribute up to $10 million to help island entrepreneurs finance their aquaculture businesses. This group consists of financial investors from Hawaii, California and Singapore, in conjunction with, Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc., Pacific Century Financial Corp., and Queen's Health Systems. At present, two aquaculture companies, Nuegenesis, a biotech company that grows protein molecules and Kona Bay Oyster & Shrimp Co., are operating on funds granted by HMS. O IV -R-11 Also key to the future of aquaculture on the Island of Hawaii is the ability of NELHA to obtain funding for two additional 55 -inch diameter pipes to increase the flow of available ocean water. One pipe will supply 4 -degree Celsius seawater from 3,000 meters down, while the other will pump warm surface water. The two pipes would allow for the construction of a 1 -megawatt OTEC plant, the expansion of current projects, and an increase in the quantity of tenants. The additional pipes will enhance NELHA's facilities prompting long-term residence for current tenants. Prospects to install high capacity and high speed data communication links to service NELHA facilities may attract additional research projects. Improved communications will improve the transfer of information into and out of the facility and allow researchers better access to data. Lack of funding may cripple NELHA by limiting resources and restricting future project expansion opportunities. A projected $15.4 million in State funding is being requested by NELHA for pipeline expansion. The increasing demand for ocean water by NELHA tenants will be alleviated by the construction of an additional surface water pipeline and a deep water pipeline. Insufficient flow of ocean water may turn away prospective tenants with a need for high volume water resources. Limited resources may also force current tenants to re -locate to other global communities where expansion opportunities are readily available. Technological advances and diversification in Hawaii's aquaculture industry has improved the viability of this industry with the future outlook being optimistic. The U. S. O IV -R-12 ODepartment of Agriculture reports that aquaculture is the fastest growing segment of agriculture in the United States. Hawaii's pioneering efforts into the aquaculture industry together with its natural resources, technological expertise, established infrastructure, and public support will continue to place Hawaii at the leading edge of this fast growing industry. IV -R-13 COMMERCIAL FISHING BACKGROUND OF INDUSTRY There are several types of economically driven fishing activities that come under the category of commercial fishing. There are the licensed commercial fishermen who earn a large or substantial part of their income from commercial fishing. There are the part- time or recreational fishermen who fish for enjoyment as well as supplementing their primary income source. There are also local individual fishermen who fish for subsistence. Another group is the sport or charter -boat fishermen who sell their prize catches to local fish buyers. Also included are pond catches, where fish caught have a O commercial value. Commercial fishing is a relatively large industry in the State of Hawaii accounting for over $53 million in value statewide. The island of Oahu generates the majority of the commercial fishing activity accounting for more than 80 percent of the state's total pounds sold and dollar value. The Island of Hawaii is a distant second, accounting for 14 percent of the state's total pounds sold. On the Island of Hawaii, commercial fishing activity is primarily based in Hilo and Kona. Hilo has been the main center of commercial fishing activities, primarily because it is the home of the Suisan Fish Auction, one of the largest fish auctions in the State. However, O IV -S-1 Obecause tourism is centered in Kona, most of the island's sports fishing takes place there. Kona is the home of many world renown fishing tournaments, including the Hawaiian International Billfish Tournament. HISTORICAL AND CURRENT CONDITIONS The majority of economic activity in the commercial fishing industry comes from licensed commercial fishing. The leading method of commercial fishing is longline fishing which is the method used to catch fish that are members of the tuna family, such as Bigeye (ahi), Yellowfin (ahi), and Skipjack (aku). The tuna catch make up for approximately 55 percent of the total amount of fish caught. Other popular methods of fishing include: handline which is used to catch a variety of bottomfish, trolling, Otraditional line casting and netting. Together these methods make up the other 45 percent of the catch in the commercial fishing industry. Commercial fishing has seen tremendous growth over the years, increasing from statewide pounds sold of 8.8 million pounds in 1982 to 24.6 million pounds in 1997. The sales value of commercial fishing has also increased dramatically growing from $10.7 million in 1982 to $53.3 million in 1997 (See Exhibit IV -S-1). Hawaii's commercial fishing industry peaked in 1993 with over 24.5 million pounds sold at a value of $61.1 million. Since then, the sales value has decreased to $53.3 million in 1997. IV -S-2 EXHIBIT IV -S-1 O STATE OF HAWAII COMMERCIAL FISH LANDINGS AND VALUE FOR THE YEARS 1982 TO 1997 YEAR CATCH (LBS) SOLD (LBS) VALUE ($) 1982 9,178,789 8,824,348 10,754,276 1983 7,841,959 7,529,178 10,506,860 1984 9,819,800 9,344,200 13,556,184 1985 9,436,591 9,077,357 15,901,656 1986 9,503,193 9,081,881 18,557,533 1987 12,128,527 11,628,387 20,477,699 1988 11,052,502 10,592,287 20,541,580 1989 14,008,279 13,524,731 29,815,290 1990 16,663,945 16,090,478 39,902,182 1991 22,218,099 21,331,184 53,769,946 1992, 23,578,601 22,761,039 55,381,574 1993 25,209,513 24,562,796 61,059,027 1994 24,028,693 23,310,535 57,999,092 1995 23,970,722 22,945,408 55,283,593 1996 23,968,916 23,018,189 52,443,466 1997 25,319,795 24,589,553 53,343,330 Source: Hawaii State Department of Land and Natural Resources, Division of Aquatic Resources OThe island of Oahu accounts for the majority of the commercial fishing with over eighty percent of the statewide pounds sold and sales value. The Island of Hawaii is second with 14 percent of the pounds sold and 11 percent of the sales value. The largest seafood distributor on the Island of Hawaii is Suisan Company Limited, which operates the only fish auction in the County of Hawaii. Suisan is also the second largest auction in the state and provides not only seafood for the Island of Hawaii but also markets seafood products to the rest of the State, the U.S. mainland and throughout the Asia-Pacific areas. Other smaller seafood distributors include Flying Seafoods, Inc. located in Kailua-Kona, Mid -Pacific Hawaii Fisheries in Hilo, and Royal Hawaiian Sea Farms in Kailua-Kona. Exhibit IV -S-2 shows the commercial fish landings and its value for the County of Hawaii. Figures include catches made by all of the commercial fishing groups. The data shows that the county has been producing an average of 3.5 million pounds of fish over the past ten years. In 1997 the county brought in 3.7 million pounds of catch and sold 3.5 million pounds worth $6.1 million. This accounts for 14 percent of the total fish landings for the state. The County of Hawaii remains as the state's second largest commercial fishing producer. The County of Hawaii has a total of thirteen harbors and boat launching facilities around the island, each briefly described below. O IV -S-4 EXHIBIT IV -S-2 O HAWAII COUNTY COMMERCIAL FISH LANDINGS AND VALUE FOR THE YEARS 1982 TO 1997 YEAR CATCH (LBS) SOLD (LBS) VALUE ($) 1982 3,223,524 3,138,057 4,146,696 1983 2,492,745 2,416,510 3,686,332 1984 2,700,799 2,583,311 3,698,171 1985 2,476,840 2,377,538 3,536,934 1986 2,644,335 2,550,696 3,830,814 1987 3,818,341 3,717,915 4,802,594 1988 2,438,212 2,636,229 4,084,482 1989 3,175,529 3,080,678 5,484,922 1990 2,783,460 2,680,145 4,93 5,260 1991 3,183,210 2,457,006 4,362,803 1992 3,503,554 3,339,129 5,540,676 1993 3,647,844 3,498,314 5,942,630 1994 3,585,174 3,419,462 6,194,663 1995 3,429,604 3,243,744 6,248,168 1996 3,659,633 3,452,938 5,803,628 1997 3,737,883 3,534,356 6,108,304 Source: Hawaii State Department of Land and Natural Resources, Division of Aquatic Resources OHawaii District Boating Facilities Honokohau Boat Harbor • Located on the west coast of Hawaii approximately three miles northwest of Kailua-Kona Wharf • Consists of a dredged channel that leads to two basins • 250 moorings • two 30 -foot wide two-lane ramps • 1 pier • Fuel facility, oil disposal shed, harbor office Kailua-Kona Wharf • Located on the west coast of Hawaii, and marked by the Kailua Light. • Approximately 350 feet long • 11 recreational berths • One 16 -foot wide single -lane ramp • Cargo shed and storage area; restrooms • Fishing crane Kaulana Ramp O• Located on the southern tip of the Island of Hawaii • One 20 -foot wide single lane ramp Kawaihae Boat Harbor • Located on the west coast of Hawaii approximately 33 miles northeast of Kailua-Kona • 8 moorings • One 15 -foot wide ramp Kawaihae Harbor — North • Approximately 33 miles northeast of Kailua-Kona • Within a commercial harbor. • 12 moorings • 1 ramp • 1 pier Kawaihae Harbor — South • Approximately 33 miles northeast of Kailua-Kona • Within a commercial harbor. O• 40 moorings IV -S-6 Keauhou Boat Harbor • Approximately five miles south of Kailua-Kona • The bay is 300 yards wide • 15 moorings • One double -lane, 30 -foot wide ramp • 1 pier • Boat hoist Pohoiki Ramp • Located on the southeast point of the Island of Hawaii • One single -lane, 18 -foot wide ramp Puako Ramp • Located on the west coast of Hawaii approximately 31 miles from Kailua- Kona • One single -lane, 18 -foot wide ramp • 1 pier Reed's Bay • Located between Radio Bay Boat Harbor and the Wailoa Sampan Basin in Hilo Bay O • 32 moorings Wailoa Sampan Basin and Boat Harbor • Located south of the Wailoa River mouth, within Hilo Bay • 55 moorings • 2 ramps Kauhako (Hookena) Ramp • Located approximately 34 miles northeast of Ka Lae Point, on the southeastern shores of Hawaii • 1 ramp Milolii Landing • Located approximately two miles north of Hanamo Point, on the southwestern shore of Hawaii • 1 ramp • 1 fish hoist Source: Hawaii State Department of Land and Natural Resources, Division of Boating and Ocean Recreation O IV -S-7 FUTURE OUTLOOK The growth and success of the commercial fishing industry is dependent on a variety of factors including ocean conditions, weather, and the supply of fish. These factors can place major limitations on the successful growth of the commercial fishing industry. Human factors can also place constraints on commercial fishing including over -fishing and pollution Over the past five years the statewide commercial fishing industry showed a very consistent and stable amount of catch and pounds sold averaging approximately 24 million pounds annually. However, the total dollar value of fish sold has shown a Odefinitive decline, peaking in 1993 at $61 million and dropping to $53 million in 1997, showing signs of economic strain and outside competition to the industry. The County of Hawaii, which accounts for about 14 percent of the statewide commercial industry, has also shown stable catch and poundage sold over the past 5 years, averaging a consistent 3.6 million and 3.4 million pounds, respectively. However, unlike the declining statewide figures in dollar value sold, the County of Hawaii has shown a consistent level of dollar value sold over the past 5 years, averaging a consistent $6.1 million. This indicates that the County of Hawaii is fairing better than the rest of the state in the commercial fishing industry and historical trends indicate that this industry of the County of Hawaii can expect to remain stable in the foreseeable future. O IV -S-8 FORESTRY BACKGROUND OF INDUSTRY The forestry products industry is the tenth largest industry sector in the world. The industry is global in terms of trade and investment. Unlike other large-scale, capital intensive industries that are dependent on the supply of raw materials, the forestry product industry is based on long-term renewable resources, i.e. planted forests. The industry is split into two main product groups, pulp and paper (with an export equivalent annual sales value of approximately $200 billion) and mechanical forest products (with an annual value of approximately $130 billion). The total natural and plantation forest area in the world covers over 2.8 billion hectares O (approximately 7 billion acres), of which 70% are productive and the remaining acreage generally inaccessible. Plantation or commercially grown forests accounts for only 3 percent of the total forest resource base. Hawaii's forests cover approximately two million acres (800,000 hectares), approximately one half of the total land area of the state, although much of the land is not productive for commercial timber. There are many public benefits that forests provide other than for commercial timber. For example, forests provide essential watersheds for agriculture and the growing urban population. It also provides a habitat for many rare and endangered flora and fauna and enhances the quality of air. In addition, much of the beautiful scenery for which Hawaii is famous is due to its lush forest cover. O IV -T-1 ODevelopment of a sustainable forestry industry in Hawaii could reap substantial economic benefits, as Hawaii is centrally located in the Pacific and could be a major transshipment hub for timber to and from Asia, U.S. Mainland, and South America. In addition, Hawaii's temperate climate is ideal for year round growth of trees. A recent study on the growth rates achieved in eucalyptus trial plantations in Hawaii have been analyzed by the Hawaiian Sugar Planters Association's Yield Study final report of November 1993, the BioEnergy Development Corporation studies, and work commissioned by the Department of Land and Natural Resources. The findings of the study reported that the growth rate of the eucalyptus trial plantings in Hawaii were substantially greater than those of Papua New Guinea, West Australia, Solomon Islands, and Sabah. In addition, the results indicated that Hawaii's growth rate was superior to OBrazil, one of the largest growers of eucalyptus trees in the world (source: Hawaii Forestry Investment Memorandum, 1994). HISTORICAL MARKET TRENDS The forestry industry in Hawaii can be traced as far back as the early 1800's, during which time, the logging and trading of sandalwood were big business. King Kamehameha I was instrumental in the development and promotion of sandalwood trading. Hawaii has experienced almost 100 years of trial plantings of exotic tree species. The State of Hawaii has for many years financed the majority of trial plantings and offered IV -T-2 the results freely to the industry. The following are examples of the recorded results of O the trial plantings throughout the State: • As early as 1887, it was reported that about 200,000 trees of useful species had been planted in government plantations • in 1947, L. W. Bryan reported on 25 years of forestry work on the island of Hawaii • in 1959, N. K. Carlson and L. W. Bryan provided detailed information about several important timber species • between 1965 and 1968, a series of survey reports was produced for all major islands for 40,000 acres of forest plantations established between 1930-40. The reports contained information on forest plantation area, timber volume, O stand yields and age of stands • in 1963, a major report by G. B. Richmond provided details of the species trials at the Waiakea Arboretum near Hilo • in 1994, a Hawaii Forestry Investment Memorandum prepared by Groome Poyry Limited for DBEDT provided detailed information about the potential of establishing a forestry industry in Hawaii (source: State of Hawaii Forestry Investment Memorandum, 1994). CURRENT CONDITIONS Although there is a lack of updated data on the total inventory of commercial forest globally, there has been a noticeable decrease in global production of hardwood supply O IV -T-3 Oover the past five years. One indicator of this decrease is the change in trade patterns from some of the major hardwood consumers in Asia. As a result of stagnant or declining supply from traditional supply regions in the U.S. Northwest and British Columbia, countries with strong forestry product demand such as South Korea, Japan, China, Taiwan, Malaysia, Philippines, and Indonesia are currently receiving shipment of hardwoods from alternative supply sources such as Southern United States, Chile, and South Africa, a market that Hawaii would be well positioned to compete. In addition to a decrease in hardwood supply, there has also been an increase in global interest of plantation forestry investment by pension funds and wood users themselves. The trend of pension funds investment in forestry could be an important source of Ocommercial forestry investment growth in Hawaii, as one of the greatest hurdles most commercial forest growers face is the lack of funding by investors, due to the relatively low return of investment during the initial start-up of a forest plantation. The State of Hawaii. Legislature recognizes that the downsizing of the sugar and pineapple industries in Hawaii presents an opportunity for the conversion of agriculture into new types of diversified agriculture with commercial forestry being an essential part. There are in excess of 80,000 acres of agricultural lands in "ready -to -plant condition" and 50 million gallons of water per day of irrigation water as a result of the downsizing of sugar and pineapple. Also available are supporting infrastructure including irrigation systems, roads, drainage systems, processing facilities, workshops and warehouses. In IV -T-4 addition, Hawaii has an experienced agricultural work force as well as eight developed O ports statewide with two on the Island of Hawaii (Hilo Harbor and Kawaihae Harbor). Forestry plantations are relatively benign in use when compared with sugar cane. Substitution of six to 30 year crop cycles in forestry compared with a 1.5 to 2 -year crop cycle in sugarcane and pineapple will allow ecological processes to achieve greater complexity and stability. It is well understood that tourism is Hawaii's number one revenue generator for the State of Hawaii and there are no signs that this will change any time soon. Forestry development, unlike other forms of diversified agriculture, can be marketed along side tourism as an "eco -tourism" asset. Recent research in New Zealand by the Tourist O Industry Federation has shown that "a short walk in the forest" is the most popular activity for the visiting tourist. The development of good walking paths along with proper signage and educational materials could provide visitors with a greater understanding of the forestry industry and could complement beach activities in many parts of Hawaii. The absence of leeches, snakes, and other dangerous animals make Hawaii an attractive destination for eco -tourists. The promotion of forestry as an eco - tourism activity in Hawaii may not only benefit our number one tourism industry, but will also help to attract people into the forest and reduce their opposition to forest growing and processing activities. r�l IV -T-5 OThe closing of the sugar industry has led to one of hottest debates on the Island of Hawaii over the past several years. -The fight over government -controlled, vacant sugar lands continue as Island of Hawaii residents are strongly supportive of diversified agriculture as a means of replacing lost jobs as opposed to a forestry industry, which has the perception of being a non -labor intensive industry. Opposition to forestry has led the Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) to reject a major state lease on the Island of Hawaii for forestry, thus turning away the third largest forest product company in the world, Oji Paper Company and Marubeni Corp. This loss has been estimated to cost $40 million in investment and the loss of over 300 newly created jobs (Honolulu Star Bulletin, 1997) According to DLNR, commercial forestry, or agri-forestry, is part of diversified Oagriculture and can co -exist with other forms of diversified agriculture. Furthermore, DLNR confirmed that agricultural lands accessible to existing irrigation systems could be and should be reserved for other diversified agriculture like taro, papaya, ginger, and other nursery crops rather than forestry plantations. In 1993, an Environmental Assessment was submitted for public review that set aside more than 1,500 acres of former Hamakua sugar lands for such diversified Agriculture. Much of this land still has not been fully utilized and is available to local farmers. There are some bright spots, which provide some hope for the future of forestry on the Island of Hawaii. Prudential Timber Investments, Inc. (PruTimber), already on its way of creating a 15,500 -acre eucalyptus plantation on Bishop Estate land on the Hamakua OCoast, will soon expand to another 5,000 acres of Bishop Estate land in the Ka'u district. IV -T-6 The announcement was made by Forest Solutions Inc., which manages the Hamakua plantation for PruTimber and will also manage the Ka'u plantation. Besides the new Ka'u plantings, Forest Solutions, Inc. will also manage 3,000 acres of native forest on Bishop Estate land. PruTimber will invest $5 million in Ka'u in each of the next two years and create 30 to 40 jobs. The company is investing $29 million in Hamakua and has already created 100 full-time jobs there. Another mainland investment company, Strother Timberlands of Troy, Alabama, purchased 1,575 acres of former Puna sugarcane land from Kea'au Agricultural Land Corp. for $1.4 million. Strother plans to sell 50 percent of the acquired lands to bring down the base cost of the remaining land and plans to grow pine trees for wood chips to O make paper products (Pacific Business News, December 1998). The combination of commercial forestry and real estate development go hand-in-hand and could be promoted to attract more mainland and foreign investors to Hawaii, which helps in reducing the high cost of land acquisition in Hawaii. There is a definite domino effect to the island economy as the development of forestry/real estate projects will create jobs that help the displaced agriculture workers and also provide opportunities to secondary job sectors such as construction, real estate services, architecture, etc. There are various organizations and individuals that are very interested in promoting the establishment of a thriving commercial forestry industry in Hawaii. According to Andrea Beck, Hawaii Forest Industry Association (HFIA) executive, Hawaii's forest industry O IV -T-7 Owas worth about $28.9 million in 1991 (the most recent figures), ahead of coffee and papayas. The HFIA is also seeking two actions: a $500,000 request in the Legislature to match federal forestry money, and pro -forestry property tax changes on Ka'uai and the Island of Hawaii. In 1981, the Division of Forestry and Wildlife conducted a study on the Island of Hawaii identifying the best potential forestland, regardless of its current use. Criteria such as rainfall, soil type and substrate, drainage, slope, elevation, exposure to wind and ocean spray, and historical growth data were included. Three forestland classes were designated based on the site's ability to grow wood products. Due to the superior growth rate in Hawaii compared to the mainland United States, three forest land classes were Ochosen to differentiate the sites (Prime 1, Prime 2, and National Standard). Another class of land was identified as unique and capable of growing a sustained yield of special, high-value species, such as Acacia Koa (source: Hawaii Forestry Investment Memorandum, 1994). The results of the study showed that there is ample land available to establish a forest plantation industry in Hawaii (see Exhibit IV -T-1). DISTRICTS Prime 1 and Prime 2 classified forestlands are considered excellent for growing forest products. On the Island of Hawaii, only 52 percent of Prime 1 land were in forest cover in 1981. Most of these lands are located along the Hamakua Coast between 1,000 and 3,000 feet above sea level elevations. IV -T-8 Prime Forest Land on Island of Hawaii Classification or Percentage of Present Cover Acres Hectares Prime Forest land Prime 1 45,373 18,362 4.2 Prime 2 573,628 232,144 53.1 National Standard 407,265 164,818 37.7 Unique Koa 38,891 15,739 3.6 Tree Fern 15,123 6,120 1.4 Total 1,080,280 437,183 100.0 Island of Hawaii: Prime and Unique Forest Land Tree Fern 1% Unique Koa 4% National Prime 1 Standard 4% 38% I Prime 2 53% 17 Prime 1 ■Prime 2 ❑ National Standard ❑ Unique Koa ■Tree Fern Exhibit IV -T-1 OThere is ample rainfall• on the Hilo-Hamakua Coast, which is the main area of forestry interest for the establishment of forestry plantations. The Kona Coast and Ka'u are considered too dry for growing, with the exception of a few pockets of land, which receive satisfactory rainfall for growing alternative species commercially. Except for the two areas mentioned above, the median monthly rainfall is generally well distributed. The closing of the sugar industry on the Island of Hawaii -has been dramatic over the past 20 years. In 1976, sugar production accounted for over 94,000 acres. Today, there is virtually no production as all of the major sugar companies and processing companies have folded. Over two-thirds of the lands once used for sugar cane on the Island of Hawaii is considered Prime 1 and Prime 2 land. O There is an estimated 80,000 acres of land formerly used for sugarcane that is ideal for forest plantation on the Island of Hawaii. Although some of the available lands have been dedicated to diversified agriculture crops, the bulk of the land is still available. There is an additional 100,000 acres of pasture and brush lands on Prime 1 and Prime 2 lands on the island, which could sustain the development of longer rotation forests. EMPLOYMENT Although there is a definite perception of the forest industry as being a non -labor intensive industry, direct employment opportunities generated by a permanent forestry industry can potentially lead to a sustainable level of around 450 employees (based on a total forest plantation size of approximately 60,000 acres, which represents only 10 O IV -T-10 percent of Prime 2 land on the Island of Hawaii). This does not take into consideration O the multiplier effects of the industry and spin off benefits. The growing and harvesting program of a forest industry will create over 200 full-time jobs, with peaks of over 300 in the early establishment years. The processing sector would provide an additional long- term level of 235 employees. Utilizing a multiplier factor of 2.2 for each direct job, a total of 1000 jobs in forestry for the Hamakua Coast alone is possible (source: Hawaii Forestry Investment Memorandum, 1994). INDUSTRY THREATS The State does not own enough prime forestland to sustain a forestry industry alone. The state would need the cooperation of the large land owners to buy into the forestry industry in order for Hawaii to develop a sustainable base and yield to create better economies of scale. O One of the threats to the forestry industry in Hawaii are hurricanes, defined as tropical cyclones with winds of 74 miles per hour or greater. Detailed records for the period 1949 to 1992 are available to help quantify the risk of hurricanes. Approximately five to nine tropical cyclones can be expected to hit Hawaii over a 100 -year period. Of these, less than four would be of hurricane strength. Damage from hurricanes can range from the toppling or breaking of individual trees to a complete leveling of a tree plantation. Tree plantations with longer rotations are obviously more at risk than shorter -rotation plantations. Although hurricanes are a major O IV -T-11 Othreat to the development of a commercial forest industry in Hawaii, it is a threat that is not unique to Hawaii alone. The threat of hurricane, monsoon, wild fire, rain draught, etc... exist in other countries currently with thriving commercial forestry plantations. The upside to our geographic location in the Pacific is the superior growth rate of trees due to the year-round temperate climate and the potential for Hawaii to be a major transshipment hub for the entire Pacific Basin. Another threat to the forestry industry in Hawaii is the high cost of labor compared to other countries in the Pacific Basin Region such as Chile, New Zealand, Indonesia, and China, which have or are developing its forestry industry. Although these countries may have advantages in lower labor costs, they also have disadvantages, which make them Oless favorable (see Exhibit IV -T-2 for further details). The endangering of Hawaii's native and indigenous flora/fauna by developing commercial forestry is another type of threat to the industry. For example, there are now only a few thousand acres of Koa forest left that contain concentrations of tall, large diameter, relatively, straight -stem trees that dominate the forest and are best suited for conversion into lumber and veneer. Much of the land is classified as, or suspected of being, a prime habitat for various species of threatened or endangered fauna and flora, which places further restrictions on the possibility of commercial forestry of these lands (source: Division of Forestry and Wildlife Report, 1984). IV -T-12 Qualitative Assessment by Countries Exhibit IV -T-2 Country Advantages Disadvantages Region VIII, Chile 1. Excellent growing conditions 1. Land is becoming scarce, 2. Land tenure is no problem. resulting in long transportation 3.. Low cost level of land. distances. 4. Well-functioning incentive schemes. 5. Political and economic stability. Indonesia 1. Low cost level of land. 1. Increasing local demands. 2. Positive attitude towards 2. Long-term land tenure has to be plantations. solved. Southern and Coastal Vietnam 1. Excellent location in relation to 1. Good land is scarce. markets. 2. Plantation costs are high. 2. Clear rules have now been set for 3. Economic & political reform has foreign investment only started and involves risks. Malaysia 1. Good location in relation to 1. Relatively high cost level of land. markets. 2. Political and economic stability. 3. Positive attitude towards plantations. Solomon Islands 1. Additional land may be available 1. Customary rights hamper the for planting. establishment of long-term tenure. Papua New Guinea 1. Close proximity to markets. 1. Customary rights and bureaucracy hamper the establishment of long-term tenure. Tasmania 1. Political and economic stability. 1. Poor economics of plantations. 2. High cost of land. source: Hawaii Forestry Investment Memorandum, 1994 FUTURE OUTLOOK In order for the forestry industry to develop, there are a number of hurdles to overcome which include long-term investment; sufficient land with close proximity to wood processing plants; and stable land tenure. In addition, roughly half of the forestland in Hawaii is privately owned. Ownership of Hawaii's private land is highly concentrated amongst just a handful of owners. Therefore, the cooperation and support from these private landowners is essential in promoting a successful forestry plantation industry in Hawaii. The Island of Hawaii is a logical location to initiate a large-scale forestry industry due to Oits land mass size and suitability for forestry. Eucalyptus, koa and sandalwood trees are tree species currently in existence on the Island of Hawaii and have great potential for commercial development. Koa wood has physical characteristics similar to black walnut, considered to be one of the best for furniture. Sandalwood is known for its fragrance and can bring more than $5 per pound. At present, much of the sandalwood has been cut and private Koa forests are not expected to last much more than a decade under present rates of harvesting. There is no reason why Hawaii cannot repeat in forestry the success achieved over the past century by the sugar industry. If processing is done domestically, the forestry industry may ultimately replace many of the jobs lost from sugar. Although the total land Oavailable for permanent forestry is not extensive by international standards, sufficient IV -T-14 area does exist within the State to supply raw materials necessary for processing logs in O Hawaii. There appears to be low risk in developing plantations of hardwood species, especially if these can be used for a number of purposes, including chips for export, reconstituted boards, laminated veneer lumber and high quality sawn lumber. It is doubtful whether there has ever been such a clear cut change in international supply and demand as that which has occurred in forestry products during the early 1990's. The global shortage of forestry products is a result of stagnant or declining supply from traditional supply regions in the U.S. Northwest and British Columbia and a growing demand for wood products from South Korea, Japan, China, Taiwan, Malaysia, Philippines, and Indonesia (see Exhibit IV -T-3). Unlike the immediate effects some commodities, like oil, have on the international market, the changes to wood supply are O much more permanent and predictable. The combination of a reduced supply of tropical hardwood logs from the South East Asia/Pacific Region, and the locking up of much of the remaining softwood forests in the Pacific North West, results in a huge shortage of available raw material. This is occurring at a time when there is a rapidly increasing demand in all types of wood products. There is a great sense of frustration amongst the supporters of a commercial forestry industry in Hawaii as the state seems deadlocked on the issue of promoting a forestry industry in Hawaii. Indecisiveness and lack of support on the Island of Hawaii has O IV -T-15 Forecast Demand and Supply of Exhibit IV -T-3 Hardwood Pulpwood and Chips 1989--T 1990 1 2000 Million cubic meters/annum Japan Hardwood Pulpwood and Chips Domestic Supply 9.3 8.9 8.0 Imports 10.1 11.4 14.5 Consumption 19.4 20.3 22.5 Taiwan Hardwood Pulpwood and Chips Domestic Supply 0.3 0.3 0.2 Imports 1.0 0.9 1.0 Consumption 1.3 1.2 1.2 South Korea Hardwood Pulpwood and Chips Domestic Supply 0.2 0.2 0.2 Imports 0.3 0.3 1.1 Consumption 0.5 0.5 1.3 Total Hardwood Pulpwood .and Chips Domestic Supply 9.8 9.4 8.4 Consumption Expected 21.2 22.0 25.0 Imports Required 11.4 12.61 16.6 source: Hawaii Forestry Investment Memorandum, 1994 already attributed to the lost of paper giants such as Oji Paper Company and Marubeni O Corporation from investing over $40 million and creating over 300 much needed jobs. The outlook for a forestry industry on the Island of Hawaii remains bright, despite the numerous obstacles in its way. Forestry is not a new industry to Hawaii. For decades, people in Hawaii have utilized the natural forests for wood to build furniture and other wood products. The State -of Hawaii will have to make strong commitments to develop a viable commercial forestry industry; one that will position Hawaii as a major transshipment hub for timber to and from Asia, U.S. Mainland, and South America and take advantage of its geographic and climatic location. There is certainly enough land and agricultural labor force on the Island of Hawaii to O establish such an industry. In addition, the infrastructure and harbors are already developed. Hawaii's geographic and climatic location allows for year-round growing resulting in superior tree growth rates. At a time when Hawaii and the Island of Hawaii are facing its worst economic recession ever, proactive steps are needed in order to take advantage of this opportunity. It would take a tremendous effort and commitment from our large private landowners, the State and Federal government, U.S. Mainland and foreign investors, and the support of anti - development groups for Hawaii to reap the benefits of a viable commercial forestry industry. We have already begun to see some growth in this industry as a few groups are beginning to develop forestry plantations, but not near enough to give Hawaii the O IV -T-17 Oeconomies of scale necessary for us to compete against emerging countries globally. Hawaii cannot afford to procrastinate as the development of a forestry industry does not happen overnight, but instead may take up to 10 years before any substantial economic returns are realized. IV -T-18 SPECIAL EVENTS O BACKGROUND OF INDUSTRY The Island of Hawaii hosts three annual special events that are world -renown and draw participants and spectators from around the world. The Merrie Monarch Festival is held in April, the Hawaiian International Billfish Tournament (HIBT) occurs in August, and the Ironman Triathlon World Championships takes place in October. These three events have been established as permanent fixtures on the Island of Hawaii. The Island of Hawaii also draws national attention for starting the Senior PGA Tour Season with the MasterCard Championship, which is immediately followed by the Senior Skins Game. Merrie Monarch Festival O The Merrie Monarch Festival is a 35 -year tradition celebrating the art of Hawaiian dance (hula). Each year during March or April, hula halaus from across the States of Hawaii and California travel to Hilo to participate in this festival honoring of King David Kalakaua. The festival is a week-long event featuring hula performances and cultural exhibits that culminate with a three-day hula competition. Halaus from across the Pacific and Japan travel to Hilo to participate in the festival prior to the three-day competition. Halaus that participate in the competition are usually from Hawaii and California. The three-day competition is held at the Edith Kanaka'ole Stadium, which has sold out all 6,000 seats annually since 1981. Ordinarily, 28 to 30 hula halaus compete in the three-day competition. In 1996, an estimate of 8,000 people arrived in Hilo during the O IV -U-1 Oweek of the Merrie Monarch. Festival, prompting all available lodgings to full capacity. Most merchants and retailers in the area experience an increase in consumer spending as souvenirs and gifts are readily purchased. Restaurants experience an increase in customers, however, to what extent often depends on the schedule of the festival. The time schedule varies to accommodate the different categories, sometimes ending after midnight. Many restaurant owners adjust business hours to entice customers, but seating remain uncertain. Often, potential customers are unaware of which establishments are open for business, while others find meals at the residence of families and friends. OIncreasing worldwide exposure is apparent as more Asians and Europeans attend the festivities. Merrie Monarch organizers calculate that nearly 800 out-of-state visitors participated in the 1997 event. According to a report by DBEDT, estimated sales generated by the Merrie Monarch in 1997 reached totals of $2.17 million, providing the State and County with approximately $120,000 in tax revenue. Hawaiian International Billfish Tournament The first Hawaiian International Billfish Tournament (HIBT) began in 1958 with seven anglers. In 1998, the tournament grew to include 59 international teams, with eleven crews from Hawaii. The prized catch of the tournament is the Pacific blue marlin, found in waters off the Kona Coast. IV -U-2 A main focus of the tournament is the tag and release program. Initiated in 1986, the O main purpose is to research and conserve the Pacific blue marlin. The tournament's point system promotes the tag and release of any non -qualifying weight reeled in. Since the start of the program, over 80 percent of the marlin caught were tagged and released. Many of the teams represented in the tournament are repeat participants, creating an annual $7 million industry for Kona businesses. Lodgings and food establishments are often filled and benefit from the annual tournament. Ironman Triathlon World Championship The Ironman Triathlon World Championship brings 1,500 of the world's top athletes to Kona every October. The Ironman Triathlon Championship began in 1978 on the Island O of Oahu, and, due to its increase in participants, the championship event moved to the Island of Hawaii in 1981. The Triathlon Championship currently consists of three legs of competition, the running segment has a course length of 26.2 miles, the biking segment has a course length of 112 miles, and the swimming segment has a course length of 2.4 miles. Entry into the Ironman competition may be attained in two ways. The first way is to qualify in one of the fourteen United States qualifying events or one of the seven international qualifying races held throughout the year. The second manner is through a lottery system which awards 150 spots into the Triathlon championship. According to estimates by DBEDT, the 1998 Ironman Triathlon drew nearly 10,200 out- of-state visitors spending an average of length of stay of 7.5 days. An estimate of $26.2 O IV -U-3 Omillion in total sales were generated by the out-of-state visitors on the Island of Hawaii. Approximately $9.7 million in household income was generated and State and County tax revenues increased by $2.5 million. Golf Events Two prestigious golf events are currently held on the Island of Hawaii. These events draw national coverage as golf enthusiasts tune to televised broadcasts, newspaper, and internet coverage. The MasterCard Championship, which is the Senior Tour's tournament of champions, is held at the Hualalai Resort. The Senior Skins Game, an unofficial money event, is held Oat the Mauna Lani Resort located on the Kohala Coast. The MasterCard Championship is in its third year at Hualalai while the Senior Skins Game has been at the Mauna Lani Resort since 1990. MasterCard has two more years as the title sponsor while Hualalai has agreed to host the event for a total of seven more years. The Mauna Lani Resort, site of the Senior Skins Game event for the last ten years will host this event for the last time in the year 2000. Thereafter, the Senior Skins Game is expected to move to other locations around the Hawaiian Islands. While there are no reported economic figures on the MasterCard Championship, it is estimated to generate substantially more than the Senior Skins Game as participants include all of the Senior PGA golf champions from the prior year, whereas the Skins Game features only four Senior PGA professionals. DBEDT figures estimate the 1998 O IV -U-4 Senior Skins Game to be worth an additional $8.98 million in total sales. Additional O income generated is estimated at $3.05 million while the State and the County will benefit from an additional $0.52 million in tax revenue. FUTURE OUTLOOK World-class special events, such as those mentioned herein, draw many out-of-state visitors and promotes the. Island of Hawaii as a world-class tourist destination. These events also promote the cultural aspects and the natural resources available'on the Island of Hawaii. With the unique natural beauty and the excellent weather conditions, the continued promotion of world-class outdoor special events on the Island of Hawaii could be a boon to the economy of the County as these media -exposed events create a ripple effect by also promoting tourism, the island's greatest economic sector. O IV -U-5 OSECTION V SECONDARY ECONOMIC SECTORS INTRODUCTION Industries that comprise the secondary economic sector include producers of goods and services that are purchased predominantly by primary income generators and resident individuals and families for their own consumption. As such, secondary industries for the most part are induced activities and/or are requirements of the primary income generators. OThere are complex interrelationships between businesses (as producers and purchasers) and individuals in their role as both employees as well as consumers. As such, there tends to be an obscure line between certain primary and secondary economic sectors, as statistics that are compiled do not distinguish between goods and services produced for local consumption or for export. For example, certain agricultural products grown primarily for local consumption would normally be included as a secondary activity. However, if such agricultural goods produces export demand in quantities of substance, these export sales would be deemed a primary industry. As a result of this, where definitive data is not available or is not accounted for separately, the determination of whether an economic sector is considered "primary" or "secondary" have been made based on the predominance of the activity. O V-1 The major secondary economic sectors identified for the County of Hawaii includes the following: • Retail sales • Wholesale sales • Finance, insurance and real estate transactions 0 Utilities (local consumption) • Communications • Transportation • Manufacturing (non -export) • Construction O • Services (non -tourism industry related) • State and local government EMPLOYMENT CHARACTERISTICS Average annual employment in the secondary industry sector back in 1980 totaled 24,700 based on a U.S. Census Bureau population base of 92,053 for the County (see Exhibit V- 1). By 1990, annual employment in the secondary industry increased to an average of 38,500 based on a population of 120,317, an employment increase of 55.9 percent over the 10 -year period (a healthy 4.54 percent annual compounded increase). The latest , census information from the Hawaii State Department of Labor and Industrial Relations (DLIR) reveals that in 1997, average employment within the secondary industry totaled O V-2 O41,850 (based on an estimated population 141,458), a total employment increase of 8.7 percent over the seven year period (a 1.20 percent annual growth rate), indicating a dramatic slowdown in growth in average employment in the secondary industry sector, primarily due to the protracted growth of the economy since 1990. The secondary economic sector employment accounted for 60.5 percent, 69.7 percent and 67.8 percent of the Countywide workforce for 1980, 1990 and 1997, respectively. From 1980 to 1990, all secondary sectors recorded increases in average employment except for the manufacturing sector which recorded a decrease of 19.3 percent, from 2,850 workers to 2,300 workers. The largest secondary employment sector was and still Ois the wholesale and retail trade. This sector reported total gains in average employment of 78.6 percent from 1980 to 1990 and a mere 2.8 percent from 1990 to 1997. The services sector reported the greatest total percentage gain in average employment of 103.8 percent from 1980 to 1990, 33.9 percent from 1990 to 1997, supplanting government as the second largest secondary economic sector in the County. The construction and mining sector showed impressive total growth of 69.2 percent in average employment from 1980 to 1990. However, with the slowdown in the economy in the 1990's, this sector reported a loss of 36.4 percent in average employment from 1990 to 1997. V-3 The government sector recorded a total growth of 29.3 percent from 1980 to 1990, O primarily due to state government worker increases that went from 4,100 to 5,650 (37.8 percent). The County government, on the other hand, reported only an 8.3 percent increase over the same period. From 1990 to 1997, the government sector increased by 23.0 percent, from 7,600 to 9,350 workers. INCOME CHARACTERISTICS According to data from DLIR, average annual wages for the County of Hawaii in the secondary economic sector in 1980 was $13,101, based on a secondary work force of 24,650 earning a total of $322,931,000 (see Exhibit V -II). Ten years later, in 1990, average annual wages increased to $20,429, based on a secondary work force of 38,173 earning a total of $779,854,000. This represents an increase in average annual wages of O 55.9 percent over the eight-year period and an average compounded growth rate of 4.54 percent. As of 1997, average annual wages in the secondary economic sector for the County was $24,272, based on a secondary work force of 41,326 earning a total of $1,003,074,000. This represents an average annual wage increase of 18.8 percent over the seven-year period from 1990 and an average compounded growth rate over the same period of 2.49 percent. The drop in percentage increase again, is attributed to the protracted economic conditions existing within the County during the 1990's (it should be noted that the above figures for secondary workforce employment differs slightly from that mentioned in the V-4 Osection on secondary employment characteristics primary due to different reporting methods by DLIR). In 1997, the communications and utilities sector led all sectors in average annual wages at $48,628, over three times higher than the average annual wages earned in the services industry which posted the lowest average annual -wages of all secondary sectors. Total wages in the secondary economic sectors grew 141.5 percent from 1980 to 1990 and 28.6 percent from 1990 to 1997. All secondary sectors reported substantial increases in average annual wages from 1980 Oto 1990, led by the finance, insurance and real estate sector at 90.2 percent, followed by the local government sector at 88.5 percent and with manufacturing holding up the low end at 29.8 percent. From 1990 to 1997, the finance, insurance and real estate sector also had the largest percent increase in average annual wages at 29.2 percent, followed by communications and utilities at 29.0 percent and with manufacturing holding up the low end at 13.4 percent. GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF SECONDARY INDUSTRIES Statistical information relating to the geographic distribution (by judicial district) of secondary industries within the County of Hawaii is very limited. According to officials from DLIR and the Hawaii State Data Center, the last study done for the County of OHawaii that provided statistical information relating to the geographic distribution of V-5 employment by industry sectors was back in 1975 (See Exhibit V-3). This information O was reported in the previous 10 -year general plan review. To correlate statistical information to obtain current relative geographic distribution of employment by industry sector, separate data on employment geographic distribution was extrapolated (Exhibit V- 4) and revealed a definitive shift in geographical employment patterns in certain districts from 1975 to 1980. Where the South Hilo District dominated employment in 1975 (accounting for 56.7 percent of total employment), this domination decreased to 36.1 percent in 1980. Most of the shift went to the Puna District (5.6 percent to 14.3 percent), North Kona District (13.7 percent to 21.2 percent) and the South Kona District (3.9 percent to 7.0 percent). O As explained throughout this report, over the past 15+ years, there has been a shift in industry sector employment towards a greater dependence on the service industry versus the non -service industry, primarily as a result of the decline in the sugar industry and the rise in the tourism industry. According to Exhibit I1I-5 in Section III of this report, back in 1980, the service industry accounted for 60.61 percent of the workforce, increasing to 71.29 percent in 1990 and 78.48 percent in 1996. The growth of the diversified agriculture helped the non -service agricultural industry to offset some of the losses in the sugar industry. The increase in employment in the Puna and South Kona Districts are primarily due to the increase in diversified agriculture in those areas (primarily papaya, bananas and O Omacadamia nuts). The increases achieved in the North Kona District is primarily due to the increase in the tourism sector which also increased the need for expansion of secondary service and governmental support due to the increase in population and employment in the area. The geographic distribution in other districts did not show significant variances from 1975 to 1980. It is interesting to note that from 1980 to 1990 and to 1997, the geographic distribution of employment remained virtually the same (see Exhibit V-4), indicating an industry -wide stabilization of employment opportunities in the various districts. FUTURE OUTLOOK As previously discussed in Section II1, the future economic outlook for the County of Hawaii is somewhat mixed, due to several external factors which could adversely affect the economy. Tourism is expected to continue dominating the economy of the County in the near term and as a result, the services industry is expected to also be a dominant factor in the future economy of the County. However, with the Island of Hawaii's vast source of natural resources and land, the Island of Hawaii's non -service industries, especially in diversified agriculture has the future potential to grow substantially. This, coupled with the Island of Hawaii's innovativeness V-7 and willingness to expand into new fields of industry will no doubt help in the future O expansion of the entire economy within the County. The development of an irradiation/x-ray plant to treat agricultural products will undoubtedly increase the amount of agricultural export of fruits and vegetables and will likely increase the production of diversified agricultural products as the demand for product increases. The Island of Hawaii has also been identified by the State of Hawaii as the potential site of a newly proposed 2,300 bed prison which is estimated to cost between $150 to $200 million to build and will create an estimated 1,000 permanent jobs. This proposal has been a very controversial issue with the residents of the Island of Hawaii, however, if O implemented, will provide substantial employment and economic activity for the County. As the population increased on the Island of Hawaii, the need for more educational facilities also grew. As of 1997, there were 54 schools within the Island of Hawaii with a total enrollment of 30,599. To alleviate overcrowding in schools on the Island of Hawaii, three new schools were being built in 1998, Konawaena Elementary in Kealakekua, Kea'au Elementary, and Kea'au High School. The University of Hawaii -Hilo has also developed plans to increase its campus. Groundbreaking ceremonies were held in September 1998 for the.development of a state-of-the-art operations base for the Hawaii Institute of Astronomy. The 35,000 square foot building, which will contain fiber optic links to the observatory atop Mauna Kea, will also house faculty, astronomers, engineers, O V-8 Otechnicians and administrative support staff. There will be divisions for the Institute's research, instrumentation, teaching and outreach program and the offering of educational degrees in Astronomy. The University of Hawaii -Hilo has also developed a 10 -year strategic growth plan that will focus first on improving existing facilities and extending teaching hours, developing on and off campus community partnerships and finally extending its campus to other areas around the island. These are some of the major future projects which could have a positive impact on the secondary economic sectors within the County. As the Island of Hawaii expands its primary sectors of its economy, the need for expansion in secondary economic sectors will follow accordingly as indicated above. The Island of Hawaii's aggressive expansion Ointo new and innovative fields of industry will also expand secondary economic sectors and add to the positive future outlook for the County of Hawaii. V-9 F - Z o w � U 0 U) a U 2 � Q W O 2 -� Z LL O O} Z w 1- w Q O Z U w 0 aW 0 Cl) - 0) O 0 O U) 0 E Oo T 0 O (() C M 0 O r` N 0 LO ti T 0 O N L 0 00 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M O T t` OO (D O (n 00 In (D 00 (D ti (D N O V O N O M N . N M (14 T Q) N O T tl- N tr m E w >. a c m ' rn E w C) E E - m w � V U w c C c N > Q C rn (`C 0 CL C o 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 C o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o d N M M 0 0 (D co Oo 00 M tj Cl) O) O T T 6 00 In M r O0 d ' co T M (n 00 ti c) O M a C N 7 F� T ILL. 0 Cl) - 0) O 0 O U) 0 E Oo T 0 O (() C M 0 O r` N 0 LO ti T 0 O N L 0 00 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O (D (n O (() U) O In (n O T (D M P- T o0 (D (D I- N N T N T N T N O T tl- N tr N E w >. a c ' rn E w C) E E - m w � O U U w c C c N > Q C rn (`C 0 CL rn o 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 LU co M C to M W M D' N LO O U) U O 0) (wD m 2 (Vp w co N N N O N N t` (C) T tC � C N (d N N (a (Q (0 C T T C N 7 F� F`- F ILL. (n to - H 0 a C C a m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cl 00 OT 0) 000 0)i M (D O N a) 00 A T CV T T Ll) t` T M V• T 0 Cl) - 0) O 0 O U) 0 E Oo T 0 O (() C M 0 O r` N 0 LO ti T 0 O N L 0 00 O r`. W w Y �X V E _ C C d) c U)o w ° E o N E w >. a c ' rn E w E - m w � O U U w c C c N > Q C rn (`C m rn c (D U) c a� a) E E E` i> m a) > c C O w O D' N O >> O O O U' U O O Y 2 (Vp w a a () 0 N � C N (d N N (a (Q (0 C O Y C N U F� F`- F ILL. (n to - H 0 a r`. oao 00 (D (7 00 N 00 0 0 0 0) LO i)l T T O (Y) 00 T LO N N Cl) _)00 N 00 O M (ND O_ CTr OD O (D (U OD N U') CV) q7' 00 (D Ln O r" N Cl) N N d N T N N M M N EA ER w 0000000eoo co _ - 00 N O) [t (D O O (D N M M O 7 O C) LO O V' w Q) N O 0 y' N T T N N T N N T Ni y C � Q m O N � v O C U C fl N C O C 0 U m c ld c ca 2 c O O c F- N a) 7 c O " jLlj E U N � O -0 co H v co F- N m O m U Uco m c ii N N L C r _ N N Z U) C N O U) C N O Z3 J x c d E w C N CO C v7 m m FO- C CLm w N cn f4 N Q m a) m FO- I w C o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 47 LO 0 LD 00 T 00 N T LA Ln T O r O O Ln O O (O 00 W 00 N M 0 ti d' O N (D 00 a oao 00 (D (7 00 N 00 0 0 0 0) LO i)l T T O (Y) 00 T LO N N Cl) _)00 N 00 O M (ND O_ CTr OD O (D (U OD N U') CV) q7' 00 (D Ln O r" N Cl) N N d N T N N M M N EA ER w _OD co _ - 00 O O O n � (D 0) Cl) CO M a0 CA (D (D O N N M N N N co C O U N C � Q N U) c' O OU w w U' (n — a�a Q O 2 ZZ lL Op Q w W Z Q 0 O w Z U QO U w M ((D O N '(0D O 000 M 0) 000 (D L() (D N T O T O LD (`M T T N613, T T T T O N V33 O N C (7 R T O M 69. 0 0 0 LO M :3111 O 0 r Cl) N m E Q N ate) 6 v a) N 0 w E O T Z E 0 U N � v O C C fl N C O C 0 U m c ld c ca 2 c O O c F- N a) 7 c O " jLlj E U N � O -0 co H v co F- N m O m U Uco m c ii N N L C r _ N N Z U) C N O U) C N O Z3 J O N m O cm j m 12 d E w C N CO C v7 m m FO- C CLm w N cn f4 N Q m a) m FO- m E Q N ate) 6 v a) N 0 w E O T Z E O w N W W vW1 M1 r H N N r (n N W N X X O co w O W N fN0 � N N f7 � O z N � � N OI M1 N W aM10 O W 7 W w a N i O M1 0 F 0 t a vI N fA 7 W cli N N O r O W v }O}0}X n n W ZF R 9z o m Lu Q O 0 N }O o U ova o W J J co of 0 r CL 2 e aZ N O QO' w W N fq - N r a+I W 0 r � o O w N W W vW1 M1 r 0 lh N N r N W N v) cq O co oC4 D N � ti M1 r 0 lh CO. onW U P1 v) cq O co oC4 lVI l� Y N W r V N r n C14 0 d W �2 r � N O NO cr)N W NIVI co N N pNp M � A b I+M1I N O O P/ r .-W C OI a0 �- th cV W 2 0r0 r N pleol n 01 f onW U v m m � m O W N r O) W 7 W N W < O M1 0 o a a 0 0 0 0 0 O W v m n n vWi o m v 0 O) o O ova o W o co of 0 r o N e aZ N O QO' r N W N fq - N 0 0 0 0 0 e 0 0 0 W r W <7 r f") W N O 01 l0 V !. N q W O C9 O) .- N <O N p -! O O r N N co 0 0 o epo e e a 0 0 (3� N N N fh m Y N CN'! O Of N h m 0 0 0 0 0 C N 0 �' Cl) OE N N Or O to O N a N N N O N O W r LN d 0 0 0 0 o e a A a o 0 m C C P N d h OI W N iE O /WO 1W0 O O h M O S EaE O N W O O oe oe �e � ve : oe oe ee O W O V N of r r M1 N W v (O Y) to N O 0u \� o 0 0 0 T' 0 0 e fW7. sesd� O V frO p0 8 N N fro Y 7 <D O O N v) <D 0) a m W < O M1 W N Y OI N N r W N V N V n Ul O W 0I W O) (A N W W r o <O o f7 eE W r 0 0 O o O e N o W se pp o W 0 r o N e aZ N O QO' r N W N fq - O r N .- W O C r 01 N Y C7 h V W N W r" 1 N <O O ^ O r GD N CD q W V V l<I N Iff r N O N N' -! O O r co N a G a C N O N d C l0 O n � J 0 O h m C N p3 C 9 to O (ryp U LN d N C C P N d iE EaE m r. E E EE o i 0u \� o w CFA.0 CU- S U LL W15 -LGL Ai H CO 2 X W r 0 h U. o_ m Q v) O 2 Z LL W O K h - Z Z W D 20 d J a w w ry OD O (o O Y o o 0 ^Hd � o � C co O O O O CD N O (C In O O O O N V (n O n m rn rn r- m rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn m rn oeoo 000 ov m O M 1r) M V ri � Cl) co co V O O o M o 0 0 0 N V Q N M O OD O o 0 0 0 Cl) (o w a0 O_ 00 r M N rn o N M 00 ao M r M N N N O O N O O o o e a (moo ) m OD V .0 O D r OG (o OR O m C v) to c', o a o 0 (No ( O N Q f (V r M (o m('7 O r N N f0 v o (n o '"e a o (on n W) ((n° v ri (n v � d N v r N N m v O O o o a e o N r a (o A (o Aa (� v a0 (,j N m o o r o 0 0 0 o (o n r m (rr Ncl (n r 6 O c', R Cot ? W (D M OR '7 ry OD O (o O Y o o 0 ^Hd � o � C co O O O O CD N O (C In O O O O N V (n O n m rn rn r- m rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn m rn BIBLIOGRAPHY VISITOR INDUSTRY Anani, Waddah. Royal Kona Resort, October 1997. Bartlett, Tony. "Honokaa Eyes Tourism as Replacement for Plantation Economy". Travel Weekly. March 17, 1997. Brady, Dorsey. Outrigger Waikoloa, December 1998. Chan, Harris. The Orchid at Mauna Lani, October 1997. Clark, Hugh. "Big Island Welcomes Daily Japan Flights". Honolulu Advertiser. November 4, 1997. Clark, Hugh. "South Kona Resort Wins Approval". Honolulu Advertiser. March 19, 1998. County of Hawaii Data Book, Department of Research and Development, 1983-1997. Crawford, Brian. Chalet Kilauea Group, August 1999. Duerr, Fred. Kona Village Resort, August 1999. Gomes, Andrew. "$96.3 Million in Projects Planned for Kona Airport". Pacific Business News. June 9, 1997. Gomes, Andrew. "Kona Airport Upgrade Showed Prescience". Pacific Business News. May 26, 1997. Gomes, Andrew. "New Overseas Terminal in the Works for Busy Airport". Pacific Business News. June 9, 1997. Goo, Charlene. Keauhou Beach Hotel, October 1997. Hawaii Visitors and Convention Bureau. 1998 Visitor Plant Inventory. Hawaii Visitors and Convention Bureau. Monthly Highlights — December 1998. Hawaii Visitors and Convention Bureau. Annual Research Report. 1997. Hawaii Visitors and Convention Bureau. Market Research Flash. January 8, 1999. Herkes, Robert. Kamehameha Investment Corporation, September 1999. O Horrigan, Kathleen. Four Seasons Resort Hualalai, August 1999. Keawe, Kimo. Castle Resorts and Hotels, June 1999. Kitamori, Daryle. Hilo Hawaiian Hotel, August 1999. Lam, Nathan. Kona Surf Resort & Country Club, October 1997. Larsen-Jeyte, Loma. Kilauea Lodge, August 1999. Nitta, Michael. Castle Resorts and Hotels, November 1999. PKF Hawaii. Trends in the Hotel Industry — Hawaii. 1980 — 1998. Reed Travel Features. "Four Hamakua Coast Communities Create Resources to Lure Visitors". Travel Weekly. March 17, 1997. Robinson, G. Rick. Kamehameha Schools Bishop Estate, Phone interview, April 1999. Seeger, Dieter. Hilton Waikoloa Village, October 1999. OTadokoro, Koichi. Bay Club at Waikoloa, September 1999. Tanimoto, Larry. Former Mayor, August 1999. Thompson, Rod. "JAL Mounts $3 Million Ad Campaign for Daily Kona Flights". Honolulu Star -Bulletin. June 11, 1997. Thompson, Roy. Kona Reef Hotel, October 1997. Wiles, Greg. "Hotel on Big Island Closes Suddenly". Honolulu Advertiser. May 1, 1998. World Travel & Tourism Council. WTTC Hawaii Tourism Report 1999: How Travel & Tourism Affects Hawaii's Economy. June 1999. SUGAR "Amfac/JMB selling more Big Isle land." January 21, 1997. <http://starbulletin.com/97/01/2 I /business/bizbriefs.html>. "Big Isle sugar mill equipment to be auctioned." Honolulu Star -Bulletin. June 11, 1997. <http://starbulletin.com/97/06/1 I /business/story2.html>. Bouvet, P. Ernest. The Final Harvest: The Hamakua Sugar Company 1869-1994. 1995. Christensen, Jean. "Chocolate producer to build Hawaii factory." Honolulu Star -Bulletin. March 5, 1999. p. B8. County of Hawaii Data Book. Department of Research and Development. 1983-1997. "Hamakua sugar payout." Pacific Business News. May 8, 1998. <http://www.amcity.com/pacific/stories/1998/05/04/dailyl 3.html>. Hawaii Agriculture Research Center. <http://hawaiiag.org/harc/HARCHS 1 l .htm>. Lynch, Russ. "Sugar grower lays off 180." Honolulu Star -Bulletin. November 14, 1997. <http://starbulletin.com/97/11/14/business/story2.html>. Lynch, Russ. "Sugar mill equipment being sold below cost." Honolulu Star -Bulletin. O October 14, 1996. <http://starbulletin.com/96/10/14/business/story3.html>. Monitor Sugar Company. <http://www.monitorsugar.com>. Pichaske, Pete. "House rejects attempt to cut sugar subsidies." Honolulu Star -Bulletin. July 24, 1997. <http://starbulletin.com/97/07/24/business/story5.html>. Pichaske, Pete. "Sugar loans under attack on Capitol Hill." Honolulu Star -Bulletin. July 16, 1997. <http://starbulletin.com/97/07/16/business/story3.html>. Statistics of Hawaiian Agriculture. Hawaii Agricultural Statistics Service. 1986-1997. "Sugar." Hawaii Agricultural Statistics Service. <http://www.nass.usda.gov/hi/stats/stat- 19.htm>. Sugar Educational Website. <http://www.irish-sugar.ie/educationibriethist.html>. Sugar Knowledge International Limited. <http://www.sucrose.com>. Thompson, Rod. "No replacement for lost jobs on Kau's horizon." Honolulu Star - Bulletin. March 28, 1996. <http://starbulletin.com/96/03/28/business/story2.html>. 0 Thompson, Rod. "`Even the horns are sad'." Honolulu Star -Bulletin. March 3, 1996. <http://starbulletin.com/96/03/28/news/story3.html>. Thompson, Rod. "Keaau likes sound of $50 million boom." Honolulu Star -Bulletin. October 16, 1997. <http://starbulletin.com/97/10/16/news/story3.html>. Thompson, Rod. "Ranching lease raises a full on Big Island." Honolulu Star -Bulletin. May 22, 1996. < http://starbulletin.com/96/05/22/story2.html>. United States Department of Agriculture Agricultural Statistics Yuen, Mike. "C. Brewer entering herb -extract business." Honolulu Star -Bulletin. August 28, 1997. <http://starbulletin.com/97/08/28/business/storyl.html>. MACADAMIA NUTS Burket, Steven, D.; and Reeder, John G.; U.S. International Trade Commission: Macadamia Nuts: Economic and Competitive Conditions Affecting the U.S. Industry, Report on Investigation No. 332-386 Under Section 332 (g) of the Tariff Act of 1930, October, 1998. OChristensen, Jean, "Too Many Macadamias?", Honolulu Star Bulletin, January 3, 1999. County of Hawaii Data Book, Department of Research and Development, 1983-1997. "Drought holds down early mac -nut harvest", Honolulu Star -Bulletin, August 20, 1996. "Farmer's Bookshelf, An information system of crops in Hawaii", Department of Horticulture, University of Hawaii at Manoa, 1998. Fleming, Kent; and Bittenbender, H.C.; "The Economics of Commercial Macadamia Nut Production in Hawai'i, AgriBusiness, May, 1996. Gillingham, Paula, "In a nutshell, marketing is a must in mac nut biz", Pacific Business News, June 8, 1998. Gillingham, Paula, "Mac nut growers help fund study", Pacific Business News, September 30, 1996. Gomes, Andrew, "Ag contribution undervalued", Pacific Business News, November 9, 1998. O Gomes, Andrew, "Brewer/Mauna Loa merger a bid for more outside investment", Pacific Business News, November 24, 1997. Hawaii Agricultural Statistics Service, Final Season Estimates July, 1998. O Hawaii Ilouse of Representatives, testimony presented by M. Crawford, transcript of the hearing, March 1998). Hawaii Macadamia Nut Association, 32nd Annual Conference Proceedings, May, 1992. Hawaii Macadamia Nut Association, 33rd Annual Conference Proceedings, May, 1993. Hawaii Macadamia Nut Association, 34th Annual Conference Proceedings, May, 1994. Hawaii Macadamia Nut Association, 36th Annual Conference Proceedings, May, 1996. Hawaii Macadamia Nut Association, 37th Annual Conference Proceedings, May, 1997. Kamhis, Jacob, "State forecloses on macadamia farm", Pacific Business News, May 25, 1997. Kobayashi, Kent, Interview, November 4, 1998. Lynch, Russ, "Mauna Loa Macadamia loses $1.2 million in second quarter", Honolulu Star -Bulletin, August 6, 1998. O Nagao, Mike, Interview, November 5, 1998. "Mauna Loa and C. Brewer to merge", Pacific Business News, November 7, 1997. "Mauna Loa partnership to change its name", Honolulu Star -Bulletin, October 2, 1998. Mehos, Ellen, Hawaii Grown Tree Crops Journal, Volume VI, Number 1, Spring 1998. Mehos, Ellen, Hawaii Grown Tree Crops Journal, Volume VI, Number 2, Summer 1998. Mehos, Ellen, Hawaii Grown Tree Crops Journal, Volume VI, Number 3, Fall 1998. Mehos, Ellen, Interview, November 1998. Quitiquit, Diane, Director, Hawaii County Research and Development Board, transcript of the hearing, March, 1998. Robinson, G. Rick, KSBE, Interview, April 1999. Statistics of Hawaiian Agriculture, Hawaii Agricultural Statistics Service, 1982-1998. OTune, Jerry, "Australians trying to crack mac nut market", Honolulu Star -Bulletin, October 23, 1998. Tune, Jerry, "Trade panel eyeing macadamia nut pricing", Honolulu Star -Bulletin, 1997. Woodroof, Jasper Guy, Tree Nuts: Production, Processing, Products, 2d ed., 1979. FLOWERS AND NURSERY Bank of Hawaii — Annual Economic Report. Bank of Hawaii. <http://www.boh.com/ econ/aer/aer%dF3 %2D l .asp> College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources. College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources, University of Hawaii. <http://www.cathr.hawaii.edu/>. County of Hawaii Data Book. County of Hawaii, Department of Research and Development. 1983-1997 County of Hawaii 1997 Data Book. County of Hawaii, Department of Research and Development. <http://www.hawaii-county.com/datatbook-97/sectionl5.htm>. County of Hawaii Agriculture. Big Island Agriculture. <http://www.bigistandag.com/ Opht/ phtmeeting.html>. Farmer's Bookshelf. University of Hawaii at Manoa, Department of Horticulure. <http://agrss.shennan.hawaii.edu/bookshelf/papaya/papaya.htm>. Floriculture Crops 1997 Summary. National Agricultural Statistics Sevice, United States Department of Agriculture. Hawaii Agricultural Export Directory: Floral, Nursery, and Food Products 1997. Department of Agriculture, State of Hawaii. Hawaii Tropical Flower Council. Hawaii Tropical Flower Council. <http://alohaweb. com/HTFC/>. Hilo-Hamakua Coast. Hilo-Hamakua Coast Revitilization Task Force. <http://www. htdc.org/—hamakua/devagr.html>. Market Asia, Agribusiness Information. Asia Regional Agribusiness Project. <http:// www.marketasia.org/>. Sawake, Calvin Phone Interview Big Island, Hawaii February 22, 1998. O Star -Bulletin Staff. "Isle growers Reap Lucrative Market." Honolulu Star -Bulletin October 08, 1996. <http://starbulletin.com/96/10/08/business/story3.html>. State of Hawaii Data Book. The Department of Business, Economic Development & O p p Tourism. 1990-1997 State of Hawaii Data Book 1997. The Department of Business, Economic Development & Tourism. <http://www.hawaii.gov/dbedt/db97/>. Statistics of Hawaiian Agriculture. Hawaii Agricultural Statistics Service. 1982-1997. Statistics of Hawaiian Agriculture. Hawaii Agricultural Statistics Service. <http://nass. usda.gov/hi/stats/>. Tanoue, Eric. Phone Interview Big Island, Hawaii February 1999. Taylor, Lois. "Evergreen: At Home with Orchids." Honolulu Star -Bulletin June 19, 1998. <<http://starbuiletin.com/98/06/19/features/evergreen.html>. Taylor, Lois. "Evergreen: Fired Up Over Anthuriums." Honolulu Star -Bulletin April 24, 1997. <http://starbulletin.com/97/04/24/features/evergreen.html>. Taylor, Lois. "Evergreen: Today's Anthuriums Have Gone Punk." Honolulu Star - Bulletin March 29, 1996. <http://starbulletin.com/96/03/29/feature/story2 html>. "The Hawaii Institute of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources (HITAHR)." O College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources, University of Hawaii. 1990. pp. 5-6. Tune, Jerry. "First Palm Shipment to Japan Planned." Honolulu Star -Bulletin August 16, 1996. <http://starbulletin.com/96/08/16/business/story2.html>. Tune, Jerry. "New Spray Refreshing Isle Flora Industry." Honolulu Star -Bulletin July 25, 1996. <http://starbulletin.com/96/07/25/business/story2.html>. United States Department of Agriculture Agricultural Statistics. United States Department of Agriculture 1990-1997 Wagner, Peter. "War of the Roses: South American Imports are Nipping Hawaii's Rose Industry in the Bud." Honolulu Star -Bulletin May 27, 1998. <http://starbulletin. com/98/05/27/business/story2.html> Who Owns The Big Island. H&S Publishing. <http://www.hshawaii.com/databook/ bigisland/landowner.html> OKava/Industrial Hemp/Marijuana: Altonn, Helen, "Lawmakers consider bills to permit use of marijuana for medical reasons", Honolulu Star -Bulletin, February 16, 1999. Armstrong, Jason, "Governor supports hemp use", Hawaii Tribune -Herald, September 11, 1998. Associated Press, "Cayetano backs medicinal marijuana", Honolulu Star -Bulletin, December 12, 1998. "Awa holds economic potential", Pacific Business News, April, 1999. Clark, Hugh, "Voters support hemp, poll says", Honolulu Advertiser, October 27, 1998. Conrow, Joan, "Pot scarcity, price may fuel ice boom", Honolulu Star -Bulletin, July 23, 1997. Gomes, Andrew, "Big isle eyes $12 billion market for medicinal plants", Pacific Business News, January 19, 1998. Kamhis, Jacob, "State wants to cover all its bases on hemp issue", Pacific Business ONews, February 24, 1997. Kava page, January 1999, www.mauigateway.com—kava/>. "Marijuana Confiscated or Destroyed by Hawaii County Police Department: 1985 to 1997", Hawaii County Police Department, records. Omandam, Pat, "Diverse groups testify for bill to allow a 10 -acre test plot of industrial hemp", Honolulu Star -Bulletin, February 27, 1999. "Rep. Thielen argues in D.C. for legal hemp", Honolulu Star -Bulletin, March 23, 1998. Ruel, Timothy, "Hemp could become a high-priority crop in the state", Pacific Business News, February 15, 1999. Thompson, Rod, "Big Isle pot advocates oppose funds to kill it", Honolulu Star -Bulletin June 17, 1997. Witty, Jim, "Defining Pahoa: It's.a special place", Honolulu Star -Bulletin, July 22, 1996. Witty, Jim; and Conrow, Joan, "From boom to busted", Honolulu Star -Bulletin, July 22, 1997. OWitty, Jim; and Conrow, Joan, "Material possibilities", Honolulu Star -Bulletin, 1997. Witty, Jim; and Conrow, Joan, "Up in Smoke?", Honolulu Star -Bulletin, July 23, 1996. BEEF CATTLE Animal History and Industry. Department of Animal Science, University of Hawaii at Manoa. <http://www2.hawaii.edu/anse/History/history.htm>. Associated Press. "Broker to Send Isle Bison to Mainland Via 747." Honolulu Star - Bulletin April 17, 1998. <http://starbulletin.com/98/04/17/business/story5.html>. Bank of Hawaii — Annual Economic Report. Bank of Hawaii. <http://www.boh.com/ econ/aer/aer%dF3%2D 1. asp> Beef Homepage. National Cattlemen's Beef Association. <http://www.beef.org/>. "Cattle and Beef Industry Statistics." National Cattlemen's Beef Association. 1999. "Cattle and Beef Industry Statistics." National Cattlemen's Beef Association. 1996. Carcass Characteristics and Meat Quality in Forage -Finished and Grain -Finished Beef. Department of Animal Science, University of Hawaii at Manoa. <http://www2 hawaii.edu/ansc/Proceed/Hhl/carcchar.htm>. Clarke, Joan. "Greener Pastures." June 17, 1998 D -l. Clarke, Joan. "Most of Hawaii's Cattle are Shipped to Mainland Feed Lots." Honolulu Advertiser June 17, 1999 D-5. College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources. College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources, University of Hawaii. <http://www.cathr.hawaii.edu/>. Composite Cattle: Rational and Development in Hawaii. Department of Animal Science, University of Hawaii at Manoa. <http://www2.hawaii.edu/ansc/Proceed/ Aggrowth/cattle.htm>. County of Hawaii Data Book. County of Hawaii, Department of Research and Development. 1983-1997 County of Hawaii 1997 Data Book. County of Hawaii, Department of Research and Development. <http://www.hawaii-county.com/datatbook-97/sectionl5.htm>. County of Hawaii Agriculture. Big Island Agriculture. <http://www.bigislandag.com/ pht/phtmeeting.html>. OCran, Lani Phone Interview Big Island, Hawaii January 04, 1998. Daysog, Rick. "Damon Estate Taking Bids for Kau Ranch." Honolulu Star -Bulletin November 24, 1997. <http://starbulletin.com/97/11/24/business/story2.html>. "Farm Groups Pressure European Union on Beef and Bananas." MSNBC. <http://www. msnbc.com/local/RTHI/778.asp>. Feed and Forage Analysis — Its Importance. Department of Animal Science, University of Hawaii at Manoa. <http://www2.hawaii.edu/ansc/News/96spring/ feedanal.htm>. Fuller, Frank. "Exchange Rate Movements and U.S. Meat and Feed -Grain Exports." U.S. Meat Export Analysis and Trade News. <http://www.ag.iastate.edu/centers/ merc/news/SEP/FAa.html>. Gillingham, Paula. "Dole Hopes Cattle Venture Is Fruitful." Pacific Business News December 02, 1996. <http://www.amcity.com/pacific/stories/1996/12/02/ focus2.html?h=cattle>. Gomes, Andrew. "Hancock Hopes to Get $9 Million For Big Island Ranch." Pacific Business News December 15, 1997. <http://www.amcity.com/pacific/stories/ O1997/ 12/ 15/story l .html?h=cattle>. Hawaii Cattle Production: Integrated Resource Management and Economic Analysis of Management. Department of Animal Science, University of Hawaii at Manoa. <http://www2.hawaii.edu/ansc/Proceed/Aggrowth/cowprod.htm>. "How Competitive Are the U.S. Livestock and Poultry Industries?" U.S. Meat Export Analysis and Trade News. <http://www.ag.iastate.edu/centers/merc/news/JUN/ Faa.html>. "Impact of U.S. Beef and Pork Exports on Domestic Livestock and Grain Industries." U.S. Meat Export Analysis and Trade News. December 14, 1998 Kahuku Ranch Southern End of the Big Island of Hawaii. Terra Marketing, Inc. <http://www.terra-inc.com/kahuku.htm>. Karatti, David Phone Interview Kau, Big Island, Hawaii October 26, 1998 Kaser, Tom. "Cowtainers' Lighten Cost of Shipping Hawaii Cattle." Honolulu Advertiser September 14, 1998 B-6. Kitchen, John. Agriculture. Hawaii State Vacation Planner. <http://www.hshawaii.com/ databook/bigisland/ag.html>. O "Land Use and Stewardship." National Cattlemen's Beef Association. <http://beef.org/ O librref/beefband/env2.html# 1>. The Livestock Business in Hawaii County. Department of Animal Sciences, University of Hawaii at Manoa. <http://www2.hawaii.edu/ansc/Fact/livebusi.htm>. Preconditioning Programs for Transporting Beef Cattle From Hawaii. Department of Animal Science, University of Hawaii at Manoa. <http://www2.hawaii.edu/ ansc/Facts/beeftran. htm>. State of Hawaii Data Book. The Department of Business, Economic Development & Tourism. 1990-1997 State of Hawaii Data Book 1997. The Department of Business, Economic Development & Tourism. <http://www.hawaii.gov/dbedt/db97/>. Statistics of Hawaiian Agriculture. Hawaii Agricultural Statistics Service. 1982-1997. Statistics of Hawaiian Agriculture. Hawaii Agricultural Statistics Service. <http://nass. usda.gov/hi/stats/>. Tanji, Edwin. "Bovine TB Worries Ranchers." Honolulu Advertiser July 18,1997 B-5. Tanji, Edwin. "Hawaii Cattle Regain Disease-free Label." Honolulu Advertiser June O 16, 1998 B-2. TenBruggencate, Jan. "Beef Slaughter Here Still Declining." Honolulu Advertiser November 27, 1993 C-4 Your Mining Co. Guide to Island of Hawaii, Hi. Mining Company. <http://bigisland. tqn.com/library/weekly/aa07O697.htm>. COFFEE "100% Kona Coffee Seal of Approval, The." The Kona Coffee Council. <http://www.kona-coffee-council.com/assurance.htm>. "100% Kona Coffee -What Makes It So Unique?" The Kona Coffee Council. http://www.kona-coffee-council.com>. "100% Pure Kona Coffee." Coffee Times. <http://www.comptime.com/coffeetimes.konacoffee.htm>. Adams, Wanda. "The bean stalk." May 14, 1992. p. B 1. Adams, Wanda. "Making the grade in Kona." Honolulu Advertiser. May 14, 1992. p. B 1. O O Alexander & Baldwin. Interview. Various dates. "Aroma of History, The."'Coffee Times. <http://coffeetimes.com/aroma.htm>. "BigIslandCoffee.Com." <http://www.bigisland.com>. "Big Isle growers file lawsuit." Honolulu Star -Bulletin. January 10, 1997. <http://starbulletin.com/97/01/10/news/briefs.html>. "Brief History of Coffee, A." Coffee Universe. <http://www.coffeeuniverse.com/university—hist.html>. "Brief History of Kona Coffee, A." Hawaiian Paradise Trading Company. <http://www.hitrade.com/konacoffee/cof-hist.html>. "Coffee." Hawaii Agricultural Statistics Services. <http://www.nass.usda.gov/hi/stats/stat-21.htm>. "Coffee Facts and Figures." Coffee Science Source. <http://www.coffeescience.org/facts.html>. O "Coffee Facts and Stats." The Roast and Post Coffee Company. <http://www.btintemet.com/—roastandpost/FactsAndStats.html>. "Coffee." Farmer's Bookshelf. <http://agrss.shennan.hawaii.edu/bookshelf/coffee/coffee.htm>. "Coffee With A Cause: Too Much Certification? Natural Foods Merchandiser. <http://www.nfm-online.com/nfm_backs/Sep97/coffeecause.html>. County of Hawaii Data Book. Department of Research and Development. 1983-1997. Daysog, Rick. "Certify all Hawaii coffee, company urges." Honolulu Star -Bulletin. November 20, 1996. <http://starbulletin.com/96/11/20/business/story2.html>. Enomoto, Catherine Kekoa. "Terry Fitzgerald's success amounts to a hill of beans." Honolulu Star -Bulletin. November 17, 1997. <http://starbulletin.com/97/11/17/features/storyl.html>. "Facts you should know." Coffee Association of Canada. <http://www.coffeeassoc.com/global/english/page l .htm>. Fike, George. Phone interview. Various dates. Gomes, Andrew. "Coffee bean certification proposal lacks enforcement." Pacific O Business News. April 27, 1998. <http://www.amcity.com/pacific/stories/I 998/04/27/story7.html?h=coffeelcertific ation>. Gomes, Andrew. "Coffee industry forms unsteady alliance." Pacific Business News. October 27, 1997. <http://www.ameity.com/pacific/stories/102797/story3.html>. Gomes, Andrew. "Coffee scandal hovers over Kona's 097 beans." Pacific Business News. November 3, 1997. <http://www.amcity.com/pacific/stories/1997/ 11 /03/story5.html?h=coffeelcertific ation>. Gomes, Andrew. "Lawsuit dividing Kona coffee farmers." Pacific Business News. January 4, 1999. <http://www.amcity.com/pacific/stories/1999/01/04/story l .html?h=coffeelcertific ation>. Gomes, Andrew. "Retailers grow to satisfy Hawaii's coffee addiction." Pacific Business News. January 26, 1998. <http://www.amcity.com/pacific/stories/012698/story5.html>. "Great Kona Coffee Scandal, The." Coffee Times. O <http://www.coffeetimes.com/scandal.htm>. "Heritage." Kona Coffee Cultural Festival. <http://www.konacoffeefest.com/history.html>. "History of Coffee, The." The Roast and Post Coffee Company. <http://NVNVW.btinternet.com/—roastandpost/1-listory.html>. Kam, Nadine. "New seal gives Kona coffee business much needed jolt." Honolulu Star - Bulletin. November 3, 1997. <http://starbulletin.com/97/11/03/features/story3.html>. "Kona Coffee." Big Island Ag Online. <http://www.bigislandag.com/konacoffee.html>. "Kona Coffee: A Hawaiian Story." Mauna Loa. <http://www.maunaloa.com/coffeecaptured.html>. "Kona Coffee Booms." Coffee Times. October 1997. <http://coffeetimes.com/oct97.htm>. Kona Coffee Country. <http://www.kona-coffee-country.com>. O"Kona Coffee History Page." Hawaiian Isles Coffee Company. <http://www.hawaiianisles.com/history.html>. "Kona coffee prices seen rising due to bad harvest." Honolulu Star -Bulletin. September 16, 1996. <http://starbulletin.com/96/09/16/business/story3.html>. "Kona Coffee Processing." Fike Farms. <http://outer- banks. nc.us/fikefarms/konaproc.htm> - Moore, Trish. "Kona coffee paves way for new specialty brews." Honolulu Star -Bulletin. June 18, 1998. <http://starbulletin.com/98/06/18/news/story8.html>. Robinson, G. Rick. Phone interview. Statistics of Hawaiian Agriculture. Hawaii Agricultural Statistics Service. 1986=1997. Stone, Jeff. Interview. Various dates. Thompson, Rod. "Isle coffee group seeks federal certification." Honolulu Star -Bulletin. December 6, 1996. <http://starbulletin.com/96/12/06/business/story3.html>. Thompson, Rod. "Uchinda's Farm tells the story of Kona coffee." Honolulu Star - Bulletin. November 3, 1997. <http://starbulletin.com/97/11/03/news/story4.html>. United States Department of Agriculture Agricultural Statistics Wagner, Peter. "Coffee prices going up." Honolulu Star -Bulletin. May 30, 1997. <http://starbulletin.com/97/05/30/news/story2.html>. "What is Coffee?" Coffee Universe. <http://www.coffeeuniverse.com/world—coffee.html>. "World of Coffee: Africa & the Arabian Peninsula." Coffee Universe. <http://www.coffeeuniverse.com;world_coffee_africalhtml>. "World of Coffee: Indonesia & New Guinea." Coffee Universe. <http://www.coffeeuniverse.com/world—co f-_indones.htmI>. "World of Coffee: Latin America and the Caribbean." Coffee Universe. <http://www.coffeeuniverse.com/world—coffee—latin.html>. Yamagata, Gary. Interview. Various dates. PAPAYAS O County of Hawaii Data Book. County of Hawaii, Department of Research and Development. 1983-1997 County of Hawaii 1997 Data Book. County of Hawaii, Department of Research and Development. <http://www.hawaii-county.com/datatbook_97/sectionl5.htm>. County of Hawaii Agriculture. Big Island Agriculture. <http://www.bigislandag.com/ pht/phtmeeting.html>. Famer's Bookshelf. University of Hawaii at Manoa, Department of Horticulure. <http:// agrss.sherman.liawaii.edu/bookshelf/papaya/papaya.htm>. Fresh Papaya Utilization. National Agriculture Statistics Service. <http://www.nass. usda.gov/hi/fruit/papay4.gif>. Genetically Engineered Papaya Set for Market. Honolulu Star -Bulletin. <http:// starbulletin.com/96/09/23/news/briefs.html>. Hawaii Grown Papayas. Papaya Administrative Committee. Hawaii Papaya Industry's Second Chance. Papaya Administrative Committee. O Hawaii's Major Export Commodities. Hawaii Agricultural Gateway. <http://www. hawaiiag.org/613.htm>. Hawaii's Top 10 Farm Products (1994). Hawaii Agricultural Gateway. <http://www. hawaiiag.org/612.htm>. Home Fruit Production—Papaya. Julian W. Sauls. Texas Agricultural Extension Service. <http://extension-horiculture.tamu.edu/extension/homefruit/papaya /papaya.html>. Llantero, Emerson F. Phone Interview Big Island, Hawaii January 12, 1999. Marketing Papayas on the Mainland. University of Hawaii. <http://www.hawaii.edu/ ur/University_Report/URDec/papaya.html>. Pang, Bo. Phone Interview Honolulu, Hawaii January 12, 1999 Pa a a. Epicurious Dictionary. <http://www.epicurious.com/db/dictionary/terms/p/ papaya.html>. Papaya Industry. Honolulu Star -Bulletin. <http://starbulletin.com/98/04/28/editorial/ editorials.html>. O O Papaya. Lychee Woods. <http:/www.safari.net/—lychee/papaya.htm>. Papaya Ringspot Virus (PRV). Hawaii Agricultural Gateway. <http://www.hawaiiag. org/512bl.htm>. Proposal to Irradiate Hawaiian Fruit Creates Debate. MSNBC. <http://www.msnbc.com/ local/RTHI/>. Senator Daniel K. Inouye Official Home Page. Federal Government. <http://ftp.senate. gov/member/hi/inouye/general/97pr/97pr59.html>. Shipping Additional Commodities to the Mainland. USDA APHIS Activities in Hawaii. <http://www.aphis.usda.gov/oa/hiship.html>. State of Hawaii Data Book. The Department of Business, Economic Development & Tourism. 1990-1997 State of Hawaii Data Book 1997. The Department of Business, Economic Development & Tourism. <http://www.hawaii.gov/dbedt/db97/>. Statistics of Hawaiian Agriculture. Hawaii Agricultural Statistics Service. 1982-1997. OStatistics of Hawaiian Agriculture. Hawaii Agricultural Statistics Service. <http://nass. usda.gov/hi/stats/ >. United States Department of Agriculture Agricultural Statistics. United States Department of Agriculture 1990-1997 World Market for Papaya. Market Asia Agribusiness Information. <http://www. marketasia.org/bulletins/market/papaya.html>. BANANAS Altonn, Helen. "Possible disastrous effects of global changes in climate attract interest." Honolulu Star -Bulletin. March 4, 1998. "Bananas." Farmer's Bookshelf. <http://agrss. sherman.hawaii. edu/bookshelf/banana/banana.htm>. "Bananas." Hawaii Agricultural Statistics Service. <http://Www.usda.gov/hi/stats/stat- 29.htm>. "Bananas." Microsoft Encarta 98 Encyclopedia. 1993-1997. O Clark, Hugh. "Bananas in Kona to be destroyed." Honolulu Advertiser. January 19, 1999. O County of Hawaii Data Book. Department of Research and Development. 1983-1997. "Hawaii Banana." Hawaii Agricultural Statistics Service. <http://www.nass.usda.gov/hi/fruit/banana.htm>. "Hawaii Bananas Annual Summary." Hawaii Agricultural Statistics Service. July 3, 1998. "Hawaii bananas win export approval." MSNBC. <http://www.msnbc.com/local/RTHI/912.asp>. "Renewed growth in a once giant industry." Statistics of Hawaiian Agriculture. 1986. Statistics of Hawaiian Agriculture. Hawaii Agricultural Statistics Service. 1986-1997. United States Department of Agriculture Agricultural Statistics AVOCADOS Avocado. California Rare Fruit Growers, Inc. <http://crfg.org/pubs/ff/avocado.html>. O Avocado Fact Sheet. Fruit & Nut Research & Information Center, University of California. <http://fruitsandnuts.ucdavis.edu/avo3.html>. County of Hawaii Data Book. County of Hawaii, Department of Research and Development. 1983-1997 Galinsky, Bob. "TPMN Market Survey: Avocado' Tropical Produce Marketing News Spring 1995. <http://www.fintrac.com/gain/mktinfo/tpm/spr95/avocado.html>. Noncitrus Fruits and Nuts 1998 Preliminary Summary. Agricultural Statistics Board. < http://usda.mannlib.comell.edu/reports/nassr/fruit/pnf-bb/ncitO I99.pdf>. Proposal to Irradiate Hawaiian Fruit Creates Debate. MSNBC. <http://www.msnbc.com /local/RTHI/ Statistics of Hawaiian Agriculture. Hawaii Agricultural Statistics Service. 1982-1997. Statistics of Hawaiian Agriculture. Hawaii Agricultural Statistics Service. <http://nass. usda.gov/hi/fruit/avocado.htm>. State of Hawaii Data Book. The Department of Business, Economic Development & Tourism. 1990-1997 0 0 United States Department of Agriculture Agricultural Statistics. United States Department of Agriculture 1990-1997 World Market for Avocado. Market Asia Agribusiness Information. <http://www. fintrac.com/rap/bulletins/market/avocado.html>. FRESH VEGETABLES "Cabbage, Leaf." University of Hawaii College of Tropical Agriculture & Human Resources. <http://www.ctahr.hawaii.edu/experts/vegetables/cabbage.htm>. "Chinese Cabbage." Hawaii Agricultural Statistics Service. <http://www.nass.usda.gov/hi/stats/stat-34.htm>. "Chinese Cabbage." Plant Answers. <http:// 165.91.48.7/plantanswers/vegetables/chincabb.html>. County of Hawaii Data Book. Department of Research and Development. 1983-1997. "Ginger." Big Island Ag Online. <http://www.bigislandag.com/ginger.html>. O"Ginger." Farmer's Bookshelf <http://agrss.sherman.hawaii.edu/bookshelf/ginger/ginger.htm>. "Ginger." <http://cobweb.aecom.yu.edu/ooe/herbal/indexes/gingermp.html>. "Ginger: The Hot Root." Creative Seasoning Network. <http://www.creativeseasoning.com/HrbSpcSections/Ginger.htm>. "Ginger." University of Hawaii College of Tropical Agriculture & Human Resources. <http://www.ctahr.hawaii.edu/—experts/vegetables/ginger.htm>. "Ginger: It's Not Just For Cooking." Complementary and Alternative Medicine. <http://unc.edu/—cebradsh/ginger.html>. "Hawaii Vegetables." Hawaii Agricultural Statistics Service. <http://www.nass.usda.gov/hi/vegetble/an-nuveg.htm>. "Hawaii Ginger Root." Hawaii Agricultural Statistics Service. <http://www.nass.gov/hi/speccrop/ginger.htm>. "Hawaii Taro." Hawaii Agricultural Statistics Service. O<http://www.nass.usda.gov/hi/vegetble/taro.htm>. Johnson, Jeff. Phone Interview. April 1999. O "Other Vegetables." Hawaii Agricultural Statistics Service. <http://www.nass.usda.gov/hi/stats/stat-52.htm>. Statistics of Hawaiian Agriculture. Hawaii Agricultural Statistics Service. 1986-1997. "Taro." Big Island Ag Online. <http://www.bigislandag.com/taro.html>. "Taro." Farmer's Bookshelf. <http://agrss.sherman.hawaii.edu/bookshelf/taro/taro.htm>. "Taro." Hawaii Agricultural Statistics Service. <http://www.nass.usda.gov/hi/stats/stat- 48.htm>. "Taro." University of Hawaii College of Tropical Agriculture & Human Resources. <http://www.ctahr.hawaii.edu/extens/experts/vegetables/taro.htm>. "Taro Facts." Manrique International Agrotech. <http://www.lava.net/manrique/miat3c.htm>. "Tomato." Farmer's Bookshelf. <http://agrss.sherman.hawaii.edu/bookshelf/tomato/tomato.htm>. "Tomato." University of Hawaii College of Tropical Agriculture & Human Resources. O <http://www.ctahr.hawaii.edu/—experts/vegetables/tomato.htm>. "Tomatoes." Hawaii Agricultural Statistics Service. <http://www.nass.usda.gov/hi/stats- stat-49.htm>. Tomono, Stan. Phone Interview. April 6, 1999. United States Department of Agriculture Agricultural Statistics "Vegetable, Melon, and Taro Highlights." Hawaii Agricultural Statistics Service. <http://www.nass.usda.gov/hi/stats/stat-32.htm>. "Vegetables." Big Island Ag Online. <http://www.bigislandag.com/vegetables.html>. Yamashita, Roy. Phone Interview. April 7, 1999. OIRRADIATION PLANT Associated Press. "Irradiation process approved for meat." Honolulu Star -Bulletin. February 13, 1999. A6. "Big Island defeats ban on irradiator." Honolulu Advertiser. November 4, 1998. "Big Island farmers to X-ray for fruit flies." Honolulu Star -Bulletin. April 1, 1999. <http://starbulletin.com/1999/04/01/b ... /story l .htm>. "Big Island should OK irradiation of fruit." Honolulu Star -Bulletin, July 13, 1998. <http://starbulletin.com/98/07/13/editorials/editorials.html>. Cherry, Anna, and Jerry Redding. "USDA Proposes Allowing Entry of Certain Fruits From Hawaii to U.S. Mainland." Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. <http-//www.aphis.usda.gov>. Clark, Hugh, "Court upholds vote on irradiation." Honolulu Advertiser. February 24, 1999. p. B L Clark, Hugh. "Irradiation plant still viable, officials say." Honolulu Advertiser. O Clark, Hugh. "Irradiator likely to be built rapidly." Honolulu Advertiser. November 5, 1998. p. A8. Clark, Hugh. "X-ray facility proposed to treat crops." Honolulu Advertiser. April 2, 1999. p. Al. County of Hawaii Agriculture. <http://www.bigislandag.com>. "Facts About Food Irradiation, The." Frontier Natural Products Co-op. <http://www. frontierherb.com/spices/notes/spices.notes. no 3.html>. "Food irradiation." Honolulu Star -Bulletin. March 28, 1997. <http://starbulletin.com/97/03/28/editorial/editorials.html>. "Food irradiation." Honolulu Star -Bulletin. May 30, 1997. <http://starbutletin.com/97/05/30/editorial/editorials.html>. "Fruit irradiation." Honolulu Star -Bulletin. January 1, 1997. <http://starbutletin.com/97/01 /01 /editorial/editorials.html>. "Fruit irradiation." Honolulu Star -Bulletin. May 23, 1997. <http:starbulletin.com/97/05/23/editorial/editorials.html>. Gima, Craig. "Irradiation vote draws Big Island challenge." Honolulu Star -Bulletin. O November 24, 1998. <http://starbulletin.com/98/11/24/news/story8.html>. Gomes, Andrew. "Race is under way on Big Island to provide technology so farmers can export fruit." Pacific Business News. March 26, 1999. p. A3. "Irradiating Hawaii's Fruit." Kilima. <http://www.webcom.com/kilima/bi1162.html>. "Irradiation facility funding approved." Honolulu Star:Bulletin. April 25, 1997. <http: starbulletin.com/97/04/2 5/news/briefs.html>. Isomedix Homepage. <http://www.isomedix.com/process.htm>. Jacobson, Julie. "Irradiation isn't worth the risk." Honolulu Star -Bulletin. May 23, 1997. <http://starbuiletin.com/97/05/29/editorial/viewpointf.html>. Loos, Chris. "Big Island to vote on food irradiation plant." Honolulu Star -Bulletin. July 24, 1998. <http://starbulletin.com/98/07/24/news/briefs.html>. "Meat irradiation's OK could help Hawaii." Honolulu Star -Bulletin. December 3, 1997. <http://starbulletin.com/97/12/03/editorial/editorials.html>. Moriarty, Michael. "Hawaii's Irradiation Scandal." Pacific Islands Monthly. O <http://www.ilhawaii.net/—msquared/irradiation.htmi>. Nakamura, Howard. Phone interview. 1 April 1999. "Proposal to ban irradiation facility is defeated." Hawaii News 8. December 10, 1998. <http://khnl.com>. "Proposal to irradiate Hawaiian fruit creates debate." MSNBC. <http://www.msnbc.com/local/RTHI/658.asp>. "Report says people would buy irradiated food." Pacific Business News. September 25, 1998. <http://www.amcity.com/pacific/stories/I 998/09/2 I/daily 15.html?h=irradiationlpl ant>. Thompson, Rod. "A bid to build a private food irradiator resulted in opposition and this vote." Honolulu Star -Bulletin. October 29, 1998. <http://starbulletin.com/98/ 10/29/general/hawaii.html>. Thompson, Rod. "Big Island irradiation plant to reach vote." Honolulu Star -Bulletin. August 5, 1998. <http://starbulletin.com/98/08/05/news/story6.html>. OThompson, Rod. "Big Isle official speaks against food irradiator." Honolulu Star - Bulletin. October 9, 1998. <http://starbulletin.com/98/10/09/news/story8.html>. Thompson, Rod. "Fruit growers push for irradiation facility." Honolulu Star -Bulletin. April 22, 1997. <http://starbulletin.com/97/04/22/news/story3.html>. Thompson, Rod. "Internationally known disease expert backs irradiation." Honolulu Star - Bulletin. September 29, 1998. <http://starbulletin.com/98/09/29/news/story9.html>. Thompson, Rod. "Irradiation opponents prepare for battle." Honolulu Star -Bulletin. May 21, 1997. <http://starbulletin.com/97/05/21/news/story4.html>. Thompson, Rod. "Irradiator clears Big Island hurdle." Honolulu Star -Bulletin. November 4, 1998. <http://starbulletin.com/98/11/04/news/storylO.html>. Thompson, Rod. "Irradiator firm weighs offer in Hilo." Honolulu Star -Bulletin Thompson, Rod. "Proposed irradiator would be safe from quake, lava, tsunami, experts say." Honolulu Star -Bulletin. October 23, 1998. <http://starbulletin.com/98/10/23/news/story5.html>. O "Voters ask court to invalidate the irradiation election result." Hawaii News 8. November 23, 1998. <http://planet-hawaii.com/khnl/news/I12398_6.htm>. RENEWABLE ENERGY Campos, Frellie. "Aquaculture Ventures to Spawn From Old Sewage Plant." Pacific Business News November 09, 1998. <http://www.amcity.com/pacific/stories /I 998/ 11 /09/story7.htm1?h=nelha>. CEROS. National Defense Center of Excellence For research in Ocean Sciences. <http://www.ceros.org>. County of Hawaii Data Book. County of Hawaii, Department of Research and Development. 1983-1997 "Dollars From Sense: The Economic Benefits of Renewable Energy." National Renewable Energy Laboratory. 1997. "Energy Resources Coordinator's Annual Report 1997." Department of Business, Economic Development & Tourism. O Energy, Resources, and Technology. Department of Business, Economic Development & Tourism. <http:www.hawaii.gov/dbedt/ert>. Gomes, Andrew. "$15.4 Mil Would Open Floodgate For NELHA." Pacific Business O News January 11, 1999. <http://www.amcity.com/pacific/stories/1999/01/11/ story7.html?h=nelha>. Gomes, Andrew. "Designer Sheds Light On Economical, Mood -Enhancing Builking Elements." Pacific Business News July 27, 1998. <http://www.amcity.com/ pacific/stories/1 998/07/27/story6.html?h=air/cargo/destribution>. Gomes, Andrew. "Frazier Brings Business Sense to NELHA." Pacific Business News March 02, 1997. <http://www.amcity.com/pacific/stories/1998/03/02/smallb3. html?h=agribusiness>. Gomes, Andrew. "Investment Beginning to Pay Off at NELHA." Pacific Business News September 29, 1997. <http://www.amcity.com/pacific/stories/1997/09/29/story7. html?h=nelha>. Gomes, Andrew. "Researcher Believes Abalone Will Shell Out Revenue." Pacific Business News March 30, 1998. <http://www.amcity.com/pacific/stories/ 1998/03/30/story7.html?h=nelha>. Hawaii Ocean R&D. Hawaii Ocean Research and Development. January 1999 <http://www.mic.hawaii.edu/orb/ocean_orbarticle.html>. History of NELHA. Natural Energy Laboratory of Hawaii Authority. December 1998 <http://bigisland.com/nelha/index.html>. Hoover, Jaqui Phone Interview Kailua-Kona, Hawaii February 04, 1999. National renewable Energy Laboratory. U.S. Department of Energy. December 1998 <http-://www.nrel.gov/>. Raleigh, C. Barry. "$4 per Gallon Gasoline Would Make Hawaii Better." Honolulu Star -Bulletin October 31, 1997. January 1999 <http://starbuiletin.com/97/11/ 06/editorial/viewpointf.html>. "Renewable Energy: A Guide to the New World of Energy Choices". National Renewable Energy Laboratory. State of Hawaii Data Book. The Department of Business, Economic Development & Tourism. 1990-1997 Tune, Jerry. "Big Isle Resort Warms Up to Solar Power." Honolulu Star -Bulletin December 25, 1998. D-2 OTune, Jerry. "Isle Firms Bidding to Build Navy Power Plant." Honolulu Star -Bulletin August 21, 1998. <http://starbulletin.com/98/08/21/business/story2.html>. Tune, Jerry. "Kaimuki High Will Launch Solar Program." Honolulu Star -Bulletin November 05, 1996. <http://starbulletin.com/96/11/05/business/story3.html>. Tune, Jerry. "Mauna Lani Trying Solar Power System." Honolulu Star -Bulletin February 18, 1998. <http://starbulletin.com/98/02/18/business/story3.html>. Tune, Jerry: "Selling the Power." Honolulu Star -Bulletin January 24, 1997. <http:// starbulletin.com/97/01/24/features/storyl.html>. Various Resources, Natural Energy Laboratory of Hawaii Authority, February 09, 1999. Wagner, Peter. "State Floating a Powerful Idea." Honolulu Star -Bulletin February 05, 1997. <http://starbutletin.com/97/02/05ibusiness/story2.html>. ASTRONOMY Altonn, Helen. "Hawaii telescope shows baby galaxy." Honolulu Star -Bulletin. March 13, 1998. <http://starbulletin.com/98/03/13/news/story4.html>. Altonn, Helen. "Hidden slice of universe is revealed." Honolulu Star -Bulletin. July 15, 1998. <http://starbulletin.com/98/07/15/news/story6.html>. Altonn, Helen. "Scramble for UH astronomy plum." Honolulu Star -Bulletin. December 22, 1997. <http://starbulletin.com/97/12/22/news/story2.html>. Altonn, Helen. "Solar Eclipsed." Honolulu Star -Bulletin. July 25, 1996. <http://starbulletin.com/96/07/25/news/storyl.html>. "Brief History of Astronomy." Marek Dudka Page — Northern Illinois University Department of Biological Sciences. <http://www.bios.niu.edu/orion/history.html>. Caltech Submillimeter Observatory Page. <http://www.submm.caltech.edu/cso>. County of Hawaii Data Book. Department of Research and Development. 1983-1997. Gordon, Mike. "Mauna Kea's big view of the skies." Honolulu Advertiser. January 17, 1999. p. Al. Hall, Donald N.B. "Stewards of the stars — and aina — at Mauna Kea." Honolulu Star - Bulletin. July 12, 1996. <http://starbulletin.com/96/07/18/editorial/viewpoint.html>. "Hawaii: Mauna Kea." May 26, 1998. O <http://starbulletin.com/98/05/26/news/story l .html>. Wolfe, Edward W. and Jean Morris. Hawaii Island High Tech Strategic Plan. 1996. Ho, Nelson. "Outlook remains cloudy on future care of Mauna Kea." Honolulu Star - Bulletin. July 26, 1996. <http://starbulletin.com/96/08/01 /editorial/viewpoint.html>. "Japan floats Mauna Kea scope plan." Honolulu Star -Bulletin. October 28, 1998. <http://starbulletin.com/96/10/28/newsibriefs.html>. "Japan telescope facility opens on Big isle today." Honolulu Star -Bulletin. June 12, 1997. <http://starbulletin.com/97/06/12/news/briefs.html>. Kosaki, Keith. "Auditor raps handling of area atop Mauna Kea." Honolulu Star -Bulletin. February 10, 1998. <http://starbulletin.com/98/02/10/news/story7.html>. Lure Observatory Page. <http://koa.ifa.hawaii.edu/Lure>. MAGNUM Project Page. <http://merope.mtk.nao.ac.jp/—yuki/mage.html>. "Mauna Kea and the Observatories." Hawaii Cyperworld: Science: Observatories. <http://www.hawaii-cyber-world.com/science/observatories.html>. "Mauna Kea telescopes." Honolulu Star -Bulletin. May 9, 1996. <http://starbulletin.com/96/05/96/editorial/editorials.html>. Ohira, Rod. "Mauna Kea team finds two new planets." Honolulu Star -Bulletin. September 24, 1998. <http://starbulletin.com/98/09/24/news/story6.html>. Omandam, Pat. "UH initiates drive to boost isle economy." Honolulu Star -Bulletin. September 1, 1998. <http://starbulletin.com/98/09/01/news/storyl/html>. Robson, Ian. "Astronomy on the Big Island." The Joint Astronomy Centre. <http://www.jack.hawaii.edu/astronomy/whatis-html>. Subaru Telescope Homepage. <http://www.subaru.naoj.org>. "Telescope a `blight,' cultural specialist says." Honolulu Star -Bulletin. July 4, 1997. <http://starbulletin.com/97/07/04/news/briefs.html>. "Telescope mirror gently shipped to Big Island." Honolulu Star -Bulletin. November 5, 1998. <http://starbulletin.com/98/11/05/news/storyl l.html>. O OTenBrunggencate, Jan. "1999: A space peek." Honolulu Advertiser. January 29, 1999. p. Al. Thompson, Rod. "Keck's new scope adds `binoculars' for the skies." Honolulu Star - Bulletin. May 7, 1996. <http://starbulletin.com/96/05/07/news/story3.htm1>. Thompson, Rod. "Mililani Trask criticizes UH astronomy's handling of upper Mauna Kea." Honolulu Star -Bulletin. August 31, 1998. <http://starbulletin.com/98/08/31 /news/story6.html>. Thompson, Rod. "Telescope mirror making 3 -day journey to Mauna Kea summit." Honolulu Star -Bulletin, June 25, 1998. <http://starbulletin.com/98/06/25/news/story5.html>. Thompson, Rod. "Work on Hilo astronomy base to begin." Honolulu Star -Bulletin. September 5, 1998. <http://starbuiletin.com/98/09/05/news/story2.html>. "UH astronomy chief reassigned." Honolulu Star -Bulletin. June 11, 1997. <http://starbulletin.com/97/06/1 I /news/story4.html>. University of Hawaii Institute for Astronomy Page. <http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu>. OW.M. Keck Observatory Page. <http://www2.keck.hawaii.edu:3636>. Whitt, Kelly. "Let There Be Light." Astronomy Magazine. February 4, 1999. http://www2.astronomy.com/astroNews/News/FL.html. MILITARY ACTIVITIES Ed. Evinger, William R. U.S. Directory of Military Bases Worldwide, Third Edition. Phoenix, Arizona: Oryx Press, c1998. Heaukalani, David — Executive Officer Phone Interview Pohakuloa, Big Island, Hawaii February 04, 1999. State of Hawaii Data Book. The Department of Business, Economic Development & Tourism. 1990-1997 State of Hawaii Data Book 1997. The Department of Business, Economic Development & Tourism. <http://www.hawaii.gov/dbedt/db97/>. Swanson, Mark Phone Interview Volcano, Hawaii February 24, 1999. FILM INDUSTRY 1997 Annual Report The Hawaii Film Industry. The Hawaii Film Office, State of Hawaii, Department of Business, Economic Development & Tourism. Adamski, Mary. "Haleiwa abuzz with `Baywatch' anticipation." Honolulu Star -Bulletin. April 3, 1999. <http://starbulletin.com/1999/04/03/news/storyl.html>. "Big Island Production History." Big Island Film Office. <http://filmbigisland.com/pgs/prev-prods.html>. "Big Island TV series signs on." Pacific Business News. July 15, 1998. <http://www.amcity.com/pacific/stories/I 998/07/13/daily6.html>. Campos, Frellie. "Film industry brought Hawaii to Americans." Pacific Business News. March 16, 1998. <http://www.amcity.com/pacific/stories/I 998/03/16/focus3/html>. Clark, Sharon. Phone interview. March 1999. County of Hawaii Data Book. Department of Research and Development. 1983-1997. "Film Industry." County of Hawaii Web -site. <http://www.hawaii- county.com/annual_reports/annual95_96/r&d.htm>. "Film Industry." County of Hawaii 1996-1997 Annual Report: Department of Research and Development. <http://www.hawaii- county.com/annual—reports/annual96-97/r&dO I.htm>. "Film." County of Hawaii 1997-1998 Annual Report: Department of Research and Development. <http://www.hawaii- county.com/annual_reports/annual97_98/r&dO l .htm>. "Foreign film crews can get visa waivers." Honolulu Star -Bulletin. February 23, 1998. <http://starbulletin.com/98/02/23/business/bizbriefs.html>. Gillingham, Paula. "Hawaii County finances promotional activities." Pacific Business News. March 24, 1997. <http://amcity.com/pacific/stories/ 1997/03/24/story6.html>. Harada, Wayne. "Actors to watch bays on all Islands." Honolulu Advertiser. April 3, 1999. p. B 1. Harada, Wayne. "Ratings reality kills `Fantasy."' Honolulu Advertiser. December 11, 1998. p. Al. Hoover, Will. "'It's a go' for Island shooting of `Baywatch."' Honolulu Advertiser. April 2, 1999. p. Al. Killeri, Marilyn. Phone interview. January 22, 1999. McNarie, Alan D. "TV in the Wilderness." Ka'u Landing. August 1998. <http://www.kau-landing.com/archive/898-I.html>. "Motion Picture and Television Production in Hawaii." miningco.com. June 22, 1998. <http://gohawaii.miningco.com/library/weekly/aa062298.htm?terms=Magnum+P%2 EI%2>. Nakamura, Howard. Phone interview. January 15, 1999. "New TV series, `Wind on Water,' to showcase Big Island's diversity." Travel Weekly. October 26, 1998. p. 14. Ryan, Tim. "`Aloha Night' hits prime time." Honolulu Star -Bulletin. August 24, 1998. <http://starbulletin.com/98/08/24/news/story3/html>. Ryan, Tim. `Banking on Hollywood." Honolulu Star -Bulletin. June 17, 1998. <http://starbulletin.com/98/06/17/business/storyl.html>. Ryan, Tim. "Big Island series loses its wind." Honolulu Star -Bulletin. October 27, 1998. <http://starbulletin.com/98/10/27/features/story2.html>. Ryan, Tim. "Big jump in spending by film, TV industry helps buoy economy." Honolulu Star -Bulletin. April 16, 1998. <http://starbulletin.com/98/04/16/business/story7.html>. Ryan, Tim. "Film, TV production in '97 hit $71 million." Honolulu Star -Bulletin. February 19, 1998. <http://starbulletin.com/98/02/19/business/story2.html>. Ryan, Tim. "Film biz swings." Honolulu Star -Bulletin. July 24, 1997. <http://starbulletin.com/97/07/24/news/story3.html>. Ryan, Tim. "Film revenues were up in 1996." January 20, 1997. <http://starbulletin.com/97/01/20/features.story3.html>. Ryan, Tim. "Four films to shoot in Hawaii this year." Honolulu Star -Bulletin. February 25, 1997. http://starbulletin.com/97/02/25/features/story3.html. Ryan, Tim. "NBC series to make Big island its home." Honolulu Star -Bulletin. July 16, 1998. <http://starbulletin.com/98/07/16/features/story5.html>. Ryan, Tim. "State hopes to woo film industry." Honolulu Star -Bulletin. March 20, 1997. O<http://starbulletin.com/97/03/20/news/story3.html>. Ryan, Tim. "2 network TV pilots will be made in isles." Honolulu Star -Bulletin. February 26, 1998. <http://starbulletin.com/98/02/26/features/story2.html>. Ryan, Tim. "Two Hawaii series get the green light." Honolulu Star -Bulletin. May 19, 1998. <http://starbulletin.com98/05/19/features/story2.html>. Ryan, Tim. "`Wheel' spins back for Hawaii filming." Honolulu Star -Bulletin. October 7, 1998. <http://starbulletin.com/98/10/07/features/story3.html>. Thompson, Rod. "Economist: Opponents trying to curb Big Island growth." Honolulu Star -Bulletin. September 3, 1998. <http://starbulletin.com/98/09/03/business/story3.html>. "TV series will be filmed at Kekaha Kai State Park, The." Honolulu Star -Bulletin. August 14, 1998. <http://starbuiletin.com/98/08/14/news/satnews.html>. Various resources. Big Island Film Office. Various resources. Hawaii Film Office. COMMERCIAL FISHING "1998 Symposium on Pacific Island Gamefish Tournaments." Holoholo Hawaii. <http://holoholo.org/fishnews/dx980203.html>. County of Hawaii Data Book. Department of Research and Development. 1983-1997. "Fishing in Hawaii." Hawaii Visitors and Convention Bureau Page. <http://www.gohawaii.com/hokeo/activity/fishing.html>. Foster, Jeanette. "The Making of a Mecca." The International Sportfishing Magazine. September 1996. <http://holoholo.org/fishnews/marin996.html>. "Hawaii District Boating Facilities." State of Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources. <http://wwwlhawaii.gov/dlnr/borhi.html>. "Hawaii's Bottomfish." State of Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources. <http://www.hawaii.gov/dlnr/Bottomfish.html>. "Hawaii Seafood Exporters." Hawaii Seafood Buyer's Guide. <http://planet- hawaii.com/hsbg/exporters.html>. "One Million Dollar Reward For Big Blue Marlin." Holoholo Hawaii. <http://holoholo.org/fishnews/mildolrm.html>. 0 Suisan Companty Ltd. <http://www.suisan.com/market/auction.html> . Tune, Jerry. '`State seeks restrictions on onaga, ehu fishing." Honolulu Star -Bulletin. February 12, 1997. <http://starbulletin.com/97/02/12/business/story3.html>. FORESTRY Armstrong, Jason, "Future of Hamakua Coast land the focus of hearings", Hawaii Tribune -Herald, 1997. Beck, Andrea, Hawaii Forestry Industry Association, Interview, February 16, 1999. "Big Isle official in Japan to meet with foresters", Honolulu Star -Bulletin, October 6, 1997. Campos, Frellie, "Mainland firm stands tall in forestry on Big Island", Pacific Business News, December 28, 1998. Ching, Wayne, DLNR, Interview, February 15, 1999. County of Hawaii Agriculture, Forestry page, January 1999, 0 <www.bigistandag.com/forestry/> County of Hawaii Data Book, Department of Research and Development, 1983-1997. Elevitch, Craig, "Pulp is poor choice for isles", Honolulu Star -Bulletin, May 24, 1997. Forest Acreage, Hawaii County, Hawaii State Department of Land and Natural Resources, Division of Forestry and Wildlife, June 29, 1998. Gillingham, Paula, "Big Isle policies designed to attract business", Pacific Business News, May 26, 1997. Gillingham, Paula, "Firms put money on paper", Pacific Business News, March 10, 1997. Gomes, Andrew, "Ag ventures yield growing revenue", Pacific Business News, December 28, 1998. Gomes, Andrew, "Former sugar lands turns forestry battle zone", Pacific Business News, November 10, 1997. Groome Poyry Limited, Hawaii Forestry Investment Memorandum, August 1994. 011 Groome Poyry Limited, Hawaii Forestry Investment Memorandum, May 1994. Hooper, Susan "State sugar harvest to drop 21 percent", Honolulu Advertiser, September tember p, g p p 11, 1997. "Japanese firm seeks OK for Big Isle tree farm", Honolulu Star -Bulletin, January 2, 1997. Kresnak, William, "State details its support for forestry", Honolulu Advertiser. September 12,1997. Kutner, Lionel, "Not every tree is good for Hawaii's environment", Honolulu Star - Bulletin, September 13, 1997. Lynch, Russ, "Alliance helps isle woodworkers", Honolulu Star -Bulletin, July 13, 1998. Omandam, Pat, "State unveils plan to turn sugar cane land to sustainable forests", Honolulu Star -Bulletin, September 4, 1997. Ray, John, "Don't cut down promise of forest industry in Hawaii", Honolulu Star - Bulletin, November 8, 1997. "State considers selling 4,800 Hamakua acres", Honolulu Star -Bulletin, December 15, 1998. "State's rejection of tree farm on Big Island", Honolulu Star -Bulletin, November 18, I� .1997. "State unveils plan to turn sugar land into forest", Honolulu Star -Bulletin, September 4, 1997. TenBruggencate, Jan, "Red tape entangles forest plan", Honolulu Advertiser, August 11, 1997. "The forestry industry uprooted", The Economist, August 31, 1996. Thompson, Rod, "Budget cuts trim timber industry plans", Honolulu Star -Bulletin, June 4, 1998. Thompson, Rod, "County plan for Hamakua land protested by agriculture co-op", Honolulu Star -Bulletin, August 11, 1997 Thompson, Rod, "Finding gold in them hills", Honolulu Star -Bulletin, February 1997. Thompson, Rod, "Hamakua land considered for farms or trees", Honolulu Star -Bulletin, 1997. Thompson, Rod, "No replacement for lost jobs on Ka'u's horizon", Honolulu Star - Bulletin, 1997. "Tree farming project comes to the Big Isle", Pacific Business News, June 3, 1997. Wilson, Michael D., "Commercial forestry will profit both land and people", Honolulu Star -Bulletin, September 5, 1997. SPECIAL EVENTS "Festival Facts." Honolulu Star -Bulletin. April 16, 1998. <http:// starbulletin.com/ 98/04/ 16/features/story5.html>. Fitzgerald, Mike. "Billfish Event Really Brings Folks Together." Honolulu Star -Bulletin August 20, 1996. <http://starbulletin.com/96/08/20/sports/fitzgerald.html>. Kwon, Bill. "Billfish Event is Still Going Strong At 40." Honolulu Star -Bulletin August 06, 1998. <http://starbulletin.com/98/08/06/sports/kwon.html>. Kwon, Bill. "Floyd Trying for Sixth Straight Sr. Skins Title." Honolulu Star -Bulletin January 29, 1999. <http://starbulletin.com/1999/01/29/sports/story5.html>. Kwon, Bill. "How Long Can This Good Golf Thing Last?" Honolulu Star -Bulletin February 02, 1999. <http://starbulletin.com/1999/02/02/sports/kwon.html>. Kwon, Bill. "Senior Tour in the Swing Again: The Sr. PGA's Tournament of Champions on the Big Island Starts its Season." Honolulu Star -Bulletin. January 01, 1999. <http://starbulletin.com/1999/01/21/sports/story4.html>. Kwon, Bill. "Tag, Release Program Catching On." Honolulu Star -Bulletin August 05, 1997. <http://starbulletin.com/97/08/05/sports/kwon.html>. Kam, Nadine. "When the Hula Festival's in Town Hilo Hums." Honolulu Star -Bulletin April 15, 1996. <http://starbulletin.com/96/04/15/fearures/storyl.html>. Kam, Nadine. "Restaurants Roll the Dice During Festival Week." Honolulu Star -Bulletin April 15, 1996. <http://starbulletin.com/96/04/15/fearures/story3.html>. Kam, Nadine. "Auntie Dottie Thompson's Tireless Efforts Keep the Beloved Festival Hopping." Honolulu Star -Bulletin. April 15, 1996. <http://starbulletin.com/ 96/04/ 15/fearures/story3.html>. Nishijima, Beth -An. Phone Interview Hilo, Hawaii August 12, 1998 Quitiquit, Diane. Phone Interview Honolulu, Hawaii April 07, 1999. Thompson, Rod. "Of Muscle... andMone • Ironman Triathlon." Honolulu Star -Bulletin October 02, 1998. <http://starbulletin.com/98/10/02/sports/storyl.html>. The Official Home of the Ironman Triathlon. Ironman Triathlon, <http:// www.ironmanlive.com>. Various Resources. Department of Business, Economic Development & Tourism. 1998 Various Resources. Hawaii Film Office. 1997 County of Hawaii General Plan 10 -Year Review INFRASTRUCTURE ASSESSMENT REPORT Prepared for: Planning Department County of Hawaii Prepared by: - Roy R. Takemoto, Planning Consultant P.O. Box 10217 Hilo, HI 96721 in association with Raymond Suefuji 192 Kapiolani Street Hilo, HI 96720' and Maptech, Inc. P.O. Box 211 Hilo, HI 96721 December 2000 12/4/00 F11 a tai n; n e Exhibit Civil No. 07-1-243K Defendant's Exhibit D4 In evidence — for identification Received Clerk CONTENTS Summary Chapter 1: Introduction 1.1. Purpose ........................................................................ 1-1 1.2. Definition of Infrastructure......................................................... 1-1 Table 1-1. Infrastructure Responsibilities 1-2 1.3. Report Organization.............................................................. 1-2 Chapter 2: Coordinating Infrastructure and Land Use Planning 2.1. Existing Settlement Patterns....................................................... 2-1 Figure 2-1. Urban LUPAG Classifications within the 1990 Census Designated Places 2-3 Figure 2-2. LUPAG Map with Overlay of 1990 Census Designated Places 2-5 Figure 2-3. Population Density by 1990 Census Designated Places 2-7 Figure 2-4. Parcel Density by 1990 Census Designated Places 2-9 Figure 2-5. Ratio of Resident Population to Employment by District 2-11 Table 2-1. Population and Employment by District, 1995-2020 2-11 Figure 2-6. Commuting Time by 1990 Census Designated Places 2-13 2.2. Urban Service Boundaries........................................................ 2-15 2.2.1. Suitable and Sensitive Areas . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . 2-15 Figure 2-7. Consistency Between SLU and LUPAG-- Urban Zones 2-17 Figure 2-8. Consistency Between SLU and LUPAG-- Agricultural Zones 2-19 Figure 2-9. Consistency Between SLU and LUPAG-- Conservation Zones 2-21 Figure 2-10. Protection of Prime Agricultural Land-- Relationship to SLU and LUPAG Agricultural Designations 2-25 Figure 2-11. Protection of Reserve Lands by Conservation Zones (SLU or LUPAG) 2- 27 Figure 2-12, LUPAG Urban Zones in Natural Hazard Areas 2-29 2.2.2. Urban Reserve Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . 2-31 Figure 2-13. Relationship of State -Owned Lands to LUPAG Urban Areas 2-33 Figure 2-14. LUPAG Urban Expansion Areas-- State Land Use Designations 2-35 Figure 2-15. LUPAG Urban Expansion Areas-- Relationship to Prime Agricultural Lands and Sensitive Areas 2-37 Figure 2-16. LUPAG Urban Expansion Areas-- Relationship to Commuting Time 2-39 Figure 2-17. Resident Population Projection to Year 2020 2-41 Table 2-2. Population Capacity of Urban Expansion Areas 2-43 2.3. Concurrency ................................................................... 2-43 Table 2-3. Suggested "Critical' Facilities for Concurrency Requirement 2-44 Chapter 3: Facilities Needs Assessment 3.1. Airports ........................................................................ 3-3 3.1.1. Overview and Inventory . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3 3.1.2. issues, Problems and/or Opportunities . . . .. . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . 3-5 3.1.3. Suggested Policies ........................................ 3-5 3.1.4. Suggested Standards ...................................... 3-6 3.1.5. Institutional Framework . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . .. . . .. . . .. . . .. . . . .. . . . 3-7 Figure 3-I. Existing Airports 3-9 Figure 3-2. Hilo International Airport Industrial LUPAG 3-9 Figure 3-3. Kona International Airport Industrial LUPAG 3-9 General Plan Infrastructure Assessment Study C) 3.2. Harbors ........................................................................ 3-17 3.2.1. Overview and Inventory .. . . . . . .. . . .. . . .. .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3-17 Figure 3-4. Hilo Airport Master Plan 3-10 Figure 3-5. Kona International Airport Master Plan, Phase I 3-11 Figure 3-6. Kona International Airport Master Plan, Phase II 3-12 Figure 3-7. Kona International Airport Master Plan, Phase III 3-13 Figure 3-8. Passenger Volume Trends, 1970-98, Hilo International Airport 3-14 Figure 3-9. Passenger Volume Trends, 1970-98, Kona International Airport 3-14 Figure 3-10. Cargo and Mail Trends, 1970-1998, Hilo Airport 3-15 Figure 3-11. Cargo and Mail Trends, 1970-1998, Kona Airport 3-15 3.2. Harbors ........................................................................ 3-17 3.5. Water.......................................................................... 3-49 3.5.1. Overview and Inventory .. .. ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . ... . . . .3-49 3.5.2. Issues, Problems and/or Opportunities . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . ... . .. . . . .3-51 3.5.3. Suggested Policies ............... ........... . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-51 3.5.4. Suggested Standards . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . ..3-52 3.5.5. Institutional Framework ........... ............. . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-52 Figure 3-26. County Water Systems 3-55 ii General Plan Infrastructure Assessment Study 3.2.1. Overview and Inventory .. . . . . . .. . . .. . . .. .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3-17 3.2.2. Issues, Problems and/or Opportunities ............... . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-18 3.2.3. Suggested Policies . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .3-18 3.2.4. Suggested Standards . .. ... . . .. . . .. . . .. .. .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .3-18 3.2.5. Institutional Framework . . . .. . .. . . . . . .. .. 3-19 Figure 3-12. Existing Deep -Draft Harbors, Small Boat Harbors, and Boat Launches 3-21 Figure 3-13. Freight Traffic, Hilo and Kawaihae Harbors, 1975-1995 3-21 Figure 3-15. General Plan LUPAG in Vicinity of Hilo Harbor 3-22 Figure 3-14. Hilo Harbor Master Plan 3-22 Figure 3-17. General Plan LUPAG in Vicinity of Kawaihae Harbor 3-22 Figure 3-16. Kawaihae Master Plan 3-22 3.3. Roadways ...................................................................... 3-23 3.3.1. Overview and Inventory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 3-23 3.3.2. Issues, Problems and/or Opportunities . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .3-25 3.3.3. Suggested Policies .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . .. . . . . . .. . .3-27 3.3.4. Suggested Standards . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3-27 3.3.5. Institutional Framework . . . . . . . . .. . ..... Figure 3-18. Highway Functional Classification 3-31 3-29 Table 3-1. Functional Classification of Existing Highways by Route No. 3-32 Table 3-2. Local Non -Federal Aid Roads by District 3-33 Figure 3-19. Proposed Highway Improvements (HLRLTP) 3-34 Figure 3-20. Proposed Highway Improvements: General Plan vs. HLRLTP 3-34 Table 3-3. List of Proposed Highway Improvements (HLRLTP) 3-35 Table 3-5. Comparison of Population Projections: Long -Range Transportation Plan vs. General Plan 3-36 Table 3-4. Estimated Cost of Proposed Highway Improvements 3-36 Figure 3-21. Motor Vehicles and Fuel Consumption Trends 3-37 3.4. Mass Transit and Bicycles........................................................ 3-39 3.4.1. Overview and Inventory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3-39 3.4.2. Issues, Problems and/or Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. .3-41 3.4.3. Suggested Policies . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ... . . . . . . . . .. . . . .3-42 3.4.4. Suggested Standards . .. . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .3-42 3.4.5. Institutional Framework .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .3-43 Figure 3-22. Existing and Proposed Transit 3-45 Table 3-6. Existing and Proposed Transit Routes and Frequency 3-45 Figure 3-23. Hawaii County Bus Ridership Trends, 1990-98 3-45 Figure 3-24. Existing and Proposed Bikeways 3-46 Table 3-7. List of Existing and Proposed Bikeways 3-47 Figure 3-25. Registered Bicycles Trend, 1994-98 3-48 3.5. Water.......................................................................... 3-49 3.5.1. Overview and Inventory .. .. ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . ... . . . .3-49 3.5.2. Issues, Problems and/or Opportunities . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . ... . .. . . . .3-51 3.5.3. Suggested Policies ............... ........... . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-51 3.5.4. Suggested Standards . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . ..3-52 3.5.5. Institutional Framework ........... ............. . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-52 Figure 3-26. County Water Systems 3-55 ii General Plan Infrastructure Assessment Study Table 3-8. Public Water Systems 3-55 Table 3-9. Hawaii County Water System Consumption, 1996-97 3-56 Figure 3-27. Projected Demand for the County Water System, Year 2010 and 2020 3- 56 Figure 3-28. Comparison of the Water Service Areas and General Plan Urban Areas 3-57 3.6. Wastewater ..................................................................... 3-59 3.6.1. Overview and Inventory .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-59 3.6.2. Issues, Problems and/or Opportunities . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . 3-60 3.6.3. Suggested Policies . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . 3-60 3.6.4. Suggested Standards . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 3-61 3.6.5. Institutional Framework .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . .. .. 3-61 Figure 3-29. Existing County Wastewater Systems Service Areas 3-63 Table 3-10. Wastewater Treatment Plants 3-63 3.7. Recreation Facilities............................................................. 3-65 3.7.1. Overview and Inventory . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . .. . .. .. 3-65 3.7.2. Issues, Problems and/or Opportunities . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. . . 3-67 3.7.3. Suggested Policies .. . .. . . .. . . .. .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . 3-68 3.7.4. Suggested Standards . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. .. 3-69 3.7.5. Institutional Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. .. 3-69 Figure 3-30. Resource -Based Parks (Federal, State, County) 3-71 Table 3-11. List of Resource -Based Parks 3-71 Figure 3-31. Population -Based Parks (County) 3-72 Table 3-12. List of Population -Based Recreation Facilities (County) 3-73 Figure 3-32. Parks: Population Ratio by Districts (acres/1000 persons) 3-74 Figure 3-33. Na Ala Hele Priority Trails 3-74 Figure 3-34. Proposed Ala Kahakai National Historic Trail 3-75 Table 3-13. Suggested Recreational Facilities Guidelines 3-75 3.8. Police ......................................................................... 3-77 3.8.1. Overview and Inventory . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . 3-77 3.8.2. Issues, Problems and/or Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. .. . . . . .. 3-77 3.8.3. Suggested Policies . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. 3-78 3.8.4. Suggested Standards .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... .. . . . . 3-78 3.8.5. Institutional Framework .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . 3-79 Figure 3-35. Existing Police Stations and Substations 3-81 Table 3-14. Number of Police Officers, Beats, and Part 1 Offenses 3-81 Figure 3-36. Allocation of Police Officers by District 3-81 Figure 3-37. Number of Residents per Police Officer 3-82 Figure 3-38. Index Crime Rate 3-82 Figure 3-39. Violent Crime Rate 3-82 Figure 3-40. Juvenile Deliquency Rate 3-82 3.9. Fire & Emergency Medical Services ................................................ 3-83 3.9.1. Overview and Inventory . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . .. 3-83 3.9.2. Issues, Problems and/or Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ... .. .. . . .. 3-84 3.9.3. Suggested Policies .. . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . .. 3-84 3.9.4. Suggested Standards . .. . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . .. 3-84 3.9.5. Institutional Framework .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... .. . . . . .. 3-85 Figure 3-41. Existing Fire Stations 3-87 Table 3-15. Fire Station Capabilities 3-87 Figure 3-42. 5 -Mile Radius Service Area of Fire Stations 3-88 Figure 3-43. 5 -Mile Radius Service Area of Fire Stations with EMS 3-88 3.10. Civil Defense.................................................................. 3-89 3.10.1. Overview and Inventory . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . ... . . 3-89 3.10.2. Issues, Problems and/or Opportunities . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . ... .. .. .. 3-90 3.10.3. Suggested Policies . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... .. . . .. 3-90 General Plan Infrastructure Assessment Study iii C) (3 3.10.4. Suggested Standards . . . . . . . . .. .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .3-90 3.10.5. Institutional Framework . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3-91 Figure 3-44. Hawaii County Civil Defense Emergency Operating Center Organization 3-93 Figure 3-45. Civil Defense Sirens 3-93 3.13. Solid Waste.................................................................. 3-113 3.13.1. Overview and Inventory . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.11. Drainage and Flood Control ...................................................... 3-95 3.13.2. Issues, Problems and/or Opportunities ............... ........... 3.11.1. Introduction . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . 3-95 3-114 3.11.2. Issues, Problems and/or Opportunities . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3-95 3.13.5. Institutional Framework . . . . . . .. .. .. . . . . . . 3.11.3. Suggested Policies . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-97 3.11.4. Standards . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . 3-97 Figure 3-57. Distance to Landfills 3-117 3.11.5. Institutional Framework . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3-98 Figure 3-46. Flood Insurance Rate Map Geographic Coverage 3-99 Table 3-19. Puuanahula Landfill Capacity, Projection to Year 2020 3-118 Figure 3-47. Drainage Basin Boundaries 3-99 3.14. Education .................................................................... 3-119 3.12. Health Facilities............................................................... 3-101 3.14.2. Issues, Problems and/or Opportunities .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . 3.12.1. Overview and Inventory . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . 3-101 3-122 3.12.2. Issues, Problems and/or Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . .. . . . . . . . . 3-104 3.14.5. Institutional Framework ....................... ......... 3.12.3. Suggested Policies .. . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . 3-105 3.12.4. Suggested Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-106 Figure 3-62. Enrollment Projection and Capacity-- Elementary Schools 3-128 3.12.5. Institutional Framework . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. .. . . . .. . 3-106 Figure 3-48. Federally Designated MUAs/MUPs 3-109 Figure 3-64. Classroom Shortage-- Elementary Schools 3-129 Figure 3-49. Federally Designated Primary Care HPSAs 3-109 G Figure 3-65. Classroom Shortage-- Secondary Schools 3-129 Table 3-21. Adequacy of Classrooms and Ancillary Facilities 3-129 Figure 3-50. Federally Designated Dental HPSAs 3-109 Figure 3-51. Federally Designated Mental Health HPSAs 3-109 Figure 3-52. Primary Health Care Facilities 3-110 Table 3-16. Characteristics of Primary Health Care Facilities 3-110 Figure 3-53. Hawaii County's Uninsured Resident Population 3-110 Figure 3-54. Long -Term Care Facilities 3-111 Table 3-17. Characteristics of Long -Term Care Facilities 3-111 Figure 3-55. Long -Term Care Facilities-- Occupancy Trend, 1995-1998 3-111 3.13. Solid Waste.................................................................. 3-113 3.13.1. Overview and Inventory . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-113 3.13.2. Issues, Problems and/or Opportunities ............... ........... 3-114 3.13.3. Suggested Policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-114 3.13.4. Suggested Standards . . .. . . . . . .. .. . . . . .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-115 3.13.5. Institutional Framework . . . . . . .. .. .. . . . . . . 3-115 Figure 3-56. Solid Waste Facilities 3-117 Table 3-18. Characteristics of Solid Waste Facilities 3-117 Figure 3-57. Distance to Landfills 3-117 Figure 3-58. Waste Stream Characterization, Hilo Landfill, 1996-98 3-118 Figure 3-59. Composition of Commercial Waste, Hilo Landfill, 1998 3-118 Table 3-19. Puuanahula Landfill Capacity, Projection to Year 2020 3-118 3.14. Education .................................................................... 3-119 3.14.1. Overview and Inventory . . . . . . .... .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-119 3.14.2. Issues, Problems and/or Opportunities .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . 3-122 3.14.3. Suggested Policies . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . 3-122 3.14.4. Suggested Standards . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-123 3.14.5. Institutional Framework ....................... ......... 3-124 Figure 3-60. Feeder School Clusters 3-127 Figure 3-61. Public Schools 3-127 Figure 3-62. Enrollment Projection and Capacity-- Elementary Schools 3-128 Figure 3-63. Enrollment Projection and Capacity-- Secondary Schools 3-128 Table 3-20. Enrollment Projection and Capacity, Elementary and Secondary Schools, 2000-2005 3-128 Figure 3-64. Classroom Shortage-- Elementary Schools 3-129 G Figure 3-65. Classroom Shortage-- Secondary Schools 3-129 Table 3-21. Adequacy of Classrooms and Ancillary Facilities 3-129 iv General Plan Infrastructure Assessment Study Chapter 4: CIP Process 4.1. CIP Defined..................................................................... 4-1 4.2. Existing CIP Process............................................................. 4-2 4.3. Proposed CIP Process............................................................ 4-3 4.3.1. CIP Objectives .......................................... 4-3 4.3.2. Priority Criteria . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . ... . . . . .. . 4-3 4.3.3. Fiscal Policies .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . 4-5 Figure 4-1. County Government Expenditures-- Percentage Distribution By Counties FY96 4-7 Table 4-1. Projecting the Amount of New Borrowing (Example) 4-9 U Figure 4-2. Debt Service Trends-- 1990 to 1999 4-11 Table 4-2. Debt Burden Indicators-- Comparison by Counties FY96 4-13 4.3.4. CIP and Facility Inventory Database . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-14 Figure 4-3. Project Request Form 4-15 4.3.5. Annual Report .. . . . .. .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . .. . . .. . . .. 4-16 4.3.6. Relationship to the State CIP ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . ... . .. .. 4-17 4.3.7. Role of the CIP Committee .................................. 4-17 4.3.8. CIP Manual .. . . ... . . .. . . . ... . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . 4-18 Figure 4-4. Proposed Annual Report/CIP Process 4-19 Figure 4-5. Suggested CIP Policies 4-20 Appendix: Metadata General Plan Infrastructure Assessment Study v Figure 3-66. Student Enrollment Growth Trends by District, 1990-1998 3-130 Figure 3-67. SAT Results, Grade 5, 1999-- Math 3-130 Figure 3-68. SAT Results, Grade 5, 1999-- Reading (Open-ended) 3-130 Figure 3-69. SAT Results, Grade 7, 1999-- Math 3-131 Figure 3-70. SAT Results, Grade 7, 1999-- Reading (Open-ended) 3-131 Figure 3-71. SAT Results, Grade 9, 1999-- Math 3-131 Figure 3-72. SAT Results, Grade 9,1999-- Reading (Open-ended) 3-131 Figure 3-73, Special Needs-- Elementary Level 3-132 Figure 3-74. Special Needs-- Secondary and Multi-level 3-132 Table 3-22. Special Needs, Elementary and Secondary Schools, 1998-99 3-132 Figure 3-75. High School Graduation Rate, Comparison of State and Hawaii County, School Year 1994-95 to 1998-99 3-133 Figure 3-76. High School Graduation Rate by School, School Year 1998-99 3-133 Table 3-23. High School Graduation Rate by School, 1994-95 to 1998-99 3-133 Figure 3-77. Public Libraries 3-134 Figure 3-78. Public Libraries-- Proposed Improvements 3-134 Chapter 4: CIP Process 4.1. CIP Defined..................................................................... 4-1 4.2. Existing CIP Process............................................................. 4-2 4.3. Proposed CIP Process............................................................ 4-3 4.3.1. CIP Objectives .......................................... 4-3 4.3.2. Priority Criteria . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . ... . . . . .. . 4-3 4.3.3. Fiscal Policies .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . 4-5 Figure 4-1. County Government Expenditures-- Percentage Distribution By Counties FY96 4-7 Table 4-1. Projecting the Amount of New Borrowing (Example) 4-9 U Figure 4-2. Debt Service Trends-- 1990 to 1999 4-11 Table 4-2. Debt Burden Indicators-- Comparison by Counties FY96 4-13 4.3.4. CIP and Facility Inventory Database . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-14 Figure 4-3. Project Request Form 4-15 4.3.5. Annual Report .. . . . .. .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . .. . . .. . . .. 4-16 4.3.6. Relationship to the State CIP ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . ... . .. .. 4-17 4.3.7. Role of the CIP Committee .................................. 4-17 4.3.8. CIP Manual .. . . ... . . .. . . . ... . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . 4-18 Figure 4-4. Proposed Annual Report/CIP Process 4-19 Figure 4-5. Suggested CIP Policies 4-20 Appendix: Metadata General Plan Infrastructure Assessment Study v SUMMARY Definition of Infrastructure Infrastructure refers to those facilities and services needed to support residential, commercial, industrial, and other land use activities. This report analyzes the adequacy for transportation (roads, airports, harbors, mass transit, bikeways), water, wastewater, solid waste, drainage, police, fire, civil defense, health, education, and recreation facilities. Major variables that determine the need and location for infrastructure include population growth, density controls, and technological advancements. A major uncertainty is the impact of Native Hawaiian sovereignty. Significant shifts in these variables should trigger a comprehensive reexamination of infrastructure requirements. Land Use and Infrastructure Land use patterns and infrastructure influence each other as follows: • Infrastructure leads growth. Certain infrastructure, such as roads and water, influence where growth occurs. Infrastructure planning needs to be coordinated with the General Plan land use map to ensure that infrastructure is provided in areas consistent with the plan. • Compact vs. sprawl land use patterns affects the efficiency of infrastructure systems. Low-density development at the fringes of existing urban development result in inefficient infrastructure systems h in terms of the cost to extend the systems to these outlying areas and the higher unit costs to maintain. Low-density development with wider street frontages means that there is more linear feet of road, water, and other public improvements per lot, which means there are less lots paying for the maintenance of the same linear feet that serves higher density developments. General Plan policies should encourage compact development through incentives such as expedited permit reviews for infill development and ensure that fringe development occur in non -sensitive areas and bear the proportionate burden of infrastructure development and maintenance costs. • Inefficient systems could cause a decay of the existing urban core systems. As the public treasury gets thinner to build and maintain added infrastructure, maintenance of existing systems gets deferred. The capital improvement budgeting system needs to highlight the consequences of deferred maintenance and the fiscal impact of fringe developments. • Automobile -dependent land use patterns place more demands on road systems. Single -use conventional subdivisions require an automobile for daily needs such as commuting to work, shopping, post office, medical visits, and other common errands. Mixed-use developments that provide daily needs within walking distances theoretically have less impact on roadways. • Substandard development cause future infrastructure demands. The subdivision code plays an important role to control the proliferation of subdivisions without public roads and water systems. Where the subdivision code usually requires developers to initially provide the necessary infrastructure, approved substandard subdivisions that do not have adequate infrastructure potentially place the burden on the general public to share in the costs to retrofit these subdivisions. To provide an efficient infrastructure system where costs are equitably distributed and where growth is directed away from environmentally sensitive areas, the following are recommendations for the General Plan: General Plan Infrastructure Assessment Study Summary -1 Suntmary • Planning measures LUPAG Land Use Categories. The existing LUPAG categories effectively implement the "urban service boundary" planning concept by designating areas suitable for urban growth (High/ Medium/Low Density Urban, Industrial, Resort, University) and sensitive areas to be avoided (Agricultural, Conservation, Open). There is also an urban reserve designation for acceptable fringe development or future urban growth (Urban Expansion). The agricultural category needs to more clearly distinguish prime agricultural lands from marginal agricultural lands. LUPAG Map Amendments. LUPAG map amendments need to be evaluated for consistency .between: prime agricultural lands and LUPAG Agricultural designations; high value natural areas and LUPAG Conservation/Open designations; State Land Use Conservation and LUPAG Conservation. Also, the LUPAG map should consider "downzoning" LUPAG Urban and Urban Expansion designations in areas where they encroach onto prime agricultural lands or high value natural areas. The location of Urban Expansion Areas in areas where commuting predominantly occurs should be reevaluated; alternatively, future employment centers should be encouraged in these areas. The extent of Urban Expansion Areas should be reevaluated to determine whether the size of the expansion area in relation to the projected population growth would result in a low density or higher density land use pattern. Monitoring Growth Patterns. If all LUPAG Urban areas are within a Census Designated Place (CDP), the population growth trends and characteristics for these areas can be monitored. The County should aggressively pursue future opportunities to more closely match CDP boundaries and LUPAG designations. • Regulatory measures Zoning Code. The General Plan should encourage mixed used developments through the zoning code. Concurrency requirements should also be considered for inclusion in the zoning code to especially control development of the Urban Expansion area. In areas with constrained infrastructure capacity, concurrency requirements would prevent premature development of the Urban Expansion area that could consume capacity needed for infill development. Special Permit. The Special Permit should be more strictly scrutinized for prime agricultural land. Subdivision Code. The General Plan should include policies that require the subdivision code to include minimum standards for private streets and limits for water catchment subdivisions. Impact Fees. The level. of service standards in this report could be considered in proposing an impact fee ordinance. Impact fees would ensure that fringe development bear the proportional marginal cost to extend infrastructure systems. • Incentive measures Encouraging infill development. To encourage more intensive development of targeted infill areas (e.g., existing urban areas with available infrastructure capacity, mass transit corridors, economic revitalization, introduce mix of uses), incentives could include expedited permit processing or discounted facilities charges. a Encouraging agricultural and natural areas preservation. Existing incentives such as dedications for property tax purposes should be promoted. Additionally, other measures such as the purchase of development rights and conservation easements should be examined where the County could possibly work closely with nonprofit groups. Facilities Needs Assessment The assessment of facility needs entailed the following tasks: the development of a GIS inventory using information provided by the Planning Department; identification of issues, problems, or opportunities related to the provision of those facilities; suggested policies derived from the issues/ Summary -2 General Plan Infrastructure Assessment Study 011 Summaq problems/opportunities; suggested standards in terms of design standards, level of service standards, and performance indicators; and a compilation of pertinent master plans, agencies, laws, and funding sources. This information is summarized below: Primary Facility ( Provider. J Master Plan. Basis of , Inventory Classification i Suggested Standards t a Special Level.of. Performance Funding„ i„ Design I Service Indicators Source Airports State s master plan National Plan FAA standards standards sug- Passenger vol- Airport Reve- prepared for of Integrated gested to assess j ume; air cargo and nue Fund (air - each airport I Airport Sys- adequacy of ' mail volume (indi- port rents, fees terns (NPIAS) curb conger- cators of eco- ; charges; avia- tion levels, nomic health) tion fuel tax); parking, ground FAA grants (all transportation NPIAS airports choices, cargo qualify) storage, noise impact, effi- ciency of immi- gration inspection, agricultural i I inspections ._..._ ... Harbors State Hawaii Com- ; Commercial i DOT standards ' standards sug- Cargo volume; Harbor Special mercial Har- 1 (deep -draft) vs.i (commercial), ;gested for cruise ship pas- Fund (shipping bors 2020 recreational DLNR Stan- i cruise ship ber- senger volume rates and fees); Master Plan; no (small boat, dards (small thing capacity; (indicators of eco- Boating Spe- plan for small boat launches) boat) cargo storage i nomic health) cial Fund i boat harbors capacity i (marine fuel tax, other reve- eve- nues) nues) Roadways State/ Hawaii Long i Highway func- Minimum Highway ;Residents per reg- _ _ Federal aid County Range Land tional classifi- j right-of-way Capacity Man- istered motor grants; High - Transportation i cation; federal- widths (General ual LOS A vehicle (indicator way Fund (fuel Plan aid vs. non -fed- :Plan); other through F; ? of dependence on ,' tax and vehicu- eral-aid design stan- acceptable scan- automobile); fuel lar tax) dards (DOT; dard LOS C, consumption per Dept. of Public except LOS D registered motor Works) acceptable in vehicle (indicator urban centers of travel demand) during peak ' periods Transit/ State/ Bike Plan ' Bicycle route/ i AASHTO standards sug- transit passenger 1 Federal aid Bikeways County Hawaii; mass lane/path Guide for Bicy- gested to assess volume; bicycle grants; High - transit plan i cle Facilities; continuity of registrations; way Fund (fuel forthcoming U.S. DOT network con- bicycles per capita tax and vehicu- Manual on Uni- necting major lar tax); Bike - form Traffic destinations way Fund Control (bicycle regis- Devices tration fees) General Plan Infrastructure Assessment Study Summary -3 Summar), Summary -4 General Plan Infrastructure Assessment Study 0 Suggested Standards Basis of " Special Primary (' , Inventory Level'oE I Performance Funding Facility { Provider I Master Plan _ Classi6ca6on Design Service Indicators Source Water ;County Hawaii County potable vs. non DWS Water ;Safe Drinking j number of water Water Fund Water Use and potable; County ? System Stan- Water Quality catchments (revenues from i Development vs. private dards; stan- standards; stan- approved; num- water charges); Plan dards for water dards sug- j ber of DWS cus- Drinking Water catchments gested for tomers served by Treatment i k 1 i suggested source capacity ; nonconforming Revolving and fire protec- surface water Loan Fund ? tion 1 sources; number of water commit- (DOH) ments issued for I systems that do not meet capacity standards; num- j ber of DWS cus- tomers served by jsystems that do not meet fire pro- tection standards; I1 incidents of water quality violations; acreage served by ( ; i State irrigation systems Wastewater ( County j —various facility individual vs. DOH onsite - V standards sug- coastal water Sewer Fund plans repared centralized s s- and treatment gested to Iden- quality sampling; g; (user charges); i for each sewer- age system tem I plant standards j tify minimum critical areas to groundwater qual- ity sampling in :k Water Pollu- tion Control be sewered accordance with Revolving (shoreline, Safe Drinking 'Fund (DOH) j wellhead) Water Act require- equire-menu ments Recreation State/ i County of j_resource vs. E — standardssug acreage of popula- trails (Federal County Hawaii Recre-. population gested to deter- i tion -based parks highway grants ation Plan based facili- mine the types per 1,000 resident in aid; Special ties; hierarchy ` of facilities by population; % Land and I of population- ; i park type; dis- shoreline with ;Development i based parks j tance between public access ? Fund); park j (regional, dis- I shoreline I dedication fees trio, commu- access points j nity, i R i neighborhood) j - Police # County ! none police stations, Police Depart- standard sug. ; index crime rate; Federal grants 1 ! substations, ment standards i gested such as 1 violent crime rate; through Depart- ! beats 2.5 officers per juvenile delin- ment of Justice 1000 resident quency rate population, but not greater than i 930 square { miles per beat Summary -4 General Plan Infrastructure Assessment Study 0 Summon General Plan Infrastructure Assessment Study Summary -5 ( Barts of t 1 S ecial P 'Primary Inventory s ` Level of Performance Funding Facility Provider _ Master Plan s Classtfication Design Service _ Indicators i Source Fire/EMS ( County none regular vs. vol- Fire Depart- standard sug- t 911 statistics for (State con- unteer fire sta- mens standards gested such as 5 response time; tracts with s. ? tions (for fire sta- mile radius ser- I incident trends County for j tions); Fire vice area j (number of fire, EMS) Code (building ( rescue, EMS calls) construction); j Subdivision Code (street standards for emergency vehicle access) Civil County ;County ofsudden-impact For hazard standard sug- number of disaster FEMA federal__ Defense Hawaii Emer- vs. gradual- resistant con- 1 gested to deter- events, property r funds i gency Opera- onset hazards struction: mine damage, loss of tions Plan Building Code, acceptable life Flood Control i warning signal ( Code ` coverage ? Drainage County ..._.__ . _ ._ Drainage Mas- FIRM maps Drainage Stan standards sug- acreage of green- FEMA federal ter Plan for dards (DPW); gested to priori- ways and wet- funds County of Subdivision tize flood lands; Hawaii (out- Code; Erosion control sedimentation dated) and Sedimenta- improvements rates; flood dam- tionGuidelines; 1 such as fre- age 1 ( NRCS Guide- I quency of dam- s lines s age, flood 1 incidents at less than 20 -year storm Hospitals; ; State; pri- Hawaii Health primary/sec—acute beds sup- %uninsured; Health vate non- Performance i ondary/tertiary ` ply; long-term infant mortality Clinics profit Plan medical care facilities s beds supply rate; teen birth ratio; smoking; overweight __.�..._._s ...__.... ...... __,_ Solid Waste County Integrated Solid transfer sta- guidelines sug- ' standard sug- quantity of recov- Solid Waste Waste Manage- 1 tions; landfills gested to retro- gested such as # ered materials; I Fund ment Plan € fit transfer transfer station total landfilled j stations for service area of wastes per capita recycling i 5 miles _ Schools State Superinten- elementary/ DOE Educa- 1 school size; student test — dent's Annual middle/high; tional Specifi- i classroom size I scores; student/ Report on feeder school cations and teacher ratio; School Perfor- clusters Standards for ! mean absences; mance and 3 Facilities +, graduation rate; % Improvement; f special needs UHH Long - Range Devel- opment Plan_ Libraries State Hawaii State standalone vs. _._—._.__...._ master plan service area of Library System school/library £ facilities guide- 10 miles Master Plan I lines i General Plan Infrastructure Assessment Study Summary -5 Summaq Applying the suggested level of service standards, some districts may be inadequately served by O certain facilities. The facilities listed below are population -based and should be equitably provided by district. The list does not include facilities that serve regional needs (e.g., airports, harbors, highways), facilities that do not presently adequately serve any area and are in the process of being developed (e.g., mass transit, bikeways), facilities that depend on specific service areas (e.g., water, wastewater), facilities without level of service standards (e.g., civil defense sirens), and facilities that are location - specific due to the presence of certain resources or hazards (e.g., resource-based parks, flood control). An "x" indicates an existing deficiency. Financing Capital Improvements The 6 -year Capital Improvements Program (CIP) is the process that decides what facilities get built and how well the built facilities are maintained. This report suggests a process to strengthen the relationship between the General Plan and the CIP, prioritize projects based on explicit criteria, budget in accordance with a debt financing plan, coordinate projects interdepartmentally and between the State and County, and involve the public. To accomplish these objectives, the report suggests the development of a facilities inventory and CIP database (GIS system) to track projects from proposal to implementation to maintenance, to have an active CTP committee to share information and prioritize projects, and to prepare an annual progress report on the General Plan that would serve as the context for the CIP proposals. Summary -6 General Plan Infrastructure Assessment Study DISTRICTS FACILI- North s South North South TIFS ,Puna South Hilo `North Hilo Hamakua _ j Kohala Kohala 1 Kona' 3 Kona m. . Kau Parks x i x - -- Police x x Fire Emer- x ? x gency €l Medical Service Health clinics x x x x x Solid waste-�__....__...._.---.:______._____._.—__._._..______._.,....._...._..___._._._�_...—._..___—___.___..._.,_..._....._- _--------�.. X transfer stations t Schools X µ Libraries x Financing Capital Improvements The 6 -year Capital Improvements Program (CIP) is the process that decides what facilities get built and how well the built facilities are maintained. This report suggests a process to strengthen the relationship between the General Plan and the CIP, prioritize projects based on explicit criteria, budget in accordance with a debt financing plan, coordinate projects interdepartmentally and between the State and County, and involve the public. To accomplish these objectives, the report suggests the development of a facilities inventory and CIP database (GIS system) to track projects from proposal to implementation to maintenance, to have an active CTP committee to share information and prioritize projects, and to prepare an annual progress report on the General Plan that would serve as the context for the CIP proposals. Summary -6 General Plan Infrastructure Assessment Study INTRODUCTION 1.1 PURPOSE This report is a reference document prepared in support of the County of Hawaii's update of the General Plan. The purpose of this report is to inventory the existing infrastructure, assess existing and projected deficiencies, and recommend a course of action. The timely provision of adequate infrastructure is an important function of County government that requires coordinated long-term planning in order to better integrate capital improvements planning with land use planning, to account for the long lead times for major projects, to marshal the necessary financial resources, and to optimize spending among agencies and intergovernmentally. 1.2 DEFINITION OF INFRASTRUCTURE "Infrastructure" refers to those facilities that serve the common needs of the population. Because of the broad-based reliance upon these facilities and substantial funds required to build, operate, and maintain, these facilities are usually provided by government, a quasi -public utility (i.e., private monopoly regulated by the Public Utilities Commission), or occasionally a nonprofit entity (e.g., North Hawaii Hospital). These common needs (and associated facilities) include the following: • transportation (roads, airports, harbors, transit, bikeways) • water (sources, storage, distribution) • wastewater collection and disposal • solid waste disposal (transfer stations, landfills) • drainage (channelized streams, interceptor channels) • power and communication (electricity, gas, telephone, cable) • public health and safety (police, fire, civil defense, hospitals, clinics) • education (schools, libraries) • recreation (parks, public accessways, trails) • justice (courts, correctional facilities) • government adminstration (civic centers) OTable 1-1 lists the facilities by responsibility. General Plan Infrastructure Assessment Study 1-1 Chapter 1: hrtroductron Table 1-1. Infrastructure Responsibilities Facility County State Quasi -Public or Nonprofit Transportation Airports Department of Transportation Harbors, Commercial Department of Transportation Harbors, Small Boat and Boat Ramps Department of Parks & Recre- ation (boat ramps) Department of Land & Natural Resources (small boat harbors and boat ramps) Roads/Bikeways Department of Public Works Department of Transportation Transit Mass Transit Agency Department of Transportation Education Schools Department of. Education: Univer- sity of Hawaii Libraries Department of Education Public Safety and Health Police Police Department Fire Fire Department Civil Defense Civil Defense Agency Department of Defense Hospitals Department of Health x Recreation Parks Department of Parks & Recre- ation Department of Land & Natural Resources Public access and trails Department of Parks & Recre- ation Department of Land & Natural Resources Environmental Health Solid Waste Department of Public Works Department of Health Wastewater Department of Public Works Department of Health Water Department of Water Supply Department of Health Drainage Department of Public Works Energy and Communications Electrical Hawaii Electric Light Company Communications GTE, other private Justice and Administration Courts Judiciary Corrections Police Department Department of Public Safety Civic Buildings Department of Public Works Although this report focuses on those facilities provided by the County, some State facilities are included to foster coordination. Facilities that are not included in this report are courts, corrections, civic buildings, electrical, and communications. 1.3 REPORT ORGANIZATION This report addresses the following questions: • How can infrastructure planning be used to guide growth and where should growth occur? Chapter 2, "Coordinating Infrastructure and Land Use Planning" discusses the role of the General Plan in growth management. Certain essential infrastructure directly influence where and when growth occurs, particularly roads and water. Uncontrolled urban sprawl is characterized by low-density development beyond the current perimeter of contiguous development. The extension of infrastructure facilities to serve this suburban and exurban growth is costly and inefficient. The higher costs result from the cost to extend the system as well as the higher unit cost due to the typically lower density of these outlying developments. Moreover, this sprawling pattern of growth may consume prime agricultural resources or encroach into sensitive environmental areas. • How do we assess whether existing infrastructure is adequate? Chapter 3, "Facilities Needs O Assessment" provides an inventory of existing facilities and identifies issues, problems, and 1-2 General Plan Infrastructure Assessment Study §1.3: Report Organization O opportunities as a context to derive levels of service standards. These standards serve as indicators to determine existing deficiencies or anticipated need for future expansion. 0 How do we prioritize and finance needed infrastructure? There will always be more needs than money. Instead of developing speculative cost "guesstimates" for future infrastructure needs, Chapter 4, "CIP Process", discusses the capital budgeting process. The Capital Improvements Program (CIP), which is a six-year schedule of improvements required by the County Charter, decides what facilities get built at what cost. The problem is that the CIP and General Plan are presently not integrated. This chapter evaluates the existing process and suggests a process to strengthen the relationship between the CIP and General Plan. The sources of information for the various maps are summarized in the Appendix, "Metadata". General Plan Infrastructure Assessment Study 1-3 COORDINATING INFRASTRUCTURE AND LAND USE PLANNING This County has permitted vast areas of large lot rural subdivisions without public roads or water. Some subdivisions do not even have electricity. Because of the immense supply of land on the Big Island, much development occurs outside established urban areas; therefore, the policies dealing with rural development become very important. The development of these rural areas raises several questions: Are these developments located in appropriate areas (i.e., not consuming prime agricultural lands, not encroaching in endangered species habitats, or not in natural hazard areas)? Are we engendering inefficient, automobile -dependent urban sprawl patterns`? At what scale of development should the County require public infrastructure recognizing that some people prefer a rugged lifestyle and live self -sufficiently with unpaved roads, water catchments, and off -grid power systems, while others are initially attracted to the lower sales prices of these lots without public infrastructure but later begin demanding the same standards of infrastructure as other taxpayers? If public infrastructure is initially provided, or later extended to these areas, should the marginal costs to extend and operate the infrastructure be adjusted based on location and density (since many of these rural subdivisions are large -lot subdivisions that typically have higher operational costs per lot)? For those existing substandard subdivisions that desire standard public infrastructure, what strategy should be developed to retrofit these areas? This chapter first describes the existing settlement patterns: Is our present pattern of development compact or sprawling? Are people forced to commute because the jobs are not near where people live? Who are served by the present public infrastructure? Once we better understand the existing pattern of development, this chapter discusses two concepts that use .infrastructure to influence the location and timing of future new development: • urban service boundaries; and • concurrency. 2.1 EXISTING SETTLEMENT PATTERNS The U.S_ census is the source to analyze population size and distribution. The Census Designated Place (CDP) is the unit that defines a recognized concentrated settlement area.' Since approximately O 82% of the LUPAG urban areas are located within the CDPs, the CDPs generally encompass the areas General Plan Infrastructure Assessment Study 2-1 Chapter 2: Coot-dinating hi.j'rastructure and Lane( Use Planning where the General Plan intends growth to occur (see Figure 2-1).'- Interestingly, 88% of the CDP land area consists of areas not designated LUPAG urban (i.e., usually Orchards or Extensive Agriculture) (see Figure 2-2). These extensive non -urban designated areas within CDPs indicate that either the CDP boundaries should be redrawn to more accurately delineate the actual settlement areas, or the LUPAG designations need to be reexamined to more accurately reflect the actual settlement patterns. Furthermore, for the 18% of LUPAG urban areas not within CDPs, there is no convenient means to track population growth trends of these urban areas. Acknowledging that the CDPs encompass a greater area than general planned for urban growth, the Big Island's settlement pattern measured by CDPs nevertheless is relatively compact-- approximately 86% of the Big Island population resided within 15% of the island's land area comprising the CDPs (see Figure 2-3). Some districts are more compact than others. The districts with the most compact population are: South Hilo (98% within the CDPs), North Kona (97%), and South Kohala (94%), South Kona (81 %), and Kau (80%). The CDP with the densest population was Pahala (2.82 persons/ acre or 1,900 persons/square mile), followed by Honokaa (2.66 persons/acre or 1,822 persons/square mile), and the various South Hilo CDPs (e.g., Pepeekeo at 2.46 persons per acre, Paukaa at 1.84 persons/acre). If density is measured in terms of parcels per square mile to determine potential ultimate density assuming at least one residence could be constructed per parcel, the densest CDP would be Honokaa (1.01 parcels/acre), followed by Pahala (0.91 parcel/acre) (see Figure 2-4). Several CDPs move a step up in density, in terms of quantile, when comparing density measured by parcel compared to population. The biggest difference was the Mountain View CDP, which moved up two quantiles (compare Figure 2-3 and Figure 2-4), and this CDP is predominantly designated in the current LUPAG as Orchard, Intensive Agriculture, and Open rather than any of the urban designations. O A desirable relationship between transportation and land use is to locate jobs closer to the place of residence in order to reduce the length and number of trips that cause highway congestion. As a gross indicator of the balance between population and jobs, a district's population percentage of the entire County is compared to the district's employment percentage. Where the employment percentage is less than the , population percentage, this is a possible indicator that the district is a "bedroom" community where significant commuting occurs. The districts where this imbalance are greatest include Puna, North Hilo, and Kau, with South Kohala and North Kohala projected to join this group by 2020 (see Figure 2-5 and Table 2-1). At a finer level of detail, the CDP's with the longest commuting times were those located at greater distances from the primary employment centers of Hilo, Kailua-Kona, Waimea, or the South Kohala resorts (see Figure 2-6). If job opportunities are not being increased in the areas with long -commute times, then the question becomes whether additional growth (i.e., LUPAG urban expansion areas or rural low-density development) should be designated in these areas that would exacerbate the commuting situation (and therefore increase demands on the highway infrastructure). 1. "The Census Bureau recognizes two types of places, those that are incorporated municipalities and those that are census designated places (CDP). The latter are areas that resemble incorporated places in that residents can identify the area with a name and local officials can define clear borders, but the CDP has not been incorporated as a muncipality_" Myers, D. Analysis with Local Census Data: Portraits of Change, San Diego: Academic Press, 1992, p. 65. See also, for example, Atlas of Hawaii (Juvik and Juvik, 1998), where the chapter on "Urban Centers" (p. 233) describes urban growth in terms of Census Designated Places. O 2. The LUPAG "urban areas" include the following LUPAG categories: high density urban, medium density urban, low density urban, industrial, and university use, but not urban expansion. 2-2 General Plan Infrastructure Assessment Study C y o d3 3 r'` o u u � c 3 m m m 'o' m o� o ro m v m m o:.m m totp'', m L W 10 q i0 N O ll� N <i N n 3 0 m m Y 2 Z d a O i n s 6 F a m N N N N o_a N N N N N N N `o `o `o aaa o` a aD{. u R _ o O d Iyy� m m m m N N d Y ,r � 4 {Wy pN d U v m m h W N _ � d. �. W'. M d h d !� .- O m O 1� N QN 6 O CG m 0 I� m N N < N t` m W o7 m r N N n l7 d tp NN O n . m 1�-Imo' [� O Oi O !� G y G r N n n O N M l0 (�l ONO f� O lel fel fq U o m o z u R o d3 3 r'` o u u � c 3 m m m 'o' m o� o ro m v m m o:.m m totp'', m o o m m ro 0 o d m m m 3 0 m m Y 2 Z O i n s 6 F a m N N N N o_a N N N N N N N `o `o `o aaa o` a aD{. u R _ o m � Y Y ,r � 4 R o u u � c 3 5 3 0 m Q" tl i n s 6 F a R — ,r � 4 0 NO Ml Premed by I RRAPTEC14-1 Hilo. Hawaii S IV CDP Boundaries Premed by I RRAPTEC14-1 Hilo. Hawaii IV CDP Boundaries WrAG.Clasillfications mp.. High Density .Urban 9W M urn. Density Urban Am Ml I ..LOW Density Urban, ME . . . . . . . ...... Industrial: ME Intensive Agriculture. 9M Premed by I RRAPTEC14-1 Hilo. Hawaii .d.000000 —N—. -o 00 000 �oo0 0000 000000000 000 oN000 00 . . . - a° ma° nna° nvmmN moa° nmmn.-rya° �c a° N—m�nmN �n a n�Nmvn.-� mNn �mmm Sv `R -,q mN Nm 6 � m 33 �=YYixa'3 u F"i t0 m �O m Uma° _ UDa° �. i 8 _ 2 C Y u c N L xx ia> 0 - 0 �- z0 b Fi❑ �❑ `U❑ a..o� �UOa° a"�— � Uwe ppmo UOa ma'Sa �UOp° �. i d N m N N N c� N d I� m m r ImU N O N O t7 O r i N O N �2 V O O O V O C W W O N m m \a 1/U . � N lei m a ammmi��nm N N N N m a N cnmvmIm n N m N m I c' N Nmot- n �m m rn n on m cgi �nnn i n.m o m m N m co J t� cW W p iW W° Y W Y� L 0 W O W _y 04E WO p S S Y 3 2:1 Y Y Y 3 S Y S 2 W Y a.3 � Y a y U Y d> v MQA ��� MmmRICH � Emma mmilm ����� W T <B"N �N � --NNN N IN 2oS a%2 �-� Nom- ro M NaON NNN C 3� VE f m CL N m m" N a to 08, m m om e y E m m m.�,o Y1�6.> 1d.:m d;d R .? �11 _: 1� "i .'� 17 "1 1� 71 1� .! 'm &NON O)c0 a' nN ON cV � V T N N N N � N N N o d m O O > j o m oZO ' a m E 0 �. c.c.�.o_0 ac 3 m tl Y a 3" _= Y Y Y Y U 2 2 Z I: m Y y Y §2.2: Urban Service Boundaries 2.2 URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARIES O Urban service boundaries, if adopted, would define the limits beyond which County water and sewer (where available) would not be extended. The boundary would include an urban reserve area to accommodate projected future growth over a specified time period, say 20 years (the time horizon of the General Plan). The establishment of an urban service boundary has two purposes: "(1) to promote compact and contiguous development patterns that can be efficiently serviced by public services and (2) to preserve open space, agricultural land, and environmentally sensitive areas that are not currently suitable for urban development."3 The establishment of urban service boundaries requires the following steps: 1 Identify the areas suitable for urban growth and the areas to avoid; 2 Project future growth requirements to establish the urban reserve area; 3 Inventory and encourage development of the available infill areas. 2.2.1 Suitable and Sensitive Areas The LUPAG designations, together with the State Land Use Districts, already provide the framework to identify future growth areas and sensitive areas to avoid: • Areas to encourage compact urban development: -State Land Use: Urban -LUPAG: High density urban Medium density urban O Low density urban Industrial Resort University • Fringe areas acceptable for future growth (urban reserve area): -State Land Use: Urban or Rural (or marginal Agricultural lands acceptable for rezon- ing to Urban) -LUPAG: Urban Expansion • Agricultural resource areas for special protection or incentives: .State Land Use: Agricultural -LUPAG: The State Land Use Agricultural District does not distinguish between prime and marginal agricultural lands; the LUPAG tries: Intensive Agriculture— Ideally, lands in this designation should be only those lands that meet a definition of "prime agricultural lands", such as ALISH (prime, unique, other) or the Land Study Bureau Class A or B. Although the existing LUPAG does not clearly define such criteria, the proposed LUPAG amendment should. Lands desig- nated in this category should be for exclusive agricultural activity, i.e., special permits should be strictly controlled.t 3. Nelson, A. and J. Duncan (1995), Growth Management Principles & Practices, Chicago, IL: American O Planning Association, 1995, p. 73 General Plan Infrastructure Assessment Study 2-15 Chapter 2: Coordinating /nji-asrructnre and Land Use Planning O Extensive Agriculture— Ideally, these lands would include existing pasturage and range lands valued for open space, or where the ALISH designation is `other" and the LSB designation is Class C through E. Special permits could be considered with greater flexibility. Orchards— These lands would be those classified in the State Land Use Agricultural or Rural District, but considered marginal agricul- tural lands (not included in any of the ALISH classes and LSB Class C through E). These would be areas where rural residential -agricul- tural development is acceptable. Rural infrastructure standards would apply. This classification should perhaps be renamed to Rural. • Environmentally sensitive areas or open space for special protection: • State Land Use: Conservation -LUPAG: Conservation. This designation would correspond to the State Land Use Conservation district. Open. This designation includes parks, historic sites, hazards, or other areas that restrict development and are not classified as State Land Use Conservation. How consistent are the State Land Use and LUPAG designations? • Urban. The County has designated 23,600 acres for urban growth where the State has not zoned Urban (see Figure 2-7). The discrepancy is evenly spread among all the districts, except for a small acreage in North Hilo. The County has,not rezoned 19,600 acres where the State has already zoned Urban, with nearly half of this acreage in North Kona. O Agriculture. The State Land Use Agricultural district has approximately 60,000 more acres than the County LUPAG agricultural designations (Intensive Agriculture, Extensive Agriculture, Orchards) (see Figure 2-8). Approximately 40,000 acres in LUPAG agricultural are not in the State Land Use Agricultural district. Approximately 50,000 acres in State Land Use Agricultural is in LUPAG conservation. Of particular concern, is where the County has general planned for urban growth in State Land Use Agricultural zones (approximately 19,300 acres). • Conservation. There are 102,600 acres where the State and County conservation designations are not consistent (45,300 acres State Conservation but not County conservation or open, and 57,200 acres County conservation or open but not State Conservation) (see Figure 2-9). The LUPAG areas that are not consistent with the State's Conservation zone should be amended to LUPAG conservation. The LUPAG areas that are conservation, but not State Conservation, should be reevaluated for their actual conservation values. • Rural. No analysis was made of the acreage in the State Land Use Rural district. There is presently no comparable LUPAG designation. 4. An existing General Plan policy states: `The County shall ensure that development of important agricultural O land shall be primarily for commercial agricultural use purposes." (General Plan, §4.M(1)). For more information on exclusive use zoning, sec A. Nelson and J. Duncan (1995), cited in footnote 3, p. 52-53. 2-16 General Plan Infrastructure Assessment Study w o o w t o c c ❑ 2= y y Y y y r o Nmrnv o 7co mm 0 dZv 62N f9 no v. N N a a in J c C a s mNOraO V .-G7r -i m ck C om �inrN���o c� Q Z IL J'j N � ONO V 00 i� NNr r rnc`9imR o � U V mmOI ' wt0 O� r N.� O M W., NN W r'm cON �'aNa r i! NR fD �.-'7't0'. N O] OD -.W.. J to N r:N O fp- r Iq N N c a0,Cq O d N m n ojNr n t�.N O w o o w t o c c ❑ 2= y y Y y y r c � � oa--cy rn co Nvv m vi vi coe av�cur m a�7To rnnaouogCIL Cl! n v ^vim o n mrn voi J C CJrnmNrn"mmm a Vr v ofa- ci Qa a .-�m�� j y 7 nm N m in m 1p a f0 N J C7N � mN.vNrn� a mco 0 Qa cQ �oia w.e J a W Orn J J ca Iq NDN V N�-� �`O v L o c J N OI f0 O t0 O6 m W. tp N o (j No'cornmmmmmn Q W fp N Oi lD CJ N n m � N J W � 5 m m m m M S= y Y y Y a r m r d 1p z= z(A z fA Y O O N rn cl Q n O n 0 Q N Z lNl�� tOD N r< m rn O m N N ' Co � = d 10 N Q J J C N U m J (O O in[) O VO - N N O Q :O W t•1 ' N f0 O n a o c Z U .p c ro vl A n rn )O a t0 rn o yy1. NOV C I V NR N cq H A. p C4 J p aD OJ )fi N Q (O O. No W � O J U I co r A O c6 N A N Uf A O T O O -A !QN w 0 n C- - Q::s. Cl ro U �1150=c r � a (A Z d2.2: Urban Service Sorindaries O Before simplistically amending either the State Land Use or the LUPAG boundaries to be consistent with each other, how well do the existing LUPAG designations and State Land Use districts correspond with the growth management objectives? • Protection of prime agricultural land. The two prevailing definitions of "pritne" agricultural land are the Agricultural Lands of Importance to the State of Hawaii (ALISH) and the Land Study Bureau's Land Suitability Classification (LSB).5 The ALISH classifies agriculturally suitable land into "prime", "unique", and "other". The LSB classification is A through E, with Classes A and B considered prime.6 Arguably, the State has diluted the effectiveness of protecting prime agricultural land by including many acres that are not considered prime agricultural land. Likewise, the LUPAG urban categories (Low Density, Medium Density, High Density, Industrial, Resort, and University) include approximately 7,000 acres of prime agricultural lands (for the purposes of this report, "prime" is defined as ALISH prime or unique or LSB A or B) (see Figure 2-10). The LUPAG's Intensive Agricultural designation is not confined to prime agricultural lands-- it contains more ALISH "other" or non-ALISH lands (160,400 acres) than prime lands (89,800 acres). • Protection of environmentally sensitive areas. Reserves. Recreational areas, forest reserves, natural area reserves, national wildlife refuges, historical parks, and other reserves where the objective is to preserve, conserve, or restore the area to its natural condition should be protected as Conservation or Open designations under the State Land Use and LUPAG classifications. There are approximately 19,900 acres of reserves that are unprotected by either State Land Use Conservation or LUPAG Conservation/Open (see Figure 2-11). A portion of some reserves have encroachments by State Land Use or LUPAG urban districts (346 acres). Conversely, there are 582,500 acres in the State Land Use or LUPAG Conservation/Open not considered a reserve for which the purpose should be verified. Natural hazards. Natural hazard areas include special flood hazard areas, lava flow hazard O areas, and steep slopes (>20%). There are approximately 7,000 acres in the Puna and Kau Districts that are in the LUPAG urban districts and located within Lava Hazards 'Lone I or 2 (see Figure 2-12). Steep slopes and flood areas occur in several Urban zoned areas (approximately 4,000 acres). Development of these areas must be carefully evaluated and permitted only with appropriate mitigation measures. 5. The LESA system is a third proposed classification system for agricultural lands. The State needs to adopt a definitive system, which the County would then use to update the LUPAG. O 6. See Hawaii Revised Statutes §205-4.5 where the permissible uses in Agricultural district are set forth for LSB Class A or B lands. General Plan Infrastructure Assessment Study 2-23 ;;�� §§\k � N N ' m m w15 ir m c E � O c Z f - mrn N N .om N O �. ,� N N- � Q m m 71i a ZJ,�`,m 'W ¢y'U ". W'. ami. > >S OI Q a coo m W d u a a� N M M O v n ma nmc�Nui d �i ''� ¢ m W ¢C m m Z n .� m ¢.' W $° m- o 0 m 2 W m m m Z c Q. 'C V O Uml 41it a: m m m 72 2 m 0 U $ C Q_ d m Y 2 m Y O �.o is W o m ` ¢ m N f➢ > y Z N o a m o a n C W m Z m Z m N N 0 o and m m N Q d m acL p7 m V- 0 w d.. m m Z Z'. N `U _ C O f17 m o m t °J m ti �% 65 J O? i[)!D a0 t0 . n M m M °' n m 4 Ci cn m O d La m La N a LL _ c m m¢ o o¢ co' m m- fA m o z m L :4 z 2 m M O M l! N N N N Om m O m uo. o LL LL C m am r m Z m C N N m m m E m W d y W C m W W O C t Q > 2' m A m m m¢ o` L 1- m N m ¢ r m'� m o m'm ao m W -o `� m m N S 2 Y Y Y Y 3 i z O OO.33 ¢ p 2 x x S x Y Y 3 Y Z 0 a' a' 3 3 3 2 V cc O W m � .- N M S �n m n m m 0 .- N^ d �O (O r p Y t� O O m W L m C _ Y Y Y O L L m L L L J O O �pp - W O O O W aozxz w cAYho a 000000aoo N o m T o o m n rn o C In N m CL W a e>> m z u v>co.-nn�rnu�rn � 16� ocooicovi '<+imv A 0C 10 moi m0) W W V N u J N N O V Z V T N N 00aDN.- c� d a v a 'm c x q) o)chrn o nm t0 O. OD. t�'No ' o) c0 7 0 the 01 0 N N cp i q 7`Z J; t6 m m m U 100 §2.2r Urban Service Boundaries O2.2.2 Urban Reserve Area The extent and location of the urban reserve is based on several assumptions. The rate of population growth is based on economic assumptions. The extent of land area required to absorb the future population is based on density assumptions. The location of future urban areas in terms of the relationship between jobs and housing is based on certain technological assumptions. The most potentially significant factor, however, that could affect settlement patterns and infrastructure planning is the Native Hawaiian sovereignty movement. Lands under the control of the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands (DHHL) and possibly ceded lands could be removed from the jurisdiction of the State. DHHL lands within this County total approximately 107,800 acres, or 4% of the island's land area. State lands, of which 95% consist of ceded lands, total 969,700 acres (including DHHL), or 38% of the island's land area. As an indication of the extent of potential impact, Figure 2- 13 shows DHHL and other State lands and the relationship to the LUPAG urban areas. The DHHL and ceded land areas currently in the LUPAG urban areas may not be available for future population growth. State and County infrastructure located or traversing DHHL and ceded lands would likely need to be negotiated with the established sovereign entity. Access to shoreline and other recreational areas may also require negotiated easements. If County property taxes are not paid by those residing within the sovereign lands, then negotiated arrangements would be required for the shared use and maintenance of County services and facilities funded from the County general tax revenues such as fire, police, solid waste, and roads. One of the values of a General Plan is to establish a framework to identify, anticipate, and respond to pertinent influential factors. The urban reserve area and infrastructure needs in this report are based on assumptions implicit in the population projections prepared for this General Plan Update. Monitoring is essential to respond to conditions different from those assumed. This report proposes an annual monitoring process as part of the annual CIP preparation (see section 4.3.5 "Annual Report" on page 4-16) to supplement the comprehensive General Plan review conducted every ten years. The existing urban expansion areas are shown in Figure 2-13. Only approximately 25% are in the State Urban or Rural Districts, and the balance will require redistricting some time in the future from Agriculture or Conservation to Urban. Approximately 13% (6,000 acres) of Urban Expansion areas intrude into sensitive environmental. areas or prime agricultural land (see Figure 2-14). Some areas with the worst commuting times are planned for urban expansion (e.g., Kalaoa, Honokaa, Laupahoehoe CDPs) (see Figure 2-15). In short, some of the existing Urban Expansion areas require reevaluation for their urban suitability. The Urban Expansion area should be large enough to accommodate the projected population growth, but not be too large to encourage low density sprawl. Most of the projected growth is anticipated to occur in Puna, North Kohala, and South Kohala (see Figure 2-17). According to the population projection, by 2020 Puna would supplant South Hilo as the most populous district. Assuming that future growth would be more compact at a density of 1,000 persons per square mile (comparable to areas near Hilo such as Paukaa and Honomu), the present Urban Expansion areas for North Kona and South Kohala are perhaps too generous for the projected population for those districts (see Table 2-2). For those districts, the Urban Expansion areas could accommodate the entire projected increase, plus more, without any infilling in the present urban areas. For North Kohala, Puna, South Kona, and Kau, a significant portion of the projected growth would have to be absorbed by areas other than the Urban Expansion areas. It should be noted that this analysis is based on two O7. County of Hawaii Data Book 1998 (land areas as of January 1997). General Plan Infrastructure Assessment Study 2-31 Chapter 2: Coordinating Irifrustructure and Lund Use Planning major assumptions: the population projections are reliable, and future growth in the Urban Expansion O areas will be at a higher density than the existing densities. 2-32 General Plan Infrastructure Assessment Study IN OFigure 2-13. Relationship of State-Owned.:Lands o LUPAG Urban Areas oK "v o 6, 6 m o o N 6 iri K ci o o 0 0 0 o m o o& o of io in o a u o o o w d o n c o d d d o ai 0 0 0 00 ^ ri o ci oo c o o" o 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 cu o o N o0 °�v O c x m o w ` o ¢ a°{ IQ n ac ca m IR w o 0 n w o 10 o in kq n [mi O N N 'N Cbm'f .. N f0 N O N N N C C^ b N N Cl N ^ m (V ^ t G W 3 l aw ma v � m m 75 m um, w Z m t my _ _ 2 6 2 0 Q: S �, o -`o� o S m o 2 `'9 .� 8 `'Q .q t o ¢' m a,8 �' t a:c4,¢' �¢ ci r't t o ci ¢ r a v a o ¢' a o ¢' a o m D R lo c _ = Y Y Y Y Y R Q�� w CO. CV-. r W O 7 N Cl) m OD rn t0 �A M N r to O r fD Q�� w CO. CV-. r r Cl) CO NI to - 2 _ 0 Y Y Y Y Y S Figure 2-16. LUPAG Urban Expansion Areas!-, Relationship to Commutinglime 10 0 10 20 Him 20 0 20 K➢omoUn Figure 217. Resident Population Year Proiection.. §2.2: Urban Service Boundaries ®South Kohala North Kohala E3Hamakua South Hilo: 0 Una 2020 Gban e 2020. ',465W/o i, 1 52L 10% 3381 1(8% ,783 24% 1,982. 62% 1,28663°/o 1,991;: 47% I 1,434' 46% {,970 47% ',401 45% §2.3: Concurrency Table 2-2. Population Capacity of Urban Expansion Areas A B C D E F G H District Census 1990 Projected 2020 Urban Expansion (sq mi Density, (persons/ sq mi) Urban Expansion Population (D*E) Total District Population (B+F) %2020* (G/C Puna 20,781 58,246 9.5 1,000 9,470 30,251 52% South Hilo 44,639 49,791 5.0 1,000 4,983 49,622 100% North Hilo 1,541 1,879 0.5 1,000 484 2,025 108% Hamakua 5,545 7,328 2.2 1,000 2,180 7,725 105% North Kohala 4,291 11,273 0.7 1,000 717 5,008 1 44% South Kohala 9,140 24,426 23.4 1,000 23,378 32,518 133% North Kona 22,284 42,275 28.3 1,000 28,273 50,557 120% South Kona 7,658 14,092 - 1,000 - 7,658 54% Kau 4,438 8,408 0.9 1,000 889 5,327 63% Total 120,317 217,718 70.38 70,375 190,692 *Greater than 100% indicates surplus Urban Expansion area to accommodate the projected 2020 population at the assumed density of 1,000 persons per square mile. 2.3 CONCURRENCY The urban service boundary determines where development would be pennitted. The policy of "concurrency" controls when development would be permitted.$ For projects proposed within the urban expansion area, the policy of "concurrency" would require adequate public facilities to be available to such development before it is occupied. Under such policy, the developer either pays for the offsite improvements (with possible reimbursement from subsequent developments), or waits until the infrastructure reaches the development site. The intent is to use the financial burden of the offsite improvements as a disincentive to prematurely develop the urban expansion area. The concurrency policy would also apply to infill projects proposed within existing LUPAG urban designations; however, as an incentive to encourage infill development, the CIP would be used to prioritize needed infrastructure improvements within the existing urbanized areas. The County, through the CIP, would have to time the needed improvements to be available at the scheduled occupancy of the proposed project. There are several components to a concurrency policy: • What facilities are important to be available? Some communities require adequate public facilities for water, wastewater, drainage, roads, schools, and other services affected by the proposed development.9 Other communities distinguish "critical" facilities from "essential" or "desirable" facilities. 10 Critical services, which must be provided by the time of occu- 8. See Nelson and Duncan (1995), cited in footnote 3, pp. 96-97 for an explanation of Florida's concurrency doctrine. 9. City of Lenexa, Kansas, cited in Kelly, E. Planning, Growth, and Public Facilities: A Primer for Local Officials, Planning Advisory Service Report No_ 447, Chicago, IL: American Planning Association, 1993, p. 25. 10. See, for example, Washington County, Oregon, Community Development Code (www.co.washington.or.us). General Plan Infrastructure Assessment Study 2-43 J� Chapter 2: Coordinating Infrastructure and Lind Use Planning O pancy, may include water, sewer, fire protection, drainage, and access (local and minor collector). Essential services, which may be approved with mitigating measures or within a date certain of occupancy, may include schools, access (arterial and major collector), police, and civil defense. Desirable services, which may be approved with conditions, may include parks, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and public transporta- tion services (see Table 2-3). • What is adequate? The level of service indicators or standards determine adequacy. Suggested indicators are discussed in Chap- ter 4, "Facilities Needs Assessments". • When should these facilities be available? "Concurrency" means that the required facilities are available when needed. This time requirement could be at the date of the certificate of occupancy (especially for critical facilities), included in the CIP for construc- tion within a date certain, payment of an impact fee with the actual provision of the facilities determined by the County, or placing a guarantee with the County for completion of the improvements within a date certain of occupancy. • Who should pay for these facilities? For infill development of existing urban areas, any upgrades to existing facilities should come from the CIP since these upgrades would likely also benefit surrounding existing development. For urban expansion development, extensions of services should be shouldered by the developer with perhaps a reimbursement program to the initial developer from subsequent developments to contribute their fair share. Table 2-3. Suggested "Critical' Facilities for Concurrency Requirement CategorylFacility Concurrency Requirement Critical Essential Desirable Not APPlica- blea Transportation Airports x Roads— primary arterial, secondary arterial, major collec- for x Harbors x Bikeways and trails x Transit (bus routes) x Education Libraries x Schools x Public safety Police officers/stations x Fire Stations x Hospitals/clinics x Civil defense sirens x Recreation and Cultural Parks—federal, state, county x Public access x Environmental Health and Safety Solid waste transfer stations x Wastewater x Drainage x Water x Power and Communication Electrical x Communications x Justice and Government Correctional Facilities x Courts x Civic Centers x a. Regional facility that is not usually includedas an oftsite exaction tor proposed cieve opments. 2-44 General Plan Infrastructure Assessment Study FACILITIES NEEDS ASSESSMENT Chapter 2 provided a context for infrastructure planning by discussing the relationship between land use patterns and infrastructure. This chapter focuses on the assessment of specific infrastructure systems and public facilities: • Transportation Airports (§3.1) Harbors (§3.2) r Roadways (§3.3) O Transit and Bikeways (§3.4) • Public Utilities Water (§3.5) Wastewater (§3.6) • Recreation Facilities (§3.7) • Protective Services Police (§3.8) Fire 03.9) Civil Defense (§3.10) • Flood Control and Drainage (§3.11) • Health Hospitals and Other Health Facilities (§3.12) Solid Waste Facilities (§3.13) • Education-- Schools and Libraries (§3.14) Although the State has the lead role in the provision of some of the above facilities (i.e., airports, harbors, hospitals, schools and libraries), or shares responsibility with the County (i.e., roadways, parks), it is important for the County to monitor and coordinate with the State to ensure adequate O General Plan Infrastructure Assessment Study 3.1 Chapter 3: Facilities Needs Assessment O service delivery. The services which the County has direct responsibility require a framework to assess adequacy in order to rationally allocate limited resources. This report used the following methodology to assess adequacy: • Overview and inventory-- Background research provided context to understand the objectives and to develop a pertinent classification to inventory existing facilities. Mapping the existing facilities helped to understand the pattern of distribution in relation to land use or other factors. • Issues, problems and/or opportunities-- Based on the overview and inventory analysis, various issues, problems; and/or opportunities were distilled. "Issues" are more complex problems where there are opposing viewpoints on a proper course of action. "Problems" have a more consensual basis, but solutions are still elusive. "Opportunities" are more positive proactive steps where government can play a significant role in realizing economic, social, or environmental gains. • Suggested policies-- The suggested policies address the identified issues, problems, or opportunities in terms of the action or position the County should pursue. The policies are sensitive to jurisdiction-- i.e., where the State has the primary responsibility for action, the policy clarifies the County's role as being to "support," "coordinate," or "monitor." • Suggested standards-- The suggested standards are in effect quantitative policies; they attempt to provide an objective or measurable interpretation of the broader policy statements. Three types of "standards" are distinguished: Design standards provide guidance to locate or construct a facility; Level of service standards provide measurable criteria to determine what is adequate, i.e, at what point is it justifiable to expand or build new facilities; the threshold capacity must consider the lead time to plan, design, and construct the particular facility; O Performance indicators measure pertinent trends to alert us of potential problems or measure progress on the implementation of policies. • Institutional framework-- The introductory overview was in part derived from consulting current master plans and governing laws to understand what agencies were involved and what funding sources were available. The funding sources have particular relevance to the discussion in Chapter 4 on the capital improvement budgeting process. 3.2 General Plan Infrastructure Assessment Study 3.1 AIRPORTS O 3.1.1 Overview and Inventory Existing Airports. In our island state, the airports and harbors are the gateways for the movement of people and cargo to and from each island. The Big Island has four public airports: two overseas airports with the ability to receive direct flights by large carriers frotn mainland and international locations (Hilo and Kona International Airports) and two smaller airports (Waimea-Kohala and Upolu Airports) (see Figure 3-1). National Classification of Airports. All four airports are part of the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS).1 The NPIAS identifies 3,344 existing airports nationwide that are significant to national air transportation. The NPIAS includes all "commercial" airports and selected "general aviation" airports. The NPIAS defines "commercial" airports as public airports receiving scheduled passenger service and having 2,500 or more enplaned passengers per year. General aviation airports have no scheduled commercial service but have sufficient activity (usually at least 10 locally owned aircraft) and are at least 20 miles from a commercial airport. The NPIAS further classifies commercial airports into two subcategories: "primary commercial" airports receive 10,000 or more enplaned passengers per year, and "other commercial" airports receive 2,500 to 10,000 enplaned passengers per year. Based on the NPIAS criteria, the four airports on this island are classified as follows: • Hilo International and Kona International Airports-- Primary Commercial • Waimea-Kohala Airport-- Other Commercial • Upolu Airport-- General Aviation Proposed Improvements. The State Department of Transportation is in the process of updating the O master plans for all the airports in this County. Based on currently available master plans and updates, the proposed improvements for each airport are summarized below. • Hilo International Airport. Hilo Airport's 9,800 -foot length runway is capable of accommodating aircraft in Airplane Design Group V (i.e., aircraft with wingspans of 171' to 197' such as the B-747) for nonstop service to destinations as far away as Denver and Chicago at maximum passenger load factors.` For air cargo, the 9,800 -foot length imposes some takeoff weight restrictions. Runway lengths up to 12,000 feet would enable maximum rated payloads to the West Coast. Until such time that a major cargo facility is established, extension of the runway would not be needed. However, the master plan recommended reserving adequate land to enable such extension should the need arise in the future. The latest draft of an updated master plan proposed a new cargo facility where the current helicopter facilities are located (see Figure 3-4). The helicopters would be relocated close to Kanoelehua Avenue. Flight tracks would prohibit the helicopters from flying over the Waiakea Houselots, but instead to approach over the industrial area parallel to Kanoelehua Avenue. As a result of a 1987 out-of-court settlement of a suit brought against the State by beneficiaries of the DHHL Trust, all of the land within the airport boundary is owned by the State (administered by DOT or DLNR). In return, the State conveyed to DHHL developed lots in the Shafter Flats Industrial Development on Oahu and $3.7 million as compensation for the DHHL lands within the Hilo airport, Waimea-Kohala airport, and Molokai airport. 1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration. Report to Congress: National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (1998-2002). Washington, D.C., March 1999. 2. Belt Collins, Hilo International Airport Master Plan. September 1991. The plan is being updated by Wilson O Okamoto & Associates. General Plan Infrastructure Assessment Study 3-3 Chapter 3: Facilities Needs Assessment O Kona International Airport. The airport is built on State-owned ceded land, except for Puukala ahupua'a which is non -ceded. On April 26, 1993, the State renamed Keahole Airport to Keahole- Kona International Airport. On June 16, 1997, the State renamed Keahole-Kona International Airport to Kona International Airport at Keahole.3 In February 1994, the runway was extended from 6,500' to 11,000' and reinforced with pavement overlays. The runway accommodates aircraft in Airplane Design Group V, similar to Hilo's runway. Major improvements proposed in a recently completed master plan include an expanded air cargo facility, new overseas terminal (to serve mainland and international carriers), new flight kitchen, new postal facility, expanded fuel storage, replacement wastewater treatment facility, new heliport, new air traffic control tower, and expanded general aviation facilities (see Figure 3-5 to Figure 3-7).4 The master plan also proposed a parallel runway. Although a single runway can accommodate the demand forecasts through the year 2020, a second runway would significantly reduce operational delays and provide a contingency in the event of an impaired runway. • Waimea-Kohala Airport. In the early 1950s, the Territory of Hawaii relocated the present airport from a location about one-half mile to the northwest in what is now the Lalamilo Farm Lots. The Territory acquired the land from Richard Smart, and also acquired an avigation easement on portions of the Hawaiian Home Lands of Puukapu. A portion of the airport site (40.682 acres) is ceded land. In 1970, the State changed the name from Kamuela Airport to Waimea-Kohala Airport. The FAA designated this airport as an eligible point to receive Essential Air Service (EAS) under the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978, and currently receives EAS subsidized scheduled air taxi (commuter) service.5 Besides commuters, other users include air cargo operators, air ambulance, scenic air tour operators, flight training schools, private aircraft owners, business aircraft owners, and the military. Growth in tourism from the South Kohala resorts would increase use of this airport from private aircraft serving these resorts, scenic air tours, recreational flying and flight training. The single runway is 5,197' long and accommodates aircraft in Airplane Design Group II. The improvements proposed in a master plan include upgrades to the airfield to meet current FAA O requirements (extending the runway safety areas and removal of the on -airport obstructions), navigational aids, fixed wing and helicopter lease lots, partial parallel taxiway to minimize entry/ exit taxiways to the runway as well as provide access to new hangars and lease lots, and terminal renovations to provide additional space for ticketing and concessions.6 • Upolu Airport. The 3,800' runway length accommodates aircraft in Airplane Design Group II with 12,500 pounds maximum gross weight and less than 10 passenger seats. The airfield pavement is in good condition and adequate for all commuter/taxi, general aviation, and military aircraft expected to use the airport on a regular basis and for use by C-130 on an occasional basis through the year 2020.7 3. Hawaii Revised Statutes §261-26. 4. Keahole Associates, Inc. Kona International Airport at Keahole Master Plan Update. Prepared for Department of Transportation, Airports Division, November 1998. 5. Under provisions of the Act, the U.S. DOT assists communities that may be left without essential air transportation. Currently, the U.S. Department of Transportation has chosen Air Nevada, Inc., dba Pacific Wings, to provide two EAS nonstop round trips a day-- one to Honolulu and the other to Kahului, Maui. 6. Noda, Edward K. & Associates, Inc. Waimea-Kohala Airport Master Plan and Noise Compatibility Program. Prepared for Department of Transportation, Airports Division, February 1999. 07. Belt Collins Hawaii, et al. Upolu Airport Master Plan, Working Paper No, 2. Prepared for State of Hawaii Department of Transportation; Airports Division. November 1977. 3-4 General Plan Infrastructure Assessment Study §3.1: Airports Because of this island's large size, the general aviation airports provide a speedy but expensive O intraisland alternative to highways. The southern part of the island (Kau District) is the only geographical sector that lacks a public airport. 3.1.2 Issues, Problems and/or Opportunities Economic stimulation opportunities by expanding cargo facilities. The export potential of the diversified agricultural industry seems to be growing as enterprising small and large farmers convert former sugarcane fields to a variety of crops. The unique proximity of the airport, harbor, and foreign trade zone in Hilo also provides opportunity for distribution of international cargo. Although the idea of a major cargo transport and distribution center had been previously studied, the export and cargo distribution potential should be continually monitored as economic conditions change. Adequate industrial -zoned lands are available in proximity of the airports (see Figure 3-2 and Figure 3-3). Economic stimulation opportunities for accommodation of international visitors. Domestic and international overseas flights offer tremendous boosts to the local economy, especially for sunny Kona. Necessary airport improvements to accommodate this growth is important to the County and should be monitored to ensure timely construction. ` Poor highway access to the major airports. The Hawaii Long -Range Land Transportation Plan identified the existing deficient highway access to the Kona, Hilo, and Waimea airports. State highways directly connect to the Kona and Waimea airports, and the State is working on improving the access. However, the State highway network does not provide adequate access to the Hilo airport. Although the General Plan identifies Puainako Street, which is a State highway, to be the main or alternative access to the airport, the airport master plan does not address this possibility. Potential introduction of alien species. International flights have the potential to introduce alien plant O and animal species that could threaten the fragile native biota. State-of-the-art inspection facilities are essential. 3.1.3 Suggested Policies Accommodation of overseas visitors. The County shall support the State in the timely expansion of the Kona Airport facilities to accommodate direct mainland and international flights, including efficient immigration processing, and to coordinate with the State to create an attractive welcome gateway for visitors at the Kona and Hilo airports and along the highways adjacent to these airports. Stimulation of export and cargo distribution potential. The County shall ensure adequate industrial zoning surrounding the airports, promote the foreign trade zone, monitor the feasibility of a centralized cargo transport and distribution center, and support the State in the timely provision of user -oriented air cargo facilities. Intermodal connectivity. The County shall monitor and support the State to ensure efficient highway access to the airports, and coordinate with the State to provide convenient ground transportation alternatives, including mass transit and bicycles. 8. In 1986, the County studied the potential for a major cargo transport and distribution center and concluded that it was not a feasible concept at the time. See Simat, Helliesen & Eichner, Feasibility Study of a Cargo O Transport and Distribution Center at Hilo International Airport, prepared for the County of Hawaii, 1986. General Plan Infrastructure Assessment Study 3-5 Chapter 3: Facilities Needs Assessment O Land use compatibility. The County shall support the State's objectives to acquire rights within the runway clear zones, to limit heights within approach zones, and to restrict noise -sensitive uses (e.g., residential, schools, hospitals) within designated noise contours determined by the State. Environment. The County shall support the State in the provision of state-of-the-art inspection facilities to reduce the probabilities of the introduction of alien species that could threaten the native biota. 3.1.4 Suggested Standards Design Standards • Federal Aviation Administration standards for airport design, runway clear zones, noise compatibility Level of Service Standards There are no level of service standards to measure the adequacy of airport facilities. Such standards could enable the County to work together with State to determine when and what improvements are necessary. The standards would attempt to identify a threshold that incorporates the estimated lead time for the solution to be in place. Suggested standards include: • Curb congestion for arrival and departure-- waiting time to get to the curb in excess of 15 minutes indicates a need for operational or capital response • Parking-- 100% parking lot full in excess of 5 days of the year indicates a need for parking lot expansion O• Convenient and available ground transportation choices for visitors-- alternatives available for mass transit, bicycle parking and rental, car rental, taxi and van service, hotel shuttle services • Cargo storage capacity-- available storage area at 90%r; capacity for more than 50% of the year • Noise -sensitive uses within noise limits-- number of unmitigated noise sensitive uses within the noise limit contours • Processing time for immigration inspections-- average processing time to complete immigration inspection in excess of 30 minutes • Agricultural inspections-- inspection system in place for passenger baggage and cargo Performance Indicators • Passenger volume Hilo. The total volume of passengers at Hilo Airport has been steadily increasing since a low point in 1981 (see Figure 3-8). However, for the first time since 1981, the total volume of passengers declined in 1998. Overseas passenger service through Hilo Airport began in October 1967 and ceased in December 1986. Interisland passengers have steadily increased since 1981, until the decline in 1.998. Kona. The total volume of passengers at Kona Airport has been steadily increasing since a low point in 1981 (see Figure 3-9). Overseas passenger service through Kona Airport began in 1982 and has steadily increased. Interisland passengers have also steadily increased. • Air Cargo and Mail O Hilo. The total volume of cargo and mail through Hilo International Airport had been relatively steady during the past 10 years, until 1998 when there was a significant decline in cargo due in part to droughts and blights that affected agricultural production (see Figure 3-10). 3-6 General Plan Infrastructure Assessment Study §3J: Airports Kona. The volume of cargo has been on an increasing trend since 1987, except for declines in O 1998 and 1995 (see Figure 3-11). The increase is partly attributable to the increasing overseas flights that carry cargo in the belly of passenger flights. Another major factor is that the only air container facility flies out of Kona. East Hawaii cargo is trucked to Kona. 3.1.5 Institutional Framework Functional, Facility, or Master Plans: • Hilo International Airport Master Plan (Belt Collins & Associates 1991) • Kona International Airport at Keahole Master Plan Update (Keahole Associates, Inc. 1998) • Waimea-Kohala Airport Master Plan (Edward K. Noda & Associates, Inc. 1999) • Upolu Airport Master Plan (Belt Collins Hawaii 1997) Governing laws: • HRS Chapter 261 (Aeronautics)-- Designates the Department of Transportation to supervise and establish airports. • HRS Chapter 262 (Airport Zoning)-- Authorizes the Department of Transportation to adopt zoning regulations to prevent airport hazards (e.g., height of structures or trees, use of land). In the event of conflict between County ordinances and State regulation, the more stringent applies. • HRS Chapter 263 (Uniform Aeronautics Act Modified)-- Establishes that the ownership of the airspace vests in the owner of the surface beneath, subject to the lawfulness of aircraft flight that does not interfere with the existing use of the land. O Responsible agencies: • State Department of Transportation, Airports Division Funding sources: • Airport Revenue Fund: The source includes all rents, fees, and other charges received by the Department of Transportation from airport facilities, and aviation fuel tax. The DOT may use the funds for any airport -related purpose including maintenance, capital improvements, acquisitions, and planning.9 • Federal FAA Grants: All NPIAS airports qualify to receive federal grants under the Airport Improvement Program which are used primarily to bring existing airports up to current design standards and to add capacity to congested airports. 9. Hawaii Revised Statutes §248-8 (creation of airport revenue fund); §261-5 (disposition of funds). General Plan Infrastructure Assessment Study 3-7 i m LL WZ f N� O 6 D W ¢ 2 2 _ N � 0 0 rn n H � I .8 '• ti a .3'�°Rs N G � c'^ v�� a I Rag° Its 1- k 80.10 '5- q3 { 6 p U "�Dma" 0 �To 8� ' S JNS Eo�F_ Co' 5° G p �°� `�5fig. a,��� yS.�y6 �a �� gE� ,SCC $aov�g q' FE Ev m°g 29.. -8�us�e� °ksy U"ris 5. 2 �i8 �,g =9e a�ca7NHo o S x:W�a $y..E3 "Ark HE c�oc°.u.m_ 3sa Som a.^ U - m �'§p IM M �S 3 EO € o !FE fe p �sal F Q A��g a�3��•& 8 8� EH bk Asa W )as O ao' its ;�§10 w�� _�5 1 g AA $ 2 a S sw egg piRa �3d off. F �� �..� �a� �3�8 o tel gB4 all S �,``E a 5 � on�z y 1 i got as IM I'M .g5 IE HUM �vM 1� �v'l€ ��� gill! _.. ?�v e"lu Pi W3 a.8 .j L�:a� ,F'v `v�a�., rn �' i+s o.w bi 3> c 5gu fi r,O RIO, �� �., �_��.� 3� ';q Sm g"o not 6 0 c E Sy. 5 �d,m > 4 y 3� all _o5 5 c�, WAS ���o w� �.P ��> E FG+.�' � 0�8� its o.S 3� �a deg a; _G N.S>" �9w�"IRA on; �s'ao� `� � g.5� � �'&3�S`o� ca�'.nc 'S QS �'���,Q 35 iii �o� p �a.�" �.F ��a�s 9aoeoa L"'E$ Un sitHHH, 8y _ 8 F E 8���� F'g� baa as�� �O N yLE'p$3.� Zo E F�p X,�aR §g.S n� O�� 93 IT 15 ci a U��B a�� as6x�8'� i���S us w� I El W LL a E? i5 E 25 25 2S Biqugdap pua Bulueldu3 wade d Bu Mdoo Puo BUIUWdu3 weBwaaed O! O ap N �P 3p° dQQ�° Q N pp° 2p4 l9 t9 EE N o p0 N N 0 0 V O 3° O e e O pp° N m 3pp" app N d o m n rn m C N r V t9 N N 6 1 m ro V 6 �C �- t[l N N N C N fV m V L U pp m m <m VN� O fD W< m� N t9 tn9 O l9 � O� O V c00': m v O lV N N N N m R� c4iNm amn umi m O ao0o Nt� tl) a n T V o a m d t9 m N N r N Q N N N O� N N N r W r r n N yy N N �tq�qpp� N N N N N 1. 0 G I� m Q. O mN� N fp f� m mm A m O m m (� pQ�� y ym �G imp Nl Q m�m y m YY11 mm Cn9 �9 Op N 0 0 0 tNOV .- mbm O N N M m U� �Np n e1 NIq 8 m �mp WC N- N t0 fm0 Oi t11 N N W� rn^ G d m cp aaappp y U O! O ap N �P 3p° dQQ�° Q N pp° 2p4 l9 t9 EE N o p0 N N 0 0 V O 3° O e e O pp° N m 3pp" app N d dppi de N W o b pd° E= °O W 8 2 L V m m <m VN� O fD W< m� N t9 tn9 O l9 � O� O O O� u>rpn N m N cN9 m v O Q uhf h m n ro ro n apo O m [D N m R� c4iNm amn umi n`mq� ao0o nm 00000 y t9 m N N r N Q N N N O� n tm0 M� N 7 O m tprp0 m �G ��09 f���yy Nl Q N 0 0 0 tNOV .- mbm O N N M m Q Q �Np n e1 NIq 8 m (mrV t0 -6 N WC U N t3' sitFU N W m a, i(I O o ae,' 15 k e a a� a' a� o ° C' to 1[1 n Q t7 m" N m [7 N 2hg,r E4tel k t N Y1: m td n n N N N< m N O V W N N cV N N W O N 11: �G L r� 1 a QNi a n y_ r r N Yl n �^O M t0 '� t7 N M Cl V< h W m 1� - W W F Oi til N O'1 n m m N N N N N N N N O I U y"j"Ir _ O [ k C F' [ � Y N O h N W m a, m e. i(I O o ae,' 15 k e a a� a' a� o ° C' to 1[1 n Q t7 m" N m [7 N 2hg,r E4tel k t N Y1: m td n n N N N< m N O V W N N cV N N W O N 11: �G L r� 1 a QNi ON n N Y r N Yl n �^O M t0 '� t7 N M Cl V< h W m 1� - W W F Oi til N O'1 n m m N N N N N N N N O I U y"j"Ir _ O C F' [ � Y �Wmro'M V iO pN.'W Tm.N 07 Q �p mm pommmyy--Mp ^C M pm p�O.M 11 k mW m Q 2G' cV N N M N N N N N N N Cl N N N N N F„ N O h N W m a, m e. i(I O o ae,' a° a° e a a� a' a� o ° C' to 1[1 n Q t7 m" N m [7 N M V, :°Q'O.O m CV N Y1: m td n n N N N< m N O V W N N cV N N W O N 11: �G L m OI m QNi ON n N lh tO r N Yl n �^O M t0 '� t7 N M Cl V< h W m 1� - W W F Oi til N O'1 n m m N N N N N N N N O I U O F' �Wmro'M V iO pN.'W Tm.N 07 Q �p mm pommmyy--Mp ^C M pm p�O.M mtmtpD ��[yV Oem<�NQ mW m Q 2G' cV N N M N N N N N N N Cl N N N N N F„ O �p mW ^ N^ n �Op Of O� NW W N oo N n N m n M N On m t Wp m N {Wp m N V .Q- n N N oo od t7 Cl tWV t7 sCpf y m N N N m. N W N N N W N N. n O O F T 'p rn m rn m m m m rn rn a m m m n m a m rn N M Q �n W W qc (7 in W Oni W W W W N Oni � O � N M m m OWf m mm m m 01 fp W W O[ W W F OWi N O h N W m W N i(I O M .- N O TM m m m Q tV tV U N N W n n N N QNi a0 til W f N [� O N Yl n �^O M t0 N N O '� tD W Q O to N m W W m 1� Oi N to c N N N N til N O'1 n m l� N N N m N N N m N O I U O F V iO r ip N �O 07 Q N V c0 I� m ^C M WN d W c,1N N mW m Q 2G' cV N N M N N N N N M th M6 c6 OeD O O m W M W m^ d Q O ctV� M Q A N n N m m m N W Q n N^ Nm O N Q c7 b Wp c CI 1� m 1z O M ey o F4 d d m n m V .Q- n N N oo od t7 Cl tWV t7 sCpf y m N N N m. N W N N N W N N. n O 0 4 V m in W Oni W W W W N Oni � O � N M m m OWf m mm m m 01 fp W W O[ W W F OWi U 3.2 HARBORS O 3.2.1 Overview and Inventory Types of Harbors and Boating Facilities. There are basically three types of harbor and boating facilities (Figure 3-12): • Deep -draft harbors. Deep draft harbors serve as the major port of call for cargo and passengers (cruise ships). The Big Island has two deep -draft commercial harbors-- Hilo Harbor and Kawaihae Harbor. • Small boat harbors. Small boat harbors enable mooring of larger vessels for recreational or commercial purposes (e.g., fishing, boat cruises). There are six small boat harbors-- three in South Hilo, three in North Kona, and one in South Kohala. • Boat launches. Boat launches serve recreational or commercial boaters or fishermen who trailer their boats. Most small boat harbors also have boat launches. Boat launches are provided in the rural areas of Kau, Puna, Hamakua, South Kohala, and South Kona. The State Department of Transportation is responsible for the control, management, use, and regulation of deep draft commercial harbors.l As of July 1992, the State Legislature transferred the responsibilities for small boat harbors and boat launches from the Department of Transportation to the State Department of Land and Natural Resources.2 Deep Draft Harbor Master Plans. The capacity of a harbor, which determines the size and number of ships that can be accommodated, is affected by the depth (entrance, basin, alongside piers), length of piers (berthing space), and amount of cargo handling and storage area (open and enclosed storage). Recognizing the interdependence of the harbors on the same island, the Department of Transportation O Harbors Division has a single master plan that addresses the commercial harbors on each island.3 The department charges dockage and other fees that go into a harbor special fund that is used for 4 construction and maintenance of the harbors.The existing and proposed improvements include: • Hilo Harbor. Hilo Harbor has three piers with a total berthing space of 2,787 linear feet. The alongside depth at each pier is 35 feet. The combined cargo handling and storage areas total over 13 acres. Pier 1 also handles cruise ships. A high priority need is to upgrade the passenger cruise ship facilities at Hilo Harbor (see Figure 3-14). • Kawaihae Harbor. Kawaihae Harbor has two piers with a total berthing space of 1,562 linear feet. The main pier has alongside depth of 35 feet; the smaller pier, used primarily for the loading and unloading of barges, has an alongside depth of 20 to 24 feet. The improved cargo handling and storage areas total about 14 acres, with room for expansion (see Figure 3-16). Small Boat Harbors and Boat Launches Master Plans. There is no master plan for small boat harbors and boat launches. The management of these facilities by the Department of Land and Natural 1. Hawaii Revised Statutes chapter 266 (Harbors). §266-1 defines "commercial harbor" to mean "a harbor or offshore mooring facility which is primarily for the movement of commercial cargo, passenger and fishing vessels entering, leaving, or travelling within the State, and facilities and supporting services for loading, off- loading, and handling of cargo, passengers, and vessels." y 2. Hawaii Revised Statutes §200-2. 3. State Department of Transportation, Harbors Division. Hawaii CommercialHarbors 2020. August 1998. 4. See Hawaii Revised Statutes §266-17 (rates, how fixed) and §266-19 (creation of special harbor fund). O General Plan Infrastnicture Assessment Study 3-17 Chapter 3: Facilities Needs Assessment O Resources Division of Boating and Ocean Recreation has been the subject of critical reviews.5 The department charges mooring and harbor use fees, including 2% of gross revenues from commercial vessels (boating, commercial thrillcraft, parasailing), which are deposited in the Boating Special Revenue Fund .% Other sources of revenue deposited in the fund include marine fuel tax, vessel registration fees, rental income from leases, and revocable permits for boating facility properties. The fund almost entirely supports the division's costs of operating, managing, and maintaining the facilities. Since there are no uniform standards for facilities and services, there is considerable variation among facilities statewide. 3.2.2 Issues, Problems and/or Opportunities Unsafe facilities or mix of activities. Swimmers mix with boaters at the Pohoiki Ramp. Aging piers, such as at the Kailua-Kona Wharf, pose public safety hazards. Cruise ship opportunity. The accommodations at Hilo Harbor for cruise ship passengers is not the most welcoming. Visitor information and ground transportation alternatives are sorely needed. Expansion constraints. The existing General Plan designates a portion of the shoreline area planned for future expansion of Hilo Harbor as Open (see Figure 3-14). If no sensitive resources exist, designation to Industrial should be considered. The General Plan designation in the vicinity of Kawaihae Harbor will accommodate future expansion plans (see Figure 3-16). 3.2.3 Suggested Policies Support for deep draft harbor improvements. The County shall support the State's future expansion O plans for Hilo and Kawaihae Harbors to accommodate the increased need for cargo and cruise ship facilities and opportunities related to the foreign trade zone. Cruise ship environment. The County shall encourage the provision of alternative ground transportation alternatives and the development of an attractive gateway for cruise ship visitors from Hilo Harbor to downtown Hilo, from Kawaihae Harbor to South Kohala destinations, and within Kailua-Kona. Small boat harbors and boat launches. The County shall monitor the conditions at the small boat harbors and boat launches to ensure that recreational and commercial uses are not impeded and coordinate with the State to address deficiencies. 3.2.4 Suggested Standards Design Standards • Deep draft harbors-- Department of Transportation standards • Small boat harbors and boat launches-- Department of Land and Natural Resources standards 5. See, for example, Office of the Auditor, Hawaii State Legislature; Audit of the Management of Small Boat Harbors and Boat Ramps, Report No. 98-11, March 1998. O6. Authorized by Hawaii Revised Statutes §200-8. 3.18 General Pian Infrastructure Assessment Study §3.2: Harbors Level of Service Standards O There are no level of service standards to measure the adequacy of harbor and boating facilities. Such standards could enable the County to work together with State to determine when and what improvements are necessary. The standards would attempt to identify a threshold that incorporates the estimated lead time for the solution to be in place. Suggested standards include: • Deep draft harbors Cruise ship berthing capacity Cargo storage capacity • Small boat harbors-- mooring capacity • Boat launches-- minimum of one per district Performance Indicators • Cargo volume. The volume of incoming and outgoing cargo at Hilo Harbor has been steadily declining since 1990, while the volume at Kawaihae Harbor has been steadily increasing since 1993 (see Figure 3-13). • Cruise ships. No data available. 3.2.5 Institutional Framework Functional, Facility, or Master Plans: • Hawaii Commercial Harbors 2020 Master Plan (Department of Transportation, Harbors Division O 1.998) Governing laws: • HRS Chapter 266 (Harbors)-- Designates the Department of Transportation to develop and control commercial harbors. • HRS Chapter 200 (Ocean Recreation and Coastal Areas)-- Designates the Department of Land and Natural Resources to plan, develop, and operate small boat harbors, launching ramps, and other boating facilities and associated aids to navigation. Responsible agencies: • State: Department of Transportation, Harbors Division (commercial harbors) Department of Land and Natural Resources, Division of Boating and Ocean Recreation (small boat harbors and boat ramps) Funding sources: • Harbor Special Fund: Rates and fees collected from dockage, demurrage, and other charges at commercial harbors to be used for operation, repair, and maintenance. 7. Hawaii Revised Statutes §266-19. General Plan Infrastructure Assessment Study 3-19 Chapter 3: Facilities Needs Assessment OBoating Special Fund: Sources of funds include mooring and other harbor use fees, marine fuel tax, vessel registration fees, rental income from leases, revocable permits for boating facility properties.$ 8. Hawaii Revised Statutes §200-8. 3.20 General Plan Infrastructure Assessment Study ma = K ga 89 Al x r N�pC W _ I m 1i� �I L a n N¢¢ n N Xj C y x b x 5� ? ct mo K � � zxizz?izziz C O 12 RIF J�k g �,, F w .b r n an d .- 6 g U N 2 N g m O Ui N Z Z Z (N i/1 41 Y d w tlj w m m � m S Y S Z xm x m m a m E E� E a a �.3 SFI�'�'U��ry ��5 iL. �6py7 i �e'��• 't'tl Al x r W 1i� �I 5� ? 12 RIF J�k g t a L 2 3mfl0 m LL z v 3.3 ROADWAYS O 3.3.1 Overview and Inventory Highway Functional Classification. Roadways serve a conflicting dual function: efficient movement between origin and destination, and access to abutting lots or intersecting streets. The more access, the less efficient. All roadways are a compromise between the two extremes. The purpose of a functional classification system is to develop a hierarchical street network by designating which streets are primarily to serve as access streets, and controlling access on those streets designated as thoroughfares. The classification also determines the design standards based on the function-- access streets are narrower and designed for slower speeds, while thoroughfares accommodate higher traffic volumes designed for higher speeds. The State Department of Transportation initially classified all public highways statewide using federal classification criteria.( The existing General Plan adopted that classification system in concept, with some differences. Minor terminology differences include: the federal/State classification uses "principal" and "minor" arterial, while the General Plan uses "primary" and "secondary"; for "local" roads under the federal/State classification, the County uses "local minor" or just "minor". Of a more substantive difference, the General Plan does not distinguish between "major" and "minor" collector. Such a distinction should probably be incorporated in the General Plan to add finer controls on access and for consistency with the federal/State system. The modified functional classification for this County, therefore, would consist of the following types of streets: • Primary arterial. Moves vehicles in large volumes and at higher speeds from one geographic area to another. Minimum right-of-way of 120'. Controlled access to optimize through traffic. • Secondary arterial. Interconnects and augments the primary arterial network to move vehicular O traffic between or through Large areas. Minimum right-of-way of 80'. Controlled access to opti- mize through traffic. • Major collector. Collects and distributes traffic between neighborhoods and the arterial system. Minimum right-of-way of 60'. Controlled access to allow selected access. • Minor collector and local streets. Minor collector streets are used to some extent as through streets and to some extent for access to abutting properties. Local streets provide access to abutting prop- erties. Minimum right-of-way of 50' for public roads. Access permitted; each lot must have legal access to a street. In this County, the primary and secondary arterials, totaling approximately 360 miles or 31% of the total public roads, provide the major intraisland route to connect the major urban centers (Hilo, Kailua- Kona, Waimea) and to provide efficient access to the major commercial harbors and airports. The major and minor collectors total approximately 200 miles or 17% of the total public roads. The local streets, totaling approximately 600 miles, comprise over half of the total public roads (see Figure 3-18, Table 3-1, and Table 3-2). The State has assumed the responsibility to provide most of the primary and secondary arterial routes (80%). Of the total public roads, the County owns and maintains approximately 71 % or approximately 800 miles. Federal -Aid Highways. The functional classification in part determines which highways qualify for federal aid. The Federal Highway Administration defines "federal -aid highways" as "highways on the Federal -aid highway systems and all other public roads not classified as local roads or rural minor collectors."3 The Federal -aid highway systems include the National Highway System'and the National 1. See Belt, Collins & Wilbur Smith & Associates, Highway Functional Classification and Needs Study: 1970 - O 1990, Prepared for the Department of Transportation, Highways Division, 1971. General Plan Infrastructure Assessment Study 3.23 Giahter 3: Facilities Needs Assessment O System of Interstate and Defense Highways. Only Oahu has interstate highways. The National Highway System consists of the interstate system and principal arterials-- these comprise the Federal Aid Primary (FAP) routes. All other streets qualifying for federal aid are Federal Aid Secondary (FAS) routes. In this County, approximately 550 miles or 48% of the total public roads are FAP or FAS routes, with 61% State-owned and 39% County-owned.4 Federal -aid County highways receive federal funding for maintenance. The County allocates 50% of the fuel tax to supplement the maintenance of federal -aid County highways.' The balance of the fuel tax is used to maintain the non -federal -aid local roads, allocated by district according to the proportion of County roads within the district relative to the islandwide total (see Table 3-2). The districts rank as follows, from the most to the least mileage of County local roads: South Hilo, Puna, North Kona, Hamakua, South Kohala, Kau, South Dona, North Kohala, North Hilo. Proposed Improvements. The Hawaii Long Range Land Transportation Plan, prepared for the State Department of Transportation, projected highway needs to the year 2020 for major highways (see Figure 3-19 and Table 3-3).6 The study prioritized the proposed improvements by tiers: Tier 1 (by year 2005), Tier 2 (2006-2010), Tier 3 (2011-2020), and Tier 4 (unfunded). The proposed projects focus on improving the islandwide circulation (71% of estimated costs). More geographically focused projects in Kona and Hilo comprise 18% and 10%, respectively, of the total estimated funded costs. Nearly half of the estimated costs is projected to be funded by federal sources with state sources contributing 30%, and County sources (including exactions) contributing nearly 20% (see Table 3-4). Relationship to Land Use. By providing more efficient access to areas beyond the urban centers, highway improvements have the potential to encourage uncontrolled sprawled development at the urban fringes and beyond in the absence of clear growth management policies. Land use patterns can also contribute towards reducing travel demand. Communities with a higher density and a mix of uses O have less dependence on the automobile because people live within walking distance of daily needs and businesses are able to locate in the area due to the critical mass of customers. In contrast, the conventional zoning and subdivision patterns tend to create single -use districts where residential uses are separated from commercial/industrial uses making the automobile the only practical means to even buy a loaf of bread. 2. HRS §§264-21 et seq discuss federal -aid highways. §264-23 authorizes the director of transportation to "select, designate, or layout, in compliance with the requirements of the Federal Highway Act, a system or systems of highways in the State, upon which federal -aid funds may or are to be expended, together with state or county funds." The Federal Highway Act refers to Title 23 of the U.S. Code. The federal government periodically passes a surface transportation act, which is essentially a plan for funding transportation programs. These plans typically provide authorizations for five-year periods. The act passed in 1991, the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) significantly restructured the federal -aid programs. The most recent act, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21 st Century (TEA -21), enacted in 1998, authorized programs for six years (1998-2003). TEA -21 retained and built upon many of the programs initiated by ISTEA. 3. Federal Highways Administration, Federal -Aid Policy Guide, 23 CFR 470.103, Definitions, Federal -Aid Highway systems (www.fhwa.dot.gov). 4. This calculation assumes that all major collectors and arterials are federal -aid highways, whether State or County. Non -federal -aid streets, therefore, would be the minor collectors and local County -owned streets. 5. County of Hawaii Ordinance No. 99-46 (fuel tax allocation). O 6. Frederic R. Harris, Inc. Hawaii Long Range Land Transportation Plan. Prepared for State Department of Transportation. May 1998. 3-24 General Plan Infrastructure Assessment Study §3.3: Roadtirn)s Right of Way Functions. The street right-of-way serves other functions besides just a vehicular O travelway. The right-of-way must often also accommodate drainage, utilities and street lights, pedestrians, bikes, on -street parking (where permitted), future widening, turning lanes, cross-section slope transitions, traffic signs, and landscaping. Innovative mixed-use higher density projects (also known as neo -traditional or new urbanism projects) are fostering more innovative right-of-way, designs that change the emphasis of the various right-of-way components, especially for local streets, to create more pedestrian -friendly streetscapes.7 , Corridor Preservation. Corridor preservation refers to the legal options to preserve future rights-of-way for new roads or future widening of existing rights-of-way. Frequently, by the time a highway has been fully planned and designed, development has occurred that either has encroached within the planned corridor that may require altering the alignment, or development has increased the land value and the consequent acquisition costs. For proposed new roads, advance purchasing of the planned corridor is cost -prohibitive, especially when preliminary engineering has often not yet been funded to precisely locate the right-of-way. Merely designating future roadways or future widening on maps without purchasing, and restricting development within these designated areas with the intent to buy at a later unspecified time, may be an unconstitutional "taking" without compensation if the landowner is left without economic use of the land or is otherwise burdened with undue hardship.$ Other states (e.g., Florida, North Carolina) have dealt with this issue by identifying roadway corridors on an official map. A landowner who desires to develop the area within the corridor may petition the agency. The agency then has the choice to grant a variance or deny the petition and purchase the right-of-way. The government has a set time to acquire (e.g., 3 years), Property tax relief may be made available to the burdened area to offset the impact. If the road reserve is part of a proposed subdivision, the owner has the option to dedicate the land in exchange for permit fee credits or in some instances for transfer development rights. This statutory scheme has been found to be constitutional.9 A proposed corridor may reduce the value of the directly impacted area (referred to as the "primary O area"), but the surrounding lands may benefit from an increase in value as a result of the perceived improved access especially for commercial development (referred to as the "secondary area"). Methods to recoup this unearned windfall include special assessment or tax increment districts, transfer of development rights, exactions, and impact fees. 10 3.3.2 Issues, Problems and/or Opportunities Inconsistency between State highway planning and County General Plan. The Hawaii Long Range Land Transportation Plan forecasted vehicular trips based on population projections and distribution of projected population by district that differed from the General Plan population projections developed 7. See, for example, Institute of Transportation Engineers, Traditional Neighborhood Development: Street Design Guidelines, June 1997; Ain. Soc. of Civil Engineers, Nail. Assn of Home Builders; Urban Land Institute, Residential Streets, 2d Ed., 1990; Burden, D., Street Design Guidelines for Healthy Neighborhoods, Center for Livable Communities, January 1999. 8. For a useful analysis of the applicability of the U.S. Supreme Court's Lucas decision (505 U.S. 1003 (1992)) on corridor reservation laws, see Borhart, R., Corridor Reservation-- Implications for Recouping a Portion of the "Unearned Increment" Arising from Construction of Transportation Facilities, prepared for Virginia Transportation Research Council, January 1994 (http//webcentral.bts.gov/nti[DOCS/borhar.htmi). 9. Palm Beach County v. Wright, 641 So.2d 50 (Fla. 1994) (Florida Supreme Court held that a County's thoroughfare map designating corridors for future roadways, and which forbids land use activity that would impede future construction of a roadway, was constitutional and substantially differed from a more detailed recorded map of reservation struck down by the Court in a 1990 decision). 10. See Borhart, R., cited in footnote 8. General Plan Infrastructure Assessment Study 3-25 C/urpter 3: Facilities Needs Assessment O for this current General Plan update (see Table 3-5). Generally, the Long -Range Transportation Plan had a more pessimistic forecast for Puna, and a more optimistic forecast for South Hilo and North Kona. The transportation plan also forecasted a faster growth rate for North Kona. Another discrepancy with the General Plan is that certain arterials and collectors identified in the 1989 General Plan Facilities Map are not included in the Long Range Transportation Plan (see Figure 3-20). The County needs to determine whether these omitted proposed corridors should be kept in or deleted from the General Plan. Unclear corridor preservation methods. The General Plan does not specify the legal implications of a future roadway corridor designated on the General Plan Facilities Plan. The alignment shown on the Facilities Plan is not precise. The Facilities Plan only shows the arterials and major collectors. Future alignments or widening of minor collectors or local roads are not shown. The zoning map, however, does show future widening in certain urbanized areas for local roads without citing the relationship to the General Plan. There is no time limit on acquisition. If the road widening is part of a subdivision or zoning application, the landowner is expected to dedicate the area.] 1 Inflexible design standards. The current design standards need to be reevaluated to allow more pedestrian -friendly and rural dedicable variations. Where existing streets have a right-of-way of less than 50', widening should not be required if the existing and planned use is predominantly residential. The zoning map street widening designations should be reevaluated. Disproportionate dedication and/or offsite improvement exactions. Road dedication and offsite improvement exactions must be clearly related ("nexus") and roughly proportional to the impacts caused by the development." Requirements for offsite improvements (e.g., traffic signal) must clearly distinguish whether the need is an existing deficiency or a future impact caused by the development. Dedication requirements need to distinguish the proportion of general public benefit, recognizing that Ocollectors and arterials serve a greater public as thoroughfares. Uncertain ownership of homestead roads. There are many roads that are - not private, but not acknowledged as County or State roads. Most of these roads in ownership limbo are homestead roads created during the Territorial period. A 1999 State Attorney General Opinion clarified that all public highways are county highways unless declared under Hawaii Revised Statutes chapter 264 to be under State jurisdiction. 13 Many of these roads do not meet minimum public safety and emergency vehicle access standards. Some of these roads are not even located within the legal right-of-way, and others exist only on paper. Inefficient intermodal connections. One of the major objectives of the State highway system is to provide efficient connectivity between the highway system and the major commercial harbors and airports. The Long -Range Land Trans Portation Plan considered the access to the Port of Hilo, Hilo Airport, and Keahole Airport as poor." The State owns the highway accessing Kona Airport (Queen Kaahumanu Highway), and therefore controls the necessary improvements to improve access. Surprisingly, the State does not own the highway link to the Port of Hilo (see Figure 3-18). The major entry road to the Hilo Airport, Kekuanaoa Street, is also not owned by the State. However, there is an 11. The dedication requirement must clearly relate to the project's impact. See, for example, Walz v. Town of Smithtown (46 F.3d 162 (2d Cir. 1995) (court found a total lack of nexus between water service and road widening where a landowner was denied access to the public water supply when they refused to deed the front. 15' of their property for road -widening purposes). 12. Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 474 (1994). 13. State of Hawaii, Attorney General Opinion No. 99- O14. Harris, F., Hawaii Long Range Land Transportation Plan, May 1998, p. 23. 3.26 General Plan Infrastructure Assessment Study §3.3: Roadiraps opportunity to create an alternative access to the airport using a State road, Puainako Street, that O eventually will connect to the improved Saddle Road_ Without passing lanes, trucks and other slower vehicles impede the traffic flow along arterials. Opportunity to recoup windfall in secondary area along proposed corridors. Opportunities may exist to identify secondary areas along proposed corridors that could potentially benefit from the improved access. Lessons from other states would be helpful to understand the advantages and disadvantages of various alternatives. 3.3.3 Suggested Policies Interregional connectivity. The County shall encourage and support the State to improve connectivity between Hilo and Kona via Saddle Road, and between Hamakua and Kawaihae (bypassing Waimea). Intermodal connectivity. The County shall explore with the State alternatives to establish a continuous State highway system connecting the major airports and harbors. Relationship to Land Use. County regulations shall encourage mixed use development that reduce dependence on the automobile and urban infill development. Street standards. The County street standards shall flexibly accommodate, where appropriate, standards that preserve rural character and standards that foster pedestrian -friendly streets. For local streets, it shall be acceptable to compromise efficient flow of vehicular traffic to slow the traffic movement, provided that access for emergency vehicles is not affected. Official map. The County shall adopt an official map that shows all proposed public roads and future. road widening where the location of the corridor is relatively certain, with procedures that provide O relief to owners who may be unduly burdened by the proposed corridor. Proposed roads shown on the General Plan Facilities Plan are for planning purposes and shall not restrict a landowner in the use of real property, unless such roads have been incorporated onto the official map. The CIP may include a revolving fund to acquire affected portions of corridors shown on the General Plan Facilities Plan or to acquire rights-of-way as shown on the Official Map. Homestead and other substandard roads. The County shall develop minimum street standards to protect public safety and ensure unimpeded emergency vehicular access. These standards shall be applicable to homestead roads and existing private streets that are offered for dedication to the County, and are distinct from standards for new dedicable roads. Standards that relate primarily to maintenance costs, drainage, and pedestrian facilities may be flexibly negotiated between the County and the owners of lots served by the street. When the street meets the agreed standards, the County shall accept dedication of the street. The County shall work together with the State (who created the homestead roads) and benefiting landowners of homestead roads to develop alternative financing strategies to bring these roads up to the minimum standards. Recoupment of windfall arising from road improvements or dedication. The County shall be cognizant of the windfall impacts arising from road improvements or dedications, and shall explore alternatives to recoup such windfall. 3.3.4 Suggested Standards Design Standards • Right-of-way width Primary arterial: 120' General Plan Infrastructure Assessment Study 3.27 Chapter 3: Facilities Needs Assessment OSecondary arterial:80' Major collector:60' Minor collector: 50' Local: 50' • Other design parameters Primary and secondary arterials (State and County highways)-- Department of Transportation standards Collectors and local streets (dedicable County streets)-- Department of Public Works Standard Details Private streets (non-dedicable)-- Department of Public Works Standard Details Level of Service Standards The level of service standards from the Highway Capacity Manual are as follows: 15 Level of Service A: Free flow traffic with individual users virtually unaffected by the presence of others in the traffic stream. Stopped delay at signalized intersections is minimal. Level of Service B: Stable traffic flow with a high degree of freedom to select speed and operating conditions but with some influence from other users. Stopped delay at signalized intersections is not bothersome. Average travel speeds are about 70% of the free flow speed. O Level of Service C: Restricted flow which remains stable but with significant interactions with others in the traffic stream. The general level of comfort and convenience declines noticeably. Average travel speeds are about 50% of the free flow speed. Level of Service D: High-density flow in which speed and freedom to maneuver are severely restricted and comfort and convenience have declined even though flow remains stable. Average travel speeds are about 40% of free flow speed. Level of Service E: Unstable flow at or near capacity levels with poor levels of comfort and convenience. Average travel speeds are about 33% of free flow speed. Level of Service F: Forced traffic flow in which capacity levels have been exceeded, characterized by stop -and -go waves, poor travel times, low comfort and convenience. The proposed capacity thresholds are as follows: LOS C-- all roads, except as otherwise indicated. LOS D-- in urban centers (Hilo and Kailua-Kona) during peak periods. This lower standard for urban centers enables infill development to proceed with less need for roadway improvements and encourages alternative transportation modes as a result of a degree of congestion. Performance Indicators • Residents per registered motor vehicle (measures dependence on automobile) (see Figure 3-21) 15. Highway Capacity Manual 3-28 General Plan Infrastructure Assessment Study 53.3: Roadti'rns • Fuel consumption per registered motor vehicle (measures travel demand) 3.3.5 Institutional Framework Functional, Facility, or Master Plans: • Hawaii Long Range Land Transportation Plan (Frederic R. Harris, Inc. 1998) • Keahole to Kailua Development Plan: Revised Roadway Plan Implementation Strategy (Townscape, Inc. 1997) Governing laws: • HRS Chapter 264 (Highways)-- Defines "public" highways and trails; sets forth duties and powers of the Director of the Department of Transportation with respect to federal aid highways. • HRS Chapter 256A (County Highways and Sidewalks)-- Authorizes the County to regulate and acquire all improvements within the County right-of-way. • Hawaii County Code Chapter 22 (Streets and Sidewalks)-- Regulates use and improvements within County rights-of-way. • Hawaii County Code Chapter 23 (Subdivisions)-- Establishes functional street classifications and improvement standards. Responsible agencies: • State: Department of Transportation, Highways Division • County: Department of Public Works Funding sources: • Federal aid grants: The State Department of Transportation allocates the federal grants to the counties for maintenance of federal -aid highways. • Highway Fund: Fuel tax collected in this County and vehicular taxes are deposited in this fund for maintenance of County roads. 16 16. Hawaii Revised Statutes §243-5 (establishment of highway fund), -6 (disposition of highway fund); chapter O 249 (county vehicular tax). General Plan Infrastructure Assessment Study 3.29 I � { z ■ / #¥± a * k2£ §/ k k12 0 `p C ci c_ f `o U 0 0 \ f � " rd W v r W 9 C c _ o W u d � _ o W U � m N C Q Q r r� W E a` W E CL` o` _ c ¢7 m. OC ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ 6 ¢ ¢ J ¢ ¢ 2 ¢ ¢ J J J ¢ ¢ 6 ¢ J J ¢ 2 ¢ ¢ J ¢ � J E o J ¢ ¢ J L r 3� O U q A to Qr (J ( A y U � ,y r/J m N y m N m N N p�p p�o U U a N y y U U N to p� V N N A N U U U U U U U U m N 9 to y h U E _ N m y N A c m V 0 U m :- N T <g v m - A m B $ x Y i; W p B m Q L c E E. g E c ,g rn E �m.�Yo $ e 19. J L c y_ 5�°iD ria z,a� E4 'YE �AmB ¢°(°71a m I qm m o 19 E o _ m a m E m Z `a $ 29. L wE° E Eo E2aa Em m 2 v o ¢ s¢ m E Y ta 50 ¢ NNEQ Y c J> u`� N> 8 Ym Z A I m E Y c Q em I i x Y 3 @c Y J O E m� O' !@' O J '3m Y ��Q m LL Y mmm Y q Z a m 2 �ryry N 2 E f h E_ Y ° m i5 v Y m j c m B LL O aN $ is �ryry E`oi v;¢ q, nn a. cB OOmm cg �c �� Q NNmy EE. q.� m m � ¢ Q iy N i i $ j I I I j I j j ika I m c_ U 0 � " r W 9 C � _ o W U � m N Q r� W E CL` `o _ c a 5 r 3 O m h m t/�J Y�1 p�p V U N y U fq m N m N m N to y h U Uhl U f/91 N m y N N U N V U U U N U E i; c E E �m.�Yo J L c y_ 5�°iD ria z,a� E4 'YE �AmB ¢ ¢°(°71a ?j ?o qm o➢ ti= _ m �� � L wE° E Eo E2aa Em E� ¢ NNEQ Y c J> u`� N> 8 Ym Z A I m E Y c Q EN9lit Y m I i x Y 3 @c Y J O E m� O' !@' O J '3m Y ��Q m LL Y mmm Y q m Y Y 2 `iOo'm Z 2 a 55 3 0 H ° LL c <� Y Y U n'c Z c E f h E_ Y O E E qq Y r J O LL 1 i i g 0 b M. F U 0 opoHHu W U O U c � r E ry `=20.30 Uiz WLLm Z S O Ul Z S Z N Z Y U opoHHu W U c ry Z e _ o W yuy m N L Q W a` 0 _ c W n_ _ e e e e e ep e e e a e e e e e e$ r q QQ� m 3 E0 i0 � vN�J ° Y i 32 I Q Y ES EU1 QQO :7m Q41 Nm 33 r U Ll x T N a �m d �m vo e o `w_ _d y F N N � f a a c Ol O `m C F N C $ _ m m `� E E m A c 3 2 3 c o E $2 - ` rn 'a `: m= a C� a o.E o�am > pm 6 c�9m Y o�v m m E 7 , ` o 9m `- ;c o s 0 - ma E v�d E a g EQ9` - - .. E a ms E s 12 s m a o a a m m m '^ z o f a e� „ m r�E a s r °� e� }E sad o c "E c d c aE 4r £m aE2Z rr 4 oZ - I 3 ;a if mEs a bA;s` o� $ �_} a E �Q� V E 6 E E E m �c c- �8C .�� $ gGmi o EE G' 2a� c.3 j O omo� $ o m 9 0 "� �'�cC tm '�'2 $c.� �' _�o a�` gp b--- o� �u '�u 5 'a{Sc b � _ E _E -m'v �� � 9m' •��'�� c �G �E n� `b ,� E t OE.E zE E zE ZE 3.-=_zE -c 3= 3=3=3s Edm zE zE zE 'm m r'. E`m L Em Eo,-=Eoa E' cc Sc Em Em - Goi E�o` cm 9:m c@cu mm -mTi E E; a omm 2 2'c �W �m�$m '�a.%am.tu iE n��m E_ $q be be-- =Em O� .. e o r➢E :-:.I o A a 3=3�3=¢E ¢E cSE zE3S .c_ ZE 2 s m iE ¢u3 iEE ie sAm z zE z Om� �OOmn J FEF fEY Yi ]�$ EQ RQ dol do YQ Q a a YN �l�N iQ YOQ lic YN `YU 2'v 6� Ya Q�Q a ¢ d V¢ IO LLS `i Ul SU u t x m 3 m o c P G Lrn m t 3 Ea N a ¢ a ¢ 'n 12 u ¢ m xx xx 3 xx $i o u >> z E '-4E .. Ea �' .m m- 3 w o 3� cm �m m� m� a EA 'T d 3Q YI IS a NN' 06 E EG 4m� N lq U a x F w dW �m vo f a a c Ol `m C F N agi O N U F� a a m mm > 6 m� ma mE12 E a g EQ9` 3 _ E a E s m m m '^ z o f o f 9'm' 3 5 o c "E c d aE 4r aE 4r £m aE2Z rr 4 oZ - I 3 ;a if mEs a a o� $ m �c c- $ gGmi -m _ o "E j O omo� $ o m 9 0 5rb tm .mac m� L t r o� o� Qa 5 c CL m o� `= -m'v �� S me c8 me ct c cE �E n� Sr `` E t OE.E E 3� -c g' -c i5_ Edm m r'. E`m L Em Eo,-=Eoa E' cc Sc Em Em Goi cm_c cm 9:m c@cu mm -mTi E E; a omm 2 2'c �W �m�$m '�a.%am.tu iE n��m E_ $q be be-- =Em O� .. e o r➢E 3=3�3=¢E ¢E cSE zE3S .c_ ZE 2 ZEE ¢`a .-zEiE iE ¢u3 iEE ie sAm z zE z �m ryry o i o J R'S q Y o o t T o o x c o u t x m 3 m o c P G Lrn m t 3 Ea N 'n 12 u ¢ x xx xx 3 xx $i o u >> z E '-4E .. Ea �' .m m- 3 w o 3� cm �m m� m� a EA 'T d 3Q YI IS a NN' 06 W V3 3 3 333 v m m E a4 o E E Y _ _ o o m i 'oOr M�Nn MNOV O (O N N t� N r m'. mmmco�nNo F(y V D) N h r N Mi M r N N V n O N O o t11 Own � V NST 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 V_ QO M o� n In o::: LL (�Oy f� 0 2 w ry 7 N ym NON� N N � rM N ap a tD n W f�Nc0 v1V o h�nrn `m d v o to Od:O O� r NO foo N au N O t o O W N O 0 0 h O V MOO 0 0 0 N lO <O O T In 00 CO N NOIR .,mc°ov 1� O} N maou00oo N n N V7 V N N V to V W N I� N R O [Ctl O C o O o 0 =2�eYYYY � N L g o w o 0 0 'm d [n Z 2 ZtnZ 0 w u U it b n In EE@ m Y,K.yj `m _ 9 `_ js $ 3 3se [' ° 3 O �.y S Ig v 06 a O1 m L `` m c cQp m o L c o IF fi pp pp is OE ib R._ is o m m m$ L- mg. i� o+E a5 �a m'� $5� aE _ aE aE m,a c_E �'g m� = wo c� nE O1 a o� _gE ®E �� E F'E _g'E m'o oa ° E �o vio of o+Q p�E aE �m mo c nE or n a o.a oA�`@� _02 m _ K y SfoSaz.maz.m���y.�`� mE 5 ra 31t M r u m mm m ' r e r PO a e '�.� q 2� R! p 2 R w W ❑ 3 3 3€zm zm i� '=��3 n z 3=3E3=3r ���5 �w Fm Rn �y �w Sq �m �`m �`m �m min �$�� IL 3 T OF •• U y Q` .9 _ � t � mm i H EL 'oOr M�Nn MNOV O (O N N t� N r m'. mmmco�nNo F(y V D) N h r N Mi M r N N V n O N O o t11 Own � V NST 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 V_ QO M o� n In o::: CO N � N (�Oy f� 0 2 w ry 7 N ym NON� N N � OOf � PO7 N ap a tD n W f�Nc0 v1V o h�nrn n' oN d v o to Od:O NO foo N au N O t o O W N O 0 0 h O V MOO 0 0 0 N lO <O O T In 00 CO N NOIR .,mc°ov 1� O} N maou00oo N n N V7 V N V to V W N I� N R N (d [Ctl o j o O o 0 =2�eYYYY � N L g o w o 0 0 'm d [n Z 2 ZtnZ 0 w C � m d F e d F ry M d r N d r� :43 g m u In EE@ _ 9 5 js $ 3 3se S Ig a a O1 m L `` m c cQp m o L c o IF fi pp pp OE ib R._ is o m m m$ L- mg. i� o+E a5 �a m'� $5� aE _ aE aE m,a c_E �'g m� = wo c� nE O1 a o� _gE ®E �� E F'E _g'E m'o oa ° E �o vio of o+Q p�E aE �m mo c nE or n a o.a oA�`@� _02 m _ mE a SfoSaz.maz.m���y.�`� mE Ea m m mm m ' r e r PO a e '�.� q 2� R! p 2 R w W ❑ 3 3 3€zm zm i� '=��3 3=3E3=3r ���5 �w Fm Rn �y �w Sq �m �`m �`m �m min �$�� EL o m o 0 o G Oo i 4 $Y N5 C mm mB m m - 0(3 E. c'i y ¢ usi ¢ = v y g yyt i a c mm m mm �u m^ o a c E t �w o o c O Dm a a Q x x 2 2 Y IF 4 E f U U U U t y m N U V U N m a H n m (YY'> ( 8 U N U U r m m (3J b U � j A ! f} ) _ " § ■ R E ¥ ; ( a� % CL ) } , ! m ! ; cc } ) G 7 \ / ! ! y ! - ! ■ ! ! § 2 ! ; � j 3.4 MASS TRANSIT AND BICYCLES O 3.4.1 Overview and Inventory Non -automobile transportation alternatives provide choice for drivers and non -drivers, and improve mobility for those who do not own automobiles. Non -automobile transportation modes also relieve traffic congestion, reduce consumption of fossil fuels, improve air quality, reduce the need for more roads and parking, and enhance the overall community ambience. Mass Transit Every county has the power to provide mass transit service, whether directly, jointly, or under contract with private parties, without the county or private parties being subject to the jurisdiction of the Public Utilities Commission.' In this County, the Mass Transportation Agency was created to provide this service.'- The Department of Education has the authority to detennine the need for and to contract for. suitable transportation to and from school.-' County Bus System. As of January 2000, the County Hele-On Bus System had a fleet of 28 buses with 45- or 33- passenger capacity. The bus routes provide service along the main roadway segments to connect the major towns around the island: Pahoa-Hilo, Kona -Hilo, Honokaa-Hilo, and Kau -Hilo (see Figure 3-22 and Table 3-6). Within the major urban area of Hilo, there are four routes: Waiakea-Uka, Downtown Hilo, Kaumana, and Pahoa. The route within the major urban area of Kona shuttles between Captain Cook and Keauhou-Kailua. The Hawaii Long -Range Land Transportation Plan suggests additional new routes to connect Waimea and North Kohala with the South Kohala resorts and Kailua-Kona. Approximately 10% of the cost to operate the buses is federally funded, and 90% County funded. Of the County costs, bus fare revenues fund approximately 55% of the operational O costs, with the balance from general revenues.4 Special Needs of Elderly and Disabled. Eleven of the County buses are wheelchair -accessible. The Hawaii County Economic Opportunity Council, a nonprofit Community Action Agency, supplements the County's services by providing bus services for the low-income; elderly, disabled, and pre-school children who attend Head Start schools. Shared -Ride Taxi Service. In addition to bus service, the County offers a shared -ride taxi service that provides door -door service within the urbanized area of Hilo and Kailua-Kona. With this program, members of the public purchase coupons and use the coupons instead of cash with participating taxi companies. The program allows a user to submit one coupon (at a cost of $2) to travel up to 4 miles, and two coupons for travel up to 9 miles. The taxi carriers reserve the right to consolidate rides. Funding Sources. State matching grants (50-50%) are available for capital and construction costs (not operational costs).5 Authorized projects are limited to those included in a development agreement 1. Hawaii Revised Statutes 551-1 2. Hawaii County Code §2-76. 3. Hawaii Revised Statutes §302A-406 (transportation of schoolchildren). Hawaii Revised Statutes §51-1 excludes school buses from the definition of "mass transit." 4. Notes from the County of Hawaii Mass Transportation Agency, January 28, 2000. 5. Hawaii Revised Statutes chapter 51D (Transit Capital Development Fund). O General Plan Infrastructure Assessment Study 3-39 Chapter 3- Facilities Needs Assessment O between the executive branch of a county and the Governor, subject to disapproval of the legislature. Federal funds administered by the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration may also be available through the State Department of Transportation for capital costs (Section 5309 Capital Grants and Loans up to 80% of "net project costs" defined as the portion of the cost of a project which cannot reasonably be financed from revenues), preventive maintenance and operating costs (Section 5307 Formula Capital and Operating Grants up to 80% for capital projects and 50% for • operational projects), special needs of elderly and persons with disabilities (Section 5310 Grants up to 80% to states, public bodies, or nonprofit entities where services by public entities are not available, not sufficient, or inappropriate), and intercity bus systems (Section 5311 Rural Assistance up to 80% of net project cost and 50% of operating subsidies). County funding is available through vehicle registration taxes and fuel taxes which may be used for "purposes and functions in connection with mass transit."6 Bikeways Safer bicycling and pedestrian environments encourage more such activity.7 The County adopted a Bikeway Plan in 1979.8 A statewide bike plan ("Bike Plan") prepared in 1994 updated the County plan.g The Bike Plan espoused five important tenets: 1 The roadway system,. with relatively inexpensive improvements, must serve as the basis for a bikeway system. A completely separate bikeway system is unnecessarily expensive and may not connect to desired destinations. 2 Bicycles belong on the roadways and do not measurably impact the service for motor vehicles. Traffic codes apply to and regulate bicycles (Hawaii Revised Statutes §291C-142 and Hawaii County Code §§24-185, -186). O 3 The bicycle should be recognized as a significant mode of transportation and incorporated in planning for transportation facilities. 4 Bikeway planning and design should seek to accommodate a broad range of skill levels. 5 A support program is essential to educate motorists and bicyclists on safety, to publicize ridership opportunities, and to maintain facilities. Both the County and State bike plans identify three types of bicycle facilities: Bicycle route. A bicycle route is a roadway designated for shared use by motor vehicles and bicycles. The designation cautions motorists to expect bikers and encourages the use of certain roads for bikes. The roadway should have adequate lane width or paved shoulder. Improvements consist of signage that identifies the roadway as a bicycle route and replacement of parallel slat drainage grates with bicycle -safe type grates. Bicycle routes are generally appropriate for rural or less heavily used travelways. Existing bike routes include Kalanianaole Street in Hilo 6. Hawaii Revised Statutes §§249-18 and 243-6. 7. A study prepared by Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Quade & Douglas for the 1000 Friends of Oregon, compared the "pedestrian friendliness" of 400 neighborhoods in the Portland, Oregon area and found that households in neighborhoods with high quality pedestrian environments were significantly less reliant on the automobile than households in more pedestrian hostile neighborhoods. LUTRAQ Update: Making the Land Use, Transportation, Air Quality Connection, v. 2, n. l., January 1994. 8. County of Hawaii Ordinance No. 439, The Bikeway Plan for the County of Hawaii, April 1979. O 9. R.M. Towill Corporation, Bike Plan Hawaii: A State of Hawaii Master Plan for Bikeways. Prepared for the State of Hawaii Department of Transportation, Highways Division. April 1994. 3-40 General Plan Infrastructure Assessment study §3.4: Mars Transit anti Bicycles (Kamehameha Avenue to Lokoaka Street), Kapiolani Street in Hilo (Kawili to Lanikaula Street), O Kawili Street in Hilo (Kilauea Avenue to Hawaii Community College) and Queen Kaahumanu Highway in Kona (Kailua to Kona International Airport) (see Figure 3-24 and Table 3-7).lo Bicycle lanes. A bicycle lane is a specific lane, minimally 4' wide, striped on the roadway. Since bicyclists must travel one-way within the lane in the same direction of traffic flow, bicycle lanes are usually provided on both sides of the roadway. Improvements consist of additional pavement width, where necessary, striping, signage, and bicycle -safe drainage grates. Bicycle lanes are generally appropriate for busy travelways to separate bicycles and motor vehicles. Existing bike lanes include Kawili Street in Hilo (both sides) (Puamako Street to. Kilauea Avenue) and Kuakini Highway in Kona (mauka side) (Palani Road to the Old Kona Airport). Bicycle paths. Bicycle paths are physically separated from the travelway. A bicycle path can be located within a road right-of-way or within an exclusive right-of-way or easement. Bicycle paths are appropriate in scenic areas, where sidewalks exist, where there are abandoned railroad or other available rights-of-way, to provide shortcuts, or along limited access or dangerous highways. The only existing public bicycle/pedestrian path is Walua Road in Kona. The Hawaii Long Range Land Transportation Plan proposed non -motorized corridors in Hilo (following Alenaio and Waiakea Stream drainage courses), Puna (railroad easement from Panaewa to Hawaiian Paradise Park), Waimea (currently under design from Church Row to South Kohala View Estates following the Waikoloa Stream), and Kailua-Kona (Kaiminani Drive to Hualalai Road),I 1. On roadways identified by the Bike Plan, new construction or repaving projects should attempt to include the bicycle -related improvements as part of the project funding. Federal funding sources authorize and encourage bicycle improvements, which would be applicable to the federal -aid highways. 12 For non -federal -aid highways, the County is authorized to use fuel tax funds, vehicle registration tax funds, and bicycle registration funds. 13 Typical bicycle riders comfortably ride up to four to five miles. Modifying buses to carry bicycles O extends the range of bicycling (e.g., front or rear bicycle racks on buses). Bicycle lockers could also be provided at selected bus stops. 3.4.2 Issues, Problems and/or Opportunities Expanded shared -ride opportunity. The shared -ride program is an under -publicized program that could be expanded to meet several latent demands. The program could perhaps include special discounts for the elderly, children pick-up services for working parents, and home -airport shuttle to minimize the need for overnight parking at the airport. 10. Hawaii County Code §§24-294 and -295 designate bicycle lanes and bicycle routes, respectively, on County roadways. 1 l . Hawaii Long Range Land Transportation Plan, May 1998, p. 108-111. 12. Under Title 23 USC §217, as amended by TEA -21, bicycle and pedestrian projects are eligible for National Highway System funds, STP (including Transportation Enhancements, and Sections 130 and 152), Federal Lands, Scenic Byways, and Recreational Trails funds. 13. The taxes collected by the County for vehicular weight (registration) tax are deposited in the Highway Fund (Hawaii Revised Statutes §249-18). Fuel taxes collected in this County are also deposited in the Highway Fund (Hawaii Revised Statutes §243-6). This fund may be used for the acquisition, design, construction, improvement, repair, and maintenance of bikeways (Hawaii Revised Statutes §§249-18 and 243-6). State law requires all bicycles having two tandem wheels that are 20" or more to be registered (Hawaii Revised Statutes §249-14(a)). The County deposits all bicycle registration fees in the Bikeway Fund which may be used for O capital, operational, safety, educational, or financing costs for bicycles (Hawaii Revised Statutes §249-17.5). General Plan Infrastructure Assessment Studv 3-41 Chapter 3: Facilities Needs Assessment O Lack of fixed bus routes and schedules. More persons would perhaps use the bus if there were convenient fixed routes and a reliable schedule. Perhaps smaller buses with more frequent or more routes could be used for the non -peak hours. Need to improve integration of transportation and land use planning. Major destination land uses such as schools and shopping centers should be planned to be conveniently accessible by bus and bicycles. Higher densities should be considered along urban fixed bus routes where bus accessibility is most convenient. As congestion increases, the typical response is to increase highway capacity. However, the increased capacity may cause induced traffic, i.e., the "if you build it, they will come" phenomena. While expanded capacity enables vehicles to travel faster, this time savings is short-lived because people drive more. Thus, proposals to increase capacity may not always be cost-effective. Instead, it may be more cost-effective to divert the opportunity costs of building new roads towards increasing choice by adding pedestrian facilities, bike lanes, or bolstering transit. Where choice exists, people will cope with congestion or higher vehicular travel costs by switching to a different mode, traveling at a different time of day, or traveling less. 3.4.3 Suggested Policies Integration of bikeway and roadway planning. The County recognizes bicycles as a significant mode of transportation and commits to incorporate bicycle routes, lanes, and paths within the road right-of-way in conformance with the prevailing State or County bike plan. Promote non -vehicular transportation modes. The County shall critically evaluate proposals to increase arterial capacity to determine if it may be more cost-effective to instead develop alternative transportation choices, such as bicycle and pedestrian systems and enhanced transit service. O Transportation choices. The County commits to develop alternative transportation modes, including enhanced bus services and bicycle facilities, to reduce dependence on the automobile. Enhanced mobility for the "transportation -disadvantaged". The County shall make special efforts and provisions to enhance the mobility of minors, non -licensed adults, low-income, elderly, and people with disabilities. Integration of land use and transportation planning. The County shall review new, redevelopment, and infill projects, or initiate such opportunities, to improve bus and bicycle links to schools, shopping centers, parks, and other major destination areas, as well as to increase the intensity of land uses along major urban fixed bus routes. Education and promotion. The County shall coordinate with appropriate agencies bicycle safety education programs for children and adults. 3.4.4 Suggested Standards Design Standards • American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, August 1991. • U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), 1978 3-42 General Plan Infrastructure Assessment Study §3.4: Mass Transit and Bicycles Level of Service Standards O • Transit Peak hour service for employment commuting to meet the demands between: Pahoa-Hilo, Volcano -Hilo, Hamakua-Hilo, Hilo/Hamakua-South Kohala, Waimea -South Kohala, North Kohala-South Kohala, Kailua-South Kohala, Waimea-Kailua, Pahala-Hilo Continuous daily service on fixed major routes at 30 -minute intervals in Hilo and Kailua-Kona using smaller buses if demand is initially low All buses accessible to persons with disabilities • Bikeways A bike lane or bike path within 2 mile radius of a public school Continuous network of bike routes, lanes, or paths connecting major destinations (e.g., schools, employment centers, shopping centers, parks) Circle -island network Performance Indicators • Transit passenger volume, bus mileage, revenues (see Figure 3-23) peak hours non -peak hours • % completion of bikeways proposed in Bike Plan Hawaii • bicycle registration; bicycles per capita (see Figure 3-25) O 3.4.5 Institutional Framework Functional, Facility, or Master Plans: • Bike Plan Hawaii: A State of Hawaii Master Plan (R.M. Towill Corporation 1994) • Bikeway Plan (County of Hawaii Planning Department 1979) • Alan M. Vorhees & Associates, Inc. Hawaii County Transit System. Prepared for the County of Hawaii, May 1972. Governing laws: • Hawaii Revised Statutes chapter 51 (mass transit) • Hawaii Revised Statutes chapter 51D (transit capital development fund) • Hawaii Revised Statutes chapter 291C (bicycle rules included in traffic code) • Hawaii County Code chapter 24 (bicycles rules on county roads) Responsible agencies: • State: Department of Transportation, Highways Division • County: Department of Public Works O General Plan Infrastructure Assessment Study 3-43 Chapter 3: Facilities Needs Assessment OFunding sources: • Federal aid grants: The State Department of Transportation allocates the federal grants to the counties for maintenance of federal -aid highways, which may be used for bikeways. • Highway Fund: Fuel tax collected in this County and vehicular taxes are deposited in this fund. This fund may be used for the acqusition, design, construction, improvement, repair, and maintenance of mass transit and bikeways. 14 • Bikeway Fund: All bicycle registration fees accounted in this special fund which may be used for capital, operational, safety, educational, or financing costs for bikeways. • Transit Capital Development Fund: State snatching fund (50-50%) for capital mass transit costs. 15 14. Hawaii Revised Statutes §243-5 (establishment of highway fund), -6 (disposition of highway fund); chapter 249 (county vehicular tax). O15. Hawaii Revised Statutes chapter 51 D. 3-44 General Plan Infrastructure Assessment Study .a L a m c m J r W a e Cc m 0 r r r rr r 9 Tll 41 Up U f/ U N N i° N' y rq iq U U N U U U �5 U N 8 8$ o a� 8$ s N a a a a a a` 2 a` a a` a s a` a C N O u ___� m 2' �' m � �' e r r e r r r r r m g 21 Y (]Y 2Y 6c -= C 0 2Q O d Y Y YQ Uh Yd m 9 Y �6 .� a 0 A a a E�I- m E ¢ Q❑ :8 ¢ o 2 ¢' x i i n o ie IE EM ' r 75 0 qq gtgt a m m m ��{{ SC Y QCC E m CQLD m g Y n c .� c c- NN3 6y u m' m a ryry g m $ a a o' a t W a e m 0 ° a g a e 8 e e w 8 8$ o a� 8$ s N a a a a a a` 2 a` a a` a s a` a C N O u ___� m 2' �' m � �' e r r e r r r r r Q -= Q m m N (J1 c m 9 N fA Q- a E�I- m 0 qq gtgt a m m m ��{{ SC Y QCC E m CQLD m g Y n c .� c c- NN3 6y u m' F� ryry g ° Tim x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x s s x x x x x x x x x x x x x x ..1-16 ---- U` m N6 N6 �m hx %o � m c- N'm q Q UoI c mo y �;o- N N NSl q' p1 m2 E aQ Ex n NffiN� 3 0>Q > E� E om >> a e(J ? Q qc x yc`4.9 q i Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 2 Y 2 Y 3 1 m ' a EY U nlnnPl%ntl ODUI+�>;nIRaIB nnp/aIB Pn+Wal6ny Y 3.5 WATER O 3.5.1 Overview and Inventory Types of Water Systems. There are basically two types of water systems: potable water systems suitable for human consumption, and nonpotable water systems used for agricultural or industrial purposes. • Potable water systems. Potable water systems include "public water systems" regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act, nonregulated private water systems, and individual water catchments_ Any water system, whether public or private, that provides water for human consumption to at least 15 connections or regularly serves at least 25 individuals is considered a "public water system" and must comply with the requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act to ensure the water meets public health standards.' For nonregulated private water systems and water catchments, there are presently no mandatory public health oversight.2 The County water system presently serves approximately 6810 of the total resident population, with the balance of the population served by water catchments (23%) or private water systems (9%) (see Figure 3-26 and Table 3-8). Where a large number of water catchments exist such as in Puna, the Civil Defense has established emergency spigots from the County water system to supplement those residents' needs during droughts. • Nonpotable water systems. Public infrastructure for nonpotable water systems are usually for agricultural irrigation purposes developed and operated by the State Department of Agriculture.3 Because these nonpotable systems do not need to invest the capital and operational costs necessary to meet the higher standards of drinking water systems, the water rates are much lower than the County water system. Components of a Water System. Components of a water system include source, storage, transmission, O and distribution improvements-- any of these components could constrain the capacity of the system. • Source. Water sources include surface water (c.g., streams, springs) or groundwater. Groundwater sources include basal groundwater that floats on seawater or high-level groundwater (e.g., dike - impounded or perched by a relatively impervious layer). Under the stringent requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act, surface water sources require expensive treatment. Groundwater development usually requires pumping from deepwells. A reliable system has a backup well in the event a pump should fail. The excellent water quality of groundwater does not usually require treatment except for disinfection (e.g., chlorine). Overpumping of a basal groundwater source causes salt water intrusion measured by higher chloride levels. The withdrawal rate from groundwater aquifers should not exceed the sustainable yield of the aquifer. For most of the County's water systems, the present rate of groundwater withdrawal does not approach the estimated sustainable yield of the aquifer. Only the North Kona system, with its shallow basal aquifer, requires close monitoring of the pumping rates. 1. Hawaii Revised Statutes chapter 340E (safe drinking water). 2. In 1997, the legislature established a testing program for water catchments. Any resident residing in a legal dwelling which relies on a water catchment system is eligible to have one set of tests conducted per year for $25. The Department of Health would cover the balance of the testing cost, if any. See Hawaii Revised Statutes §340E-4.8. 3. Hawaii Revised Statutes chapters 167 (irrigation water development) and 168 (irrigation and water utilization projects). The State Department of Agriculture will inventory the existing and proposed public agricultural systems as part of the Agricultural Water Use and Development Plan, which in turn is part of the updating of O the statewide Hawaii Water Plan. However, the agricultural water planning effort has yet to be funded. General Plan Infrastructure Assessment Study 3-49 Chapter 3: Facilities Needs Assessment O Storage. The elevation of the reservoir, together with pressure reducing valves, determine the service area defined by acceptable pressure levels. The amount of storage (i.e., reservoirs) in a water system regulates the extent of pumping from the wells. The capital cost to increase storage needs to be balanced against the cost of pumping. For example, a larger investment in storage could be offset by the operational cost -savings of having the capability to limit pumping primarily to the hours of the off-peak electrical rates. The amount of storage is also a factor in determining fire fighting capacity. However, effective fire suppression also depends on the requirements of the building and fire code. In many cases, a fire sprinkling or chemical system is more effective than a fire engine drawing large amounts of water from the public water supply system to douse the fire.4 The standards for fire flow should take into consideration the fire and building code requirements and not set unnecessarily high standards that increases the overall system costs. In rural areas, nonpotable water sources should also be considered. • Transmission and Distribution.. Transmission improvements include the larger water mains and booster pumps that convey the water from the source and storage components to the distribution networks. The size of the water mains is another factor that determines fire protection capacity. The distribution water lines is the local network that conveys the water to the user through a water meter. The size of the water meter. determines the maximum usage and water rates. County Water System. The County Department of Water Supply currently operates 25 water systems, serving approximately 30,000 connections. Thirteen systems use surface water sources, which the County plans to replace with groundwater sources. The average consumption by district is close to DWS' standard of 400 gpd/service, except for the drier leeward areas of South Kohala, North Kona, and South Kona (see Table 3-9). The average consumption per service is skewed for South Kohala because of the predominance of resorts. All of the systems have adequate capacity to meet the present demand, except for the North Hilo O system which operates at capacity (see Figure 3-27). The South Kohala and North Kona systems also operate near capacity. Based on the projections for the year 2010, the water systems serving Hamakua, South Kohala, North Kona, and Puna would require additional source development. The County's program of exploratory wells should relate to the areas targeted in the General Plan for future growth. Because of the significant lead time from exploratory well to an operational production well (3 years), the priorities should consider the growth rate, extent of planned future growth, and the current supply/ demand status of the water system. The Department issues water commitments to proposed developments where water is available. However, the issuance of water commitments is not closely coordinated with land use plans, resulting in numerous non -urban parcels with the potential pressure for conversion to urban uses (see Figure 3- 28). At a minimum, the decision to issue water commitments should be based on findings that consider fire fighting capacity, requires that the system have standby source capacity, and that the system has sufficient reserve capacity (e.g., 25%) to provide adequate lead time to expand the source capacity and to not preempt infill development of existing urban areas. In order not to encourage conversion of prime agricultural land to urban uses, water commitments to agriculturally -zoned land should be limited to the minimum necessary to accommodate the eligible number of farm dwellings based on existing zoning, and only to areas that do not require a significant extension of the County water system. Agricultural Irrigation Systems. Besides drinking water systems, infrastructure planning must also address agricultural water systems since agriculture is an important component of this County's economic future. Although the Department of Water Supply has preferential rates for agricultural users, the cost of water is still expensive for irrigation purposes. During water shortages, the farmer 4. American Water Works Association (1992). Distribution System Requirements for Fire Protection. AWWA 0 Manual M31. 3.50 General Plan Infrastructure Assessment Study §3.5: Winer must curtail the use of County water just when the irrigation needs are greatest. A substantial number O of farmers are able to afford the water rates and rely on the County system for their livelihood. Nevertheless, because of the County system's higher cost and unreliability during water shortages, separate nonpotable agricultural water systems are required. The State Department of Agriculture is the primary coordinator to develop government-sponsored agricultural water systems. 3.5.2 Issues, Problems and/or Opportunities No explicit guidelines to issue water commitments. Explicit guidelines would ensure that water commitments are issued only where the system is reliable (has a backup source), where fire protection is available, and where it is consistent with General Plan growth policies. New subdivisions without a public water system. The uncontrolled proliferation of water catchments poses not only a potential public health concern, but also a burden on the general public to maintain the emergency spigots. On the other hand, in recognition of the vast land area and rural character of this island, limited water catchments are necessary for remote individual residences where public water systems are not available and adequate rainfall provides some assurance of a reliable source. Issues associated with cost-effective compliance with Safe Drinking Water Act. The County intends to replace the surface water sources with groundwater sources to avoid the prohibitive expense to construct water treatment facilities that meet the Safe Drinking Water Act requirements. The increased dependence on deepwells, with the associated pumping costs, makes the cost of water extremely vulnerable to changes in electrical rates. The current electrical rate schedule has discounted rates for off-peak hours. The dependence on groundwater also heightens the importance of controlling land uses within the zone of influence on the groundwater quality. In compliance with the federal Safe Drinking Water Act, the State Department of Health has prepared the Hawaii Source Water O Assessment Plan (HISWAP) to assess potential impacts to drinking water quality. Because of the dependence on deepwell sources that are often located downstream of agricultural or urban land uses, some type of controls over the permitted uses within the defined zone of influence is necessary. Future growth capacity. The exploratory well program needs to be more closely related to anticipated growth rates. 3.5.3 Suggested Policies Growth management coordination. The County Water Commission shall adopt guidelines to issue water commitments and prioritize exploratory wells. The guidelines shall consider: setting aside a certain reserve (e.g., 25%) of present capacity for infill development and to provide sufficient lead time to expand capacity; preferential facilities charges for infill development where existing facilities are underutilized; and consistency with zoning and General Plan growth policies. Exploratory wells priorities should conform to the areas designated for future growth in the general plan or to replace surface water sources. Water improvements for new subdivisions. The County shall permit water catchments for new lots only where adequate rainfall exists to support an average family water usage with a typical roof size, and only for remote lots that cannot be feasibly connected to a public water system, and only for a limited number of lots that could not possibly be regulated as a public water system. Reliability. All County water systems should have back-up standby sources and meet the requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act. Wellhead protection. The County shall explore the feasibility of various incentive methods such as O property tax dedications, conservation easements, or transfer of development rights to protect the 'General Plan Infrastructure Assessment Study 3-51 Chapter 3: Facilities Needs Assessment O defined zone of influence of existing or proposed wells in a way that will encourage affected landowners to perpetually restrict their uses to uses that are not potentially contaminating activities. Electrical rates. The County shall monitor and advocate for discounted off-peak electrical rates because of the County's increasing dependence on deepwell pumping. Agricultural water supply. To sustain and encourage growth of diversified agriculture, the County must coordinate with State and federal agencies to provide and maintain nonpotable water irrigation systems especially in relation to prime agricultural areas. Where the County has replaced surface water sources with groundwater sources to meet Safe Drinking Water standards, the County shall consider allocating the surface water sources for agricultural use. 3.5.4 Suggested Standards Design Standards • Dedicable water systems-- Water System Standards, Volumes I and II (existing standard) • Water) catchments-- Interim Guidelines for the Construction of Rainwater Catchment Systems Supplying Residential Potable Water (UH Water Resources Research Center) (suggested standard for review of subdivision variance applications) Level of Service Standards • Water quality-- Safe Drinking Water standards • Capacity standards (to issue water commitments) O Source capacity-- backup well; chloride levels; sustainable yield; 10% reserve for infill development • Storage and transmission capacity-- fire protection Performance Indicators • Number of water catchments approved • Number of DWS customers served by nonconforming surface water sources • Number of water commitments issued for systems that do not meet capacity standards • Number of DWS customers served by systems that do not meet fire protection standards • Incidents of water quality violations • Acreage served by State irrigation systems 3.5.5 Institutional Framework Functional, Facility, or Master Plans: • Hawaii County Water Use and Development Plan (Kon 1991) • North Kona Water Master Plan (Fukunaga & Associates, Inc. 1995) • South Kona Water Master Plan (Fukunaga & Associates, Inc. 1998) • Hawaii Source Water Assessment Plan (HISWAP) (Department of Health 1999) OState Water Projects Plan (forthcoming) 3-52 General Plan Infrastructure Assessment Study X3.5: Water Governing Laws: O Hawaii Revised Statutes chapter 54; Hawaii County Charter, Article VIII (establishment of County of Hawaii water commission as a semi -autonomous body) Hawaii Revised Statutes chapter 183, Part III (authorizes DLNR to acquire watershed areas) Hawaii Revised Statutes chapter 340E (safe drinking water) Hawaii Administrative Rules 11-20 (potable water systems) Department of Water Supply Rules and Regulations Responsible agencies: • State: Department of Health, Safe Drinking Water Branch • County: Water Commission' Funding sources: Water Fund-- Separate fund which shall be solely utilized for water purposes. The fund includes State and Federal grants or appropriations and revenues from operation of the water system.6 Drinking Water Treatment Revolving Loan Fund-- The Department of Health administers this special O fund in the State Treasury. Eligible uses for this fund include replacing surface water sources with groundwater sources and upgrading/replacing/constricting treatment facilities. The fund are made available to owners/operators of public water systems at or below market interest rates, including interest-free loans.7 5. The Water Commission is a semi -autonomous body (Hawaii County Charter §8-1). See also Hawaii Revised Statutes chapter 54 for establishment and powers of the Hawaii County board of water supply. 6. Hawaii County Charter §8-4. 7. Hawaii Revised Statutes, chapter 340E, Part III (drinking water financing). O General Plan Infrastructure Assessment Study 3_53 AG A (V o L N V s .. U < o ob,o F%w : g n i R � � o A (V L N V U mp� aOrJ' .. U < � 8 : g � ° i R Eos, �Zm o � m m ry�',wv C C o O N 6P'D a� o:oo zyDaw , , < � 8 : g � ° i R Eos, �Zm a v o rii U� U - - y N C c+ ry o ff �i g m m uj m N N m E d � ¢V o �N ON OYLC O>YNZSE�lCS2 ��2O�Y�d222S ZZNNG 2ZN41Y$Z l�� 3 IL Ey u� 3.6 WASTEWATER O 3.6.1 Overview and Inventory Improper disposal of human waste is not only a visual and odor nuisance, but a public health hazard since many diseases such as dysentery, infectious hepatitis, typhoid, and various types of diarrhea are transmitted through fecal contamination of food or water_ Sanitary methods of disposal include individual onsite systems and centralized collection systems. Onsite Disposal. The common onsite method of disposal, cesspools, could be a source of pollution to drinking water or coastal waters depending on the geology, depth to groundwater, density of cesspools, and location relative to a well or the shoreline. A cesspool is "an excavation in the ground which receives untreated wastewater and is designed to retain the organic matter and solids discharging therein, but permits the liquid to seep through its bottom or sides..."' The liquid, or leachate, carries potential pathogens and nutrients. The zone through which the leachate moves before reaching the groundwater table is known as the zone of aeration (or unsaturated zone). As the leachate percolates through the zone of aeration, oxidation destroys or renders harmless much of the organic material that is carried into the rocks with the infiltrating water.'- However, where the groundwater table is closer to the surface, such as in the coastal areas, or where the leachate is transported back to the surface via lava tubes (e.g., probable problem in Ainako area of Hilo), cesspool leachate poses potential public health problems. Because of the potential water quality and public health problems with cesspools, the Department of Health has banned new cesspools as of January 1, 2000.3 One alternative to the cesspool is the septic system. A septic system consists of a watertight septic tank where special bacteria treat the raw sewage, and a drainfield where the partially treated effluent trickles into the soil and is subjected to further bacterial decomposition. A properly designed and O maintained septic system would alleviate the potential contamination problems of cesspools. Despite the higher cost to the homeowner compared to cesspools to construct and to periodically pump out the sludge that accumulates, new development will be required to install septic tanks or other acceptable individual system or hookup to a sewer system. Sewerage System. For any new subdivision within 300' of an existing sewer, the subdivision code requires the subdivider to hookup the subdivision.¢ For new subdivisions within an area planned for sewers, the County may require the subdivider to install "dry sewers".5 High priority areas to sewer include the urbanized coastal areas, areas within the zone of influence overlying drinking water sources, public health problem areas (e.g., surfacing cesspool leachate or existing discharges of raw sewage to streams or gulches), and areas with high cesspool failures. When the County installs a sewer system, landowners fronting the sewer line must hookup, subject to certain exceptions.6 The landowner bears the burden of the hookup cost, which can range from several hundred to several thousands of dollars depending on the length and depth of piping, whether excavating in soil or rock, and whether pumping would be required if the structure is below the elevation of the sewer line. To 1. Hawaii Administrative Rules §11-62-03. 2. Macdonald, et. at (1985), Volcanoes in the Sea; Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, p. 231. 3. Hawaii Administrative Rules § 11-62-01. 4. Hawaii County Code §23-85. 5. Hawaii County Code §21-6; Hawaii Administrative Rules §11-62-31.1(c). 6. Hawaii County Code §21-5. General Plan Infrastructure Assessment Study 3-59 Chapter 3: Facilities Needs Assessment Oassist the landowner to, obtain favorable interest rates to finance the hookup, the County has a loan guarantee programa The County presently operates six sewerage systems: Hilo, Papaikou, Kapehu, Kulaimano, Kailua- Kona (Kealakehe), and Keauhou (see Figure 3-29 and Table 3-10). The effluent disposal methods include ocean outfall (Hilo), shoreline discharge permitted by variance (Papaikou, Kulaimano), injection well (Kapehu), and reclamation (Kealakehe). There is adequate capacity at all the treatment plants to accommodate additional hookups. As flows approach 75% of design capacity, planning should commence to expand the capacity in light of the 5 -year lead time to plan, design, and construct the necessary facilities. Infiltration/inflow should be monitored to determine the portion of "clean water" (e.g., groundwater infiltrating into aged and leaky pipes) passing through the treatment system. 3.6.2 Issues, Problems and/or Opportunities Burden of sewer hookup costs. A major issue is who should bear the cost to retrofit and hookup existing development to a sewerage system in urban or problem areas. For new developments, the installation cost is part of the purchase price. For existing development, however, the cost must be borne by a homeowner or business who has already paid for an existing cesspool and is often satisfied with their cesspool. Because of the Big Island's relatively porous geology, most cesspools drain without any problems unlike some other counties where cesspools are constant problems that require pumping. The need to sewer an area in this County, therefore, does not usually directly benefit solely the landowner. Rather, the need is more of a public need to protect drinking or coastal water quality. Arguably, therefore, if the policy is to sewer only selected areas for public purposes, the public should pay a portion of the hookup costs for existing homes to replace functioning cesspools. O Lack of information on cesspool leachate impacts. In order to more rationally set priorities to sewer, more monitoring stations and studies are needed to assess the impact of cesspool leachate on groundwater and coastal water quality. Opportunities for reclamation of treated effluent. In the drier leeward areas of the Big Island, treated wastewater effluent could be a resource to augment the non -potable water supply for such uses as agricultural or golf course irrigation, industrial cooling, or aquaculture. 3.6.3 Suggested Policies Priority areas to be sewered. Where public sewerage systems exist, the County shall give high priority to sewer urban shoreline areas close to sea level and areas within the zone of influence of public drinking water wells. Hookup costs. Because of the general public benefit from public sewerage systems in terms of improved coastal and groundwater quality, the County shall financially assist with the hookup costs through low-interest loans, improvement districts, or other appropriate means. Economical use of treated effluent and sludge. The County shall consider and encourage reclamation of wastewater for agricultural irrigation, use of settling ponds for wetland habitat creation, composting of sludge, and other innovative disposal methods. 7. Hawaii County Code chapter 20; article 5 (sewer connection loan program). 3-60 General Plan infrastructure Assessment Study §3.0: Wastewater 3.6.4 Suggested Standards O Design Standards • Onsite and treatment plant standards-- Department of Health (Hawaii Administrative Rules chapter 11-62) Level of Service Standards • All General Plan urban areas within 500' of the shoreline and less than 50' elevation shall be sewered. • All wastewater disposal within 2 miles of a public drinking water well shall be sewered or use an onsite septic system. • The County shall initiate planning and design for capacity expansion of a wastewater treatment plant when the flow reaches 75% of the design flow capacity. Performance Indicators • Coastal water quality sampling stations and quarterly reports at all major recreational beach areas • Groundwater quality monitoring in accordance with the Safe Drinking Water Act requirements 3.6.5 Institutional Framework Functional, Facility, or Master Plans: There is no overall functional plan. Facility plans have been prepared by system. The most updated O plan or supplement are as follows: • Hilo District Facilities Plan Supplement (M&E Pacific 1992) • Kailua-Kona Master Plan for the Kailua-Kona Sewerage System, Phase IV, Northern Zone (R.M. Towill 1974) Kailua-Kona Facility Plan, Southern Zone (M&E Pacific 198 1) • Kulaimano Facilities Plan (Sunn, Low, Tom & Hara, Inc. 1975) • Papaikou-Paukaa (Chung Dho Ahn & Associates, Inc. 1973) Governing Laws: • HRS Chapter 342D (Water Pollution) • Hawaii Administrative Rules chapter 11-62 (Wastewater Systems) • Hawaii Administrative Rules chapter 11-54 (Water Quality Standards) • HCC Chapter 21 (Sewers) Responsible agencies: • State: Department of Health; Wastewater Branch • County: Department of Public Works, Wastewater Division O General Plan Infrastructure Assessment Study 3-61 Chapter 3: Facilities Needs Assessment OFunding sources: • County Sewer Fund. The funds collected from sewer user charges are accounted for in a separate fund that can only be used for operation and main ten ace of the sewage treatment system, fixed costs (e.g., billing expenses, debt service charges, construction costs), and equipment replacement.$ Sewer user charges are assessed to all lots accessible to the sewer, whether connected or not, and to private haulers discharging wastewater into a municipal facility. • Water Pollution Control Revolving Fund. The State Department of Health administers a revolving fund that the County can tap for below-market loans or credit enhancements to plan, design, or construct wastewater treatment works.'() The revolving fund's sources include federal capitalization grants, legislative appropriations, proceeds of revenue bonds, and others. • Sewer Connection Loan Pro ram. This is a County -guarantee loan program to assist existing homes to hookup to a sewer.' 8. Hawaii County Code §21-34. 9. Hawaii County Code §§21-29 (non-residential customers), -30 (private haulers), -31 (residential customers). 1 O. Hawaii Revised Statutes chapter 342D, Part V (water pollution control financing). O11, Hawaii County Code chapter 21, article 5. 3-62 General Plan Infrastructure Assessment Study N N t0 O O N O F C N J LL C-. C O. O Z C7cn— H fA C9 .cp 9) E ID o (a v F C C C C-. C O. y. H fA C9 .cp 9) ,J) ID ip. ID Uj US Z U1 N' N d 6' 6 a 2 m oCL 4. m CL E m 3 � ua. Y� d Y� Y 2 O 3.7 RECREATION FACILITIES 3.7.1 Overview and Inventory Significance of Recreation Facilities and Programs. Public investment in recreational facilities and programs fulfills several public purposes: • Quality of life-- recreation enhances that intangible but important quality of life for residents; • Economic development-- natural or cultural recreational areas have the potential to attract visitors, especially the growing ecotourism market; the types, amounts, and quality of recreational facilities could also attract potential large employers who consider the quality of life as an important criterion when selecting an area to establish business; • Preventive health-- participation in recreational activities promotes physical and mental fitness; • Environmental quality-- activities that interact with nature (e.g., swimming, hiking, mountain biking, picnicking) allow the participant to reconnect with nature thereby increasing an appreciation of the natural environment and heightening the awareness to maintain and monitor the quality of this environment; • Subsistence-- many residents rely on access to recreational areas for hunting, fishing and gathering to supplement their income; • Crime prevention-- recreational programs can play an important role as social antidotes against juvenile delinquency; • Lifelong learning-- recreational programs provide opportunities to learn for all ages on whatever Ointerests the community (e.g., dancing, music, martial arts, cooking, gardening). Resource- vs. Population -Based. The need and selection of recreation areas are usually driven by one of two factors: • Resource-based. Resource-based parks provide public access to and enjoyment of an outstanding natural or cultural resource. Valued resources include sandy beaches, non -sandy but protected swimming areas (e.g., Leleiwi Beach Park), scenic areas (e.g., Akaka Falls), volcanic areas (e.g., Hawaii Volcanoes National Park). The federal and state governments play a dominant role in establishing resource-based parks, providing approximately 231,400 acres and 800 acres, respectively. The County resource-based parks, primarily beach parks, add another approximately 260 acres (see Figure 3-30 and Table 3-11). • Population- or Facility -based. Organized, spectator, or informal play recreational activities are not resource -dependent-- they can be located anywhere since they require facilities (e.g., playfield, playground equipment, gymnasium, swimming pool, paved courts) rather than a resource. The current General Plan sets forth a hierarchy of parks corresponding to the geographical area or population intended to be served (see Figure 3-31 and Table 3-12): neighborhood park (playfield, playground equipment, courts; up to 4 acres in size)-- intended to serve the immediate neighborhood; community park (playfield, playground equipment, swimming pool, gymnasium, courts; 4 to 8 acres)-- intended to serve a broader community approximately 1 -mile in radius in urban areas or larger area in rural areas; district park (playfield, playground equipment, swimming pool, gymnasium, courts, multi- purpose recreation building; 10 to 30 acres)-- intended to serve the entire district; O regional park (playfield, playground equipment, swimming pool, gymnasium, courts, multi- purpose recreation building; auditorium; spectator sports facilities; 50 acres)-- intended to serve several districts. General Plan Infrastructure Assessment Study 3-65 Chapter 3: Facilities Needs Assessment This hierarchy readily applies in urban areas. However, in the dispersedly populated rural areas it O may not make sense to have neighborhood parks, but instead to consolidate the facilities in a com- munity or district park. Each district should have the opportunity to decide on the types and loca- tions of parks suited to their needs. Public Access and Trails. Public access to the shoreline and mountains have special recreational and cultural. significance to our island community.' The County, State, Federal, and even private sector all play a role in the creation and maintenance of public access to shoreline and inland recreational areas: • County. The County requires the dedication of easements or other public access rights as a condition of rezoning, Special Management Area permits, or subdivision applications.2 • State. The State's Na Ala Hele program, which is a statewide trail and access system managed by the Division of Forestry, envisions a trail network to provide a broad range of recreational, cultural, religious, and subsistence opportunities (see Figure 3-33).3 The acquisition and maintenance of Na Ala Hele trails is funded by a portion of the highway fuel taxes.4 Asan exemption to Hawaii's criminal laws relating to trespass, anyone may use established and well-defined roadways or pathways over government lands, whether or not leased to private persons, leading to public beaches.5 • Federal. The federal government, through the National Park Service, is working on a major trail on this island, the Ala Kahakai (Trail by the Sea), as a National Historic Trail under the National Trails System Act (see Figure 3-34).6 • Private. For landowners who allow the public to use their property for recreational purposes without charge, their liability is limited by statute.7 Landowners may also receive an income tax dedication for creating a conservation easement to allow public access.& Besides private landowners, private nonprofit organizations play an important role in acquiring and maintaining trails and recreation areas. For example, the Peoples Advocacy for Trails Hawaii -PATH, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation, is actively involved in planning, lobbying, and coordinating the 0 establishment of a circle -island trail network, the Ka'apuni O'Hawaii Trail.9 1. See Hawaii Revised Statutes chapter 115 (public access to coastal and inland recreational areas). 2. Public access requirements for subdivisions are set forth in Hawaii County Code chapter 34. 3. Department of Land and Natural Resources, Division of Forestry, Na Ala Hele Hawaii Trail and Access System: Program Plan, May 1991. 4. See Hawaii Revised Statutes § 198D-2. 5. Hawaii Revised Statutes §708-816. 6. See U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Ala Kahakai "Trail by the Sea": National Trail Study Final EIS, January 1998. 7. Hawaii Revised Statutes chapter 520. See also Atahan v. Muramoto, 91 Hawaii 345 (App. 1999) (landowner who owned land fronting sandy beach and who allowed the public to park and cross the property held not liable under HRS chapter 520 to beachgoer who parked on the lot and was injured in the ocean). 8. Hawaii Revised Statutes chapter 198. See, generally, Bay, M. and J., Common Ground: Land Stewardship and Tax Planning Options for Land Owners, Farmers, and Rural Communities in Hawaii, Hawaii Audubon Society, February 1999. 9. See Townscape Inc., Ka'apuni O'Hawaii Trail Plan, prepared for PATH, November 1997. O 3-66 General Plan Infrastructure Assessment Study 13.7• Recreation Facilities O3.7.2 Issues, Problems and/or Opportunities Disparate distribution of facilities -based parks. Ideally, all. residents should have convenient access to the most popular recreation facilities-- playfields, gymnasiums, swimming pools, and multi-purpose community centers. Although beach parks usually require suitable shoreline conditions, the popularity of shoreline activities mandates that beach parks be established in relation to population distribution, even if the location is not the best from a resource standpoint. Some districts have benefited more than others in terms of the amount of facilities -based parks and beach parks relative to population. North Kona, South Kona, South Kohala, and Puna have the least amount of County facilities -based parks and beach parks in relation to population; however, State beach parks in part offset some of the deficiency for North Kona and South Kohala (see Figure 3-32). Two districts have disproportionately large amounts of County park acreage because of their small population-- North Hilo and North Kohala. Lack of acquisition plan. The County does not have a database of significant resource areas with recreational value. Surprisingly, for examWe, there is no comprehensive inventory of sandy beaches, protected swimming areas, or surf sites.[ Without such information, there cannot be a proactive acquisition program that uses a variety of tools (e.g., charitable donations or conservation easements with estate and income tax benefits, eminent domain) or that coordinates with other involved agencies or groups (e.g., federal agencies, state agencies, private nonprofit conservation groups), to acquire lands for parks or accessways in advance of development pressures. Relying on "free" contributions through permit exactions or downzoning is not sufficient as courts have increasingly imposed limits on what government can "take" without just compensation. For example, zoning a parcel for open space may require the government to compensate the owner if all productive or economically beneficial use of the land has been removed.'' Even when only a portion of the property is affected, such as a public access easement dedication, courts require that the exaction be roughly proportional to the project's O impact. Trails and public access easements have a particularly higher standard ofustification because they denigrate owner's to exclude.- a crucial property right: the private owners riThese court cases emphasize even more the need for a proactive acquisition program rather than a reactive regulatory approach. Public involvement opportunities to stretch maintenance dollars. The County already recognizes and encourages the civic commitment of the island's residents through the adopt -a -park program and cooperative use agreements. Under the adopt -a -park program, the public assists in the maintenance of a facility. Under cooperative use agreements, community groups tailor their scope of commitments from construction to operation and maintenance. 13 Multipurpose opportunities. Recreation activities can occur in areas that serve other purposes. Examples where recreation can overlap and provide opportunities to combine with other programs include: 10. A good start is an inventory by Hiroshi Kasamoto, Inc., et al., Public Access to the Shoreline, County of Hawaii, prepared for the County of Hawaii Planning Department, September 1979. However, this report needs substantial updating and digitizing. 11. Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992). For an excellent summary of the "takings" law, see Callies, D., "Regulatory Takings and the Supreme Court: How Perspectives on Property Rights Have Changed from Penn Central to Dolan, and what State and Federal Courts Are Doing About It," 28 Stetson L.R. 523 (1999). 12. Dolan v_ City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (1994). 013. A model example of a Iona -term term cooperative use agreement is Cooper Center Council's development, operation, and maintenance of the Volcano Community Center. General Plan Infrastructure Assessment Study 3-67 Chapter 3: Facilities Needs Assessmer7r • Flood control-- floodplains and wetlands, supplemented with trails, become linear greenway open O space parks; • Streets-- street rights-of-way, supplemented by pathways for pedestrians and bikers, allow users to use alternate transportation modes which the user could also consider recreation; • Schools-- school facilities such as playfields, playground equipment, open- and covered -courts, become neighborhood parks during after-school hours if designed to be accessible to the community, • Health and continuing education-- continuing education classes by the university or various preventive health programs could have broader outreach if also promoted through the recreational system. Funds for these and other related programs can be leveraged for recreational benefits with diligent planning and interagency coordination. 3.7.3 Suggested Policies Equitable allocation of parks. The County shall equitably allocate facility -based parks (neighborhood, community, district) among the districts relative to population, with public input to determine the locations and types of facilities. Beach parks shall also be equitably allocated among districts relative to population, taking info consideration the existing and planned State beach parks. Regional park facilities shall be established for East Hawaii and West Hawaii. Diversity of programs and optimum use of facilities. The County shall coordinate with related programs such as the Department of Education (joint use of facilities, after-school programs), College of Continuing Education, UH Cooperative Extension, preventive health programs of the Department of O Health, and any other programs that expand the types and accessibility of recreational, cultural, and educational programs especially to the rural areas. Innovative and cooperative maintenance and operation arrangements. The County shall encourage public involvement in the maintenance and operation of recreational facilities. Proactive land acquisition program. The County, in coordination with other agencies, shall inventory significant recreational resource areas and develop a land acquisition plan. Park dedication requirements in relation to new subdivisions. Park dedication requirements for new subdivisions shall be proportionately related to the anticipated impact of the project based on the same standard the County uses in determining the equitable allocation of facility -based parks among districts. Islandwide trail network. The County, in coordination with other agencies and nonprofit groups, shall strive to develop a network of trai Is that shall provide a circle -island route and connect major parks and destinations. 14. Hawaii Revised Statutes §302A-1147 (upon request by the county, the Board of Education shall make school grounds available after school hours whenever this can be done without interference with the normal and usual activities of the school); -1148 (school facilities are available for general recreational or community use O with permission and possible fee). 3-68 General Plan Infrastructure Assessment Study §3.7: Recreation racilities 0 3.7.4 Suggested Standards Design Standards • Location, size, and facilities guidelines for facilities -based parks (see Table 3-13) • ADA standards applicable to all facilities, recognizing that levels of standards exist for urban vs. wilderness -type conditions • Public shoreline or mountain access-- minimum width of 10,15 Level of Service Standards • Facilities -based local parks (neighborhood, community, district, but not regional) and beach parks -- 5 acres of parks per 1,000 persons per district. 16 • Resource-based parks-- public has access to significant recreational resources as identified in an acquisition plan. • Shoreline access-- distance between access points shall be as provided in the Hawaii County Code chapter 34, which currently are as follows:l Residential, commercial, resort zoning districts (RS, RD, RM, V, CG, CN, CV)-- 800 - 1,000' apart Agricultural zoning districts-- 1,000 - 1,500' apart (A -1a); 1,500 - 2,500' apart (all other agricultural districts) Open zoning districts-- 2,000 - 2,500' apart OPerformance Indicators • Facilities -based parks and County/State beach parks per 1,000 persons by district • Flo shoreline with public access • Milestone progress toward acquisition plan: authorization, draft, adoption, implementation % completion of trail projects: Ala Kahakai acquisition, Na Ala Hele priority trails acquisition, circle -island trail network acquisition 3.7.5 Institutional Framework Functional, Facility, or Master Plans: • County of Hawaii Recreation Plan (Edward R. Aotani and Associates, Inc. 1973) Governing laws: • Hawaii Revised Statutes chapter 198D (Hawaii Statewide Trail and Access System) • Hawaii Revised Statutes chapter 198 (conservation easements) • Hawaii Revised Statutes chapter 520 (recreational use statute limiting landowners' liability) 15. Hawaii County Code §34-7. O16. Hawaii County Code §8-7. 17. Hawaii County Code §34-5. General Plan Infrastructure Assessment Study 3-69 Chapter 3: Facilities Needs Assessment • Hawaii Revised Statutes chapter 115 (public access to coastal and inland recreational areas) • Hawaii County Code chapter 15 (restrictions applicable to the use of County parks) • Hawaii County Code chapter 8 (park dedication) • Hawaii County Code chapter 34 (public access) Responsible agencies: • Federal U.S. Department of Interior, National Park Service • State: Department of Land and Natural Resources, State Parks Division Department of Land and Natural Resources, Forestry Division • County: Department of Parks and Recreation Funding sources: • Federal TEA -21 Transportation Enhancement funds administered by the State Department of Transportation (up to 80% federal with matching State and/or County funds) • State J Special Land and Development Fund-- development, management, and maintenance of trails and other purposestg • County - Park dedication fees received in lieu of dedication-- deposited in general fund but restricted in use for recreational facilities to serve the area in which the subdivision is locatedt9 User.fees-- the Department of Parks and Recreation has the authority to levy user fees, which are deposited in the general fund, in accordance with duly promulgated rules and regulations 20 18. Hawaii Revised Statutes §§171-19 (establishment of Special Land and Development Fund for various public lands purposes), 19813-2 (use of Special Land and Development Fund for Na Ala Hele trails), 248-8 (0.3% but not more than $250,000 shall be allocated each fiscal year from the highway fuel tax collected to the Special Land and Development Fund). 19. Hawaii County Code §8-9. 20. Hawaii County Code §2-59. 3-70 General Plan Infrastructure Assessment Study Lo nm0008c��88c48oc��o�o� nmm�m n000 nim im�(�UU n nUacJU D�cg g i n O E!9 n i Z m..,b m ,°�'m ro m m ro m ro oa ro ro y��m m mmmzmmmmmmmmmmmm"mmmx= nw nr�zzc°dr�m�'x'x.mm=mmmmmx=maimimmz X w a m w. W ' 2 oo p NCob12N^ O m O OI N �O. N' •-,M M O O V -� �- O �- M .- s} .- M O N N m f n M _ 16— C6 y m :' �• �mMC C R M NNnO- N Cl! a M Q N Q ON N.NN NM MNfNO ^Nro' N0Oi ONnNMNC6N ONNOCJlO<> ON7 NNMNM •'M e6 NMNNCS�MNN OMNMNMNMN�M�CM(bl MtbNrMrrrQn', nnn O^ N lOOO O 7 " Q O O O N Ora�y CabJ ^cbQao nOdS`�tNO0 rVMd. cj 9 N MN N 7.f M NM M 0 N m NNNNmd� m F- ro ro _m m ro ro ro ro ro ro ro U yJ J - m O. m— N— W m m ro. N N m m m m ro L Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ,y g 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 2 2 2 2 2 S 2 2 2 2 S 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 E Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Jm �y N O a'a' a'a'vi vi vi ui �i vi ai y u)NU)NC)tAyytNy UJ VlZ 2 2Z Z Z ZZ ttiyV1 tqZ ZZ Z Z ZZ 06W l60 Y YY d ro C O ro Y x Y 416 m C Y L o m ;e a s a ro a m L L r t= o t m i0 3 a m m m S L t m u L m ro n ro o L m x m 76 a a� o Cc m c ro S m Y m Y m m 3 o m Ali o L m m m o L m°mm m ,� � E Y= `m cg a o` Y" m LL a i ; ! ) | ` � \ 22.00,.,0, $ \\\\ a � 3 �Z /U a o U B v o 0 o a N EE E E E E E E .$' _ _ _ E E E F F F U E__- U U U E E E- LL - J o a U U o o U U w GEG U U cEc GEG U V O c c = m m i Z Z Z Z N � 52 o o Z E$ s u v W _$ .. E d a $ E W q e Q a" W Q Y O _ IL IL 1 r d � d v 4 4 4 . b 6 �b 1b w A M d m V ¢ yy m$$ a a m w a; E E 2 2 E E 2 2 S S E i 2 Z I Z Q$ M V1 U1 Yo$$ Z Z Q$!2 Z Z Z Z $$ 42 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y U F N F- W ro o y N vi o 9 u6 y 3 0_ N om s o y 0 0 y N 0 o N vi Q _S W 6 N 9 0 y m U 0 0 m 6 m o oj2 ui g m 0 o i 20 i z 0 0 z i 0 0 i i x Y Y S Yo Y f9 S Y 6 2 R Y F 0 a U B v o 0 o a N EE E E E E E E .$' _ _ _ E EEG U U U U U U LL a U o a U U o o U U CEC U V GEG U U cEc GEG U V O i0 IC 2 2 Z Z Z Z i Z Z Z Z N � LL E$ s u v W g a a $ E q e W Q O � N m m$$ a a m w a; a m m U F N W ro o y N vi o 9 u6 y 3 0_ N om s o y 0 0 y N 0 o N vi Q _S W 6 8 3 N U1 9 0 y m 0_ _o W uj 0 0 m 6 o a m o oj2 ui g m 0 o i 20 i z 0 0 z i 0 0 i i c a¢ i m ac°a $ c� i `m o s W a _ x x F x x$ 8 v 3 i 3 8 0 i s w A E 3 S o 3 1� 3 m o;_ 3 a< 3 a y 3 � a� 3 ss -0 E3 suosiad 000tlsane m S;9 I W r. a ;d CL Y a m � S N _ V d 01 m LL ss -0 E3 suosiad 000tlsane m S;9 I a Y a m � S N _ V d 01 3 U H o Y a c 0 WU v in � y M C LL CL m C U O1 o � � c �C u ro .i z $ OLL t d ZO = 3 4 0 • vi�,yt::: rm 0 I �. Z 3 2 Y d C o a � QE U g t O a r rn z N � •y 9 q � o ��� ��� mp � g g`'-8 t ZO = 3 • vi�,yt::: rm I Z 3 2 Y d o a � 3.8 Pouce 3.8.1 Overview and Inventory Police Department Organization. The police department focuses on controlling three major community problems: crime, drugs, and traffic fatalities. Each county has a police commission that appoints a police chief.' The charter of each county prescribes the duties and powers of the commission and the police chief.3 For this County, each district has a police station which serves as the base of operations for the police force assigned to that district (see Figure 3-35). Four of the larger rural districts also have substations (Kau, Kona, Puna, and Kohala). Each district is subdivided into beats. An officer is assigned to each beat. During that officer's shift, the officer's primary responsibility is to patrol the beat but also responds to calls for assistance outside the assigned beat. Community Policing. In recognition that effective and preventive crime, drug, and traffic control requires a shared responsibility and connection between the police and community, the police department initiated the community policing program.`t Under this program, community police officers are assigned a geographical sector to develop partnerships in an effort to create a safe and secure environment. It is similar to assigning officers to a permanent beat, rather than rotating the officers among beats. The officers are specially trained to solve problems with the community (e.g., criminal or nuisance problems, traffic problems), organize neighborhood and business watch programs, organize citizen patrol programs, provide senior citizens outreach presentations, and other programs. Currently, there are 18 geographical sectors: 6 for South Hilo (Puueo to Hakalau, Downtown Hilo/Kaikoo/Kaumana, Hilo Industrial Area, Banyan Drive/Keaukaha, Waiakea, Waiakea Uka/Panaewa), 2 for Puna (Lower Puna, Keaau, Upper Puna), 1 for Hamakua (Paauilo to Lakeland), 1 for North Hilo (Umauma to Ookala), l for Ka'u (Pahala to HOVE), 2 for South Kohala (Waikoloa to Kawaihae, Kamuela), 1 for North Kohala (Hawi), and 3 for Kona (South Kona, North Kona, Kailua- O Kona). 3.8.2 Issues, Problems and/or Opportunities Disparate allocation of police officers among districts. Based on population, the islandwide average is approximately 2.5 officers per 1,000 residents (see Table 3-14 and Figure 3-36). Puna is significantly below this average (1.56 ratio), while North Hilo is generously served (7.05 ratio). The other districts hover close to the islandwide average. Puna has one of the most officers assigned per beat (5 officers), but it could be that the district requires more beats since it has the highest population per beat. Other districts with relatively high numbers of residents per beat include Kona, South Kohala, and South Hilo. However, based on the geographical coverage of the beats, districts with low numbers of residents per beat generally have a larger geographical coverage. In other words, because of the rural population dispersed over the vast area of this island, distributing the officers by population would mean greater disparities in geographical coverage. Response time could be affected both by the travel distance or the demand (based on population). The amount of the more violent offenses (classified as Part I offenses discussed below) by district could be used as an indicator of a need for more officers. The worst districts were Kona, South Hilo, South Kohala, and Puna based on Part I offenses per 1000 1. County of Hawaii, Annual Report. 1997-98, p. 113. 2. Hawaii Revised Statutes chapter 52D (police departments). 3. See Hawaii County Charter, Article VII, Chapter 2 (police department). 4. The Hawaii County Police Department has a website that provides information on the community policing program and other programs (www.hawaiipolice.com).0 General Plan Infrastructure Assessment Study 3.77 Chapter 3: Facilities Needs Assessment Oresidents. Thus, despite the relatively high number of officers per population, South Hilo still had a relatively high crime rate; conversely, despite the relatively low number of officers per population, Puna's crime rate was average. But the officers who are assigned to Puna are more busy than other districts based on the number of Part I crimes per officer. Preventive community involvement. Hawaii County can take pride in having one of the lowest crime rates in the State (see Figure 3-38). Part of the reason could be attributed to the Police Department's commitment to the community policing program. By preventing problems before they become statistics, the community police's outreach youth programs and active personal relationships with the community may not receive the credit they may deserve. 3.8.3 Suggested Policies Sense of security. The County shall strive to be a place where residents and visitors feel safe to walk alone at night in the area near where they live or are staying. Preventive community involvement. The County believes that crime and safety issues are community problems, and that the community must work in partnership with the police. Efficient response time. The allocation of police officers shall be equitably distributed among districts based on resident population as well as geographic coverage. 3.8.4 Suggested Standards Design Standards O• Police Department standards for district stations and substations Level of Service Standards • 2.5 officers per 1000 resident population, but not greater than 930 square miles per beat (or some other geographic indicator such as road miles per district). Performance Indicators The performance of the following indicators will suggest a need for, budgetary or other action to respond to changes in population or other societal forces: • Number of residents per police officer (see Figure 3-37). The number of residents per officer indicates whether the police force is sufficiently staffed relative to crime rate trends or population increases. If the crime rate keeps rising, then the staffing may not be adequate. Conversely, if the crime rate declines while the ratio of residents to officers stays the same or is rising, then the programs being implemented by the police department are quite effective and the department should be supported in whatever means to continue those programs. Police department personnel consist of sworn officers and civilian employees. The ratio is by sworn officers. • Index crime rate (see Figure 3-38). The Crime Prevention and Justice Assistance Division of the State Department of the Attorney General gathers data from the four counties to produce an annual report on crime, Crime in Hatitiaii.5 The data conforms with the Uniform Crime Reporting Program (UCR), administered by the FBI, which establishes a nationwide standardization to define various 5. The Crime Prevention and Justice Assistance Division has a website (www.cpja.ag.state.hi.us). The site O provides a synopsis of crime trends over the past year. The latest annual report, Crime in Hawaii, is also posted as a PDF file. 3-78 General Plan Infrastructure Assessment Study §3.8: Police offenses in order to allow for interjurisdictional comparisons and valid national totals. Because of their seriousness and frequency of occurrence, the UCR identified 8 offenses to comprise a Crime 0 Index that serves as an indicator of the extent of crime. The index offenses include: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter; forcible rape; robbery; aggravated assault; burglary; larceny -theft; motor vehicle theft; and arson. The 8 Crime Index offenses plus the crime of negligent manslaughter are referred to as Part I offenses. Part 11 offenses include all other offenses, except traffic, not included in Part I. • Violent crime rate (see Figure 3-39). The 8 Crime Index offenses are further classified into violent (murder and nonnegligent manslaughter; forcible rape; robbery; aggravated assault) and property offenses (burglary; larceny -theft; motor vehicle theft; arson). The violent crime rate affects the perception of safety of residents as well as prospective visitors to this County. • Juvenile delinquency rate (see Figure 3-40). A rising juvenile delinquency rate not only indicates a present problem with increasing crime, but a potential future concern that these minors grow up to be constructive contributing members of the community. The appropriate response may require a collaborative effort by the schools, police department, nonprofit community groups, and other governmental agencies to reverse the growing alienation among the youth and to make them feel that they belong as members of the community. 3.8.5 Institutional (Framework Functional, Facility, or Master Plans: None. Governing laws: • Hawaii Revised Statutes chapter 52D (police departments) O Responsible agencies: • Federal Department of Justice • State Department of the Attorney General, Crime Prevention and Justice Assistance Division • County: ° Police Department Funding sources: • Federal-- Federal grants available through the Department of Justice COPS Program (Community Oriented Policing Services) to add officers • County-- general revenue General Plan Infrastructure Assessment Study 3-79 'O Q Q Loo y a6 O S m —Z ¢LL a 0 a .4x � S �tlp{"k,�#�Lk i+✓vi` � �� iv q9 k� � � �f. uti�oa LL¢o0 � �r� owa S 8 cL titi --pp k4sraF'1 ix'k'�(„ P.� $S yi �f *I dN9 W N Ng a - "L k�LK Q 2 l0 N S �tlp{"k,�#�Lk i+✓vi` � �� iv q9 k� � � �f. � �r� titi --pp k4sraF'1 ix'k'�(„ P.� $S yi �f *I dN9 �l "L k�LK �f 2 l0 N \ � � !R t §k ! f !2 -f$ \ \\ RM £ § §) k k \) / \ ». k. 7 )) Zo 20 ca 2\ )) (± 2� k\ \ § Z) \u & _ ` ;\! Al ] ,:! 222 . § ) )) eee _ .__ ƒ )j)■� � !6[422 � � O 3.9 FIRE He EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES 3.9.1 Overview and Inventory Regular vs. Volunteer Fire Stations. The council of each county has the power to determine the number of fire stations it will establish and maintain.' The county council may also establish volunteer fire stations in any area it may determine to be necessary to provide adequate fire protection.2 In this County, the County Council established a volunteer fire department with its principal office in the Hilo fire station, and appointed the chief engineer of the County fire department to be the head of the volunteer fire department.3 The volunteer fire department plays an important role to provide fire protection services to the dispersed rural population of this island where it would not be cost-effective to establish a regular fire station. Existing and Proposed Fire Stations. There are presently 14 regular fire stations, 18 volunteer stations, and I federal station at Kilauea Military Camp (that provides service under an agreement with the County) (see Figure 3-41 and Table 3-15). However, the KMC station is scheduled to close at the end of the year. All of the regular fire stations and 3 of the volunteer stations (Laupahoehoe, Pahala, Naalehu) provide 24-hour fire fighting and emergency medical service. Two of the regular stations provide rescue services (Waiakea and Kailua-Kona), two provide hazardous waste response (Kaumana, South Kohala), and one provides air medical services (South Kohala). Fire Fighting Planning and Preventive Measures. Besides adequate equipment and personnel, effective emergency response requires water supply for fire fighting (fire hydrant and water pressure standards coordinated with the Department of Water Supply and standards for water catchments to ensure adequate capacity and facilitate hookups), buildings constructed in accordance with the fire code, O accessible roads (public and private road standards enforced through the subdivision code to ensure a fire truck can accommodate the grade, pavement width, all-weather surface, turning radius), names and signs for all streets, and an efficient locator system as part of the 911 system. Coordination is also required with the Forestry Division of the State Department of Land and Natural Resources to determine first -response responsibility for brush tires. Preventive fire -fighting measures are also very important to reduce fire incidents and injury. Such measures include: fire prevention education in schools, media, and public displays/demonstrations; routine inspections of new and existing buildings for compliance with codes; and vigilant enforcement and updating of building and fire codes. Emergency Medical Services. Emergency medical services are provided in accordance with the State Comprehensive Emergency Medical Services System administered by the Department of Health.4 The County has contracted with the Department of Health to provide emergency medical ambulance services. All fire department personnel who provide basic and advance life support are licensed or certified as required by State law.5 Emergency medical responses generally account for over 75% of the total islandwide incidents; fire fighting incidents generally comprise approximately 5% of the total incidents, with rescue, hazardous substances, special services, false calls, and natural disasters comprising the balance.6 The hospital ambulance services in Kau and Kohala provide the first response for emergency calls. 1. Hawaii Revised Statutes §46-13. 2. Hawaii Revised Statutes §46-13.1. 3. Hawaii County Code, chapter 2, article 6 (volunteer fire department). O 4. Hawaii Revised Statutes chapter 321, part XVIII. 5. Hawaii Revised Statutes chapter 453, part II. General Plan Infrastructure Assessment study 3-83 Chapter 3: Facilities Needs Assessment 3.9.2 Issues, Problems and/or Opportunities Improvements to 911 Emergency Call System. The Police Department has taken the lead to develop a computerized 911 mapping system to locate addresses. However, there are some private streets without names and residences without addresses. Through the subdivision approval and building permit process, the County needs to make sure that all streets, public and private, have names and all residences and establishments have official street addresses. Rural deficiencies in emergency medical services. With the volunteer fire stations, most major settlement areas (as defined by census designated places) are within 5 miles of a fire station to provide adequate coverage for fire fighting (see Figure 3-42). However, most volunteer fire stations do not provide emergency medical services. If no facility replaces the announced closure of the Kilauea Military Camp emergency services, the upper Puna area between Keaau and Volcano will not be within a life-saving response time (approximately 8 minutes or 5 miles) from a 24-hour emergency medical service. Other areas beyond a 5 -mile radius of a 24-hour emergency medical service include the Kapoho-Pohoiki area, portions of Hamakua (e.g., Pepeekeo, Paauilo), Kohala Ranch and vicinity, resorts in the vicinity of Kona Village, South Kona, and Hawaiian Ocean View Estates (see Figure 3- 43). 3.9.3 Suggested Policies Emergency medical service. The County shall develop an efficient 911 system and support the State to provide an adequate emergency response system. Growth management. The County shall consider the proximity to fire stations in approving any rezoning to permit urban development. O Water supply and road standards. The County's water and road standards established by the Department of Water Supply, Department of Public Works, and subdivision code shall accommodate the requirements of the fire department in terms of water pressure, fire hydrant spacing, pavement width and surfacing, turning radius, and other parameters that affect fire -fighting and fire truck access. Fire prevention. The County fire department shall provide fire prevention education, inspections, and enforcement and updating of the fire code. 3.9.4 Suggested Standards Design Standards • Fire Code (fire hydrants, sprinklers, building construction, fire truck access) • Subdivision Code street standards (pavement surface, pavement width, grade, turning radius, deadend turnaround radius) I Level of Service Standards • Fire -fighting response time-- fire stations shall be within 5 miles of concentrated settlement areas • Emergency medical service response time-- first response emergency service shall be within 8 minutes of concentrated settlement areas (alternative means could be available to provide first response such as training police officers or volunteer fire personnel) 6. County of Hawaii Annual Report, 1996-97. 3-84 General Plan Infrastructure Assessment Study §3.9: Fire & Emergency Medica! Servicer OPerformance Indicators • Response time (911 statistics) • Incident trends (number of fire, rescue, EMS, etc. calls by year and by facility) 3.9.5 Institutional Framework Functional, Facility, or Master Plans: None. Governing laws: • Hawaii Revised Statutes §46-13, -13.1 (authorization to establish fire department and volunteer fire departments) • Hawaii Revised Statutes chapter 321, part XVIII (emergency medical services system) • Hawaii Revised Statutes chapter 453, part 11 (licensing requirements for emergency medical personnel) • Hawaii County Code, chapter 2, article 6 (volunteer fire department) • Hawaii County Code, chapter 26 (fire code) • Hawaii County Code, chapter 23 (subdivision code) Responsible agencies: O State: Department of Health (emergency medical services) • County: Fire Department Funding sources: • County-- general fund General Plan Infrastructure Assessment Study 3-85 ax W U W Q co) Z) W Cl) �a x¢go[ a U D W g� J 2 ro LL W R Ul LU u O 2 q N C O M 65 2 V LL. O) C z x W d 4' r-,� 3.1 O CIVIL DEFENSE O 3.10.1 Overview and Inventory Types of Emergency/Disaster. An emergency is a natural or human -caused event which seriously threatens the loss of life and/or damage to property. When the magnitude of the loss or damage is significant, it is considered a disaster. Natural hazards include severe weather hazards (rain storms, high winds, floods, high surf, hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts) and geologic hazards (earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions, landslides, mudslides). Human -caused hazards include fires, explosions, war, massive transportation or industrial accidents, utility failures, pollution including oil spills, radiological or hazardous substance accidents, and health or other disruptive domestic crises.l Sudden -impact hazards that strike with little or no forewarning include: local tsunami (generated by a nearby earthquake), flash flood, waterspout/tomado, earthquake, major explosion or industrial/ transportation accident, and imminent enemy attack. Gradual -onset hazards that do allow time for warning and evacuation include: distant -generated tsunami, hurricane, volcanic eruption, severe weather, certain human -caused accidents, and war.' - Roles. Emergency management includes preparedness, response, recovery, and mitigation. The lead agency for emergency management is the Hawaii County Civil Defense Agency. Responsibility of all disasters or major crises begin at the county level. The State Civil Defense provides the communication infrastructure and procedures to apply additional resources as needed to support county resources. In times of emergency, several other government agencies assist the Civil Defense Agency: police and fire personnel assist with warning and evacuation, the Department of Public Works provides road barriers and other control equipment upon request, the American Red Cross conducts damage assessments and operates mass care shelters, the Civil Air Patrol assists the Police and Fire Departments with aerial warnings and evacuation of isolated areas, and the Hawaii National O Guard also assists with warning and evacuation (see Figure 3-44). Preparedness and Response Capability. Emergency preparedness includes the development and testing of standard operating procedures and checklists, ensuring an adequate inventory of required supplies, and developing state-of-the-art communication and warning systems. The County Civil Defense Agency is responsible for the overall emergency plan and response procedures. The State Civil Defense Agency has the primary responsibility to develop and maintain the Emergency Broadcasting System and the network of civil defense warning signals. Figure 3-45 shows the existing network of civil defense sirens. Recovery and Mitigation Measures. The County Civil Defense Agency coordinates recovery and mitigation measures. Recovery includes clean-up activities and disaster relief assistance. Mitigation includes the actions carried out before and after an emergency intended to permanently reduce the degree of risk or vulnerability to hazards present in an area. County regulatory or public works measures can play an important role in mitigation by limiting development in hazardous areas (e.g., zoning, subdivision, special management area permits), setting design and construction standards to make development less vulnerable to hazards (e.g., flood control code, building code), constructing public works to protect development (e.g., flood control projects), or acting upon the potential hazard (e.g., vegetating unstable slopes to prevent landslides). 1. County of Hawaii Emergency Operations Plan, 1987, p. B-1. 2. ibid., p. C-3-1 and C-4.1. General Plan Infrastructure Assessment Study 3.89 Chapler 3: Facilities Needs Assessment 0 3.10.2 Issues, Problems and/or Opportunities Lack of standards for warning signal coverage. The State does not have a standard to determine what level of new development would trigger a new warning siren and the audible range of the siren. Inadequate warning and evacuation procedures for disabled or elderly. The County does not have a well-publicized system to specially warn and evacuate persons with disabilities and the elderly who may need assistance. Unreliable communication system during disasters. During the recent record flooding in November 2000, only one radio station remained on the air to provide information. Even this one station went off the air during a brief period. There was no television. Lack of systematic disaster assessment. Post -disaster reports need to be consistently done so that the appropriate County agencies can improve their understanding, amend applicable regulations, or adjust capital improvements budgets to mitigate future impacts. 3.10.3 Suggested Policies High standards for emergency preparedness, response, and recovery. The County shall maintain its high standards for emergency preparedness through regular testing and evaluation of its procedures and facilities. One immediate area that requires attention is the establishment of a reliable communication system during disasters. Accommodation of special need groups. The County shall develop procedures to warn and provide Oevacuation assistance to persons with special. needs. Mitigation. The County shall aggressively mitigate hazards through disaster assessment reports and appropriate follow-up on the assessment recommendations. Public education. The County shall educate the public regarding disaster preparedness and response, especially proper responses for sudden -impact hazards. 3.10.4 Suggested Standards Design Standards • Hurricane and earthquake resistance-- Building Code • Locating and constructing within floodprone areas-- Flood Control Code • Emergency Operations Center-- federal and state standards Level of Service Standards • Warning siren-- standard suggested to determine when a new siren would be required for existing and new development Performance Indicators • Number of events, property damage, loss of life 3-90 General Plan Infrastructure Assessment Study §3.10 CAW Defense 3.10.5 Institutional Framework Functional, Facility, or Master Plans: • County of Hawaii Emergency Operations Plan, 1987 (prepared by the State Civil Defense Division for the Hawaii Civil Defense Agency) Governing laws: • Hawaii Revised Statutes chapter 127 (disaster relief) • Hawaii Revised Statutes chapter 128 (civil defense and emergency act) • Hawaii County Code (civil defense) Responsible agencies: • State: Department of Defense • County: Civil Defense Agency Funding sources: • Federal disaster assistance funds through FEMA • State disaster assistance funds General Plan Infrastructure Assessment Study 3.91 3.11 DRAINAGE AND FLOOD CONTROL O 3.11.1 Introduction Types of Flooding. Flooding occurs from high waves or storm rainfall. High waves and associated runup are caused by stonn surf, hurricanes, or tsunamis. Coastal areas are susceptible to flooding from both high waves and rainfall runoff. Flooding in inland areas results from high rainfall and occurs in floodplains along drainageways or low-lying areas with poor drainage that cause ponding. Dams can exacerbate flooding should they fail; hence a dam safety program is also an integral part of flood control. Flood Management. Flooding is inevitable. Proper flood management includes preparedness, response, recovery, and mitigation. Preparedness, response, and recovery measures address matters coordinated by the Civil Defense Agency, such as warning systems, evacuation plans, shelters, rescue, medical assistance, cleanup, and financial assistance for recovery (rebuilding). The roles, responsibilities, and facilities of the Civil Defense are covered in §3.10. This section will focus on flood mitigation. Structural and Non -Structural Flood Mitigation. In the past, flood mitigation meant engineered structural solutions such as dams, levees, stream channelization, diversion channels, and other costly improvements. In spite of these improvements, flood damage continued to escalate. A broader approach to flood management that attempts to work with nature instead of trying to control the awesome forces of nature has evolved. The federal flood insurance program requires participating localities to identify and control development in flood prone areas. In this County, this land use regulatory approach to flood mitigation is the Flood Control Code.l In areas that have experienced recurring flood damage, the federal government has authorized disaster assistance funds to buyout and restrict future development in these flood prone areas where such acquisition is more cost-effective O than heightened structural flood control improvements. Where damaged structural flood improvements need to be replaced, the federal government now allows upgrades to those improvements instead of "in kind" replacements in order to resize inadequate structures. Besides the structural improvements that are constructed where the flooding problems occur, effective flood mitigation must direct attention to the source of floodwaters from a watershed perspective. In the absence of watershed management measures, changes to the land cover or drainageways within the watershed could increase the volume and velocity of floodwaters to overwhelm flood control structures downstream. The conservation practices followed to control soil erosion also apply to upstream flood control-- by reducing the volume and velocity of water, more soil is kept where it belongs and out of the streams, and the absorptive qualities of soil reduce the volume of runoff. Soil conservation practices use both vegetative and engineering techniques to hold the topsoil in place against the wash of rain. Agricultural erosion control is enforced through conservation plans prepared with the assistance of NRCS and approved by the Soil and Water Conservation District. Erosion control at construction sites is enforced through the County grading ordinance.'- 3.11.2 Issues, Problems and/or Opportunities Pervious vs. Impervious Surfaces. Engineering efficiency in conveying stormwater runoff using impervious surfaces (e.g., paved swales, channelized streams) must be balanced against environmental considerations. If the drainage is directed to streams, excessive freshwater volumes and sediment loads may impact coastal water resources (e.g., degrade water quality, smother coral reefs). If the 1. Hawaii County Code chapter 27. 2. Hawaii County Code chapter 10. General Plan Infrastructure Assessment Study 3-9i Chapter ;: Facilhies Needs Assessment Odrainage is directed to injection wells, more studies are needed to determine the impact of storm runoff on groundwater quality. Sediment basins, wetlands, or less impervious methods of conveyance (e.g., grass swales) should be considered where feasible to reduce nonpoint source pollution of the coastal waters from stormwater runoff and filter infiltrating water. Need for Updated Information. There are many areas in the County that are not covered by the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (see Figure 3-46). For areas that have been mapped, several areas need to be updated. There is no central clearinghouse to record flooding incidents. There is no systematic post - flood studies to understand the causes of floods and recommend solutions, especially those incidents where no flood disaster funds are involved. Stream gage and rain gage databases should be coordinated to monitor significant changes in the drainage basin hydrology.. Stream Habitat Conservation vs. Stream Channelization. Several of Hawaii's native stream biota spend their adult lives in freshwater, but larvae are washed out to sea and float as plankton for a time (e.g., o'opu, `opae, hihiwai). Streams with perennial connections to the ocean are especially sensitive in this regard. Channelization of these streams may impact the ability of these species to migrate. The State Coastal Zone Management Program has delineated watershed boundaries that integrate with DLNR's stream protection and management program, and could perhaps serve as a common basis in developing basin -wide drainage plans (see Figure 3-47). Enforcement of Conservation Plans. The County's grading ordinance exempts agricultural activity from the grading ordinance provided the soil and water conservation district director approves a conservation plan for the operation.- The NRCS reviews the nonstructural erosion and drainage control practices, but does not review any structural improvements that require engineering. Individual vs. Public Burden. For major drainage improvements constructed with public funds, the O affected landowners are compensated for necessary land that must be taken for the improvements. Other drainage improvements or easements are required of landowners as a condition of approval for proposed development. The exaction required from the landowner/developer involves the cost of the land and the cost of improvements built to the County's standards, if the landowner/developer intends to dedicate the improvements to the County. The issue is whether it is fair to impose the full cost of drainage improvements on a downstream owner for the regional benefit of upstream owners. In Dolan v. City of Tigard, 114 S. Ct. 2309 (1994), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that exactions imposed on a landowner must be "roughly proportional" to the impact of the proposed development. In Dolan, the local government required the dedication of greenway/floodplain easements, among other required dedications, as a condition of issuing a building permit. In applying Dolan, one lower court struck down a drainage -system requirement: From our review of the record, the County has forced the Partnership to bear a burden that should fairly have been allocated throughout the watershed area. "A strong public desire to improve the public condition will not warrant achieving the desire by a shorter cut than the constitutional way of paying for the change."4 As a remedy, the court remanded for the district court to determine the excess over the pro rata share for which the Partnership was entitled to recoup. Multipurpose opportunities. From a watershed perspective, flood control, soil erosion management, nonpoint source pollution, and wetlands management are all interrelated. Funding for these separate programs should be coordinated, pooled, and leveraged to develop drainage basin -wide master plans or implement multi-purpose projects. For example, in the drier leeward areas of the island, large 3. Hawaii County Code 310-3(b)(5). O 4. Christopher Lake Development Co. v. St. Louis County, 35 F.3d 1269 (8th Cir. 1994) at 1275 (quoting Dolan). 3-96 General Plan Infrastructure Assessment Study §3.11: Drainage and Flood Control reservoirs could be excavated that could serve recreational, flood control, and irrigation purposes. O Flood plain buffer areas along streams can form a continuous greenway that could double as a recreational trail. Various incentive programs, as compared to relying exclusively on regulatory measures, can be offered to encourage voluntary restrictions within these areas (e.g., charitable tax deductions for conservation easements, property tax exemptions). To require mandatory dedication of greenways for trail purposes would invite constitutional challenge primarily because of the loss of the private landowner's right to exclude as expressed in the Dolan decision. 3.11.3 Suggested Policies Watershed, multi-purpose perspective. The County shall develop drainage master plans from a watershed perspective that consider non-structural alternatives, minimize channelization of perennial streams, protect wetlands that serve drainage functions, coordinate the regulation of construction and agricultural operations, and encourage the establishment of floodplains as public greenways. Equitable allocation of financial burden. The County recognizes that flood control is a regional problem and should proportionally prorate the burden on individuals and the general public. Coordinated, updated information. The County shall encourage the development of an information and mapping system to better understand and monitor the conditions that cause flooding. Flexible design standards. The County should encourage grassed shoulder and Swale roadway design where climate and grade are conducive. Flood preparedness. The County shall monitor and maintain County -owned drainageways, and shall evaluate the causes and effects after major flood events. O 3.11.4 Standards Design Standards • Department of Public Works Drainage Standards • Subdivision Code (street and drainage improvements) • Erosion and Sedimentation Control Standards and Guidelines • NRCS Guidelines Level of Service Standards • Flood control priorities-- standard suggested such as no property damage or culvert overflows for less than a 20 -year storm Performance Indicators • Flood damage by storm severity • Acreage of greenways and wetlands • Sedimentation rates and/or soil loss monitoring General Plan infrastructure Assessment Study 3-97 Chapter 3: Facilities Needs Assessment 0 3.11.5 Institutional Framework Functional, Facility, or Master Plans: • Flood Control and Flood Water Conservation in Hawaii, v. 1 (Floods and Flood Control), 2 (Flood Control Plan), 3 (Agencies and Laws) (Department of Land and Natural Resources, Division of Water and Land Development 1994). • Drainage Master Plan for the County of Hawaii (R.M. Towill 1971) • North Kona Flood Plain Management Study (USDA SCS 1984) • Hilo Drainage and Flood Control (Wilson Okamoto & Assoc. 1967) Governing Laws: • Hawaii Revised Statutes chapter 179 (flood control and flood water conservation) • Hawaii Revised Statutes chapter 180 (soil and water conservation districts) • Hawaii Revised Statutes chapter 342E (nonpoint source pollution management and control) • Hawaii Revised Statutes chapter 179D (dams and reservoirs) • Hawaii Revised Statutes section 46-1.5(5), 11, -11.5 (authorizes counties to maintain channels, exercise power of eminent domain, regulate floodplains, participate in the national flood insurance program) • Hawaii County Code chapter 27 (flood control code) OResponsible agencies: • Federal FEMA-- disaster response and prevention NRCS-- ag, watershed COE-- structural flood control, wetlands regulation USGS-- stream gaging • State Department of Land and Natural Resources-- flood control, stream alteration DOH-- nonpoint source, wetlands • County: Department of Public Works Civil Defense Agency Funding sources: • Federal Grants FEMA Project Impact (create disaster -resistant communities) FEMA Hazard Mitigation Grant COE improvements-- after first $100,000 of full federal funding, non -Federal partner must cost share 50% of feasibility study and 35% of design/construction (to maximum of $5M/project for federal share)+ obtain lands/easement Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (NRCS)-- agricultural areas erosion control, crop loss reduc- tion, and riparian mgt Clean Water Action Plan Fund (nonpoint source mat, wetlands restoration) 3-98 General Plan Infrastructure Assessment Study O 3.12 HEALTH FACILITIES 3.12.1 Overview and Inventory The existing General Plan policies and standards are directed at new hospitals. The establishment of new hospitals is quite unlikely; in fact, the problem is more the possible closure of rural hospitals. New policies seem appropriate to support the continued viability of existing primary care facilities, while encouraging new community-based facilities to provide needed medical care to serve that segment of the population that the private sector is reluctant to serve due to uncertain or unsatisfactory medicaid/medicare reimbursement payments. Health Care Provider System. The health care system consists of pre -medical care programs and medical care services. The focus of pre -medical care programs is preventive, i.e. to foster individual well-being and health maintenance in order to try to stay out of the medical care system. These preventive programs include public education on healthy lifestyles (e.g., nutrition, fitness) and regulations on environmental quality (e.g., drinking water quality, sanitation), food protection, and occupational safety. The medical care system consists of primary, secondary, and tertiary care services corresponding to the level of specialization or sophistication of diagnosis or treatment required.] • Primary care services. Primary, or basic general health care, includes appropriate treatment of common diseases and injuries, provision of essential drugs, and coordination of specialty care (i.e., secondary or tertiary care). Primary care facilities include: general medical care services provided through private practitioners (general practitioner, O pediatrician, internist, family practitioner, obstetrician -gynecologist, and osteopath), hospital outpatient clinics, hospital emergency rooms, neighborhood health clinics and community mental health centers; emergency medical services including pre -hospital services (dispatchers, transport, and paramedic) and hospital emergency room and intensive care unit; diagnostic radiology (x-rays) available in hospitals, clinics, or private doctors' offices; outpatient or ambulatory surgery available in hospitals; family health care provided to expectant mothers and new-born infants provided by general practitioners, family practitioners, obstetrician -gynecologists, and pediatricians; dental care provided through private dentists and clinics; clinical laboratory services that test specimens from the human body to aid in the diagnosis and treatment of diseases and maintaining health, and which are provided by hospital laboratories, State public health laboratories, clinic laboratories, private independent medical laboratories, and private physician's office laboratories; • Secondary care services. Persons who need secondary care services usually have a serious or more complex health problem that requires a specialist and/or a health bed -facility (e.g., hospital, nursing home). Secondary care facilities include: acute care hospitals (short -stay overnight inpatient setting where at least 50% of the patients leave less than 30 days following admission); 01. Description of primary, secondary, and tertiary care services generally based on SHPDA (1981), The Health Services and Facilities Plan for the State of Hawaii. General Plan Infrastructure Assessment Study 3-101 Chapter 3: Facilities Needs Assessment long-term care facilities including institutional facilities (e.g., skilled nursing, intermediate care, O hospices, rehabilitation) and community- or home-based facilities (e.g., assisted living, extended care adult residential care homes, home care services, meals -on -wheels services); and specialized services at standalone or hospital facilities including mental health, drug and alcohol abuse, chronic hemodialysis, mental retardation/development disabilities; Tertiary care services. Tertiary care is highly specialized or sophisticated treatment or diagnosis for an acutely ill patient or for chronic, complicated, or catastrophic illnesses. It includes complex surgical procedures; x-ray, cobalt and radium therapy; renal dialysis; neurosurgery; severe burn treatment and major hospital trauma emergency department services. Tertiary services are provided by major medical centers. The expensive specialized services and equipment associated with tertiary care requires a large population base to support it. Because of the importance of primary health care to maintain good health, manage and prevent chronic disease, and reduce the need for costly high-tech health care, primary care facilities should be accessible at the community level. Secondary health care facilities should be available regionally within the County, while tertiary health care facilities should be available in metropolitan Honolulu to serve the statewide population. Hospitals and Clinics. Hawaii's hospitals trace back to its monarchy and plantation history.' Hawaiian royal families, in response to the disease and suffering witnessed among their people, raised funds and donated land for two private hospitals on Oahu-- Queen's Medical Center and Kapiolani Medical Center for Women and Children. Two private plantation hospitals have survived to this day-- Wilcox Memorial Hospital on Kauai and Molokai General Hospital. One plantation immigrant group established a hospital, the Japanese Charity Hospital (now known as Kuakini Medical Center). The counties established hospitals to care for the indigents. When the finances became too burdensome on the counties, the State took over the county hospitals in 1970. O The network of State hospitals, formerly operated by the State Department of Health Division of Community Hospitals, has been transferred in 1996 to the Hawaii Health Systems Corporation, a public benefit corporation.3 As a semi-public entity, the corporation is privately managed but with a public mission and mandate. The corporation manages twelve hospitals statewide in five regions -- City and County of Honolulu, Kauai County, Maui County, Eastern Hawaii (Puna, North Hilo, south Hilo, Hamakua, and Kau), and Western Hawaii (North Kohala, South Kohala, North Kona, and South Kona). Five of the hospitals are located in Hawaii County-- Hilo Medical Center, Hale Ho'ola Hamakua (Honokaa), and Kau Hospital in East Hawaii, and Kohala Hospital and Kona Hospital in West Hawaii (see Figure 3-52). Community health centers, which are usually private nonprofit corporations, provide primary and preventive health care to medically underserved and uninsured people. If certified as a Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC) (or a "FQHC Look Alike"), these community-based providers qualify for federal grants and cost -based reimbursement under Medicaid and Medicare. Besides federal grants and Medicaid/Medicare payments, these centers are supported by state grants, private insurance payments, patient fees, foundation grants, and private donations. In underserved rural areas, 2. See Friedman, E. (1993), The Aloha Way: Health Care Structure and Finance in Hawaii, Honolulu: Hawaii Medical Service Association Foundation. 3. Hawaii Revised Statutes chapter 323F. 4, The Federally Qualified Health Center Program was authorized under the 1989 Omnibus Reconciliation Act (OBRA) and expanded under OBRA 1990 (P.L. 101-508). The Bureau of Primary Care and the Health Care Financing Administration, both under the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, share oversight of O the program. 3-102 General Plan Infrastructure Assessment Study §3.12: Health Facilities Ofederal certification as a Rural Health Clinic qualifies the clinic for Medicare/Medicaid reimbursement for services provided by mid-level practitioners (i.e., physician assistants, nurse practitioners, and certified nurse -midwives) for services normally provided by physicians (e.g., physical exams)., In most cases outside of Rural Health Clinics, Medicare pays for services provided by these practitioners only when they are "incident to" the services of a physician. Any health center designated as a Federally Qualified Health Center (or "look alike") or Rural Health Clinic has comparable designation as a Hawaii Qualified Health Center, which makes it eligible under State reimbursement programs.6 Federal definitions of an "underserved" area include: Health Professional Shortage Area (HPSA) or Medically Underserved Area/Population (MUA/MUP).7 Three main factors affect access to primary care: affordability, availability of needed services, and physical accessibility. Although the HPSA and MUA/MUP criteria do not clearly distinguish among these factors, generally the HPSA focuses on availability and physical accessibility while the MUAIMUP focuses on affordability. There are HPSAs for primary care, dental and mental health. The HPSA designation is pertinent to the National Health Service Corps (NHSC) Recruitment (where medical students whose tuitions were paid by NHSC are obligated to serve in underserved areas for a certain period), the NHSC/State Loan Repayment Program, and the Rural Health Clinic Certification Program. The MUA/MUP designation, which uses slightly different criteria from the HPSA, is pertinent to certification as a Federally Qualified Health Center. Long -Term Care. The type of long-term care required depends on the level of dependence/ independence. For the totally dependent, institutional facilities such as skilled nursing or intermediate care facilities are appropriate. For the partially or totally independent, a spectrum of choice should ideally be available-- from remaining in the person's residence with assistance as required (home - delivered meals, home health care, housekeeping services, personal care services, transportation services), living in a caretaker's home for a fee (adult family boarding home, extended care adult O residential care home), living in a group residential setting with personal and health care services (i.e., assisted living facility), to an institutional intermediate care facility. The supply of institutional long-term care beds is lean, statewide and in this County (see Figure 3-54). As of 1998, the total number of long-term beds in this County was 680.8 Occupancy averaged 94.5% with average length of stay of 262 days. The bed -to -population ratio was 35 beds per 1,000 people over age 65.10 The national average in 1990 was approximately 56 beds.' 1 The threshold standard to 5. The Rural Health Clinics program was authorized under the Rural Health Clinics Act (P.L. 95-210). Rural Health Clinics must be located in communities that are both "rural" (Census Bureau designation as "non - urbanized") and "underserved" (federally designated Health Professional Shortage Area, federally or Governor designated Medically Underserved Area). 6. Hawaii Revised Statutes §321-1.6 (designation as Hawaii Qualified Health Center"), §346-41.5 (eligibility of Hawaii Qualified Health Centers under QUEST). 7. For a concise explanation of the federal terminology and criteria, see Department of Health, State of Hawaii, Primary Care Needs Assessment Databook, December .1999. 8. Hawaii State Health Planning and Development Agency, Skilled Nursing/Intermediate Care Facilities Utilization for the Period 1/1/98 to 12/31/98, www.state.hi.us/health/shpda; also reported in quarterly reports by SHPDA entitled Utilization of Inpatient Facilities by County, which data for Hawaii County was extracted in the Hawaii County Data Book. 9. Ibid. 010. Population estimates from DBEDT, (CO -98-9) Population Estimates for Counties by Age and Sex: Annual Time Series, July 1, 1990 to July 1, 1998, www.hawaii.gov/dbedt/estimate.htm]. General Plan Infrastructure Assessment Study 3-103 Chapter 3: Facilities Needs Assessment determine the need for new or expanded long -teen care beds is an average annual occupancy rate of at O least 95% for all existing beds in service-- i.e., when the average occupancy exceeds 95% more beds would be justified under the certificate of need process. 12 Increasing the supply is dampened by the slow certificate of need process, manpower shortages from aides to physicians, and the uncertain level of Medicaid/Medicare reimbursements.13 During periods of full capacity, patients must wait in acute beds, exacerbating the spot shortages of acute beds. Hawaii's Pioneering Financing of Medical Care. Hawaii has been at the forefront in the quest to achieve universal access to health care. The primary vehicle for providing economic access to health care is health insurance. Health insurance cushions the effects of high health costs by spreading costs over the term of the insurance policy as well as across the entire insured population. When persons are not able to acquire insurance, they delay in seeking treatment which results in a more serious or complicated illness that is more expensive to treat than if earlier treatment had been sought. If the uninsured defaults on payments, these unpaid costs are subsidized by government or shifted to the insurance pool resulting in.higher premiums. The Medicare and Medicaid programs target two of the high risk groups unable to afford insurance: the elderly who are often eliminated from employer -based insurance plans after retirement, and the low-income, respectively. With the enactment of Hawaii's Prepaid Health Care Act in 1974,14 Hawaii approached universal health coverage when taken together with the Medicare and Medicaid programs. The Prepaid Health Care Act mandates employers, to provide health care coverage to employees who work more than 20 hours per week. Hawaii's near universal access to health care coverage has resulted in a one-third reduction in the use and costs of emergency room and inpatient care when compared to national per capita use. 15 In spite of the reach of the Prepaid Health Care Act, several groups still fall through the gap because their income is too high for Medicaid yet they do not have access to employer -based health plans for O various reasons: the unemployed, women spouses and children of lower income employees who elect not to cover families, part-time employees, and the self-employed. The State Health Insurance Program (S.H.I.P.) was created in 1990.to meet the needs of the "gap group." 16 The Health QUEST program initiated in 1994 continues Hawaii's innovation by combining three government programs that use private health insurance plans to provide coverage: Medicaid for the Aid to Families with Dependent Children, S.H.I.P., and the General Assistance Program. Combination of these three programs allows the QUEST clientele to use the benefits of a single purchasing pool to receive fully capitated managed care benefits at affordable rates. 3.12.2 Issues, Problems and/or Opportunities Medically Underserved Areas. Hawaii County has the dubious distinction of having nearly the entire County designated as MUA/MUPs and/or HSPAs, making it eligible for Medicaid/Medicare reimbursements to Federally Qualified Health Centers. The vast land area and rural conditions, 11. Friedman, E. 1992, cited in footnote 2, p. 81. 12.SHPDA, Hawaii Health Performance Plan 1.999-2004, p. II -11. 13. Friedman, E. 1992, cited in footnote 2, p. 82. 14. Hawaii Revised Statutes chapter 393. 15. See Department of Health (1994), Health Care Reform in Hawaii. 16. Hawaii Revised Statutes chapter 431N. O 3-104 General Plan Infrastructure Assessment Study „83.12: Health Facilities Ocoupled with the depressed economic conditions in this County, create uniquely acute needs relative to other counties in the State with respect to income, availability of medical services, and physical accessibility. The areas in this County designated as HPSAs or MUA/MUPs are as follows (see Figure 3-48 through Figure 3-51):17 Service Area Hilo (CT 201-209) MUAIMUP X HPS'A Primary Care'• HPSA PMnta A HPSA AMental Health Puna, (CT 210-211) X X X X Ka'u (CT 212) X X X X South Kona (CT 213-214) X North Kona (CT 215-216) X South Kohala (CT 217) X X North Kohala (CT 218) X X Hamakua(CT 219.221) X X X X Dependence on Rural Hospitals. Rural hospitals provide primary medical care beyond what can be provided through medical clinics in terns of emergency room and intensive care services, diagnostic services, and other services that are supportive and supplemental to community health clinics. Rural hospitals also provide secondary care services (e.g., acute and long-term care) in a location convenient to the patient and patient's family. The smaller population of these remote rural areas cannot financially sustain these facilities on their own. The issue is to what extent the State should subsidize these facilities, or close them down. 18 O Relatively High Percentage of Uninsured. The statewide estimated percentage of uninsured in 1996 and 1997 was 7%.19 in Hawaii County, an estimated 12.7% were uninsured in 1996, which decreased to 8.3% in 1997 but still slightly above the statewide percentage. Lack of Long -Term Care Choices. There is no overall monitoring system to identify, advocate, and provide a spectrum of long-term care services-- from home-based services, to assisted living, to institutional facilities. The lack of choices could be the cause of the tight supply of institutional long- term care beds in this County. 3.12.3 Suggested Policies Affordable Primary Care Facilities. The County should encourage (e.g., streamlined permitting, discounted permit fees, discounted lease of land) the establishment or expansion of community health centers and rural health clinics for the medically underserved population, especially in the rural areas. Rural Hospitals. In recognition of the importance of physical access to primary medical care, the County should urge the State to continue operation of the rural hospitals, even if it requires public subsidy, and even if it requires eliminating long-term care beds. 17. Department of Health, State of Hawaii, Primary Care Needs Assessment Databook, December 1999. 18. See, for example, "Hospital money crisis forces lawmakers to act,” Advertiser/Star Bulletin, November 14, 1999. 19. HMSA Foundation, Health Trends in Hawaii, Fourth Edition 1999, p. 40. 020. Department of Health, State of Hawaii, Behavioral Risk Factor Survey (annual telephone survey conducted by the BRFSS) reported in the Hawaii County Data Book 1998, Table 2.6, p. 43. General Plan Infrastructure Assessment Study 3-105 Chapter 3: Facilities Needs Assessment Home- and Community -Based Long -Term Care Alternatives. To supplement the institutional long-term O care facilities, the County should facilitate the establishment of home- and community-based long- term care services (e.g., evaluate the zoning code for potential barriers). Preventive Health Education and Programs. In recognition that personal knowledge and lifestyle are integral components of the overall health system, the County's recreation and senior citizens programs should promote awareness and provide programs related to fitness, nutrition, eligibility for health care insurance, and the risks associated with smoking and obesity. Youth programs are important to reduce teen pregnancies. Early pregnancy challenges family stability, increases risk of premature delivery or complications, and increases probability of poverty. 3.12.4 Suggested Standards Level of Service Standards (to determine need for new or expanded facilities)21 • Acute beds supply (average annual occupancy of all service area beds) medical/surgical-- 80% intensive care-- 60% obstetric-- 80% neonatal intensive care-- 80% pediatric-- 80% • Institutional long-term beds supply-- average annual occupancy of 95% all service area beds Performance Indicators (to determine effectiveness of policies) • % uninsured= uninsured resident population/ total resident population (see Figure 3-53) O • occupancy rate of long-term beds (see Figure 3-55) • infant mortality rate= infant. deaths / total live births x 1000 • teen birth ratio= births to mothers age 17 years and younger / total live births x 100 • smoking= by survey, percentage of resident population who smoked cigarettes • overweight= by survey, percentage of population who described themselves as more than 20% overweight 3.12.5 Institutional Framework Functional, Facility, or Master Plans: • Hawaii Health Performance Plan: Health Services and Facilities Plan for the State of Hawaii 1999- 2004 (State Health Planning and Development Agency 1999). Governing Laws: • Hawaii Revised Statutes chapter 323D (establishes the State Health Planning and Development Agency, Statewide Health Coordinating Council, Subarea health Planning Councils, and Certificate of Need process) 21. Hawaii Health Performance Plan: Health Services and Facilities Plan for the State of Hawaii 1999-2004 (State Health Planning and Development Agency 1999) 3-106 General Plan Infrastructure Assessment Study x}3.12: Health Facilities OHawaii Revised Statutes chapter 323F (establishes Hawaii Health Systems Corporation to manage the State hospitals) • Hawaii Revised Statutes chapter 346 (establishes medicaid program for indigents), chapter 431L (medicaid -related mandates) • Hawaii Revised Statutes chapter 346D (establishes medicaid home- and community-based waiver program for long-term care) • Hawaii Revised Statutes chapter 393 (establishes prepaid health care program that requires employers to provide health insurance for full-time employees) • Hawaii Revised Statutes chapter 431 N (establishes State Health Insurance Program for the "gap group", those individuals who have too much income to qualify for medicaid but cannot afford health insurance) Responsible agencies: • Federal U.S. Department of Health & Human Services • State Department of Health, State Health Planning and Development Agency Department of Health, Hawaii Health Systems Corporation • County: Funding sources: O• Federal Grants/Loans • State Grants/Loans General Plan Infrastructure Assessment Study 3-107 A K m m R R m R Ya nnaann=22U F 000000 LL LL O o w U; m O `R E m N m U R 4. N Z> U o RJ R n N Y 3 0 o m U U J _ m 20 Q m z o 'MM m m t o w 2 2 Z Y Y YR m = : U O o 0 0 0 0 0 o a o 0 _ CS � r V o! R V N O pemsulu0 % 9 E E E W ya 'a m o, v y L L O, O m N 0 W .� m m � v � S n 2 Z Y Y= Y Y .000000 0000 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 o S 8 0 A ... d ... 0 Apa aB.o.V % 8 8 8 E Y O 3.13 SOLID WASTE 3.13.1 Overview and Inventory Solid Waste System. The solid waste system, as described by the County's integrated solid waste management plan, has the following components:l • Generation. The best way to manage solid waste is not to generate it in the first place. Source reduction is accomplished through public education programs, recycling/compostinglbioconversion programs and facilities, procurement policies that give preference to recycled materials, and pricing mechanisms (e.g., tipping fees) that charge users in proportion to the waste they generate. • Collection and transfer. There are two collection options: transfer stations or curbside collection. Transfer stations are the current method of collection. There are 21 transfer stations that are located within 5 miles (approximately 30 minutes round trip) of most of the existing population (see Figure 3-56 and Table 3-18). The major exceptions, in terms of general plan urban areas or census designated places, that are located farther than 5 miles from a transfer station include Kapoho, Kukuihaele, Kohala Ranch, Kaupulehu, and Hawaiian Ocean View. Transfer stations are expensive to operate due to high transportation costs (the furthest transfer stations are over 50 miles one way from the nearest landfill), capital costs for the hauling trailers and transfer station, and personnel costs including attendants. Privatized curb collection may in some situations be more cost-effective (for example, high-density areas or remote areas) while increasing the level of customer service. The County should conduct a case by case cost study prior to upgrading or adding a new transfer station. • Disposal. There are currently two landfills: Hilo and Puuanahulu. Because it would be too costly O to upgrade the Hilo Landfill to meet environmental standards, this landfill will be closed.' Certain special wastes, because of bulk or toxicity, should not be disposed at landfills and therefore require special handling (e.g., automobiles, white good appliances, waste oil, lead acid batteries, tires, infectious medical waste).3 Source Analysis. Nearly half the waste received at the landfills are from residential sources-- either collected from transfer stations or hauled directly to the landfill by residents (see Figure 3-58). The quantity of waste from residential sources have continued to increase, while wastes from commercial and County sources declined in 1998 from the previous year. About half of the residential waste is recoverable (paper, green waste, wood, plastics, glass, metals).4 A more aggressive educational program, coupled with recycling and green waste facilities at the transfer stations, could significantly reduce the quantity that goes into the landfill. 1. Hawaii Revised Statutes Chapter 342G requires each county to develop an integrated solid waste management plan. "`Integrated solid waste management' means the use of a variety of waste management practices and processing methods to safely and effectively manage solid waste with the least adverse impact on human health and the environment." §342G-1. 2. See HRS chapter 342H (solid waste pollution) and Hawaii Administrative Rules chapter 11-58.1 for applicable requirements governing landfills. 3. The handling of these special wastes are often governed by special laws. See, for example, HRS Chapter 342I (lead acid batteries, used tires), Chapter 342J (hazardous waste), Chapter 342N (used oil), section 321-21 (infectious medical waste). Hawaii County Code chapter 20 also identifies special wastes that are prohibited or have special restrictions (e.g., vehicles, refrigerators, explosives, pesticides, radioactive, dead animals). 04. Rural Community Assistance Corporation (1996), Waste Composition Analysis. Prepared for the County of Hawaii, Department of Public Works. pp. 8-10. General Plan Infrastructure Assessment Study 3-113 Chapter 3: Facilities Needs Assessment The major sources of the commercial waste stream are private haulers (who collect from businesses, O residences, and apartments) and contractors (construction debris, clear/grub material) (see Figure 3- 59). Approximately 70% of the commercial waste stream is recoverable-- primarily paper, wood, and green waste.5 Private haulers could play a large role to increase the amount of recoverable materials if they would instruct their clientele to separate their wastes, develop an efficient method to collect the separated waste, and to dispose (and pay the tipping fee) on only the non-recoverable waste. The County (e.g., parks and road maintenance) should lead by example and divert their recoverable materials to green waste or recycling centers. Sludge presents a special challenge, and the County should continue to research and experiment with alternative composting possibilities. Landfill Capacity. If the Hilo Landfill is closed, the Puuanahulu Landfill has the capacity to accommodate the solid waste generated by the projected islandwide population to the year 2020 (see Table 3-19). Assuming the per capita waste production remains at its present rate of 5.5 lbs/capita/ day,6 the projected population of 231,700 persons by the year 2020 would fill Puuanahulu Landfill to approximately 89% of its design capacity of 300 acres. 3.13.2 Issues, Problems and/or Opportunities Hilo Landfill closure. The County will incur major capital costs to close the landfill. If no East Hawaii alternative is developed, then hauling to the Puuanahulu Landfill will become a major operational cost. Recovery opportunities. Because nearly half of the waste presently disposed is recoverable, significant hauling cost savings could be realized especially if the East Hawaii waste will be hauled to Puuanahutu. The life of the landfill would also be extended as the recovery proportion increases. 3.13.3 Suggested Policies O Promote diversion from landfills of recoverable materials. The County shall promote waste separation at homes and businesses through public education programs, and provide convenient waste -separated disposal options at each transfer station, including diversion of household hazardous wastes. Promote economic opportunities for diverted materials. The County shall utilize government procurement preferences, enterprise zones, demonstration programs and other means to encourage start-up businesses and stimulate a market for recoverable materials. Discourage illegal dumping. The County shall educate the public regarding laws against illegal dumping and strictly enforce such laws. The County shall also ensure that new developments are conveniently located near existing transfer stations or are mandated to provide privately paid collection service. 5. Ibid., p. 10-1.1. 6. The total tonnage received at the Hilo and Puunanahulu landfills during 1998 was 144,630 tons (Department of Public Works, Annual Tonnage Summary). The estimated population for 1998 was 143,135 persons O (Hawaii County Data Book, Table 1-1). 3-114 General Plan Infrastructure Assessment Study §3.13: Solid Waste O 3.13.4 Suggested Standards Design Standards • Guidelines to retrofit existing transfer stations to provide recycling and green waste facilities (to be developed) Level of Service Standards • Transfer station within 5 miles or provision of private pick-up service Performance Indicators • Percentage of transfer stations with recycling or green waste facilities. • Quantity of recovered materials (islandwide, tons per year). • Total landfilled wastes per capita. 3.13.5 Institutional Framework Functional plan: • Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan (Barret 199_) Governing laws: O • HRS Chapter 342G (Integrated Solid Waste Management) • HRS Chapter 342H (Solid Waste Pollution) • Hawaii Administrative Rules chapter 11-58.1 (these rules conform with the requirements of the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). • HCC Chapter 20 (Refuse) Responsible agencies: • State: Department of Health, Solid and Hazardous Waste Branch • County: Department of Public Works, Solid Waste Division Funding sources: • State grants in aid: Environmental Management Special Fund-- funded by a surcharge of 35 cents per ton of solid waste disposed at permitted solid waste disposal facilities.7 The State Department of Health may contract or directly transfer funds to the County for education, demonstration, or market development programs. • County: General obligation bonds authorized-- the County may issue general obligation bonds "to finance a facility for the processing and disposal of solid waste, or generation of electric energy, or both."' 7. HRS Chapter 342G, Part V. General Plan lnftastructure Assessment Study 3-115 Ckapter 3: Facilities Needs Assessment Solid Waste Fund-- all funds received from the collection of tipping fees shall be deposited in a O special fund known as the "solid waste fund". Eligible expenditures include operating, maintenance, and administration of the solid waste management, collection, and disposal systema 8. Hawaii Revised Statutes §46-19.1. 9. Hawaii County Code §20-48. 3-116 General Plan Infrastructure Assessment Study W J U 4 w F 0 N_ Z � J OW V r r r r N N r r r r N r l+J N r r r Z x U W N OP O GD h N f� m r1� cp (� M:: �. N �.. N r Ncr O O G to r CV r 0 O N r N O 4N r a 3 ai, cq Ui vi z = =' a' Ofa' 'a'`.a' Y � Y -z Ui 0 z- z vi' iij j w N � r U Z — 0 p r Y p 0 m p ro >> > U [tl = U '� m o n o 'm o 3 ro m m o m .m ?— m mN d .� 0 o L c . mm c rot d v m L .2 D V ? _o LL 2 S d S J d 2 Y d C7 > � h m L km F LL 3 OD C) r g e 8. 8 8 8 8 ol n $ jwA iad suol N ii E r U O F° o 6 7 Q rn qd U 3Fo� o � � G n $ o a � a o W a�vi a 'c� K apo W v UN Q ? N e V W m � >, o o o o m �—y E � c � j N o V U j E Q tom. m u 6E o X R a -- m � v o c � r cv a o Z a F- f � m 0 O N O -n N N 10 ' �(1 �O O N 10 Ul O N O1 �p m g N o o m m nom c%� o m m O n N u) O u) O N u) N OO m N N R n m' m p r O N S .�- fm0 Oni N M N m�a LL. (� N m m m Omi co .m- N N O n N Oml 10 O O u) m u) O O O O O O O u) N N Om) Y1 O N W O m m O) m Q Oi o pqj N 0q Lq 11 n is q cl m OR (7 < O) m N n N N n tD !O N N O Rcomm mR�mnrnrnc�mm N r O N u) lD m m m N m m RmMmmn.- monroo al r M� N O) f0 a W N 0) r n t7 M 1. V) F CJ m m .- O m N m O) R m O! m M 7 N m N a) rn m m u) n O n N m N N m N m m (D m m R W m O W N m m m �ssri{{ ui ui rn m m ni r� co of of n R t0 m N R n ccq N w clNt1i N M M N m c E p N m m C y m m m 2 E c ro t v m m E c o c m z H O m o U IL O y F u) p d U a (7 rU O U¢ U m U F O F° o 6 7 Q rn 3Fo� o � � G n $ o a o W a�vi a 'c� K apo N >, o o o o m j N o V yv ' QcA <u Q"2 E Q tom. 2 m 0 O N O -n N N 10 ' �(1 �O O N 10 Ul O N O1 �p m g N o o m m nom c%� o m m O n N u) O u) O N u) N OO m N N R n m' m p r O N S .�- fm0 Oni N M N m�a LL. (� N m m m Omi co .m- N N O n N Oml 10 O O u) m u) O O O O O O O u) N N Om) Y1 O N W O m m O) m Q Oi o pqj N 0q Lq 11 n is q cl m OR (7 < O) m N n N N n tD !O N N O Rcomm mR�mnrnrnc�mm N r O N u) lD m m m N m m RmMmmn.- monroo al r M� N O) f0 a W N 0) r n t7 M 1. V) F CJ m m .- O m N m O) R m O! m M 7 N m N a) rn m m u) n O n N m N N m N m m (D m m R W m O W N m m m �ssri{{ ui ui rn m m ni r� co of of n R t0 m N R n ccq N w clNt1i N M M N m c E p N m m C y m m m 2 E c ro t v m m E c o c m z H O m o U IL O y F u) p d U a (7 rU O U¢ U m U F 3.14 Eouca7ioN 3.14.1 Overview and Inventory Schools State's Role. Hawaii is unique among the 50 states in that centralized control of lower and higher education is vested in the State government. The Department of Education (DOE), under the administration of a single Board of Education and a single Superintendent, is responsible for all public K-12 instruction throughout the State. The University of Hawaii system (UH), under a single Board of Regents and a single President, provides all public higher education in the State through several campuses on all major islands. This State -level control and financing offers advantages to ensure equal access to quality education regardless of place of residence, whether urban or rural, rich or poor district, neighbor island or Honolulu. On the other hand, centralized control could also mean standardized mediocrity. The local community has an important role to play in determining the quality of education, and the County can play a key role in fostering this community commitment and participation. Community Support. Opportunities for community involvement in education include: school/ community-based management,l charter schools,'- establishment of after-school and weekend community -school activities at the public schools or public park facilities,3 school -to -work work - based learning programs to provide students opportunities to apply classroom skills to real life work experiences,4 establishment and use of public school facilities for adult and community education programs,5 donation of Pts,6 or voluntary assistance with classroom cleaning to allow funds to be spent on other priorities. There is a saying that it takes a village to educate a child. O Public vs. Private Schools. All children between the ages of six through eighteen must attend a public or private school, unless they have graduated or are otherwise excepted.$ Although Hawaii has one of the highest participation of any state in private education (approximately 16%),9 this prominence of private schools occurs primarily on Oahu. Hawaii County, typical of the neighbor islands, has a A school/community-based management system is a voluntary program open to all public schools in Hawaii. It requires the involvement of six key segments of a school's community: principals, teachers, support staff, parents, students, and other community members. To participate, a schooFfirst submits a Letter of Intent which is an expression of support from all segments of the school's community. Upon review and approval by the Superintendent, the school becomes a SCBM school. The school must then develop a Proposal to Implement, which outlines its vision for school management. Hawaii Revised Statutes §302A-1124 to -1125; www.hawaii.gov/scbm/s-cbm.html. 2. Charter schools are independent public schools designed and operated by educators, parents, community leaders, and others. The State monitors the quality and integrity, but allows them to operate free of the traditional bureaucracy. Hawaii Revised Statutes §§302A- 118 1 to -1188. 3. Hawaii Revised Statutes §302A-408 (the DOE and county agencies may operate after-school and weekend programs). 4. Hawaii Revised Statutes §302A-429 (school -to -work program authorized). 5. Hawaii Revised Statutes §302A-432 to -435 (adult and community education program 6. Hawaii Revised Statutes §302A-1122 (the board may receive and manage moneys or other real or personal O property), -1503 (the department may accept donations of school equipment or fixtures if the donation enhances the physical environment or safety of a school or is a benefit to learning). General Plan Infrastructure Assessment Study 3-119 Chapter 3: Facilities Needs Assessment participation rate of approximately 7%.10 Private schools play an important role in providing choice, O innovation, and competition to public schools. Nevertheless, residents in this County overwhelmingly rely on the public education system. Public Lower Education (K-12) Facilities. Children attend public schools in the school district in which they reside, unless they obtain a district exemption.' The DOE designates the school district boundaries.12 These districts also determine which grade schools feed into which middle and high schools (see Figure 3-60 and Figure 3-61). The standard school organization, consisting of elementary, middle, and high schools, exists primarily in urban areas. Multi-level schools (K-8, 7-12, K-12) serve rural areas. Studies of school size have shown clearly that smaller schools have better student attendance, satisfaction, and extracurricular participation than larger schools. Small classes (13 to 17) have substantial and lasting benefits for children in early grades, and have even greater benefits for disadvantaged children. 13 Hawaii has uncommonly large schools-- the average secondary school size is the second largest in the nation, 85% larger than the national average, and elementary schools are 30% larger than the national average. In 1997, the Board of Education adopted school size standards setting desired enrollment limits for new schools at 550 students for elementary schools, 600 students for middle schools, and 1,000 students for high schools.14 Of the 27 elementary schools in this County (including multi-level schools), less than half (48%) have a design enrollment that meet the standards (see Figure 3-62 and Table 3-20). Of the 16 secondary schools (including multi-level schools), only 3 (19%) meet the standards for middle or high schools (see Figure 3-63). Even if the design enrollment meets the standard, the actual 1999 and projected year 2000 enrollment exceed the design capacity for 4 of the schools. 15 Hawaii County has the third worst classroom shortage in the State, exceeded only by Leeward Oahu and Maui school districts. The shortage is worst at the secondary level than the elementary level (see Figure 3-64, Figure 3-65, and Table 3-21). However, with the construction of new schools in Keaau and Kealakehe, the areas that have experienced the highest growth will have the O facilities to accommodate the present and future enrollment (see Figure 3-66). Some of the areas presently experiencing classroom shortages (e.g., Hilo, Kau, Hamakua) are expected to have equal or declining enrollments by 2005, and therefore the current classroom shortages may dissipate. 7. Hawaii Revised Statutes §302A-1507 (school/community-based management schools may develop mechanisms for classroom cleaning such as having parent, student, or other community groups clean the classrooms on a regular continuing basis, provided that no full-time custodial staff currently employed at the school shall be displaced). 8. Hawaii Revised Statutes §302A-1132 (attendance compulsory; exceptions). 9. State of Hawaii Data Book 1998, Table 3.01. 10. Hawaii County Data Book 1998, Table 3.1. 11. Hawaii Revised Statutes §302A-1.143. 12. Hawaii Revised Statutes §302A-1142 (school districts). 13. W.J. Fowler and H.J. Walberg, "School Size, Characteristics, and Outcomes," Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 13, 2 (Summer 1991): 189-202; F. Mosteller, "The Tennessee Study of Class Size in the Early School Grades," The Future of Children, 5, 2 (Summer/Fall 1995): 113-127; both references cited in State of Hawaii Department of Education, The Superintendent's Ninth Annual Report on School Performance and Improvement in Hawaii: 1998, http://arch.kl2.hi.us/system/report/1998.html [hereinafter cited as Superintendent's Report]. 14. Hawaii Board of Education, School Size Standards, Policy No. 6701, approved March 20, 1997. O 3-120 General Pian Infrastructure Assessment Study $3.14: Education OHawaii County's schools' ancillary facilities-- cafeterias, libraries, and administrative facilities-- are substandard for all of the schools except the two newest schools (Kealakehe and Keaau High Schools) (see Table 3-21). The shortage of library and administrative space is most acute for schools in Hawaii and Maui districts. 16 Public Higher Education Facilities. The University of Hawaii at Hilo, a 4 -year university, is an intellectual, multi -cultural, and economic resource for the Big Island. The high-profile astronomy program is an example of the derivative benefits of the university's presence-- the employment opportunities, construction dollars, international exposure, and cosmopolitan influences to the local community.. UH Hilo is a part of Hawaii's system of higher education consisting of ten university and community colleges, an employment training center, and five education centers located on six islands. Besides the UH Hilo, the Big Island also has the Hawaii Community College and UH West Hawaii Educational Center. UH Hilo's focus is on liberal arts undergraduate education and a select group of high quality professional programs, including the development of select Master's level graduate programs.17 The quality of the university has been recognized-- the 1999 America's Best Colleges list in the U.S. News and World Report ranked UH Hilo third in west regional public liberal arts colleges. The UH Hilo campus consists of a 115 -acre campus, an adjoining 163 -acre University Park, and a 110 -acre University Agricultural Farm Laboratory located in Panaewa Agricultural Park. The focus of the Hawaii Community College is to improve basic communication and studying skills, to prepare those students intending to continue a 4 -year program with the first two years of liberal arts skills, and to provide vocational skills to meet the employment needs of the community. t8 The College offers various degrees and certificates in twenty liberal arts and vocational programs (e.g., accounting, agriculture, automotive repair and painting, carpentry, drafting, food service, nursing). O The College, established in 1941, began as the Hawaii Vocational School. The administration of the school was transferred from the Department of Education to the University of Hawaii in July 1969, and renamed the Hawaii Community College effective May 1970. From 1970 to 1990, the College was a part of UH Hilo. Effective from 1991, the College became a separate entity although it continues to share faculty offices, classrooms, and many facilities and services with UH Hilo. Libraries The Hawaii State Public Library System is comprised of 50 public libraries, with 13 on the Big Island, and is the only statewide system in the nation. 9 A bookmobile provides service to the rural areas. The Board of Education and a State Librarian appointed by the Board oversee the library system. 20 15. The rated capacity is calculated by multiplying the number of classrooms by the State's standard for class size. The current policy is target class sizes of 21 students for grades K through 2, and 26 students for higher grades. The target class size for special education is 12 students. Superintendent's Report, cited in footnote 13. 16. Superintendent's Report, cited in footnote 13, p. 15. 17. See UH Hilo website at www.uhh.edu. 18. See Hawaii Community College website at www.hawcc.hawaii.edu. 19. See Hawaii State Public Library System website at www.1cc.1awai1.edu/hspls. O20. Hawaii Revised Statutes chapter 312 (libraries). General Plan Infrastructure Assessment Study 3-121 Chapter3: Facilities Needs Assessment The Hawaii State Public Library Master Plan for 1991-2000 discourages joint community -school O library facilities. 21 On the Big Island, there are six joint facilities (see Figure 3-77). The Master Plan found that community libraries and schools were not compatible for the following reasons: the preferred site for a public library is a high -visibility, high -traffic location, whereas the ideal location for elementary schools are areas with light traffic; some libraries require going through school buildings; joint facilities rarely have space to expand; parking and handicap access are often inconvenient. The Master Plan recommended that the three joint facilities in Keaau (Mountain View, Keaau Elementary, Pahoa) be consolidated and replaced on a new site; build a separate facility in Waimea on a new site to replace Thelma Parker Memorial Library; and maintain only Laupahoehoe and Pahala as joint facilities (with renovations) due to their remote locations and small service population. The Master Plan recommended other capital improvements to all the libraries except the relatively new Kailua-Kona library (see Figure 3-78). 3.14.2 Issues, Problems and/or Opportunities Inadequate classroom and ancillary facilities. Compared statewide, the Hawaii School District has some of the most severe inadequacies along with Maui and Leeward Oahu. Need for enhanced community support of elementary and secondary schools. The community needs to make a commitment to assist and support the schools, especially those with relatively low school achievements based on SAT results. Opportunity for enhanced mutual relationship between County and university. The university and community college resources can be more optimally leveraged. Opportunity for libraries to serve a more active role in telecommunication access and civic participation. The Iibraries can be positioned to be a key resource to access the Internet, to keep the citizenry O informed, to solicit civic participation, to serve as a cultural exchange repository, and to function as a community gathering center. 3.14.3 Suggested Policies Optimum school sizes. The County shall coordinate with the Department of Education to reduce the size of existing oversized schools where possible (redistricting, new construction, or other means) and to require major new developments to provide sites for new schools when required to conform with the State's school size standards. Safe and reduced dependence on automobile for student travel. The County shall require new developments in the vicinity of schools to provide safe pedestrian facilities. Support and involvement of community. The County shall encourage community involvement and provide appropriate resources to support the schools and university system. Information -Age role of libraries. The County shall encourage the use of libraries to disseminate public information and encourage civic participation, and to site libraries or satellite facilities for convenient access to all age groups and disabilities. 21. Facility Technics/Hawaii. Hawaii State Public Library System Master Plan, April 1991, v. 2, p. 1.34. O 3-122 General Plan Infrastructure Assessment Study §3.14: Education O 3.14.4 Suggested Standards Design Standards Schools-- Department of Education, Educational Specifications and Standards for Facilities (September 1980) Libraries-- Library MasterPlan facilities guidelines 22 Level of Service Standards • School size 23 Elementary: 550 students (Minimum 8 acres, Desired 12 acres) Middle: 600 students (Minimum 12 acres, Desired 18 acres) High: 1,000 students (Minimum 35 acres, Desired 50 acres) • Classroom supply-- address shortage (as reported annually by DOE in the School Status and Improvement Report) within two years with priority to the worst cases • Community library within 10 miles (20 minutes drive) of a service area of at least 8,300 persons -- Libraries need to be at least 5,000 gross square feet to house a minimum of core facilities staffed by two full-time personnel. At 0.6 gross square footer capita, this minimum size can hold 15,000 volumes and serve a population of 8,300 persons. 4 Performance Indicators O Although the provision of public school and library facilities are the province of the State, the educational welfare of the children and residents in this County is of such importance that monitoring certain indicators would alert the County to respond with appropriate resources. • Student achievement (SAT Grade 5, 7, 9). The Stanford Achievement Test (SAT) is a commercially prepared test that is used to compare the performance of public school students on reading and mathematics to a national norm. The eighth edition of the SAT had been administered to students in grades 3, 6, 8, and 10 since 1991-92; it has been replaced by the ninth edition beginning in 1998-99 administered to grades 5, 7, and 9. For the Big Island schools, most of the schools performed close to the national norm for the 7th and 9th grade. The elementary schools diverged more drastically from the national norm (see Figure 3-67 through Figure 3-72). • Student/teacher ratio. This ratio is a measuring stick against the national average and comparable size states. In 1987-88, Hawaii ranked 48th among the 50 states. The rank improved to 35th by 1992-93, but has since declined to 40th in 1997-98. Hawaii's average in 1997-98 was 17.9, while the national average was 16.8_ The student/teacher ratio is not a measure of class size. Class sizes can be considerably larger than the overall student/teacher ratio for two reasons: in secondary schools, teachers usually teach six out of a seven period day (one period for preparation); and mandated smaller classes in some areas (e.g., special education) necessitate larger classes in others. 22. Facility Technics/Hawaii, cited in footnote 21, v. 2, chapter 6. 23. School size in terms of student enrollment is from the DOE policy cited in footnote 14. Land area requirements are from DOE (personal communication with the County of Hawaii Planning Department) and corroborated in R.M. Towill, Maui Public Facilities Assessment, prepared for the County of Maui Department of Planning, August 17, 1992, p. 3-6. O24. Facility Technics/Hawaii, cited in footnote 21, v. 1, p. 28. General Plan Infrastructure Assessment Study 3-123 Chapter 3_ Facilities Needs Assessment Special needs. Three student subpopulations are of special concern: students from disadvantaged O economic circumstances (receive school lunch subsidies) tend to start behind their peers in academic development; students with limited English proficiency; and students who need special education services. All three groups are growing rapidly, which means the task facing public schools is becoming more difficult and more costly. For the Big Island schools, the proportion of students receiving lunch subsidies ranges from 25% to 87% (see Figure 3-73, Figure 3-74, and Table 3-22). • Mean absences. Schooling requires time devoted to acquiring the skills and attitudes required for life in modern society. Students in seven Big Island schools missed, on average, three weeks (15 days) of school in 1.998-99 (see Table 3-22). • Graduation rate. To graduate from a public high school in Hawaii, students must accumulate 22 high school credits (including specific requirements in English, mathematics, science, and social studies) and pass a written competency test. Non -graduates include those who have completed all requirements except the competency test (awarded a certificate of completion), and non-eompletors. While the non -graduation rate has been holding steady statewide, the Big Island high schools experienced an unexplained jump in 1998-99 (see Figure 3-75), with particular high schools exceeding the statewide rate (i.e., Konawaena, Pahoa, and Hilo High Schools) (see Figure 3-76). These graduation statistics account for only those students who were seniors at the beginning of the academic year or became seniors during that year. To fully account for the graduation rate, the dropout rate (students who start 9th grade but do not continue to the 12th grade) needs to be determined. The DOE estimated the dropout rate for the Class of `98 to range from 8.5% to 17.2%.25 Even at the lower estimate, the overall statewide graduation rate is only 81.2% (8.5% + 10.3% non -graduation rate), far below the national and State goal of a 90% graduation rate. • Implementation of Library master plan improvement recommendations. Progress in implementing the master plan recommendations are as follows: O Facility Recommendation Status Keeau/Mt View/Pahoa consolidate and replace no action Hilo renovate completed Laupahoehoe renovate no action Honokaa replace no action Bond replace design Thelma Parker replace no action Holualoa/Keatakekua consolidate and replace no action Kailua-Kona no action n/a Pahala renovate no action Naalehua replace no action 3.14.5 Institutional Framework Functional, Facility, or Master Plans: • Superintendent's Annual Report on School Performance and Improvement in Hawaii • School Status and Improvement Report (annual by school) • University of Hawaii at Hilo Long -Range Development Plan • Hawaii State Public Library System Master Plan 25. Superintendent's Report, cited in footnote 13, p. 22. O 3-124 General Plan Infrastructure Assessment Study 513.1.1: Education Governing laws: • Hawaii Revised Statutes chapter 302A (Education) • Hawaii Revised Statutes chapter 304 (University of Hawaii) • Hawaii Revised Statutes chapter 305 (Community Colleges) Responsible agencies: • State: Department of Education Board of Education University of Hawaii Board of Regents Funding sources: • State general revenues and general obligation bonds General flan Infrastructure Assessment Study 3-125 M N V N CNY tO V N OND m N (NO a tND V N !WO n uNj N n NW W m O a m V W Q N V N W � Cl � � � N (N'f � � O N Oa0 OOi N N a (NO th0 d' N � n � r ��" � tMO ONi n O dN• Ot V W a N V -N: N: � � D D y NJig W r M N M r a{ V N r N N M N M O V N N W N N N V tN0 (NO W^ N r N N O N M h h N N N M M N V N M t0 N N N W N d' tD N d' N t° h N h h W N ° c0O NN N O O O a C N W NW (�.h ( N� 1� f�.0 N N N.N ao' N N m aW0 N O h r r tN00 n t°ip T N ONi m N Y m N m d N N O N N�, ZJ' O;NON0,O OO O�00000000C]000000000 0•.00000000000 W �.. Q Z <; h N N' Q N W d'. O W O N' I� •try N W N- N O W N W h.' N M O O). M O N N N N N t0 V M O <O o„ i a` rzrz•razzr19 zrzzazzvs.5 cjc c `c;c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c m.m,:m.m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m..� v a v v C J m m m m aEi m aEi m m m m m m aEi m m m aEi m m m aEi v ;m a v v w rn m a 0>>>>.->> (0 m d d m m m. m m m m m m m d m m m at m d m E E E E E t t :c t t E E E E E E E E c m m ro m ro ro o m o o m m m o m m ro ro ro x ' r O O O C C O O C O L O O L O C C O O C C O O L O y a ._ ._ :_ o o m o o ._ :_ o o ._ m o o n m ._ ._ o- 0 0 0 ._ m o o ._ E ._ o ._ ro m o D 2 2 S Y Y. Y Y x 2 Y 2 c Y Y ,cJ x 2 Y 2 J Y Y x S? Y Y 2 2 ttpp Y x Y to N UI Z N x fn Z y y d Z to d Z V1 D_ Y a 0) (n N y D_ Z (n 6 N d Z (n N x i Y Z Z 2 d tfJ a c w m W v E m W a3i m aci c c W S LW_ rn m m w E n y w EW roy mc> 2lu mL c- rnL cS2�mmm rnw t7, m o o o E m c w m m o W m� J w, o o m m m m rn x m m ami y m x t o x m o f to n T p O O T v v T v J ro m m O L C �a tLLtyy 'm ro ro m O m m N O m O ro ro O J N m m ~ r v v v v v 5 n Z T Y Y Y= Y Y Y �i x Y Y Y3 d d %ju.pg8 ON v a 8 %U-PD1S'oN ! � \ u / \ k_{(\�\{�{{{{�� 7 \ § $,■#!)!i§�))�� A ! � \ u / .,.,>..e>v. C""lL'"wt ��"�...§4. Si •�� _si st.«.v r.,.il�isae� � .R .,.ai.i...{I. «kSl[.�. o:'� E(.v l 1 .d V} •: S � , fi' ji'-'"'S .. '�'- 'h 4� • 7Z aG � .i F 1 } � 1 - �vw. m4. U 0 ..1...,a.�m,,...:.:e�.,. OOi 27-1 OD N ._a'4_ I"`M�''t"".ele...s .1 10�` 8 `k w3 �4».... yM=1 EURT0,; .� t N "�1 � y,•.'S9r» rN —^.r ��--^"dr �s re � 3 �"°""F ," � { s'"t°�` ,�N+i _ Y0 0 Y �. 3 2 L L a6 L L L L c'o C E r o r o J G J O O Ri O O O O N a(nZ2ZtAZ(nY Rl m eau.pnag �ory d o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a o O au tO a C('� 0 r� N U 0 (O O a t9 OND kc N OOi N OD N � mon n cnMman tO omcornnrno mug O) N Co M O t C C F _ Y0 0 Y �. 3 2 L L a6 L L L L c'o C E r o r o J G J O O Ri O O O O N a(nZ2ZtAZ(nY t_ U. q 0 it Yi" m ,, s-:v'm�(" r2--'�- "{���i rte^ i� • O t t O t t_ U. �,:LL�f. it Yi" m ,, s-:v'm�(" r2--'�- "{���i rte^ i� • ; k ,Pi x� k t 1301 L _ ❑ ■ t Ela - Qa �ma m .{ �ia.........4d.x�#-. ; �¢ 1301 .?i i��L+x.a �:: �A.. aa3... ❑ ■ t Ela - A�fL..Ltf -. 3� ..�3....✓��v.�.u'a�.s.._ ....�._.....��k i Qa �ma m ; �¢ 1301 ❑ ■ t Ela 9 d N Z 7i CL N 1h V1. y�m _ r MN7N rrr w rr�� m qof rl r rrr m r m m un rrrr.-r mr t20 m N n7mmnvmrn ofTc2^ rrr of ,-Morn rm;C N a lc�n.- Q a d ry N m m m r rn m N N N 6 W m m m d Ol m M 6 O N m O � m m t` O 6 N M N O m F: m 6 m r 1� O m r M m m M r Ui r-: m 1 M uN a f` r m N N m P� n m V W W -gym o o m m eq o N r 0 o N m a o V �O 0 0 N h 0 0 m N 0 M m N Ol °m ip Ol f0 W m r Ol O m r O r m �y �(°p in n l7 J o O A cV V m C) w1� Ol N a7 O aJ a7 tp N try d' (p 1V N b Cl c0 IA Z W O F N N N n [i0i N N 0 N 10+1 N N m (O N CT m O^ Z J c o `I c 0 0 c U .:0 a W m N 0 N m m m w O m n m N i0 N N O P m 1� N N m m m 16 tl tD :6 d' m N M m, m N m m N m Ol M mi t0 V m m ip r W Im m m M O m m N N N r V .rn R r N t7 O m m M O O M a r .1 .. .:0 N m M n n [�'1 m M (O t0-, N �. a^0 mnD O�1 .�- W N r N m cmcl N W^ 10+1 N a y. Z N } 4 o 0 0 o o °• , olmmclNrmomn e o o- o e r a 71oO to ulmrmv fnm n' 000mm�nm°rn m' miOcl w a�"�lm ul ul cmo �,n l�r�n uN,lnrou°liv m a aov �(6 o.Yo vvl ao iv o°o\ia a6 6anonL6 NOo, wrocN - H N r n m O CIl N O N m M O N O m t� �I1 N 1� m c7 O N r NO N c0 fD 10 O W O t7 N Nr m N^ m m h .3 m N c9 m N N m W N c7 V O- m cD 17 f� 1+1 N m N �I' N 0 N r O a m r N P1 n m Z Z. J .. uj _ W m m m ill m m m m N N m m TIT m m N N �O m m m m m rl N N m .N- m m N m m m Y 1� m m, m m m m m« i > > > > > > cmmmrommmmEmm JEE m aEi m oEi m aEi m m m a v a v v .. ... ..>>>>m m m E E E E E E E E E E E ro ro ro m ro ro ro _V m o m o m o` m o m o o o m o ro E ro ' L dJ 2 2 2 Y� Y 2 2 c Y S Y Y ro ro° c c 2 2 Y 2 m c Y Y S ro 2 c Y Y= Y E Y S� Y 2 E c Y CO Cni(O xzuiniaz( a'Zc6l a'UjU)1 UjCEZC CO Vi a'Zui0(iiViv Ye 2 Y a'ui m W L Z p m E w E m E W m m m m c� m L Lo, ._ == rn rQ C w O1 � 2 « C S E m O C W - m m ro x m e} m W 3 _ _rn m m L m W i O ca m 1a C W Y L O W m C W m m Y Y m C L m m Y L 2 L m Y ro m Y ro ro C C L 2 0 N o O ro m m? s>; o m� E m 5 c m m m c o m_ m_ y C J m o m_ 2 m« 3 m m m Y o c d L a m'S o f \\ m m o _ ° ami m a `a o o o «mm qc�� o' m m mt° 1 0 2 S 2 S Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y a 3 2 Y Y Y 2 Y Y Y 2 2 2 Y Y Y Z d a 3 i m $ 0 T_. n N N N O O)'O.0 Dl O (� O � S � I S a m i p W N m 0 m m m d C c 0 m 0 o m 0 0 0 0 o m o -1. Z U Z Z� Z Z U Z �I F I I ml wl ml ml c (1 m= =oo�a.9 x x Y Y Y m a 3 ®�00�f3■D C4 ryaaed m 7uaa,ed CIP PROCESS The construction, maintenance, upgrading, and replacement of infrastructure is primarily financed through the capital improvements program (CIP). This chapter clarifies what a CIP is, describes the existing process, and suggests a process to strengthen the link between capital budgeting and planning. 4.1 CIP DEFINED The CIP is a multi-year schedule of improvements-- it sets forth what improvements will be funded, when each will be funded, and how much each will cost. In this County, the Charter requires a six- year CIP program.' The first year of the CIP is the capital improvements budget for the upcoming O fiscal year, which is adopted by ordinance. The ensuing five years is a projection of projects and costs for informational purposes only. The adopted capital budget for the upcoming fiscal year is just the tip of an iceberg. Floating below the surface is the list of ongoing capital projects appropriated in previous capital budgets. Each capital budget adds new projects to this list of ongoing projects that are cumulatively tracked through the capital projects funds accounts. Upon completion, which could take years, the project then usually converts to a "fixed asset." The CIP should only include major projects; recurring repair and maintenance or smaller projects may be more appropriately included in the operating budget. The distinction between a capital and operating expenditure may not be clear in practice. For example, a repair or maintenance expense may be classified as either an operational or capital expense depending on the purpose and magnitude of the costs. An operational appropriation lapses at the end of the fiscal year to the extent it has not been expended or encumbered. An unencumbered capital appropriation lapses at the end of three years.2 This County does not currently have a policy to distinguish a capital project from an operational expenditure. To ensure consistency and uniform application, policy guidelines are advisable. As an 1. Hawaii County Charter, article X (financial procedures). 2. Hawaii County Charter §10-10. Capital appropriations lapse at the end of the second fiscal year following the year in which they are appropriated. A capital project, therefore, has three years to lapse. For example, a project included in the FY 2000-01 capital budget may have funds allotted during 2000-01, 2001-02, or by the O end of 2002-03 before it lapses. General Plan Infrastructure Assessment Study 4-1 Chapter 4: CIP Process Oexample of such policies, other jurisdictions have defined a capital project as a major nonrecurring expenditure that includes one or more of the following:3 • any acquisition of land for a public purpose; • any construction of a new facility, or addition to a facility; • a nonrecurring rehabilitation or major repair (i.e., not considered annual or other recurrent maintenance), provided that the cost is $25,000 or more and the improvement will have a useful life of 10 years or more; • purchase of major equipment (i.e., items with a cost, individually or in total, of $25,000 or more with a useful life of five years or more); • any planning, feasibility, engineering, or design study related to individual capital improvement projects or to a program that is implemented through individual capital improvement projects. 4.2 EXISTING CIP PROCESS The Charter sets forth the procedure for the preparation and approval of the CIP:4 1 The various departments and agencies submit project requests and cost estimates to the Mayor. The Planning Director also reviews the lists and recommends priorities. 2 The Mayor reviews the lists and estimates in preparing the CIP. 3 By March .l, the Mayor submits the CIP to the Council together with a message explaining each project proposed in the capital budget, estimated cost, and proposed method of financing. O 4 By May _S, the Mayor may submit amendments (adjustments may be necessary depending on actions taken by the state legislature) together with a message which describes the changes and the circumstances which justify the changes. 5 On or before June 30, the Council shall adopt the capital budget. The adopted capital budget appropriates funds for particular projects. The Finance Department sets up an account for each appropriated project. When the agency responsible to implement the project requests the Mayor to allot the funds, the Planning and Finance Departments verify the appropriating ordinance, availability of funds, and account balances. Once allotted, the agency may proceed to encumber (execute contracts, issue purchase orders, or other commitments) and expend the funds. Some pitfalls with the existing system are: • The priority criteria to select projects are not clearly set forth. • The cumulative appropriated amount is not related to a prudent debt strategy to fund these projects. • Although the CIP is intended to provide a comprehensive assessment of the County's capital improvements, it is in fact limited by funding source. Fuel tax expenditures are covered by a separate ordinance. Not all federally funded projects are included in the capital budget (e.g., Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), Economic Development Administration (EDA)). Water projects funded by the revenues of the autonomous Water Commission are not reviewed by the Council. The relationship to the State's CIP is vague. 3. Bowyer, R. Capital Improvements Programs: Linking Budgeting and Planning. American Planning Association, Planning Advisory Service Report No. 442, 1993, p. 14. O4. Hawaii County Charter § 10-2. 4-2 General Plan Infrastructure Assessment Study §4.3: Proposed CIP Process • There is no overall map that accompanies the CIP to analyze the geographical distribution of capital O funds, as well as to understand the relationship among the CIP projects appropriated in the current year, the planned CIP for the 6 -year CIP program, and the existing projects on the books. 4.3 PROPOSED CIP PROCESS 4.3.1 CIP Objectives An effective CIP allows the County to proactively shape its future consistent with the General Plan and get the most "bang for the buck" through close coordination of projects and leveraging multiple funding sources. More particularly, the objectives of the proposed CIP process include: • Rational justification of projects. w Prioritize projects based on explicit criteria; Closely link capital budgeting and General Plan policies through an annual benchmark performance report process; Develop a process to ensure systematic repair and maintenance of facilities at an acceptable level of quality. • Fiscally prudent budgeting. Establish a maximum proportion of the operating budget to be reserved for capital spending (cash outlays and debt service); Develop a debt strategy to maintain a relatively even level of debt by planning new borrowing for capital improvements as debt service on existing borrowing is paid down; O • Coordination to optimize resources. Coordinate projects intergovernmentally (State and Federal projects with County projects) and interdepartmentally; Leverage multiple sources of funding; • Efficient information base and tracking system. Geographically analyze proposed projects to identify and coordinate potential linked projects (e.g., waterline and road project), to evaluate cumulative growth impacts, and to evaluate equitable distribution of services; Monitor project status through quarterly reports. 4.3.2 Priority Criteria CIP projects serve different constituencies and require reconciliation of conflicting community values. Acknowledging that no "scientific" method can reconcile values, or that "politics" will often trump other criteria, a structured selection process with explicit criteria would hopefully focus or raise the level of debate. The suggested process involves three steps:5 1 Agencies would propose and prioritize projects based on the following criteria: 5. Adapted from Bowyer, 1993, cited in footnote 3. O General Plan Infrastructure Assessment Study 4-3 Charler 4• CIP Process OPublic safety and health. 1) To protect against a clear and immediate risk to public safety or health; 2) core services that are essential, necessary, or desirable to protect the public safety and health. Legal mandate. Mandate imposed by others (e.g., court order, federal or state law). Quality of life. Implements General Plan policies related to recreation, culture, education, environment, and other aspects that enhance this County as a desirable place to live or visit; Promotes growth policies. Implements General Plan policies related to infill promotion, rural growth management, economic development, and overall infrastructure operational efficiency. Deteriorated facility or equipment. 1) Reconstruction or extensive rehabilitation to extend its useful life to avoid or to postpone replacement with a new and more costly one; or 2) replacement of the facility or equipment with a new one. Improvement of operating efficiency. An investment that substantially and significantly improves the operating efficiency of a department. Coordination. Intergovernmental or interdepartmental coordination with another CIP project (e.g., scheduling water project with road reconstruction to avoid digging up street after road project completed); Equitable provision of services. 1) Serves the special needs of a segment of the population identified by public policy as deserving of special attention (e.g., disabled, elderly, low-income); or 2) equalizes services available to districts that are now underserved in comparison with other districts or level of service standard. Federal/State match. A project that meets one of the above criteria may receive a higher priority to take advantage of available funds from other sources. O2 The CIP committee6 would evaluate the project requests from the various agencies and rank them into priority groups taking into consideration the priority criteria, project's objectives, department's priority, assessment of urgency, and risks of deferring. The priority groups are: Group A. Urgent, high-priority essential projects that should be done if at all possible; special effort should be made to find sufficient funding for all projects in this group; Group B. High-priority essential projects that should be done as funding becomes available; Group C. Worthwhile necessary projects to be considered if funding is available; may be deferred to a subsequent year; Group D. Low -priority projects; desirable but not essential or necessary. 3 The Planning and Finance Directors would make recommendations to the Managing Director based on an assessment of available funds. The decision choices for each project include: Accept. Include the project in the CIP in the amount and year requested. Defer. Defer a project until a later year than requested; Link. Change the year that a project is requested to coordinate with other projects; . Reduce. Include the project in the CIP but allocate less than requested; Condition. Include the project in the CIP but change the funding source which makes allotment conditional on obtaining the identified source; Group. Group projects by proposed bond issues and schedule accordingly; 6. The concept of a CIP Committee is discussed in section 4.3.7 "Role of the CIP Committee" on page 4-17. 4-4 General Plan Infrastructure Assessment Study §4.3: Proposed CIP Process Reject. Recognize that the project is not likely to be funded in the foreseeable future and inform O the advocates accordingly; Reevaluate policies. Reevaluate the fiscal assumptions or selection criteria and perhaps revise the policies accordingly. 4.3.3 Fiscal Policies The CIP should be prepared based on clear assumptions as to the funding source. The choices for funding sources are basically cash vs. debt financing and general vs. special revenue sources. Cash vs. Debt Financing. Using current revenues to finance capital improvements is commonly referred to as the pay-as-you-go approach. The use of long-term debt financing is commonly referred to as .the pay -as -you -use approach. Pay-as-you-go means that the local government allocates a significant portion of operating revenues each year to a capital reserve fund. The monies in this fund would be used for annual capital expenditures or saved until they were sufficient for large projects. This approach saves interest charges that would have been incurred by floating bonds. However, this approach causes large projects to be delayed until adequate funding has been accumulated, and ties up funds that could have been used for more urgent needs. Moreover, for long-lasting facilities, current taxpayers will incur the burden to finance the project while future generations reap the benefits. Ideally, the pay -as -you -use approach arranges the retirement of debt to coincide with the depreciation of the project. By stretching the payments over the life of the project, each generation using the facility pays it share of the improvements. In short, cash outlays should be reserved for projects that have a short life. Long-term debt should be matched to the anticipated life of the projects. If debt O service is paid beyond the life of a project, the taxpayers are paying for a facility for which they no longer benefit. As a practical matter, this County has not had the luxury to setaside a significant portion of current revenues for capital improvements and instead has had to heavily rely on long-term debt financing to fund capital improvements-- a nationwide trend as federal grants-in-aid to local governments have been substantially reduced over the years. In comparison to the other counties in Hawaii, Honolulu and this County rely almost entirely on debt to finance capital improvements; Maui balances debt financing and cash outlays; and Kauai follows more of a pay-as-you-go cash outlay approach (see Figure 4-1). General vs. Special Funding Sources. While the cash vs. debt question addresses intergenerational equity, the general vs. special revenue source question addresses geographical equity by attempting to place the burden of payment on the persons benefitting from the improvements. The types of general funding sources include 1) general obligation bonds where debt service payments come from general taxation and 2) cash outlays paid out of the general fund. Special revenue sources include 1) revenue bonds where the debt service is paid from the revenues generated by the facility (e.g., water service improvements), 2) user charges where users pay to use a facility (e.g., sewerage fees, swimming pool fees), 3) special taxes such as the fuel tax where the funds generated are restricted to a special purpose (e.g., road construction and maintenance), and 4) special assessments to pay the debt service on improvement district bonds for improvements benefitting a specific area. General Plan Infrastructure Assessment Study 4-5 .?..d. aim*�'�.,.. �o��-�'�'s'�':.'�.o-€ x�"u.� r` ��',v�"'"sn �`v..�,a�°"'': '' :�'.�,�';�'.�^,..� { ^'' i�:z:���41��.�Y�a�'�' x ,�. �* i �""„�',z��.T�`azT,`✓"�.+.',�,".�»,��'�.� Silo ME a r ME im lMl a ON O a. Figure 41 County Government §4.3: Proposed CIP Process Percentage Distribution By Counties FY968 5'4.3: Proposed CIP Process General funding sources are appropriate wen: O • the benefits of a project accrue to the community as a whole; • it is impossible to measure the precise amount of benefits accruing to particular individuals; or • it is impossible to exclude anyone from using or enjoying services provided. Debt Financing Plan. Accepting the reality that this County must primarily rely on debt financing for capital improvements projects, the capital budget should be based on how much debt this County can afford. The debt service amount must be within a reasonable proportion of the operating budget to leave sufficient revenues to meet other operational needs, and within the limits to maintain the County's credit rating. Historically, Hawaii County's total debt service percentage of general expenditures has been just under 10% (see Figure 4-2). Future borrowing capacity should be estimated based on forecasted revenues and operating expenditures. Revenue forecasts based on past trends should distinguish the effects of economic growth from past changes in the tax rates. Expenditure forecasts should factor in major expected changes such as for employee compensation and benefit plans.$ Table 4-1is an illustration of how new borrowing capacity could be estimated. The example first determines the amount available for additional debt service based on a prudent debt service limit (say 10%) of projected operating revenues. The example then projects gross funds after projected operating expenditures and existing debt service. The amount available for additional debt services is the lesser of 10% of projected operating revenues or gross funds after projected operating expenditures (plus existing debt service). The amount calculated for new borrowing is the amount that could be borrowed in that year if there had been no new borrowing in the preceding years. "What if' analyses can be performed by adding the debt service of hypothetical new borrowings in Lines 3 and 8 and O recalculating the available amounts for additional debt service. Table 4-1. Projecting the Amount of New Borrowing (Example)' 2002 1 I Projected operating revenues 158,900 1 162,100 1 165,300 1 168,600 1 172,000 1 175,400 1 2 10% prudent limit for debt service 15,890 16,210 16.530 1 16.860 1 17.200 1 17.5401 4(Potential available for additional debt service 1 2,567 1 2,923 1 3,270 1 3,634 1 4,445 1 4,785 1 5 Projected operating revenues 158,900 162,100 165,300 1687600 172,000 175,400 6 Less projected operating expenditures (144,000) (146,900) (149,800) (152,800) 1551900) (159,000) 7 Gross cash flow from operations ____14,900 15,200 15,500 15,800 16,100 16,400 8 Debt service on existing obligations (13,323 13,287 (13,260) 13,226 _(12,7551 12,755) 9 Gross funds after debt service 1,577 1,913 2,240 2,574 3,345 3,645 1 10 ]Total amount available for debt service (lesser of Line 4 or Line 9) 1 1.577 1 1.913 1 2.240 1 2.574 1 3.345 1 3 645 1 L lroienuai new Dorrowmg (zu yrs, b -/o) I 18,uyz 1 21,93/ 1 25,688 1 29,527 1 38,370 1 41.807 1 a. Adapted from Aronson and Schwarts (1996), cited in footnote 7, with assistance from Dixie Kaetsu, Finance Director, County of Hawaii. 7. Aronson, J. and E. Schwartz. Management Policies in Local Government Finance (4th Ed_). Washington, D.C.: International City/County Management Association, 1996, p. 451. 8. For a more in depth discussion on revenue and expenditure forecast methodology, see Aronson and Schwartz O (1996) cited in footnote 7, pp. 442-445, chapter 5 (Forecasting Revenues and Expenditures). General Plan Infrastructure Assessment Study 4.9 r� i► • rr w �r et { C i d C\t C\! C i §4.3 Proposed CIP Process The projected debt service should be evaluated for its impact on the credit worthiness of the County. O The credit quality of the County is one of the most important determinants of the interest rate the County will pay on bonds it issues. Since general obligation bonds are backed by the full faith and credit of the County, the following are some indicators used by credit raters to evaluate the debt burden of an issuer: • Debt to assessed property values: overall net debt'() less than 10% of assessed value • Debt per capita: overall net debt less than $1,200 per capita • Debt to personal income: overall net debt less than 15% of per capita personal income • Debt to estimated revenues: overall net debt less than 20% of revenues This County has maintained excellent credit ratings with its past debt practices. Table 4-2 compares this County with the other counties in Hawaii. Table 4-2. Debt Burden Indicators-- Comparison by Counties FY96 Source: Tax Foundation of Hawaii, Government in Hawaii 1997, p. 66; Hawaii County Data Book 1998 (resident population, per capita personal income) Balancing Appropriations to Funds Available. As of April 30, 2000, the active capital improvement O projects have appropriations totaling $324,389,005. I Committed funding sources (i.e., allotments) are available in the amount of $201,381,357. Therefore, approximately $123,000,000 in appropriations have no committed funding source. At its current status, the capital budget is merely a "wish list." The following remedial steps seem necessary to trim the appropriations to a level that more realistically reflects prudent borrowing capacity and other funding source projections: 1 Develop a debt financing plan to schedule bond issues. 2 Prioritize the unallotted projects. 3 Allow the low -priority projects to lapse. 4 During this remedial period, only high-priority projects would be re -appropriated as necessary and few new projects would be added. 5 Continue this lapsing strategy until the unfunded appropriations approach the target borrowing amount, together with other projected funding sources, and issue a bond accordingly. 6 To keep the appropriations in balance with projected funding sources, the Capital Projects Fund Balance should differentiate the amount reserved for allotted projects from the amount unreserved for any project. Laudably, the County does make this distinction. For example, although the 9. Aronson and Schwartz (1996) cited in footnote 7, p. 333. 10. "Overall net debt" includes "direct net debt" plus overlapping debt of other issuers that is supported by taxes levied in the issuer's jurisdiction. "Direct net debt" means gross outstanding debt less sinking funds and reserve accounts dedicated to repayment of the debt. Aronson and Schwartz (1996) cited in footnote 7, p. 333. 11. Monthly Capital Projects Status Report prepared by the County of Hawaii Finance Department. O General Plan Infrastructure Assessment Study 4-13 Hawaii Honolulu Maui Kauai Gross County Debt $ 177,171,000 $ 1,627,171,000 $ 211,520,000 $ 48,188,000 FY96 Assessed Properly Values $ 10,611,589,000 $ 85,753,264,000 $13,606,957,000 $ 5,247,005,000 Debt % Assessed Property Values 1.67% 1.90% 1.55%1 0.92% 1996 Resident Population 139,672 869,343 117,254 56,592 Debt/Capita $ 1,268 $ 1,872 $ 1,804 $ 851 1996 Per Capita Personal Income $ 18,825 $ 26,681 $ 22,431 $ 21,941 Per Capita Debt % Per Capita Personal Income 1 6.74%1 7.02% 8.04% 3.88% Source: Tax Foundation of Hawaii, Government in Hawaii 1997, p. 66; Hawaii County Data Book 1998 (resident population, per capita personal income) Balancing Appropriations to Funds Available. As of April 30, 2000, the active capital improvement O projects have appropriations totaling $324,389,005. I Committed funding sources (i.e., allotments) are available in the amount of $201,381,357. Therefore, approximately $123,000,000 in appropriations have no committed funding source. At its current status, the capital budget is merely a "wish list." The following remedial steps seem necessary to trim the appropriations to a level that more realistically reflects prudent borrowing capacity and other funding source projections: 1 Develop a debt financing plan to schedule bond issues. 2 Prioritize the unallotted projects. 3 Allow the low -priority projects to lapse. 4 During this remedial period, only high-priority projects would be re -appropriated as necessary and few new projects would be added. 5 Continue this lapsing strategy until the unfunded appropriations approach the target borrowing amount, together with other projected funding sources, and issue a bond accordingly. 6 To keep the appropriations in balance with projected funding sources, the Capital Projects Fund Balance should differentiate the amount reserved for allotted projects from the amount unreserved for any project. Laudably, the County does make this distinction. For example, although the 9. Aronson and Schwartz (1996) cited in footnote 7, p. 333. 10. "Overall net debt" includes "direct net debt" plus overlapping debt of other issuers that is supported by taxes levied in the issuer's jurisdiction. "Direct net debt" means gross outstanding debt less sinking funds and reserve accounts dedicated to repayment of the debt. Aronson and Schwartz (1996) cited in footnote 7, p. 333. 11. Monthly Capital Projects Status Report prepared by the County of Hawaii Finance Department. O General Plan Infrastructure Assessment Study 4-13 Chapter 4: CIP Process O Capital Projects Fund balance at June 30, 1999 was $25,665,179, the discretionary portion of that balance not committed to any project was only $4,783,168.1'` Most of the fund balance was already committed to allotted projects or designated for certain types of projects that tapped restricted funding sources (e.g., highway repair projects funded by the fuel tax). If the Capital Budget is based on the total Capital Projects Fund Balance rather than just the discretionary portion, a snowballing of overappropriations results since the committed portion of the fund balance would be mistakenly assumed to be available for new projects (or reappropriations). 4.3.4 CIP and Facility Inventory Database To facilitate CIP decisionmaking and asset management of all built facilities, this section proposes a GIS database to track a project from proposal to implementation to maintenance. The location of the proposed projects and facilities would be mapped to easily visualize the projects in relation to each other and provide pertinent information by clicking on the map location. The GIS could also perform other analyses such as service area delineation, population served within the service area, or district comparisons. The GIS database could be developed in the following steps: Existing Facilities Inventory. A facility number would be assigned to each facility in the County's general fixed assets account group. There would be separate but linked inventories for land, buildings, and equipment. Facility managers would develop a worksheet format that would be used to collect information pertinent for building/equipment repair, maintenance, and/or replacement (e.g., year of construction/acquisition, useful life, repair/replacement schedule, maintenance record). O 2 CIP Database. During a project's initial proposal and work -in -progress phases, the project is part of the CIP database. Once constructed, a project then becomes part of the facilities inventory. Each agency would assign a project number to any new project they propose. A project number coding system could be developed that would identify whether it is a State or County CIP project, the proposing agency, program area, district, and a unique identification number. For a multi -phased project (i.e., involves separate appropriations for planning, acquisition, design, or construction), the project number would remain the same throughout each appropriating budget. In that way, the progress of the project through multiple funding years can be tracked by looking up the project number. An appropriation request form would be prepared for each project (see Figure 4-3). Accounting Link. Links to accounting reports could provide project status information on funding source, lapsing date, allotment amounts, expenditures to date, and other information. The Finance Department assigns separate account numbers to the same project to track different appropriations (and thus different lapsing dates) and/or multiple funding sources for the same project. By cross- referencing the account numbers to the project or facility number, the project/facility number could be the common field to link the CIP Database or Facility Inventory to the accounting information. 12. County of Hawaii, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Fiscal Year July 1, 1998 to June 30, 1999 0 (hereinafter cited as "Financial Report", p. 97. 4-14 General Plan Infrastructure Assessment Study Figure 4-3. Project Request Form %v CIP PROJECT REQUEST FORM 5"V4 FY To 1 xProject No.:_______ Proposing Agency: _� ------------ – Project Title: --------------------- Date Prepared: -------- ------- ----- -Amount Requested: ------------------- Department Priority: ___--___-- ,$Program Area: f�. c3Public Safety (Fire, Police, Civil Defense) ❑ Transportation Fl y ❑ Recreation and Culture ❑ Water/Wastewater/Drainage/Solid Waste ❑ Education and Health ❑ General Government ❑ Other =Project Description/Justification: (e.g., purpose, size, capacity, need, beneficiaries) ^.Anticipated life (depreciation). 0 <1 yr 0 I-5 yrs 0 6-10 yrs ❑ 10-20 yrs 0 >20 yrs Beneficiaries: ❑ General ❑ Special ❑ Undeterminable Project Location: :,District. -------------------------TMK la (or Route No.): Priority Category: ❑ Imminent public safety or health risk ❑ Improve operational efficiency ❑ Core public health or safety service ❑ Enhance quality of life ❑ Deteriorated facility or equipment ❑ Coordinate with related project ❑ Legal mandate ❑ Equitable provision of services ❑ Stimulate economy; revitalize neighborhood; infill dev. ❑Federal/State match ❑ Other Phase Prior This FY 1 FY FY 's FY FY To € Total _ i FundingRequest Completion :............................ ............................. __........... _..... _.................... ............ ----- _.._----------- .._............ ....................... _.........- ........... Planning/EA i € .................................................... ......:............................ :........................... ;..... _...... _... .........................i............... _..................... _................... ........ _................... ......... _......... ............. .; Site Acquisition .... ................. .......... _......... .......... _......... ...... _......... ...................... ........................ r, Design/Survey € ...... .__....................... .............. :........._.__........._«......_................ ...... _i....._................................ ............ _ . ............................... _. Construction/Repair i s '• ............... .................._......._.. .................. ................_.......... q--...._..._e-n--........«...................-...._..........._.........._............._...... ............._ .._.......... ......................................................... Purchase Equipment € € l :.............._.._...._..:.......... :..... i..................... :..................... ' :_ _ ......................... .......... ............ ................. ................. ..... .............. .... .................. Other Contingency€ € € ...................... ............. _.... ........ .............. .................. .............. _-_..__.... .............. _... ...._... _... ............. ............. .............. ...... ...... _......._.... ........... .. 4 TOTAL ?j Basis of Cost Estimate: g? ❑ Cost of comparable facility or equipment '❑ Rule of thumb indicator or unit costs Vii❑ Cost estimate from engineer, architect, vendor, or other consultant ❑ Bids received W. ❑ "Preliminary" estimate (guesstimate) n Funding Source& Source Amount ....... ................. ..............................._......_.........._.........................................................................................................--........................... .................... ............ ............... .._.............. ......................--........... ............. ............................. __.... _..... _..... _................................ _........................................................... ............. ....... ........................... _............. __ .............. .................. s..._......_................._....__......._......._.........._..............................._..............................-......_......................-.........................._.................... _........_._........._.._.__.. .............................. Impact on Operating Budget: ❑ None ❑ Positive— increased revenues ❑ Positive— decreased operating expenses `❑ Negative— new positions 31;o Negative— additional other operating expenses 0 Net impact (if more than one checked above): ❑ Positive ❑ Negative 0 Neutral Chapter d: CIP Process 0 4.3.5 Annual Report The annual CIP process provides an opportunity to evaluate the progress of the County in implementing the General Plan policies. By incorporating an annual report on the General Plan as part of the CIP process, the General Plan evaluation takes on a more pragmatic action -oriented focus with a fixed schedule imposed by Charter -mandated CIP deadlines. The Planning Department would prepare the annual report. This report would provide the context to identify and prioritize capital improvement projects, and keep the County focused on the future. For example, crime trends could mean that police facilities should receive higher priority. Or, a drop in standardized testing scores would stimulate discussions on how the County and State could work more closely to improve education. To monitor progress toward achieving the General Plan goals, the General Plan policies should be coupled to measurable indicators or standards. The concept of measurable policy indicators is similar to the "quality of life indicators" or "benchmarks" that are becoming increasingly popular nationwide. 13 In this case, the indicators would directly relate to policies adopted in a general plan with implications for local government action whether it be regulatory reform, capital improvement projects, or other action within the control of the local government. Chapter 3 of this report includes suggested indicators or standards to assess the need for improved facilities. Other indicators would track population (e.g., size, age distribution, income distribution, geographic distribution using data compiled for the annual County Data Book), external economic conditions (e.g., inflation, employment), and financial condition of the County (incorporating findings from the annual financial report prepared by the Finance Department). The annual report process could provide an opportunity for community input to verify and update the General Plan policies, update the GIS database, and provide input into the CIP. This process would replace the expensive, formal, quickly -outdated Community Development Plans for each district with O an informal ongoing dialogue with the community on broad planning issues. A working committee for each district could be created consisting of the Councilmember for that district, key community leaders, other special interest groups, and the Planning Department staffperson assigned to the district who would be the inhouse "expert" on references, conditions, contacts, and project proposals for the particular district. The recommendations from the working committee would be incorporated into the annual report. The suggested contents of the annual report, which could be a compendium of separate reports with a concise executive summary, includes: • Trend analysis and General Plan evaluation Countywide District • Financial analysis Capital projects status report Debt service analysis Funding sources, balances, projections 13. For a good local example of quality of life indicator report, see Ke Ala Hoku: Critical Indicators Report, www.arcturus.org/KeAlaHoku; see also Achieving the Oregon Shines Vision: The 1999 Benchmark Performance Report, www.econ.state.or.us/opb, Florida Benchmarks, February 1998, www. fen.state.fl.us/ cog/document.htm. An impressive article on financial indicators is Groves, S., "An Introduction to Evaluating Financial Condition," in Practical Financial Management: New Techniques for Local O Government, Washington, D.C.:International City/County Management Association, 1984 (identifies indicators and provides suggested formula to derive each indicator). 4-16 General Plan Infrastructure Assessment Study §4.3: Proposed CIP Process • Proposed CIP Priority and program area analysis Funding source analysis Geographic analysis 4.3.6 Relationship to the State CIP The County's interest in State CIP projects are fourfold: • to lobby for funding of desired State-owned improvements (e.g., expanded airport cargo facilities to stimulate agricultural export) or State grants-in-aid for County projects (e.g., water source development); • to coordinate construction of related projects (e.g., County waterline projects in conjunction with State highway improvements); • to assess the impact of proposed State facilities on County facilities (e.g., County road improvements for State school projects); and • to ensure that State projects are consistent with the County's General Plan land use and other policies. The following two actions would improve the coordination between State and County capital improvements planning: • Appropriated State CIP projects should be assigned a project number and monitored as part of the County's CIP Database; and O • State department officials in charge of capital projects should be invited to join the County's CIP Committee as a forum to exchange information and encourage dialogue. 4.3.7 Role of the CIP Committee The County currently has a CIP Committee comprised of representatives of the various County departments. This Committee can play an expanded key role to coordinate the County's CIP with the semi -autonomous Water Commission's CIP, to coordinate County projects with State projects, to work with community groups, and to prioritize the proposed CIP projects. The Committee's membership could consist of a core group consisting of selected County agencies, and resource agencies consisting of State and other County agencies who would attend meetings pertinent to their interests. The core group should include at least the following: • Planning Department-- General Plan policies, GIS database, overall CIP coordination • Finance Department-- Funding sources, project fiscal status • Department of Public Works-- roads and bikeways, solid waste, wastewater, drainage facilities • Department of Water Supply-- drinking water systems • Department of Parks and Recreation-- recreation and cultural facilities • Police, Fire, Civil Defense-- public safety facilities The resource agencies invited to attend as needed could include: • Legislative decisionmakers-- Council member, State Senators, State Representatives O • Transportation facilities General Plan Infrastructure Assessment Study 4.17 Chapter 4: CIP Process ORoadways and bikeways-- State Department of Transportation (Highways) Harbors-- State Department of Transportation (Harbors) Airports-- State Department of Transportation (Airports) Mass transit-- Mass Transit Agency • Water facilities-- State Department of Agriculture (irrigation) • Solid Waste and Wastewater facilities-- State Department of Health • Recreation facilities-- State Department of Land and Natural Resources (State Parks) • Drainage facilities-- NRCS • Education facilities-- State Department of Education, University of Hawaii at Hilo • CDBG funding-- Office of Housing and Community Development • Elderly needs-- Office of Aging. Figure 4-4 illustrates the tasks to be undertaken by the CIP Committee in relation to the annual report and CIP process. 4.3.8 CIP Manual To organize and focus the preparation of the CIP document, a first step should probably be the preparation of a CIP Manual that would set forth the objectives, policies, procedures/schedule, and forms. Figure 4-5 lists suggested policies that summarize concepts discussed in this chapter. This O manual would guide the executive branch. Since the manual is not intended to be legislatively adopted, the legislative branch (i.e., the Council) would not be bound by the policies in the manual. However, councilmembers would be incumbent to explain deviations from those policies, which may have justifiable political reasons. The CIP, after all, is a subjective reconciliation of values that is best resolved in the democratic arena. * Acknowledgement to Harry Takahashi, former Finance Director (currently Managing Director), Dixie Kaetsu, current Finance Director, and Rodney Nakano, Planning Department, for their explanations and suggestions on the CIP process. O 4-18 General Plan Infrastructure Assessment Study §4.3: Proposed CIP Process Figure 4-4. Proposed Annual Report/CIP Process Annual ReporUCIP CIP approved Prepare,CIP project status rpt (newly appropriated, ongoing; State & County) ; Information mtg on project status Information mtg on... trends analysis, land• use changes, CIP status.,. discussion-- ; visions, GP ; LPprdpo8als. ; Agency priorities ; (project reports) - - - - - - - - - - - - Legislature. General Plan Infrastructure Assessment Study 4-19 Figure 4-5. Suggested CIP Policies datI?. d' 1. Definition of Capital Project. An expenditure shall be included in the CIP instead of the operating budget if it includes one or more of the following: a. any acquisition of land for a public purpose; b. any construction of a new facility, or addition to afacility; C. a nonrecurring rehabilitation or major repair (i.e., not considered annual or other recurrent A maintenance), provided that the cost is $25,000 or more and the improvement will have a useful life of 10 years or more; d. purchase of major equipment (i.e., ite ins with a cost, individually or in total, of $25,000 or more with a useful life of five years or more); e, any planning, feasibility, engineering, or design study related to individual capital`k improvement projects or to a program that is implemented through individual capital improvement projects. 2. Priority Criteria. The following three-step process shall be used to prioritize proposed CIP projects: a. Agencies would propose and prioritize projects, with input from the public, based on the following criteria: i. Public safety and health. 1) To protect against a clear and immediate risk to 4 public safety or health; 2) core services that are essential, necessary, or desirable to protect the public safety and health. `.". ii. Deteriorated facility or equipment. 1) Reconstruction or extensive rehabilitation lv to extend its useful life to avoid or to postpone replacement with anew and more �w costly one; or 2) replacement of the facility or equipment with anew one. Improvement of operating efficiency. An investment that substantially and O significantly improves the operating efficiency of a department. iv. Coordination. Intergovernmental or interdepartmental coordination with another CIP project (e.g., scheduling water project with road reconstruction to avoid digging up street after road project completed); ); � V. Quality of life. Implements General Plan policies related to recreation, culture, education, environment, and other aspects that enhance this County as a desirable; place to live or visit; vi. Promotes growth policies. Implements General Plan policies related to infill 21 promotion, rural growth management, economic development, and overall infrastructure operational efficiency. vii. Legal mandate. Mandate imposed by others (e.g., court order, federal or state Esti ' law). t viii. Equitable provision of services. I) Serves the special nceds of a segment of the population identified by public policy as deserving of special attention (e.g., disabled, elderly, low-income); or 2) equalizes services available to districts that are now underserved in comparison with other districts or level of service l: standard. ix. Federal/State match. A project that meets one of the above criteria may receive a P higher priority to take advantage of available funds from other sources. b. The CIP committee would evaluate the project requests from the various agencies and rank them into priority groups taking into consideration the priority criteria, project's` objectives, department's priority, assessment of urgency, and risks of deferring. The PA priority groups are: i. Group A. Urgent, high-priority essential projects that should be done if at all possible; special effort should be made to find sufficient funding for all projects in this group; Ontit Group B High-priority essential projects that should be done as funding becomes §4.3: Proposed CIP Process overru ns. IiMl 2. Inclusiveness of Capital Budget a. The capital budget shall include all proposed capital projects included in the capital projects funds accounts.b. Capital assets will be maintained at a level adequate to protect the capital investment and to minimize future maintenance and replacement costs. c. A maintenance and replacement schedule for equipment shall be developed and followed. 3. Project Management a. A system shall be developed to track a project through its various phases from initial proposal through completion. b. Pro ect managers shall rovide the Finance De artment uarterl status re orts. Project � P P quarterly P General Plan Infrastructure Assessment Study 4-21 .E, - y sr$p��- .. .at'AVia.^rc.__... .�..,,gv.am.... _. .. i..A§';S+.eEn'S'a?' aanIN .N}eaia, .. k. `ravailable; i. Group C. Worthwhile necessary projects to be considered if funding is available; may be deferred to a subsequent year; ii. Group D. Low -priority projects; desirable but not essential or necessary. Egb, a. The Planning and Finance Directors would make the final recommendations based on an assessment of available funds. The decision choices for each project include: i. Accept. Include the project in the CIP in the amount and year requested. ii. Defer. Defer a project until a later year than requested; k iii. Link. Change the year that a project is requested to coordinate with other projects; IV. Reduce. Include the project in the CIP but allocate less than requested; V. Condition. Include the project in the CIP but change the funding source which makes allotment conditional on obtaining the identified source; Vi. Group. Group by bond issues and schedule accordingly; projects proposed Vii. Reject. Recognize that the project is not likely to be funded in the foreseeable future and inform the advocates accordingly; Viii. Reevaluate policies. Reevaluate the fiscal assumptions or selection criteria and 1. Funding perhaps revise the policies accordingly. Sources `s a. Debt policies. -` i. Long-term debt will be used for projects where the pay back period of the bond does not exceed the expected useful life of the project. ii. Bond issues shall be planned to meet the projected CIP needs while ensuring that,.. total debt service not exceed 10%n of forecasted operational revenues, and creditworthiness shall be maintained. b. Special revenue sources or assessments shall be used for projects with defined beneficiaries. ' C. ro A sufficient reserve shall be setaside in the capitalprojects fund account for cost j overru ns. IiMl 2. Inclusiveness of Capital Budget a. The capital budget shall include all proposed capital projects included in the capital projects funds accounts.b. Capital assets will be maintained at a level adequate to protect the capital investment and to minimize future maintenance and replacement costs. c. A maintenance and replacement schedule for equipment shall be developed and followed. 3. Project Management a. A system shall be developed to track a project through its various phases from initial proposal through completion. b. Pro ect managers shall rovide the Finance De artment uarterl status re orts. Project � P P quarterly P General Plan Infrastructure Assessment Study 4-21 METADATA x0 rg 72 2 t U ✓; b r- ns 'C� Or Q) '+- 0 = Y '� '� cd U t. U U LL m � J L ff^�y T� �• E...{ O O C N O C .t� M = C y LU -i c;s _ l � Fti Qc` s c aL11 CC •� ca —_a(n oCL N E UCIO �i Q Cd U (n cd N C O LL a) CES �?> 3 o cn N o v, cd a Q�- c o o U c > _ 'CZ on l o o a) U d > o ^s > d �? - U ti U 0 U >, (1) o U cw 3 Q.)0 U Q) CZ(1. O C N C _ C O Cly M i>O.. � °-o� ��wZ Q,'„ a o ' ( cd :_ > Qi (, •L Y Q o O C M U .� d U N 'O o N Q '0 c a r/a t alv o clM-w N �` `V ^ v c I yas sn, o m o d-5: Ev�iV�'DQ .+ U CA U _Q .N p .� x0 rg vJ Or Q) '+- 0 = Y '� '� C U LL m c O O C N O C >•. J_ M = C J d :3 i— _ a a O Qc` _ ma 'c0 a) c aL11 CC •� ca —_a(n oCL N E W �i Q 0 d CSS a w E to CO CT (n cd N C O LL a) CES o cn m U c o v, cd a Q�- c o o U c > _ 'CZ a) U o a) U d C_ a) -p O o 0 M d �? Y U ti U (1)o (3) COro -ao C W ULL 0- (z m Io m �r C N O c3 ( N N O_ N Q 4 o as c �. �z U u)o O m o :co o- 6) >, U a -- ° T -c D o U U Tco Cn m co C C 0 3 0cis z U Q w= o Co 7i W .q C � O m C o a� c c o >. c o W' CL J d J d M CCS n. C� m > LL= C0 U)U c0 co LL. ` Q Y 0 - ca m U U 6 Ycli J 0 a a U, a co c U) co o v U <na3i z' � E •� � v ^� Q W Cl- m co H U- a) U d x0 rg N >t El =co X� L Q COrn � � � Y Y n cu ;' ami cn N ro p.� CZ p = U = C3 C O �_ O � �N n Q) 'cn o D O O M Cr O c '_ >- C r UO (a _ T a) a m c r N z �. Cn Ca z O r ca O E a) C U) a) C >— O (n C N O ca D C c U -0 � � o O � 6 CL � O N> y O T cz d� O �' o CD CZ Q=u) a) �a a) ca 0 � c ro o S o ca of a) c 2 c �, v v ca ai _ S 'ca µ r� �, E m a C a) o o p> o N U O — '� o ca ro O ca u) — '� o Cn 2 to N to 0 U >+ a y .� a. .— — �l ,� _ E vi � CL � 'v o) U) 3 n '� E c rn ui 0) Z6 0) 0) o cn rn is ca cn o o ca Q O o ro m a� o ca o rn .- CL ¢ U U) U CL LL U CL r- - •� .cz •� L co o co m C ca 3 a) Oco N C CO'�) CES2 (z C O c (a .0 0 S co ate:: z N co o N U 0) ` O Ca N ° o .� n m E � Q _ i �_ Q c o a n __ -p U u) o U .� C CO 'oO CA ca _ N [L a) Ca 'D E Q Q U O _= C m o C C .O 'C E C �a. Q w� O N ui a) .Z U U a) LL N 7 (n C ca m m o caco co (; O am.00-0 v � d a Q ca ca a� W Q o 0) O a a) _- — °� m Y co> — O m o n RS o C Cn ca .� UO O i O a) (D -0 Q) = C C a) O 2i J C •— U Co i- i C N C> U U Y C U (n O -0Lo co 0 c a) -- Q-0 Yo i C ,O co CL C1 a O*- +C a) E C _ 0 N- aY N 0 O o S CL O O o p U UUU U C O UU,a�Z U Q�CA DC7 o> 0.00 hJ C:C Ul O o 0) CL CL CL J a. CL For, m a> CL U) u) u) U u) � ` N Y o w L i co co ca fa C Lo i 65 r y _� • o ..., C C -0 a) O cn O ca iT m'? c CO c co cO c E O a) U u) j U)U U) a N Q)CL ca ca Q U 0 :3 a) ° c C) ca m ,c1a LL (:o to C Moo -� W a) ca o MM0 (] S m W N >t El Kv MOX ro U \ / S J c C7 /� V ¢ ^` V o LYq Qi O V (� W 2 SC �-' O Q% L �O Qin p j Q U I. _S C (� u- -� �_ L C i O U> CO Cn CV O � c� CZ r c Q O 0 O U O O O T C U� 0 N 00 rn- N T ca m- CL y : u = r (V to C - M 0-. o r cn N U) .� .__ U) .� O • .0 N O U L E O) (0 cu m O U a a) ,c O co cu -0 c a 3 o •O O c E p. . CL Q a� 0O o opt 0 CL 0) "o m`. - co o J °2cn Q co E o EC7 CL O N O CO 0 0O N N c0 0 O `: U «s O U 0 U O C i� p U O Q) - m -0 ..0 cz .O s' O IS :—_ -''' • N (a V) C ,- C �O Q U CSS O O '— 'CO cn _— C C � � O 'C — CII C C 'M � cu Q '= -0 C L (V co E O ccs N .NN p_) rn p � 3 CL N �_ m N o C) 0 2 3 U O U) ^ c o_cA 'cn c6 O O S 's m O O S U > CL r c�3 c� p S In CC O� >' CU to L (D O .C cz cu m _0 o U O 0 E a��i `n ami 2 cu rn v 7 U •'- �"'� i3. O L U p 2 L � c6 cu S U U in C � N •— cis 0 Z N >, 70 U > (d C s cu R 70 T O _0 C 0 0 U En ::3 U o -p O ccs (� C: cZ ai .—_ ca C _ a�a co c ' a) Q (n 0 J U Un 2 OU co CL S O C O C O C O 0) CT 0) 0) =•Ul ; O CL O CL C O J CL O CL C J t N a) N — i+: d.y CL crs O_ ctt N > O > Q (� iL L L O O & m Ch 00 Cl) co C'") OD C ) 00 Z= cc m m 00 C LO 0) C C o O Q (5 co ccs ro cz S S S S S ?+ U "O O (U y o cz _0 a� -0 C] D o UA o O (n N Oco co Ub J as C CV U) U V ) i J Q O d N co J CD J .L (A O CL MOX ro U \ / S J c C7 o C'3 a O a) y vi `O 11) (A Q) N 00 'E nj to 0) _ a) O�o Q -0 C r C ca 'p a) C ._ cd .(A > O cz a) a) O W M C C O N to CO y E G1 a) = CS o O C o E (A co O rn (n O i J J N O U co C () co U) co U N U C cr W D � o n- 0) IL O0 - - C_ CU i - C O a) U �_ to (�j LL O � U C C O o� � d N Q o U) i— > O O Q Oj a) � bj — C C 7 a) U °' U to _ N LL co (z a) r U) N a( > - S a) ° U O a) O c L° C O a' CO p cco LL ° to i o o (D co V CLO V N O S �L _ca LL O O m co Q m ai Lm m V 0 V LL V Z Mi O ° 7 •� _ = co '0 to 0 ,C .� ;O cn O E c 0 co si O U) UL C= N O O N U N co C a) z s 0 O U CL C� 0)> O Q cu c o C L m 0 t 3-: 0co cn co 1= V) C .-. A LO.- .L-� co C:U cz O N O cz >, 'D �' p a) O al C N L C w E 'c U> _ O E � C L > Z3cn 2i V 0 e til O O cz O ca 0 i✓ O C 7 O N,t C O C O C o C O G O C O C O C O C O W CL J Q. J d J IL _! d 1. n Co a) o ai 0- n cc a) o L o t N M c — O c,.) apco ce) = ` co C .°— LL _ ara) o c N ttnn co 0) , € .: . N L U co ca co co -0 = 2 = = J J 6 N ca > C co O C O O to J N N to Q cn 'o c L ° O c LL co c co co c m co U) a) N co N >' L to N L co •co U •0 A k Q 3 to co Q d o to (z =L� co 2U2 CO •0 (z a: IL _� kr, O X � O U -o O 41 i U C O C 0 c0 -O a'(13 0 O CO a� a a) C U N c U U Q O> of vfi m o r0) N L{ cm .21 -0 a o a M O T ^ Y >_ m v/ U /A �y _� 1! to Y L p O C. T �l L CO a) cZ O �, O O N d 'S O> � S` a— M CO - O 15 : O U N N a) — U) C WQ U < 0 o � a� w� _- � j� 0-G3 0 p� 0 J a) O CO Q Ln coQ > cp O J O= z C� — N >, CO (� d .— � m U T— O .c c a) C O CO .T C p CO U O N CO p 0)- 0 m O O N C ca a. > CO O� 'C U) cd U Q =a 0 0u- (7200 (L U) n D_ � O U a) i [U •O •� cS3 4) O � C O O O O I L O N '- O (7 O .� =3>+ O C CO cz n.�s c-aUi U � ° > U cn co co U y 'a r _ O C a) a) ctS m W - CO E O: ►+ : U p CSS O co U Q N 0 9 �7 Cif rco p C C Q) • N O Q O. co 0 (n C CA O. ca U O C A co :DN as E L m X C = 0> U cn 'S cc Cn CO J 0 0 Cn O C c a 0 C = O m E C T o C U C O C O -C Cn O73 0 (� 0 "O C Oo fn a3 M i Uca p p _mCc O U Cn U) L) U 0> cn .N 0 0)E _0� n � Q 0 c- L O O C (O rn m n ( U Q Q U o! fes- oU v Q a co a) '> W 2 °: xaja c c ax- 0 0 O O C O W _S J d CL a. J IL • o� m rn �,, c0 c0 � � � c� �. a) a) sz c>_ a> a� o o c 0 fi 0 . a cr)00 cp ccn a c0co N p C U 41 UN O (D O N O tZ U) U) [n f cis O tp V �: o �S t0 c0 C �' i0 c0 y w O U) c N O = 6 U N O U) N CMa) O C N a N (n N N U) L _ OS C US ?� L C co70 Q' c c0 .V c0 O .c O Co Q, cz c0 0 0 Ln c0 x O c0 v N L = U1= _ � � = UJ a- tr = a UL Q = cn T- T 0 kr, O X � O U I U m EL a a a a a a w Z:=0 o (, D t� ai ai ai °-' O ' of Z)O T of 0)Q) ai mm of O)CY) 0)O 0)O 0)O Q, -O >. cu C O E _C d) T C_ O C O r C O) T= C_ O T'" C O T" i 0 (D C r. C C C C - C C C C - C C - fn > J O a " i.Q%' u=" cb co X --CO 0 �" w Co fn 0 (Z (nCTS 0 to 7 0 U) U cif U)(SS C -Q a) C 3 a) U � � � a. 0) a. 0)m a. 0) d CD � cu cd � � — c o W co co o o C� ai cz ai ai ai a) a) (D Co O vi O m O U) O v) O U) O� o cn J r (1)c -0 ULi.. UU- UL ULt. ULL UL UU 2I— ° o a) n C cz %+ C J+ L CQ T) cu "Q..O co ctfca (Z C co cn 0 �=, : {� ^ C O cU M =CL C O p �u O� r— as?, O C U) �. E A U' N a) -r U _ c15 C O d 7 a) ...,p N U U p W Ucz (n E cn N cu O cu crf O c p p cd ctS N C O W U O CO CL O as 0 �' CA (nn LL 2 U) U LL a.. a. I a. T- Z .— r+ ` " c : C: c .•. c .� o 0 0 0 0 o c c aD Q) m a) m a) a) m iT a) cC co cu cz Cn cn U) cn c4 U) U) O U a) co c0 00 � co O O T E E E E E E (D N p N N Q) L N '" Fi— may. m a -a (D a) co o c cn (n N C O (A �- y a) m tis E s c ac a c c o a) a �c 0) c c _0is m C cts (� C cis w C m c6 CT «S c cC = c6 p i -in- co � O y cn ._� cn cn c 4) � N t3 E a) a) `as — .� — •� :� — C "cu — 'af a) — Fz E — f O — cpo f— Oo n cu _ _ o 'v CO 0 cc CZ cif M M Q) a) cu M N cz ca m O cu N O S m O J E _- _LL�U- =IrfL =U) _CL _Q- =CLQ =� _ ��ra+ i a ia) FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT VOLUME 1 FEI S REPORT Kealakehe, North Kona District, Island of Hawaii i Prepared for:,. ., Jacoby Development, Inc. 171 17th Street, NW, Suite 1550 Atlanta GA 303631444 Prepared by: 828 Fort Street Mall, Suite 6010* e i^ Honolulu., HI 96813` ' 'For Accepting Authority: Hawai'i State Department of Hawaiian Home Lands Alakea Street, Suite 2000 Honolulu, HI 96813 In Cooperation with: HaVW` State Department Land and Natural Resources T`r" 11 1�Punchl; w,M Street, Room 130 w .,Honolulu, HI 96813 Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Kealakehe, North Kona District, Island of Hawaii Prepared for: Jacoby Development, Inc. 171 17th Street, NW, Suite 1550 Atlanta, GA 30363 For Accepting Authority: Hawai'i State Department of Hawaiian Home Lands 1099 Alakea Street, Suite 2000 Honolulu, HI 96813 In Cooperation with: Hawai'.i State Department of Land and Natural Resources 1151 Punchbowl Street, Room 130 Honolulu, HI 96813 Prepared by: oceanit� innovation through enginaeing 6 sdentiflc ecelience 828 Fort Street Mall, Suite 600 Honolulu, HI 96813 July 2007 1 indicate that this Final Environmental Statement and all ancillary documents were prepared under my direction or supervision and that the information submitted, to the best of my knowledge, fully addresses the document content requirements as set forth in Chapter 343, Hawaii Revised Statutes, and Section 11-200-18, Hawaii Administrative Rules. KONA MARINA DEVELOPMENT GROUP LLC, A Hawaii limited liability company By: JACOBY MARINA MANAGEMENT LLC, A Hawaii limited liability company Its Manager By: JACOBY DEVELOPMENT, INC., A Georgia corporation Its Manager Name: Scott Condra Title: Senior Vice President of Development Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Executive Summary Executive Summary Description of the Action Jacoby Development, Inc. and Kona Marina Development Group, LLC, an affiliate of Jacoby Development, Inc., herein collectively referred to as JDI, have been selected by the State of Hawaii to develop Kona Kai Ola on approximately 530 acres in Kealakehe, Kona, Island of Hawaii. The project site comprises 200 acres owned by the State Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, or DHHL, and 330 adjacent acres under the State BoardDeaartment of Land and Natural Resources, or DLNR. This project will not involve development of the Kaloko- Honokohau National Historical Park. However, the proposed marina within the project will share the the existing u^ ek6h he t Har-boY, I1V ,- exeept f^ " ''^ oid entrance channel to Honokohau Harbor. The State of Hawaii has expressed a desire to create and expand income -generating uses on the subject lands and provide expanded recreational -options for the surrounding community through the use of private investment. The vision for Kona Kai Ola is an environmentally sustainable marina -focused development featuring a mix of uses including visitor and resident -serving commercial enterprises, hotels and time-share units, marina services, open space and community -benefiting facilities including public infrastructure improvements in a pedestrian friendly setting surrounding the marina and seawater lagoons. OThe proposed Kona Kai Ola Master Plan includes a new 45 -acre 800 -slip marina that will meet an increasing public demand for boat facilities on the west side of the Island of Hawaii. The project has a strong ocean and cultural orientation and these themes will be reflected in several proposed ways. A marine science center and a cultural park are proposed along with public access, public water features, community gathering areas, a yacht club, a big game fishing club, and a proposed canoe park. Commercial areas will feature large retailers and local residential services intended to serve the local residential market, and commercial development near the proposed marina will focus on meeting the needs of residential and visitor markets with smaller shops and unique restaurants and boutiques. Page i Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Executive Summary The State agreements allow for the development of the lands for such uses as commercial, resort O (hotel and time-share units), and light industrial. Although the agreements between the State and JDI prohibit the development of residences that are marketed or intended for use as primary or permanent residences, JDI is planning to construct worker housing on a nearby site that will be leased at below market rents. Although a separate resort development is not proposed, the hotel and time-share units constitute transient accommodation facilities that are usually found in resort destination areas and within the scope of this document, the word "resort" is used interchangeably with "hotel units" and "time-share units" and does not connote the intent to design this component as a self-contained, exclusive resort development. Proposed transient accommodations include up to 700 hotel units that are expected to meet a wide range of demands, thereby providing employment, increasing the tax base, and providing entrepreneurial opportunities. Per requirements of the State agreements, a vacation ownership or time --share ownership plan could be developed and 1,803 units are proposed. In keeping with the ocean and recreation orientation, the project will feature approximately 224 acres of developer -initiated green space, open space, public spaces, and view corridors. Kona Kai Ola will feature lagoons, water features, and ponds throughout a substantial portion of the development. Integral throughout Kona Kai Ola is JDI's commitment to incorporate environmental sustainability. The project will be developed in a manner to take advantage of €ewe -the latest in environmental design and technology to create an energy efficient, low environmental impact, sustainable development at Kona Kai Ola. These efforts will help to optimize site potential and minimize non-renewable energy consumption, as well as protect and conserve water and enhance indoor environmental quality. O Alternatives Analysis in Vypieal land development projeets, the initial planning pr-eeess ineludes the expler-atien E) altematives to development objeetives. Kona Kai Qla does not follow this same patter -n -Of „ ltef fl awes evaluation. -The agreementsan�'- d leases _between the State and JDI set forth specific stipulate h,—,parameters for the o"evelopment for this site in terms of uses, quantities and size of many features, resulting in a limited range of land uses. Unlike a private property project, JDI is required to meet the criteria outlined in the agreements, thereby affording less flexibility in options and uses. From the-developeiJDI's perspective, the agreements must also provide sufficient flexibility to allow for a development pfedac4project design that responds to market needs and provides a reasonable rate of return on the private investment that is required in this ro'ect. The agreement between JDI and DLNR specify that the proposed harbor basin is to be 45 acres and accommodate 800 slips. This development proposal is the subject of this FEIS. In response to DEIS comments, additional water quality studies and modeling were conducted. These studies determined that the water circulation in a 45 -acre 800 -slip marina would be insufficient to maintain the required standard of water quality. The models of water circulation suggest that a new 25 -acre harbor basin could successfully maintain required water quality in the new harbor. Page ii Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Executive Summary Three alternatives are evaluated in this Final EIS and include Alternative 1, which is a plan with a 25 -acre 400 -slip harbor basin and a decrease in hotel and time-share units, Alternative 2, which is an alternative that had been previously discussed, but not included in the proposed project, that includes an 800 -slip harbor and a golf course, and Alternative 3, the no -project alternative. In response to the water aualitv studv results and DEIS comments, an alternative plan was developed with a smaller marina with a lower number of boat slips, and a related decrease in hotel and time-share units Alternative 1 reflects this lesser density project, and features a 400 - slip marina encompassing 25 acres. Other project components include 400 hotel units, 1,100 time-share units, 143 acres of commercial uses, eleven acres of marina support facilities, and 214 acres of developer -initiated parks roads open spaces swim lagoons, and community use areas. These communitv uses include a marine science center, a yacht club, a fishing club, and a Hawaiian cultural center. In addition. Alternative 1 would include the construction of a new intersection of Kealakehe Parkway with Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway, and the extension of Kealakehe Parkway to join Kuakini Highway to cross the lands of Queen Lili`uokalani Trust, and connecting with Kuakini Highway in Kailua-Kona. Like the proposed project, Alternative 1 would have a strong ocean orientation, and community features similar to the proposed project. Alternative 2 was discussed as an alternative in a communitv charrette in September 2003. It includes a golf course, which is a permitted use in the DLNR agreement and DHHL lease. As with the proposed project, Alternative 2 includes an 800 -slip marina on a minimum of 45 acres. To support the economic viability of the project, _other Alternative 2 uses include a golf course Oclubhouse, 2,500 visitor units, and 126 acres of commercial uses. Alternative 2_ uses would also have community features similar to the proposed project. The sea water lagoon features contained in the proposed project and Alternative 1 are not included in this alternative. In Alternative 3, the no -project scenario, the project site would be left vacant, and the proposed marina hotel and time-share facilities, commercial and marina industrial complexes, and community -oriented uses would not be realized. The Droposed Kona Kai Ola Droiect is conceptuallv_designed on development parameters related to the marina and the related uses that would be needed to promote economic feasibility of the project. Alternative _1_includes half of the State -required boat slips and 60 percent of the proposed hotel and time-share units. Due to the decreased number of hotel and time-share units this alternative would generate significantly less environmental and socio-economic impacts. Harbor and nearshore water quality would be maintained and the reduced boat slips would generate less boat traffic, therebv reducing congestion and the need to mitigate impacts further by widening the existing harbor channel. Likewise. reduced hotel and time-share unit density would reauire less water and generate less traffic, air, noise and other impacts While there would be a reduction in economic return related to lease and tax revenues to the State and County. there would be a decrease in social impacts related to overall de facto and secondary population impacts. A Droject with fewer hotel and time-share units would also generate fewer iobs for the community, and less revenue to the DHHL and DLNR. Page iii Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Executive Summary While many might consider the 25 -acre marina in Alternative 1 as the preferred size, an O amendment to the DLNR agreement would be needed to allow Alternative 1 to proceed with its reduced -marina and reduced number of transient accommodation units. Hence, selection of this alternative lies within the discretion and judgment of DLNR and is an unresolved issue at the writing of this FEIS. Alternative 2. the golf course alternative, is a less feasible alternative primarily because of doubtful market support for another golf course in the region. Further, DHHL has a strategic goal to have more revenue -generating activities on the leased commercial lands within the project area. While Alternative 3, the no -project alternative, would not generate adverse impacts related to development of these lands associated with the construction and long-term operations, it would also not allow for an expanded public'marina that would meet public need and d generate income for the public sector. Further, the no -project alternative would foreclose the opportunity to create a master -planned State -initiated development that would result in increased tax revenue recreation options, and community facilities Crucial privately -funded improvements, such as the marina, regional roadway and circulation improvements, and improvements to the existing wastewater treatment Dlant, would not be implemented. Private funds toward the development of community -oriented facilities such as parks, other recreational facilities, and public access would not be contributed. Further, the creation of revenue producing businesses on the DHHL property to fund homestead programs would not occur, resulting in fewer potential benefits for Hawaiians. Hence, the agreements and leases between the State and JDI indicate that the no -action alternative is not in the public interest. The eeafiemie viability andstistainability of the pr-qjeet is deteffnined by the density and uses proposed. Be, apse TD! is obligated to develop an 900 slip faafina foi the State, , ptote read �ents, and provide various publie enhaneement features at its own e*pense, the defisity pr-opesea f6r- the ineee e t: . features of the development must be ,ff:, „t to provide an aeeeptable level of eeeflef iie fetiiin for- jD1Tl}e fnafket study ode efmr ned that the euffeftcry ablig.,tions for- the publie f .,ter -es . .,tell with the development. The only valid alter-fiative to the proposed pFojeet is the no aefien altemative. in this aft the pr-qjeet site would be left > >hotel and fifne share faeilifies, O Fealized. While the ne action alternativewould not generate related adv.erse the ereation i development,of a mastef planned State initiated in iner-eased > tax , t: options and eomfntinity faeilities, wouldall not aeour, D.- .,tel. funded , would HE)t beeeettf, festilting ift fewer- potential benefits for- Hawaiians. Heneee the agr-eements and leases between the State and jD! indioate that the fie aefieft aftemative has been fejeeted at this time. 0 Page iv Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Executive Summary Significant Beneficial and Adverse Impacts The State of Hawaii has expressed a desire to create and expand income -generating uses on the subject lands; and Wrovide expanded recreational options for the surrounding community. Kona Kai Ola will generate significant tax and base lease revenues that will increase State fiscal resources and help to fund efforts such as the financing of DHHL housing programs on other DHHL land. Regional public facilities, including an 800 -slip marina, the extension of Kuakini Highway and other infrastructure improvements, will be privately funded, thereby contributing to the State economy and providing significant regional benefits. The project will create an attractive market for environmentally and socially sound investment activities for the West Hawaii community. It will generate diverse employment and business opportunities. Development of the 55530 acres—A+tdy-aneu and adjacent, "�^"^' •a^� 22 acres owned by the Queen Lili`uokalani Trust for the proposed Kealakehe Parkway extension to Kuakini Highway, will impact physical resources. There are Rotential environmental impacts, including noise, soil erosion, and fugitive dust and exhaust emissions that will mostly occur during the construction period. Mitigation measures will be implemented and, once developed, the project will have no significant impact on noise, air quality, water quality, and archaeological and cultural resources. No endanger -ed r- thr-e to oa fatina are expeeted to be impaeted by the �e There is an unresolved issue regarding potential impacts on green sea turtles due to construction activities as related to the marina. The creation of 19 acres of lagoons may result in impacts to O two listed endemic endangered waterbird species. Black -necked Stilt (Himantonus mexicanus knudseni), and Hawaiian Coot (Fulica alai). The proposed brackish water pond area will provide additional foraging and resting habitat for migratory shorebirds and waterfowl, many of which are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act_(MBTA). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will be consulted under the Endangered Species Act, as well as the DLNR under HRS Section 195D. The development of the new 800 -slip private marina would cause a significant increase of boater activity in the harbor entrance and possible severe congestion during peak use periods. Mitigation measures could include traffic control, such as staggering of sport fish tournament traffic, implementation of a permanent manned traffic control tower or harbor patrol, and limiting vessel size. Other possible mitigation measures include widening the entrance channel or reducing the number of slips to CAA. Regarding the reduction of boat slips, the development agreement with DLNR presently requires that JDI develop and construct a new marina basin containing not less than 800 new boat slips. Alternative 1 would reduce the number of boat alias from 800 to 400 slips and this would result in a 21 percent reduction in boat traffic congestion under average existing conditions, and ten percent during peak existing conditions. The volume of boat traffic related to Alternative 1 would not create the level of impact as the proposed project, and would not warrant widening of the entrance channel. Page v Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Executive Summary The DEIS identified 22 anchialine Wools. Further studies determined that three of theseWools are O actual) part of an estuary complex with direct connection to the ocean. Of the 19 anchialine pools, six were considered high tide pools (exposed only at medium or high tide), seven were considered pool complexes (individual pools at low tide and interconnected at high tide), and six were single isolated pools. Of the 19 anchialine pools, three Dools with a combined surface area of 20m2 would be eliminated due to the harbor construction. The DEIS presented information stating that harbor construction would cause an increase in salinity in the anchialine pools makai of the proposed marina basin to become equivalent to the ocean at 35 ppt. and that the anchialine biology would then perish. There is currentiv_a level of uncertainty by professional hydrologists as to the exact movement of surface groundwater and final determination of anchialine salinity following the harbor construction. The assessment that all anchialine pools will be barren with the construction of the harbor may be premature. Halocaridina rubra (`opae`ula) are routinely drawn from high salinity wells at 30-32 ppt. The proposed marina will not result in any significant increase in groundwater flow to the coastline, but rather a concentration and redirection of the existing flows to the harbor entrance. There will be an expanded zone of mixing between the brackish effluent and the surrounding ocean waters due to the concentration of flows at the harbor mouth. The addition of effluent water from the marine water features which includes lagoons and a marine park will result in an additional increase in outflow across the marina entrance from an estimated 30 mgd to an expected value of greater than 135 mgd after development of the marine water features. The water features in Alternative 1 would significantly decrease by 74 percent, from 19 acres in the proposed project to five acres in Alternative 1. This decrease in water features would result in a corresponding decrease in water source requirements and seawater discharge. cher—a O eeneentr-ation of the existing flows to the harbor- entr-anee. Large quantities of Seav,atea_v will be pumped tip fr-em the sea and flow thfough the pr-epesed sea water- lageefis and inte the pr-opesed . Ha basin. This will r-estilt in extfefne dilution of the gr-eundwater- entering the with nutrient loading that is leweF than the present eeastal 1A,ater-s. Water- quality will be ifnpr-o ed the feby gener-ating a positive impaet an the o sha o fnafine 0 nt. Further, under short storm wave conditions, the proposed marina construction causes a positive impact by reducing the wave height by 10 percent in the mooring area. The anchialine peftft ols that are located north of the existing harbor are not likely to be impacted, as no development activities are proposed north of the existing harbor. It is highly unlikely that existing groundwater flows to the Kaloko-Honokohau pond system to the north of the existing harbor will be impacted by the proposed marina to the south. Seawater Air Conditioning (SWAC) is being considered as an alternative source for the development's cooling needs, in keeping with the sustainability goals of the overall Kona Kai Ola project. The design of the SWAC shall mitigate possible impacts through the prevention of the introduction of high nutrient deep seawater directly into the seawater lagoons, marina, or shallow nearshore coastal waters. Page vi Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Executive Summary OProposed Mitigation Measures Drainage, Flood Control, Water Quality and Soil Erosion: All construction activities will fully comply with public regulations. A construction waste management plan will be developed that seeks to reduce over 50 percent of the waste generated during construction. Material excavated during construction would, as much as possible, be used for areas that require fill. Because of the highly porous geology, it is likely hat surface generated sediments will enter groundwater in the advent of significant rainfall during grading. Because this groundwater could enter the new harbor area, the final harbor opening to the existing harbor would be opened only after all major site grading has occurred. The use of silt curtains will minimize the suspended sediment entering the ocean when the new harbor basin is opened to the existing harbor. Marine Environment and Aquatic Ecosystems: As previously mentioned_ further studies indicated that with the construction of the new harbor basin the anchialine pools makai of the proposed basin may not necessarily increase in salinity to levels unhealthy for Halocaridina rubra and Metabetaeus lohena and other anchialiaQ-pool fauna. In addition, these studies determined that there are mechanisms to mitigate potential impacts. Mitigation measures to facilitate the long-term health of the remaining anchialine pools will be based on environmental monitoring, which is vital as an early warning system to detect potential envirdnmental degradation. As a mitigation measure, bioretention, which is a Best Management Practice (BMP). is a highly appropriate_ application for the proposed development to prevent any nonpoint source pollution of groundwater. Another mitigation measure that may be included in the O management plan is salinity adjustment of the anchialine pools to maintain healthy habitat for the anchialine ecosystem by surcharging man-made anchialine pools created adjacent to, or in the vicinity of, natural pools with low salinity well water. The eha Re in thele^^' ^,,.,dw ater fl A,eae-n- the pr-opos6d mar-ina and the shoreline satith of the harbor- entranee. The salinity of the anehialine ponds will iner-ease due to a r-eduetion of brackish gr-etindwater. Some ponds will be exeavated to make the new hafber- basin. These pends afe alfeady degraded by flutr4ent. ear-ieti r trash f+afn visitors, ,-1 the introduetionf help mitigate for the loss of these individual small pools. Regarding the remaining pools. further studies showed that while there were several signs of direct human use and disturbance, such as trash receptacles and toilet facilities, the greatest degradation to the majority of the anchialine and estuarine resources was due to the presence of alien fish, including topminnows and tilapia. and introduced plants, predominantly pickelweed and mangrove. Page vii Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Executive Summary Similar to anchialine pools, no adverse or permanent environmental impacts are_anticnated to coral reef ecosystems, although secondary impacts resulting from increased boater access to adiacent areas could occur. To monitor these impacts, permanent monitoring transects in coral reef habitats will be established near the harbor. Acoustic impacts generated by construction activities related to blastine for the new marina ma affect marine mammals and turtles To mitigate these potential impacts in -air and in -water exclusion zones will be established, as further discussed in Section 3.9.4 Observers will be deployed along the coastline to assure that marine mammals and basking or beached turtles are not in the exclusion zones during blasting activities. The proposed marina will add 800 new slips to the existing facility; and it is likefy os� that a portion of these new boats will engage in fishing activities. It is reeemmended-proposed that facilities and ,programs to foster continued stewardship, fisheries science, and educational programs be implemented in the design of the new marina facilities. The proposed marine science center would provide a venue for implementing the educational and stewardship programs. Archaeological and Cultural Resources: Cultural and archaeological resources will be protected as directed by the preservation plans approved by DLNR. In addition, the shoreline area contains most of these sites and will be protected as a cultural resource park. The management plan for this area will be developed through close consultation with cultural lineal descendants. For the area specifically within the legislative boundary of the Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park National 12aff4k that is fronting the Kona Kai Ola project site, the developer will work cooperatively with the Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical ParkNatieltal O Park Ser— e to develop a management plan and interpretive plan for these cultural and archaeological resources. Further mitigation includes the proposed preservation of the ahu (small rock cairns) near the makai end of the site and a short section of the old walking trail as a symbol of the trail system. Also, a cultural practitioner, who is knowledgeable of the site and can assist ADI die-pfejec4 developer -to ensure proper cultural protocols are followed in the design of preservation measures; will be employed. Kona Kai Ola will encourage and support the obiectives of the Ala Kahakai National Historic Trail system, which is currently being developed to include historic coastal trails, and connecting mauka and makai trails, along with the addition of new trails to connect these historic trails. To encourage cultural practices, access to the shoreline will be open and access to cultural resources will be in a manner that encourages native Hawaiian and local resident rtseaccess and respect. Mauka viewsheds from the shoreline will be preserved and not obstructed. Page viii Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Executive Summary Visual Impacts: Due to its location within the Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway view plane, the project has the potential to impact public views of the coastline in this area of North Kona. The proposed Har-boi:fnaster-Control TE)wff arbormaster observation hale is a small one- or two-story n��P structure set back approximately 500 feet from the harbor entry channel and will be visible from the ocean and the Kaloko-Honok6hau National Historical Park. To mitigate view impacts on the adjacent Kaloko-Honok6hau National Historical Park, design measures to minimize impacts will be employed. Further, it is proposed that ar the hale Ceptr-e Tower- bewould be made available for park uses, such as a visitor center. To protect view planes to and alone the shoreline area. f,rthe-mitigate visual impaets, the proposed project includes a 400 -foot buffer zone along the shoreline w41 -that will be preserved as open space. Improvements within this buffer zone will be limited to lateral shoreline public trails, mauka-makai access trails from the project site, and cultural or environmental -related improvements related to existing features within the buffer zone. No buildings or structures shall be built within the 400 -foot shoreline setback area, with the possible exception of pestle etilt lly felatea structures that are directly related to native Hawaiian_ cultural resources in the buffer zone and that are requested by JDI's cultural advisors. To control building mass near the shoreline, development sites directly adjacent to the shoreline setback area will be limited by design covenants to a lower unit density. Buildings immediately adjacent to the 400 -foot shoreline setback are proposed at one and two stories heigIA-h�to minimize building mass against the shoreline setback area. Major roadways, parking areas, and areas surrounding all major structures will be landscaped in accordance with a landscape master O plan. In Alternative 1, the shoreline setback in the shoreline park would be increased to 600 feet in the southern area of the project site and remain at 400 feet at the northern area of the project site. Noise: It is not expected that construction -related project -generated noise will impact adjacent properties as they are mostly vacant or industrial. The only areas that may be affected are the Honok6hau Harbor users and the Fishing Club located south of Kealakehe Parkway. Commercial, hotel and time-share buildings completed in the initial phases may also be affected €rerrrlyconstruction noise due to subsequent phases as they are in very close proximity to the construction site. Construction blasting, if required for the new marina, could produce noise impacts. However, blasting at construction sites near populated areas is usually accomplished by using numerous small charges detonated with small time delays. Blast mats can also be used to assist in directing the explosive energy into the rock, controlling flying debris, and muffling the noise. With the appropriate blast design techniques, the noise from blasting can be controlled to minimize noise impacts. In cases where construction noise exceeds, or is expected to exceed, the State's "maximum permissible" property line noise levels, a permit must be obtained from the State DOH to allow the operation of vehicles, cranes, construction equipment, power tools, etc., which emit noise levels in excess of the "maximum permissible" levels. Page ix Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Executive Summary Air quality: The project will have short and long-term air quality impacts. Mitigation measures O during the construction phase will be employed based on an effective dust control plan. Further, all construction activities will comply with State Air Pollution Control regulations and the provisions of Section 11-60.1-33, HAR. All grading operations will be conducted in full compliance -with dust and erosion control requirements of the County of Hawai`i's Grading Ordinance. After construction of the project, implementation of air quality mitigation measures for long- term traffic impacts are not needed, as projected emissions are expected to remain within both state and national air quality standards. Traffic: To mitigate traffic impacts, various signalization improvements and roadway improvements will be implemented. To connect Kona Kai Ola with the neighboring communities, Kona International Airport, and Kailua-Kona Village, the project proposes to sponsor a regularly scheduled shuttle service, so that people could utilize Kona Kai Ola without having to use a car for access. Further, the project includes the construction and realignment of Kealakehe Parkway makai of Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway and through the lands of Queen Lili`uokalani Trust connecting with Kuakini Highway in Kailua-Kona. Another measure to enhance road connectivity in the ahupua`a is the improvement of the intersection of Kealakehe Parkway and Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway. These improvements will serve the project as well as the regional community. Alternative 1 would decrease the number of trips generated in the AM peak period by 35 percent. from 1.511 trips in the proposed plan to 977 trips, and would decrease the PM peak period by 40 percent, from 3.277 trips in the proposed plan to 1972,trips Infrastructure and Utilities: Project -related infrastructure will be sized in accordance with O project requirements. Consistent with Public Policies Kona Kai Ola is generally consistent with environmental regulatory requirements contained within Chapter 343, HRS, and the Environmental Impact Statement Rules, Title 11, Chapter 200 of the Hawaii Administrative Rules. The project is consistent with and implements objectives and policies of the Coastal Zone Management Program, Chapter 205A, HRS, the Hawaii State Plan, Chapter 226, HRS, and the State DHHL Island Plan. Kona Kai Ola also is consistent with relevant objectives and policies of the Hawaii County General Plan and regional plans. his wrifing, the County Ge it h appFoved a bill to amend *The Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG) map for a pet4iewmost of the site is €fafn Open -to -Urban Expansion, with some Open designation on the shoreline. Kona Kai Ola is consistent with the Urban Expansion Area designation. The agreement between JDI and the State identifies hotel and time-share uses as possible development at Kona Kai Ola The project is not a resort. A resort is a concept in which visitors are attracted to spend most not all, of their stay within the resort area through the design of amenities that fulfill the needs of a particular visitor market segment. This self -containment is achieved to varying degrees in resort development, depending on the natural. historic/cultural, and recreational resources within a resort site and the intended scale of the resort. Page x Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Executive Summary OState and County laws recognize this distinction between a "resort" and a "hotel" or "time-share unit." Section 514E-5 Hawaii Revised Statutes, authorizes time-share units to be located in a resort area or any other area in which a county may by ordinance allow a hotel unit. The Hawaii County Code correspondingly permits hotels and time-share units in non -resort zoning districts. The proposed project may include up to 700 hotel units and 1,803 time-share units, and depending on the eventual location of these project components, rezoning may be required for implementation. pProject implementation requires rezoning to allow proposed uses. Compliance with environmental laws and policies pis fundamental to Kona Kai Ola. JDI has made a corporate commitment to environmental sustainability in all its work and will incorporate the latest environmental design and technology to create an energy efficient, low environmental impact, sustainable development at Kona Kai Ola. Summary of Unresolved Issues A comparison between impacts related to the proposed project concept and impacts related to Alternative 1 indicates that a reduction in the acreage and number of slips in the marina would generate less environmental, social and economic impacts. Although positive economic impacts would be reduced Alternative 1 can be considered as a preferable alternative because of reduced environmental impacts However, while it can be concluded that the 25 -acre marinain Alternative 1 would be the preferred size the DLNR agreement establishes the size of the marina at 45 acres and 800 slips. An amendment to the DLNR agreement is required in order to allow Alternative 1 to proceed Hence selection of Alternative 1 is an unresolved issue at the writing of this FEIS. OSeawater Air Conditioning (SWAC) is planned to utilize deep, cold ocean water for cooling or air conditioning, thereby significantly reducing energy consumption requirements. The specific design for the proposed SWAC facility has not been finalized. If injection wells are chosen for circulated -water disposal, the location of these will be dictated by the underlying aquifer and groundwater system. The design of the SWAC will be established as the project progresses. If SWAC is not implemented, then conventional air conditioning systems will be used. The project will generate jobs, thereby possibly requiring workers to commute from existing distant housing areas, or to search for housing from the increasingly expensive West Hawaii housing market. Affordable housing requirements generated by Kona Kai Ola will need to be determined, which is done in the rezoning process. Based on the current plan, it is anticipated that the development will need to secure water quantities estimated at 2.6 million gallons a day. Currently, Department of Water Supply (DWS) sources are not adequate to support the project needs. The developer is working with the County, DLNR and others on new sources, transmission and storage of water for the development. During blasting operations for excavation of the marina, it may not be possible to clear sea turtles from the harbor and the coastal areas immediately adjacent to the project. While blasting techniques can be used that lower the in -water acoustic energy below that which may cause physical damage (Level A take), it is not likely that noise can be reduced to a level that will not cause significant response (Level B take) from the turtles resting on nearby beaches or swimming in adjacent waters. Means to resolve this problem are under discussion with NOAA. O Page xi Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Executive Summary Listing of Required Permits and Approvals O Federal ■ U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Department of the Army Individual Permit s ■ U.S. Ar -my riafps of Engineers Pet=f it (Seerio i m ■ U.S. Coast Guard – Private Aids to Navigation State of Hawaii Department of Health ■ Office of Environmental Quality Control – Chapter 343 - Environmental Impact Statement ■ Clean Water Branch — National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit ■ Clean Water Branch — Water Quality Certification (401) ■ Clean Water Branch – Zone of Mixing ■ Noise, Radiation, and Indoor Air Quality Branch – Community Noise Permit ■ Safe Drinking Water Branch – Injection Well Permit and Source Water Use Approval ■ Safe Drinking Water Branch – Operator Certification ■ Safe Drinking Water Branch – Underground Injection Control Permit Department of Land and Natural Resources O ■ Commission on Water Resource Management – Well Construction Permit, Pump Installation Permit, and Water Use Permit ■ Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands – Conservation District Use Permit (SWAC pipe and „" }�KuakiniHi�hwav eExtension through Queen Lili`uokalani Trust property). Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism -Office of Planning ■ Coastal Zone Management – CZM Consistency County of Hawaii ■ Rezoning ■ Building Permit ■ Grading/Grubbing Permit ■ Special Management Area Permit (SMA) ■ Subdivision Approval Page xii Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Table of Contents Table of Contents 1 Introduction and Project Description..........................................................................1-1 Page xiii 1.1 Overview.............................................................................................................. 1-1 1.2 Project Site........................................................................................................... 1-2 1.3 Surrounding Uses................................................................................................. 1-6 1.4 Purpose and Need for the Project......................................................................... 1-7 1.4.1 DHHL...................................................................................................... 1-7 1.4.2 DLNR.......................................................................................................1-8 1.5 Proposed Project and Objectives......................................................................... 1-9 1.5.1 Development Program............................................................................. 1-9 1.5.2 Project Sustainable Design.................................................................... 1-14 1.5.3 Design Related Goals............................................................................. 1-15 1.5.4 Energy Related Goals............................................................................ 1-15 1.5.5 Water Related Goals.............................................................................. 1-15 1.5.6 Waste Related Goals.............................................................................. 1-16 O1.5.7 Transportation Related Goals................................................................ 1-17 1.6 Phasing...............................................................................................................1-17 1.6.1 Phase 1................................................................................................... 1-17 1.6.2 Phase 2................................................................................................... 1-19 1.6.3 Phase 3................................................................................................... 1-20 1.6.4 Phase 4............................................................................................... — 1-20 1.7 Environmental Process....................................................................................... 1-21 1.8 Proactive Communication Outreach Program ................................................... 1-21 2 Alternatives Analysis..................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Project Alternatives.............................................................................................. 2-2 2.1.1 Alternative 1: 400 -Slip Marina................................................................ 2-2 2.1.2 Alternative 2: Golf Course Feature.......................................................... 2-4 2.1.3 Alternative 3: No Action.......................................................................... 2-4 2.2 Alternatives Analysis........................................................................................... 2-6 2.2.1 Impact Comparison.................................................................................. 2-7 2.2.2 Conformance with Public Plans and Policies ........................................ 2-15 O Page xiii Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Table of Contents 3 Assessment of Existing Natural Environment............................................................. 3-1 O 3.1 Climate.................................................................................................................3-1 3.2 Soils......................................................................................................................3-1 3.3 Geography, Topography, and Geology................................................................ 3-3 3.3.1 Geography and Topography..................................................................... 3-3 3.3.2 Surface Geology....................................................................................... 3-3 3.3.3 Subsurface Geology.................................................................................3-6 3.3.4 Anticipated Impacts and Proposed Mitigation ......................................... 3-6 3.4 Natural Drainage.................................................................................................. 3-7 3.5 Air Quality........................................................................................................... 3-8 3.5.1 Existing Condition................................................................................... 3-8 3.5.2 Anticipated Impacts and Proposed Mitigation ......................................... 3-9 3.6 Natural Hazards................................................................................................. 3-11 3.6.1 Earthquakes............................................................................................3-11 3.6.2 Flood......................................................................................................3-11 3.6.3 Tsunamis and Hurricanes....................................................................... 3-13 3.6.4 Lava Flows............................................................................................. 3.6.5 Brush Fires 3-15 3-17 O ............................................................................................. 3.7 Terrestrial Environment..................................................................................... 3-17 3.7.1 Flora.......................................................................................................3-17 3.7.1.1 Existing Conditions.............................................................. 3-17 3.7.1.2 Anticipated Impacts and Proposed Mitigations ................... 3-18 3.7.2 Fauna......................................................................................................3-18 3.7.2.1 Existing Conditions.............................................................. 3-19 3.7.2.2 Anticipated Impacts and Proposed Mitigations ................... 3-20 3.8 Water Resources................................................................................................ 3-21 3.8.1 Groundwater.......................................................................................... 3-21 3.8.1.1 Existing Conditions.............................................................. 3-23 3.8.1.2 Groundwater Flow and Salinity ........................................... 3-25 3.8.1.3 Groundwater Nutrients and Pollutants ................................. 3-27 3.8.1.4 Anticipated Impacts and Proposed Mitigation ..................... 3-28 3.8.2 Surface Water......................................................................................... 3-28 3.9 Marine Environment and Aquatic Ecosystems .................................................. 3-29 3.9.1 Nearshore Environment and Coastal Waters ......................................... 3-31 3.9.1.1 Existing Conditions.............................................................. 3-31 O Page xiv Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii 4.2.1 Table of Contents O3.9.1.2 Methodologies and Studies .................................................. 3-33 4-7 3.9.1.3 Zone of Mixing................................................................... 3-33 3.9.1.4 Wave Impacts to the Existing Honok6hau Harbor .............. 3-38 4-10 3.9.1.5 Harbor Water Quality.......................................................... 3-38 3.9.2 Anchialine Pools.................................................................................... 3-40 4-12 3.9.2.1 Existing Conditions.............................................................. 3-40 4-13 3.9.2.2 Anticipated Impacts and Proposed Mitigations ................... 3-46 3.9.3 Marine Fishing Impacts......................................................................... 3-50 Existing Conditions and Methodology .................................................. 3.9.3.1 Existing Conditions.............................................................. 3-50 Anticipated Impacts and Proposed Mitigation ....................................... 3.9.3.2 Anticipated Impacts............................................................. 3-51 4-26 3.9.3.3 Proposed Mitigation............................................................. 3-52 3.9.4 Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles......................................................... 3-53 Population............................................................................ 3.9.4.1 Affected Environment.......................................................... 3-53 3.9.4.2 Anticipated Impacts and Proposed Mitigation ..................... 3-59 3.9.5 Ciguatera ................................................................................................3-63 3.9.6 SWAC Facility....................................................................................... 3-65 4 Assessment of Existing Human Environment.............................................................4-1 4.1 Cultural Resources .. O .............................................................................................4-1 4.1.1 Background . . 4-1 4.1.2 Assessment...............................................................................................4-2 4.1.2.1 Anticipated Impacts and Proposed Mitigation ....................... 4-4 4.2 Archaeological Resources.................................................................................... 4-5 4.2.1 Existing Conditions.................................................................................. 4-5 4.2.1.1 DHHL Site Findings............................................:................. 4-7 4.2.1.2 DLNR and Parkway Corridor Site Findings ..........................4-8 4.2.2 Anticipated Impacts and Proposed Mitigations ..................................... 4-10 4.3 Visual Resources................................................................................................ 4-12 4.3.1 Existing Conditions................................................................................ 4-12 4.3.2 Anticipated Impacts and Proposed Mitigation ....................................... 4-13 4.4 Noise .................................................................................................................. 4-22 4.4.1 Existing Conditions and Methodology .................................................. 4-22 4.4.2 Anticipated Impacts and Proposed Mitigation ....................................... 4-22 4.5 Social Environment............................................................................................ 4-26 4.5.1 Existing and Anticipated Future Socio-economic Environment ........... 4-26 O4.5.1.1 Population............................................................................ 4-26 Page xv Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Table of Contents 4.7 Vehicular Traffic................................................................................................ 4.5.1.2 Economic Forces.................................................................. 4-27 O 4.5.2 Housing..................................................................................................4-28 Current Traffic Issues............................................................................ 4-44 4.7.3 4.5.2.1 Existing Conditions.............................................................. 4-28 4.7.4 Existing Traffic Conditions.................................................................... 4.5.2.2 Affordable Housing Requirement ........................................ 4-28 4.7.4.1 Kealakehe Parkway and Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway ...... 4.5.3 Construction -Related Impacts and Proposed Mitigation ....................... 4-28 4-46 4.5.4 Community Issues and Perceived Social Impacts ................................. 4-29 4.7.6 Proposed Year 2020 without Kona Kai Ola Project .............................. 4.5.4.1 Issues Related to Marine and Shoreline Environment......... 4-29 Anticipated Project Impacts and Proposed Mitigation .......................... 4-46 4.5.4.2 Issues Related to Project Scale and "Growth -Generating" Nature 4-29 4.5.4.3 Project Compatibility with Existing and Emerging Community4-31 4.5.4.4 Likely Drivers of "Mixed Use Success" .............................. 4-33 4.6 Economic Environment..................................................................................... 4-33 4.6.1 Tourism in Hawaii and Hawaii Island ................................................. 4-34 4.6.2 Market Appropriateness......................................................................... 4-35 4.6.2.1 Suitability of Project Site for Proposed Uses ....................... 4-35 4.6.2.2 Project Components............................................................. 4-35 4.6.3 Project Economic Impacts..................................................................... 4-37 4.6.3.1 Build -out and Absorption.................................................... 4-37 4.6.3.2 Employment and Wages ...................................................... 4-37 4.6.3.3 Visitor Spending.................................................................. 4-37 O 4.6.3.4 Sales and Revenues.............................................................. 4-37 4.6.4 Public Costs / Benefits Resulting from Project Development ............... 4-38 4.6.5 Workforce Housing Impacts.................................................................. 4-40 4.6.6 Market and Economic Impacts Associated with Alternative 1 .............. 4-41 4.7 Vehicular Traffic................................................................................................ 4-43 4.7.1 Existing Roadway Network................................................................... 4-43 4.7.2 Current Traffic Issues............................................................................ 4-44 4.7.3 Existing Transit...................................................................................... 4-45 4.7.4 Existing Traffic Conditions.................................................................... 4-45 4.7.4.1 Kealakehe Parkway and Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway ...... 4-45 4.7.4.2 Makala Boulevard and Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway ........ 4-46 4.7.5 Projections for Analysis......................................................................... 4-46 4.7.6 Proposed Year 2020 without Kona Kai Ola Project .............................. 4-46 4.7.7 Anticipated Project Impacts and Proposed Mitigation .......................... 4-46 4.8 Marina Traffic Study.......................................................................................... 4-48 4.8.1 Existing Conditions................................................................................ 4-48 4.8.2 Anticipated Impacts and Proposed Mitigation ....................................... 4-49 O Page xvi li Kealakehe, North'Kona District Island of Hawaii Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Table of Contents 4.9 Trails, Bike Paths and Pedestrian Access .......................................... 4.10 Public Services and Infrastructure Facilities ...................................... 4.10.1 Police Protection Services...................................................... 4.10.2 Fire Protection Services......................................................... 4.10.3 Medical Services.................................................................... 4.10.4 Public Educational Facilities .................................................. 4.10.5 Drainage and Storm Water Facilities ..................................... 4.10.6 Wastewater Facilities............................................................. 4.10.7 Solid Waste Facilities............................................................ 4.10.8 Potable Water Facilities......................................................... 4.10.9 Energy and Communications................................................. 4.10.9.1 Electrical.............................................................. 4.10.9.2 Telecommunications and Cable ........................... 4.10.9.3 Anticipated Impacts and Proposed Mitigation..... 41010 WatF t A er ea urea an agoons..................................................... 4-52 ...... 4-53 ...... 4-53 ...... 4-53 ...... 4-54 ...... 4-55 ...... 4-55 ...... 4-57 ...... 4-59 ...... 4-59 ...... 4-61 ...... 4-61 ...... 4-62 ...... 4-62 ...... 4-64 5 Conformance with Public Plans and Policies.............................................................. 5-1 5.1 State......................................................................................................................5-1 5.1.1 Chapter 343, Hawaii Revised Statutes ................................................... 5-1 5.1.2 State Land Use Law, Chapter 205, Hawaii Revised Statutes ................. 5-1 5.1.3 Coastal Zone Management Program, Chapter 205A, Hawaii Revised Statutes................................................................................................................. 5-4 5.1.4 Hawaii State Plan, Chapter 226, Hawaii Revised Statutes ................... 5-9 5.1.5 DHHL Hawaii Island Plan.................................................................... 5-22 5.2 County of Hawai`i.............................................................................................. 5-24 5.2.1 General Plan........................................................................................... 5-24 5.2.2 Community Development Plans............................................................ 5-40 5.2.3 County Zoning....................................................................................... 5-41 5.2.4 Special Management Area..........................................................:.......... 5-44 5.3 Permits Required for Project.............................................................................. 5-46 6 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources ......................................... 6-1 7 Relationship between Short -Term Uses of the Environment and the Maintenance of Long -Term Productivity............................................................................................... 7-1 8 Cumulative Impacts....................................................................................................... 8-1 Page xvii Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Table of Contents 9 Probable Adverse Environmental Impacts Which Cannot be Avoided ................... 9-1 O 10 Summary of Unresolved Issues...................................................................................10-1 11 Public Participation in Planning for Kona Kai Ola..................................................11-1 11.1 Public Participation Overview........................................................................... 11-1 11.2 Ongoing Public Participation Process Continues After DEIS Publication...... 11-16 12 Supporting Documentation.........................................................................................12-1 12.1 Contributing Consultants................................................................................... 12-1 12.2 List of Consultation Agencies as Part of the EIS Process ................................. 12-2 12.3 Comment Letters and Responses as Part of the Public Notice of the EISPN.... 12-3 12.4 Comment Letters and Responses Related to the DEIS...................................... 12-4 Bibliographyand References........................................................................................................1 Listof Abbreviations.....................................................................................................................9 O Appendices....................................................................................................................................11 A. Comment Letters and Responses as Part of the Public Notice of the EISPN B. Comment Letters and Responses to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement C-1. Market Study, Economic Impact Analysis, and Public Costs/Benefits Assesment C-2. Workforce Housing Impacts D. Air Quality Study E. Flora Survey Report F. A Survey of Avian and Terrestrial Mammalian Species G-1. Geology and Ground -water Hydrology in the Vicinity of Honokohau Harbor G-2. Evidence and Implications of Saline Cold Ground -water G-3. Ground -water Effects on Anchialine Pools G-4. Ground -water Contaminant Study O Page xviii Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Table of Contents OH-1. Water Quality, Marine Biological Baseline Studies, and Impact Analysis H-2. An Inventory and Assessment of Anchialine Pools Including Management and Mitigation Recommendations I. Zone of Mixing Report J. Wave Penetration K. Cooling Water Intake Analysis L-1. Cultural Impact Assessments 2006 L-2. Cultural Impact Assessments 2001 M-1. Archaeological Inventory Surveys 2006 M-2. Archaeological Inventory Surveys 2001 N. Environmental Noise Assessment Report O. Social Impact Assessment P. Traffic Impact Analysis Study Q-1. Marina Boat Traffic Study Q-2. Marina Boat Traffic Addendum Study — 400 Slip Marina Q-3. Addendum Impact of Additional Launch Ramp Lanes R. Marine Fisheries Study S. Marine Mammal and Sea Turtle Biological Write -Ups T-1. Underwater Noise Impacts Review T-2. Ambient Noise Measurements T-3. Acoustical Noise Study U. Marina Modeling Study Page xix Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii List of Tables and Figures List Tables Figures O of and Tables Table 1: Proposed Kona Kai Ola Development Program......................................................1-13 Table 2-a. Estimated Indirect Air Pollution Emissions From Kona Kai Ola Project Electrical Demand...................................................................................................................... 3-9 Table 2-b. Air Pollution Emissions Inventory For Island Of Hawaii, 1993 ............................ 3-10 Table 3: Primary Marketable Components Comparison Between the Proposed Project and Alternative1.............................................................................................................4-42 Table 4: Permits Required for the Project.............................................................................. 5-46 Table 5: Community Contacts Completed November 2005 through September 2006 ......... 11-2 Table 6: Presentations to Community Organizations...........................................................11-15 Table 7: Kona Kai Ola Community Contacts Completed Since DEIS; October 2006 through June2007...............................................................................................................11-18 Table 8: Kona Kai Ola Presentations to Community Organizations, October 2006 through June 2007........................................................................................................................ 11-28 Table 9: Contributing Consultants......................................................................................... 12-1 Table 10: Information on Comment Letters on EISPN...........................................................12-3 Table 11: Information on Comment Letters on DEIS.............................................................. 12-4 O Figures FigureA: Location Map............................................................................................................... 1-3 FigureB: Tax Map Key Map....................................................................................................... 1-4 Figure C: Land Ownership Map..................................................................................................1-5 Figure D: Preliminary Concept Plan..........................................................................................1-10 Figure E: Green/Open Space Plan............................................................................................. 1-11 FigureF: Phasing Map............................................................................................................... 1-18 Figure G: Alternative 1: 400 -Slip Marina.................................................................................... 2-3 Figure H: Alternative 2: Golf Course Alternative....................................................................... 2-5 Figure I: Soils Survey Map.......................................................................................................... 3-2 FigureJ-1: Watershed Map.......................................................................................................... 3-4 FigureJ-2: Topography Map....................................................................................................... 3-5 Figure. K: Flood Hazard Map..................................................................................................... 3-12 Figure L: Tsunami Hazard Map................................................................................................. 3-14 Figure M: Volcanic Hazard Map............................................................................................... 3-16 O Page xx Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii List of Tables and Figures OFigure N: Aquifer Map.............................................................................................................. 3-22 FigureO: Boring Locations Map............................................................................................... 3-24 Figure P: Water Quality Classifications Map...................:........................................................ 3-30 Figure Q: National Historical Park Service Legislative Boundary Map ................................... 3-41 Figure R: Anchialine Pool Locations......................................................................................... 3-42 Figure S: Anchialine Pool Locations in Southern Complex ...................................................... 3-43 Figure T: Revised Archaeological Resources Location Map....................................................4-11 Figure U-1: View from Villages of La`i`Opua.........................................................................4-16 Figure U-2: View of Main Entrance into the Project.................................................................4-17 Figure U-3: View from North Side of Honok6hau Harbor Entrance Channel .......................... 4-18 Figure U-4: Close -Up View from Ocean of the Coastline and Makai Parcels ..........................4-20 Figure U-5: View of the Project from the Ocean.......................................................................4-21 Figure V: Noise Measurement Locations..................................................................................4-23 FigureW: State Land Use Map................................................................................................... 5-2 Figure X: Conservation District Map.......................................................................................... 5-3 FigureY: DHHL Island Plan Map............................................................................................. 5-23 Figure Z: Hawaii County Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide Map ........................................ 5-25 OFigure AA: Hawaii County Zoning Map.................................................................................. 5-42 Figure AB: Special Management Area Map.............................................................................. 5-45 Page xxi Kealakehe, North Kona District Island of Hawaii Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement This page is intentionally left blank. Page xxii Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Introduction and Project Description 1 Introduction and Project Description 1.1 Overview Jacoby Development, Inc. and Kona Marina Development Group, LLC, an affiliate of Jacoby Development, Inc., herein collectively referred to as JDI, have been selected by the State of Hawaii to develop Kona Kai Ola at Kealakehe, Kona, Island of Hawaii. The project includes a community -focused marina and commercial village that features visitor lodging, a marine science center, water features, and a cultural center. The project area encompasses 530 acres, of which 200 acres are owned by the State Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, herein referred to as DHHL, and 330 adjacent acres are owned by the State Department of Land and Natural Resources, herein referred to as DLNR. In addition to the 530 -acre project area, 22 acres owned by the Queen Lili`uokalani Trust are proposed for the extension of a proposed parkway that serves Kona Kai Ola and Kailua-Kona. The total subject area for this Dr4t=Final Environmental Impact Statement is therefore 552 acres. This project does not include lands in the Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park or the Honokohau Harbor except for the shared entrance channel. This document contains the Dr -aft Final Environmental Impact Statement, or DE S-FEIS, in accordance with Chapter 343 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes. Pursuant to EIS requirements, O EIS changes based on responses to DEIS public comments are tracked throughout this FEIS. Added text is double underlined, and deleted text is indicated by stfike thfough text. The following summarizes project information: Project Location Kealakehe, North Kona, Island of Hawaii Judicial District North Kona Project Area Tax Map Key 7-4-008: 071 and 72 7-4-008: 9999 (proposed parkway through project site) 7-4-008: 003 (portion) Project Site Total 530 acres - 330 acres owned by DLNR (includes parkway property through site) - 200 acres owned by DHHL Additional Study Area 22 acres for parkway extension south through lands owned by Queen Lili`uokalani Trust Total EIS Study Area 552 acres Existing Land Use Mostly vacant, contiguous to the existing DLNR Honokohau Harbor facility to the north. Page I - I Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Introduction and Project Description O Existing Land Use Designations State Land Use ....................................... Urban and Conservation Hawai `i County General Plan ........... Open and Urban Expansion Hawai `i County Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG) Designation.............Urban (DHHL); Urban Expansion and Open (DLNR) (On November 29, 2006, the Hawai `i County Council approved re -designation of most of the DLNR land to Urban Expansion) Hawai `i County Zoning ..........................................................Open Special Management Area .................... Completely in SMA Zone DHHL Island Plan ...................................................... Commercial Applicant Mr. Scott Condra Senior Vice President Jacoby Development, Inc. 171 17th Street, NW, Suite 1550 Atlanta, Georgia 30363 Phone: 770-399-9930 Fax: 770-206-9150 Accepting Authority O p g >tty o State Department of Hawaiian Home Lands 1099 Alakea Street, Suite 2000 Honolulu, Hawai `i 96813 Contact: Linda Chinn Telephone: 808-587-6434 DEIS Preparer: Oceanit Oceanit Center 828 Fort Street Mall, 6th Flee Suite 600 Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 Contact: Dayan Vithanage Telephone: 808-531-3017 E-mail: konakaiola@oceanit.com 1.2 Project Site The 530 -acre project site of the proposed Kona Kai Ola is located in Kealakehe, North Kona, on the }Island of Hawaii as shown in Figure A. The site is owned by the State of Hawaii, and includes Tax Map Key (TMK) parcels as illustrated in Figure B. Figure C contains ownership information, which is summarized as follows: DHHL owns about 200 acres identified as TMK 7-4-008:072; DLNR owns about 330 acres identified as TMKs 7-4-008: parcels 003 (por.), 071, and 0999 (proposed Kealakehe Parkway extension makai of Queen Ka`ahumanu Hwy). Page 1-2 State of Hawaii (Airports) id Dept. of Intelior-l-' mm \ villag `,,Laio Kealakehe, North Kona District Island of Hawai `i Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Introduction and Project Description The DEIS FEIS study area also encompasses approximately 22 acres of land to be used for the proposed Kealakehe Parkway extension to Kuakini Highway south through Queen Lili`uokalani Trust lands, The entire project site is bounded on the north by Kaloko-Honok6hau National Historical Park, and on the south by the Queen Lili`uokalani Trust parcel and the Kealakehe Wastewater Treatment Plant operated by Hawaii County. The project site is bounded on the west by the Pacific Ocean shoreline, and on the east by Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway. Currently, most of the project site is vacant. A gravel road with some DLNR-owned storage units and boating support equipment occupy a small portion of the DLNR parcel identified as TMK 7- 4-008:003, surrounding the existing harbor. On the parcel to the south identified as TMK 7-4- 008:071, a small public park and an unimproved parking area are located near the existing harbor entrance channel. The parking area is currently being used by adjacent boat owner slips, as well as those who hike to `Alula, a small pocket beach located a short distance to the south, for sunbathing, snorkeling, and scuba diving. Limited shore fishing occurs in this area as well. The land and shoreline are difficult to access. `Alula provides the only safe ocean access during calm seas. `Alula beach is also used regularly by kupuna from the region, and hula halau for cleansing ceremonies (hiu wail. The shoreline area of the project site contains the majority of the most prominent cultural/archaeological features. Makaopio (Hale-o-Lono) heiau was built in a brackish water pond on the north side of the beach area. Further south is the Hale o Kane structures. There are also anchialine pelmaools in this immediate shoreline area. These anchialine pools are important cultural and natural resources that are used for cultural practices and educational purposes now. The shoreline south of this area is made up of rugged lava flow, perched beaches and small groupings of dry vegetation. The inland project site area consists of rugged lava flows with sparse dry vegetation. 1.3 Surrounding Uses Surrounding uses include harbor -related commercial and recreational activities at the Honokahau Harbor, and cultural and recreational activities related to the Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park. The Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park was authorized by the U.S. Congress in 1978 to preserve and perpetuate traditional native Hawaiian activities and culture. The congressional advisory commission recommended that the area previously designated "Honok6hau Settlement National Historical Landmark" and adjacent waters to be preserved for the benefit of the Hawaiian people and the nation as part of the national park system. Page 1-6 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Introduction and Project Description OThe eCongressionally (Legislated Park boundary includes 7.5 acres of State lands on the northern side of Honokohau Harbor and 15.5 acres of State lands to the south of the harbor entrance. While the NP-S-Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park has a lease agreement with the State for the 7.5 acres, the 15.5 acres on the southern side of the harbor is not leased by NP& Kaloko- Honokohau National Historical Park. These lands are included in the current Kona Kai Ola project area. For the area specifically within this legislative boundary fronting the Kona Kai Ola project site, the developer will work cooperatively with the National Park to develop a management plan and interpretive plan for these cultural and archaeological resources. The town of Kailua-Kona lies to the south of the project site and south of the Queen Lili `uokalani Trust property. The nearshore waters are primarily for transit of vessels entering or exiting the Honokohau Harbor, swimming, snorkeling or scuba diving off `Alula beach, scuba diving from boats moored or anchored at various locations within Honokohau Bay, and fishing from boats in Honokohau Bay and other shore locations. The area from Keahole Point to the north to Kailua-Kona town to the south is typified by rich coral reefs and fish communities, and features several popular scuba - diving sites. 1.4 Purpose and Need for the Project The State of Hawaii has expressed a desire to create and expand income=generating uses on the subject lands, and provide expanded recreational options for the surrounding community Othrough the use of private investment. Kona Kai Ola responds to these efforts, and the project is based on agreements with two State agencies. DHHL has a lease agreement with Kona Marina Development Group, LLC, an affiliate of Jacoby Development, Inc., for the development of its 200 acres. DLNR has a development agreement with JDI for its 330 acres. The background of these agreements is discussed in this section, and these agreements are collectively referred to as "agreements with the State" in this BEISFEIS. 1.4.1 DHHL The 200 -acre DHHL parcel was transferred to DHHL by the State of Hawaii in February 2001 as part of a 1994 settlement with the State. The land has been identified by DHHL as the only major DHHL parcel with income -generating potential on the west side of the Island of Hawaii and is designated for commercial development in the DHHL Hawaii Island Plan of May 2002. Its strategic location relative to Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway and proximity to the Kona International Airport, Honokohau Harbor, the town of Kailua-Kona, and municipal infrastructure systems, render the site a prime candidate for generating income that will support the mission of this public trust. (DHHL 2002) Page 1-7 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Introduction and Project Description In January 2004, this land was leased to Kona Marina Development Group, LLC, an affiliate of O Jacoby Development, Inc., for a commercial, light industrial, retail/restaurant, hotel, time-share, and resort visitor recreation development. Although permanent residential development is not allowed under the lease agreement with the State, JDI is planning to construct employee housing on a nearby site that will be leased at below market rents. It is anticipated that project -generated revenue will help finance DHHL housing programs on other DHHL land, including the Villages at La`i `Opua that requires expensive infrastructure for water, sewer and roads. 1.4.2 DLNR DLNR acreage adjacent to the Honokohau Harbor was identified as the site for a new marina basin to connect to the existing harbor. The project site is strategically located for commercial development and to generate income for the State of Hawaii, while providing community and statewide economic and social benefits. Since it was determined that the cost of the harbor expansion was too high for the State to finance with public funds, DLNR solicited proposals from interested developers. In exchange for expanding the harbor, the developer would be granted a limited range of development options, subject to a longterm lease, for some of the remaining DLNR lands in the area. In November 2005, the Board of Land and Natural Resources signed a development agreement with JDI. The development agreement provides that as an essential component of the Board's finding that the public interest demands the Kona Kai Ola project, JDI will develop and construct a new marina basin of not less than 45 acres and containing not less than 800 new boat slips. Traffic in the area is already congested at peak times, and any additional development would O require significant traffic improvements. JDI is therefore required by DHHL to complete a range of roadway improvements in the area. These transportation improvements include: A realignment of the Kealakehe Parkway and intersection with Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway; Construction of the Kealakehe Parkway extension to serve each of the development parcels of the property. These improvements, along with certain other infrastructure improvements to be constructed as part of the project, constitute the "Core Infrastructure" as defined in agreements with the State. If JDI meets certain conditions in its development agreement with the Board, including development and construction of the new marina and Core Infrastructure, JDI is permitted to develop a project with land uses including retail/restaurant, hotels and time-share units, light industrial/marina uses, open space, public access, and recreational water features. Although residential use is not permitted on the leased lands, JDI is planning to construct employee housing on a nearby site that will be leased at below market rents. The agreements also prohibit the transfer of fee simple ownership of State land. The commercial and time-share features will be based on long-term leases. Per the agreement, the project site will be leased from the State. Page 1-8 Kealakehe, North Kona District Island of Hawai `i 1.5 Proposed Project and Objectives 1.5.1 Development Program Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Introduction and Project Description The vision of Kona Kai Ola is an environmentally sustainable marina -focused development consisting of a mix of uses including visitor and resident -serving commercial enterprises, hotels and time-share units, marina services, open space and community -benefiting facilities including public infrastructure improvements in a pedestrian friendly setting surrounding the marina and seawater lagoons. The Kona Kai Ola Master Plan proposes a mixed-use and community -focused marina and commercial village as shown in Figure D. The project has a strong ocean orientation, and project components that support this theme would include various water features including seawater lagoons with a marine wildlife park and a marine science center. The Kona Kai Ola harbor would include a yacht club, fishing club, a canoe park, and a cultural park with a focus on Hawaiian maritime cultural heritage of the voyaging canoe. The coastal area would be protected with a shoreline park with trails and public access parking for walking and shoreline fishing, and . a cultural park surrounding the heiau, the cultural sites and `Alula for community use. Additional project community areas would include facilities and space for community use, including programs of the Kona Kai Ola Community Foundation, which supports community programs in health care, culture, education, and employment training for the local community, especially to native Hawaiians. -Project components include the following: O Marina: The focal point of the proposed project is a new 45 -acre marina. The new marina is anticipated to meet an increasing public demand for boat facilities on the west side of the Island of Hawaii. The agreements stipulate that the new marina contain approximately 800 boat slips with a minimum basin size of 45 acres. ■ Ocean Recreation and Cultural Emphasis: Kona Kai Ola has a strong ocean and cultural orientation and these themes will be reflected in several proposed ways. A marine science center is proposed along with public access, public water features, community gathering areas, a yacht club, a big game fishing club, a proposed canoe park, a cultural park, and a cultural center that may have the Hawaiian voyaging canoe as its focus. ■ Open Space: In keeping with the ocean and recreation orientation, the project will feature approximately 224 acres of developer -initiated green space, open space, public spaces and view corridors. The project will also feature a 400 -foot development setback from the shoreline, as illustrated in the Open and Greenspace Plan Figure E. ■ Commercial: Commercial areas primarily located on the DHHL parcel will be designed to primarily serve the local residential market. This may include large retailers and local residential services such as banking, office space, grocery stores and restaurants. The commercial development near the proposed marina on the DLNR portion of the site will be more focused on serving both the local residents and the visitor market with smaller shops and unique restaurants and boutiques. Page 1-9 VILLAGES OF LATOPUA.' OPEN TIMESHARE OLH$ RETAIFEO" ' LEOUFME ODMU.RY OF ItI.1.DKUNONO%ONAU -7 FL HlsioRlCnt FARM y ry 7. 'PROPOSED FUTURE ACCESS.TO QUEEN LILI`UOKALANI TRUST r' KUAKINI HIGHWAY EXTENSION L/ QUEEN LICI'UOKALANI TRUST WAS E. TP - ITIMESHARE 1 '"'•� .PROPOSED FUTURE i ACCESS TO QUEEN UU'UOKALANI TRUST { L �`' HOTEl2 PROPOSED -. - FUTURE i HOTE al ACCESS �A.. , e MA�REIRNA' TO QUEEN 1NLLAG94 UUWOKALANI T =tl TRUST t TIMESHARE TIMESHARE ` T TIMESHARE TIMESHARE .., HAWAIIAN T TIMESHARE- 'NOTE 12 CULTURAL , \ Y 2 PARK SHORE NEP RK., 'kq`+� OCEANFRONT TRAIL i, CONSERVATION ."' DISTRICT r BOUNDARY Eat Source:'!PB''R HAWAII Plan is conceptual only and subject to change Figure D: Preliminary Concept Plan Legend z IA ,tiC+eal'alE. CxmM«y�tak9L skahkueArep © Timeshare W Man- 56en1e Gaiter 1 C.—ItIryrea A NOlat .ULYfNesJ Hotel Faciifms rw CC -6.1 Recce -b., I Open JD1 Marina ReW sho bne Pant Manna Sappon I Cammerw JACo$Y DEvELoP TWT, INC. 3'.'kL6XOmHONOKG'I1AU), NATIONAL HISTORICAL �ARK OP olki miu 4 F ;CESS 0 OUV4 T� uquo LAW &7 :-"' Q KIJAKJNI H6V�AY .&r6isioN 7D QUEEN 6Li'UOKALA1NI::-1'- TPUST,, "A -IP OFOSED't6FC ,ACCESS TO'00VESN' i7' LAIE, J - Source,: PBR (HAWAII Plan is conceptual only and subject to change Figure E: G een / Open Space Plan Z' �r s:. CrtVq�4- VsgERe4YMxtu[t 3 JD1 JAcoBy DEvELopmENT, INC. Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawai `i Introduction and Project Description O ■ Hotels: Kona Kai Ola includes hotels that are expected to meet a wide range of demands, and thus optimize economic benefits. 700 hotel units in conjunction with a commercial village are proposed. The economic analysis completed as a part of this -FEIS and included as Appendix B -C of this PE19FEIS, analyzed various development scenarios to determine which levels will provide economic viability for the project. ■ Time-share Units: Per requirements of the agreements, a vacation ownership or time- share ownership plan may be developed in one or more phases, 1,803 of these units are proposed. The agreements specifically prohibit the development of residences that are marketed or intended for use as primary or permanent residences. ■ Marina Support: To support the marina and its activities, approximately eight acres are proposed for marina industrial uses such as boat repair, launching, storage, rental, sanding/paint station, and fueling. ■ Other Amenities: Kona Kai Ola will feature lagoons and water features throughout the development. ■ Support: Areas are reserved for facilities support, job training, employee parking and a seawater air conditioning facility. ■ Seawater Air Conditioning (SWAC) facility: This system is designed to pump cool water from ocean depths through the development assisting air conditioning and then disposed of in injection wells to prevent nearshore impacts. It is noted that the word "resort" is sometimes used in foundational documents supporting O studies, and the text of this document to connote certain transient accommodations that are typically found in resort developments. However, the project concept does not include the establishment of a resort per se, as it does not involve the establishment of an exclusive self- contained resort facility that is designed to be a destination area in itself. The transient accommodations add to the mix of uses that provide the synergism for this unique project Thus the occasional "resort" reference in project descriptions in this document should be read to be interchangeable with the references to hotels and time-share units Page 1-12 Page 1-13 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Introduction and Project Description OTable 1 summarizes land uses proposed in the Kona Kai Ola development program. Table 1: Proposed Kona Kai Ola Development Program Preliminary Uses Land Uses Acreage Units Marina Various levels of boat 800 slips 45 acres accommodations Hotels Three hotels 700 units 66 acres Time-share Eight areas 1,803 units 145 acres Commercial Two areas not applicable 51 acres Marina Industrial Marina support not applicable 7 acres Project Support and Project support / employee parking not applicable 13 acres Utilities Utilities Lagoons Water features Marine Park not applicable 19 acres Brackishwater Pond Marine Science Center Community Areanot Community Uses applicable 24 acres Yacht Club Big Game Fishing Club O Shoreline Park (buffer = 400 feet) Cultural Park Harbor Entrance Park Parks not applicable 66 acres Marina / Canoe Park Lagoon Park Entry Park Open space and Open space areas not applicable 93 acres roads Roadways Total 2,503 Hotel/Time- 530 acres shares units Page 1-13 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Introduction and Project Description 1.5.2 Project Sustainable Design O The U.S. General Services Administration defines sustainable design as a process that "seeks to reduce negative impacts on the environment, human health and comfort of building occupants, thereby improving building performance" (GSA 2006). Sustainable design is a process that requires integration and communication between all parties involved in the design and construction of a development. In a typical development, an owner works with an architect and site planner to design the -development. Following a site's design, engineers are hired to design the structure and systems of a building. Eventually a contractor is brought in to construct the development. In this version of development, the designers and contractors work in isolation. In contrast, sustainable design requires that team members work together to understand how all pieces to a development fit within the whole. This integration allows project members to offer unique solutions to common design and construction problems while also integrating environmental concerns into a project. JDI has made a corporate commitment to environmental sustainability in all its work. In Kona Kai Ola, JDI intends to incorporate the latest environmental design and technology to create an energy efficient, low environmental impact, sustainable development at Kona Kai Ola. The vision for the Droiect is to develoD a Droiect that has minimal impact on the environment by striving to significantly reduce water consumDtion, waste disDosal. enerav use and carbon dioxide emissions. One key to measuring the sustainability of the project's design and operation is to use the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Green Building Rating System. The LEED Green Building Rating System is the nationally accepted benchmark for the design, O construction, and operation of high performance green buildings. LEED gives building developers and operators the tools they need to have an immediate and measurable impact on their buildings' performance (LEED 2006). JDI has experience with the LEED certification process from its other projects both for individual buildings, and for large campus infrastructure as well. JDI intends to pursue, at a minimum, Silver LEED certification for its development of the Kona Kai Ola project. At the project's onset. JDI developed goals related to design, energy, water, waste and transportation, and the following sections present goals in each of those areas. Sustainable design prineiples inelude the ability to: f f f f Page 1-14 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Introduction and Project Description O1.5.3 Design Related Goals ■ The development will maintain 40 percent of the total site area as open (including marina). Kona Kai Ola's original proposed site plans have set aside 40 percent of total site area as open space. ■ The Droiect site temperature will be reduced while maintaining an attractive environment for visitors and the community. By reducing the site temperature, the cooling requirements in buildings will be lessened and walking within the site will be more comfortable. A variety of different measures are being considered to reduce site temperature', these measures include site vegetation incorporation of water features throughout the site, reduction of dark pavement, and shading of pathways. 1.5.4 Energy Related Goals ■ The Droiect will reduce building energy use by 50 percent as compared to a building that does not incorporate energy efficient strategies (the comparison building is defined by using ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-2004). The project team has already begun analyzing the energy use in a typical time-share. Strategies to help reduce energy use include: incorporating significant wall and ceiling insulation, utilizing windows that allow daylight without allowing heat penetration, purchasing energy efficient lighting and appliances designing the buildings to maximize natural ventilation, and using cold ocean water for air conditioning and cooling. ■ The project will use renewable energy technologies on-site to provide the remaining 50 O percent of overall building energy use On Hawaii Island, one of the most abundant resources is solar insolation Given the year-round abundance of solar insolation, the use of solar thermal and photovoltaic technologies is feasible for the project. The development intends to integrate these technologies into each building's architectural features Initial calculations show that the time-share segment can integrate enough solar technologies on each building's roof to completely offset time-share electricity demand. ■ These measures will help to reduce the site's peak energy demand by 50 percent. By reducing the development's demand during the range of hours that most of the-Hawai`i Island's citizens are using electricity. Kona Kai Ola can help HELCO reduce the probability of brownouts and blackouts. The reduction in peak energy demand can be achieved by using smart technologies that control energy use. 1.5.5 Water Related Goals ■ The Droiect will aggressively reduce use of potable water used in fixtures and appliances by 70 percent relative to a basecase building. The development will cut water use through the application of innovative water recycling techniques, the incorporation of water efficient fixtures and appliances, and the recycling of grevwater for toilet flushing. The initial modeling of a time-share unit demonstrated that the use of water efficient fixtures and appliances and the recycling of grevwater for toilet flushing already contribute to a 50 percent reduction in potable water demands. Page 1-15 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Introduction and Project Description ■ The project will reduce or eliminate the need for notable irrigation. The reduction or O elimination of potable irrigation can be accomplished using a multi -prong strategy. First the project will focus on incorporating native Hawaiian plants, including native drvland species, in its landscaping plan. The project will retain a significant amount of the black lava features that make the Kona Kai Ola site so distinctive. Employing native vegetation and maintaining lava features will reduce water demand. To fulfill the remaining water requirements, the development may use brackish water to irrigate vegetation that is not affected by salt levels. Furthermore, the use of rainwater cisterns to collect rainwater and distribute it. while also recycling grevwater from showers laundry, dishwashers and hand sinks can lead to further reductions in water needed for irrigation Irrigation water may also be provided by condensation on cold water pipes buried at the root zone of landscape plants, as has been shown to be successful at the e_Natural Energy Laboratory of Hawai `i. ■ The moiect will improve water c>uality related to marina development by following the best available economically achievable practices identified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for marina development and management. These measures include marina flushing, habitat assessment, shoreline stabilization, storm water runoff management, and a variety of other measures. 1.5.6 Waste Related Goals ■ The moiect will divert over 50 percent of the waste generated during construction. The preparation of a site and the eventual construction of buildings and site infrastructure generate significant amounts of waste. By identifying construction and site materials that O can be reused or recycled on or off-site, the Kona Kai Ola project will reduce construction waste by at least 50 percent. Prior to the beginning of construction activities, a construction waste management plan will be developed that will lead to a 50 percent reduction in construction waste. Polluted runoff will be treated using structural and non-structural Best Management Practices (BMPs) before the water is released to the marina. ■ To further prevent polluted runoff, bioretention, which is a Best Management Practice (BMP), is a highly appropriate application for the proposed development. Storm water should be directed into bioretention areas such as constructed surface or subsurface wetlands, vegetated filter strips, grass swales, and planted buffer areas. Storm water held and moved through these living filter systems are essentially stripped of most potential pollutants, and allowed to slowly infiltrate back to the groundwater table. ■ The development will include the creation and maintenance of an extensive recycling program that will reduce waste generated on site by 90 percent. ■ Project components will produce compost for use on and off site. The restaurant operations and time -share -buildings will generate large amounts of compostable material from food preparation and consumption. Rather than dispose of this material, it can be composted and used as a natural fertilizer. Page 1-16 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement OIsland of Hawaii Introduction and Project Description 1.5.7 Transportation Related Goals ■ Kona Kai Ola will reduce transportation related impacts through provision of mass transit options. The project will provide public transit service linking the airport and the new harbor village and Kailua Village. The development will also establish a transit system to transport people around the project site. ■ Kona Kai Ola will be a walkable development. The development hopes to be easily navigable on -foot or on a bike. The plan will include numerous walking and biking trails linking site features. Additionally, reducing site temperatures will enhance the walkability of the site. ■ Kona Kai Ola is being responsive to the community's desire to improve transportation infrastructure early in the project by committing to build the Kuakini Highway Extension in the first phase of the project. Many of these strategies are discussed throughout this DEIS FEIS and many sustainable features areo,.,,.,..- end@a rotas mitigating measures for certain aspects of this project. 1.6 Phasing Figure F presents the proposed Phasing Plan for land-based development. While the marina has a separate phasing sequence, the Phasing Plan depicts how the marina construction fits into the O land-based construction sequence. It is anticipated that a 15 -year build out will ensure market viability for each component of the master plan. Installation of the boat slips would be constructed as the market warrants over the 15 -year build out of the project. At this time we are estimating the number of slips that would be constructed in each phase. If for some reason the market demand for boat slips in that phase differs from the anticipated projections, the allocation for that phase would be increased or decreased accordingly. Each phase is hereby discussed. 1.6.1 Phase 1 Phase 1 includes the development of Commercial Parcel No. 1, which is approximately 29 acres. This parcel fronts Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway and is at the intersection of Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway and Kealakehe WWTP Access Road. This prime parcel provides a natural location for retail activity and therefore would be developed immediately. A regional commercial center that will serve the residents of Kona is envisioned for this site. Developing this commercial parcel in Phase 1 requires major traffic improvements, as access to the parcel is critical to its commercial success. JDI will not only provide access to the commercial parcel, but also address regional traffic issues like congestion and connectivity in Phase 1. The roadway system will be improved with turning movements and widening per recent plans by the State of Hawaii Department of Transportation (HDOT). JDI plans to improve the intersection of the Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway and the Kealakehe WWTP Access Road. The Kealakehe WWTP Access Road is planned to be realigned and widened to an 80-foot4e.L4 road right-of-way (ROW) that will serve the Commercial Parcel No. 1 and eventually intersect with the proposed Kuakini Highway Extension to the west. Page 1-17 PolicA S411WA tAAQ:Nf". VILLAGES OF LA'I'OPUA PROPOSED FUTURE ACCESS TO QUEEN LILI'UOKALANI TRUST KUAKINI HIGHWAY /..✓°i C,.,�.°'I' ::,�::."s _.+^" EXTENSION GI✓/ 0"P 6m, riz I' a vrs QUEEN a , LILI'UOKALANI �p�"t;"�n TRUST t :., WAS ATER u FATM PLA ` 8 PROPOSED ry OtNR *'�"dk FUTURE RETAINED 4 > ACCESS LANDS ,`�` TOOUEEN TRUST NATIONAL HIS PARK A 4EGL9LATYE AAUxpMTq � � y r.. wwxo•waosoww r WTbNAL HRTARIGI»RN l 14 ,HAWnrIAN 1 R HOTEL PARK 5 at" ..... .,... J .3NOR HE PARK OCEANFRONT TRAIL I .., CONSERVATION i NOT i PROPOSED FUTURE HDTF1.51; ACCESS NaRtNA" TO OUE£N t CP Rv LILMOKALANI ¢cdmme TRUST DISTRICT BOUNDARY � Ok k w+c+ro Source: PBR HAWAII Plan is conceptual only and subject to Change Figure F: Phasing IEllap w � Legend cot.oR PHASE 0 2 3 j7r--%l 4 JACOBY D.Evnop ENT, INc. Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Introduction and Project Description OJDI also plans; in aeeor-danee with D14HL lease agreement, to realign Kealakehe kehe Park« ay fof µiv Queen Tr h , Highway to allow for- ., stfaighto.-_path to the p-k...ay's intefseetion with r Queen Ka' h,,.,,.,,,,. H;,,h..,,,.. in addition, jD1 plans to build a new Kealakehe Parkway/Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway intersection, and extend Kuakini Highway. Beyond the roadway improvements mentioned above, JDI is planning to address congestion on the Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway and resolve regional connectivity issues by extending Kuakini Highway as a parallel route to Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway to the existing Kuakini Highway terminating at Makala Boulevard by Old Kona Airport State Park. This will alleviate traffic off the main highway. The highway extension over Queen Lili`uokalani Trust lands is subject to future negotiations and agreements with Queen Lili`uokalani Trust. Utilities within the project boundary, such as water, sewer, power, telephone, and cable television within the Kuakini Highway Extension ROW, will also be developed in this phase. Phase 1 is proposed to be built out in the first two years after approval from DLNR and DHHL, subject to negotiating a lease on the DLNR lands and negotiating an agreement with Queen Lili`uokalani Trust on the Kuakini Highway Extension. The improvements are situated on DHHL land, which allow it to be developed as soon as aforementioned conditions are met. Access to the existing Honokohau Harbor and the existing Kealakehe WWTP will continue throughout Phase 1. 1.6.2 Phase 2 OThe excavation of the 45 -acre marina basin will occur in Phase 2. This first increment of marina construction will exceed 50% of the overall estimated marina cost. Basic marina facilities included in this increment will be the marina utilities, the perimeter treatment/railing and portions of the promenade. Approximately 100 slips will be constructed in this increment. Marina support facilities located on the north boundary of the project and adjacent to the existing Honokohau Small Boat Harbor will be developed in Phase 2. This area is an extension of the existing harbor lands and may include uses such as additional boat maintenance and repair facilities to support the existing marina and new marina. Three hotel parcels will be developed in Phase 2. Two of the three parcels are located along the basin's edge. The third parcel is located along the coastline mauka of the 400 -foot shoreline setback. The Employee Parking Area and the Project Support Facilities site are also being developed in this phase. Commercial Parcel No. 2, at the intersection of the proposed Kealakehe Parkway Extension and Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway, will also be developed in Phase 2. Further, several community uses are included in Phase 2. The nine acre Community Benefit Development parcel Qwest of the Commercial Parcel No. 2, the Yacht Club and Fishing Club are being developed in this phase. The harbor entrance park at the mouth of the existing marina will also receive improvements during Phase 2. The public access ways to the shoreline adjacent to Hotel Parcel No. 1 and its associated parking, trails, and restrooms will also be developed during this phase. O Page 1-19 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Introduction and Project Description An 80 -foot Right of Way road along the north boundary of the WWTP will be built in this phase, O and will provide access to the three hotels that are being developed. Numerous 60-foot4eet ROW roadways are also planned in Phase 2. The utilities that will service the project, such as water, sewer, power, telephone, and cable television within the roadway's ROW mentioned above, will also be developed in Phase 2. Phase 2 is proposed to be built out in the two to five years after the project has been issued its permits and entitlements. Access to the existing Honok6hau Harbor and Kealakehe WWTP will continue through this phase on existing and transferring to the new roadways. 1.6.3 Phase 3 Phase 3 includes the second increment of the basic marina facilities. Marina construction for this increment will include further development of the promenade, marina restrooms and parking, expansion of the fuel dock, vessel pumpout station and approximately 400 additional slips. The central water feature that spans from the new Kuakini Highway through the center of the project and flows into the marina basin will be built in Phase 3. This water feature will be the primary amenity for the uses in this portion of the project. Three of the eight time-share parcels will be developed in Phase 3 thereby generating 675 units. Three community uses are also planned for Phase 3. The Marine Science Center will be built along the north edge of the water feature. The Lagoon Park with man-made swimming lagoons will be built on the south edge of the water feature. The last community feature in Phase 3 is the O construction of the Canoe Launch and Marina Park at the north edge of the new basin. A mid-level 40-f6ot4eL4 ROW roadway connecting the northern and southern side of the project will be constructed in this phase. This roadway will allow Kona residents and visitors to traverse across Kona Kai Ola without having to drive onto the Kuakini Highway eExtension, thus reducing congestion on Kuakini and retaining local traffic on-site. The utilities within the 40 -foot -feet roadway's ROW servicing the uses in this phase, as well as the rest of the project, will be developed concurrently in Phase 3. Phase 3 of the master development plan would be built over the nine-year period. 1.6.4 Phase 4 The fourth and final phase of the project to be built over the x -15 --year period is comprised of the remaining time-share parcels. Parcels one, two, three, four, and five will be completed in Phase 4. The coastline roadway comprising of 60-foot4eet and 50 -foot -feet ROW segments will be built in this final phase. The utilities within these roadways' ROW will be developed concurrently in this phase. The remaining basic marina facilities include building the balance of approximately 300 slips and an additional vessel pumpout station. Page 1-20 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Introduction and Project Description O1.7 Environmental Process Of the nine land uses or administrative acts that trigger environmental review under HRS 343, the following are relevant to the proposed project: ■ The project involves State lands; ■ The project site includes lands in the shoreline area; and ■ Th pr-ejeet o ndn v,t to the H : ': County General Plan ■ A portion of the project site is on the National Historic Register. An Environmental Impact Statement Preparation Notice (EISPN) was published on July 8, 2006, and comment letters from agencies and citizens were received in July and August of 2006. Responses to the comment letters were mailed in -the week of October 20, 2006. A copy of the comment letters and corresponding response letters are included in Appendix A. A Draft Environmental Impact Statement was published on December 23, 2006. Ninety-two public comments were received within a 45 -day comment period ending February 6, 2007, and comments that were postmarked after this date are also included in this FEIS. All comments letters and corresponding response letters are included in Appendix B of Volume 2 of this FEIS. This FEIS was prepared pursuant to Chapter 343, Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS), and the Environmental Impact Statement Rules, Title 11, Chapter 200 of the Hawaii Administrative Rules (HAR). This DEI&-FEIS provides an overview of technical, environmental, social, O cultural, and economic aspects of the project. It seeks public input at this stage to allow public and agency concerns to be addressed as part of the Final EIS. This FEIS identifies possible impacts from the Kona Kai Ola project and explores potential mitigation measures to avoid or reduce impacts. There has been significant public input from various stakeholders, governmental agencies and elected officials, to date. Public feedback will continue to be sought throughout this EIS process. 1.8 Proactive Communication Outreach Program In community meetings and presentations of the proposed project, key issues that emerged include the need for improvements of the road infrastructure in the existing area, traffic concerns on Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway, the potential impact on the growth of Kona of the proposed number of visitor accommodation units (hotel and time-share), the environmental impact of the marina and the proposed number of slips, concerns about the County of Hawai`i's Kealakehe Waste—Wwater Treatment Plant, the need for community gathering places (parks and other areas to play and learn), adequate shoreline setbacks, and greater sensitivity to Hawaiian cultural values. The community's concerns and priorities expressed at these meetings were provided to the Kona Kai Ola planning and design team. Through an iterative planning process, the master development plan was revised and studies were expanded to address the community's concerns. This planning process, which includes consultation with neighbors and community stakeholders, will help ensure a successful design of Kona Kai Ola. Page 1-21 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Introduction and Project Description Design and planning steps being taken to address these community concerns include: O ■ Design the overall project to incorporate sustainability with energy efficiency, environmental protection, and pedestrian -friendly designs to enhance community health; ■ Plan to create a sustainable ahupua`a by developing a commercial mixed-use development around a new harbor in the makai region, and by developing affordable workforce housing in an area mauka of the project site in the same or adjacent ahupua`a, and connecting the ahupua`a with improved roadways, serviced by a regularly scheduled shuttle. This way, people can live close to where they work, play and learn, thereby lessening their dependence on automobiles; ■ Design and plan for the Kealakehe Parkway eExtension to Kuakini Highway to be built in the first phase of the project as a major road connecting the harbor area to Kailua-Kona Village;. ■ Evaluate safety issues with the shared entrance channel that may limit the number of slips in the new harbor basin; ■ Evaluate the market for boat slips that may suggest changes to the number of slips in the new harbor basin; ■ Include a substantial shoreline park, with a 400 -foot setback, providing increased public shoreline access to recreation areas and protection of culturally significant sites; ■ Perpetuate the cultural history of this land through the inclusion of a cultural center as an integral part of the project; ■ Include numerous community spaces in the plan including a canoe park, community O gathering areas, and cultural center; ■ Include a marine science education center, which will provide new opportunities for local schools to learn about the ocean and the maritime heritage of Hawaii; ■ Evaluate different options for upgrading the wastewater treatment plant to improve its performance and capacity; ■ Evaluate and analyze potential environmental impacts, and suggested mitigation measures that will be included in a comprehensive Environmental Impact Statement. In addition, JDI wiU-is in the process of establishing the Kona Kai Ola Community Foundation as a 501(C)(3) non-profit corporation to promote community efforts such as community development, community health care, job training, educational and cultural programs and projects. The primary target service population includes North Kona, and Hawaii Island residents with a focus on native Hawaiians. JDI will eentf butt -has contributed $100,000 as initial funding. An initial meeting of the organization's Board of Directors was held on June 16 2007. Page 1-22 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Alternatives Analysis O 2 Alternatives Analysis Kona rr • nl does not fellow this s�ttalter-nativesAs discussed in �s�;xRe n� of - Section 1.4, the proposed Kona Kai Ola proiect is the result of agreements between JDI and the State DLNR and DHHL. The agreements and leases between the State and JDI stipulate the parameters of development for this site in terms of uses, quantities and size of many features, resulting in a limited range of land uses. Unlike a private property project, JDI is required to meet the criteria outlined in the agreements, thereby affording less flexibility in options and uses. From the developer's perspective, the agreements must also provide sufficient flexibility to allow for a development product that responds to market needs and provides a reasonable rate of return on the private investment. The agreements between JDI and DLNR specify that the proposed harbor basin is to be 45 acres and accommodate 800 slips. This development proposal is the subject of this EIS. In response to DEIS comments_ additional water quality studies and modeling were conducted. These studies determined that the water circulation in a 45 -acre 800 -slip marina would be insufficient to maintain the required standard of water quality. The models of water circulation suggest that a new 25 -acre harbor basin could successfully maintain required water quality in the new harbor. O Comments on the DEIS from DLNR, from other government agencies, the neighbors and the general community also called for the consideration of alternatives in the EIS, including a project with a smaller harbor basin and less density of hotel and time-share units. In response to these comments on the DEIS, three alternatives are evaluated in this Final EIS and discussed but not included in the proposed project, that includes an 800 -slip harbor and a golf course, and Alternative 3, the no -project alternative Each alternative is included in the EIS with an evaluation of their potential impacts. These project alternatives are presented to compare the levels of impacts and mitigation measures of the proposed project and alternative development schemes pursuant to requirements set forth in Chapter 343. HRS. \•S" -Golf Page 2-1 alter -natives to development objeetives. in the EIS d 1estir-e f feasens for- the dismissal of ,. preferred pFoeess, these altematives are presented with a alta .,t; Kona rr • nl does not fellow this s�ttalter-nativesAs discussed in �s�;xRe n� of - Section 1.4, the proposed Kona Kai Ola proiect is the result of agreements between JDI and the State DLNR and DHHL. The agreements and leases between the State and JDI stipulate the parameters of development for this site in terms of uses, quantities and size of many features, resulting in a limited range of land uses. Unlike a private property project, JDI is required to meet the criteria outlined in the agreements, thereby affording less flexibility in options and uses. From the developer's perspective, the agreements must also provide sufficient flexibility to allow for a development product that responds to market needs and provides a reasonable rate of return on the private investment. The agreements between JDI and DLNR specify that the proposed harbor basin is to be 45 acres and accommodate 800 slips. This development proposal is the subject of this EIS. In response to DEIS comments_ additional water quality studies and modeling were conducted. These studies determined that the water circulation in a 45 -acre 800 -slip marina would be insufficient to maintain the required standard of water quality. The models of water circulation suggest that a new 25 -acre harbor basin could successfully maintain required water quality in the new harbor. O Comments on the DEIS from DLNR, from other government agencies, the neighbors and the general community also called for the consideration of alternatives in the EIS, including a project with a smaller harbor basin and less density of hotel and time-share units. In response to these comments on the DEIS, three alternatives are evaluated in this Final EIS and discussed but not included in the proposed project, that includes an 800 -slip harbor and a golf course, and Alternative 3, the no -project alternative Each alternative is included in the EIS with an evaluation of their potential impacts. These project alternatives are presented to compare the levels of impacts and mitigation measures of the proposed project and alternative development schemes pursuant to requirements set forth in Chapter 343. HRS. \•S" -Golf Page 2-1 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Alternatives Analysis 2.1 Project Alternatives 2.1.1 Alternative 1: 400 -Slip Marina Studies conducted in response to DEIS comments found the construction and operation of an 800 -slip marina may significantly impact the water quality within the e marina and along the shoreline. Specifically, the Harbor Water Quality Modeling Study, as contained in Appendix U, found that the water circulation in a 45 -acre 800 -slip harbor was insufficient to maintain an acceptable level of water quality. Further, the existing harbor channel, which would serve both the existing and new harbors could not adequately serve the increased boat traffic generated by an 800 -slip marina during peak traffic. Mitigation measures to accommodate peak boat traffic included the widening of the existing channel, an action that would entail a comp_ lex process of Federal and State approvals and encounter significant environmental concern. Concerns related to the proposed density of hotel and time-share units were also expressed in comments to the DEIS from members of the public, neighbors to the project site, especially the Kaniohale Community Association, and government agencies. Common themes in DEIS comments were related to impacts regarding traffic, project requirements of potable water and infrastructure systems, including sewer, drainage, utility and solid waste_ systems, and socioeconomic impacts. O In response to the water quality study results, and to the DEIS comments, an alternative plap was developed with a smaller marina with less boat slips, and a related decrease in hotel and time share units. Illustrated in Figure G. Alternative 1 reflects this lesser density project, and features_ a 400 -slip marina encompassing 25 acres. For the purposes of the Alternative 1 analysis, JDI assumed 1,100 time-share units and 400 hotel rooms. Project components include: ■ 400 hotel units on 34 acres ■ 1,100 time-share units on 106 acres ■ 143 acres of commercial uses ■ 11 acres of marina support facilities ■ 214 acres of parks, roads, open spaces, swim lagoons and community use areas In addition, Alternative 1 would include the construction of a new intersection of Kealakehe Parkway with Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway, and the extension of Kealakehe Parkway to join Kuakini Highway to cross the lands of Queen Lili`uokalani Trust, and connecting with Kuakini Highway in Kailua-Kona. This is a significant off-site infrastructure improvement and is included in the agreements between the State and JDI. Page 2-2 t v. \ 'OUEEN'f 1i`S J r 4 LILI`UOKALANI TRUST Landfill J. ..i ,•�;`_. + police J, f ( ;" station;'t f • 1 ('' VILLAGES OFIIATOPUA �Ff I c { � � � V`L COMMERCIAL•` �� `y - I ' fl-`� �w Z,. ,• - EN „,P COMMERCIAL C©MMEREIAL 1,r7- ( , N /'�, / ,r✓ ,�% KUAKINI HIGHWAY ENTENSION - IFRONT.(�ST -S s f UEENN � LANIHAU ,�.---' RETAlLR2� FRONT SiT ,LILT UOKALANI '° C'NiMERCIAL (RANSIT RETRIES $ r.s s.•--- S��yJ.' -TRU T (F�{RONT ST RETAIL v STO � x >l PA KWAN �' \ WAS REAT PLA 7 n } h1ARINA FRONT ST. �ILrAGE 7 •k .�) � < C i l ¢ 1) >KALOKO-HONOKOHAU f NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK - --^ STRIAE RETAIL4 ,'f EEN}TRA �, t' " VILLrAGE ETAINE LANDS C$SWIMg�• � '-4 LA(i00NA t ( x xHOTE62 Mr�R- + f .-110V NN U INE CjENCE �J" 66..J1 I CENTER; ,' ` PROPOSEDACCESS TO QUEEN LILI'UONALANI TRUST " A I —'-- CANOE q'MARINA } / PA`RM VIC GE I ;�CH•T SWIM - l AG9UN '` �OUS {TIMESHARE 5 _ I l o � A NRTE A 3 A •� rl ma YiIMESHARE2I TII.IESHAREa TIMESHARE 7, I S . t µ TIMESHARE- HOTELti HAR13OPARNRANCE CULTURAL PARK S E IN L K G HAWAIIAN CULTURAL .....,.I ..,,;. _, CENTER ALA KAHAKAI Cr COASTALTRAIL'+" (. U lJ -5 L6YElC. SC7,(L lif f I) aYJ a .apo ODD 2" ■ Source: 'PBR HAWAII Plan is conceptual only and subject to change Figure G: Alternative 1:� 400 -Slip Marina z ` ociean:, LEGEND O TIM SNARE WARINASUPPORT lCOMMERCIAL O UTILITIES 3 I'OTEL MAMNESCIENCECENTER PARKSBGREENSPACE JD1 MERCCIlL ® COWUNITVAREA; CULTURAL CENTER SHORELINE ®REIA-YCO fAARiNA RETAIL -® SW—GOON ICUURLTBOR URALNPARKNCE PARK 1.ARINA nv 7'�i-�ax-t TACOB �la ac,PMENrt INC. .l Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Alternatives Analysis Like the proposed project, Alternative 1 would have a strong ocean orientation, and project components that support this theme would include various water features including seawater lagoons and a marine science center. The new Alternative 1 harbor would include a yacht club fishing club, a canoe park, and a cultural park with a focus on Hawaiian maritime cultural heritage of the voyaging canoe. The coastal area would be protected with a shoreline park with trails and public access parking for walking and. shoreline fishing, and a cultural park surrounding the heiau, the cultural sites and `Alula for community use. Additional Alternative 1 community areas would include facilities and space for community use, including programs of the Kona Kai Ola Community Foundation, which supports community programs in health care, culture, education, and employment training for the local community, especially to native Hawaiians. Like the original proposed plan, Alternative 1 includes 40 percent of the land in parks, roads, open spaces, swim lagoons and community use areas. 2.1.2 Alternative 2: Golf Course Feature Alternative 2 was among the alternatives discussed at a communitv charrette in September 2003. It includes a golf course, which is a permitted use in the D_LNR agreement and DHHL lease. As Figure H illustrates. an 18 -hole championship golf course would occupy 222 acres on the southern portion of the project site. As with the proposed project. Alternative 2 includes an 800 - slip marina on a minimum of 45 acres. To support the economic viability of the project, other Alternative 2 uses include: ■ Golf course clubhouse on three acres O ■ 1,570 visitor units on 88 acres fronting the marina ■ 118 acres of commercial uses ■ 23 acres of community uses Community uses in Alternative 2 include an amphitheater, a canoe facilities park, a community health center, a Hawaiian cultural center and fishing village a marine science center and employment training center. The sea water lagoon features contained in the proposed project and Alternative 1 are not included in this alternative. 2.1.3 Alternative 3: No Action In Alternative 3, the project site would be left vacant, and the proposed marina, hotel and time- share facilities, commercial and marina industrial complexes, and community -oriented uses would not be realized. Page 2-4 G< (8u; Figure H. Alternative 2. Golf Course !Legend Alternative r_ JDI w JAcoBY DEvELopmwr, .,INc. Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Alternatives Analysis 2.2 Alternatives Analysis As discussed in Section 2. 1, the proposed Kona Kai Ola project (also referred to as "proposed project") is defined by development requirements related for a marina and the related uses that would be needed to generate a reasonable rate of return that covers development costs. Beginning with Section 2.2.1, the alternative development concepts are comparatively assessed for potential impacts that may reasonably be expected to result from each alternative. Following is an overview of the primary observations of such assessment Alternative 1 includes half of the State -required boat slips and 60 percent of the propose_ d hotel and time-share units and, due to the decreased density, this alternative would generate significantly less environmental and socio-economic impacts. A harbor water quality model found the reduction of the volume of the new marina basin by about half (approximately 25 acres) significantly improved the water circulation and quality. Further, the reduced number of boat slips would generate less boat traffic_ thereby reducing congestion and the need to mitigate impacts further by the widening of the existing harbor channel. A project with fewer hotel and time-share units and increased commercial space with a longer (14 years) absorption period would change the mix of employment offered by the project, and slightly increase the overall employment count. The public costs/benefits associated with Alternative 1 would change, compared to the proposed project, with a general increase in tax collections, and a general decrease in per capita costs. Detailed discussion of Alternative 1 O potential economic impacts are provided in Section 4.6.6. Comparisons of levels of impact are resented throughout this FEIS. While this analysis might indicate that the 25 -acre marina in Alternative 1 would be the more prudent choice, the DLNR agreement establishes the minimum size and slip capacity of the marina at 45 acres and 800 slips, respectively. Amendments to the DLNR agreement would be required in order to allow Alternative 1 to proceed as the preferred alternative. Hence, selection of the preferred alternative is an unresolved issue at the writing of this FEIS. Alternative 2, the golf course alternative, was not previously considered to be the preferred alternative primarily because market conditions at the time of project development might not likely support another golf course. Further, DHHL has a strategy goal to have more revenue - generating activities on the commercial lease lands within the project area. In addition. concerns Page 2-6 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Alternatives Analysis OWhile Alternative 3, the no -project alternative, would not generate adverse impacts related to development of these lands associated with the construction and long-term operations, it would also not allow for an expanded public marina that would meet public need and generate income for the public sector. Further, the no -project alternative would foreclose the opportunity to create a master -planned State -initiated development that would result in increased tax revenue recreation options and community facilities. Crucial privately -funded improvements, such as the marina regional roadway and circulation improvements and improvements to the existing wastewater treatment plant, would not be implemented. Private funds toward the development of community -oriented facilities such as parks, other recreational facilities, and public access would not be contributed. Henee, the only valid alternative to the proposed pr-E�eet is the He aetion alternative. 1H t4is altemative, the pfejeet site would be left vaeant, and the pr-epesed mar-ina, hotel and tifne share be fealized-. Further, the creation of revenue-producing businesses on the DHHL property to fund homestead programs would not occur, resulting in fewer potential benefits for Hawaiians. Hence, the agreements and leases between the State and JDI indicate that the no -action alternative is not in the public interesthas been ejeete,, at this ';^,° 2.2.1 Impact Comparison Grading and Excavation The Dronosed Droiect reauires grading and excavation. Both actions may impact groundwater due to rainfall runoff during construction. Alternative 1 would require a significantly smaller excavation for the marina basin and would therefore carry a lesser risk of potential adverse effects on water quality. Alternative 2 would require the same basin excavation as the proposed project, and would also include extensive grading and filling to build the golf course, the latter of which would generate additional_ impacts Alternative 3 would result in no change to the eographv, topography and geolo Further discussion on grading and excavation is contained in Section 3.3. Page 2-7 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Alternatives Analysis Natural Drainage O Most precipitation infiltrates into the porous around at the site, and no significant sheet flow is likely. Alternative 1 would generate similar levels of impacts on natural drainage as those of the proposed project and thus require similar mitigation measures. The golf course in Alternative 2 would not be as porous since the site would be graded, soil would be placed, and grass and other landscaping would be grown. Sheet flow and runoff can occur on a golf course, and drainage patterns might change. Alternative 3 would result in no change to the existing natural drainage pattern. Further discussion on natural drainage is contained in Section 3.4. Air Quality Air quality will be affected by construction activities, as well as pollutants from vehicular, industrial, natural, and agricultural sources. Alternative 1 would generate less construction air quality impacts than the proposed project due to the reduced amount of intensive groundwork associated with the smaller marina basin and fewer long-term impacts by reducing traffic 35 and 40 percent during respectively, AM and PM peak traffic times Construction of Alternative 2 would result in fugitive dust and exhaust from equipment and is expected to generate the same level of air quality impact as the proposed project. Alternative 3 would result in no change to existing air quality. Further discussion on air quality is contained in Section 3.5. Terrestrial Environment To provide additional habitat for shorebirds and some visiting seabirds the project proposes to construct a brackishwater pond area suitable for avian fauna, including stilts, coots and ducks. O While habitat expansion is beneficial, there is also a possibility that these species may be exposed to activity that may harm them. Alternative 1 would not include a brackish water pond, but will include 5 acres of seawater features, which is 74 percent less than the 19 acres of seawater features in the proposed project. While this would reduce beneficial impacts it would also decrease exposure to potentially harmful activity. Alternative 2 does not include the brackish water pond features, but would include drainage retention basins that would attract avian fauna and expose them to chemicals used to maintain golf course landscaping. While Alternative 3 would result in no increase in potentially harmful activity it would also not provide additional habitat for avian fauna. Further discussion on the terrestrial environment is contained in Section 3.7. Groundwater Groundwater at the nroiect site occurs as a thin basal brackish water lens. It is influenced b tides and varies in flow direction and salt content. The existing Honokohau Harbor acts as a drainage point for local groundwater. Any impact to groundwater flow from the proposed harbor is likely to be localized. The proposed marina basin will not result in any significant increase in groundwater flow to the coastline, but rather a concentration and redirection of the existing flows to the harbor entrance. Page 2-8 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Alternatives Analysis OThere will be differences in the flow to the marina entrance between the proposed project and Alternative 1. Alternative 1, being smaller in size, will have less impact on groundwater flow than the proposed marina. Alternative 2 will have a similar impact to groundwater quality as the proposed project. Alternative 2 may also impact water qualityby contributing nutrients and biocides to the groundwater from the golf course. Alternative 3 would result in no change in existing groundwater conditions. Further discussion on groundwater is contained in Section 3.8.1. Surface Water There are no significant natural freshwater streams or ponds at the site, but there are brackish anchialine pools. Surface water at the project site will be influenced by rainfall. Runoff typically percolates rapidly through the permeable ground. The proposed project will include some impermeable surfaces, which together with building roofs will change runoff and seepage atter Alternative 1 is a lower densitv Droiect that is expected to have proportionally less impact on surface water and runoff patterns and less potential impact on water quality than the proposed project. Alternative 2 would _have more impact on surface water quality than the proposed project due to fertilizers and biocides carried by runoff from the golf course. Alternative 3 would result in no change to surface water conditions. Further discussion on surface water is contained in Section 3.8.2. Nearshore Environment and Coastal Waters OThe potential adverse impacts to the marine environment from the proposed project are due to the construction of an 800 -slip marina and the resulting inflow of higher salinity seawater and inadequate water circulation, both of which are anticipated to impair water quality to the extent of falling below applicable standards. One possible mitigation measure is to significantly reduce the size of the marina expansion. The reduced marina size (from 45 to 25 acres) and reduced lagoon acreage in Alternative 1 are expected to result in a proportionate reduction in seawater discharging into the new harbor and increased water circulation. Alternative 2 includes the same marina basin size and is therefore subject to the same factors that are expected to adversely affect water quality. In the existing Honokohau Harbor water quality issues focus on the potential for pollutants sediments, mixing and discharge into the nearshore marine waters. Before the harbor was constructed, any pollutants entrained within the groundwater were believed to have been diffused over a broad coastline. The water quality in the proposed harbor depends on several components. These include salinity, nutrients, and sediments that come from the ocean, rainfall runoff, water features with marine animals, and dust. The smaller project offered as Alternative 1 is expected to produce a reduced amount of pollutants and reduce the risk of adverse impact upon water quality. Page 2-9 Kealakehe, North Kona District Island of Hawaii Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Alternatives Analysis It is notable that the 45 -acre marina basin planned in the proposed project and Alternative 2 only O becomes viable from a water quality impact standpoint if the additional brackish groundwater inflow into the new marina exceeds 60 mgd. The resulting flushing from such inflow would be expected to better maintain water quality. However, it is unclear whether 60 mgdof brackish groundwater would be available. As proposed in Alternative 1. reduction of the volume of the new marina basin by 45 percent will significantly improve the flushing and water quality because the lower volume can be flushed by the available groundwater flow. In addition, there could be higher rainfall runoff from the Alternative 2 golf course into the harbor, because the grassed golf course will be less porous than the natural surface. The golf course will also require relatively high levels of fertilizer, biocides and irrigation all of which could contribute to adverse water quality impacts. Further discussion on nearshore environment and coastal waters is contained in Section 3.9.1. Anchialine Pools Anchialine pools are located north of Honok6hau Harbor, and south of the harbor on the project site. The marine life in these pools is sensitive to groundwater quality, and changes due to construction and operation of the project could degrade the viability of the pool ecosystem. In the southern complex, 3 anchialine pools with a combined surface area of 20m2 would be eliminated due to the harbor construction in the proposed project and Alternatives 1 and 2. Predicting the extent of change in groundwater flow is difficult if not impossible even with numerous boreholes and intense sampling. The actual flow of groundwater towards the sea is O minimal today, and tidal measurements show that tide fluctuations represent more than 90 percent in actual harbor tides. The fluctuations occur simultaneous with the ocean/harbor tide, which indicate a vertical and horizontal pressure regime between bore hole 6 and the ocean and harbor. Hence, the tides alone create a mixing system that increases salinity, as the flow approaches the point of discharge which will be either the channel or the shore. Another factor that could influence groundwater quality is the increased local recharge from irrigation between the channel and shore. This will add fresh water to the lens locally but is not quantified at this time. Quantification of these impacts, including the flow of groundwater through each pond, is therefore extremely difficult. The shallow lavas are of the pahoehoe type and have a relatively high horizontal permeability. In surface depressions or undulations, the pahoehoe lavas have a tendency to lose vertical permeability from sedimentation thus restricting water exchange within the individual pools. This is normally reflected in both the salinity and temperature and this information has been adequately studied in the pools. Changes in groundwater quality may or may not impact biological communities in the anchialine and estuarine environment. In either case, it is important to understand these relationships to effectively manage the resource. If there is significant deviation from the baseline especially regard to nutrients, pathogens, and toxins, a mitigation plan to determine the cause and take decisive appropriate action will be implemented. Page 2-10 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Alternatives Analysis ODue to the uncertainty of changes in groundwater flow and quality due to marina construction, the variability in impacts between the proposed project and Alternatives 1 and 2 is unknown at this time Alternative 3 would result in no chance in groundwater flow. While this would eliminate the potential for adverse impacts, Alternative 3 would also continue the pattern of existing degradation related to human activity and the introduction of alien species. Further discussion on anchialine pools is contained in Section 3.9.2. Marine Fishing Impacts The proposed marina will increase the number of boats in the area and it is reasonable to assume that a portion of these new boats will engage in fishing activities. The increase in boats in the area would be primarily related to the marlin and tuna / pelagic fishery, coral reefs due to extractive fisheries, and SCUBA activities The pressure on fish and invertebrate stocks is expected to increase with or without the marina. Harbor expansion provides the opportunity to address existing conditions to consolidate, focus, and fund. management and enforcement activities at one location. Compared to the proposed Droiect. Alternative 1 would result in a 21 percent decrease in boat traffic, thereby lessening the potential for marine fishing impacts. The level of impacts in Alternative 2 would be similar to that of the proposed project Alternative 3 would result in no change in existing marine fishing conditions, and no opportunity to address already existing Dressure on fish and invertebrate stocks. _ Further discussion on marine fishing impacts is contained in Section 3.9.3. OCultural and Archaeological Resources The proposed project will integrate cultural and archaeological resources in the overall development. Archaeological sites recommended for preservation will be preserved. and cultural practices will be encouraged. _ Kona Kai Ola includes a canoe park, and a cultural park with a focus on Hawaiian maritime cultural heritage of the voyaging canoe. Proposed is a 400 -foot shoreline setback that would serve as a buffer between the ocean and developed areas. This coastal area would be protected with a shoreline park with trails and public access parking for walking and shoreline fishing, and a cultural park surrounding the heiau, the cultural sites and `Alula for community use. Alternative 1 would contain all of the cultural archaeological features and the shoreline setback area would be 400 feet in the northern portion of the site and increase to 600 feet in the southern portion. Alternative 2 would preserve cultural and archaeological resources, but does not include a 400 -foot shoreline setback. Alternative 3 would result in no change to existing cultural and archaeological resources and no addition of cultural and community facilities and activities. Further discussion on cultural and archaeological resources is contained in, respectively, Sections 4.1 and 4.2. Page 2-11 .Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Alternatives Analysis ie O Project -Generated noise is due to construction eauipment and blasting, boats. marina activities vehicle traffic, and the Kealakehe Wastewater Treatment Plant operations Alternative 1 would generate less noise impacts due to reduced construction activities, fewer boats, less traffic and less on-site activity. Alternative 2 would also generate less noise due to reduced traffic and less on-site activity, but noise related to the excavation of the marina basin and an increase in the number of boats would be similar to that of the proposed Droiect. Further discussion on noise impacts is presented in Section 4.4. Socioeconomic Impacts The proposed project will generate an increase in de facto population of an estimated 5,321 .persons due to the increase in hotel and time-share units. The estimated de facto population increase in Alternative 1 is 37 percent less, at 3,363 persons, than the proposed project. The de facto population increase in Alternative 2 is similar to Alternative 1. Employment in the commercial components will nearly double in Alternative 1, from a stabilized level of 1 429 full-time equivalent (FTE) positions in the proposed project to 2.740 in the Alternative 1. Under Alternative 1, the total operating economic activitv at Kona Kai Ola will increase due to the added commercial space more than off -setting the fewer visitor units, moving upward from 557.6 million per year to circa $814.3 million annually. The total base economic impact resulting from development and operation of Alternative 1 will similarly be higher by between O 35 and 45 percent than that of the proposed project. Alternative 1, which has a reduced marina size of 25 acres, and fewer hotel and time-share units would have a meaningful market standing, create significant economic opportunities, and provide a net benefit to State and County revenues. From a market perspective, a smaller Kona Kai Ola would still be the only mixed use community in the Keahole to Kailua-Kona Corridor offering competitive hotel and time-share product. The estimated absorption periods for marketable components of Alternative 1 are generally shorter than those for the same components in the proposed project. Marina slips under Alternative 1 are estimated to be absorbed within 2 years after groundbreaking, as compared with 9 years for absorption of slips in the proposed project. Hotel rooms under Alternative 1 are estimated to be absorbed within 4 years after groundbreaking, as compared with 7 years under the proposed project. Time-share units would be absorbed within 10 years under Alternative 1. while 15 years are projected under the proposed project. Due to the planned increase in commercial facilities under Alternative 1, the absorption period of commercial space is estimated at 14 years, as compared with 8 years for absorption of such facilities under the proposed project. The State and Countv will still both receive a net benefit (tax receipts relative to Dublic expenditures) annually on a stabilized basis under the Alternative 1. The County net benefits will be some $12.2 million per year under the Alternative 1 versus $14.9 million under the proposed Droiect. The State net benefits will increase under the Alternative 1 to about $37.5 million annually, up substantially from the $11.4 million in the proposed project. __ O Page 2-12 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Alternatives Analysis ODue to the lower de facto population at build -out, the effective stabilized public costs for both the State and County will decline meaningfully under the Alternative 1, dropping from $7.7 million annually for the County and $36.5 million_ for the State to $4.9 million and $23 million per year, respectively. Alternative 3 would result in no increase in de facto population and improvement to economic conditions Further discussion on social and economic impacts are contained in, respectively, Sections 4.5 and 4.6. Vehicular Traffic The proposed project will impact the nearby road network that currently is congested during peak traffic times The proposed project includes roadway improvements that would reduce the impact and improve roadway conditions for the regional community. Alternative 1 includes the same roadway system improvements as the proposed project, vet would reduce vehicular traffic by 35 percent when compared to the proposed project. Alternative 2 would have similar traffic conditions and roadway improvements as Alternative 1. Alternative 3 would result in no increase in traffic and no roadway improvements. Marina Traffic Study The increase in boat traffic due to the proposed 800 -slip marina would cause entrance channel congestion during varvin2 combinations of existing and new marina peak traffic flow. Worst O case conditions of active sport fishing weekend and summer holiday recreational traffic result in traffic volumes exceedjng capacity over a short afternoon period. Mitigation to address boat traffic in the proposed project include widening the entrance channel, traffic control implementation of a permanent traffic control tower, or limiting vessel size. Alternative 1 would result in a 21 percent reduction in boat traffic congestion under average existing conditions and ten percent reduction during peak existing conditions. The reduction to 400 slips also reduces the impacts of congestion at the entrance channel, thereby reducing the need for any modifications to the entrance channel. Alternative 2 would have the same level of boat traffic as the proposed project Alternative 3 would not meet the demand for additional boat sljps and would not generate additional boat traffic. Further discussion on marina traffic is contained in Section 4.8. Police, Fire and Medical Services The proposed project will impact police fire and medical services due to an increase in de facto population and increased on-site activity. Alternatives 1 and 2 would have similar levels of impact as the proposed project due to increased on-site activity. Further discussion on police, fire and medical services are contained, respectively, in Sections 4.10.1 4.10.2 and 4.10.3. Drainage and Storm Water Facilities The proposed project will increase drainage flows, quantities, velocities, erosion, and sediment runoff. O Page 2-13 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Alternatives Analysis Alternative 1 involves a reduction of the project density that would reduce storm runoff from the O various land uses due to a reduction in impervious surfaces associated with hotel and time-share development and to the creation of more open space. However. roadway areas will increase by about 30 percent in Alternative 1. Storm runoff from proposed streets would therefore increase; thus requiring additional drainage facilities and possibly resulting in no net savings. The golf_ course in Alternative 2 may also change drainage characteristics from those of the proposed project and may not reduce impacts. Alternative 3 would result in no change in existing conditions and no improvements to drainage infrastructure. Further discussion on drainage and storm water facilities is contained in Section 4.10.5 Wastewater Facilities The proposed development is located within the service area of the Kealakehe WWTP and a sewer system will be installed that connects to the WWTP. The sewer system will be comprised of a network of gravity sewers, force mains, and pumping stations which collect and convey wastewater to the existing Kealakehe WWTP. Project improvements will incorporate the_ usage of recycled / R1 water. Improvements implemented by the proposed project will also accommodate the needs of the regional service population. Alternative 1 would generate approximately 10 percent less wastewater flow than the proposed project. Wastewater flow in Alternative 2 is undetermined. Alternative 3 would result in no additional flow, as well as no improvements that will benefit the regional community. Further discussion on wastewater facilities is contained in Section 4.10.6. Potable Water Facilities O The proposed project average daily water demand is estimated at 1.76 million gallons per day. Existing County sources are not adequate to meet this demand and source development is required. The developer is working with DLNR and two wells have been identified that will produce a sustainable vield that will serve the project. These wells will also serve water needs beyond the project. Alternative 1 would result in net decrease_ of about five percent of potable water demand. Alternative 2 may have a lower water demand than the proposed project as long as potable water is not used for irrigation. Alternative 3 would result in no additional flow, as well as no source development that will benefit the regional communitv. Further discussion on Dotable water facilities is contained in Section 4.10.8. Energy and Communications Regarding Alternative 1. preliminary estimates for electrical, telecommunications, and cable resulted in a net demand load that remains similar to the proposed project. Further discussion on energy and communications is contained in Section 4.10.9.1. Page 2-14 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Alternatives Analysis OThe proposed project will increase the demand for electrical energy and telecommunications. The demand would be reduced in Alternative 1 because the number of boat slips and units would_ decrease. Similarly, Alternative 2 would have fewer units than the proposed project and therefore reduce energy demands. Further reduction in energy demand for either alternative could be achieved by using seawater air conditioning (SWACI and other energy reduction measures, as planned by the developer. Further discussion on energy and telecommunications is contained in Section 4.10.9.2. Water Features and Lagoons The Droposed Droiect includes a brackishwater pond lagoons and marine life exhibits supplied by clean seawater. The water features in Alternative 1 would significantly decrease by 74 percent from 19 acres in the proposed project to five acres in Alternative 1. This decrease in water features would result in a corresponding decrease in water source requirements and seawater discharge Alternative 2 does not include the seawater features. Alternative 3 would result in no additional demand for water source requirements and seawater discharge. 2.2.2 Conformance with Public Plans and Policies State of Hawaii Chapter 343, Hawaii Revised Statutes Compliance with this chapter is effected, as described in Section 5.1.1 in regard to the proposed Oproject and the alternatives discussed. ■ State Land Use Law, Chapter 205, Hawaii Revised Statutes The discussion in Section 5.1.2 is directiv applicable to Alternative 1, the proposed project. Alternative 1 will involve a setback of 400 feet that increases to 600 feet along the southern portion of the project site's shoreline area. Alternative 2 does not provide for such a setback, but may still require approvals from DLNR for cultural, recreational and community uses and structures within the Conservation district. ■ Coastal Zone Management Program. Chapter 205A. Hawaii Revised Statutes Recreational Resources: In addition to the discussion of consistencv with the associated obiective and policies, as described in Section 5.1.3. the reduction from the proposed project's 800 -slip marina to a 400 -slip marina under Alternative 1 will still expand the region's boating opportunities and support facilities The existing harbor entrance will still be utilized under this alternative, however, potential risks relating to boat traffic andcongestionin the marina entrance area will be reduced significantly. The 400-600 foot shoreline setback, public parks, trails, cultural areas, community facilities, and marine science center remain important recreational components under Alternative 1. Page 2-15 Kealakehe, North Kona District Island of Hawaii Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Alternatives Analysis Alternative 2 includes a golf course component, which would add a more passive O recreation to the active and social components, such as boating, fishing, swimming, trails. walkways, parks, marine life, educational and interactive areas that are also part of the project. The golf course would enhance the range of leisure and recreational opportunities offered at Kona Kai Ola. Alternative 2, like the proposed project, will expand the region's boating opportunities and support facilities through its 800 -slip marina. However, the potential adverse impacts of increased boat traffic from the size of the marina are significant enough to offset the benefits of increased boating opportunities. Coastal Ecosystems: The discussion in Section 5.1.3 is directly applicable to Alternative 1. Alternative 1 not only reduces the number of slips proposed by 50 percent, but it also reduces the size of the marina from 45 acres to 25 acres. The 25 -acre marina will increase the body of water within the existing harbor, but to a significantly lesser extent than the proposed project's estimated increase, which is also applicable to the 45 -acre size that is proposed for the marina under Alternative 2. The findings of the Harbor Water Quality Modeling Study conclude that a reduction in the size of the harbor expansion is an alternative that will mitigate the risk of significant impacts upon water quality within the marina and existing harbor. Accordinglythe reduction in both the number of slips and the size of the marina basin under Alternative 1, O in combination with proper facilities design, public education, and enforcement of harbor rules and regulations, would result in fewer long-term impacts to water quality and coastal ecosystems. Short-term (construction -related) impacts would likely remain the same although the reduction in the total acreage of excavation is expected to result in a shorter duration of such impacts. In addition to its 800 -slip marina and potential adverse impacts upon water quality and the marine environment. Alternative 2 includes a golf course component, which has the potential to impact coastal ecosystems by increasing the nutrient loading in surface runoff and groundwater and also by introducing pesticides, herbicides, and other chemicals common in golf course use and management into the nearshore waters surrounding the project site. Economic Uses Although reduced in the number of slips, the smaller marina under Alternative 1 will nevertheless serve public demand for more boating facilities in West Hawaii and is consistent with the objective and policies and discussion set forth in Section 5.1.3. The economic impacts of Alternative 2, while comparable to those of the proposed project's marina development, are notably marginal as to the golf course component, based on the marketability analysis that indicates a condition of saturation within the region. Page 2-16 Kealakehe, North Kona District Island of Hawaii OCoastal Hazards Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Alternatives Analysis The discussion and considerations set forth in Section 5.1.3 are also applicable to Alternatives 1 and 2 and indicate compliance with the objective and policies addressed. Tsunami risks mainly affect the large shoreline setback area that is proposed for the ,project and Alternative 1. Alternative 2 projects a transient accommodation site that is partially within the tsunami hazard zone and thus carries a higher hazard risk. However, the essential requirement for these alternatives, as well as the proposed project, is a well- prepared and properly implemented evacuation plan. Beach Protection Discussion and considerations set forth in Section 5.1.3 are also applicable to Alternatives 1 and 2 and indjcate compliance with the objective and policies addressed. Alternative 1 and to a lesser extent Alternative 2 will retain the shoreline area in its natural condition. Similar to the proposed project, Alternative 1 provides for a shoreline setback of considerable width within which no structure, except for possible culturally -related structures, would be allowed Alternatives 1 and 2 will thus be designed to avoid erosion of structures and minimize interference with natural shoreline processes. Marine Resources The discussion in Section 5.1.3 is also applicable to Alternative 1 which is described to be an alternative that is specifically projected to mitigate anticipated adverse impacts on water quality and the marine environment that might otherwise result from the original harbor design and scale, which is also incomorated in Alternative 2. The reduced marina size under Alternative 1 is projected to meet water quality standards and enable greater compliance with the objective and policies addressed in this section. Alternative 2 includes a golf course component and thus the potential to adversely impact marine resources by increasing the nutrient loading in surface runoff and groundwater and also by introducing pesticides, herbicides, and other chemicals common in golf course use and management into the nearshore waters surrounding the project site. Page 2-17 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Alternatives Analysis Hawaii State Plans, Chanter 226. Hawaii Revised Statutes O Section 226-4 (State goals)5 (Obiectives and policies for population, and 6 (Obiective and olicies for economy in generall: The discussion in Section 5.1.4 is applicable to Alternatives 1 and 2, in addition to the proposed project. These development concepts generally conform to the goals, objectives, and policies set forth in these sections because they will provide some degree of economic viability, stability, and sustainability for future generations. Kona Kai Ola will convert essentially vacant land into a mixed-use development with a distinctive marina and boating element, providing a wide range of recreational, business, and employment opportunities to the community. Section 226-8 Objective and policies for the economy — the visitor industry: Alternatives 1 and 2 will be consistent with the State's economic objective and policies relatin to the tourism industry for the same reasons that are discussed in regard to the proposed project in Section 5.1.4. They will incorporate JDI's commitment to sustainability principles in the planning and design of the development concepts in Alternatives 1 and 2. Although the total hotel and time-share unit count is reduced to approximately 1,500 in Alternatives 1 and 2 the transient accommodations component of these alternatives will still further the State's objective_ and policies for increased visitor industry employment opportunities and training, foster better visitor understanding of Hawai`i's cultural values, and contribute to the synergism of this mixed- use project concept that addresses the needs of the neighboring community, as well as the visitor industry. Section 226-11 Objectives and policies for the physical environment: land-based, shoreline and O marine resources: Alternative 1 is expected to involve less potential adverse impacts upon these environmental resources than the proposed project. Likewise, and Alternative 2_would have less adverse impact because of its reduction in the size of the marina and in the total hotel and time-share unit count. Alternative 1 carries less potential risk to water quality and related impacts upon the marine environment and anchialine pool ecosystems. Although approximately three anchialine pools are expected to be destroyed, the great maiority of pools will be preserved within and outside of the roposed 400 -foot shoreline setback. The golf course component in Alternative 2 has the potential to impact marine resources b increasing the nutrient loading in surface runoff and groundwater and also by introducing pesticides, herbicides, and other chemicals common in golf course use and management into the marina basin and nearshore waters surrounding the project site. It also has the potential to adversely affect the anchialine pools by introducing the chemicals into the pond systems. Section 226-12 Objective and policies for the physical environment: scenic, natural beauty and historic resources: The discussion in Section 5.1.4 is directly applicable to Alternative 1 and describes the compliance with the objective and policies addressed. Page 2-18 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Alternatives Analysis OThe golf course component of Alternative 2 would create a nark -like view that would potentially enhance the beauty of the project site and surrounding areas when considered in combination with the existing rugged natural beauty of the area. Just as with the proposed project, Alternatives 1 and 2 would also be designed to blend with the natural terrain and to honor and protect the cultural history. resources, and practices of these lands. Section 226-13 Objectives and policies for the physical environment: land, air and water quality: As stated above, because of the reduction in both the number of slips and the size of the marina basin with proper facilities design, -public education and enforcement of harbor rules and regulations, Alternative 1 is anticipated to cause fewer long-term impacts to water quality than either the proposed project or Alternative 2. Based on the findings of the Harbor Water Quality Modeling Study, water quality resulting from a reduced marina basin size as proposed under Alternative 1 is expected to be similar to existing conditions. As previously noted, Alternative 2 has the potential to adversely impact water quality by increasing the nutrient loading in surface runoff and groundwater by introducing pesticides herbicides and other chemicals common in golf course development and maintenance into the marina basin and nearshore waters surrounding the project site. Section 226-14 Objectives and policies for facility systems - general: O Alternatives 1 and 2 will conform to the objective and policies of this section on the grounds that are discussed in regard to the proposed project in Section 5.1.4._ The master -planning and phasing of the project concepts under these alternatives will be coordinated with associated public and private infrastructural planning and related private and public infrastructural financing. The cost of the marina construction and project -related infrastructure is to be borne by the developer, resulting in considerable savings for the public. In addition, the projected lease revenue from these public lands will provide additional public benefits by establishing a revenue stream for capital improvements and maintenance of a range of State facilities. Section 226-15 Objectives and policies for facility systems - solid and liquid wastes: In addition to the developer's commitment to sustainable development design, the project will involve upgrades to the County of Hawai`i's Kealakehe Wastewater Treatment Plant to meet current needs as well as the project's future needs. This commitment is applicable to Alternatives 1 and 2 as well as the proposed project that is discussed in Section 5.1.4. Page 2-19 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Alternatives Analysis Section 226-16 Objectives and policies for facility systems — water: The discussion of water conservation methods and the need to secure additional potable water sources in Section 5.1.4 is also applicable to Alternative 1 and demonstrates conformity to the objective and policies for water facilities. Alternative 2 involves greater irrigation demands in regard to its golf course component and greater potable water demands for human consumption than those for Alternative 1. Alternative 2 is expected to face more serious challenges in securing adequate and reliable sources of water. Section 229-17 Objectives and policies for facility systems — transportation: Alternatives 1 and 2 will conform to this objective and policies because they will present water transportation opportunities, including the possible use of transit water shuttles to Kailua-Kona as described in regard to the proposed project in Section 5.1.4. Section 226-18 Objectives and policies for facility systems — energy: Alternatives 1 and 2 conform to these obiective and Dolicies through the use of enerav efficient design and technology and commitment to the use and production of renewable energy to serve the project's needs. Solar energy production, solar hot water heating, and the use of deep cold seawater for cooling systems are currently identified as means of saving substantial electrical energy costs for the community and the developer. Section 226-23 Objectives and policies for socio -cultural advancement — leisure: Alternative 1 conforms to this objective and related policies for the reasons offered in Section O 5.1.4 in regard to the proposed project. Alternative 1 will be of greater conformity with the policy regarding access to significant natural and cultural resources in light of the 400-600 foot shoreline setback that has been designed for this alternative. Although it does not propose the considerable shoreline setback that is planned for Alternative 1. Alternative 2 is consistent with this objective and related policies in incorporating opportunities for shoreline -oriented activities, such as the walking trails. In addition. the golf course component adds a more passive recreation alternative to the active and social components, such as boating, fishing, swimming, trails, walkways, parks, marine life educational and interactive areas that are also part of the project. The golf course would enhance the range of leisure and recreational opportunities offered at Kona Kai Ola. Section 226-25 Objectives and policies for socio -cultural advancement -culture: The discussion in Section 5.1.4 is relevant to Alternatives 1 and 2 and demonstrate their conformity the objective and policies of this section. Both alternatives involve the Dreservation and protection of cultural features that have been identified by the Cultural Impact Assessment and archaeological studies for the project area. Both provide for public shoreline access, and both will continue the policy of close consultation with the local Hawaiian communitv and cultural and lineal descendants in the planning of cultural resource preservation and protection. Page 2-20 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Alternatives Analysis OSection 226-103 Economic priority guidelines: Alternatives 1 and 2 conform to these guidelines for the same reasons that are set forth in Section 5.1.4. They involve private investment in a public project that will create economic diversification through a mix of marina, industrial, commercial, visitor, and cultural facilities. This presents a wide range of entrepreneurial opportunities, long -'term emplovment opportunities, and job training opportunities. Section 226-104 Population growth and land resources_ priority guidelines: As described in Section 5.1.4, the policy support for the proposed project also extends to the similar development concepts considered in Alternatives 1 and 2. Those alternatives conform to the guidelines of this section because they involve an urban development under parameters and within geographical bounds that are supported by the County's General Plan, a preliminary form of the Kona Community Development Plan, the County's Keahole to Kailua_Regional Development Plan, and the reality of being located along the primary commercial/industrial corridor between Keahole Airport and Kailua-Kona. As with the proposedproject, the development concepts of Alternatives 1 and 2 are essentially alternatives for the implementation and "in -filling" of the urban expansion area in North Kona. DHHL Hawaii Island Plan This 2002 Dlan Droiects DHHL's Honokohau makai lands for commercial use. As compared to the proposed project and Alternative 2, Alternative 1 presents an expanded commercial O component that provides greater compliance with the plan, while addressing certain beneficiaries' concerns about the scale of the marina originally required in the Project. Alternative 2 also conforms to the recommended commercial uses in the makai lands but to a lesser degree than Alternative 1 because of its more limited commercial component. Like the proposed project, its marina size and number of slips raise environmental issues, as more specifically discussed in Part 3, and community concerns. County of Hawaii General Plan HCGP Section 4 — Environmental Quality Goals. Policies and Courses of Action: Alternative 1 is consistent with this section. It presents a reduction in both the number of slips and the size of the marina basin that in combination with proper facilities design, public education and enforcement of harbor rules and regulations, would result in very few long term impacts to water quality. Based on the findings of the Harbor Water Quality Modeling Study, water quality would remain similar to existing conditions. Page 2-21 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Alternatives Analysis Alternative 2 is the least consistent with this section. In addition to the potential significant impacts of its 800 slip marina basin, its golf course component has the potential to adversely impact marine resources by increasing the nutrient loading in surface runoff and groundwater and also by introducing pesticides, herbicides and other chemicals common in golf course use and management into the nearshore waters surrounding the project site. It also has the potential to adversely affect the anchialine pools beyond their current conditions by introducing such substances into the pool systems. HCGP Section 7 -Natural Beauty Goals and Policies: Alternative 2 conforms to some degree with this section. Its golf course component would create a park -like view that would potentially enhance the beauty of the project site and surrounding areas when considered in combination with the existing rugged natural beauty of the area, as demonstrated in other makai golf courses within the region. HCGP Section 8 — Natural Resources and Shoreline: Alternative 1 is most consistent with the goals and policies of this section. It would require considerably less marina excavation than the proposed project and Alternative 2 and would reduce the potential risk of long-term adverse impacts to water quality. Based on the findings of the Harbor Water Quality Modeling Study, water quality would remain similar to existing conditions with the degree of reduction in marina basin size that is proposed under Alternative 1. This reduction is also expected to reduce potential impacts upon anchialine pools and their ecosytems, as well as shoreline and marine resources that are affected by water quality. Alternative 1 also retains the shoreline preservation and protection concepts that are proposed in O and described for the Project. HCGP Section 10 — Public Facilities Goals and Policies: The discussion in Section 5.2.1. in relation to the proposed Droiect is aDDlicable to Alternatives 1 and 2. Improvements to public facilities are are integral to the Kona Kai Ola development. The provision of additional boat slips and numerous road improvements, includinga makai extension of Kuakini Highway south to Kailua-Kona are incorporated into plans for the project's development. In light of these elements. Alternatives 1 and 2 are consistent with the goals and olicies of this section. HCGP Section 11 - Public Utility Goals, Policies: As with the proposed Droiect. Alternatives 1 and 2 are consistent with the goals and Dolicies of this section, based on the relevant grounds set forth in Section 5.2.1. The developer is committed to design, fund, and develop environmentally sensitive and energy efficient utility systems to the extent possible, as described previously in Part 5. Its master planning provides for the coordinated development of such systems with the objective of achieving significant savings for the public. As Dreviouslv-mentioned example, the Droiect development involves the upgrading of the Kealakehe Wastewater Treatment Plant. Page 2-22 Kealakehe, North Kona District Island of Hawaii OHCGP Section 12 — Recreation: Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Alternatives Analysis Alternative 1 is consistent with the goals policies and courses of action for North Kona in this section. Although the number of slips is reduced under Alternative 1, the region's boating opportunities and support facilities will still be expanded. The existing marina entrance would still be utilized under this alternative. However, concerns relating to increased activity _leadingto increased congestion in the marina entrance area would be mitigated to a certain extent. The 400-600 foot shoreline setback, public parks, trails, cultural areas, community facilities and marine science center remain important components of Alternative 1. The golf course component of Alternative 2 would add a more passive recreation to the active and social components, such as boating fishing swimming trails walkways, parks, marine life, educational and interactive areas that are also part of the project. The golf course would enhance the range of leisure and recreational opportunities offered at Kona Kai Ola. Alternative 2 is also considered to be consistent with this section. HCGP Section 13 and 13.2 — Transportation: The reduced marina component under Alternative 1 will still provide transportation opportunities and provide for possible use of transit water shuttles to Kailua-Kona, although to a lesser degree than under the proposed project and Alternative 2 . However, in each scenario, internal people - O movers are planned and numerous roadway improvements are planned for coordination with public agencies. including but not limited to the construction of the Kuakini Highway extension between Honok6hau and Kailua-Kona Accordingly. both Alternatives 1 and 2 are consistent with the goals policies and courses of action for North Kona under these sections of the General Plan. HCGP Section 14.3 — Commercial Development. For the reasons presented in the discussion under Section 226-104 of the State Plan, the planned commercial component under Alternatives 1 and 2 are consistent with this section. HCGP Section 14.8 — Open Space: Alternatives 1 and 2 are consistent with the goals and policies of this section. Alternative 1 provides a considerable (400-600 foot) shoreline setback along the entire ocean frontage of the project site as a means -of protecting the area's scenic and open space resources, as well as natural and cultural resources. Although it does not jncZ r ate the shoreline setback planned in Alternative 1. Alternative 2 provides a golf course component would contribute to the amount of open space that is currently proposed and allow additional view corridors to be created. Community Development Plans Community development plans are being formulated for different regions in the County in order to supplement the County's General Plan. The Kona Kai Ola project is located in the Kona OCommunity Development Plan (CDP) area. Maps associated with the preliminary work phases Page 2-23 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Alternatives Analysis of the Kona CDP include the Kona Kai Ola project site within the "Preferred Urban Growth" O boundary of the North Kona district. The Kona CDP process is guided by a Steering Committee composed of a broad cross-section of the community. The Steering Committee will eventually complete its work and recommend the CDP's adoption. After the DEIS was published, the Kona CDP has progressed to the development of plans for the major urban growth corridor north of Kailua-Kona. The Kona CDP has produced a draft plan showing a transit oriented development that includes a midlevel public transit corridor along the mauka residential elevation, and a makai transit corridor that runs along a proposed new frontage road just makai and parallel to Queen Kaahumanu Highway. The development plan for_ Alternative 1 includes the Kuakini Highway as Dart of this proposed frontage road and transit line from Kailua Kona to the Kealakehe area, along with a transit stop at Kona Kai Ola. The Alternative 1 plan also includes a road that could be extended to be part of the proposed frontage road should it be approved and implemented. In addition, the Kona CDP has continued to emphasize the principles of smart growth planning with mixed use urban areas where people can live, work, play and learn in the same region. Kona Kai Ola has been specifically designed to be consistent with this policy in order to provide a stable employment base close to where people live in the mauka residential areas already planned for DHHL and HHFDC lands. It should be noted that currently and over the vears, the 1990 Keahole to Kailua Development Plan K -to -K Plan) guides land use actions by the public and private sectors. It is intended to carry out the General Plan goals and policies related to the development of the portion of North Kona area, including the Kona Kai Ola site. The "Preferred Growth Plan" of the Keahole to Kailua Development Plan identifies the project site as a new regional urban center to include O commercial, civic, and financial business related uses, an expanded "Harbor Complex," a shoreline road, and a shoreline park. The proposed project and the development concepts in Alternatives 1 and 2 are therefore consistent with the recommendations in the Kedhole to Kailua Development Plan. Hawaii County ZoWng As shown on Figure AA, the project site is zoned "Open". Under Section 25-5-160 of the Hawaii County Code, "The O (Open) district applies to areas that contribute to the general welfare the full enjoyment, or the economic well-being of open land type use which has been established, or is proposed. The object of this district is to encourage development around it such as a golf course and park, and to protect investments which have been or shall be made in reliance upon the retention of such open type use, to buffer an otherwise incompatible land use or district, to preserve a valuable scenic vista or an area of special historical significance, or to protect and preserve submerged land, fishing ponds, and lakes (natural or artificial tide lands)". Some of the proposed uses at Kona Kai Ola are permitted uses in the Oben zone such as: ■ Heiau, historical areas, structures, and monuments: ■ Natural features, phenomena, and vistas as tourist attractions; ■ Private recreational uses involving no aboveground structure except dressing rooms and comfort stations: O Page 2-24 Kealakehe, North Kona District Island of Hawaii Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Alternatives Analysis OPublic parks: ■ Public uses and structures, as permitted under Section 25-4-11. In addition to those uses permitted outright the following uses are permitted after issuance of a use permit: ■ Yacht harbors and boating facilities: provided that the use, in its entirety, is compatible with the stated purpose of the O district. ■ Uses considered directly accessory to the uses permitted in this section shall also be permitted in the O district. The proposed time-share and hotel units and commercial uses would not be consistent with the zoning designation of "Open". Project implementation therefore requires rezoning of portions of the project to the appropriate zoning category or use permits for certain uses. Special Management Are As shown in Figure AB, the entire project area up to the highway is within the coastal zone management zone known as the Special Management Area ("SMA"). At the County level, implementation of the CZM Program is through the review and administering of the SMA permit regulations Kona Kai Ola complies with and implements the objectives and policies of the Coastal Zone Management (CZM) Program. and a full discussion is provided in Section 5.1.3. The development concepts in the proposed project and Alternatives 1 and 2 will be O subject to applicable SMA rules and regulations. Page 2-25 Kealakehe, North Kona District Island of Hawaii Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Alternatives Analysis This page is intentionally left blank. Page 2-26 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Assessment of Existing Natural Environment 3 Assessment of Existing Natural Environment 3.1 Climate This western area of the Island of Hawaii is sunnier and significantly dryer than the eastern half of the island. The North Kona region has an average annual rainfall of approximately 15 to 20 inches. Most vegetation cannot flourish in the dry conditions and highly, porous lava flows of the project area. Average daily temperatures range from a minimum of 61'F to a maximum of 90'F. Ocean waters offshore range from 72° F to 78° F with temperatures reaching between 80° F to 82° F between August and October. (NOAA 2006) Anticipated Impacts and Proposed Mitigation The Kona Kai Ola development will optimize the benefits of the region's climate. The mild climate of Hawaii allows the implementation of architectural features, positioning of structures and use of traditional local materials and features that result in reduced energy costs, improved aesthetics, and culturally -appropriate design. An environmental sustainability Boal is to reduce site temperature while can be-edueea , hil maintaining an attractive environment for visitors and the community through the use of site vegetation, the incorporation of water features throughout the site, the reduction of dark O pavement, and the shading of pathways. Further, JDI will achieve LEED certification for energy efficiency for structures at the Kona Kai Ola development as discussed in Section 1.5.2. These measures would occur in the proposed project, as well as Alternatives 1 and 2. 3.2 Soils The U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service, Soil Survey of the Island of Hawaii, State of Hawaii (1972) indicates that the majority of the soils found in the project area consist of Lava Flow - Pahoehoe (rLW) as shown in Figure CI. There is no soil covering and the land is typically bare of vegetation. Lava Flow — A`a (rLV) soils are located along the eastern boundary of the site along Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway. This lava has practically no soil covering as well. All of the lavas on the site emanated from the southwest flanks and upper southwest rift zone of Hualalai. The State Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Lands of Importance to the State of Hawaii (ALISH) system assesses lands through a rating system of agricultural suitability. The project site is not classified under the ALISH system. Anticipated Impacts andProposed Mitigations Because the lava on this site has practically no soil covering, no impacts are anticipated, and no mitigations are ^^,,,mefided proposed at this time for existing soils. Earth movement and alteration of terrain on the site, including importation of top soils, are discussed in Section 3.3. Page 3-1 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii - Assessment of Existing Natural Environment 3.3 Geography, Topography, and Geology 3.3.1 Geography and Topography This project is located in the County -designated watersheds of Honok6hau and Wai`aha as shown in Figure J-11. The Honok6hau Watershed is relatively small and narrow extending from the active shield volcano, Hualalai, to the ocean. This watershed includes the Honokohau Harbor and the Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park. The geography, of the project area is characteristic of the Kona coast. The steep upland mountain slope to the east gradually gives way to a flat coastal area consisting of volcanic lava flows and a rocky coastline. The shoreline is typically abrupt with a wave carved escarpment dropping to a shallow boulder system ocean floor. Beyond the wave eroded shoreline, the general slope of the volcano continues into the ocean depths. A succession of reef forming coral species inhabit the rock surface out to a depth where growth is limited by a lack of light. Due to the relative youth of the island, reef forming corals have not had sufficient time to develop into geologically significant reef structures. The project shoreline, as with much of the shoreline area north of Kailua-Kona town up to Kawaihae Harbor consists of broad, flat, gently sloped land formed by pahoehoe and a`a lava flows. The average slope of the property from the highway to the shoreline is approximately O three percent grade. The slope of the land near the Kona Kai Ola project is almost flat, dipping only 1.5 percent. However, further inland, the flank of Hualalai becomes much steeper. The average slope, above elevation, 400 feet above mean sea level (ft., msl), is seven percent. The shoreline is abrupt and rocky with few beaches or accessible shore areas near the project site. The area is mostly unaltered except for the adjacent existing State Honokohau Harbor facility and the grading that has occurred for Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway and the construction of the Kealakehe Wastewater Treatment Plant. The existing harbor was excavated out of the lava rock. This has resulted in the water level and harbor being 6-10 feet below the surrounding contiguous land at the entrance to the harbor. The highly permeable geology and the low sloping topography result in unique drainage, hydrology, and groundwater issues. Figure J-2 illustrates the site topography. 3.3.2 Surface Geology The lavas forming the area surrounding Kona Kai Ola and Honok6hau Harbor were erupted from the Hualalai Volcano. The lava flows are of basaltic composition and form pahoehoe and a`a lava flows within the flow units. Hualalai is an active shield volcano that dominates the landscape in and around the Kailua-Kona region. The most recent of the flows near the property flowed just south of the property about 1600 years ago (Moore and Clague, 1991), but Hualalai has erupted as recently as 1801. About 15 percent of the surface of Hualalai is covered by flows less than 750 years old and is placed within lava -flow hazard Zone 4 (Wright, 1992). All of the lavas referred to above emanated primarily from the southwest flanks and upper southwest rift zone. Page 3-3 Honokohau Harbor „Nhr g • Data Located at; DLNR.As;,„ Figure J-1: Watershed Map N� Legend Watershed W E Project Site Honokohau —••— Proposed Parkway Keahole 4 1 DI 0 2,000 4,000 Feet �✓ Waiaha JAcoEy DEvEi.oEmENT, INc. I fi ,/ i', - l'"' -, i ') - - , 1 - < C V* 3� - x f "K )'o 0 4f, "QUEEN J�IHAU? (- Liu 'UOKALANI , 0 RE V RETAINE LAN 2, (,0 1. J J j �f T VS r ;r0 u�, f -1-F q, A OH U Ljo 0 A—U- KALOKO-HONDKOR JHISTORICAL PARK � ,J'!hATIONAL V Ail V., W., ,Yf k" Rj LINEAL SCALE JHEI) q00 0 400 HIXI 2m r. A C Source: PBR HAWAII Plan is conceptual only and subject to change Figure J-2: Topography Map LU Z- JD1 JACOBY DEVELOPMENT, INC. Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Assessment of Existing Natural Environment 3.3.3 Subsurface Geology The surface geology of the area has been well mapped. Only recently has the subsurface geology been studied in greater detail due to the numerous water wells that have been drilled over the last 15 years, offshore submarine mapping by the USES, and recent geophysical studies associated with groundwater exploration. The USGS used side -scan sonar to map large and distinct submarine landslides, slumps, and debris fields west of the South and North Kona coast. The offshore bathymetry shows very abrupt changes in depth that suggest faulting and tectonic adjustments within Hualalai Volcano and Mauna Loa. The North Kona Slump, a landside older than 130,000 years, left a large escarpment that was covered over by more recent subaerial lava flows. 3.3.4 Anticipated Impacts and Proposed Mitigation The proposed project will impact the site due to excavation and grading. Most of the excavation will occur within the proposed marina basin. The average depth of the proposed marina would be approximately ten feet below sea level. Existing ground elevation around the proposed harbor area varies from 0 to 30 feet above mean sea level. Other areas of excavation will occur to "step" surrounding lands down to the marina, and to lower level areas planned for shore -side seawater lagoons. Since the majority of the site is rock, excavation operation will likely be accomplished by a combination of blasting and physical excavation similar to methods used for the initial harbor O construction. The excavated material could then be used for areas that require fill. The excavated material will need to be processed in such a manner to accommodate the development. An updated topographic survey will be prepared by a Land Surveyor registered in the State of Hawaii. This topographic survey map will provide a more accurate description of the topography and ground elevations that will be used for purposes of preparing construction grading plans. The developer will implement aA construction waste management plan that seeks to reduce over 50 percent of the waste generated during construction would be consistent with LEED criteria and the project's environmental sustainability goals. Further, reduction of the need to dispose excavated material would be accomplished through the beneficial re -use of the material for on- site fill and the creation of building materials, as concrete aggregate, landscaping, and stonework. Because of the highly porous geology, it is IgEel-y osssible that surface generated sediments will enter groundwater in the advent of significant rainfall during grading. Because this ground water could enter the new harbor area, the final harbor opening to the existing harbor will be opened only after all major site grading has occurred. The use of silt curtains will minimize the suspended sediment entering the ocean when the new harbor basin is opened to the existing harbor. Page 3-6 Kealakehe, North Kona District Island of Hawaii Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Assessment of Existing Natural Environment OFur-ther-, a National Pollutant Disehar-ge Elimination System (NPDES) per-mitwill be require Typical Low Impact Development standards call for retention of the 1 -year 24-hour storm. The State of Hawaii Department of Health has recently discussed requiring new development designs that would retain a 2 -year 24-hour storm. For the following events on the project site, the precipitation amounts are as follows: ■ 1 -year 24-hour is 2-2.5 inches ■ 2 -year 24-hour is 4-4.5 inches ■ 10 -year 24-hour is 4.5-6 inches (AMA -NWS Technical Paper No. 43) Alternatives 1 and 2 would generate similar levels of impacts on natural drainage and thus require similar mitigation measures. 3.5 Air Quality An air quality study was prepared by B.D. Neal & Associates and is included in Appendix ED. The purpose of the study was to describe existing air quality in the project area and to assess short- and long-term, direct and indirect air quality impacts that could result from construction and use of the proposed facilities as planned. O3.5.1 Existing Condition Current air quality in the project area is mostly affected by air pollutants from vehicular, industrial, natural, and/or agricultural sources. Volcanic emissions also periodically plague the project area. Air pollutant emissions from the Hawaiian volcanoes consist primarily of sulfur dioxide. Though Kilauea is more than 50 miles east of the project site, southwesterly winds carry emissions known as volcanic haze (vog) into the area. The major industrial source of air pollution in the project vicinity is Hawaii Electric Light Company's Keahole Power Plant, which is located four miles to the north. Air pollution emissions from Keahole Power Plant consist mostly of sulfur dioxide and oxides of nitrogen. Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway is the region's major arterial roadway. Emissions from vehicles are carried toward the project area by nighttime downslope winds, while afternoon onshore winds carry emissions away from the project. During the most recent 5 -year period for which data has been reported (2000-2004), the Department of Health operated an air quality monitoring site in the Kealakekua area for measuring sulfur dioxide. During the sulfur dioxide monitoring, measurements showed concentrations to be consistently low, representing about 10 percent of the state and national standard. No exceedances of the state/national 3 -hour and 24-hour AAQS for sulfur dioxide were recorded. Page 3-8 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Assessment of Existing Natural Environment As a mitigation measure, bioretention, which is a Best Management Practice (BMP), is a feasible O application for the proposed development. There is a probability that nutrients and other potential pollutants will runoff landscaping and impermeable surfaces such as roadways and parking lots during medium or high rainfall events. Some of these pollutants could enter the groundwater table and into anchialine pools and ultimately the ocean. As an alternative to directing runoff into the ground through drywells, storm water should be directed into bioretention areas such as constructed surface or subsurface wetlands, vegetated filter strips, grass swales, and planted buffer areas. Storm water held and moved through these living filter systems are essentially stripped of most potential pollutants, and allowed to slowly infiltrate back to the groundwater table. The level of these impacts would decrease with Alternative 1, which would require less excavation due to a smaller marina Alternative 2, which contains an 800 -slip marina, would require the same level of excavation as the proposed project. 3.4 Natural Drainage 2006)), and the laek of streams E)F other- maj E)F dFainage ways in the immediate area, it appears Even in the event of heavy r-ainf all, -AA.'hielh- is; mwrpe ttlh.—Afl. in one hour-, (NOAA , ,,atu -ally , ,,... ,,. o, ipitatio,, .,,ostl , i f ltr- tee into the ,,un .Due to the high surface O permeability and lack of a naturally developed drainage system, it appears that there is not a significant amount of storm runoff entering the ocean from the project site. Storm runoff will generally be retained in hummocky surface of the a' a and pahoehoe flows and wither infiltrate into the ground or evaporate. The 2 -year, 24-hour rainfall at the site is between 4.0 and 4.5 inches (NOAA-NWS Technical Paper No. 43). This intensity would produce overland flow but most of the rainfall would be stored in the irregular topography of the site. Anticipated Impacts and Proposed Mitigation The Droiect site will be designed to comply with Department of Health rules on stormwater runoff. BMPs will be implemented so that the project site will retain runoff from a 2 -year 24- hour storm. Low points will be created at roadway intersections to allow storm runoff to stay within the proposed roadways and not into developable parcels. Mitigation measures will include the provision of storm drains and drywells at strategic locations to intercept storm runoff from the roadways and lead it into the ground. Bioretention, a BMP which was discussed in Section 3.4, would be a feasible application for the proposed development. Compliance with public regulations will further mitigate project impacts. According to Chapter 10 of Hawaii County Code, all grading, grubbing, and stockpiling permits and operations shall conform to the erosion and sediment control standards and guidelines established by the Department of Public Works in conformity with Chapter 180C, Hawaii Revised Statutes. Page 3-7 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Assessment of Existing Natural Environment O3.5.2 Anticipated Impacts and Recommen Proposed Mitigation The project will have short and long-term air quality impacts. Construction -related impacts include fugitive dust from vehicle movement and soil excavation, as well as exhaust emissions from on-site construction equipment. Additionally, there could also be indirect short-term impacts from slow-moving construction equipment traveling to and from the project site, from a temporary increase in local traffic caused by commuting construction workers, and from the disruption of normal traffic flow caused by lane closures of adjacent roadways. Alternative 1 would generate less air quality impacts than the proposed project due to the reduced amount of intensive groundwork associated with the smaller marina basin. Alternative 2 is expected to generate the same level of air quality impacts as the proposed project. After construction is completed, motor vehicles coming to and from the proposed development will result in a long-term increase in air pollution emissions in the project area. To assess the impact of emissions from these vehicles, a computerized air quality modeling study was undertaken to estimate current ambient concentrations of carbon monoxide at intersections in the project vicinity and to predict future levels both with and without the proposed project. Predicted Worst -Case 1 -hour concentrations for all scenarios were within both the national and state ambient air quality standards. In the year 2020 without the proposed project, concentrations remained about the same or decreased compared to the existing case. In the year 2020 with the project, predicted concentrations increased at three locations compared to the "without" project scenario, but values remained within state and federal standards. Alternative 1 would generate less long-term Oair quality impacts than the proposed project due to a reduction of traffic by 35 and 40 percent during respectively. AM and PM peak traffic times. Based on standard planning estimates, the peak electrical demand of the project when fully developed is expected to reach about 70 MW. Assuming the average demand is approximately one-half the peak demand, the annual electrical demand of the project will reach approximately 300 million kilowatt-hours. Electrical Dower for the Droiect will most Drobably be provided mainly by oil -fired generatin facilities, but some of the project power may also be derived from geothermal energy. wind power or other sources. To meet the electrical power needs of the proposed project. power generating facilities will likely be required to burn more fuel and, hence, more air pollution will be emitted at these facilities. The following table provides estimates of indirect air pollution emissions that would result from the nroiect electrical demand assuming all Dower is provided by burning more fuel oil at local powerplants. Particulate M OSulfur Dioxide Z$Q Page 3-9 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Assessment of Existing Natural Environment Carbon Monoxide 70 Volatile Organics 8 Nitrogen Oxides ma Based on U.S. EPA emission factors for utility boilers Assumes beak electrical demand of 70 MW and that the average electrical demand is one-half the peak demand. resulting in 300 million kw-hrs per year of electrical bower use. Estimated emission rates assume low -sulfur oil used to generate power. These values can be compared to the islandwide emission estimates for 1993 (the latest estimates available) contained in the following table. The estimated indirect emissions from project electrical demand amount to about 8 percent or less of the present air pollution emissions occurring on Hawaii Island assuming all project Dower is derived from oil. Table 2-b. Air Pollution Emissions Inventory For Island Of HawaN.1993 Particulate 30,311 2.157 39.468 Sulfur Oxides 9,345 nil 9-345 Nitrogen Oxides 4 054 8 858 12.912 Carbon Monoxide 3.357 23.934 27.291 Hydrocarbons L477 201 1,680 Source: Final Report. "Review. Revise and Update of the Hawaii Emissions Inventory Systems for th tat of Hawaii". prepared for Hawaii Department of Health by J.L. Shoemaker & Associates. In . 1996 Mitigation measures during the construction phase will be employed based on an effective dust control plan. Further, all construction activities will comply with State Air Pollution Control regulations and the provisions of Section 11-60.1-33, HAR. All grading operations will be conducted in full compliance with dust and erosion control requirements of the County of Hawai`i's Grading Ordinance. The Hawaii Administrative Rules require that there is no visible fugitive dust at the property line—and miti2ation measures will be implemented to ensure compliance with these rules. While some degradation of air quality during construction may occur, adequate dust control measures will help to localize and shorten the duration of impact. Additional measures to mitigate increased vehicular emissions due to disruption of traffic by construction and/or commuting construction workers will include moving equipment and personnel to the site during off-peak hours. After construction of the project, implementation of air quality mitigation measures for long- term traffic impacts are not needed, as projected emissions are expected to remain within both state and national air quality standards. Nevertheless, in keeping with Kona Kai Ola's environmental sustainability goals._ the project will help to reduce impacts on air quality by reducing dependence on motor vehicles, as discussed in Section 4.7.7. Page 3-10 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement OIsland of Hawaii Assessment of Existing Natural Environment 3.6 Natural Hazards 3.6.1 Earthquakes In Hawaii, the Uniform Building Code provisions contain six seismic zones, ranging from 0 (no chance of severe ground shaking) to 4 (10 percent chance of severe shaking) in a 50 -year interval. The most recent earthquake occurred on October 15, 2006 with a magnitude of 6.7, eaAhqua and aftershocks, with epicenters off the northwest coast of the Island of Hawaii. Anticipated Impacts and Reeommend roposed Mitigations New construction on the project site could be impacted by seismic activity resulting in destruction and possible injury or loss of life. In general, however, the risk of earthquakes should impose no specific major constraint on the project as the entire West Hawaii region is subject to varying degrees of hazards. Primary mitigation to address the impacts of seismic activity is in conformance with provisions of the Uniform Building Code appropriate to the Zone 4 Seismic Probability Rating and any other local, State or Federal requirements. 3.6.2 Flood As shown in Figure KI, the current flood zone designation for the area is Zone X, with the O exception of a small area near the coast which is Zone AE and VE. Zone X designation is areas determined to be outside of the 500 -year flood plain. Zone AE designation has the base flood determined. Zone VE designation is coastal flood with velocity hazard (wave action); base flood elevations determined. Flood elevations within the AE and VE flood zone designation are 8 and 9 feet above mean sea level. This flood zone designation extends inland from the coast approximately 400 feet. Anticipated Impacts and Reeommend roposed Mitigation Base flood elevations and flood area designations will most likely change if the marina is expanded as proposed. Further, buildings, primarily along the perimeter of the enlarged marina, along the entrance to the marina and along the shoreline, could be negatively impacted by flooding. Mitigation measures to address flooding impacts include siting the proposed coastline developments out of the current Zone AE and VE flood zones. Further, finished pad elevations will be kept above base flood elevations per the Flood Insurance Rate Map. Average grades of the proposed coastline developments are well above the current base flood elevations of 8 and 9 feet. Grades for specific development areas should fall in the following ranges: ■ Time-share 2 - 20 feet to 30 feet ■ Time-share 4 - 35 feet to 45 feet ■ Hotel - 20 feet to 50 feet O Page 3 -II Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Assessment of Existing Natural Environment 3.6.3 Tsunamis and Hurricanes Approximately half of the project site is located within a tsunami inundation zone as shown in Figure L -J. Structures currently proposed in the tsunami evacuation zone include time-shares, the expanded marina, roadways, infrastructure, and various accessory commercial uses. Anticipated Impacts and Reeommend roposed Mitigations Most of the area subject to tsunami is within the planned 400 -ft shoreline setback. This area could also be subject to high surf, hurricane -force winds, and coastal flooding due to its location along the shoreline. Expansion of the harbor may exacerbate these threats. Tsunamis and hurricanes can affect on-site users and structures. First, public safety is of paramount concern, and an effective evacuation plan needs to be prepared and implemented. As noted on the County of Hawai `i Tsunami Evacuation Map, the Honok6hau Harbor area would be evacuated to Kealakehe High School mauka of the project site up Kealakehe Parkway. The Kailua-Kona Police Station would serve as the emergency response agency. The police station is located mauka of the project site on Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway. The intersection of Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway and the current Honok6hau Harbor Road is one. of fourteen intersections designated for manned roadblocks. Second, structural damage can result. The damage of tsunami and hurricane events can be minimized through conformance with County requirements and design standards prescribed by O Chapter 27 of the Hawai `i County Code relating to flood control and requirements for construction in a tsunami zone. Page 3-13 L ,L r pyF� 1 t ,Fr,' o r ,Frany� q ✓ vh , O Y r 5 \ , / ✓xtb/ //'✓//b F/✓i//' ��✓' O T��i 0' j/ p'S� yMas, ��yb// tri*� ✓�� �� w�`bM / /a / ✓ ✓ / ✓tri/ �l '/ti/ y r � 9abd/3yi n y 4 a, °g"aC' "' , P onokoha_ �g toriical�, M/� •� '., t�,r . / o d,F/%F/,.9La:; rr ,HJdx aWi,�//. p Y M'b�%!�'/l,✓,., F M a�Honakc>hau� ; Honokohau f/ C, ;'ti F/ z a t u Poimr ` r/ f r b /'r�i"/' L"Yar . CMN r x ry w / S i � B" � { y/ %' ✓ � F � �F ✓ yet M � /r ✓ �M, /;/ /// II Boat Harbgr� /�;��� �" � E ✓b //✓ M4 M � b� 4 /13N/ ✓,; r/'��,� �' °d r JA 0 rr�i�'����� ��� 4 VtogPoin y TA E , , r; �1�ayr"a/��9�"'/a �6"�x �% / / ✓r i�'" 1fS ." ✓ � r,�di�x 0 f ' Y /M %rHdM ��A // 55:'�/ b // / M / /� ��M� ✓ � � � ♦ LL rFr/ � mg .v G ndiWlF MIA, dM/✓�t�� tMxfs�F�: / tir✓�xk r�,ri�/Fi,4rwrrzu. :'� .r „*l✓: ,. ,r F'a/tw, n✓sem r/� ,:kC 'F/rxM;r,�-�'„". M , M Data Located at: http://www.hawaii.gov/dbedt/gis/download.htm r Figure L: Tsunami Hazard Map N' t_e.gencd w' , E OCe'�17�t. Project Site —». Proposed ParkwayJDI 0 1,000 2,000 Feet Tsunami Inundation Area JACOBY DEVEi©PMENT, INC. Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement OIsland of Hawaii Assessment of Existing Natural Environment 3.6.4 Lava Flows Recent geological mapping estimates the age of the pahoehoe lava flow surrounding the Honok6hau area at 5,000 to 10,000 years ago. This flow in turn is overlain by two pahoehoe and a`a flow units that have been dated at approximately 3,000-4,000 years old, respectively. Just south of the Honokahau Harbor is a more recent pahoehoe and a`a lava flow unit dated at approximately 1,500 years old. The last eruption from Hualalai was in 1801 from the southwest rift zone at Ka-`u-pulehu. This project site is located in Volcano Hazard Zone 4, where only a small percentage of the area has been covered with lava in the past 10,000 years. Large eruptions of lava reach the ocean on average about every 300 years. The percentage of Hualalai that has been covered by lava in the last 750 years is less than 15 percent. The last eruption from Hualalai was in 1801 from the southwest rift zone at Ka-`u-pulehu (Stearns and Macdonald, 1946). The project could be subject to damage from lava flows from Mauna Loa, if such flows were to occur, as shown in Figure Mme. Anticipated Impacts and Reeommend roposed Mitigations While unlikely, the threat of a volcanic flow to this site poses a minimal threat. Mitigation measures include the preparation, notification and evacuation of on-site users and working with Hawaii County, State and Federal emergency response agencies. Page 3-15 k air" �a x'. iZ r �£ j n / / y✓� /r¢ s� ,✓�, ? ,4 +i` � '"2 �� s � #£,� �^b� \� e'u.. 'G a � t �'R 9�x5�° `rn .��$,C,d�N; .,,, r w.//�a,/',,, ,,'o �,. ,/. �/l4 '�: nm2. �k'a+u, .-.. �`aa % i New `• p�Sn"R'�" 8 .'fP"�3*. / //✓yrre�,?rp"/jib, n w,ww /,�y A r/ x x ,' t x ,'n ,.`' 't fe;.�� .'a',. s,t. ,� ° ? s^ ,'Q„':' +"c ' / /fir/�� �✓�/�, Y� f W 0��'L�/a✓!� ..,,*"">^" Y ✓ ,£. : B� / / .�, �n9f�£' i.; �' 1� f �' y ! / / Y 4 i \ a i A 4u 'q �' i -” �.. ' t 3 d ry � / y7f�* a✓f �! /� /aS +M� y ✓° p R J R£;t' Y h.i 2 L �a a'a,;�,x, a�, C 9 /y / ir�%// Y£.�/N�!/5/i is 4 w" ✓ /. ��� // �/5 / h / 9 i 'i ��� :/ 5 � •� � �`a ..,�'�. S 5 ,� 1£� y� � � 'm�v�"v.�4�"` � 4� a'� $��t. ,�P{'S4��£ Hwy, rKi nb ✓'aH o ✓✓ 1� r 9 . r// s 7 sa 5�w ttak a',, rx� //�f✓�V, ��� K Hono,kohau / �/ �/, ✓ n�koh Y / ✓/✓ ✓,H v� 6 lyKb 4 / # R Harbor 'ZyA ✓! �=&,�a `Y14 %g N / f y ?!t cs, / Y f ,r f� n '� ' / til � % r� f ✓ wy / / _ �� / ti ,� , � r zm �- � v ��rFi/✓✓ rx �.z ;a�3 / r //y /i ��n �,✓r i � / � � ,� : �R18�i BOai �E�:O[ � - � .,b-" � a �� o w �, �. . � � � � � 9� n/,H �// H I f >/ � �n�fnn�,/ /��� j t •�'� 4'4 Ott. 'Ai nr'"//a,/,�� 7 PDrnt r ✓/✓ //✓'✓,✓4//bn✓F V114, All, 'L l 10 s /��^/� £ ».'. �*� ,:�N✓/P�/,� t .:5-✓P aa'„$t +aa`YN g�r:���d"pY %�'Q %: !%'yw f as dix-w �nmY✓i a a. �./gw✓F.r/rw ba%an nw,%,:,.*r ttr w+ \"' 4 �,�i pr� ��i %���9/uq//i �/ �HH w �.�q�i �' �/� %nry�y/ / /lnp/,n / � ✓ ti ��%''^�� � �Y /If � �� �{e ?: ,� � �f. �e"� /{!"i ��M %y ". ° Y ,.. h��r /�%•��) Yi / f r / M../• q ,x } r n a d W %i1�0 . t CLAS KaiwrP ✓ '�;��� �, ✓ / r�.. r $^ F // n �' S :eu/,r�.,Nw'�✓✓�...'L^D.p+z 9C ;$ sa r..:. , e„ F'/✓ ry N r� i./�.;.✓c..w Sri "G"j l+ ,R 3 /!✓d �hm'?�N��q ✓ r s/ ✓ ✓' *5 /F. 5i % i/a /t H /SnMr//G%tr kr� %kr/H fd�y/�HHnN d s / a r ^ as // ,/i r ,„ . a+ wi 7 m � 21, Ay /✓ i ✓5,✓ ryn/F / „Y/l 5 % ✓ `ui /:Fh '�i✓hh n �v �✓,�'� �i9H1 f _ �Y � �^'s 1 C i� '�"�': qG✓ �!�iYv/ E Fi ti z s 'aw FnT Vit" -e� e �. � � s y :. � n��%✓�n/f/j7%'fr F /^r%' / / %f/ rr� 5 ", / % "� «�Z"Y «max;, a. >� �/y„� / y�� � ✓ yW.✓�� / Cr✓ ✓"✓i ✓ ✓ � /�, /' v ,/ i / s `� /'� ' � �; ✓� � ���> � ,; z ✓ Ksahuolu �ornt� ✓ r � '� " � ✓ F x ,�� is ��n✓C � �xaa � � /� /�//� / r �,""� a � � ” �. �: .,..���ta'a%"�r�,mx� y�< /�9 ,.e.� , a„� ��ns, ,� ,� �, ~� Fi,�i,o✓��i�'✓� , x e� `?°_'�, �.a �:'. �/ r° Zone 4 Includes all of Hualalai. /// ''� • n�` Moore and others (1987) estimate that large eruptions reach % V y0 the ocean about once every 300 years, a recurrence interval ti✓�g✓' ��f significantly lower than for either Kilauea or Mauna Loa. '" , f r Lava coverage is proportionally smaller, about 5 percent r ,✓ 1800, than 15 the last 750 since andless percent within years, Data Located at: htt :Jlwww.ha�rvaii. ov/dbedt/ is/download. ht Rgure M: Volcanic Hazard Map N` Legend w , / E i9CS�l7%t. Project Site jD1 02 {ADO Feet 1,000 —••—• Proposed Parkway0 JACOBY DEvELOPNIENT, tNc. Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Assessment of Existing Natural Environment O3.6.5 Brush Fires In Hawaii, wildfires occur on all six major islands: Kauai, Oahu, Molokai, Lanai, Maui, and Hawaii Island. Unlike the continental United States, Hawai`i's ecosystem, like that of other Pacific islands, is not adaptive to wildfire. Humans are the number one cause of wildfires in the state of Hawaii and the number of wildfires is increasing (PDC 2006). Anticipated Impacts and Proposed Mitigations This project will be required to be designed and built to comply with all building and fire code requirements. These requirements will be met through the building permit process and through consultation with the Hawaii County Fire Department. 3.7 Terrestrial Environment 3.7.1 Flora Robert Hobdy, Environmental Consultant, conducted a comprehensive botanical survey of the proposed Kona Kai Ola development site. The purpose of the survey was to document existing plant species, document the status and abundance of each species, determine the presence of any native flora, particularly any that are Federally -listed as Threatened or Endangered, and to determine if the project area contains any special habitats which, if lost or altered, might result in a significant negative impact on the flora in this part of the island. His report is contained in Appendix DE. 3.7.1.1 Existing Conditions The property is situated on a lava plain and vegetation is sparse. Near the northern part of the site, vegetation was slightly denser but the majority of the native plants were found along the coastline in the area of upcast sand and coral deposited on the lava. A total of 42 plant species were observed during the survey. Most of the species that dominate the area are non-native. The project site consists mainly of hardy dryland grasses and shrubs, with very few scattered trees. The most abundant species is fountain grass (Pennisetum setaceum). Also common are `uhaloa (Waltheria indica), natal redtop (Melinis repens), koa haole (Leucaena leucocephala), mai`a pilo (Capparis sandwichiana) and kolu (klu - English) (Acacia farnesiana). Three species are endemic to Hawaii, including hinahina (Heliotropium anomalum var. agrenteum), pa`u-o-Hi`iaka (Jacquemontia ovalifolia subsp. sandwicensis) and mai`a pilo (Capparis sandwichiana). Additionally, nine species are indigenous to Hawaii as well as other Pacific islands, as follows: ■ mau`u `aki`aki (Fimbristylis cymosa); ■ `akulikuli (Sesuvium portulacastrum); ■ koali `awahia (Ipomoea indica); O0 pohuehue (Ipomoea pes-caprae); Page 3-17 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Assessment of Existing Natural Environment ■ naupaka kahakai (Scaevola taccada); O ■ `ilima (Sida fallax); ■ alena (Boerhavia repens L.) ■ alahe`e (Psydrax odorata); ■ `uhaloa (Waltheria indica). Three species are Polynesian introductions, brought here during the course of their migrations and include niu (Cocos mucifera), milo (Thespesia populnea), and noni (Morinda citrifolia). The remaining twenty seven species are non-native plants. There were no endangered or threatened plants found on the property and as stated, most of the area consisted of grasses with few native species. The 22 -acre Kuakini Highway eExtension area has identical flora habitat. 3.7.1.2 Anticipated Impacts and Proposed Mitigations The coastal strip itself is never more than 400 feet wide and consists of upcast sand and coral which overlays a jagged and scenic lava landscape between the Honokohau Harbor, past Noio Point, to the property boundary at Kaiwi Point. Nine native species grow in the area, including the silvery hinahina, which is used for making lei. It is not expected that flora located west of the proposed harbor will be sivnificantly impacted b possible changes in groundwater conditions due to harbor construction. This area averages 13 inches of rain a year, much of which percolates down to the water table. Also the native coastal plants that grow in the sand and coral areas cast up onto the lava shelf by west swell surf are not O likely to be affected at all. Further, the native plants growing on the coastal strip are all widespread enough that the creation of the coastal buffer strip should provide them adeauate consideration and protection. To mitigate project impacts, a 400 -foot strip extending back from the shoreline will be protected, as there are native species that dominate the area. It is r-eeeFnfnended-proposed that this area be left intact, as it would be difficult to develop and it is occasionally inundated with powerful surf. For the remainder of the property, there is little of botanical concern, and the proposed changes should have little significant negative impacts on the botanical resources in this part of Kona. 3.7.2 Fauna Rana Productions, Ltd. conducted an avian and terrestrial mammalian species survey of the project site. The purpose of the survey was to determine if any avian or mammalian species currently listed as endangered, threatened, or proposed for listing under either the €Federal or the State of Hawai`i's endangered species programs are on, or within the immediate vicinity of the proposed development site. This report is contained in Appendix EF. Page 3-18 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Assessment of Existing Natural Environment O3.7.2.1 Existing Conditions Three mammalian species were observed and detected during the survey. Feral dogs (Canis f. familiaris), Indian mongoose (Herpesetes a. auropuncatatus), and cats (Felis catus) were encountered around the site. Signs of scat from these animals were also found throughout the site. These mammals are alien to the islands. Hawai`i's only endemic mammalian species, the endangered Hawaiian hoary bat was not detected during the survey. The findings of the mammalian survey are consistent with at least one other faunal survey conducted on a portion of the subject property in 2001, as well as with other surveys conducted within the lowland, fountain grass dominated areas in. North Kona. The Hawaiian hoary bat was not detected during the survey. However, it has been seen to over -fly the site, including the Kealakehe Waste-Wwater Treatment Plant and the Honok6hau Harbor on a seasonal basis. The site is unable to sustain the bat and lacks necessary components for roosting and feeding. Although no rodents were detected during the survey, it is 4k4y os� that four rodent species utilize various resources found within the project site. These include roof rats (Rattus r. rattus), Norway rats (Rattus norvegicus), European house mice (Mus domesticus), and possibly Polynesian rats (Rattus exulans hawaiiensis). Without conducting a trapping program, it is difficult to assess the population densities of these often hard -to -see alien mammals. A total of 183 individual birds of 18 different species, representing 13 separate families, were recorded during station counts. An additional two species, including the Black -necked Stilt (Himantopus mexicanus knudseni) and Ruddy Turnstone (Arenaria interpres), were recorded as O incidental observations while transiting the study area between count stations. The subspecies of the Black -stilt is endemic to Hawaii and is an endangered species. While most of the species are alien to the Hawaiian Islands, the Black -crowned Night -Heron (Nycticorax hoactli) is an indigenous resident breeding species. Indigenous migratory species include Pacific Golden -Plover (Pluvialis fulva), Wandering Tattler (Heteroscelus incanus), and Ruddy Turnstone (Arenaria interpres). The Zebra Dove (Geopilia striata) and the House Finch (Carpodacus mexicanus frontalis) accounted for about 46 percent of the total number of birds. The Zebra Dove was also the most common species recorded during the survey. The diversity and density of avian species were extremely low, as expected given the dry and harsh conditions of the project site. The findings were consistent to earlier surveys conducted on the property in 2001 as well as other surveys conducted within the lowland, fountain grass dominated areas in North Kona. Due to the conditions of the project site, it is unable to sustain the nesting of native avian species. The 22 -acre area that would be developed as the Kuakini Highway eExtension has similar habitats and similar fauna characteristics. Page 3-19 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Assessment of Existing Natural Environment The habitat currently found within the project site does not provide the resources necessary for O the sustenance or nesting of endemic listed avian species. This is not so of the Kealakehe WWTP located along the southern boundary of the property. Since the facility opening in March of 1994, the ponds within this facility have concentrated the majority of waterbirds along the Kona coast. Currently the bulk of the island's populations of two endemic endangered waterbirds, Black - necked Stilt (Himatonus mexicanus knudseni), and Hawaiian Coot (Fulica alai) utilize resources within this facility. The Kealakehe WWTP also hosts many of the more than 80 species of migratory and extralimital avian species which have been recorded from Hawaii and which have been recorded from coastal areas in North Kona. Mp ._ y 3.7.2.2 Anticipated Impacts and Proposed Mitigations The proposed brackish water pond area will provide additional habitat for shorebirds and some visiting seabirds. The creation of 19 acres of lagoons may result in impacts to two listed O endemic waterbird species, including Black -necked Stilt (Himantopus mexicanus knudseni), and Hawaiian Coot (Fulica alai). It may also result in impacts to some migratory shorebird and waterfowl species protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) will be consulted under the Endangered Species Act, as well as the DLNR under HRS Section 1951). The developer will consult with Kaloko- Honokohau National Historical Park. DOFAW and USFWS to develop a plan to establish a managed ecosystem and mitigate any potential impacts to listed species resulting from development of this property. A Natural Resources Management Plan that covers all listed species likely to be impacted will be prepared in consultation with the wildlife regulatory agencies following the development of a more detailed development plan. Exterior light associated with dDevelopment typieally does haN e has the a -potential to impact OR Hawaiian Petrels and Newell's Shearwaters as they eeuk-can be disoriented and downed by exterior lighting associated with the various businesses and marina operations. Reeafnfnended Proposed measures to (minimize project -related impacts include the use of shielded external lighting to minimize the disorientation of the nocturnally flying fleettliffial Hawaiian Petrels and Newell's Shearwaters. Also., shielding would be needed to comply with Hawaii County Code § 14-50 et seq. which requires the shielding of exterior lights so as to lower the ambient glare caused by unshielded lighting to the astronomical observatories located on Mauna Kea. Page 3-20 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Assessment of Existing Natural Environment ducks.To pr-ovide additional h-ah-it-at f-AF she-re-b-i-rds; And- seabirds, the pr-ojeet proposes to coots and ee theeenstruet a br-aekish water pond afea suitable for- avian ineluding 3.8 Water Resources 3.8.1 Groundwater In the State Water Resource Protection Plan, aquifers of the Island of Hawaii have been classified based on a coding system that identifies and describes these aquifers. This classification is made up of Aquifer Sectors and Aquifer Systems. Aquifers are composed of Sectors further broken down into Systems as shown in Figure NL. The aquifer, which underlies the entire project area, is identified as follows: Aquifer Sector: Hualalai (Identified as #809 with a total estimated sustainable yield of 56 mgd) Aquifer System: Keauhou (Identified as #80901 with an estimated sustainable yield of 38 mgd) This aquifer system is 167 square miles extending from Kainaliu in the south to Hualalai's southwest rift zone in the north. Basal groundwater in aquifer systems of Hualalai consist of O volcanic geological formations known to extend at least four miles inland to Mamalahoa Highway. High-level groundwater is -has been encountered between 1,600 and x-580-2,000 feet above mean sea level in recently drilled wells. Page 3-21 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Assessment of Existing Natural Environment A groundwater hydrology study by Waimea Water Services (WWS) with water chemistry analytical assistance from AECOS Laboratory of Hawai `i, LLC has been completed as part of this.FEIS and is contained in Appendix G-1. The objective of the study was to determine baseline groundwater conditions, the effect of ocean tides on groundwater flow, and to predict potential impacts from the proposed development. Locations of the monitoring wells used for the study are shown in Figure OM. Water quality data and flow information determined :from this study were used to model water quality impacts in the existing harbor, the proposed marina and the nearshore environment. The Groundwater Hydrology Study is contained in Appendix FG -1. 3.8.1.1 Existing Conditions Gfoundwater- r-esoufves of the area have been examined in at least four- previous studies in th-e last dee There are several potential sources of groundwater contamination up-slope of the project site including: ■ Kealakehe Waste-Wwater Treatment Plant - aeration ponds; ■ Kealakehe Waste-Wwater Treatment Plant - disposal sump (- 01.8 mgd treated effluent); ■ Kailua-Kona Landfill, unlined, closed but reported to be burning underground; ■ Kona Light -Industrial district, potential source of numerous small quantities of O pollutants; Rock Quarry operations. At 1.8 mad of R-2 effluent, the Kealakehe WWTP disposal sump appears to be the single largest point source of nutrients in this area. Groundwater at the vroiect site occurs as a thin basal brackish water lens. A salinitv Drofile at the O`oma Test Well, about 3 miles north of the site shows the midpoint (50% of seawater salinity) at elevation -33 feet MSL (Waimea Water Services. 1996). The ocean tide is important when measuring local water levels. Water wells in Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park fluctuate 0.5 to 1.5 feet daily (Oki et. al 1999) The sensitivity of wells to tidal variations indicates that the hydraulic conductivity (K) is very high. Also, the high tidal variation will result in variable groundwater flow directions. Page 3-23 :Not to Sca tip UEEa �JU,J'�° OK/kAsfl ATE PLA T 51 r - Source- MACTEC Engineering & Consulting, Inc. Figure 0: Boring Locations Legend # Deep Well Monitoring Location Boring Locations within Planned Marina Q General Subsuirface Boring Locations JDI 0 2,000 4,000 Feet i i i JACOBY DEVELOPMENT, INC Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Assessment of Existing Natural Environment • ' �' 5.WfiP=rr-TMIMTMVM The National PaFk Se-vieeKaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park conducted water quality monitoring in shallow wells within the park to identify potential impacts of pollutants from light industrial activities mauka of the park to the ponds within the Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park. Pollutants at very low concentrations were measured in this study. 3.8.1.2 Groundwater Flow and QuaUtyN&n=ftt Previous studies estimated the fresh groundwater discharge through the site to vary from 1.35 to 3 million gallons per day (mgd). The present studies by WWS indicate that the gfetindw disehaf ge oeetir-s within a 20 feet thiek layef just below the w4ef !able and 3 to 4 mgd of fresh water discharges per shoreline mile. The top 10 feet layer- of brackish groundwater- under- round..ate= (50 . .,ter) ; r-eaehed at ., depth of about 20 feet ,1 salinity of 3 ppt (07 . Ne „t � seaw .ter) is found .,t ., depth of 80 feet, WWTD ffl„e t !` , ti, ,l oto Th water- 1't samplingpfegr-afn 1 J , „lts are shy,.,,,, i the Appendix found n that nd did ate l; 1 f the �ltT WTD h d tOt.,l t t t'ons of oen fiefn W TP-'kT as as 4i,has the 1.20 ,v,.,/1 Although., 5.091 /1 gr-ou...7,...,te,- makai t -ti of of total the WWT-P ;t,-oge n the effluent �- showed relatively low . in addition, tfaee amounts (1 10 ftWL) of ehFo P,niekel,selenium, and zine were also d t t ,1 in the gfoundwater, „,1, .,te at eeneentfationsr-anging A e ., olt;le ofgante from 4 to 10 j:g ., mrA.1, 1 phenol, was,1 al.s deteetein Page 3-25 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Assessment of Existing Natural Environment Appendix G-1 contains the results of the groundwater hydrology study conducted for this O project. The groundwater flow gradient ("steepness" or slope of the water table) in the Honok6hau region is relatively flat. The average groundwater gradient in the area is about 1 ft/mile. The gradient is one of the factors that influences the velocity of groundwater flow. At high tide the ocean may rise several feet above the average groundwater elevation causing the groundwater gradient to decline to near 0 or negative slope, causing groundwater flow to stop or even reverse and flow inland (Waimea Water Services, 1996). A water level survey conducted by Waimea Water Services indicates that groundwater elevations fluctuate with the tide and that the existing Honok6hau Harbor acts as a drainage point for local groundwater. Tidal influence reaches far inland. The Kaloko Irrigation well which is 12,500 feet inland was estimated to have a tidal efficiency of 30 percent (Bauer 2003). This is interpreted to mean that the regional hydraulic conductivity, or permeability, is extremely high. Hydraulic conductivity is a measurement of how well water can flow through the rock. Hydraulic conductivity is commonly expressed in units of distance/time (ft/day). These units do not imply velocity or speed of groundwater flow. Estimates of hydraulic conductivity at the site vary from about 6,000 to 40,000 feet per day. This can be contrasted with conductivity estimates from Oahu and Maui of about 1.500 feet per day. The high regional hydraulic conductivity influences the regional groundwater flow in several ways. The ocean tides have an influence further inland than most areas in Hawaii This means that the energy from ocean tides, or tidal signal, can directly influence the aquifer further inland than most places in Hawaii. The saltwater -freshwater mixing zone is probably thicker because of the extended tidal influence. This thicker mixing zone means that the vertical freshwater zone O of the local aquifer is relatively thin. Also, the inland tidal signal may induce cold seawater to flow under the mauka freshwater aquifer. Tidal variations also create variable groundwater flow directions. At high tide, deep marine groundwater flows inland to the east, and at low tide shallow brackish groundwater flows west into the harbor and ocean Groundwater salinity at the surface of wells in and near the study area varies from about 4 ppt to nearly 9 ppt (Appendix G-1). Salinity in the O`oma testhole increases from 9 ppt to 25 ppt and salinity in wells 2 and 2A increase from 4 ppt at the surface to 16 ppt (-50 percent seawater( at approximately 85 feet below sea level. At the basal springs and the pond area, salinity varied from 9 ppt to 34 ppt (Oki et al, 1999). Salinity is an important factor influencing the total volume of groundwater flow to the ocean through the harbor. A 3 mgd flow of pure fresh water (0 ppt) if mixed with an equal volume of seawater (35 ppt) will result in a 6 mgd brackish (17.5 ppt) groundwater flow. A 4 mgd freshwater flow diluted to 22 ppt with sea water would result in a theoretical groundwater flow of about 8 mgd, and a flow of 21 rnif diluted to 30 pat (Appendix G-21. Temperatures in wells near the ocean are relatively low._ A vertical traverse (log) of the O`oma Testhole shows temperatures of 63 degrees Fahrenheit at about 100 feet below sea level_ Temperatures in Wells 2 and 2A show similar low temperatures at depth. These low temperatures are probably caused by a close connection to deep cold seawater. Similar temperatures are not reached in the open ocean until at a much greater depth. This is consistent with underground salt water rising as it mixes with the brackish groundwater laver (Appendix G-2). The tidally -driven local flow -Dattern appears to transport subterranean cold water from the deep ocean. Page 3-26 Kealakehe, North Kona District Island of Hawaii Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Assessment of Existing Natural Environment ORegional water levels have not changed significantly since periodic monitoring began in the early 1990s.For example, water levels at the O`oma Testhole have remained constant at about 1.6 feet above mean sea level (Bauer 2003). Water levels at the inland Kalaoa Irrigation well have actually risen by about 0.5 feet since monitoring began in 1993. 3.8.1.3 roundwater Nutrients and Pollutants A previous study on Kaloko-Honok6hau National Historical Park property (Oki. NPS. 19991 detected phenol a semi -volatile organic compound commonly used in the production of a wide variety of products including aspirin, weedkiller and synthetic resins, at low concentrations(4-10 ug/L) in shallow wells. A subsequent sample obtained from the park well and other surrounding wells (Appendix G-4) failed to find detectable levels of this chemical in the groundwater. AECOS obtained samples from wells on the western site (Well 6), eastern site (Well 2), from the harbor spring the Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park well adjacent to the site, the Quarry well above the site at an elevation of about 130 feet and from the effluent of the Kealakehe Wastewater Treatment Facility inflow trench at an elevation of about 90 feet above sea level All samples were monitored for contaminants by EPA methods 602 (Aromaticsl. 608 (Chlorinated Pesticides), 625 (BNA Extractables) and 8151A (Phenoxy Acid Herbicides). All results were below detectable levels. The water quality sampling program found that groundwater east of the Kealakehe WWTP effluent inflow trench showed total nitrogen concentrations of 1.20 mg/1. Although the concentration of total nitrogen in the effluent from Kealakehe WWTP was as high as 5.09 mg/1., O groundwater west of the Kealakehe WWTP effluent inflow trench in Well 6 showed a relatively low concentration of total nitrogen at 0.59 mg/1. again (0.62 mg/1) in Well 6 northwest of the Kealakehe WWTP effluent inflow trench. There were high concentrations of total phosphorus in Well 2 (2.71 mg/1) in the east portion of the project site and an absence of similar high levels of phosphorous up-slope at Well 6. Onemight assume that if the source of high phosphorous in Well 2 was the Kealakehe WWTP effluent inflow trench, these high levels would also be present in Well 6. A high level of phosphorous in Well 6 was not found, however, in the water quality sampling study. The above nutrient data is consistent with water quality data collected in anchialine pools and nearshore waters during the water quality, marine biological baseline studies conducted by Oceanic Institute, as presented in Appendix H-1. Page 3-27 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Assessment of Existing Natural Environment Oceanit re -sampled the two on-site wells (2 and 6), the Quarry well east of the site, and an O additional control well (O`oma) located just north of both the project site and the Kaloko- Honok6hau National Historical Park well at an elevation of about 80 feet These samples were all obtained during low tide to assure maximum concentration of groundwater constituents and were analyzed at a separate laboratory using different analyses techniques including EPA 8270C (semi -volatile), 8081 (pesticides), and EPA 8260 (volatile). Results of the analyses showed all chemicals below detectable levels with the exception of the detection of a low concentration of Bis (2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate (a component of PVC pipes and glo-sticks among other uses) in the Quarry well at 14 ug/L, just above the detection level 2"3.8.1.4 Anticipated Impacts and Proposed Mitigation The excavation for the construction of the proposed marina will impact the existing pattern of groundwater flow at the Kona Kai Ola site by incepting -modifying freshwater flows south of the harbor. Groundwater currently flowing toward the ocean south of the existing harbor wi44 might flow into the proposed marina and then to the ocean through the harbor entrance. Because the proposed marina is to the south and does not extend as far inland as the existing harbor, any impacts to groundwater flow will likely be limited to lands south of the existing harbor. Because the ground formation is so permeable and the local hydraulic gradient is controlled primarily by ocean tides, any impact to groundwater flow from the proposed harbor is likely to be localized. No impacts to the groundwater flow in the rest of the project site are anticipated from the proposed development. Secondary impacts to land and aquatic resources, from the change in the localized groundwater flow pattern in the project area, are addressed in section 3.9.3.2. 3.8.2 Surface Water O There are no significant natural freshwater streams or ponds other than brackish anchialines paols on and around the project location. These anchialine pools are located in areas where the land is low enough to expose the brackish water laver, and are important surface water features with natural and cultural significance. The anchialine-penEls=RQo s are discussed further in Section 3.9.32. Precipitation from moist higher elevations percolates rapidly due to high permeability of the natural ground surface. No natural gulches or waterways for surface run off have been formed. The site receives an annual average of only 13 inches of rainfall a year. A one-year 24-hour storm delivers only 2 to 2.5 3 inches of rainfall (Giambelluca, et. al. 1986' 962, nfal Requeney Atlas of the Hawaiian islands). Anticipated Impacts and Recommend roposed Mitigation The site will have varying degrees of impermeable surfaces depending on the final design and materials used. The increase of impermeable surfaces and roofs of buildings will change the runoff/seepage pattern and probably cause an increase in the runoff volume. Page 3-28 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawai `i Assessment of Existing Natural Environment According to proposed design guidelines, primarily only areas immediately adjacent to buildings and other built features will be planted or irrigated. Irrigation water for these small planted areas will be provided primarily from recycled water, brackish well water, buried cold water Dipes, and condensate from air conditioning systems. Landscaping that is developed will potentially add both water from irrigation and dissolved nutrients, either from localized fertilizer application or from the use of recycled wastewater. Pesticide use is likely to be a general part of landscape maintenance with the potential for runoff pollution. The increase of runoff volume and possible leaching of fertilizers from landscaped areas can cause impacts to receiving waters. Measures to mitigate project impacts will include conformance with related public regulations. All drainage systems are required to be engineered to satisfy all County requirements through Hawaii County Department of Public Works (DPW) review. In excess of these requirements, each parcel will be required through the Design Guidelines to provide complete retention of the 1 -year 24-hour rainfall runoff. The areas that increase the runoff volume will be paired with adjacent landscaped features such asla�tlW to areas and these i add nt to buildings and ^ f drainage facilities to will -provide retention and seepage. Natural volcanic rock surface in other areas will be retained wherever possible. The use of chemical fertilizers will be limited or preferably not used at all for the landscaping features. Use of organic fertilizers like composted vegetation would mitigate nutrient concentration in runoff and seepage water. Where -ever possible, irrigation will use recovered or recycled water and should be applied as sub -surface drip irrigation to minimize evaporation and runoff. IO The use of hardy, native xeriscape plantings that need lower amounts of water and fertilizers are r-eeemmeaded proposed to be used for landscaping features. Further, drywells will be constructed in appropriate locations with rain run off directed to these by a drainage system. Mitigation of runoff impacts will be further specified in design plans and will be determined during the permitting process when final designs are developed JDI will stipulate low impact development techniques as part of the general design guidelines. The Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be very site specific and must be incorporated with the building and landscape design. BMPs will be incorporated to minimize runoff volume and peak flow minimize the quantity of pollutants in runoff or flows to groundwater, and maximize re -use of storm water for natural irrigation. 3.9 Marine Environment and Aquatic Ecosystems Marine waters inside the Honokohau Harbor are classified "Class A" by the State of Hawai `i Department of Health as shown in Figure PN. It is the objective of Class A waters that the' r use for recreational purposes and aesthetic enjoyment be protected. Waters outside of the existing marina are classified "AA" by the State of Hawai `i Department of Health. It is the objective of c -Class AA waters that these waters remain in their natural pristine state as nearly as possible with an absolute minimum of pollution or alteration of water quality from any human -caused sources or actions. To the extent practicable, the wilderness character of these areas shall be protected. O Page 3-29 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Assessment of Existing Natural Environment O3.9.1 Nearshore Environment and Coastal Waters 3.9.1.1 Existing Conditions Along the Kona Coast the nature of the benthic community is largely a function of depth and wave action. Because the island is relatively young, fringing reef structures have not vet developed and there has been no significant terra -forming through riverine processes. Coral reefs therefore develop over raw volcanic base in accordance with light availability (primarily a function of depth), wave and current action, substrate condition, and ecological intersaecific competition factors. The USGS (2007) has recently completed a benthic habitat survey of the waters off shore of the Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park and fronting the Honokohau Harbor. This study has identified 21 separate benthic habitat classes, the distribution of which is primarily controlled by the character of the submerged volcanic flows. Twelve habitat zones are identified which are controlled primarily by water depth, benthic slope, and substrate structure. The dominant structure is a large shallow bench between the shoreline and extending up to 700 meters off shore where it ends in a shallow escarpment. Coral cover is highly variable over the entire submerged park area, but some of the highest coverage is located to the north and south of the harbor channel entrance. This study identifies an area at a depth of about 10-15 meters (-40 feet) off the harbor mouth with lower than expected coral cover. Prior to the release of the USGS study a separate effort was undertaken by Oceanic Institute to O characterize the marine environment within and off shore of the Honokohau Harbor. Coral and fish eommunifies within 14enek6hau Bay and off the Kona Kai 01a site are generally ttypieal of West Hawai'i reefs, with little evidenee of anthf uantitative transects conducted at locations north, south, and fronting the harbor concluded that Sspecies composition of corals was typical for Kona reefs, with Lobe coral (Porites lobata) and Rose -Coral (Pocillopora meandrina) abundant in the shallow and mid -reef zones and Finger Coral (Porites compressa) more abundant in deeper zones. Highest coral abundance was observed at locations immediately to the north and south of the Honokohau Harbor entrance channel. Coral cover at locations in the Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park to the north and on the other side of the point to the south of the harbor^r� were not statistically significantly different; however, reefs to the north of Honokohau Harbor in general showed higher coral cover than reefs to the south_; This higher density is possible pfifnar-ily because the southern reefs are more exposed to strong surf and associated damage and scour. Coral and fish communities within Honokohau Bav and off the Kona Kai Ola site are generally typical of West Hawaii reefs. with little evidence of anthropogenic impacts. s srr fer:r _,:MMUN 61111 �. =T. - Page 3-31 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Assessment of Existing Natural Environment It is known and documented that freshwater intrusion into the current marina and near shore O areas causes many water quality parameters to deviate from typical nearshore waters that are unaffected by large amounts of groundwater. Specific criteria established by the State Department of Health for conducting baseline water quality surveys along the Kona Coast of the Island of Hawaii and guidelines established by the West Hawaii Coastal Monitoring Task Force were followed in water sampling and analysis procedures (WHCMTF 1992). Water quality testing efforts were coordinated with Waimea Water Services and Oceanic Institute to select proper sites for groundwater/springs. Water samples were collected from all significant anchialine-pomispaols located within the project boundaries, on either side of the harbor entrance channel. Pe Water quality testing was limited to ones that afe ..o,,..,.nable to be suspeete on ^r- near the site. nutrients and physical parameters known to be primary factors in pond and nearshore ecosystems function. Testing parameters were discussed with the National Historical Park Service and other stakeholder agencies. The report on Marine Water Quality and Marine Biological Baseline Studies and Impact Analysis is included in Appendix GH -1. Coastal waters of the site are seen as a continuous and interconnected system from the shallow low salinity groundwater flowing through the harbor, anchialine-pemis=p2.oIs,.and emerging into the ocean through the harbor mouth and sub -surface springs. The less dense brackish water with its load of land -derived nutrients enters the nearshore water and spreads out as a surface layer. The degree of mixing and impacts to nearshore marine resources is determined by coastal currents, wind waves, and ocean swells. Brackish groundwater discharge input into Honokohau Harbor was calibrated for the hydrodynamic model using salinity profiles (OI Consultants. 1991 and Glenn. 2006) and the Harbor flushing time (OI Consultants, 1991). This calibration and analysis is described in Appendix U. The calibration period was selected to coincide with the flushing study conducted in 1991. Both OI Consultants (1991) and Glenn (2006) showed salinity profiles that did not go below about 25 ppt at the back of the harbor and the contours are well defined and mainly confined within the top 2-3 feet of the harbor._ This indicates that the brackish groundwater entering the system is likely to be in the range of 20 ppt (indicated by the maintained stratification or low mixing and mid -20 ppt contours near the wall). Ziemann (2006) noted in his observations that it appeared that a single source of brackish groundwater at the back of the Harbor was predominantly responsible for inputs. Therefore, the model discharge condition was placed in the cells along the back wall of the harbor. The quantity and salinity of the inflow as well as the dispersion coefficient were varied until the salinity contours appeared to match with reported values and the flushing time was close to 12 hours as reported in OI Consultants. It was found that the most reasonable value was 30 mgd at 22 pot. This is close to the value reported_ by Gallagher (1980) of 27 mgd of brackish water entering Honokohau Harbor. O Page 3-32 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Assessment of Existing Natural Environment OA detailed analysis of the change in flow velocities through the harbor entrance is described within the 31) model shown in Appendix U. It was found that tidally averaged velocities through the harbor entrance may increase by 3-4 cm/s post -expansion. This is due to the increased tidal prism, the addition of the exhibit water, and the increased flow of brackish groundwater into the ss s 3.9.1.2 Methodologies and Studies Three studies were conducted to evaluate_proiect impacts on nearshore and coastal waters. Oceanit completed a Zone of Mixing study that was presented in the DEIS and is contained in Appendix 141. This study was tasked with determining the mixing and dispersion of flows emerging from the harbor into the adjacent shallow nearshore waters. To accomplish this, data from previous studies were reviewed and field research was conducted to measure stratification and currents adjacent to the harbor entrance and out into the ocean. A "Zone of Mixing" area was determined outside of which there is no discernable influence to water quality from the exjstjng harbor effluent. This information was used to assess impact from modifications to groundwater inflow from marina expansion, and the seawater effluent flow from the marine water features. The fne,a 1 analysisfor- mixing and ,.,ter Flow through the existing harbor- and the proposed eluded existing water- exehange between harbor- and eeean and the futtir-e wa- — features. The fnedel r-estilts inelude three dimensional water flow pattems as well as water - quality distr4butieft details. O A Wave Penetration Study was prepared by Moffat and Nichol to determine wave characteristics within the existing harbor and the proposed expansion basin. This study was presented in the DEIS and is contained in Appendix J. In response to DEIS comments_, a Harbor Water Quality Modeling Study was prepared by Moffat and Nichol and is presented in Appendix U of this FEIS. 3.9.1.3 Zone of Mixing Oeeanit eampleted a Zone of Mixinign study that is eantained in Appeadi* 14. This studywas adjaeent shallow near-shere water -s T ish this, data fr-ofn pr-eyieus studies wer-e r-eviewed is no diseer-nable influenee to water- quality ffem the existing harbor- effluent. This infennation and— the seawat .,t -I,,... fi —Am the mar-ine .,te f features. The model analvsis for mixing and water flow through the existing harbor and the proposed marina included existing water exchange between harbor_ and ocean and the future water exchange resulting from the expanded marina area and the discharge from the marine water features. The model results include three-dimensional water flow patterns as well as water uality distribution details. Page 3-33 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Assessment of Existing Natural Environment The three-dimensional model was extended outside of the harbor entrance in order to examine O relative changes from baseline conditions. Due to the lack of available data regarding specific brackish discharge events along the coastline, the model is not calibrated outside of the harbor entrance, and any changes predicted in this region are only referred to in terms of relative changes (in relation to model predicted existing conditions). This analysis is shown in Appendix I. It was found that the significance of the additional brackish groundwater inflow into Kona Kai Ola Marina also has an effect on the surrounding surface waters of Honok6hau Bay. The concentrations of nutrients in low flow scenarios are less than existing conditions due to the lack of additional nutrients to the system. However, with higher brackish inflow,_ the relative growth_ of algae is more contained while nutrient concentrations relatively increase. Relative nitrogen concentrations in the bottom lavers can be maintained in scenarios without additional exhibit flow included, however with the additional saline flow, there is more of a nitrogen load in the bottom lavers. Anticipated Impacts and Mitigation Measures In the existing Honok6hau Harbor, water quality issues focus on the potential for pollutants, sediments, mixing and discharge into the nearshore marine waters. Before the harbor was constructed, any pollutants entrained within the groundwater were believed to have been diffused over a broad coastline. The water for the water features will be pumped from 100 to 300 foot depth. The total amount of water supplied to the water features will be 75 million gallons per day. The rate of pumping is designed to achieve an approximate 4 hour residence time within the ponds (pers. comm. Cloward H20. 2007) and to prevent build up of pollutants from users and marine animals. The O water- fef the water- featur-es will be ptimped ffefn 100 to 300 feet depth. The total afflEfflflt E) water- supplied to the water- featufeswill be 75 million gallons per- day. The rate of pu designed to aehieve rapid tur-fiever- of water- within the ponds and to prevent build up ei pollutants ffem marine anim.als and users. Cur-r-ently, the fitAfient eeaeent+ations at the existing fnar-ina entr-anee are very high (1,200ug/l of total dissolved nitfogen (TDN) and 83 UgA of total dissolved phosphor -us (TDP)). The intake water- f6f the featur-es has lew levels of nutfients (185 The anticipated impacts and mitigation measures discussed below assume construction of an 800 -slip harbor. One possible mitigation measure would be to reduce the size of the harbor expansion. Any modification of the final design size of the marina would require modification of contract language with the DLNR. In that Alternative 1 would include a smaller marina and smaller seawater lagoons, the latter of which would represent a 74 percent decrease from 19 acres in the proposed project to five acres in Alternative 1. there would be a proportionate reduction in seawater discharging into the new harbor. The intake water for the features has low levels of nutrients (185 ug/l TDN and 5.6 ug of TDP). This amount will be modified by the generation of nutrients by marine animals. This quantity was modeled via calculations performed by ClowardH2O (pers. comm.. 2007). Through modeling, this level of nutrient input was found to have an effect on both ammonia and nitrate concentrations outside of the harbor. However, the modeled input did not contribute significantly to eutrophication potential due to the limiting nature of phosphorous within the system. These processes and sensitivity tests are described at length in Appendix U. O Page 3-34 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Assessment of Existing Natural Environment OAlthough the total amount of nutrients that will be generated per day will increase from the nutrient output of marine animals and users, the concentration of the nutrients will be lower due to the large amount of water available for mixing within the basin. The overall impact will be a reduction of nutrient concentration in the outflowing water. The boats used in the marina will be small, and spills could occur from boats or while fuelling. These amounts in a majority of cases will be relatively small. The entrance to the marina is relatively narrow and in case of a fuel spill, the traffic will be stopped and a containment boom will be installed to contain the spill within the basin. Adequate numbers of containment booms, absorption units and oil removal facilities will be at the fueling station and also provided to an identified emergency response station. Personnel will be trained to respond in case of a spill. In addition, the local fire station, police and civil defense and other agencies will be informed in case of a larger spill. The proposed new marina would significantly increase the size of the water body, but would utilize the existing marina entrance for access to the ocean. This will increase the tidal prism in addition to the extra anticipated inflows to the new marina. It would be expected to intercept additional groundwater. adding these flows to the existing harbor outflow in addition to being _the outfall location for the exhibit flows Model results presented in Appendix U show that the increase in depth -averaged velocities through_ the harbor entrance can be as great as 4 cm/s under typical conditions The proposed marina basin will therefore not result in any significant increase in groundwater O flow to the coastline but rather a concentration and redirection of the existing flows to the harbor entrance. There will be an expanded zone of mixing between the brackish effluent and the surrounding ocean waters due to the concentration of flows at the harbor mouth. The addition of effluent water from the marine water features will result in an additional increase outflow across the marina entrance from 30 mgd to an expected value of greater than 135 mgd after development of the marine water features. to the ^ ,,.h will rote-eept additional adding these flows to- the -e*isfing hafbereut#low The p edmar-inawill the fe f -O fe HEA ,.;+ existing flows to the harbor- entr-anee. There will be an expanded zone of mixing between the harbor- mouth. The addition E)f effluent water- fiam the mai4ae vate-r. ffeeatunes will Fesialt in an development o f themar-inewater- f .,r„ The effluent f ! the mafine water- features :11 eentain law amounts of nut-Fients beeause of the high flow through. The large amount of watef will diltite any pollutants that enter- the hafbor- basin ffefn gfoundwater- or suffaee waten This will Page 3-35 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Assessment of Existing Natural Environment Despite its proximity to the WWTP, sewers do not service the existing adjacent State harbor or O surrounding private structures. All sewage from existing facilities is treated in on-site septic systems with resulting effluent flowing to groundwater that almost certainly flows directly to the existing harbor. Under post -development conditions all of these flows would be connected to the Kona Kai Ola sewage system resulting in a positive impact by eliminating this existing pollutant load into the harbor. Sewage from facilities at the existing marina will be connected to the Kona Kai Ola sewage system. Sumps, connection lines and pumping facilities will be constructed to move the sewage from the present septic tank systems directly to the larger collection system. The work needed for this conversion will be included in the sewage infrastructure design and construction. At present, the salinitv of the water column remains entirelv saline in the bottom lavers with more brackish influences near the surface (about 30 ant). Model results displayed in detail within Appendix U show that salinity differences near the harbor entrance are completely confined to the surface lavers and are at maximum about 0.5 ppt less than the current conditions of about 30 ppt (surface). Salinity at the marina entrance. at 10 foot depth is not affected by the brackish water discharge. The benthic flora and fauna close to the marina entrance and at less than 10 feet water depth face variations of salinity from 34.5 ppt to 36.0 ppt. - - s �.. No "11 _ 5 Page 3-36 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Assessment of Existing Natural Environment OConstruction of a new marina basin will have shot4 short-term negative impacts on coastal marine resources. Direct construction impacts are likely to be small. Marina construction will be accomplished with a berm separating the construction area from adjacent marine waters, minimizing the discharge of sediment from excavation and dredging. Excess sediment remaining in excavated marina will be removed before the land bridge is removed in order to minimize any temporary sediment plume. When the final land bridge is removed, a temporary sediment plume is anticipated. Silt curtains will he used tominifnize m rp event suspended sediment entering ocean waters. Although the runoff at the site is small due to the dry climate and the high porosity of the land during high rainfall some runoff might reach the harbor basin as overland sheet flow. The new marina will serve as a collection point for materials utilized or generated at the development site, either through direct runoff or by interception of groundwater flow. There is the potential that fertilizers, pesticides, petroleum products, road wastes, etc, could be discharged from the mouth of Honokohau Harbor into the coastal marine environment. Structural Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be desi¢ned and installed to remove as much of pollutants as possible from the run off during such unusual conditions. Small boat harbors have been found to be consistent sources of certain types of pollutants to the surrounding environment. These pollutants in general include: ■ Heavy metals (zinc, copper, tin, lead) associated with bottom paint or sanding of painted surfaces during maintenance activities; O Petroleum product release from fueling operations, and bilge discharges exacerbated by the large number of boats and range of operator skills; ■ Trash and debris from boat operations and surrounding harbor activities; ■ Sewage from intentional or accidental releases from on -board waste systems; ■ Biological waste from fish cleaning; ■ Waste streams from land -side boat washing and maintenance activities; Most of the impacts can be minimized through the use of Best Management Practices (BMPs), which are a combination of activities, education and devices that help prevent or reduce water pollution. A "Clean Marina Program" similar to the International Blue Flag Marina Program or the Clean Marinas California Program will be implemented at the new marina and include key elements such as promoting and enforcing: ■ Boater education signage, literature and programs ■ Emergency and spill response plans ■ Safe fuel, hazardous material, sewage and bilge water handling practices ■ Use of sewage marina pump out, waste and oil recycling facilities ■ Environmentally sensitive boat maintenance and cleaning practices ■ Environmentally sensitive hull cleaning practices ■ Good housekeeping practices on boats and docks OUse of fish cleaning stations / receptacles and fish waste composting Page 3-37 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Assessment of Existing Natural Environment Enforcement of harbor rules and regulations 3.9.1.4 Wave Impacts to the Existing Honokohau Harbor The wave climate within the existing Honokohau Harbor and the proposed marina was analyzed using'a numerical model that is further discussed in Appendix Jl. A wave measurement study was conducted to determine the wave response of the existing harbor to outside wave climate A directional wave gage at a depth of sixty feet directly in front of the existing harbor entrance and a non directional wave gage inside the existing harbor basin were installed to measure wave climates simultaneously. The results of the wave measurements were provided for wave transformation model calibration. Results of the wave climate analysis with and without the expansion were used to predict wave agitation impacts to the existing harbor. The model was operated for waves with a 9 -second period and swells of 13 -second period as the dominating waves for the offshore area. Anticipated Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Wave climate in the existing harbor from the proposed marina construction depended on the period of the incoming waves. There was a slight decrease in the wave height in the existing basin for outside waves of a 9 -second period. For longer period swells, there was no significant change in the wave height in the basin. For waves with a 9 -second period, the wave height at the inner end of the outer basin attenuated to 40 percent of the incident wave. There was no additional wave attenuation due to the presence O of the proposed marina. Within the existing harbor inner basin, the wave height attenuated to about 20 percent of the incident wave. The wave height in the inner harbor decreased by about 10 percent with the construction of the proposed marina. For longer period swells, the wave height in the outer basin remained at 50 percent attenuation. In the inner basin, the wave height reduced to about 20 to 30 percent of the incident wave. There was no significant change in the wave height in the inner basin from marina construction. The analysis shows that under short storm wave conditions, the proposed marina construction causes a positive impact by reducing the wave height by 10 percent in the existing marina. However, under swell conditions there is no change in wave agitation in the mooring area of the existing harbor with the proposed marina. Overall, the impact of construction of the proposed marina basin is positive since the existing harbor will experience less wave agitation. This may be due to the fact that the amount of wave energy entering through the harbor entrance remains the same, while additional water area and frictional surfaces (both sides and bottom) provide for greater wave dissipation after the expansion. No mitigation is ^^.r,. ended, proposed due to the project's positive effect. 3.9.1.5 Harbor Water Oualitv A three dimensional hydrodynamic and water quality model of Honokohau Harbor and its surrounding waters was developed using the Delft3D modeling suite and is described in detail in Appendix U. The model was driven at its offshore boundaries by tidal predictions, and calibrated to reproduce available measurements of water levels, currents salinity and temperature O Page 3-38 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Assessment of Existing Natural Environment OModel results suggested that the brackish groundwater inflow to Honok6hau Harbor was approximately 30 million gallons per day (mgd). with an average salinity of 22 Darts per thousand (ppt)in order to reproduce the salinity profiles observed from a number of available data sets In addition, this flow rate is in very good agreement to the published values of brackish groundwater inflow to Honok6hau Harbor. The model also showed that under these conditions. Honok6hau Harbor maintained a flushing time of approximately 12 hours which is consistent with available studies and data. The flushing within the harbor was found to be primarily due to the density currents that result from the salinity gradient within the Harbor created by the brackish groundwater inflow. This finding also corroborated with study findings that this flushing mechanism results in water exchange in the harbor on the order of seven times faster than if it were flushed via tidal action alone. A water aualitv model was developed to replicate tvnical conditions experienced in Honokdhau Harbor and its environs. Water quality parameters were calibrated and validated using two available datasets It was found that the water quality within Honokohau Harbor is primarily maintained due to the high rate of circulation. The nutrient loads entering the harbor through the brackish groundwater inflow are high, and without high flushing, water quality within the Harbor would not be able to be maintained. Anticipated Imnacts_and Mitigation Measures The water quality model was applied to predict the post -project conditions after the addition of the Kona Kai Ola Marina Per the Conceptual Master Plan the marina consists of a 45 acre marina basin with 800 boat slips Brackish groundwater inflows into the new marina basin were Obracketed between 0 mgd and 60 mgd. The two simulated extremes represent scenarios where no additional brackish groundwater will be intercepted by the new marina, which is not consistent with the observed conditions, and when brackish groundwater inflow into the new marina is twice the amount that will be still flowing into the existing marina, respectively. The model results demonstrated relative to the increased area, that water quality within the proposed 45 -acre marina basin system could not be maintained. Inflow of brackish groundwater to the new marina was found to be fundamental to the flushing and water quality of the proposed system. However, even for the largest simulated inflow of 60 additional mgd entering the new marina, water quality was still degraded post -expansion. This is primarily due to the fact that the proposed marina basin has five times the volume of the existing harbor. In addition, the geometry of the system led to internal circulation between the existing harbor and new marina basin. The 45 -acre new marina basin only becomes viable from a water auality impact standpoint if the additional brackish groundwater inflow into the new marina exceeds 60 mgd. Alternatives to the aforementioned system that could maintain the flushing and water quality, as observed under existing conditions, were investigated. It was found that the reduction of the volume of the new marina basin by 45 percent significantly improved the flushing and water auality. Broad range sensitivity tests were -also performed to determine the effect that various parameters had on the proposed system. For example, addition of nitrogen and phosphorous loads were tested to determine the limitation of the system. Page 3-39 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Assessment of Existing Natural Environment The conditions with the proiect constructed were found to be phosphorous limited Several O simulations were performed including and excluding the inflow from the marine exhibits which provides an additional nitrogen load and also varying the location of this inflow. It was found that the inflow from the marine exhibits can have a beneficial effect on flushing, especially when positioned within the existing harbor basin. However, its effect is significantly less than the effect due to the brackish groundwater inflow. When the exhibit inflow is excluded or positioned at the east end of the new marina, its effect is small in terms of flushing due to its high salinity. From a water _auality perspective, since the loads from the exhibit inflow consist primarily of nitrogen, it does not cause increased algae growth However, this exhibit inflow does raise the concentrations of ammonia and nitrate in the system Simulation results indicate that under the conditions when the post -expansion system receives an additional brackish inflow into the new 25 -acre marina on the order of 30 m d or more, water quality within the harbor system and in the surrounding waters remained similar to existing conditions. These conditions are expected to occur based on the findings reported by Waimea Water Services (2007), which states that the proposed marina would exhibit the same or similar flushing action as the existing marina. An additional mitigation measure proposed by Waimea Water Services_ (2007), if sufficient inflow is not intercepted, consists of drilling holes in the bottom of the new marina to enhance this inflow and facilitate flushing within the proposed system. 3-.9-.33.9.2 AnchialinePon s Pools Two studies on anchialine pools were conducted in this EIS_ process. The anchialine-pen& ools O water quality studies and biota su�� were eendueted-by Dai A. . Ziemann, P .D f t neeanie rnsfittite and i biota surveys were conducted by David A. Ziemann, Ph.D. of the Oceanic Institute in October 2006 and are included as Appendix GH -1. That survey included pools located both north and south of Honok6hau Harbor. In response to DEIS comments and to further study the pools south of entrance channel of Honok6hau Harbor, a second study was conducted by David Chai of Aquatic Research Management and Design in June 2007. The second survey focused on intensive diurnal and nocturnal biological surveys and limited water quality analysis of the southern group of anchialine pools exclusively. The report is contained in Appendix H-2. 343.9.2.1 Existing Conditions Anchialine-pefi&=pgo.ls exist in inland lava depressions near the ocean. Two anchialine pond pQol complexes are located immediately to the north and south of the Honok6hau Harbor entrance channel. The complex to the north is located wholly within the designated boundaries of the Kaloko-Honokbhau National Historical Park as shown in Figure =Q9. Many of the -pelma paols in the southern complex are within the park administrative boundary as well.Peuds Pools in the northern complex show little evidence of anthropogenic impacts. Many contain typical vegetation and crustacean species in high abundance. Figure R locates anchialine pools near the harbor entrance and DOOISPOREIS in the southern complex are depicted in Figure S. Page 3-40 m• o " v till T �f1 �.:o.� >.0�� 3'`�f �,.a ,jM r ��- 1 �•�G� i�4. � ..i ..,.i��To �d�� +CNH ��� !rr ^n,—• �--1"��� � � ! 4 r�i 4t�.a� —(} ' a p S c�� w a[• � � � � � 1 pc s� r � Y » �o:o a\�yV ¢`7K; �OIu0�81�•— ,. ah!!at`�°� —4 � ��� � rL � �� �-�J.-- moi."'} 7� � �` `ca'�aS��^ t 1\.J��( ��. ike.va � •I, � gelomalo r � f\Y �-'a a ti ;�''. t Y 7 !� � ({�•tiKai a�`'�� r:Ofaor t11 � 1, J� 0. - HuLbw•a.Dri H / ✓i - O dr •a � K s tl � �, f � '? fit' f N_ � //� ,� � � d ^'' r r�� raj. jr � �� � •����'-�v, .�G � �,.} �4 '. Nr� jKalo�oHonoa°au \ r Natlorial Historical Park `� s I / Honokohau � ! vw /r a ,w %i✓1' r r an — •� .> . 2 pkv1Y ( N c�0 t.m Harbor � �, 5 Keata / tir /J�r ✓ �3�� / �Y/y� ,eE ,,zx v �,e a,�.���yµeh� ! 'i�! l 5 1i �y ,�-�- t o� •�n;�;N. a/a Or i✓ / a „ xy: ., %G; "✓✓, ,� `�i �J `v�N °� e L �"a� hopes,r'' — - . G'// ✓ ✓i�✓Gi m , �7 �y�, --i-- 7 J � � / X' / a ! r �.� �„ny✓' / �,✓%��""/Y � � '�"`�� U t r s,K f; ^�'�O- T� �r C �; .r . , t �, -.,xy /! t ?c v �/ '� F ✓aha i '! ' 1�� i 7 /2y/ / ✓A/ r% - / / , gvg/•LUn va/ t y r_�y„ lf�/ ✓� // x r / �� hLala�a. ,� ,, ,; ,i, ✓//AO , v r / jjj s / J I/ Source: htt ://nrdata.n s. ov/kaho/kahodata/kaho ` p p 9 _parkbndry_ply.zip —m. m�.°. Figure Q: National Historical Park Service N Legislative Boundary Map�. Legend g • r'1/ w. YF ae�eanii. Project Site S JD1 _••— Proposed Parkway o 2,500 5,000 Feet National Park Boundary i r JACCIBY DEVELOPMENT, INC. Source: Oceanic Institute N Flaure R: Anchialine Pool Locations r; S 0 2,000 4,00 Fee .0 1 JACOt-Y D'EVIELOrMUTG INC.. Source,: Aquatic Resources iMlanageme,nt And Design Figuire S:.Anchialine Pool Locations in Southern Complel.xv JDI JACO8'Y'DE%tZLOP;%m4T, WC.. Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawai `i Assessment of Existing Natural Environment The 2006 study identified 22 pools in the southern complex. The 2007 study found that three of the 22 pools are part of an estuary complex -with direct connection to the ocean. While there were several signs of direct human use and disturbance, such as trash receptacles and toilet facilities, the greatest degradation to the majority of the anchialine and estuarine resources was due to the presence of alien fish, including topminnows and tilapia, and introduced plants predominantly pickleweed and mangrove. aFO E)def te!) 8 With ffl ans within the pends gener-ally fefleet the eonditions of the under Biota surveys in the two pond systems clearly indicate that counts of typical pond denizens show a remarkable difference between the northern and southern. In the northern -pegs pools the number of Halocaridina rubra ranged from a low of 20-25 to too numerous to count. The biota rich pond bottoms appeared red due to the Halocaridina rubra numbers. The only other species visible was the predatory shrimp Metabetaeus lohena. In contrast, only four out of O the 22-poPA-s=p2ols examined in the southern pond complex showed a decreased presence of Halocaridina rubra (6 to 200) individuals in the pond, and three-pep4s=pkols contained Metabetaeus lohena. Eight of the-pepA•s=paols contained numbers of introduced minnows which is an apparent predator of Halocaridina rubra and Metabetaeus lohena. The 2007 study found three of the pools identified in the 2006 study were part of an estuary complex with direct connection to the ocean, and that the southern complex contained 19 anchialine pools. The study further found that a majority of the southern pools are degraded biologically and physically, primarily due to the effects of introduced fish and plant species. Six pools are currently devoid of alien fish, but they face a high level of threat due to the proximity of pools that have these species. Of the 19 anchialine pools, six were considered high tide pools (exposed only at medium or high tide), seven were considered pool complexes (individual pools at low tide and interconnected at high tide) and six were single isolated pools Of the 19 anchialine pools, three pools with a combined surface area of 20m2 would be eliminated due to the harbor construction. The DEIS presented information stating that harbor construction would cause an increase in salinity in the anchialine pools makai of the proposed marina basin to become equivalent to the ocean at 35 ppt. and that the anchialine biology would then perish. There is currently a level of uncertainty by professional hydrologists as to the exact movement of surface groundwater and final determination of anchialine salinity following the harbor construction. The assessment that all anchialine pools will be barren with the construction of the harbor may be premature. Halocaridina rubra (ovae ula) are routinelv drawn from high salinitv wells at 30-32 ppt. Page 3-44 Kealakehe, North Kona District Island of Hawaii Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Assessment of Existing Natural Environment OWithin the19 pools, native and non-native fauna included_ 14 species comprised of 5 fish, 2 mollusca, and 6 crustacea. Algae within the pools primarily consisted of a mixed assemblage of rock substrate. Riparian vegetation was dominated by introduced species consisting of Pickleweed (Batis maritima), Mangrove (Rhvzophora mangle), and Christmasberry (Shinus terebenthifolius). Only two species of native plants Akulikuli (Sesuvium nortulacastrum) and Makaloa (Cvnerus laevigatus) existed near the pools and comprised only few small patches and a single tuft (respectively). Most of the hvpogeal anchialine shrimp have adapted to the presence of minnows by foraging in the pools at night. During daylight hours, only the adult shrimp appear to coexist at low population levels with the smaller P. reticulata, but the larger G. afnis and Oreochromis prevent the daytime appearance of hypogeal shrimp due to predation. The average salinity in Kealakehe pools is relatively high at 13.5 ppt compared to most other pools along the West Hawaii coastline, having an average of approximately 7 ppt. This high salinity appears to be characteristic of this region, and is similar to the average of most pools within the adjacent ahupua'a of Honokohau and Kaloko. The levels of nitrate -nitrogen levels are relatively high compared to other undeveloped areas, but fall in the range of some developed landscapes. Other water quality parameters, including pH and temperature, fall into normal ranges for anchialine pools. O This relatively high salinity is the likely reason aguatjc insects were not found in any pools at Kealakehe. Though the rare damselfly Megalagrion xanthomelas has been observed and collected from Kaloko, a statewide assessment of its range has not found it to occur in water with salinity greater than 3ppt. However, there has been an unsubstantiated occurrence of the nymph in a pool of up to 8ppt (Polhemus, 1995). Another species of concern is the hvpogeal decapod shrimp Metabetaeus lohena. These shrimp are sometimes predatory on H. rubra but are more often opportunistic omnivores similar to H. rubra. Predusk and nocturnal sampling at high tide is clearly the optimal method to determine habitat range and population densities for this species. These shrimp were found in 13 of the 19 pools 7 of which had M lohena only at night. The occurrences of H. rubra were found in 16 of 19 sampled pools, 8 of which had `Opae`ula observed only at night. Consequently, despite having numerous degraded anchialine resources at Kealakehe, there are opportunities for many of the pools to be restored and enhanced to a level where large populations of anchialine shrimp and other native species may return to inhabit the pools as they likely have jn the past. Page 3-45 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Assessment of Existing Natural Environment 323.9.2.2 Anticipated Impacts and Proposed Mitigations The anchialine-pefi&=pgqls that are located north of the existing harbor are not likely to be impacted because no development activities are proposed north of the existing harbor. It is highly unlikely that existing groundwater flows to the Kaloko-Honokohau pond system to the north of the existing harbor will be impacted by the proposed marina to the south. Of the 19 pools in the southern complex, three would be eliminated due to harbor construction. Regarding the remaining pools. the DEIS noted that tThe change in the local groundwater flow pattern in the vicinity of the proposed marina -would impact the anchialine-pemis=pRols that are located between the proposed marina and the shoreline south of the harbor entrance. The 2006 study (Appendix H-1) noted that tThe salinity of the anchialine-penfls.pRols will -would increase due to reduction of brackish groundwater, and that . c^ff" .e*ds A611 h -Re. ox avatea to make the new harbor- basin. T-those-pen&.p2ols that are not excavated will revert to full salinity, causing the loss of their habitat. and asseeiated aquatie Ram and fauna. H eufFen 'ions indicate that these ponds are air-eady enriehed by nutfients and the densi n:1 ^ has ^t ready .io..radea the pend o oleg . Even without the potential impacts from the proposed marina construction, the pond ecology might change irreversibly from the nutrient input, human indifference and expansion of non native fauna species. Further studies conducted in response to DEIS comments (Appendix H-2, and Appendix G-31 indicate that the remaining pools may not increase in salinity to levels unhealthy for H. rubra and M. lohena and other anchialine pool fauna. In addition, these studies determined that there O are realistic mechanisms employed elsewhere that would mitigate changes due to groundwater changes. Waimea Water Services found that harbor construction would cut off some of the fresher ground -water flow. However, predicting the extent of change in flow is difficult if not impossible even with numerous boreholes and intense sampling. The actual flow of groundwater towards the sea is minimal today, and tidal measurements show that tide fluctuations represent more than 90 percent in actual harbor tides. The fluctuations occur simultaneous with the ocean/harbor tide, which indicate a vertical and horizontal pressure regime between bore hole 6 and the ocean and harbor. Hence. the tides alone create a mixing system that increases salinity. as the flow approaches the point of discharge which will be either the channel or the shore. Another factor that could influence groundwater quality is the increased local recharge from irrigation between the channel and shore. This will add fresh water to the lens locally but is not quantified at this time. uantification of these impacts, including the flow of groundwater through each pond, is extremelv difficult. The shallow lavas are of the pahoehoe type and have a relatively high horizontal permeability. In surface depressions or undulations, the pahoehoe lavas have a tendency to lose vertical permeability from sedimentation thus restricting water exchange within the individual pools. This is normally reflected in both the salinity and temperature and this information has been adequately studied in the pools. Page 3-46 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Assessment of Existing Natural Environment OChanges in groundwater quality may or may not impact biological communities in the anchialine and estuarine environment. In either case, it is important to understand these relationships to effectively manage the resource. If there is significant deviation from the baseline especially in regard to nutrients, pathogens, and toxins, a mitigation plan to determine the cause and take decisive appropriate action will be implemented. The mitigation plan will be based on the following objectives: Objective 1 To preserve, maintain, and foster the long-term health and native ecological integrity of anchialine pools at Kealakehe. Objective 2 To protect and promote cultural practices and traditions surrounding anchialine resources at Kealakehe. Objective 3 To provide education, interpretation, and interactive opportunities for the community to learn about and appreciate the anchialine resources. Objective 4 To acquire a pond manager to implement the program, conduct monitoring, research, and reporting, and provide education to the community about anchialine and estuarine resources. Mitigation measures to facilitate the long-term health of the remaining anchialine pools will be based on environmental monitoring, which is vital as an early warning system to detect potential environmental degradation. A series of quantitative baseline analysis of the physio -chemical and biological components within the project site will provide a standard by which the effects of the O development, anthropogenic activities, and natural phenomena on the environment can be measured The framework for the mitigation plan will include three measures intended to meet these objectives, including bioretention, salinity adjustment and possible new pools. As a mitigation measure, bioretention, which is a Best Management Practice (BMP) is a feasible application for the proposed_ development. There is a probability that nutrients and other potential pollutants will runoff landscaping and impermeable surfaces such as roadways and parking lots during medium or high rainfall events. Some of these pollutants could enter the groundwater table and into anchialine pools and ultimately the ocean. As an alternative to directing runoff into the ground through drvwells, storm water should be directed into bioretention areas such as constructed surface or subsurface wetlands, vegetated filter strips, grass swales, and planted buffer areas. Storm water held and moved through these living filter systems are essentially stripped of most potential nollutants, and allowed to slowly infiltrate back to the groundwater table. Page 3-47 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Assessment of Existing Natural Environment Bioretention is a Best Management Practice (BMP) that would be a highly appropriate O application for the proposed development. Further. BMPs utilized in series may incoroorate several storm water treatment mechanisms in a sequence to enhance the treatment of runoff. By combining structural and/or nonstructural treatment methods in series rather than singularly, raises the level and reliability of pollutant removal. Another means to reduce the potential for groundwater contamination is to increase soil depth above the standard in landscaped areas. This will allow chemicals to be held in the soils longer for more complete plant uptake and breakdown of these chemicals by soil microbes. A specific guide for chemical application by landscape maintenance personnel will be a beneficial tool to help avoid contamination of groundwater resources. Another mitigation measure that may be included in the management plan is salinitv adiustment. In the 2006 assessment regarding the impact to the southern pools from the proposed construction of the harbor, it was stated that this construction would cause the salinity in the anchialine pools to become equivalent to the ocean at 35DDt. It was then concluded that the anchialine biology would perish. However, there is currently a level of uncertainty by professional hvdrologists as to the exact movement of surface groundwater and a final determination of anchialine salinity following the harbor construction. The dynamics of groundwater movement through a porous lava medium both seaward and laterally along the coastline is an inexact science. This is compounded by the variations in water density, including stratification of salinity within the proposed harbor and capillary movement of low-density surface water through the substrata. The assessment that all anchialine pools will be barren with the construction of the harbor may O therefore be premature. H. rubra are routinely drawn from high salinity wells at 30 — 32 ppt and survive in this salinity for years. Further, high populations H. rubra and M. lohena have thrived and reproduced in pool salinities of 27ppt. If the pools do become full strength seawater at 35ppt, there exists uncertainty on the long-term effects to anchialine organisms, since there are no long- term studies or examples of native anchialine ecosystems at 35ppt. Native anchialine Dool vegetation also has relatively high salinity tolerance. If the salinity were expected to rise to 35 ppt, possible mitigation in the management plan will include methods to surcharge man-made anchialine pools created adjacent to or in the vicinity of natural pools with low salinity well water. If sufficient volume is used, it is theoretically possible to lower salinity in adjacent natural anchialine pools. This surcharge method has been successfully used to raise salinity in anchialine pools and cause the salinity rise in adjacent pools of at least up to 10 meters away. Surcharging with low salinity should work as well or better since the lower density water will essentially float atop the higher salinity water at the surface layer, and move throughout the complex of natural pools. Surcharging may also be a viable mitigation to dilute and more rapidly disperse any pollutants that may be detected in the pools. Page 3-48 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Assessment of Existing Natural Environment OAnother miti:?ation measure includes the creation of new anchialine pools. There is significant opportunity to create new anchialine pools and greatly expand the native habitat and resource. It has been demonstrated at several projects in West Hawaii that anchialine pools can be created and will be colonized with a full compliment of anchialine species endemic to the area. Anchialine pools are considered focal points of higher- productivity relative to the subterranean groundwater habitat around them. Their productivity promotes an increase in population levels of anchialine species within the pools themselves and throughout the subterranean habitat surrounding them. Page 3-49 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Assessment of Existing Natural Environment 3-9-.43.9.3 Marine Fishing Impacts O 39413.9.3.1 Existing Conditions Presently, of the 270 berths at Honok6hau Harbor, 120 are registered with commercial licenses. The two two-lane boat ramps service an additional average of 20 to 30 boats per day, although this number can exceed 100 boats per day during tournaments. Of the 120 commercial moored boats, 60 engage in charter fishing, about 12 as commercial fishing boats, with the balance conducting dive tours, sight-seeing, para -sailing, or acting as shuttles for large cruise ships. Discounting fishing by divers, this brings the total number of boats moored in Honok6hau Harbor, involved in commercial fishing activities to about 72 vessels ^r about tin pereent of the „t fleet In fisheries the catch is related, but not necessarily proportional, to the fishing effort. As fishing effort increases, so does the fishing pressure on existing stocks. Even in. a healthy fishery, every fish caught by a fisherman is one less fish that is available to be caught by all other fishermen. As a fishery expands, the first impact seen by the fishermen is generally a lower catch per unit effort (CPUE) and a general decrease in both the average weight of fish caught and in the number of fish caught in the largest size categories. When the total catch begins to approach the sustainable yield, both CPUE and the sizes of all the fish caught can decline over very short periods of time. When this happens and if fishing pressure continues, the fishery may "crash" and may require a long period of time to recover. Examination of the fishing statistics shows that bottom fish landings have historically been low O and inconsistent. Currently, only a small fraction of boats in the area target bottom fish. As this portion of the fishery appears to be limited by a lack of shallow fishing grounds, it is not likely that an increase in the moored fishing fleet will cause any significant impact to this segment of the fishery. ■ _ _ ■ "TWIN Prr 1.A .... About half of the total fish caught are Kona's prized Blue Marlin. Analyses of annual data from existing Honok6hau Harbor showed that the average weight of blue marlin decreased from about 265 pounds in the early 1980s to about 200 pounds in the late 1990s. During this same period of time the success rate for catching blue marlin dropped from about 1 blue marlin every three trips, to about 1 blue marlin every 4 trips. As of 2005, the catch rate has dropped to about 1 blue marlin in every 10 ten trips. This catch is only a small percentage of the total marlin catch by commercial long liner fishing boats in Hawaiian waters. Similar trends are seen for other large billfish and tuna. Page 3-50 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Assessment of Existing Natural Environment OX33.9.3.2 Anticipated Impacts The proposed marina will add 800 new slips to the existing facility. It is reasonable to assume that a portion of these new boats will engage in fishing activities. A study on the potential impact of these additional fishing boats on the marine fisheries is contained in Appendix RQ. Alternative I includes a 400 slip marina, so there would be a proportionate reduction in fishing pressure. While it is li"os� that an increase in the number of fishing boats would decrease CPUE, the overall impact on the health of the fishery from the proposed expansion of the marina is less clear. Even at a constant CPUE, the increase in the fish catch from charter boats will be a very small percentage of the total billfish and tuna catch over these Pacific -wide fisheries. The Kona fleet catches more blue marlin than any other trolling fleet in Hawaii, but in 2000 it only accounted for about 127,500 pounds of the 423,000 pounds caught by all anglers throughout the state and the additional 700,000 pounds landed by commercial long line fishermen in the; state A (Data from WestPac Year 2000 Recreational Fishing Summary). It is not likely that the fishing pressure from the expanded charter fleet will have an adverse impact on the Pacific -wide fishery. Impacts on Marlin and Tuna / Pelagic Fishery The impact on the marlin and tuna fisheries from increased harbor capacity will be a function of the number of new boats in the harbor targeting these fisheries and the ability of these new boats to attract paving customers. Both marlin and large tuna fisheries have been shown to be in general decline according to private state and national fisheries statistics. There are several O hypothesized causes for these declines relating primarily to international fisheries. The ability of the State to manage these pelagic marine fish stocks is limited by the national and international fishing policies. Fisheries management tvoically attempts to reduce fishing pressure by limiting access to the fishery either through licensing gear (boat) restrictions catch limits, season or area limits. Limiting the number of boat slips available would not by itself provide effective control over fisheries pressure because these pressures are market driven as well as for recreational and subsistence purposes. and there are other methods such as boat launch ramps, to access the fishery. Impacts on Coral Reef From Extractive Fisheries It is Dossible that a large number of boat slips in the expanded harbor will be occupied b resident -owned motor boats for personal use. Private boats in Hawaii are used for a variety of activities that have historically proven difficult to regulate. These may include extractive activities such as bottom fishing, trolling, spear fishing, tropical fish and invertebrate collecting as well as non -extractive activities including sport diving, skiing, paragliding, racing, or shoreline transportation. Each of these activities has individual existing impacts upon marine resources and these impacts are expected to increase with the new harbor unless appropriate management is initiated. Page 3-51 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Assessment of Existing Natural Environment There is a general perception that the increased access to nearshore resources will result in a O decline in these fish stocks similar to that seen historically on Oahu This perception is not without merit and deserves serious attention from resource managers However, the increased access to the shoreline has already occurred, and will continue as the coastline is developed regardless of harbor development. As most fisheries are market driven, as well as for recreational and subsistence pumoses, there will be increased pressure on these resources in the future regardless of harbor development. Fisheries managers need to take a serious look at management strategies for the future. Attempting to preserve fisheries resources only by limiting the size of the harbor is not likely to have any positive long-term effect on the nearshore living marine resources because there are increasingly other avenues to access the shorelines CUBA An increase in the number of boat slips is likely to cause an increase in both the number and size of commercial moored vessels offering dive tours as well as private boats used for diving. Although all of the dive sites in Kona are relatively near shore, the lack of shoreline access and ease of entry by boat makes boat diving the preferred option. As more of the Kona coast becomes developed however, this shoreline limitation to dive sites is likely to decrease. Attempting to limit dive pressure on the reef by limiting the number of available slips is not by itself an effective long-range management tool. As the number of divers on the reef increases, the pressure on the reef from anchor damage, extractive fisheries, and unintentional diver induced coral damage will likely increase. The increased pressure on dive sites from SCUBA divers must be met with commensurate changes in management to limit adverse impacts. 3.9.3.3 Proposed Mitigation - O An increase in the harbor size offers the opportunity to consolidate, focus, and fund management and enforcement activities at one centralized location The pressure on fish and invertebrate stocks, as well as upon populations of marine mammals and turtles can be expected to increase as the Kona population increases, regardless of whether the harbor is improved. The following changes could be made by DLNR. paid for at least in part by the additional revenues to DLNR from the Kona Kai Ola project. These changes are in the management authority of the DLNR Division of Aquatic Resources and the DLNR Division of Boating and Ocean Recreation. ■ Increase in the number of fisheries enforcement and management personnel in Kona at one centralized harbor location ■ Allocation of slip and office space for fisheries personnel and equipment ■ Increased numbers of submerged mooring buoys (presently approaching 100) at all dive sites. ■ Increased education materials for recreational divers and fishermen ■ Initiate restrictions on the quantity and size of boats in each commercial sector ■ For inshore species, initiate catch restrictions in line with Division of Aquatic Resources guidelines that prioritize recreational fishing above commercial fishing, and subsistence fishing above recreational fishing. Page 3-52 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Assessment of Existing Natural Environment. OThe increased level of fisheries knowledge has spawned an atmosphere of stewardship in the general charter -boat fishing community. With catch and release programs returning upwards of 40 percent of the Kona catch back to the ocean there is an obvious awareness that the value of catching the fish is often far greater than the value of selling it. It is recom endea proposed that facilities and programs to foster continued stewardship, fisheries science, tracking of all fish catch, and educational programs be implemented in the design of the new marina facilities. The proposed marina, marina support facilities, public marina promenade, fishing club, and marine science center will provide a venue for implementing the following efforts: ■ Efforts to promote tag and release will be fostered through public education and the implementation of more "Catch and Release — Only" tournaments. ■ Promote management through catch limits to possibly include slot weight catch limits, ie-.i.e. must tag & release animals between 250-950 pounds ■ Promote various other stewardship measures relating to fisheries conservation. 3x.53.9.4 Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles In addition to water quality, which is discussed in Section 3.9.1.3, other environmental impacts that may affect marine mammals and sea turtles include noise and vessel collisions. The following sections describe existing conditions, potential impacts and suggested mitigations to prevent negative impacts to marine mammals and sea turtles from noise and vessel collisions. O &94-43.9.4.1 Affected Environment A number of marine mammal and turtle species are found In Hawaiian waters near the Kona Kai Ola project site. Detailed information on the abundance, behavior, threats to the species, hearing ability and vocalization data is provided for all species in Appendix S. Data on the most prevalent endangered species and species of particular interest are summarized here. Humpback Whales: The population of hIumpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) around Hawaii was estimated to be between , my'stieeti An estimated -4,500-6,500 in 2000'wi ales ,,, to bee* gen subpola Alaska , and (Mobley et al 2001). The population growth rate between 1993 and 2000 is estimated to be seven percent indicating that the population is recovering from its dramatic reduction due to commercial whaling. It is worth noting that this is considered a high rate of increase for a mammalian species. The highest densities of animals are found within the 100 fathom isobath. shallow wate -s elose to ,horo Most humpbacks off Hawal'i are found north of Honokohau in the waters of the Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary. Nevertheless. they are commonly seen off Honok6hau in winter months. Humpbacks are not deep diving animals. Whales in Hawaii tvpically dive to less than 100 feet, although occasional deeper dives are possible (Hamilton et al. 1997)The whales breed and give birth while in Hawaii during the winter months, and migrate north to feed each spring. Page 3-53 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Assessment of Existing Natural Environment �•. •_4190 0. VON NOW Congress designated the Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary (HINMS) on November 4, 1992, and was followed by the Governor of Hawai`i's formal approval in 1997. The Sanctuary's purpose includes protecting humpback whales and their habitat within the Sanctuary, educating the public about the relationship of humpback whales to the Hawaiian Islands marine environment, managing the human uses of the Sanctuary, and providing for the identification of marine resources and ecosystems of national significance for possible inclusion in the Sanctuary. The sanctuary is approximately four nautical miles north of Honokohau Harbor. Whales have very sensitive hearing, so any loud underwater sound has fflay have the potential to disturb these animals. Vessel ,,ells ions e also a eeneemwith ,..hales. Playback experiments have estimated that humpback whales will respond to biologically meaningful sound at levels as low as 102 dB re 1 uPa, a level that is similar to background ambient noise (Frankel et al. 1995). Increases in vessel numbers will lead to an increase in noise from operating boats. However, even at its greatest predicted increase, the median sound level from active boats is not expected to raise sound levels to an intensity that would be considered an impact (Level B take) to marine mammal population (See Appendices T-2 and T-3). Humpback whale song ranges from 20 Hz to over 10.000 Hz, with most acoustic energy typically concentrated in the 100-1000 Hz range. This vocal production and the anatomv of their inner ear indicate that these animals are most sensitive to low -frequency sound (Ketten 1992). Page 3-54 M®RE Congress designated the Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary (HINMS) on November 4, 1992, and was followed by the Governor of Hawai`i's formal approval in 1997. The Sanctuary's purpose includes protecting humpback whales and their habitat within the Sanctuary, educating the public about the relationship of humpback whales to the Hawaiian Islands marine environment, managing the human uses of the Sanctuary, and providing for the identification of marine resources and ecosystems of national significance for possible inclusion in the Sanctuary. The sanctuary is approximately four nautical miles north of Honokohau Harbor. Whales have very sensitive hearing, so any loud underwater sound has fflay have the potential to disturb these animals. Vessel ,,ells ions e also a eeneemwith ,..hales. Playback experiments have estimated that humpback whales will respond to biologically meaningful sound at levels as low as 102 dB re 1 uPa, a level that is similar to background ambient noise (Frankel et al. 1995). Increases in vessel numbers will lead to an increase in noise from operating boats. However, even at its greatest predicted increase, the median sound level from active boats is not expected to raise sound levels to an intensity that would be considered an impact (Level B take) to marine mammal population (See Appendices T-2 and T-3). Humpback whale song ranges from 20 Hz to over 10.000 Hz, with most acoustic energy typically concentrated in the 100-1000 Hz range. This vocal production and the anatomv of their inner ear indicate that these animals are most sensitive to low -frequency sound (Ketten 1992). Page 3-54 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Assessment of Existing Natural Environment ONumerous studies have shown that human activity can affect humpback whale behavior, including vessel activity (Bauer 1986: Norris 1994: Corkeron 1995: McCauley et at. 1996: Scheidat et al. 2004), oceanographic research (Frankel and Clark 2000: Frankel and Clark 20021. and sonar (Miller et al. 2000: Fristrup et al. 2003). If the humpback whale population continues to expand at its present rate (8%/year) it can be expected that greater numbers of whales will extend into waters off the Kona Coast This is likely to increase the demand for whale watching vessels from the new harbor and this increase will have a negative impact on the whale population expansion The increase in both the number of vessels and number of whales increases the chance for collisions. Vessel collisions are also a major concern. The majority of whale strikes occurs where whales and boats are most common, such as in and boats water ing are ^ -shallow waters between Lanai and Maui. In a recent study, three of 22 recorded whale -vessel collisions -Afikt�in the main Hawaiian Islands_, only twe vver-e re ^ ded occurred off the Kona coast. (Lammers et al._ 2003). That study also found that 14 of the 22 collisions were reported between 1995 and 2003. This observed increase may result from more awareness of the issue, or from the greater number of both whales and vessels in Hawaiian waters. In Hawaii, data from 1972 to 1996 reveal at least six entanglements of humpback whales in commercial fishing equipment (Mazzuca et al. 1998). These data also indicate an increasing trend of entanglement since 1992 and a three -fold increase in death and entanglement occurrences related to human activity in 1996. It is highly unlikely that humpback whales will approach to within the Level A or Level B Oimpact "take" zones created by the explosive blasts of harbor construction. However, the sounds generated by these explosions will be within the frequency hearing range of humpback whales and could potentially be heard by whales between Kona and Maui. Modeling predicts that the -- - maximum sound level two miles offshore the site is less than 150 dB rel u.Pa, which is less than the threshold for Level B impacts. As the explosions are planned to occur daily for up to 9 months, the cumulative impact of this noise must be considered if construction is anticipated when whales are expected in the area (December 15 - March 30),In one instanee, a fishing was pulling in a eatehanidd vvasq 114 -ted by a whale. in the other- instanee, a whale was stfeek by -a dive beat headiflg tewar-ds its diving spet. Dolphins: A number of dolphin species are found in the waters near Honok6hau Harbor. Detailed information on all of these can be found in Appendix S. Spinner dolphins (Stenella longirostris) are regularly seen in shallow water and in close proximity to the project site. Spinner dolphins (Stenella aften inhabit waters within 14onekohatt Bay and at times intentionally eongr-egate near- the hafber- ehanne! to take advantage by bow ridifig Outt:,_* ... t, "Spinner -s" eammon name stems from theif habit of leaping elear- of the water - twirling i 4 air. They are the smallest dolphins typically seen in Hawaii, with a mature size of 6 feet in length and 160 pounds. Page 3-55 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Assessment of Existing Natural Environment Spinners school in pods of a few animals to 44)0- 180 or more with nod sizes of 1-20 being most common (Ostman-Lind et al. 20041. They u;,��� .. ^ „ +� behavior- ,. he feedi-ng4n- =2n mesopelagic fish, squid and shrimp in deep water at night, and rest in nearshore shallow waters during the day Norris and Dohl 1980: Benoit -Bird et al. 2001 �-'� *t,o., ^^me near- shore to making them more susceptible to repeated disturbance. The hearing ability of spinner dolphins has not been measured. However, hearing of the related striped dolphin (Stenella coeruleoalba) was measured between 500 Hz and 160 kHz with maximum sensitivitv at 64 kHz (Kastelein et al. 2003). The hearing _response of this single dolphin was less sensitive below 32 kHz than other dolphins. As all ...^rine fRammals have sensitive heafing; afty loud under -water- sounds have the potential to disturb dolphins as . Despite their limited sensitivity to low frequency sound, spinner dolphins have been shown to be impacted by human activity. Examples include interruption of resting activity and increases in the number of higher energy behaviors (Luna-Valiente and Bazna-Duran 20061. Numerous studies describe changes in distribution (Haviland-Howell et al. in press) and short-term behavioral changes of dolphins in response to vessel traffic (Beider et al. 1999: Scarpaci et al. 2000: Gregory and Rowden 2001: Nowacek et al. 2001: Van Pariis and Corkeron 2001; Ritter 2002• Lusseau 2003: Ng and Leung 2003). However, it has been established that for at least one population of bottlenose dolphins, these repeated short-term effects translate into long-term detrimental effects on the affected population (Beider et al. 2006a: Beider et al. 2006b). In Hawaii, some entanglements of spinner dolphins have been observed (Nitta and Henderson 1993, Rickards et al. 2001) but no estimate of annual human -caused mortality and serious iniury is available. A habitat issue of increasing concern is the potential effect of swim -with -dolphin programs and other tourism activities focused on spinner dolphins around the main Hawaiian Islands (Ostman-Lind et al. 20041, Hawaiian Monk Seals: Endangered Hawaiian Monk Seals (Monachus schauinslandi. Hawaiian Name: `Ilio holo I ka uaua) are on the endangered speeies fiq=. are rare,, but not unknown along the Kona Coast. Fei4onately, monk seals afe air- breathing and spead the majority of thei fifne above. ;'A',-Ateaf v4h-efe they are easily ebser-ved. if a menk I i . . d observed in the , Kona Kai 01a watildwer-k with relevant ageneies to pr-eteet the seal. Most monk seals are found in the Northwest Hawaiian Islands, but recent aerial surveys estimated that there are 52 seals in the main Hawaiian Islands (Baker and Johanos 2004). There have been 13 sightings between 2003 and 2006 in the vicinity of Kaloko-Honok6hau National Historical Park (NOAA protected species division data) indicating regular, albeit low-level use of these areas by monk seals. 9neTwo birth on the Island of Hawaii haves been reported (Baker and Johanos 2004), Page 3-56 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Assessment of Existing Natural Environment OThe best population estimates for Hawaiian monk seals (as of 2003) was 1,244 (Carretta et al. 2004). However the population is currently showing a decline that has been continuing since the 1950s (Antonelis et al. 20061. Underwater hearing in the Hawaiian monk seal has been measured between 300 Hz to 40 kHz. Their most sensitive hearing is at 12 to 28 kHz, which is a narrower range compared to other phocids. Above 30 kHz, their hearing sensitivity drops markedly (Thomas et al. 1990). Monk seals are very intolerant of human activity and are easily disturbed. When the U.S. military inhabited Sand Island and the Midway Islands and Kure Atoll, the monk seals disappeared until after the military left. Monk seals prefer to be solitary animals (Reeves et al., 2002). Sea Turtles: Five species of sea turtles are known to frequent Hawaiian waters, with Hawaiian green sea turtles (Chelonia mvdas) by far the most abundant at 97% of the total numbers, hawksbill turtles (Eretmochelys imbricate. 1.7% of total), olive ridley turtles (Lenidochelvs olivacea, 0.8%), and occasional sightings of leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea) and loggerhead sea turtles (Caretta caretta. Chaloupka, et al, 2006, from stranding reports). Green sea turtles are the most plentiful large marine herbivore in the world and have experienced a very successful population recovery in Hawaiian waters since 1974 when harvest was outlawed in Hawai`iji' and 1978 when they became protected under the Endangered Species Act (Balazs, et al. 2004). Both green sea turtles and hawksbills are known to breed and nest on beaches within the main Hawaiian Islands, and have a 25-30 year generation time with a life span of 60-70 years (Balazs et al 2004). Total population numbers of green sea turtles in the Hawaiian archipelago have not O been estimated, but the population has at least tripled since the 1970s and may now be approaching the carrying capacity of the islands (Chaloupka, et al. 2006). Bartol et al. (1999) measured the hearing of juvenile loggerhead sea turtles using_ auditory evoked potentials to low -frequency tone bursts found the range of hearing to be from at least 250 to 750 Hz The frequency range that was presented to the turtles was from 250 Hz to 1000 Hz (Bartol et al. 1999). Most recentiv. Bartol and Ketten (2006) used auditory evoked potentials to determine the hearin capabilities of subadult green sea turtles and juvenile Kemp's ridlevs. Subadult Hawaiian jreen sea turtles detected frequencies between 100 and 500 Hz, with their most sensitive hearing between 200 and 400 Hz. However, two juvenile green turtles tested in Maryland had a slightly expanded range of hearing when compared to the subadult greens tested in Hawaii. These juveniles responded to sounds ranging from 100 to 800 Hz, with their most sensitive hearing range from 600 to 700 Hz. The two juvenile Kemp's ridlevs had a more restricted range (100 to 500 Hz) with their most sensitive hearing falling between 100 and 200 Hz (Bartol and Ketten 20L Page 3-57 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Assessment of Existing Natural Environment Adult Gueen turtles are primarily herbivorous often seen on reefs as deep as 100+ feet but much O more common in shallower waters. Foraging behavior of green turtles is well documented and in Hawaii is typically characterized by numerous short dives (4 to 8 min) in shallow water (typically less than 3 m) with short surface intervals (less than 5 sec) (Rice et al. 1999).Resting periods are characterized by longer dives (over 20 min) in deeper water (4 to 40 m) with surface intervals averaging 2.8 min (Rice et al. 1999). The amount of time that turtles spend foraging versus resting is still largely unknown. Green turtles in Hawaii frequently use small caves and crevices in the sides of reefs as resting areas, and spend significant amounts of time on the tops of reefs (Balazs et al. 1987). Green turtles are known to be resident in Kiholo Bay, Hawaii Balazs et al. 2000), and presumably other areas as well, potentially increasing their susceptibility to vessel collision and/or repeated disturbance. Two turtle "cleaning stations" have been reported near the mouth of Honok6hau Harbor. During periods of ealm water- green sea tt*Aes are aften seen over- ver -y shall", r-eef flats wher-e the eheieest of a4gae are to be found. -AThil-P-se-me tuftl$'&i may "r -e +r" upon the sut:faee, it is fnuehmore eammeft to find- them : 11 eaves or wedged between eer-al heads where they are less subjeet to shafl.c- aaae.1-C-S. Gfeen se -a tur-ties may oeeasionally be seen fiff at sea (they nest in Reneh Fr-iga4e Shoals in the P�� Hawaiian islands), but they are mueh more prevalent ever the Shafl-w.v shafeadfiffl-ea, —Aveaas ;.A.zher-e they for -age faf food. Vessel collisions and potential noise, impacts are a concern with regard to turtles. In a study of 3,861 turtle strandings in the main Hawaiian Islands from 1982 - 2003 (Chaloupka, et al. 2006), boat strikes accounted for only about 2.7 percent of the cases, and were almost always fatal (95 percent). Entanglement in gill nets accounted for about six percent of strandings and also had a high rate of mortality (75 percednt). Hook and line entanglement (seven percent of strandings) O was much less likely to result in the death of the turtle (52 percent mortality). At least 20 green sea turtles have stranded in Honok6hau Harbor or along the boundaries of Kaloko- Honok6hau National Historical Park. Of all 3,861 str- ndiflgs rep-A-raded i the Main Hawaiian islands 1982 only thfeo 1-0 miles nor -t4 „ uth of 14on ,v6hat 14ar- er- (B lam personal eommunioation fiem NMFS database)-. Recent increases in longline fisheries may be a serious source of mortality. Greens comprised 14% of the annual observed take of all species of turtles by the Hawaii -based longline fishery between 1990 to 1994 (NMFS 1998a). Over the period of 1994 to 1999, it was estimated that an annual average of 40 green sea turtles were caught by the Hawaii -based longline fishery (McCracken 2000). Recent proliferation of a tumorous disease known as fibropapillomatosis (Herbst 1994) may reverse improvements in the status of the Hawaiian stock (NMFS 1998a), although recent modeling suggests that population levels continue to increase despite the disease (Chaloupka and Balazs 2005). The disease is characterized by grayish tumors of various sizes, particularly in the axial regions of the flippers and around the eves. This debilitating condition can be'fatal and neither a cause nor a cure has been identified. Page 3-58 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Assessment of Existing Natural Environment OHawksbill turtles (Eretmochelys imbricate) are observed less often than green sea turtles near Honok6hau About 20-30 female hawksbills nest annually in the Main Hawaiian Islands (NMFS 1998b) In 20 years of netting and hand -capturing turtles at numerous nearshore sites in Hawaii. only eight hawksbills (all immatures) have been encountered at capture sites including Kiholo Bay and Ka`u (Hawai`i). Palo`ou (Moloka`i) and Makaha (O`ahu) (NMFS 1998b). It was only recently discovered that hawksbills appear to be specialist sponge carnivores (Meylan 1988). Previously they had been classified as opportunistic feeders on a wide variety of marine invertebrates and algae. Increasing human populations and the concurrent destruction of habitat are also a major concern for the Pacific hawksbill populations (NMFS 1998b). Hawksbill turtles appear to be rarely caught in pelagic fisheries (McCracken, 2000). However, incidental catches of hawksbill turtles in Hawaii do occur, primarily in nearshore gillnets (NMFS 1998b). The primary threats to hawksbills in Hawaii are increased human presence beach erosion and nest predation (e. mongooses) (NMFS 1998b). 19y&23.9.4.2 Anticipated Impacts and Proposed Mitigation A complete analvsis of the in -air and in -water potential acoustic impacts from the construction of the Kona Kai Ola small boat harbor was completed by Marine Acoustics. Inc.(MAI) and is included in this document as Appendix T-3. In conducting this analysis, the best available scientific environmental, geologic, and meteorological data were obtained and used to calculate the acoustic transmission loss (TL) and subsequently to predict the received levels (RLsI at the five receiver sites. State of the art acoustic propagation models were employed in_this analysis to determine in -air and in -water TL. MAI used the Acoustic Integration Moder(AIM° O ) to assess the impact of the predicted acoustic sound field on the species of marine mammals that could conceivably occur near the Kona Kai Ola project site. The conclusion of that report determined that the criteria for Level A impacts to marine mammals for either in -air or in -water conditions at the receiver sites were never exceeded for the model source and receiver locations for non -blasting activities. However, these thresholds could be exceeded by the explosive blasting used to create the new harbor. For both in -air or in -water acoustic propagation, this only occurred when an animal was within about 200 meters (656 ft) of the explosion, This condition could only occur when the explosive source was at locations farthest north in the new harbor and closest to the existing harbor. This condition mandates that a safety range out to at least 200 meters (656 ft) of the source be shown to be clear of all marine mammals and sea turtle prior to each blast to preclude potential Level A takes. Page 3-59 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Assessment of Existing Natural Environment The MAI report indicated that the in -air RLs for the explosive sources would exceed the O assumed 100 dBA threshold for Level B harassment of pinnipeds (seals) for ranges out to about 0.4 nm (i.e., 800 yds [731 m]). This threshold is nominally for pinnipeds, but it should be extended to surface resting marine mammals and basking or beached sea turtles. Therefore, an in -air safety buffer of at least 731m from any explosive source is proposed, that should be maintained and found clear of marine mammals and basking or beached sea turtles prior to any blasts. It should be noted that although a receiver site was not modeled specifically in the existing harbor, that area is often within the range of this safety buffer and that extra care should be taken to ensure that no marine mammals or sea turtle are in the existing harbor prior to any blast. Analysis of the most restrictive Level B in -water explosive threshold shows that it is only exceeded when an animal is closer than 300 m (984 ft) from the explosive source Although the possibility exists for Level B impacts to marine mammals, based Durelv on the sound fields produced by the explosive blasts, analysis is the marine mammal distribution and movement as predicted by the AIM model, indicates that this is very unlikely situation. Therefore, it is expected that there will be much less than 0.5 Level B takes with or without mitigation. But the mitigation safety buffer must still be enforced to preclude the unlikelv possibility of marine mammals or sea turtle being near the explosive sources when they are used. It should be recognized that several mitigation measures are alreadv built into the proDosed project. For example, the proposed practice to maintain a rock "dam" separating the construction site from the existing harbor reduces acoustic energy propagating to area potentially contain] marine mammals or sea turtles. Also, this dam precludes animals from entering the construction area. This dam or land -bridge will be in place for all drilling and dredging activities, except for the removal of the land bridge itself. O Several other possible methods of mitigation are available to the Kona Kai Ola project, and feasibility, practicality, and benefit will be discussed with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) during consultation, and may be implemented subsequent to that consultation. The first possible mitigation technique is to acoustically monitor the potentially impacted areas during construction to: a) assess the accuracy of the modeling and b) to interact proactively with construction personnel to ensure that the identified threshold levels are not exceeded. Although the best available science and data was used to model the acoustics of the area, numerous conservative assumptions needed to be built into the modeling. By monitoring the actual levels received, in-situ corrections/updates to modeled parameters could potentially reduce the built --in conservativeness and reduce the potentially impacted areas. For example, the modeling assumes that all of the small voids in the bedrock are water -filled and therefore impart minimum attenuation on the acoustic signal as it propagates through. If even a small percentage of the voids are gas-filled, this attenuation would increase greatly and the impacted area would be reduced. Another possible mitigation technique would be to augment the land-based visual observer, who it is assumed would verify that the area was clear the animals, with boat -based observers. This would increase the effectiveness of recognizing the presence of marine mammals and sea turtles in the potentially affected areas. Page 3-60 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Assessment of Existing Natural Environment OAdditionally, interactions with the construction teams to alter the blasting methods modeled could potentially mitigate and reduce acoustic impacts to marine animals. A blasting expert will be consulted to develop a discontinuous non-linear blasting plan that will optimize cancellation of the explosion pressure wave into the marine environment. Examples of possible changes include: reducing charge size, reducing the depth drilled and blasted during any blast, reducing the number of blast holes or the volume of each blast etc The combination of these techniques with acoustic monitoring could potentially allow a large portion of the northern third of the harbor to be excavated with little or no potential impact to marine animals. Interactions with NMFS during the consultation period will be used to examine these or an other techniques which may be identified. Also, the project is requesting help in identifying any possible method known to NMFS to establish and maintain turtle exclusion areas, especially in the existing harbor, without harassing the turtles. It may become apparent during those consultations that even with the identified buffer zones and mitigation techniques that an Incidental Harassment Authorization (IHA) is reauired especially for the northern third of the roposed harbor. Marine Acoustics. Inc. also completed a study of the expected ambient noise levels in Honok6hau Bay as a result of the increased vessel traffic from the expanded harbor. This report is included in this document as Appendix T-2. That report concluded that the average maximum daytime ambient noise levels would be expected to increase about 9.7 dB across the frequency spectrum from 100 Hz — 2 kHz, with the quadrupling of the vessels using the expanded harbor (i.e., the proposed action). Although significant, this increase would occur primarily during O daylight hours and the predicted median ambient noise would still be below 100 dB for all frequencies. The other significant factor is that there will be a quadrupling of the number of localized (i.e., small) individual sound fields in the area. These sound fields surround the individual boat that are contributing to the overall ambient noise. Noise levels in excess of 120 dB extend out to about 550 m (1804 ft) from these boats, with even high levels at closer ranges. Short of actual collisions with animals, Level A impacts are unlikely for noise levels typically generated by small boats. The Level B threshold nominally extends to approximately ten meters around each boat (depending on equipment such as size of motor, conditions of propeller and other equipment). Therefore potential Level B impacts to marine mammals and sea turtles would only occur within this range. Therefore, the chance for potential Level B impacts is small. Completion of the harbor expansion project will increase the vessel traffic crossing the Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary, the southern boundary of which is approximately four nautical miles north of Honok6hau Harbor. At a time when the whale population is growing, an increase of vessel traffic may increase the likelihood of vessel -whale collisions. Related to vessel traffic, an increase in whale watching activities is also likely. Vessels participating in these activities directly seek out higher whale population densities, increasing the likelihood of collisions, but also having the potential for disrupting whale behaviors such as resting, courting, mating or birthing. Page 3-61 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Assessment of Existing Natural Environment As noted earlier, however, of the 2;7-22 recorded whale strikes in the main Hawaiian Islands, O only VN -e -three were recorded off the Kona coast. Sanctuary managers may need to implement additional regulations for private and/or commercial activities directly involving whale encounters. Mariner education programs, already in place as part of Sanctuary operations, will help to mitigate possible impacts due to increased boaters, and the proposed marine science center will complement Sanctuary educational programs. r 110100. An increased level of impacts to turtles from increased boating and fishing activities may occur. The level of impaot doeumented by National Mafine Fisheries SeB4ee is liMited tO Ofily three tor -de fner-talities eenfir-FRed, sinee 1992, f+em a total of 3,861 stfandings thr-oughout the Main Hawaiian Islands. Of the 3.861 turtle strandings recorded from the Main Hawaiian Islands since 1982 75% were mortalities, and of these about 4% (-est. 116, from Figure 3 of Chaloupka et.al.) were from boat strikes and 3 of these occurred within 10 miles of Honokahau Harbor. Data from NPS staff at the adjacent Kaloko-Honok6hau National Historical Park show a total of 20 strandings within the parking (19) and harbor (1) between 2000 and 2006 with one attributed O to boat strike and 6 io fishing gear entanglement. Eleven additional gear entanglements and one additional boat strike were also recorded but not listed as strandings. Human caused impacts from fishing and boat strikes are anticipated to increase as turtle populations continue to increase and boating /fishing activities increase with the expanding harbor. it would appear- that anthr-epamer-phie impaet to tuAles ffem boat sifikes and fishing aetivities is ver -y law along the Kona Coast adjaeent to the existing hafbon it is likely that this is d i . . to the r-elatively steep A -e -e -An h-e-ae-in that kimits the habitat of the turtles to thever-y near-sher-e afeas away ffem the areas of heavy beat tr-affie. Recognition by the general public that sea turtles are protected also puts a heavy social pressure on fishermen who may inadvertently catch a sea turtle, and is likely a factor in the recovery of this species. Although no adverse impacts to turtles have been documented within the existing harbor, the close proximity of boats and turtles in this environment is cause for concern. Once the land bridge is open, mit is highly likely that turtles will be attracted into the new harbor and be subject to potential harm from in -water construction of piers or other facilities. During this period of time and until the harbor is operational it is r-eeommended that mesh barrier will be erected across the new harbor channel to exclude turtles from the inner basin. The mesh size needs to be selected in consultation with regulatef}­NMFS ageneies to make sure it does not entangle turtles. Page 3-62 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Assessment of Existing Natural Environment OAs the new harbor area will 4kel-yosp sibly attract turtles to the basin (similar to the existing harbor) and an increase in boat traffic is expected in the harbor channel there will be an increased possibility of turtle strikes within the channel and new harbor area. To minimize this possibility it is recom ~ endedproposed that educational signs be erected around the harbor describing the turtles and warning boaters to be cautious while traversing harbor channels. The slow no -wake lane in the entrance channel should also be strictly enforced and the State should consider extending the slow no -wake zone further out to the first green buoy. 40 33.9.5 Ciguatera Page 3-63 33.9.5 Ciguatera Page 3-63 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Assessment of Existing Natural Environment Ciguatera fish poisoning can occur in tropical fisheries around the world and is endemic in O Hawaii. The toxin is generated by a microscopic marine dinoflagellate, Gambierdiscus toxicus, often found growing on the surfaces of red or brown algae. Herbivorous fish eat the algae and the toxin accumulates in the flesh. The toxin bio -accumulates up the food chain so that high level reef predators, such as jacks (Ulua, Caranx sp.) or barracuda (kaku, Syphraena barracuda) may contain elevated concentrations of toxin that are potentially disease causing when consumed by humans. Because the toxin also accumulates in humans (primarily in fat tissues), the dosage required to elicit symptoms may also vary significantly between individuals. Occasions have been documented where multiple individuals eat similar portions of a toxic fish, but only one or a few of the individuals get sick with the others being completely asymptomatic. Symptoms vary between individuals, but are generally flu-like including nausea, weakness, aches and pains, and on occasion temperature reversal where cold items feel hot and hot items feel cold to the touch. Symptoms typically last for days to weeks, may persist for up to a year, and are rarely fatal. The causative dinoflagellate can almost always be found in tropical marine environments in low numbers. Disease outbreaks have been correlated with environmental changes that may cause perturbations in the population balance of algae over a section of reef or coastline. Outbreaks of ciguatera have been documented following large scale coastal construction projects (including harbor construction) and hurricanes (Banner, 1976, Randall 1958 and Raymond 1994). Such perturbations may lead to an imbalance causing certain populations of algae to bloom, but do not necessarily lead to outbreaks of ciguatera. If dinoflagellate populations bloom, then there is increased probability that toxins will accumulate in fish populations and begin to cause disease in O fish consumers. Anticipated Impacts and Mitigation Measures The potential for a bloom of the ciguatera causing dinoflagellate associated with coastal construction is always a concern in tropical waters. Although there does appear to be a correlation between coastal construction activities and blooms of the causative dinoflagellate, the correlation is far from conclusionary and the ecological_ mechanisms leading to bloom conditions are not clear. Because the mechanism is not understood it can not be controlled. Therefore the only mitigation possible is to conduct monitoring and make appropriate public health announcements should a bloom occur. Monitoring for the causative dinoflagellate should be conducted for a minimum of two years: 1 year prior to construction (to create a known baselinel and 1 year after population levels have fallen to pre -construction levels. Page 3-64 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Assessment of Existing Natural Environment O1-9-.73.9.6 SWAC Facility Air conditioning for the Kona Kai Ola development may be provided by a system utilizing deep, cold ocean water for cooling or Seawater Air Conditioning (SWAC). SWAC would significantly reduce energy consumption requirements, and is being considered in keeping with the sustainability goals of the overall Kona Kai Ola project. If SWAC is not implemented, then conventional air conditioning systems will be used. Oceanit completed a Cooling Water Intake Analysis as part of the proposed SWAC facility at Kona Kai Ola. Since the intake pipe will draw water from the ocean, its features and impacts were analyzed. Comparisons were also made with the Natural Energy Laboratory of Hawaii Authority (NELHA) located north of Kona Kai Ola at Keahole Point. The Cooling Water Intake Analysis is contained in Appendix KJ. Under the current concept plan, the SWAC system would draw 10 to 20 million gallons per day of deep ocean water for use in the air conditioning system. Water sufficiently cold for this purpose is available relatively close to the shoreline at approximately 3,000 feet of water depth at 11,000 feet off shore. The depth of 3,000 feet for the cooling water intake was used to maximize the temperature difference and minimize pumping costs. At a higher cold water temperature, the volume of water increases significantly. This requires larger intake pipes, pumps, heat exchangers, and disposal facilities with higher operational cost. Final selection of the depth and temperature will be determined in the design of the system. A description of the proposed SWAC facility for Kona Kai Ola includes:. O0 A 36 inch pipe would draw ocean water of an ideal temperature (40-42° F) from the ocean and to the SWAC facility. ■ Water would then circulate through the cooling system at 44°-45° F. ■ 20,000 gallons per minute (gpm) would constitute peak flow. ■ Average flow would be around 7,500 gpm. ■ After 16-18 "nodes" circulate cooling water through the Kona Kai Ola development, the water would be discharged throught a pipe into a proposed injection well system. ■ While the total square footage served by SWAC is not confirmed, it is anticipated that it will service most of the development and/or approximately 6 million sq. ft. As part of any SWAC proposal, a Conservation District Use Permit (CDUP) would need to be approved through the DLNR's Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands (OCCL). The application for this permit requires 30 percent design completion of the actual system. Anticipated Impacts and Proposed Mitigation In initial plans, the flow was to be directed to the mauka end of the lagoon water feature, where it would flow through the lagoons, to the new marina and finally out the existing harbor channel. The SWAC discharge, being equally saline but cooler than coastal waters, would be more dense and flow along the bottom delivering its high nutrient load directly to the benthic substrate and coral reefs. Page 3-65 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Assessment of Existing Natural Environment In this scenario, a possible environmental impact would have resulted in which the existing O extensive coral reef areas in the vicinity of the harbor mouth would have been exposed to high nutrient water, with resultant overgrowth by macroalgae and loss of coral reefs and habitat. In addition, the discharge of nutrient -rich seawater into the shallow, well -lit lagoon would have created ideal culture conditions for uncontrolled macroalgal growth. Attached macroalgae, would rapidly grow to uncontrollable densities. The water taken from approximately 3,000 foot depth (depth of 40° F isotherm) will contain about 5001tttg/l nitrate -nitrogen. The result would be a discharge of approximately 54 kg/day (120 pound/day, 43 tons/year) of nitrate -nitrogen, the most readily -usable form of nitrogen fertilizer, to the coastal marine environment. This plan would have introduced unacceptably high levels of nutrients to the nearshore water. The initial plan has therefore been revised and the effluent water will be either directed to deep wells or to facilities where secondary use of this resource will occur. Since deep ocean water is high in nutrients, cold and low in pathogens, it is ideal for mariculture. Use of this resource for mariculture before discharging into the environment will reduce the negative impacts and provide an economic return for Kona Kai Ola. It is therefore e,.^,Y,mendaa proposed that secondary uses be explored, including aquaculture, water bottling, or other uses with the resultant effluent again being re-entered to a deep underground dispersion well. The design of the SWAC shall mitigate possible impacts through the prevention of the introduction of high nutrient deep seawater directly into the seawater lagoons, marina, or shallow nearshore coastal waters. At a 3,000 foot depth, only deep dwelling marine fauna could possibly be impacted by pipe O suction. To mitigate possible impacts, the ocean end of the intake pipe shall be fitted with a diffuser to dissipate the suction force of water into the pipe to prevent any fouling by rays or other fauna. The diffuser will be designed at 3,000 foot depth and a diffuser or other acceptable inlet structure will be designed to prevent accidental impacts to marine fauna. Page 3-66 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Assessment of Existing Human Environment 4 ,Assessment of Existing Human Environment 4.1 Cultural Resources Under Act 50, the Hawai `i Legislature finds that native Hawaiian culture plays a vital role in preserving and advancing the unique quality of life in Hawaii. Articles IX and XII of the state constitution, other state laws, and the courts of the State impose on government agencies a duty to promote and protect cultural beliefs, practices, and resources of native Hawaiians as well as other ethnic groups. One of the purposes of the Act is to require that environmental impact statements include the disclosure of the effects of a proposed action on the cultural practices of the community and State. Two Cultural Impact Assessments, or CIAs, are referenced for this project area. The studies encompass the Kealakehe ahupua`a and surrounding area, and are not parcel -specific. Combining these studies in the analysis provides a comprehensive view of the cultural significance of the project site. The CIAs are contained in Appendices* KL -1 and L-2. Dr. Taupouri Tangaro completed the most recent CIA for the project site and surrounding area. A previous CIA was completed for the area by Pualani Kanaka`ole Kanahele in 2001 as part of a previous development plan for the DHHL parcel. The DEIS for the DHHL project was not published, and the project did not proceed. Concurrence has been granted by DHHL to discuss O and include the 2001 CIA in this BE-ISFEIS. Both studies involved a review of maps, archival documents, historical materials, pre -historical literature in chant and narrative form, walking and diving the area in search of cultural sites, and a review of water quality, flora, and fauna, and oral history. Prior to the initiation of his CIA, Dr. Tangaro met on the site with cultural practitioner Mdhealani Pai, and Hawaiian research specialist Ku`ulei Kanahele to conduct a paeaea, which is a ceremony that "introduces who we are to the living systems of Kealakehe, Keahuolu and their contiguous ahupua`a, as well as to the mountain tops of Mauna Kea, Mauna Loa, Hualalai, inclusive of Ka Moana Nui A Kanaloa, the ocean". 4.1.1 Background The Kealakehe ahupua`a is one of twenty-three ancient ahupua`a within the `okana of Kekahawai`ole. It is bounded by Honokohauiki ahupua`a to the north and Keahuolu ahupua`a to the south. Kealekehe ahupua`a extends mauka to the Honua`ula Forest. The ahupua`a from Kalaoa (Keahole Point) to Kealakehe were known as "Kekaha-wai-`ole-o-na-Kona" or the hot, dry, waterless shores of Kona. Despite the reputation of this land, the natives of Kekaha-wai-`ole had great knowledge of their land's cycles and its productive abilities. Here were springs and brackish water ponds inland from the shore and the ocean was abundant. They planted in the mauka, or upland, forest where there was sufficient rain for their crops. When the rainy season passed, they camped at the shore, grew sweet potato, and fished. (Kanahele 2001) Page 4-1 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Assessment of Existing Human Environment The translation of Kealakehe is interpreted in two ways: 1) Kealakehe, with the emphasis on the O last syllable, translates as "the pathway of graves"; 2) Kealake`e, with an `okina replacing the "h," is the more popular definition, which means "winding path." There is no definition for Kealakehe as it is spelled today, however, according to the Hawaiian language dictionary, the last two syllables, "kehe," is considered a spelling variation of "ke`e" and vice versa. (Kanahele 2001) 4.1.2 Assessment There are elements of the physical landscape within the vicinity of the project site of cultural significance. Maliu Point. Maliu Point separates Kealakehe and Honokohauiki. Two generations ago Maliu referred to a rock located at the point; the point itself was known as Pu`uoina, a name that has since disappeared. The little bay on the south end of Maliu housed a shark hole and was known as Hale Manu. A structure at Maliu was known as Hale Mono (north side of Honokohau Harbor entrance) and may have been a female heiau, although little is known about the site. `Alula Bay. South of Honokohau Harbor is a white sand beach known in chants and stories as `Alula. In Emerson"s map of 1888, `Alula was a canoe and small boat landing. According to some interviewees, the original name for the beach was `Aulaula, which describes the broad current of the bay. `Alula is susceptible to an inundation of northwest swells, which travel far inland. There is an `opelu koa or `opelu fishing ground in the bay. Kupuna and hula halau from the neighboring region also use `Alula beach regularly for O the cultural practices of a cleansing ceremony called "hiu wai." Freshwater Pond. One of the references cites the freshwater pond mauka of `Alula as the `Aiopio pond. The term "freshwater" refers to water that is drinkable. Modern terminology refers to these ponds as "brackish" because they are mixed with small amounts of seawater. However, the `Aiopio fishpond as we know it today is located in Honokohauiki. Most kama`aina of Kona do not recollect the name for that particular pond mauka of `Alula. The `Aiopio pond is a known habitat for `opae`ula, or red shrimp, used as bait for `opelu. All of the anchialine-penEls=pq=q1=s of the Kona coast had an abundant amount of `opae`ula readily available for `opelu fishing. `Opae`ula ponds have deteriorated as `opae`ula loses its popularity with `opelu fisherman. As it has become more of a chore to clean the ponds, contemporary fishermen prefer to use bread. The fishermen at south Kona still use `opae`ula and pumpkin. The pond mauka of `Alula has exotic fish, including topminnows, which means that the `opae`ula population has been minimized tremendously. Page 4-2 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Assessment of Existing Human Environment OMakaopio (Hale o Lono). Makaopio (Hale o Lono) is one of the most important man- made cultural structures in Kealekehe as a reminder of the cycles of creation and procreation involving humans, ocean and land, and flora and fauna. Makaopio (Hale o Lono) heiau was built in a brackish water pond on the northern shore of `Alula Bay. Makaopio (Hale o Lono) was built to evoke the god Lono during makahiki season for abundant rain, greenery, and enough fresh water to last through the next heavy rain season. Makaepio (Hale e Lena) is ene of the most impor-tant man made etiltur-al humans, eeean and land, -and -'�--^ ;,;a 4auffa. Although it is protected from the high surf by a low outcrop of rocks, because of age and neglect, the heiau has lost some of its major.setting stones and the possibility of repairing the damage is unlikely. ■ Hale o Kane. A heiau on the bluff south of `Alula. Kane is the major deity of Hawaiian wholeness and health. Kanahele (2001) notes that no one she talked to could provide the name or the function of these structures. ■ Ka Lae of Kaiwi. Kaiwi is the point on the boundary of Kealakehe and Keahuolu. According to fishermen of the area: Kaiwi Point houses a mamamo ko'a. Kaiwi has an intriguing story connected with Ka Miki. In this ka `ao, Kaiwi is a shark and Kalualapuila is the Kahuna of Kealakehe. Kaiwi and Kaluapuila are the same entity. Eventually the grandmother of Ka Miki, Kauluhenuihihikolo, discovers this dual identity when the shark becomes a man-eater and plans to destroy him. Kaiwi -Kalualapuila are both destroyed when the O grandmother teaches her grandchildren to call up the fires of Pele to rid the land of this man eating shark. Hi `iakanoholae, known today as Ka Lae Keahuolu, was the boundary direction for the lava flow. The protocol for lava is that a course of flow is given and Hi `iakanoholae is the southern limit for the flow. The flow did exactly what it was asked to do with Kaiwi and the characteristic of a Hi `iakaikealei and Hi `iakaikealemoe flow is seen at Kaiwi Point. ■ Trail System. The project site has remnants of a trail system that indicates the passing through of pedestrians from one major site to another. The maps show evidence of the trail coming from Lanihau and heading towards the ponds of Honokohauiki. Trails were the bloodline from one kulanakauhale (village) to the next, and usually revealed the rest stops, popular villages, water locations, fanning mounds, etc. The trail remnants at the project site, however, do not reveal any of these types of sites. It is noted that the Ala Kahakai National Historic Trail is a system that is currently being developed. This system comprises any historic coastal trail, or connecting mauka and makai trails, along with the addition of new trails to connect these historic trails. As discussed in Section 4.2.1.2, the archaeological survey detected no evidence of historic trails that may be included in Ala Kahakai National Historic Trail system, although this is not unexpected, ■ Abu. The largest cultural structures found on the site are the ahu (small rock cairns). An ahu was constructed to mark a boundary, bring attention to a location, to place offerings to an occupational deity, to collect water, or to place articles to be kept for a later return. An intact ahu. is located towards the fnak-aiwest boundary of the site. Other ahu sites were Onot as well preserved and were at different stages of deterioration. Page 4-3 Kealakehe, North Kona District Island of Hawaii Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Assessment of Existing Human Environment Kealakahe, Burials. During site visits, an empty open vault which had familiar burial O patterns was located. However, the ahu at this site did not correlate with burial practices. For specific burial site descriptions, see Section 4.2. Hualalai Ka Heke Ao Na Kona. Mauna Kea, Mauna Loa, and Hualalai are the three prominent volcanic mountains of Hawai `i Island, and because of their contribution to the water cycles and aquifers, they have entered indelibly into the fabric of Hawaiian consciousness, especially where the land is dry and parched. Mt. Hualalai is a prominent feature of North and South Kona and is a phrase famed in song and chant. The word heke also means the "triangular sails on canoes," associating the function of a canoe sail to that of the mountain which captures and directs moisture to the slopes of the Kona districts. 4.1.2.1 Anticipated Impacts and Proposed Mitigation In interviews, one of the greatest areas of cultural concern was potential impacts to water quality as related to fishing grounds and ponds. It was noted that population growth and urbanization in general generate similar impacts. Further studies conducted in responseto DEIS comments - Appendix H-2 and Appendix G-31 indicate that the remaining ponds may not change to high salinity levels unhealthy to anchialine fauna, like the native shrimp. In addition, these studies describe realistic mechanisms employed elsewhere that would likely mitigate change due to groundwater salinity changes. These mitigation measures are further discussed in Section 3.9.2. The need to revive mauka — makai trails was expressed, as well as the need to protect cultural and archaeological sites. The Ala Kahakai National Historic Trail is a system that is currently being developed to include any historic coastal trail, or connecting mauka and makai trails. along O with the addition of new trails to connect these historic trails. The mission of the National Historic Trail is to preserve in place ancient and historic_ trails and routes While most of the remnant trails are partial segments of a possible historic network, there are no intact substantial segments. The project seeks to add new trails to connect any remnants from historic trails to provide a coastal trail system along the shoreline park and around the marina basins. This trail system is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Ala Kahakai National Historic Trail, and would be appropriate to be included in that system. The project will seek to improve public access preserve and where appropriate enhance cultural and historical features in the area A concern expressed in the 2001 interviews was the operation and impacts from the Waste Wwater Treatment Plant, south of the project site, and the perception that it may leak. Many expressed concerns that continued development along the coast will affect the quality and quantity of fish along the coast. Further discussion of water quality impacts is discussed in Section 3.9. Page 4-4 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Assessment of Existing Human Environment Oit is r-eeomfnended tThe cultural and archaeological resources will be protected as directed by the preservation plans approved by DLNRrecommendations are presented in Section 4.2.2. In addition, the shoreline area ^ams -containing most of these sites will be protected as a cultural park. The Kona Kai Ola project will seek to perpetuate Hawaiian culture through continued practice of cultural and traditional activities. The management plan for this area should will be developed through close consultation with cultural descendants. For the area specifically within the legislative boundary of the National Historical Park that is fronting the Kona Kai Ola project site, the developer will work cooperatively with the National Historical Park to develop a management plan and interpretive plan for these cultural and archaeological resources. Further mitigation includes the proposed preservation of the ahu (small rock cairns) near the makai end of the site and a short section of the old walking trail as a symbol of the trail system. Also, a cultural practitioner, who is knowledgeable of the site and can assist the project developer to ensure proper cultural protocols are followed in the design, will be employed. To encourage cultural practices, access to the shoreline will be open and access to cultural resources will be in a manner that encourages native Hawaiian and local resident use. Mauka viewsheds from the shoreline will be preserved and not obstructed. 4.2 Archaeological Resources The project area was studied in two archaeological studies, both of which were conducted by Haun & Associates. A 2001 DHHL parcel inventory survey was completed as part of a previous O DEIS for a project that was never completed. The 2001 study was submitted to the State Historic Preservation Division for review at the time, and is therefore public record (Haun 2001). The other study was commissioned as part of this Kona Kai Ola project and was completed in August of 2006. This most recent study involved completion of an archaeological inventory survey for the DLNR properties of Kona Kai Ola and the full extension of the proposed parkway south through the Queen Lili`uokalani Trust property. The studies are presented in Appendices M-1 and M-2. The goal of the inventory surveys was to identify archaeological resources within the proposed project site. In accordance with DLNR-SHPD rules for inventory surveys, the studies included: ■ Background review and research of existing archaeological and historic documentary literature relating to the project area and its immediate vicinity; ■ High intensity, 100 percent pedestrian survey coverage of the project area; ■ Detailed recording of all potentially significant sites; ■ Limited subsurface testing (manual excavation) at selected sites to determine function; ■ Analysis of background research and field data; and preparation of a Final Report. These reports are contained in Appendix L. 4.2.1 Existing Conditions Page 4-5 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Assessment of Existing Human Environment The project area is located within the ahupua`a of Kealakehe and Keahuolu. These ahupua`a are O situated at the southern end of the lava -covered land north of Kailua-Kona called Kekaha, which "describes a dry, sun -baked land". In 1823, observations of Reverends Thurston and Bishop described houses along the coast. The houses were built on lava, and sweet potatoes, watermelon, and tobacco were grown in small gardens within the lava. During the Great Mahele, Kealakehe was retained as government land and Keahuolu was awarded to the mother of King Kalakaua and Queen Lili`uokalani, Chiefess of Ka`awaloa, Ane Keohokalole. The rights of native tenants were preserved by the Kuleana Act. The majority of the tenant claimed land parcels were conveyed to the claimants between 1819 and 1846. The awarded parcels in Kealakehe are all situated inland between approximately 900 ft and. 1,900 ft elevation. None of the awarded parcels in Keahuolu appear on modern tax maps, but most were probably situated inland. Various types of feature types were identified in the project area, as follows: ■ Pahoehoe Excavations are features that consist of excavated holes within either the surface of a pahoehoe lava flow or at the base of pahoehoe ridges, outcrops, and knolls. Stone removed from the excavations are sometimes piled adjacent to the holes. Some of these features are interpreted as quarry sites used to obtain raw materials for the manufacture of stone tools. Other features resulted from excavations to extract seabird nestlings for food. ■ Stone Alignments are comprised of low enclosures constructed of one, occasionally two, courses of flat pahoehoe slabs, or a combination of flat slabs and subangular basalt O cobbles and small boulders. These structures are all built on bare pahoehoe lava with no soil or cultural remains present. The function of these features is undetermined. ■ Cairns (ahu) are features constructed of stacked subangular basalt cobbles and small boulders, pahoehoe slabs, or a combination of the two materials. These features are typically well-built and are interpreted as markers. ■ Mounds are features built of piled subangular basalt cobbles and small boulders, pahoehoe slabs, or a combination of the two. These features are informally constructed and evidenced no associated cultural remains. Other mounds are either collapsed cairns features or of indeterminate function. ■ Petroglyphs are images that have been pecked into lava surfaces. The petroglyphs within the project area all consist of small anthropomorphic figures. ■ Enclosures are features built of stacked and/or piled subangular basalt cobbles, small boulders, or pahoehoe slabs. The enclosures within the project area are either oval in shape or U-shaped, and are interpreted as temporary habitation structures based on their formal type and lack of substantial construction (faced walls, paving, etc.). ■ Overhangs and Caves are features located on the sides of outcrops. The features within this category within the project area evidenced internal modification and are interpreted as temporary habitations. Page 4-6 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Assessment of Existing Human Environment OPlatforms can consist of a well-built rectangular structure made of stacked and piled pahoehoe slabs and subangular basalt cobbles and small boulders. Some on the project site are interpreted as a ceremonial structure, probably a small shrine, based on results of the subsurface testing and the presence of branch coral. ■ Trail sections were identified within the project area, extending across lava flow. Most consist of steppingstone trails of pahoehoe slabs and small cobbles. Most segments are small and do not interconnect with other larger trail systems. Sites identified during the surveys were assessed for significance based on the criteria outlined in. the Rules Governing Procedures for Historic Preservation Review (DLNR 1998: Chap 275). According to these rules, a site must possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and shall meet one or more of the following criteria: ■ Criterion "a": Be associated with events that have made an important contribution to the broad patterns of our history; ■ Criterion "b ": Be associated with the lives of persons important in our past; ■ Criterion "c": Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction; represent the work of a master; or possess high artistic value; ■ Criterion "d": Have yielded, or is likely to yield, important information for research on prehistory or history; and ■ Criterion "e": Have an important traditional cultural value to the native Hawaiian people O or to another ethnic group of the state, associations with traditional cultural practices once carried out, or still carried out, at the property, or due to associations with traditional beliefs, events or oral accounts - these associations being Important to the group's history and cultural identity. 4.2.1.1 DHHL Site Findings This inventory survey identified 56 sites with 121 features. Portions of two trails (Sites 7704 and 13194) identified during previous surveys, have been destroyed since the sites were initially recorded. The sites include 41 single feature sites and 15 complexes of features. The identified features consisted of: ■ 55 Pahoehoe excavations ■ 31 stone alignments ■ 16 cairns ■ 8 mounds ■ 5 petroglyphs ■ 2 enclosures ■ 1 cave ■ 1 overhang ■ 1 platform ■ 1 trail An important finding of the survey was the identification of numerous pahoehoe excavations and stone alignments. The excavations identified during the study were all interpreted to be quarries for obtaining either scoriaceous lava (7 features) or fine-grained basalt for basalt tool manufacture (48 features). Page 4-7 Kealakehe, North Kona District Island of Hawaii Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Assessment of Existing Human Environment Based on the review criteria, 58 sites (includes the two destroyed trail sites) are assessed as O significant under Criterion "d" — "have yielded information important for understanding prehistoric and early historic land use in the project area". In addition, the following sites are additionally assessed as significant under Criterion "e" because the sites consist of petroglyphs and a possible shrine: ■ 23010—petroglyph, ■ 23038 — possible shrine, ■ 23011 — petroglyph, ■ 23042 — petroglyph 4.2.1.2 DLNR and Parkway Corridor Site Findings A total of 126 sites with 432 features have been documented within the project area. The sites consist of 23 sites that were identified during previous archaeological studies within the area, and 104 that were newly identified during the current project. One of the previously documented sites could not be relocated. The 432 features consist of: ■ 170 Pahoehoe excavations; ■ 4 mounds; ■ 80 cairns; ■ 4 sand areas; ■ 34 alignments; ■ 3 filled cracks; ■ 26 overhangs; ■ 3 lava tubes; ■ 23 lava blisters; ■ 2 C -shapes; ■ 22 enclosures; ■ 2 petroglyphs; O ■ 14 terraces; ■ 2 walled terraces; ■ 10 platforms; ■ 1 artifact scatter; ■ 10 trails; ■ 1 flat slab; ■ 8 walls; ■ 1 L -shape; ■ 7 pavements; ■ 1 metal tower and upright ■ 5 midden scatters; Page 4-8 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Assessment of Existing Human Environment ONearly all of the permanent habitations are located within 200 meters of the shoreline below 25 foot elevation. Permanent habitation features are primarily clustered along the coast in two areas. One cluster consisting of four sites is situated on the southern coast of Kealakehe just north of the boundary with Keahuolu. The cluster includes one feature interpreted as a possible heiau. The other cluster is situated on the northern coast surrounding the small beach at `Alula and cluster of brackish water pools. The cluster includes seven dwelling foundations at three sites. The cluster includes a possible canoe shed and Makaopio Heiau. The remaining coastal permanent habitation sites are scattered along the coast between these two clusters. Human burials have been identified in three locations within the project area with three additional probable burial features also identified. The burial features consist of three platforms, a lava tube, and two filled cracks. Trail segments were identified in ten locations during the survey. Site 1898 Features C and F consist of wide walls that extend across ponds inland of Feature A (heiau). Both of these identified trail segments and heiau are located within the proposed "cultural park" of the Kona Kai Ola project, are slated for preservation and will not be disturbed. The most significant (in length) trail segment is 7704 which is 428 feet long marked by 26 aligned cairns. This trail segment is located on the liwest boundary of the wastewater treatment plant and extends in a north -south direction. y eanstr-tieted sper- of another- trail that was abandoned and not utili--d. O While the shoreline was undoubtedly used to travel along the coast there was no evidence of a trail during surveys conducted for this project. The lack of trail evidence is not unexpected, given the stretches of sand and bare pahoehoe lava that are easily traversed on foot and marked by the shoreline Despite the lack of major historic trail segments on the shoreline, a new coastal trail system could be created and made part of the Ala Kahakai National Historic Trail system. Evidence of the Emerson Trail (Site 21588) was not found in the course of the study. The area was surveyed three times during fieldwork and surveyors specifically looked for worn surfaces. petroglyphs and cairns and at the time the vegetation was not that thick. Areas of bare pahoehoe lava were clearly visible and all were checked. Anchialine pools were included in the archaeological survey but only human modifications to the pools were given feature designations. While it is likely that all were used, if there is no physical evidence of use, then a site/feature designation was not made. The archaeology study documents seven architectural features at Sites 1898 and 1899 that modify natural pools. these pools are not assigned features designations. Based on the review criteria, all 126 sites are assessed as significant as Criterion "d". The sites have yielded information important for understanding prehistoric to historic land use in the project area. Three sites are also assessed under significant under Criterion "c" as good site type examples. Page 4-9 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Assessment of Existing Human Environment Four sites that include ceremonial features have associations with traditional Hawaiian beliefs O important to Hawaiian history and cultural identity and are additionally assessed under Criterion "e". In addition, five sites are assessed as culturally significant because probable pre -contact burials are present. 4.2.2 Anticipated Impacts and Proposed Mitigations Implementation of the proposed project will impact on-site archaeological resources in varying degrees. The following outlines eeE)f fnen o,a proposed mitigation measures, and Figure TQ, which has been revised for accuracy since the DEIS publication, depicts resources recommended for preservation:. The basis for determining which sites would be further studied and preserved is the criteria outlined in the Rules Governing Procedures for Historic Preservation Review IDLNR 1998: Chanter 2751. The criteria provide a management tool that addresses levels of significance and future action. Hence, while archaeological features have cultural value, not all archaeological sites meet Criterion e. which is previously discussed. The archaeological study identified eleven sites as culturally significant based on the presence of burials or ritual architecture. The mapping, written descriptions, photography, and test excavations at fifty-four sites adequately documents them and no further work or preservation is r-eeemmendedpigpo Forty-seven sites are ^^,,. mendoa proposed for mitigation through data recovery. The plans for data recovery would will be detailed in a Data Recovery Plan prepared for DLNR-SHPD review and approval. O Page 4-10 rim VILLAGES OF LA,rOPUA TIMESHARE 6 QUEENPROPOSED LIUFUTURE ACCESS TO QUEEN 'UOKALANI TRUST EI HIGHWAY EXTENSION QUEEN LILIQUEENANI TRUST WAS ATER EATM T PLA SHARE T PROPOSED FUTURE ACCESS TOOUEEN TRUSOKALANI NATIONAL NISTORICALi. j_2 I -PARK jt NONQiKH MAR c _ G HOTEL 2 1dit�'d! q ll W ,.CCMMERGA u:¢isumre eouAoun or 1 -�}' � t14!'^.t%"J'T . YutoW.MOHD%otuu 1 - r T"T'1 M HrirodAtHu�roRk,u.rAas i' I ttL; al j=# �cr r+ + +_ TIMESHARE to m +��. w. • TIMESHARE "\ • I TIMESHAR !! 1 \ \ 7 \ i h TIMES HARE - ,.,t.s HAWAIIAN 2 HOT Et CULTURAL �� PARK •: • --� •� .. SHOR N �Afll' k OCEANFRONT TRAIL _ - 1 i ».a CONSERVATION 1 DISTRICT BOUNDARY t rpKo;F-M �• !�oP'H`g4 00 PROPOSED FUTURE ACCESS TO QUEEN LILI'UOKALANI TRUST TIMESHARE a Source: PBR HAWAII Plan is conceptual only and subject to change Figure T: Revised Archaeological <) Resources Location Map41� aceanit. Legend M'7lmeshare ® Marine Science Cenl.r I Com ty Asea . A,rh.-I.,,-I Saes = HOIdI Commercial fm Ubou MolalFodillias Rac —nded f., PraseroT— ®Rcuaarionl Op- JD1 Marina Retail Mari-S,,pp IC—rn.rdiAl SMreEna Park O Inaccurately Depicted in DEIS and Ara Na IntludadasR--nded!orPr '241ion Not to Scale JACOBYDEVELOPMENT,INC. Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Assessment of Existing Human Environment Twenty-nine sites are o,.^. mefiaoa proposed for preservation in accordance with a Site Preservation Plan prepared for DLNR-SHPD review and approval. Of the 29. 25 are located on lands owned by DLNR and four are on DHHL lands These preservation sites include thirteen sites within the legislative boundary of Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park that the developer intends to preserve. The specific plans for preservation and maintenance of the burial features at five sites would be detailed in a Burial Treatment Plan prepared for DLNR-SHPD and the Hawaii Island Burial Council (HIBC) review and approval. The levels of impact and mitigation measures related to the proposed project are similar in Alternatives 1 and 2. 4.3 Visual Resources 4.3.1 Existing Conditions The Hawai `i County General Plan characterizes the scenic beauty of various areas and identifies sites and vistas of natural beauty. Although the subject property is not specifically listed as an example of natural beauty within the Kona districts, the view plane extending mauka and makai from Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway is identified as such a site. The large geographical area within this view plane includes the project site. ■ Palm Tree Corridor: There is a palm tree -lined road corridor extending makai from O Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway leading to Honokohau Harbor. The corridor is flanked by mature palm trees, some fronted by memorial plaques. While this lane is not formally acknowledged by the County, nor protected under County or State statutes, it is acknowledged here as it is a unique feature of interest. ■ Proposed Harbormaster Facility: The Kona Kai Ola project will utilize the existing Honokohau Harbor entrance channel. DOBOR officials have expressed the importance of a harbormaster location with a clear view of the ocean entrance for boater safety reasons. At present the appropriate location is considered to be north of and across from the interior channel from the existing fuel dock. This would provide a much better view than the fuel dock side of the channel due to the visual obstruction associated with the existing park on the south side of the ocean entrance. This location was selected as the optimum position for controlling boat movement from both basins and through the existing ocean channel from a health and safety standard. ■ Mauka views: Mauka views from the shore area, the proposed cultural park area and from the ocean are important from both a cultural and community quality of life perspective. As more of the West Hawaii coast become developed, the expansive views formerly so common, are jeopardized. Mount Hualalai, framed in the background by Mauna Loa and Mauna Kea, is a prominent feature of North and South Kona and is a landmark along Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway. Page 4-12 Kealakehe, North Kona District Island of Hawaii Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Assessment of Existing Human Environment 4.3.2 Anticipated Impacts and Pro O posed Mitigation Due to its location within the Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway view plane, the project has the potential to impact public views of the coastline in this area of North Kona. In addition to the General Plan, the West Hawai `i Coastal View Study of 1990 notes that "urbanization and public improvements may ...offer the greatest opportunity to protect, preserve, and where desirable, restore or improve the quality of coastal scenic and open space resources." Depending on the development plan for the commercial parcel, the palm trees along the existing entrance road to the harbor may need to be removed. However, portions of a proposed roadway may be able to incorporate some of the existing palm trees. The proposed Harbormaster Control Tower is proposed to be a small two-story structure set back approximately 500 feet from the harbor entry channel and located in a small second floor area. Hence, this facility will be visible from the ocean and the Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park. Marina designers and DOBOR have determined that the harbormaster facility needs to be at the proposed location and at the proposed height to ensure the safety of marina traffic into and around the existing Honokohau Harbor and the new marina. To mitigate view impacts on the adjacent Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park, design measures to minimize impacts will be employed. Further, it is proposed that the ground floor of the u.,-i,^..masto.. Genu^' I harbormaster observation hale be made available for park uses, such as a visitor center. Alternatively, the harbor master observation hale may only be a single story building. To mitigate visual impacts, a 400 -foot buffer zone along the shoreline will be preserved as open Ospace. Improvements within this buffer zone will be limited to lateral shoreline public trails, mauka-makai access trails from the project site, and cultural or environmental -related improvements relating to existing features within the buffer zone. No buildings or structures shall be proposed within the 400 -foot shoreline setback area, with the possible exception of culturally -related structures. To control building mass near the shoreline, development sites directly adjacent to the shoreline area are limited by design covenants to a lower unit density. Buildings immediately adjacent to the shoreline setback are proposed at one and two stories height to minimize building mass against the shoreline setback area. Buildings located further inland will increase to a maximum of four stories, in keeping with the "coconut tree height" general limit. The quantity of landscaped or re -naturalized open space should be emphasized near the setback area by design covenants. The northern edge of the large commercial parcel contiguous to the water feature by Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway will be limited by design covenants to one-story structures. Structures on the remaining area of the parcel will be limited to the equivalent of three stories in height. The larger building mass at the southern portion of the parcel will provide a screen for the existing earth berm around the waste -water treatment plant from the Highway. Major roadways, parking areas, and areas surrounding all major structures will be landscaped in accordance with a landscape master plan. Page 4-13 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Assessment of Existing Human Environment A visual impact study was conducted to illustrate various views of the Kona Kai Ola O development. In the computer simulated views. no existing buildings are shown on the existing harbor area. Five views are illustrated and in this FEIS and are described as follows: ■ Figure U-1: View from the Villages of La`i `Opua. This gives an overall mauka to makai view of the entire proiect from the Villages of La`i `Opua. The existing wastewater treatment plant and the lands belonging to Queen Lili`uokalani Trust are to the left. The National Historical Park and existing entry channel to Honokohau small boat harbor are to the right. Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway is in the foreground with the ocean in the background. The existing view of the site from this vantage point is of a barren lava field devoid of vegetation that gently slopes to the ocean. The large pools of the existing wastewater treatment plant dominate this desolate landscape. This computerized view of the proposed _project depicts how Kona Kai Ola intends to transform this desolate lava field into a vibrant mixed use community. This view also shows how the project will retain 40% of the land area in open space with lagoons, communitv areas and a vast shoreline park. Theproject's proposed roadway system can be clearly seen. The Kuakini Highway Extension Right of Way is depicted in the foreground. A new access road that will serve the existing marina is on the lower right. On the left is a collector road that borders the O wastewater treatment plant and provides access to the uses along the coastline. A road also connects these two roads through the core of the project. Finally, there is a road that will service the uses along the coastline and provide access to the park at the harbor's entrance. The water feature through the central core of the project is clearly visible. This central feature provides an amenity to the mauka parcels as it meanders through the project to the proposed marina to help with water circulation. The buildings within the project are no more than three to four stories tall or no higher than a coconut tree. ■ Figure U-2: View of the main entrance into the project. The existing wastewater treatment plant and the lands belonging to Queen Lili`uokalani Trust are to the left. The National Historical Park and existing entry channel to Honokohau small boat harbor are to the right. Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway and main entrance to the project are in the foreground. The existing view from this vantage point is of the existing intersection of Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway and the access road to Honokohau Harbor. Barren lava fields extend out from the road to the north and south. The road is lined with coconut trees. The access road leads to the existjng HonokohauHarbor to the east. Page 4-14 Kealakehe, North Kona District Island of Hawaii Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Assessment of Existing Human Environment This view shows the proposed main entrance into the project at the intersection of the Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway and the proposed Kuakini Highway Extension. The Kuakini Highway Extension veers to the left upon entering the project and extends all the way to Kailua-Kona. This proposed roadway will provide a parallel route to Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway, alleviate traffic in the region, and provide an important alternate route into Kailua-Kona. This view also shows the inviting main entry to the project, which is accomplished by the retention of a large open space area and using setbacks along the Kuakini Highway Extension. The coconut trees along the existing access road to the harbor, will be carefully relocated to a site within the project and provided with necessary care and irrigation -The open area along the highway is a planned natural park with a brackish water pond, designed as a habitat for migratory birds that currently visit the area. A view corridor connecting this Dark through the core of the project to the proposed marina_ was designed to create mauka and makai views through the interior of the project. ■ Figure U-3: View from North Side of Honokohau Harbor Entrance Channel This gives a view looking from the north side of the entrance channel near the makai entry to the Kaloko Honokohau National Historical Park. The image only shows the new construction that will be added to the existing fuel dock and various State buildings that already located in this area near the fuel dock lease area. The small harbormaster observation hale is shown in the foreground. This is shown as a small two story structure but it could alternatively be only a single story. To the right on the makai side, the shoreline cultural park can be seen, along with a proposed cultural center located adjacent to the cultural park. Also shown is a conceptual design for an outdoor hula performance area. The trail is shown for illustrative purposes only and would be designed to blend in with the natural lava landscape. The anchialine pools and historic sites are not shown, but will be protected in the shoreline cultural park. The buildings close to the shoreline park are limited to one and two story buildings, while the buildings closer to the marina are shown at a height of four stories at the highest. The new harbor basin, shown at 800 slips, is surrounded by a public promenade, with a mix of commercial, hotel, time-share uses, as well as public parks for launching one and two- man outrigger canoes. The vessels currently in the outer basin of the existing harbor would be moved into the new harbor facility, leaving the whole area of the outer basin for transiting to and from the new harbor to the ocean. Page 4-15 l�i Kealakehe, North Kona District Island of Hawaii Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Assessment of Existing Human Environment ■ Figure U-4: Close-up view from ocean of the coastline and makai parcels The view from the coastline shows a lava field that gently slopes up towards the Highway. As part of the development proposal. Kona Kai Ola's goal is to provide public shoreline access and connections to the coastal trail system. Greenways will be provided between the makai development parcels to preserve and complement the existing natural landscape. Within these wide areas will be vehicular access for public parking, passive recreation facilities such as barbecue and picnic facilities, and comfort stations to service users and hikers on the coastal trail system, which is being designed to be made part of the Ala Kahakai National Historic Trail system. They will also serve as view channels to the ocean from mauka areas of the Project. Mauka views from the shoreline are important view planes that are being maintained as part of this development. ■ Figure U-5: View of the project from the ocean This gives an overall view of the entire project. The existing landscape is a barren lava field having the existing wastewater treatment plant and existing harbor and support buildings as the only developed areas. The National Historical Park and existing entry channel to Honokohau Small Boat Harbor are to the left, with Alula Beach on the coast. The site gently slopes down from the highway to the ocean. The dark gray area at the coastline indicates a 400' shoreline setback, which will be left undeveloped with the exception of a coastal trail system. From the coastal trail, two lateral greenbelts provide O public access to the shoreline and coastal trail system. Originating in Kailua-Kona, the coastal trail system will continue towards the Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park, past the project site and cove beach, and terminate at the proposed Cultural Museum and park, with anchialine ponds and a heiau. As part of the marina development. water taxis will shuttle pedestrians across the marina, from the makai to the mauka. Pedestrian -friendly paths are integrated throughout the project to connect the development parcels with the commercial areas and the marina promenade. The existing wastewater treatment plant is seen in the background and will be buffered by a landscaped berm. Page 4-19 r V in 41 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawai `i Assessment of Existing Human Environment O 4.4 Noise D.L. Adams Associates conducted a noise assessment for Kona Kai Ola; it is contained in Appendix NM. The purpose of the assessment was to measure existing noise levels, predict future noise levels due to the project, evaluate the noise impacts anticipated from the project and recommend mitigation. 4.4.1 Existing Conditions and Methodology Long-term and short-term noise measurements were obtained at various locations around the project site. Long-term measurements were recorded for 24 hours and the short-term measurement was recorded for about 30 minutes. Long-term measurements showed that hourly noise levels generally ranged from 37 dBA to 56 dBA. The average calculated day -night level near the Honok6hau Harbor was 55 dBA. The average calculated levels at two locations near the Kealakehe Waste-Wwater Treatment Plant were 55 dBA and 58 dBA. Noise sources at the different locations included intermittent vehicular traffic on Kealakehe Parkway, wind, industrial and marina activities, occasional aircraft flyovers, and the waste -water treatment plant blower noise. A vehicular traffic noise analysis was completed for the existing conditions, year 2020 with the project, and year 2020 without the project, using Federal standards. Three locations were used and short and long-term noise measurements were calculated. Figure VR- depicts the traffic O analysis testing locations. At location A, along Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway, noise levels were calculated to be within the FHWA/DOT maximum noise limit of 72 dBA during peak traffic hours, at 74 feet from the roadway. Noise levels are expected to increase by less than 1 dB without the project and increase by 1 to 2 dB with the project. A 3 dB change is not considered significant. At location B, along the proposed Kealakehe Parkway extension, at least 40 feet from the roadway, noise levels are expected to equal the maximum noise limit of 67 dBA. Future traffic projections show that traffic noise levels are expected to increase by 3 to 5 dB with construction of the Kona Kai Ola project. At location C, along Kuakini Highway, noise predictions with and without the project are expected to be below the maximum noise limit of 67 dBA. The projected increase is less than 2 dB which is not a significant noise increase. 4.4.2 Anticipated Impacts and Proposed Mitigation It is not expected that project -generated noise will impact adjacent properties as they are mostly vacant or industrial. The only areas that may be affected are the Honok6hau Harbor users and the Fishing Club located south of Kealakehe Parkway. Commercial, hotel and time-share buildings completed in the initial phases may also be affected from construction noise due to subsequent phases as they are in very close proximity to the construction site. Page 4-22 HONOKOH MARINA - Source: D.L. Adams Associates, Ltd. Plan is conceptual only and subject to change Figure V: Noise M easurement Locations(C) z ww"it, )l Long Term Noise Measurement Location —fS-Jl Short Term Noise Measurement Locations (D Noise Prediction Locations JD1 EJ Project Location Not to Scale JACOBY'DnIE1.0P.mENT, INC. Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Assessment of Existing Human Environment Noise impacts on the Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park may result from construction activities over the duration of the 15 -year construction period However, only a small portion of the construction activities will occur in proximity to the park's property line Additionally_ construction activities must comply with requirements set forth in the State Department of Health noise permit. On a lona-term basis, noise impacts on the Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park may result from the existing Honokohau Boat Harbor and adjacent industrial uses Industrial and mechanical activities must comply with the State Department of Health Maximum Permissible Noise limits at the property line. Noise from the new marina may be audible but the project will comply with noise regulations to ensure that noise will remain within permissible levels As there is a large portion of the development that has no overnight accommodations, and would contain commercial and light industrial use, noise from these uses could significantly impact the proposed noise sensitive hotel and time-share areas. Expected mechanical equipment may include air handling equipment, condensing units and other similar uses. Aircraft noise due to the Kona International Airport may be audible, although flights over the site are infrequent and the project site is outside of the Ldn 55 airport noise contour. At the Kealakehe Wastewater Treatment Plant, noise levels are compliant with the DOH and EPA noise limits, however, noise and tonal quality from the blowers could be found objectionable. Regarding noise generated by boats, regulations on boat noise is not currently enforced in the State of Hawaii. Many states have approved a version of the SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers) J1970 or J2005 Standard which places restrictions on the operation of motorboats that exceed certain noise levels. One restriction states that motorboats should not be operated in such a_ manner as to exceed 90 dBA when subject to a stationary sound level test (i.e., measured 1.5 meters away from the idling boat). These noise levels were applied to the existing background levels measured at the Kona Kai Ola project site. Assuming that boats entering and exiting the Honokohau Marina are in compliance with this regulation in that they emit 90 dBA or less in idle, boat noise for noise receivers more than 150 meters (492 feet) from the channel is equivalent to or less than davtime background noise levels. Noise receivers within 150 meters from the channel will be subiect to noise levels in excess of daytime background noise levels. However, boat noise can be defined as a single noise event that is measured over the time interval between the initial and final times for which the sound level of the single event exceeds the background_ noise level. The noise generated by these single boat noise events takes place currently at the marina and is not expected to increase in the future. Page 4-24 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Assessment of Existing Human Environment OThe frequency of single boat noise events is expected to increase proportionally to the increase in boat traffic due to the proposed project Although the noise generated by a single boat event remains the same, more of these events will occur within a given time period. It is expected that noise levels within 150 meters of the marina and the channel to increase by up to 5 dB. In that a change of 3 dB is generally considered barely perceptible to the human ear, and an increase of 5 to 6 dB will be noticeable, but is not a significant noise impact. While the level and duration of noise impacts due to boat traffic is the same with Alternative 2, Alternative 1 would generate impacts of less duration in that the number of slips is half that of the proposed project. Construction blasting, if required for the new marina, could produce noise impacts. However, blasting at construction sites near populated areas is usually accomplished by using numerous small charges detonated with small time delays. Blast mats can also be used to assist in directing the explosive energy into the rock, controlling flying debris, and muffling the noise. With the appropriate blast design techniques, the noise from blasting can be controlled to minimize noise impacts. In addition, if the noise from blasting occurs in brief intervals, i.e., less than 10 percent of any 20 minute period, it is excluded from the State DOH noise limits. In cases where construction noise exceeds, or is expected to exceed, the State's "maximum permissible" property line noise levels, a permit must be obtained from the State DOH to allow the operation of vehicles, cranes, construction equipment, power tools, etc., which emit noise levels in excess of the "maximum permissible" levels. OMitigation of noise impacts from stationary mechanical equipment will occur resulting from compliance with the State DOH Community Noise Control rules. In addition noisy equipment will be located away from neighbors and the residential units, as much as practical. Enclosed mechanical rooms may be required for some equipment. Siting of onsite structures will also help to mitigate noise impacts. Commercial buildings that border Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway will be constructed at least 75 feet from the edge of pavement so as not to exceed FHWA's maximum exterior Leq noise limit of 72 dBA. Time-share buildings that border Kealakehe Parkway should be constructed at least 50 feet from the edge of the pavement so as not to exceed the FHWA's maximum exterior Leq noise limit of 67 dBA. Although noise levels at the perimeter of the wastewater treatment plant are compliant with DOH and EPA limits, further noise mitigation is proposed to attenuate the high frequency buzz emitted by the blowers at the Kealakehe Waste-Wwater Treatment Plant. Effective noise mitigation may include the following: ■ Completing a rock berm along the northern property line will provide approximately 5-10 dB noise reduction as well as a visual barrier around the site. Consideration should be given to replacing aging equipment at the WWTP, such as the blowers, with quieter equipment. Mechanical equipment could be enclosed and sound absorptive material installed on the interior of the enclosure. Other typical noise mitigation for stationary equipment includes mufflers, silencers, and acoustical louvers. Page 4-25 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement . Island of Hawaii Assessment of Existing Human Environment During marina construction, blast mats should be used to assist in directing the explosive energy O into the rock, controlling flying debris, and muffling the noise. Use of appropriate blast design techniques is required. Issues relating to underwater noise are addressed in Section 3.9.4.2-5. 4.5 Social Environment Social impact assessments identify and disclose information of use to decision makers sand citizens, as they evaluate the implications of proposed development. Because the social realm is extensive and not precisely defined, assessments typically contain substantial attention to community issues and perceptions, in addition to analyses of selected issues. The social impact assessment, herein referred to as SIA, for this project is contained in Appendix NO. 4.5.1 Existing and Anticipated Future Socio-economic Environment 4.5.1.1 Population The Study Area of the SIA is West Hawaii, which includes North and South Kona, as well as South Kohala. Between 1990 and 2000, West Hawai`i's population increased from 43,373 to 56,301 persons, signifying a 30 percent increase. During this period, the de facto population increased by 33 percent, from 54,841 persons in 1990 to 72,673 persons in 2000. (The Hallstrom Group, 2006) The region's population growth correlates with the growth in the visitor industry that has been occurring along West Hawai`i's coast since the 1960s. The increase of accommodations that O house the steady stream of visitors supports a healthy employment base, which, in turn, attracts many people to relocate to West Hawaii for job and entrepreneurial opportunities. Much of the population increase is attributed to in -migration. Census data indicate the percentage of West Hawaii residents born outside the state of Hawaii rose from 39.5 percent in 1980 to 48.9 percent in 2000. Comparable percentages for the rest of the county were 25.9 percent in 1980 and 31.0 percent in 2000. Thus, in -migration has clearly been funneled into West Hawaii in general and North Kona in particular, more than into the rest of the county. The forecast resident population for 2020 in West Hawaii is 100,357 persons, which represents an increase of 78 percent increase between 2000 and 2020. The forecast de facto population in West Hawaii is 126,345 persons, which is approximately a 74 percent increase bFenrfrom 2000 to 2020. (The Hallstrom Group, 2006) Anticipated Impacts It is projected that the proposed hotel and time-share units will begin generating on-site de facto population in Year.4 of development. At full build -out and stabilization in Year 15, the project is estimated to generate a de facto guest / time-share owner population of 5,321 persons (The Hallstrom Group, 2006). This on-site population would account for four percent of the forecast 2020 de facto population for West Hawaii. The perceived impacts related to project population impacts are discussed in Section 4.5.4.2. Page 4-26 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii . Assessment of Existing Human Environment O4.5.1.2 Economic Forces Economic conditions are major forces that influence the social environment. West Hawaii is now, and is projected to continue as, the Big Island's economic engine. During the 1960s, West Hawaii developed as a tourist destination as well as a commercial center. The first luxury hotel, the Kona VillageMauna Kea Beach Hotel, was built on the West Hawaii coast in 19645. In 1968, the Honok6hau Harbor was created to help address the needs of boaters and tourists. The construction of the 272 -slip harbor helped stimulate development of a light industrial and commercial area in the adjoining area of Kailua-Kona. In 1975, the coastal Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway was completed. This became Kona's main industrial route, and it made Honok6hau and nearby hotels easily accessible from the Kona International Airport. The construction of the highway precipitated a boom period financed largely with Japanese capital that lasted until the early 1990s, when an economic downturn in Japan helped contribute to a statewide slowdown. Since 1990, average daily visitor census for Kona and the Big Island generally increased through 1998, dipped for a few years thereafter, but has surged strongly since 2001, when Hawaii became increasingly recognized as a safe tropical destination for Americans afraid of traveling abroad. In 2005, Hawaii Island welcomed a record 1,487,747 visitors, who spent more than $1.5 billion. The Big Island's economic growth over the past decade or so has taken place almost entirely in West Hawaii. Sixty-one percent of the island's job growth occurred in West Hawaii. Most of Othe island's private -sector businesses and jobs are now located there, and the clear trend is for further development — based primarily on tourism and recreational real estate. Though many current residents still wish to defend the historic rural character of the area, the outlines of a future city are apparent for the area around Kailua, including Honok6hau. The most recent hotel development in West Hawaii was Hualalai, which opened in 1997. Despite the gr-ewth in -visiter-s, no signifieant new hotel development (other �han r-enevations) has aeeufFed in West u,,..,.,: sinee 1990—.West Hawaii hotel occupancies have lagged those of other islands. Time-share has represented a significant portion of the growth in overall visitor units (as compared to hotel units alone) in recent years. It is projected that the economy will continue to be driven primarily by growth in the visitor industry and associated recreational real estate. Tourism forecasts prepared by the Hawaii State Dept. of Business, Economic Development, and Tourism (DBEDT) are for the Big Island as a whole, not West Hawaii alone. Visitor units are projected to increase from 11,351 units in 2005 to 14,890 in 2030. The DBEDT forecasts anticipate an approximate 40 percent increase in employment over a thirty-year period, from the island -wide job count of 65,000 in 2000 to 92,000 in 2030. Based on trends over the past decades, it may be assumed that most of these additional jobs will be located in West Hawaii, though housing issues make it less certain that the additional workers will live there. Page 4-27 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Assessment of Existing Human Environment 4.5.2 Housing O 4.5.2.1 Existing Conditions Hawaii has longstanding issues regarding housing. These include the lowest homeowner rate, relatively small houses, high housing costs, crowding and a high percentage of workers per household. It is generally accepted that Neighbor Island resort areas such as West Hawaii have even more acute housing issues. The 2000 Census shows that medians in North Kona ($233,900), South Kohala ($206,000), and South Kona ($213,100) were all substantially higher than the island wide median ($153,700). For renters, as of 2000, reported rents were generally higher in West Hawaii than the rest of the county, but so were wages — West Hawaii renters at that time actually paid a slightly lower percentage of household income for rent than elsewhere in the county. Large post -2000 increases in housing costs can be attributed to (1) housing prices catching up with real income increases; (2) a nationwide housing boom, especially in second homes, which is now abating; and (3) a surge in local real estate investment, from both local and off -shore purchasers. Both resort -residential and "pure residential" markets have now started to cool, but prices remain higher than the island wide median. 4.5.2.2 Affordable Housing Requirement Under Hawaii County Ordinance Chapter 11, Section 4 Affordable Housing Requirements, r- -hotel uses generating more than 100 employees on a full-time equivalent basis must O earn one affordable housing credit for every four full-time equivalent jobs created. Kona Kai Ola developers are interested in pursuing housing opportunities for workforce housing in the lands mauka of the project site in the same or adjacent ahupua`a. The number of employees that would form the basis for the affordable housing requirement is .,ndete-mi ea discussed in Section 4.6.5at the tifne of this writing. JDI will comply with all affordable housing requirements of applicable Hawaii County ordinances. 4.5.3 Construction -Related Impacts and ro ed Mitigation The effects of construction related activities will depend greatly on how much other construction is occurring in the same area, and whether the economic cycle requires the in -migration of workers. Possible impacts include: ■ Disruption of existing harbor activities (from blasting and dredging of expansion area, new infrastructure, and new buildings): Reeommend Proposed mitigation includes compliance with public regulations and requirements governing construction and the development of communication and mitigation plans to deal with such issues. Actual or anticipated effects of blasting on nearby activities outside the project: In addition to proximate uses such as the ational Historical Park and nearby business centers, schools and residential areas located even farther mauka are likely to be anxious about blasting. Page 4-28 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Assessment of Existing Human Environment OTemporary housing and social issues associated with imported workers: If construction occurs when the economic cycle — which has now been "up" for an uncharacteristically long time — goes back to a "down" phase, the project's construction labor pool may well come from Big Island laborers already present. If not, there may be a need to import workers, build temporary quarters, and cope with some of the usual social side effects of transient workers during their off -hours. 4.5.4 Community Issues and Perceived Social Impacts Social impacts involve values and perceptions, and many concerns cannot be objectively determined with certainty in that cause -effect relationships are not always easy to determine. An important part of social impact assessment involved interviewing knowledgeable community leaders and observers from a wide spectrum of beliefs and interests. The bulk of the report consists of an examination of issues raised by 53 West Hawaii community stakeholders and subsequent possible mitigation actions. One set of interviewees consisted of marine and shoreline users in particular. The other consisted of general community stakeholders from business, civic, government, environmental, Native Hawaiian, and social agency perspectives. 4.5.4.1 Issues Related to Marine and Shoreline Environment Harbor: Most interviewees felt the current Honokohau marina facilities have deteriorated and that there is a significant need for additional slips. There was also approval for "green" engineering proposals related to pumping cold deep -seawater for air conditioning and circulation O in the harbor. There were also resident concerns and questions about marina expansion. Impacts on offshore fishing stocks and boating safety due to feared congestion of the entrance channel were addressed in other EIS studies. An important issue was related about affordability of new slips for the local West Hawaii boating community, whether there will be a rich -poor division between the retained DLNR harbor area and the new marina area. Shoreline: There is a great demand in the general community for more shoreline parks, and some felt that any large project such as Kona Kai Ola should be required to develop a major public facility, such as a grassed -over West Hawaii version of O`ahu's Ala Moana Beach Park. On the other hand, many of those more familiar with the naturally rocky character of the shoreline, as well as existing Native Hawaiian archaeological features, were pleased with the developer's current plans to preserve the area in its present form, provide trails, and establish a 400 -foot setback area. Some, however, wanted an even greater setback, and even those concerned about protecting the area also wanted to be sure that public access is assured. Most seemed to want restroom facilities and a parking area for shoreline users. Possible mitigation measures discussed were to support high priority community infrastructure needs, including more shoreline parks. 4.5.4.2 Issues Related to Project Scale and "Growth -Generating" Nature The greatest community concern about the proposal was the sheer scale of proposed time-share and hotel development, and associated strains on infrastructure, including housing needs, from Ovisitors and in -migrant workers. Page 4-29 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Assessment of Existing Human Environment The SIA noted a deep strain of public distrust that either government or developers can or will O succeed in resolving growth -related "infrastructure overwhelm." People appeared so traumatized by the existing area -wide traffic situation that they often did not seem to register either (1) current government efforts to build new road capacity, or (2) the developer's commitment to extend Kealakehe Parkway to Kuakini Highway and Kailua-Kona through its own property and the adjacent parcel owned by the Queen Lili`uokalani Trust. Similarly, most interviewees reacted to the proposed scale in relation to the current extreme West Hawaii labor shortage; only a few noted the current construction boom is tapering off and that harbor expansion could arguably help maintain the construction industry. A number of interviewees expressed dismay that DLNR has prohibited any owner -occupied housing uses on the property. They felt that such uses would be "growth -absorbing" rather than "growth -generating," and they urged reconsideration of this policy. The SIA notes that some people raising this issue were concerned about maintaining West Hawai`i's historical rural character, and it is inherently difficult for any large project to meet that group's concerns. However, many others were more concerned about correcting infrastructure deficits and better planning of future growth. Issues related to population growth are not unique to Kona Kai Ola. In 2002 and 2005. the Hawaii Tourism Authority (HTA) included small "West Hawaii" samples in its statewide "Survey of Resident Sentiments on Tourism in Hawai'i." Critical issues included cost of housing and traffic, followed by population growing too fast. The survey also found that almost everything — with the exception of availability of jobs — was more likely to be considered a "big O problem" in 2005 than in 2002. The West Hawaii results were similar to those from most other parts of the state. The survey also found_an erosion from 2002 to 2005 in West Hawaii resident support for tourism growth, belief in the overall benefits of tourism, although a majority still did feel tourism had brought more benefits than problems, and particularly in the need for more tourism jobs. Based on even earlier statewide survey results, the 2005 HTA report noted that resident support for expanded tourism employment is cyclical — it shrinks when tourism is strong (as at present) and then expands again when tourism has down times. In addition to the results shown in these two exhibits, the 2005 survev included a number of other questions. Several dealing with local government performance indicated a frustration with infrastructure overload from recent growth: ■ 66% of West Hawaii residents said government had done a 'boor job" of building new infrastructure to keep up with growth in resident and visitor population. ■ 45% gave government 'boor" marks (vs. just 32% "good." and the rest unsure) for planning and controlling tourism -related growth. ■ 40% said 'boor" (vs. 20% "good") for balancing the economic benefits from tourism against the need to control problems caused by tourism. Thus it appears that much of the negative sentiment toward tourism growth may be rooted in the current perception of infrastructure overload. O Page 4-30 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Assessment of Existing Human Environment OPossible mitigation includes the up -front construction of the Kealakehe Parkway — Kuakini Highway connector to Kailua, as well as fulfilling all affordable housing requirements and developing provisional plans for housing construction workers if they need to be imported. Job training programs in conjunction with project implementation will also help to mitigate potential social impacts. FuAhef. Ml will establis Further JDI established the Kona Kai Ola Community Foundation to support community efforts such as community development, community health care, job training, educational and cultural programs and projects and will eentf bulecontributed $100,000 as initial funding. 4.5.4.3 Project Compatibility with Existing and Emerging Community Short -Term Compatibility with Neighboring Uses: The most immediate compatibility concern is with the Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park north of the project. The park primarily borders the existing DLNR harbor; only a relatively small part of the Kona Kai Ola project (in its northeast corner) would share a roughly 1,000 -foot boundary with the park. Park officials have expressed a number of concerns about the project, including environmental impacts and that the project includes some land on the south side of the harbor entrance which Congress included in the Park's "legislative boundary" but which the State has never actually transferred. There is a general sense that the Park's intended experience for both visitors and Native Hawaiian cultural practitioners assumes a certain solitude. This concern is not just related to Kona Kai Ola but also various other projects that will surround the Park with urban activities. Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park is situated in the middle of the maior urban growth O corridor of Kailua-Kona as identified in the Kona Community Development Plan. Compatibility of this urban growth adjacent to the park can be achieved through careful planning to prevent negative impacts on water quality, air quality, noise levels, and light levels at night, and other areas of concern to the Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park. In addition, areas within the legislative boundary of the National Historical Park that are located on part of the project site, can be managed in a compatible manner through a cooperative arrangement with the National Historical Park to ensure proper consultation and coordination for any management measures taken with the cultural sites and anchialine pools located along the shoreline. The 400 - foot setback along the shoreline protects these National Historical Park resources in a cultural park that has a priority purpose of protection of these important cultural resources of structures and anchialine pools. A related concern is that staff resources could be overwhelmed with higher than expected visitation rates. Possible mitigation to address compatibility concerns includes working closely with Kaloko- Honokohau National Historical Park NPS ..o,.,, -ding the u^r,.^r Master- rr,,we on the harbor master observation hale, as well as regarding the management of, anchialine-pon&=p9=o1=s and cultural sites in the shoreline cultural park area. In addition, buffer ;zones along the boundary of the oroiect site with the Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park will need to be developed to protect the ambience of the park. Further, education programs for Kona Kai Ola visitors about park resources, fragility, and cultural protocols will promote compatibility. Page 4-31 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Assessment of Existing Human Environment The proposed Kona Kai Ola structures are designed to blend with the natural terrain, use site O appropriate xeriscape landscaping and utilize earth tone colors and natural materialsto the degree possible. The proposed harbormaster facility's close proximity -to -We National Historical Park boundary requires special consideration to ensure that the visitor visual experience from the Park is not compromised. While there are no actual visual guideline requirements for the preservation of views from the Park. Kona Kai Ola has been, and will continue to work with the National Historical Park Service to ensure that visual experience is preserved to the degree possible while ensuring safety of the harbor entrance. Another short-term question is whether Kona Kai Ola will support or compete with the Kailua Village visitor area. Some interviewees assumed there will be synergy; others assumed competition. The actual outcome cannot be easily predicted, because it depends not only on what Kona Kai Ola does, but also upon success of the current new Kailua Village Business Improvement District or other efforts that reshape Kailua over the next few years. The proposed shuttle and water taxi services, as well as the Kealakehe Parkway connector to Kuakini Highway in Kailua, will help to foster a good relationship between on-site businesses and Kailua Village. Long -Term Relationship with the Future Character of Kona: Interviewees were divided on whether to accept an urban future for Kona. If one believes, however, that Kona is evolving into a city extending from Keauhou to Keahole, then the Kona Kai Ola project — along with Kailua Village and the intervening, yet -unplanned Queen Lili`uokalani Trust "Urban Expansion Area" — will comprise the coastal core of that city. Thus, what happens or does not happen at the project O site will be very critical for the long-term character of urban Kona. An assessment of long-term compatibility with the Kona region is as follows: Marine Orientation: The Kailua area has been traditionally connected to boating and deep-sea fishing. That sort of active interaction with the ocean — not simply using it as a scenic backdrop, as many resort areas do — makes Kona Kai Ola very compatible with the history of West Hawaii. The enlarged marina can open the doors for expanded marine support industries and connections with ocean research occurring elsewhere in the region. It can build upon a relatively unique aspect of Kona's identity, separating it from the slower -paced resort and second -home enclaves north of the airport. It potentially revitalizes and reinforces the area's "sense of place." Opportunity for Native Hawaiian Identity Through Regional Planning: A possible future for Kona Kai Ola and West Hawaii, even with a thriving maritime orientation, is that it will increasingly feel like a colony of Southern California. Page 4-32 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Assessment of Existing Human Environment OHowever, some interviewees noted the project is located within a "triangle" of properties with important Native Hawaiian linkages: the National Historical Park to the north, the yet -little -developed Queen Lili`uokalani Trust lands to the south, and DHHL's expanding Villages of La`i `Opua to the east (mauka) and in the same ahupua`a. They noted that Kona Kai Ola development plans already include tentative linkages such as the connector road through Queen Lili`uokalani Trust lands and possible shuttles for workers living mauka of the site. Several suggested that government and landowners immediately north of Kailua work together on regional plans, both to address infrastructure questions and also to ensure incorporation of Hawaiian cultural values. Resident and Visitor Social Integration ("Mixed Use"): If leisure activity continues to drive the growth of West Hawaii, one critical aspect of its future character will be the extent to which there is de facto segregation of visitors and residents. There is unease about the growing prevalence of gated communities. If the Kona Kai Ola project, in the heart of the possible future city, feels unwelcoming to residents and a place for affluent yachters and other visitors alone, there may seem little hope for successful integration elsewhere. The Kona Kai Ola developers explicitly aim for a "Mixed Use" development that brings residents and visitors together. Success in achieving that goal is critical, and so our final discussion below summarizes likely factors in achieving such success. 4.5.4.4 Likely Drivers of "Mixed Use Success" Interviewees were asked about various project components intended to draw residents into the project because 1) of the social importance of the envisioned resident -visitor interaction, and 2) it O is a social experiment of sort for the Big Island. Key factors are likely to be, in order: ■ Assurance of meeting the needs of existing recreational boaters. ■ Provision of marina amenities, such as a fishing club and yacht club, public promenade around marina, canoe park, and walking and cycling trails to connect with the marine science center and seawater lagoons. ■ Provision of shoreline and ocean recreational facilities. ■ Provision of community facilities in the seven acre parcel designated as a "Community Area." ■ Provision of public parking at the marina and shoreline. ■ Provision of a cultural park and related facilities to perpetuate the Hawaiian cultural heritage of the site. 4.6 Economic Environment A market study was prepared to quantify the demand in West Hawaii for the various uses proposed in the proposed project, determine if there is market support for the uses proposed in Kona Kai Ola, and estimate the market absorption for the primary components. The market study conclusions were the basis for the economic impact analysis, which was then translated into a public costs / benefits assessment. The market study, economic impact analysis and public costs / Obenefits assessment are contained in Appendix C-14. Page 4-33 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Assessment of Existing Human Environment 4.6.1 Tourism in Hawaii and Hawaii Island O On an overall basis, statewide and regional tourism trends are supportive of the proposed subject development. Tourism in Hawaii has recovered strongly since the September 11th, 2001 terrorist attacks, which interrupted a gradual and extended upcycle that peaked during the prior year. Demonstrating the strength of the island visitor industry, the market quickly rebounded and continued to grow through 2005, with total arrivals up seven percent from the prior year, reaching an all-time high of 7.38 million. Records were also achieved in regards to total visitor days (67.1 million) and total visitor expenditures ($12.75 billion). As more people are spending more days and more money in Hawaii, the tourism industry must be considered strong. The neighbor islands have been the biggest recipients of the recovery and upward trends, all showing growth during the past four years, with the Big Island experiencing substantial gains during the last three. Hawaii County arrivals were up 16.7 percent in 2005 to a record 1.49 million persons, and are up another 6.5 percent for 2006 based on data through September. There were a record 9.8 million visitor days spent in the County last year, up 16.6 percent from 2004, and visitor expenditures were also at all time highs totaling $1.9 billion. These figures are expected to be achieved or surpassed again this year. It is estimated that upwards of 93 percent of Big Island tourism is directed to West Hawaii, a figure anticipated to continue climbing as further visitor interest drives resort development in the study area, while other locales further age or remain minor destinations. O Kona and Kohala hotels have experienced full -recovery since 9/11, with mayor gains in 2005 moving them to all-time marks. Occupancy averages for Kona and Kohala hotels are at 75 and 72 percent, respectively, just off from last year's level. Profit margins for first class and luxury hotels in West Hawaii are also up across the board over the past four years, several points above statewide average growth. The West Hawaii Economic Market Sector, which stretches along the leeward coast of the Big Island from the North Kohala through South Kona Districts, has evolved significantly over the last two to three decades, creating a vibrant, urbanized, freestanding economy that will continue to generate increasing demand for a wide range of land use types over the long-term. The majority of private capital invested in Hawaii County of late have been focused towards West Hawai`i's coastal destination resort communities, resident housing construction in the existing towns, and in the industrial/commercial districts of Kailua-Kona (particularly its northerly reaches). Much of the continuing expansion of urban Kailua-Kona will occur in the corridor between Kailua-Kona and the Kona International Airport, from the shoreline to the mauka forests. The lower elevations, encompassing the Kona Kai Ola property, will continue its transformation into the central mixed-use core of West Hawaii containing a vast array of uses including reset4visitor accommodations, industrial/commercial, civic/public, and residential, along with large park/conservation areas along the ocean. The upland elevations will continue to be primarily residential. O Page 4-34 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Assessment of Existing Human Environment OWhile there has been fall-off from the record levels achieved by some market sectors last year, 2006 will still be among the best ever for West Hawaii, and continue the general overall upcycle which began late last decade. The economic, demographic and real estate trends are highly favorable in the primary study area over the coming two decades; the period during which the subject community would be developed. 4.6.2 Market Appropriateness 4.6.2.1 Suitability of Project Site for Proposed Uses The master plan of the proposed development is appropriate for the region in which it is located, competitive with other leading projects in the state, and sufficiently comprehensive to provide a destination experience. It is representative of the highest and best use for the holding. From a market perspective, the subject site is a good to superior property for undertaking a major resul=t mixed use community. The property enjoys a favorable location within an expanding community requiring a variety of vacant urban lands to meet a wide spectrum of local resident and (particularly) tourist demands. The project site has superior mixed-use development potentials given its size, physical and market characteristics, and is among the most appropriate sites in the region for such uses; significantly being the only holding with marina expansion and National Historical Park support O potentials. It has an extensive ocean frontage and is adjacent to the major marina facility in West Hawaii, which will provide the focal theme of the project. Further, the property is highly proximate to the Kaloko-Honok6hau National Historical Park, and within four miles of the Kona International Airport and central Kailua-Kona. It has access to available infrastructure systems and the region's primary thoroughfare; and, strong visibility, frontage/exposure, and intercept/recognition characteristics. 4.6.2.2 Project Components The market study found that the greater Kailua-Kona region demonstrates significant demand for new, upscale tourist -oriented uses. There is a necessity for "fresh" lodging, shopping and thematic destinations if the area is to remain competitive with other statewide locales. No new hotel inventory has been built in decades, there has been just a single major time-share project (off -water) in recent years, and little has been done to exploit the marketing potentials of the world -renown Kona fishery. Available tourist -oriented commercial space in Kailua-Kona is near full occupancy, with the general and resident sectors also presently strong, and the subject marina -front village will be an intense, unique destination facility on the Big Island attracting tourists and locals. Page 4-35 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Assessment of Existing Human Environment The time-share (or interval ownership) sector has been the fastest growing segment of the O transient lodging market in recent years, with several hundred new (or converted) units being added annually statewide. Time-share units have higher occupancies than hotels. Users enjoy longer stays, and feel more a part of the community than other travelers, and have spending levels approaching/at typical visitor levels. There is substantial unmet demand for new product in Kona, and it is estimated that the time-share units proposed for Kona Kai Ola would be absorbed in about 15 years if a variety of price and competitive unit types were made available. It has been a decade since the last major new hotel was constructed in West Hawaii, and since that time visitor arrivals are up by nearly 50 percent and total visitor nights by almost 30 percent. There are few vacant sites remaining on the leeward coastline, and scarcer still that would support a modern, upscale project capable of achieving room rates competitive with the Kohala hotels. It is estimated that the 700 Kona Kai Ola hotel rooms would require six to ten years to be absorbed, with build -out expected in about seven years from completion of the community's infrastructure. The marina front commercial village of Kona Kai Ola will be a unique destination facility sure to attract large numbers of regional visitors and residents, and undoubtedly become a major thematic attraction similar to Whaler's Village at Kd'anapali. The demand for the development opportunity will be substantial, as will the interest in finished space. It is anticipated that the village will be one of the initial constructions in the development, and that it will be fully leased - up within 12 to 18 months of completion. The resident and de facto populations of West Hawaii are forecast to increase up to 50 percent O over the next two decades, creating a demand for an additional two million square feet of leaseable floor space and 230 gross acres of development lands. While there are significant vacant holdings in the greater Kailua-Kona area, the subject highway -front lands will possess several competitive advantages which will enable them to achieve absorption in a reasonable term. It is estimated that 50 acres of highway -fronting commercial sites (supporting some 400,000 -plus square feet) will be absorbed within nine years from project infrastructure completion. The "guests/interval owners" of the Kona Kai Ola community alone will create an on-site demand for some 150,000 square feet of floor space. The demand for marina berthing in West Hawaii is acute, and has been for more than a generation. The near -shore waters are considered among the best for sport fishing in the world, and offer excellent recreational, scenic and cruising opportunities. The waiting list for slips at the Honokohau Harbor abutting the subject lands currently stands at 146 persons (effectively at its maximum limit), which equates to a roughly 15 to 20 year wait, at minimum. Another 150 to 300 -plus persons would in a brief period lease slips were they made available in the area. Apart from some limited expansion potentials at Kawaihae Harbor, some 25 miles north and on the outlying edge of the primary market sphere, there are no plans being forwarded to meet the expressed berthing needs of West Hawaii. Page 4-36 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Assessment of Existing Human Environment OThe success of the Ko Olina Marina (O`ahu) demonstrates the ability of a modern, comprehensive, market -priced facility to attract large numbers of boaters. It is forecasted that the 800 slips within the Kona Kai Ola marina will be absorbed in approximately 12 years from initial offering. The adjacent eight acres of marina -supporting industrial lands will also be built -out and the finished space/sites absorbed within the same period (and likely sooner, say, within three to six years). (Hallstrom Study 2006) 4.6.3 Project Economic Impacts 4.6.3.1 Build -out and Absorption The build -out and absorption of the Kona Kai Ola master plan will require approximately 15 years from groundbreaking, with about three years for infrastructure emplacement, an additional nine years before the final time-share project is completed, and another three years to achieve final sell-out and community stabilization. Most components will be built -out and absorbed in shorter periods, as discussed'in the previous section. The total direct capital investment into the property will be some $2.2 billion, along with hundreds of millions of dollars in additional "soft" and contingency costs. Local contractors and suppliers will reap an estimated $219.8 million and $84.4 million in profits from the development, respectively. 4.6.3.2 Employment and Wages O Some 67,848 "worker years" will be created during the initial 18 years of community development and operation, with total wages of $2.26 billion. Nearly 8,730 of the worker years will be associated with on-site construction; another 43,643 in on-site hotel, time-share, retail, marina -related, and common element positions; and to contribute an equivalent of 16,835 off-site jobs. After build -out, the project will have 3,8424- permanent on-site jobs and contribute to another 1,267 off-site, with total annual wages of $151.3 million in current dollars. 4.6.3.3 Visitor Spending The project will begin being populated by interval owners/guests and hotel guests in Year 4 of development. Growing from a daily average of 547 persons that year to a stabilized total of 5,321 persons when build -out and stabilization are reached by Year 18, they will spend an estimated $2.9 billion during the absorption period, and an annual average of $311.2 million thereafter. There will be no permanent residents or school -aged children permanently residing at Kona Kai Ola. 4.6.3.4 Sales and Revenues At stabilization, the operating businesses at Kona Kai Ola will generate an estimated $557.6 million in annual gross sales; of which roughly 30 percent will come from the r-eseI visitor population and 70 percent from other tourists and residents in the region. Page 4-37 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Assessment of Existing Human Environment The three hotels, housing 700 total rooms in boutique first-class to comprehensive luxury O facilities, will have an estimated minimum $115.6 million in annual revenues. The supporting businesses in the eight time-share projects are forecast to produce $65.7 million in total yearly income, and the 500,000 square feet of retail commercial space in the community (including the Marina Village) would have annual sales of $425.0 million. The expanded 800 slip marina basin and associated eight -acre industrial area will produce a stabilized gross income of $18.9 million per year, and the other minor operating components in the development (the proposed clubs, marine center and seawater lagoons) another $17 million in sales. The "base economic impact" of the subject to West Hawaii and elsewhere on the island will grow from $46.7 million in Year 1 to a stabilized level of $858.8 million annually; totaling $7.5 billion during the initial 18 years of construction and absorption. The "overall" economic impact created by the flow of monies through the Hawaii market will be at least double these amounts. 4.6.4 Public Cosis / Benefits Resulting from Project Development The analysis of the project's overall cost to the state and Hawaii County governmental services resulting from the subject development was based on both actual and per capita perspective. From an actual public service'cost, Kona Kai Ola will represent only a fraction of the county and state efforts and overall urban/resort lands in use. Given the vast number of housing units, r-esoftsvisitor accommodations, businesses, and agricultural lands on the island, it is difficult to assert that the subject development and users will create the need for meaningful expansion of O existing public services. Nevertheless, the need for additional services is a cumulative effect. Each project, each resident, tourist and, to a lesser degree, business adds a little bit to the community base until increased "need thresholds" are reached. As an alternative to actual cost estimates, which are often disparate as they inherently cannot provide for unexpected and/or atypical items, it is most common to project public costs on a per capita allocation based on the population of a given project. Government services are holistic in nature, providing a foundation throughout a community, regardless of actual, specific impact on any given land holding. A subject component may not have a need for off-site parks or schools, but they are essential to the patrons and workers and create the climate in which the business operates. Similarly, government administration, capital projects and public welfare items may have no direct relation to a particular project, but provide the economic underpinnings that enhance general overall economic success. The total annual "actual" cost to Hawaii County on a stabilized basis at build -out and full use of the subject development is estimated at less than $1.5 million per year. The State of Hawaii direct costs are estimated at circa $500,000 annually by Year 18 of the projection model. Using a per capita allocation basis, the total costs to Hawaii County will escalate from $788,744 annually in Year 4 of the project, to a stabilized level of $7.7 million per year upon full absorption. The State of Hawaii costs will run from $3.75 million in the first year of occupancy to $36.5 million yearly at stabilization. Page 4-38 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Assessment of Existing Human Environment OThe four primary taxes generated by the development and operation of Kona Kai Ola, and the amounts they are forecast to produce are as follows: , ■ Real Property Tax to Hawaii County -- Associated real property taxes will increase from $1.2 million in the first year to a stabilized annual level of $19.7 million (using current assessment rates). The total real property taxes collected during the 18 year absorption period will be $233.6 million. ■ Income Tax to the State of Hawaii -- Driven by the wages of the construction and operational employees in the community, and profits from subject businesses, the subject development will produce income tax payments estimated to grow from $2.0 million in Year I to above $10 million in high -construction years, before stabilizing at $8.8 million over the long-term. During the model time -frame, the total income tax collected is projected at $146.7 million. General Excise Tax to the State of Hawaii -- These tax receipts will flow from the construction contracts, expenditures in the region by subject workers (on and off-site), the gross sales of operating business, and the off-site purchases of Kona Kai Ola guests. The amount collected is forecast to be at $6.4 million in the first year of development, reaching upwards $33 million during major building years, and stabilizing at $32 million annually after build -out. The state will garner an estimated $446.9 million in excise taxes during the model period. O Transient Accommodation Tax -- 18.6 percent of the project -generated transient accommodation tax will go to Hawaii County and 55.2 percent will go to the State of Hawaii. Hotel room guests and time-share unit users will have to pay a tax of 7.25 percent on their effective daily lodging rate. For hotel guests the Average Daily Rate being charged is the basis for the tax; for time-shares it is the estimated nightly market rate for a reset4 visitor unit of that type. ■ This tax collection will begin in Year 4 of the development as the occupancy of the subject inventory commences, and will move upwards from $1.7 million annually initially, to an estimated stabilized amount of $12.98 million per year. During the projection period, the total receipts produced by this tax is forecast at $122 million. In correlating the public costs with the tax benefits, the result is meaningfully positive in every year,for both the State and Hawaii County, with estimated total positive cash flows of $333.5 million for the State and $187.4 million for the County during the 18 year development/absorption period. 'The projected County net benefits on a stabilized annual basis are projected at $14.5 million. For the State, the stabilized benefit will be at $11.4 million per year. Page 4-39 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Assessment of Existing Human Environment 4.6.5 Workforce Housing Impacts O In response to DEIS comments, a study of possible workforce requirements and related secondary impacts was conducted by The Hallstrom Group: this study is presented in Appendix C-2. This study_ was based on a four -step study process that included 1) quantification of population and employment projections. 2) .analysis of West Hawaii employment demand and supply, 3) characterization of the subject workforce, and 4) quantification of subject workforce housing impacts. The population and job count on the Hawaii Island are forecast to increase by approximately 70 percent during the 24 year projection period that ends in 2030. On average, at least 60 percent of the population growth will be a result of net in -migration to the County. ' Although trends will be slowing relative to recent decades, a significant portion of the population and business expansion will be directed towards West Hawaij. In the next two decades, the population and job count in West Hawaii will increase by about 80 percent, reaching 128,200 residents and 87.400 employment positions by 2030. The available approved or entitled, proposed and announced new projects and their associated forecast job creation supply will not be sufficient to meet estimated employment demand over time. Further, with the approaching build -out of the major West Hawaii resorts and residential -orientation of the newer resort communities, few opportunities will exist for expansion in the historically -vital tourism economic sector. As discussed in Section 4.6.3.2, implementation of the Kona Kai Ola master plan will create a total of 3,842 on-site full time equivalent employment positions in the operating businesses of O the development. The project is estimated to be operational around 2012, following completion of infrastructure and Phase I construction, and will continue until the community reaches build- out and stabilization in 2026. Approximately 45 percent of the jobs will be entry level positions with an average annual wage of $20,000 in current dollars. Another 40 percent will be mid-level jobs with average yearly pay of $32.000, and. 15 percent will be management/high-skill positions with wages averaging 50 000. Approximately 2,147 of the jobs in the subject project will be filled by persons who have in - migrated to the Big Island. However, only a nominal portion would be specifically relocated to West Hawaii as a result of the development. The total net housing load created by Kona Kai Ola in -migrant workers will be 1.074 units. This in -migration will generate a need for a range of 625 to 859 affordable housing units, as follows: ■ As discussed in Section 4.5.2.2, under Hawaii Countv Ordinance Chapter 11. Section 4 Affordable Housing Requirements, hotel uses generating more than 100 employees on a full-time equivalent basis must earn one affordable housing credit for every four full-time equivalent jobs created. Application of the "1 to 4" ratio to all of the transient units proposed for Kona Kai Ola (hotel and time-sharel results in a workforce housing requirement of 625 units. Page 4-40 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Assessment of Existing Human Environment OAnother method of calculating the need for affordable worker housing units is to estimate that approximately 80 percent of the total in -migrant worker need housing that meet affordable housing pricing guidelines. This results in a high end range of 859 units. Based on affordable housing pricing guidelines, affordable housing units will have an estimated sales price of $216,000 to $292,000. As agreements between the State and JDI prohibit residential development at Kona Kai Ola workforce housing would need to be located off-site. Probable and desirable locations for workforce housings were based on availability, efficiencies and surveys conducted of area workers Possible locations in support of Kona Kai Ola included the mid -elevation lands of the Keahole to Kailua-Kona Corridor, between the Queen Ka ahumanu fronting commercial/industrial developments and Mamalahoa Highway: and in the Waikoloa Village expansion areas. The most suitable location for workforce housing units is the Villages at La`i`Opua communit a DHHL project, or within the Hawaii Housing Finance and Development Corporation affordable housing development planned for Keahuolu These are two State-owned undertakings directly across the highway in the same ahupua a . Locating workforce affordable housing units in these communities would substantially lessen the traffic impacts associated with a community subiect workforce. Alternativelv, the State lands adiacent to Waikoloa Village would be appropriate. O JDI will comply with all affordable housing requirements of applicable Hawaii County ordinances. 4.6.6 Market and Economic Impacts Associated with Alternative 1 Alternative 1, which has a reduced marina size of 25 acres, and fewer hotel and time-share units, would have a meaningful market standing, create significant economic opportunities, and provide a net benefit to State and County coffers. From a market perspective, a smaller Kona Kai Ola would still be the only mixed use community in the Keahole to Kailua-Kona Corridor offering competitive hotel and time-share product. The additional commercial sites in the near -highway lands will also be in demand as the area continues its evolution into the northerly gateway of the Kona urban center. The increased retail acreage will further capitalize on the available frontage -related opportunities by generating greater cumulative attraction for the development and enabling increased product diversity supporting a wider spectrum of businesses. Absorption of the visitor -oriented inventory would be proportionately_ shorter with fewer hotel and time-share sites and units to be marketed, and fewer marina slips to be filled. The absorption time -frame for the larger commercial component will be longer, while the amount of marina - support and other leasable acreage is the same as in the proposed project and will require a similar absorption period. Table 3 compares the primary marketable components of the proposed project and Alternative 1 and their estimated absorptions: Page 4-41 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Assessment of Existing Human Environment Owing to the maior increases in commercial space. State of Hawaii income taxes generated b the community on a stabilized basis will increase by 10 to 15 percent annually under Alternative 1 and gross excise taxes by 25 to 35 percent, while transient accommodations taxes fall by approximately 30 percent. Overall, annualized state receipts would increase from $47.9 million under the proposed project to about $60.5 million per year in the alternate design. Because the overall length of absorption is dictated by the time reauired to absorb the longest selling product -type, there is anticipated to be no significant change in the total project O timeframe: the proposed project will require approximately 15 years following infrastructure and Phase I completion, and Alternative 1 circa 14 years. In the proposed project, the 1,800 time-share units set the upper absorption length (15 years): while under Alternative 1 it is in the increased commercial space which will take the longest to absorb (14 years). There may be some minor time savings in the initial building stage (infrastructure and Phase Il, from three years under the proposed project to approximately 2.5 years under Alternative 1 due to the smaller marina basin. The total project build -out will decline from 18 years in the proposed project to about 16.5 years for the alternative. In Alternative 1, County of Hawaii real property tax assessments and collections will decrease by 10 to 20 percent, from $2.2 billion in assessments and $19.8 million in annual collections under the proposed project to $1.8 billion and $16.2 million, respectively. This is due to Alternative 1 having fewer hotel rooms and time-share units but larger commercial development. Regarding economic impacts, Alternative 1 will result in lesser new capital investment into West Hawaii in comparison to the proposed project, dropping from $2.26 billion to $1.78 billion over the infrastructure build -out period. Profits flowing to local contractors and suppliers would also decline by the same proportion (down 21.2 percent), Page 4-42 Component Proposed Project Alternative 1 Room Count 700 400 Hotel Estimated Absorption (years) 7 4 Unit Count 1.800 1 100 Time-share Estimated Absorption (years) 15 10 Slip Count 800 400 Marina Estimated Absorption (years) 2 2 Total Acreage 51 acres 143 acres Commercial Estimated Absorption (vears l 8 14 The public costs/benefits associated with Kona Kai Ola will change under Alternative 1 relative to the proposed project, with tax collections generally increasing and per capita costs decreasing. Owing to the maior increases in commercial space. State of Hawaii income taxes generated b the community on a stabilized basis will increase by 10 to 15 percent annually under Alternative 1 and gross excise taxes by 25 to 35 percent, while transient accommodations taxes fall by approximately 30 percent. Overall, annualized state receipts would increase from $47.9 million under the proposed project to about $60.5 million per year in the alternate design. Because the overall length of absorption is dictated by the time reauired to absorb the longest selling product -type, there is anticipated to be no significant change in the total project O timeframe: the proposed project will require approximately 15 years following infrastructure and Phase I completion, and Alternative 1 circa 14 years. In the proposed project, the 1,800 time-share units set the upper absorption length (15 years): while under Alternative 1 it is in the increased commercial space which will take the longest to absorb (14 years). There may be some minor time savings in the initial building stage (infrastructure and Phase Il, from three years under the proposed project to approximately 2.5 years under Alternative 1 due to the smaller marina basin. The total project build -out will decline from 18 years in the proposed project to about 16.5 years for the alternative. In Alternative 1, County of Hawaii real property tax assessments and collections will decrease by 10 to 20 percent, from $2.2 billion in assessments and $19.8 million in annual collections under the proposed project to $1.8 billion and $16.2 million, respectively. This is due to Alternative 1 having fewer hotel rooms and time-share units but larger commercial development. Regarding economic impacts, Alternative 1 will result in lesser new capital investment into West Hawaii in comparison to the proposed project, dropping from $2.26 billion to $1.78 billion over the infrastructure build -out period. Profits flowing to local contractors and suppliers would also decline by the same proportion (down 21.2 percent), Page 4-42 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Assessment of Existing Human Environment Employment in the construction industries would decrease from 8,730 "worker years" during development in the proposed project to about 6,975 worker years in Alternative 1. Stabilized operational job counts would remain about the same in the marina industrial and minor community components under both plans, but hotel employment would fall from 910 full-time equivalent positions to about 525, time-share jobs from 1,260 to 770 and marina demands by about 10 positions. Employment in the commercial components will nearly double from a stabilized level of 1,429 full-time equivalent (FTE) positions in the proposed_project to 2,740 in the alternative. Overall, the stabilized emplovment count at Kona Kai Ola would move slightly upward from the 3,842 FTE on-site and 1,267 off-site positions under the proposed project to some 4,267 on-site and 1,408 off-site permanent jobs under Alternative 1, which represents a gain of approximately 11 percent. Gross employee wages would be slightly lower during the build -out phase in Alternative 1 as there will be fewer construction jobs, but increase from some $151.3 million per vear on a stabilized basis after build -out in the proposed vroiect to about $167.9 million annually under the alternative. The effective de facto population of on-site guests at build -out will decline by 37 percent under the Alternative 1 from an average of 5,321 persons daily to 3,363 persons. Their annual expenditures into the local economy_w_ ill similarly decrease from $311.2 million annually to $196.1 million. Under Alternative 1, the total operating economic activity at Kona Kai Ola will increase due to O the added commercial space more than off -setting the fewer visitor units, moving upward from $557.6 million per year to circa $814.3 million annually. The total base economic impact resulting from development and operation will similarly increase by between 35 and 45 percent from the proposed project. Due to the lower de facto population at build -out the effective stabilized public costs for both the State and County will decline meaningfully under the Alternative 1, dropping from $7.7 million annually for the County and $36.5 million for the State, to $4.9 million and $23 million per year, respectively. The State and Countv will still both receive a net benefit (tax receipts relative to public expenditures) annually on a stabilized basis under the Alternative 1. The County net benefits will be some $12.2 million per year under the Alternative 1 versus $14.9 million under the proposed project. The State net benefits will increase under the Alternative 1 to about $37.5 million annually, up substantially from the $11.4 million in the proposed project. 4.7 Vehicular Traffic A traffic impact analysis study has been prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff, Inc. and is contained in Appendix P9. The purpose of this study was to determine the ability of an enhanced roadway network to accommodate the proposed Kona Kai Ola development, along with other projected development in the area. 4.7.1 Existing Roadway Network Page 4-43 Kealakehe, North Kona District Island of Hawaii Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Assessment of Existing Human Environment Primary components of the existing roadway network are as follows: O ■ Queen Ka `ahumanu Highway: Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway is a two-lane, undivided major roadway that provides north -south mobility along the Kona coast. Running parallel to the coastline between Kawaihae and Kailua-Kona, Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway connects to the Kona International Airport, resort areas, and industrial developments along the coast. South of Makala Boulevard, emphasis of the highway changes slightly to. allow for more access to the town, sacrificing mobility. In the vicinity of Honokohau Harbor and Kealakehe Parkway, Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway provides single through lanes with striped medians and protected left turns. While left turns from Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway are protected, major street left turns at certain intersections are also permitted during the through phase. There are no bicycle lanes on the highway; however, there is sufficient room in the shoulders to accommodate cyclists. ■ Kealakehe Parkway: Kealakehe Parkway is a two-lane, undivided neighborhood roadway which provides access from Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway to the mauka portions of the Kealakehe community including the Villages of La`i `Opua. The roadway runs mauka- makai, from Keanalehu Drive, crossing Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway, and then terminating at the Honokohau Harbor. The makai extension of Kealakehe Parkway will be the primary roadway within the project, connecting to smaller, local roadways. Kuakini Highway: Similar to Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway, the Kuakini Highway is also a two-lane, undivided major roadway. Kuakini Highway runs parallel to Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway, eventually merging in south Kailua-Kona town. The highway originates at Makala Boulevard, travels south through Kailua-Kona, merges with Queen O Ka`ahumanu Highway and terminates at Mamalahoa Highway in the Honalo area. Makala Boulevard: Makala Boulevard is a short, mauka-makai roadway which provides access to the Makalapua Shopping Center on the mauka side of Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway, as well as the industrial area and old Kona Airport runway on the makai side. The roadway also connects Kuakini Highway and Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway. 4.7.2 Current Traffic Issues Currently, Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway experiences significant congestion in the development area during the day. The State of Hawai `i Department of Transportation (HDOT) is currently widening Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway from two to four lanes between Kealakehe Parkway and Henry Street in Kailua-Kona. The second phase of this widening project will widen Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway between Kealakehe Parkway and the Kona International Airport access road. This widening project is key to addressing the existing congestion on Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway and to providing capacity for future growth in the Kona region. Part of the reason for the existing congestion on Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway is the lack of parallel roadways that could provide paths for north/south circulation within the Keahole - Kailua-Kona region. As a result, the existing Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway must serve regional, sub -regional, and local traffic. Related to the need for parallel north -south roadways is the need for mauka-makai roadways. These mauka-makai roadways would provide the ability for traffic to circulate between the regional, sub -regional, and local north -south roadways, allowing better use of the north -south roadways. O Page 4-44 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Assessment of Existing Human Environment O4.7.3 Existing Transit Currently, the i1sland of Hawaii is serviced by the Hele-On bus system. The area north of Kailua-Kona is served by four routes, including Kona - Hilo, North Kohala - Kailua-Kona, Intra Kona and Ocean View/Kailua-Kona. Both the Kona -Hilo route and the North Kohala-Kailua-Kona route occur once a day per direction per route. Both routes use Mamalahoa Highway/Palani Road north of Kailua-Kona. The Intra -Kona route runs five buses in each direction throughout the day starting in the early morning and ending in the evening. The Ocean View-Kailua-Kona route connects the Ocean View community with the Kona International Airport, making the trip once a day per direction. This route remains on Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway throughout its route, passing by the Honok6hau Harbor twice a day. 4.7.4 Existing Traffic Conditions The study area intersections were analyzed using accepted methods for signalized intersections in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). Operating conditions at an intersection are expressed as Level of Service (LOS) A through F, with LOS A representing free-flow conditions and LOS F representing over -capacity conditions. ■ A — Little or No Delay ■ B — Short Traffic Delays OC — Average Traffic Delays ■ D — Long Traffic Delays ■ E — Very Long Traffic Delays ■ F — Demand volume exceeds capacity, resulting in extreme delays with queuing that may cause severe congestion and affect other movements at the intersection. 4.7.4.1 Kealakehe Parkway and Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway Due to the sheer volume of traffic on Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway, the intersection with Kealakehe Parkway operates at a 220 -second cycle during morning and evening peak periods. This is a logical way to process as much through -traffic on Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway as possible. However, as a result, minor street approaches suffer because vehicles back up and wait through the long cycle length. Data collected on April 20, 2006, showed that the AM peak was found to be 7:45 AM to 8:45 AM, which coincides with the AM school peak. The PM peak hour was found to be 2:00 PM to 3:00 PM; but from about 1:30 PM to 4:30 PM, the wait in the southbound direction was persistent. Both the mauka-bound and makai-bound Kealakehe left/through approaches were found to operate at AM and PM peak periods at LOS F. Overall, the Kealakehe intersection, including all movements, operates with an intersection LOS of C. Page 4-45 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Assessment of Existing Human Environment 4.7.4.2 Makala Boulevard and Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway O As with the Kealakehe intersection, mauka and makai-bound Makala left movements result in significant traffic delays. The mauka-bound Makala left turn operates at LOS E during the AM peak while the makai-bound left operates at LOS D during the AM and PM peak. Overall the Makala intersection, including all movements, operates with an intersection LOS of C to D. 4.7.5 Projections for Analysis The year 2020 was used as a base year for future development both with and without the Kona Kai Ola project. This base year was chosen to coincide with the horizon year of the current Island of Hawai `i Long Range Land Transportation Plan. Many of these improvements have been identified in the General Plan Interim Amendments: Planning Director's Proposed Changes to General Plan Document. Extension of Kealakehe Parkway makai of Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway connecting to Kuakini Highway Construction of Keohokalole Highway mauka and parallel to Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway Construction of the Kealakehe Parkway extension east to Mamalahoa Highway. For transit, the plan describes improving frequency of service with existing bus routes. 4.7.6 Proposed Year 2020 without Kona Kai Ola Project O Based on a 2.5 percent annual growth factor, analysis shows that there will be some traffic relief on Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway with the projects assumed to be implemented. Overall, without the Kona Kai Ola project in year 2020, Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway's LOS is estimated to be about the same as current levels at the Kealakehe intersection and a better LOS at the Makala intersection due to additional roadway improvements and extensions. Minor streets are also projected to operate at satisfactory levels. The construction of the Kealakehe Parkway through the Kona Kai Ola project site and connecting with Kuakini Highway is anticipated to be completed by the Year 2020. 4.7.7 Anticipated Project Impacts and Proposed Mitigation With the Kona Kai Ola project assumed to be completed in 2020 and with the proposed implementation of roadways discussed earlier, future traffic volumes have been estimated with the anticipation of added trips from the development. The various components included in Kona Kai Ola will affect traffic levels. Page 4-46 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Assessment of Existing Human Environment OWith the project in place, it is estimated that about 1,500 trips will be generated during the AM peak period and about 3,400 trips will be generated during the PM peak period. With the project, traffic volume is estimated to be higher at all of the major intersections compared to traffic without the project. However the timing of the construction of road improvements will be changed with approval of the Kona Kai Ola project. With development of Kona Kai Ola, the Kuakini Highway eExtension road is anticipated to be built within the first two years (Phase 1). This is anticipated to be a more accelerated schedule than would occur without the Kona Kai Ola project. . Overall, the Kona Kai Ola project will impact the nearby road network. Estimated LOS appears to be the same or worse than at levels without the project. There are also increased delays anticipated at all intersections during the AM and PM peak periods compared to delays expected without the project. Overall, the Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway corridor is expected to operate at an acceptable LOS during both the AM and PM peak periods with the Kona Kai Ola project in place. This is assumed that the proposed roadway improvements will be implemented to accommodate the additional volume. Though many of the proposed improvements have not begun, they will be necessary to handle the increased traffic flow as the Kona Kai Ola and La`i `Opua developments begin. JDI is therefore required by DHHL to complete a range of roadway improvements in the area. With the improvements in place, intersections and roadways within the study area are projected O to operate at an acceptable level. Though many of the turns into and out of the development and nearby communities are rated at LOS C or below, the Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway widening, Keohokalole Highway construction, and Kealakehe extension will help the roadway system operate at an acceptable level. Based on the intersection operations, the following mitigation measures are o,.^, meflde proposed to be implemented in conjunction with the proposed Kona Kai Ola development: ■ Signalize the Makala Boulevard/Kuakini Highway. ■ At the Kealakehe Parkway/Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway intersection, reconfigure the intersection to double left turn lanes, double through lanes turn, and an exclusive right turn lane at all approaches. ■ At the Police Station Access Road/Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway intersection, reconfigure the mauka-bound approach to exclusive left through turn, and right turn lanes. ■ Strongly promote the use of public transit for hotel/time-share employees. Consider the possibility of employees using an off-site parking lot and bussing in. ■ To connect Kona Kai Ola with the neighboring communities, Kona International Airport, and Kailua-Kona Village, the project proposes to sponsor a regularly scheduled shuttle service, so that people could utilize Kona Kai Ola without having to use a car for access. ■ Construct and realign Kealakehe Parkway makai of Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway and through the lands of Queen Lili`uokalani Trust connecting with Kuakini Highway in Kailua-Kona in the first phase of the project. OImprove the Kealakehe Parkway / Queen Ka`ahumanu intersection in its current location. Page 4-47 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Assessment of Existing Human Environment Alternative 1 includes the same roadway system improvements as the proposed project, vet O would generate less vehicular traffic than the proposed project. Alternative 1 would decrease the number of trips generated in the AM peak period 35 percent, from 1,511 trips in the proaosed plan to 977 trips, and would decrease the PM peak period by 40 percent, from 3,277 trips in the proposed plan to 1.972 trips. 4.8 Marina Traffic Study A boat traffic study was completed as part of the Moffatt & Nichol design of the marina expansion and is contained in Appendix Q_ -1B. 4.8.1 Existing Conditions Honok6hau Harbor's initial construction commenced in 1969 and included the ocean entrance access channel and outer berthing basin. The inner basin was added in 1976. The entire marina basin was excavated from lava rock. The marina is operated by DLNR under its Division of Boating and Ocean Recreation. Basic features include: ■ Honok6hau Harbor has existing 272 wet slips, including 120 slips supporting commercial operations such as sport fishing. ■ Navigation access to the ocean is via an approximately 120 -foot wide entrance channel. ■ The harbor slips are at full occupancy. ■ The harbor also has two 2 -lane launch ramps with auto parking and trailer parking O spaces. ■ The outer basin has a fuel dock. ■ The primary use of the marina is for recreational boating and related activities including sailing, sport fishing, snorkeling and SCUBA diving, and paddling. ■ The proposed project will add marina slips that will access the ocean via the existing marina entrance channel. The boat traffic study evaluated the impacts of adding a new marina basin with up to 800 boat slips on navigation of recreational boat traffic within the Honok6hau Harbor and the entrance channel. The general approach for the analysis involved quantifying existing boat conditions, conducting interviews with key harbor users and administrative personnel, a review of small craft harbor design guidelines and the quantification of impacts through the use of a boat traffic simulation model. For the Kona Kai Ola project, the boat traffic simulation model called SAMBT (Simulation and Animation Model of Boat Traffic) was used. This model was specifically developed to analyze recreational boat traffic in small craft harbors. Page 4-48 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Assessment of Existing Human Environment OThe existing marina has access to the ocean via a 120 -foot wide entrance channel. As part of this boat study traffic survey, boat traffic counts through the channel were taken on "typical" and holiday weekdays and weekends between the end of May and July 2006. Currently the marina entrance exhibits relatively mild traffic conditions (LOS C or milder). During peak sport fishing activity, the entrance channel traffic spikes at LOS E during the peak afternoon return period. The traffic flow just barely reaches LOS E at 64 percent of channel carrying capacity. Given the fact that this peak traffic flow can be a common occurrence during tournaments and the sport fishing fleet is generally respectful, this traffic condition is considered tolerable and does not pose a serious congestion issue as could be expected for LOS E traffic conditions. (The LOS — Levels of Service definitions are consistent with those used in Section 4.7.). An important issue related to the entrance channel is the impact of queuing on traffic congestion and boater safety. Boater interviews indicated that there was no real cause for concern for boats queuing offshore to return to the harbor, since there is plenty of maneuvering area and boaters will be willing to wait their turn. The area of concern was queuing to leave the harbor within the outer marina basin. This area is already congested due to the fuel dock and transient dock area. Interview Findings Boat traffic congestion is a subjective topic. The degree of congestion and its impact on the harbor depends on the vessel operator skill and tolerance, vessel type, frequency of congested conditions and impacts of the vessel operator's use of the waterway. Interviews with both harbor administrators and long time users provide critical information regarding workings of the harbor O including traffic patterns, coordination of multiple uses, and any existing problems related to boat traffic congestion. They also provide valuable insight regarding planning for the future marina expansion. Various individuals and stakeholders were interviewed regarding existing harbor conditions. The general consensus is that the harbor entrance does not become too congested. The channel is highly utilized during peak sport fishing activities, but operates in an orderly fashion. Boats generally transit the entrance channel in two "lanes;" one for outbound and one for inbound traffic. There is insufficient width for two boats to travel abreast if there is opposing vessel traffic in the vicinity. The amount of trailer boat activity is limited by available parking; tournaments can have up to 150 trailer boats. Significant congestion can occur in the vicinity of the fuel dock resulting from vessel queuing to use the fuel dock or load/unload passengers at the adjacent transient docks. These problems are exacerbated during wave surge conditions in the outer basin. 4.8.2 Anticipated Impacts and Proposed Mitigation The new marina will result in an increase in boat traffic and related marine activities, including fishing, scuba diving, dolphin and manta ray watching, snorkeling, dinner cruises and similar uses. Honokohau Bay is currently the most heavily used area along the Kona coast for diving and water -related activities, due to the presence of Honokohau Harbor, the largest and most heavily used recreational and commercial harbor along the Kona coast. Page 4-49 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Assessment of Existing Human Environment Adding 800 slips in the new marina may cause entrance channel congestion during varying O combinations of existing and new marina peak traffic flow. Worst case conditions of active sport fishing weekend and summer holiday recreational traffic result in traffic volumes exceeding capacity over a short afternoon period. Following are a comparison of existing LOS conditions and 800 -slip anticipated LOS conditions. ■ Existing Only — Average Existing Conditions - LOS C ■ Existing Only — Peak Existing Conditions - LOS E ■ With 800 Slip Project, Average Existing Conditions - LOS E ■ With 800 Slip Project, Peak Existing Conditions - LOS E ■ With 800 Slip Project, (Holiday) Average Existing - LOS E ■ With 800 Slip Project, (Holiday) Peak Existing - LOS F Concerns have been raised regarding the ability of the existing marina entrance to accommodate 800 additional slips. To address the sensitivity of boat traffic to size of the marina expansion, analyses were also conducted for an alternate reduced -size 600 slip marina expansion. The possible reduction of the marina from 800 to 600 slips results in a reduced traffic flow of 6 percent -I Ipercent for average and peak conditions. As seen below, the 600 slip marina slightly avoids the LOS F condition under peak holiday conditions. ■ With 600 Slip Project, Average Existing Conditions - LOS D ■ With 600 Slip Project, Peak Existing Conditions - LOS E O ■ With 600 Slip Project, (Holiday) Average Existing - LOS E ■ With 600 Slip Project, (Holiday) Peak Existing - LOS E In response to DEIS comments. the sensitivitv of boat traffic to size of marina expansion was analyzed for Alternative 1. which features a 400 -slip marina. The reduction of the marina from 800 to 400 slips results in a 21 percent reduction in boat traffic congestion under average existing conditions and ten percent during peak existing conditions. The LOS improves from E to D during average existing traffic condition, although remains at E during peak conditions Presently, the Honokohau Harbor entrance channel has no major traffic congestion problems. The entrance channel can exhibit short periods of high traffic volume during active sport fishing tournament season. The length of the constricted entrance channel is relatively short, thereby reducing congestion impacts. However, the outer berthing basin does become congested resulting from fuel dock and transient dock activities. The development of the new 800 slip private marina would cause a significant increase of boater activity in the harbor entrance and possible severe congestion during peak use periods. Mitigation measures could include traffic control, such as staggering of sport fish tournament traffic, implementation of a permanent manned traffic control tower or harbor patrol, or limiting vessel size. Page 4-50 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Assessment of Existing Human Environment OOther possible mitigation measures include widening the entrance channel or reducing the number of slips to 600. Widening the entrance channel by approximately 50 feet could reduce projected traffic congestion in half. However, the permitting, length of time, and high cost of widening the entrance channel, have made this option not viable. ^ --,:--'!a! downside to this Reducing the added recreational slip count to 600 may result in an average traffic flow reduction of 6 percent to 11 percent, and avoids the capacity exceedence during peak usage conditions. Regarding reduction of boat slips, the development agreement with DLNR presently requires that JDI develop and construct a new marina basin containing not less than 800 new boat slips. In response to vessel traffic analysis and DEIS comments, a 400 -slip marina design is presented in Alternative 1. This reduction to 400 slips also reduces the problems of congestion at the entrance channel, thereby reducing the need for any modifications to the entrance channel. There was a general consensus among those interviewed that the sport fish charter fleet should not expand due to limited demand and existing significant competition. The allowance of up to 50 percent of the slips in the existing harbor to support commercial operations was cited as partial cause for the excess supply. There was also broad consensus that a harbormaster building for effective observations on entrance channel activities would be a critical element of the proposed marina expansion. Further it was asked that critical consideration be given to a boat evacuation plan in the event of a tsunami. Regarding moorings, day mooring buoys are currently installed for the State of Hawaii DLNR O Division of Boating and Ocean Recreation through ift-a cooperative arrangement with the dive charter industry, the Malama Kai Foundation, and the State of Hawaii. In the coastal reach from Keahole Point to Keahuolu day mooring buoys are near capacity for the dive operators currently operating out of Honokohau Harbor. During times when heavy surf closes out sections of the coastline, boats from Keauhou Bay will add to the demand, often resulting in either an aborted dive trip or boats anchoring rather than utilizing the day mooring. Increased levels of diving activities as the result of the new marina will overload the existing moorings. To minimize the impacts of increased entrance channel traffic, it is reeem- endedproposed that an educational program and appropriate signage concerning boating to educate new and existing boater on rules -of -the -road and entrance channel protocol be developed. This information will include safe navigation during high wave conditions, use of proper judgment when scheduled to leave the harbor during high wave conditions, and proper seamanship if caught offshore during high wave conditions. Further, effective signage is to be installed cautioning boaters to be aware of both traffic and ocean conditions before leaving the harbor. Additionally, some form of traffic control including staggering of sport fishing tournament traffic, implementation of a permanent manned traffic control tower or harbor patrol, and limiting vessel size should be implemented in the event that excessive traffic congestion becomes an issue. Consideration should be given by DLNR to extend the "Slow No -Wake" zone out to the first green buoy as vessels enter and leave the harbor's entrance channel. Further, the installation of fifteen additional day -use mooring buoys at sites selected by appropriate regulatory agencies for Ovessels to use would help prevent anchor damage to coral reefs. Page 4-51 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Assessment of Existing Human Environment 4.9 Trails, Bike Paths and Pedestrian Access O Public access to and through the project site must be maintained from a cultural, recreational and Conservation District perspective. In keeping with the sustainable theme of the development and to ensure and enhance public access to the site, Kona Kai Ola proposes to create a network of trails and pedestrian access points both mauka-makai and laterally along the shore. Bike paths will be included as part of the transportation network. The layout for the entire development at Kona Kai Ola will be designed at a density and scale which encourages walking, biking and transit usage. Where appropriate, public trails will connect culturally and historically significant features on the project site by improving public access via trails. Per discussions with both Na Ala Hele Trails and Access Program and the Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands, a trail network will be established to and within the 400 -foot setback area along the shoreline. Also known as King's Highway or the Mamalahoa Trail, the King's Trail is a rugged lava road built between 1836 and 1855 and extended around most of the island. There is a one -mile section of the trail inside the Kaloko-Honok6hau National Historical Park. No evidence of this specific trail on the Kona Kai Ola project site was disclosed in the archaeological or cultural studies. Kona Kai Ola will support the development of the Ala Kahakai National Historic Trail (NHT which was established in 2000 for the preservation, protection and interpretation of traditional Native Hawaiian culture and natural resources. The Ala Kahakai NHT is a 175 -mile corridor that extends along the shoreline from Kohala to Puna. Mission coals include ■ to provide opportunities to restore, interpret and perpetuate the culture of native O Hawaiian: ■ to commemorate historic events that occurred along the trail corridor: ■ to enhance and preserve the numerous archaeological sites and other cultural resources associated with the trail• ■ to contribute to the sustainability of natural resources accessed by the trail: ■ to enable public access to the trail through agreements and certification of trail sections within the designated corridor; The project site is located in the South Kohala / North Kona Management Zone (Ala Kahakai National Historic Trail Planning Team. 2004). Anticipated Impacts andPro o�Mitigation Both the cultural studies and archaeological assessments for this project describe various historic trail sections throughout the site. Most of the remnant trails are partial segments of a possible historic network, but there are no substantial segments intact. These trails will be preserved and enhanced as tThe project will seek to improve public access, preserve and where appropriate, enhance cultural and historical features in the area and emphasize non -vehicle transportation around the project area. Page 4-52 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Assessment of Existing Human Environment OKona Kai Ola will be designed as a pedestrian friendly mixed-use commercial village that will have a bike path, trail system and sidewalk system to encourage walking and cycling. Toro support the Ala Kahakai NHT system. Tthe project will connect pedestrian trails that connect to the project site from neighboring lands as a way to help create a trail system that could be part of the Ala rr„ t,aka National Hist ,. Tr -ail -system, as well as to implement a bike path, trail system and sidewalk system to encourage these activities. 4.10 Public Services and Infrastructure Facilities 4.10.1 Police Protection Services The project site is in Beat 633 of the Hawaii County Police Department. This beat is covered by the Kealakehe Police Substation, which is located on Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway, adjacent to the project site. Twenty-four hour police protection is provided to both North and South Kona with approximately 50 police officers. Anticipated Impacts and Proposed Mitigations The proposed project will impact police protection services due to increased activity and people at the project site. The project will include venues for recreation and gathering, lodging, shopping and other features that imply community gathering and interaction. These impacts are not significant, however. O Mitigation measures to address such impacts are in two categories. On-site security measures, including security personnel and programs, can help to deter crime. The design of public spaces can also help to deter crime by avoiding isolated areas, using effective lighting and enhancing visibility. 4.10.2 Fire Protection Services The project site is served by the Kailua-Kona Fire Station, which is located approximately three miles south of the project site, at the intersection of Palani Road and Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway. The station has a single pumper fire truck, life-saving boat, and an ambulance. A staff of 18 firefighters and emergency personnel provides 24-hour service. Response time to the project site is five minutes. Anticipated Impacts and Proposed Mitigation The proposed project will impact fire protection services due to the increase of urban uses and on-site population. Mitigation measures to lessen impacts on fire protection services can be achieved through conformance with public regulations related to structures and water fireflow requirements. Specifically, the project will comply with all requirements set forth in the Uniform Fire Code Section 10.207 that refers to fire apparatus access roads, and Section 10.301 (c) that pertains to providing water supply capable of supplying required fire flow. Page 4-53 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Assessment of Existing Human Environment 4.10.3 Medical Services O The project site is served by the State -operated Kona Community Hospital, which is located approximately 14 miles south of the project site in Kealakekua. Kona Community Hospital is a 94 -bed full service hospital located in Kealakekua, and is the primary health care facility serving West Hawaii. The facility includes 33 Medical Surgical acute care beds; 34 Skilled Nursing/Long-Term Care beds; seven Obstetrics beds; eleven behavioral health unit beds; and, a nine intensive care unit beds. Patient services include: (HHSC, April 2006) ■ 24-hour Emergency Room ■ Inpatient & Outpatient Surgery ■ Long -Term Care / Skilled Nursing ■ Acute Inpatient Care (Obstetrics/Gynecology, Medical/Surgical, Intensive Care, Behavioral Health, Skilled Nursing/Long-Term Care) ■ Outpatient Nursing Services (Chemotherapy) ■ Rehabilitation Services (PT, OT, Respiratory Therapy, Speech Therapy) ■ Pharmacy ■ Laboratory and Pathology Services ■ Imaging Center (MRI, 16 -slice CT Scan, Ultrasound, Echocardiogram, Nuclear Medicine) O ■ Cardiology ■ Radiation Therapy (April 2005) ■ Physician Specialties (General Surgery, Internal Medicine, Cardiology, Medical Oncology, Radiation Oncology, Pediatrics, OB/GYN, Urology, ENT, Ophthalmology, Plastic Surgery) In 2005, utilization at Kona Community Hospital is summarized as follows: ■ 4,069 admissions: ■ 447 births ■ 1,029 inpatient Surgeries ■ 1,522 outpatient Surgeries ■ 16,015 emergency visits The hospital was constructed in 1975, and has undergone numerous renovations. A new Intensive Care Unit and expanded operating room area was added in 1990. In 1998-99, the obstetric unit was remodeled, emergency department renovated, and supply and admissions areas expanded. Limited emergency care services are also available at the privately owned and operated Hualalai Urgent Care facility in Kailua-Kona, approximately 4 miles south of the project site. O Page 4-54 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Assessment of Existing Human Environment OState officials recently announced that land was being set aside in Kealakehe mauka of the project site for a Kona Medical Center. Anticipated Impacts and Proposed Mitigations Kona Kai Ola may impact medical facilities because of the increase in de facto population due to additional visitors, and a likely increase of resident population due to employment-related in - migration. Although residential use is not a permitted use on the leased lands, JDI is planning to construct worker housing on a nearby site that will be leased at below market rents. The extent of in -migration due to employment is undetermined at this time. The anticipated population growth for the region has stimulated plans for the development of future medical facilities. Potential impacts on existing medical facilities will be mitigated by the addition of new facilities. In the Villages of La`i `Opua located immediately mauka of Kona Kai Ola, a site is designated for Hospital use, and allocations have been made utility needs. 4.10.4 Public Educational Facilities The Kealakehe Intermediate School located in Kailua-Kona educates students in grades six through eight and had a fall enrollment of 1,052 during the 2004-2005 school year. Kealakehe High School is located near to the intermediate school, and serves grades 9 through 12. The high school's fall enrollment during the 2004-2005 school year was 1,450. Anticipated Impacts and Proposed Mitigations OSince there are no permanent residences permitted at the site, there will be no direct impact on area schools. Although residential use is not a permitted use on the leased lands, JDI is planning to construct worker housing on a nearby site that will be leased at below market rents. A separate analysis of impacts on public education facilities will need to be done for the workforce housing that is to be part of this project, and built off-site and potentially mauka of the project site. No mitigations are ,-ee r. endea proposed at this time. 4.10.5 Drainage and Storm Water Facilities The development of Kona Kai Ola may increase drainage flows, quantities, velocities, erosion and sediment run-off. This DEWTEIS takes into consideration storm runoff generated from the proposed streets. Each individual development parcel will address its own storm runoff as required. The storm drainage facilities designed for the site will take advantage of the porosity of the existing rocky landscape and the minimal slope, through the use of grading and dry wells, per County requirements. Storm run-off that discharges into the drywell system will tend to migrate towards the manmade lagoons. The lagoons will therefore be lined to prevent influence of such storm runoff. The Hawaii County Public Works Department generally requires that on-site storm drainage facilities be sized to exceed pre -development drainage quantities, and be designed to result in quantities of storm water leaving the site, not exceeding those quantities entering the site. Page 4-55 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Assessment of Existing Human Environment Unlike the DLNR property, roadways within the DHHL property cannot be dedicated to the O County of Hawaii in fee. To obtain a license agreement for maintenance with the County, the entire storm water system will be designed to conform to the Hawaii County Public Works Storm Drainage Standards. Anticipated Impacts andProposed Mitigation The proposed project will increase the proportion of impervious surfaces on the subject property through paving and reconfigure the topography, thereby adding to total runoff. This will necessitate the development of an appropriate drainage system to handle the increased and altered drainage patterns. Roadways in the new developed configuration will be dedicated to the County of Hawaii, so the storm drainage system will be required to conform to the Department of Public Works Storm Drainage Standards. Due to the rocky and porous nature of the soils, the County allows the use of drywells. Drywells typically vary in depth from 10 to 30 feet depending upon the permeability of the underlying soil or rock. Drywells will typically consist of a catch basin type design, with an opening at the curb and gutter. The depth of the catch basin structure will vary depending upon the depth of the rock. During the design of the drywell system, the percolation rates at proposed drywell locations will be determined. Proposed mitigation measures are as follows: ■ The proposed development is located makai of the Underground Injection Well (UIC) line. Since drywells are considered injection wells, the developer is required to secure a O UIC Well Permit, from the Department of Health (DOH), Safe Drinking Water Branch. ■ Groundwater migration in the area is a concern especially with the construction of natural lagoons within the proposed development. Therefore, the recommendations from a hydrogeologist should be sought to assist with the design of the drywell system. ■ All construction activities will comply with the County's grading permit requirements and the State's fugitive dust regulations. ■ A National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit will be obtained before construction begins and the project will comply with all NPDES permit requirements including implementation and monitoring of all DOH -approved Best Management Practices. Bioretention is a Best Management Practice (BMP) that would be a highly appropriate application for the proposed development. Further. BMPs utilized in series may incorporate several storm water treatment mechanisms in a sequence to enhance the treatment of runoff. By combining structural and/or nonstructural treatment methods in series rather than singularly, raises the level and reliability of pollutant removal. Another means to reduce the potential for groundwater contamination is to increase soil depth above the standard in landscaped areas. This will allow chemicals to be held in the soils longer for more complete plant uptake and breakdown of these chemicals by soil microbes. A specific guide for chemical application by landscape maintenance personnel will be a beneficial tool to help avoid contamination of roundwater resources. Page 4-56 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Assessment of Existing Human Environment OSpecific design plans will be determined during the permitting process when final designs are developed. It is the intent of JDI to stipulate low impact development techniques as Dart of the general design guidelines. The Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be very site specific and must be incorporated with the building and landscape design. BMPs will be incorporated to minimize runoff volume and peak flow, minimize the quantity of pollutants in runoff or flows to groundwater, and maximize re -use of storm water for natural irrigation. Specific BMPs will be reviewed as part of the application for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit which will be required prior to the County's issuance of a grading permit. Alternative 1 would result in the lowering of the density that would reduce storm runoff from the various land uses due to a reduction in impervious surfaces and the creation of more open space. However, roadway areas have increased by about 30 percent. Storm runoff from proposed streets would therefore increase, thus requiring additional drainage facilities and possibly resulting in no net savings. 4.10.6 Wastewater Facilities A North Kona Sewer Master Plan is being developed for the County of Hawai `i Department of Environmental Management (DEM) to address future sewer improvements necessary to serve projected development in the North Kona region of the Island of Hawaii. This sewer master plan would then be used to develop an Implementation Study to support the establishment of an "Improvement District" for North Kona by the County Council (NKSMP 2006). Kona Kai Ola is being designed to be consistent with the North Kona Sewer Master Plan and will participate in Oany subsequent improvement district. The proposed development is located within the service area of the Kealakehe WWTP. The Kealakehe WWTP is a County owned and operated wastewater treatment plant which has been in operation since March 1993. The WWTP currently receives about 1.8 million gallons of wastewater per day and treats it to R-2 reuse level. The Kealakehe WWTP has a design capacity of 5.3 million gallons per day (mgd) when operating all five of its lagoons. This capacity is considered the 20 -year design which was initiated in year 2000. A sixth lagoon was included in the original design but was never constructed. The space for the sixth lagoon remains vacant and undeveloped. Activating the sixth lagoon increases plant capacity to 7.8 mgd. (CP&E 2006) Wastewater is delivered to the WWTP through an existing 30 -inch gravity sewer and 24 -inch force main. The 30 -inch sewer delivers wastewater from the mauka properties across Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway, while the 24 -inch force main transports wastewater from the Kailua- Kona area. Wastewater is discharged into aerated lagoons. The effluent pump station receives the treated wastewater from the lagoons, treats it with chlorine, and pumps it into a temporary sump located across Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway for overland disposal. Page 4-57 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Assessment of Existing Human Environment Anticipated Impacts and Proposed Mitigation O The project design peak flow is estimated at a total of 5.7 mad. Given the current flow of 1.8 mgd to Kealakehe WWTP, the total flow to the plant woud reach 7.5 mgd. Currently, the Kealakehe WWTP has a design capacity of 5.3 mgd, and capacity would increase to 7.8 mgd with the activation of a sixth lagoon that remains vacant and undeveloped Accommodation of the proposed project would require activation of the sixth lagoon. The sewer system will be comprised of a network of gravity sewers, force mains and pumping stations which collect and convey wastewater to the existing Kealakehe WWTP. Gravity sewer lines are oversized to provide 15 percent excess capacity at the given slope. With the exception of one sewer line, the gravity lines will all discharge into one of the four pump stations. Over 95 percent of the wastewater generated onsite will be handled by the major pumping stations. The pumps selected for these facilities will -be designed to meet peak flow requirements based on the current development proposed at the site. All pump stations will be equipped with a standby pump that will be equal to the largest pumping unit. The following are o^^.-.,niende proposed to mitigate project impacts: The usage of recycled/RI water would decrease the demand on the domestic water resources and provide an alternate source of irrigation water for many developers. The demand for recycled water was expressed by numerous stakeholders in the project area including the developers of Kona Kai Ola, as part of the research for the North Kona Sewer Master Plan (Forum 2002). It is r-eeemmendea proposed that the infrastructure for the use of recycled RI water, be incorporated into the sewerage plan. O The project will need to work with Hawaii County to upgrade the Kealakehe Waste Wwater Treatment Plant so that it operates efficiently and that it treats the effluent sufficiently to produce R-1 reclaimed water suitable for re -use. It is anticipated that the Kona Kai Ola project non -potable water facilities, including any R1 irrigation facilities, will ultimately connect to the County's proposed effluent reuse system. Alternative 1 includes a reduction of hotel and time-share units of 36 percent. Other uses, such as commercial, marina industrial, project support/utilities, and community uses increased by 219 percent. Wastewater flow estimates are population -based using an average flow rate of 80 gallons per capita per day. Preliminary estimates based on unit counts and acreages of other uses resulted in a net decrease in population of about ten percent. Therefore, wastewater flow generation would decrease proportionately in Alternative 1. Project -related impacts will be discussed with the County of Hawaii in the development of the North Kona Sewer Master Plan and specific plans for the Kealahele WWTP. The developer will make its fair share contribution to the improvements at the Kealakehe WWTP. Page 4-58 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Assessment of Existing Human Environment O4.10.7 Solid Waste Facilities Solid waste generated in West Hawaii is disposed of at the Pu`uanahulu West Hawaii Landfill, a 300 -acre facility located approximately fifteen miles north at Waikoloa on the mauka side of Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway, The total amount of solid waste that is managed by the County system was approximately 160,000 tons in the Year 2000. Approximately 45 percent, or 70,000 tons, was deposited in South Hilo Landfill, and approximately 55 percent, or 90,000 tons, was deposited in Pu`uanahulu Landfill. Recyclers in the County of Hawaii diverted approximately 13 percent of its waste during FY 1998/1999 compared to a rate of 19 percent for the state and 28 percent nationally. (ISWMP 2002) Anticipated Impacts and Proo e Mitigation Construction -related solid wastes will be generated over a relatively short time period and will consist primarily of vegetation, rocks, and other debris resulting from the clearing and grading of the area as well as the construction of buildings. The operation of the project will also generate solid waste associated with the use and maintenance of the time-share units, hotel units and commercial/marina facilities. As of 2002, Pu`uanahulu Landfill has more than 12,000,000 cubic yards of permitted air space, which should be enough to accommodate the current waste stream from west Hawaii for approximately 40 years. This facility is expected to be able to serve the County's needs into the future. However, diversion of waste by recycling and the use of waste reduction technologies would reduce the disposed waste stream and extend the life of the landfill. (ISWMP 2002) OReeommended mitigationProject mitigation measures will include: ■ Reuse the excavated material on site as much as possible. ■ The contractor will be required to remove all debris from the project site, and properly dispose of it at the Pu`uanahulu Landfill in conformance with County regulations. ■ Seek to divert over 50 percent of the waste generated during construction by the preparation and implementation of a construction waste management plan consistent with LEED criteria. ■ Create and maintain an extensive recycling program that will reduce waste generated on site by 90 percent. ■ Produce compost from the restaurant and time-share buildings for use on and off site for use as natural fertilizer. 4.10.8 Potable Water Facilities The Hawaii County Department of Water Supply (DWS) provides and maintains various public water systems on the Island of Hawaii. Prior to development of wells mauka of the old Mamalahoa Highway, the main source of potable water was the Kahalu`u Shaft Wells. Water was pumped from the Kahalu`u Shaft Wells to storage tanks to the north to provide service. As development progressed, DWS recognized that the development of wells mauka of the old Mamalahoa Highway was imminent. Presently, DWS has wells in operation within the OKealakehe sector. Page 4-59 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Assessment of Existing Human Environment Honok6hau Well (State Well No. 4158-02) O Keahuolu (QLT #I) Well (State Well No. 4057-01) There are other planned water improvements to the DWS system in the area. DHHL and the Hawaii Housing Finance and Development Corporation (HHFDC) anticipate development of four wells mauka of the old Mamalahoa Highway to support their projects. These wells include: ■ Kealakehe Well (State No. 4057-04) ■ North Ke6pu Well (State Well No. not available) ■ South Ke6pu Well #3 (State Well No. 3957-02) ■ Ke6pu Well (State Well No. 3957-03) Water system improvements, including wells, reservoirs and mains, for private development are usually dedicated to the County DWS after they are in operation. As part of the process, private developers secure a Water Agreement with DWS to define the allowable water credits and Facilities Charge for the development. Anticipated Impacts and Proposed Mitigation The Kona Kai Ola Master Development Plan was used as a base to determine estimated water demands required for the project. Water demand is summarized as follows: Average Daily Demand = 1,765,750 gallons per day (gpd) Maximum Daily Demand = 2,648,625 gpd O Peak Hour Demand = 8,828,750 gpd Presently, DWS sources are not adequate to support the project. Source development is a primary requirement. Initial coordination with DLNR has identified two possible sources that may possibly be used for the project. DLNR anticipates a sustainable yield of each well to be approximately 1.5 million gallons per day. Keapu Well #2 (State Well No. 3957-02) Ke6pu Well #4 (State Well No. 3857-02) The proposed water system will also include transmission and storage facilities. Initial communications with Queen Lili`uokalani Trust indicates an interest in partnering with Kona Kai Ola and allowing the needed transmission main corridor/easement through their property. However, the Queen Lili`uokalani Trust has not yet identified a development proposal on their property to the south. Water transmission corridors may alternately be coordinated with the State Department of Transportation as part of their highway improvements. While discussions continue with the Queen Lili`uokalani Trust, the storage tank that will serve the project will be located either on TMK 7-4-08:56 or 7-4-20:22. The proposed water system improvements and proposed operation criteria are based on Chapter 5, Hawaii County Department of Water Supply Potable Water System Design Standards. It is ^^,,,mendoa proposed that the following mitigating measures be used: Page 4-60 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Assessment of Existing Human Environment OReduce use of potable water used in fixtures and appliances by 80 percent relative to a basecase building. The development should incorporate innovative water recycling techniques, the incorporation of water efficient fixtures and appliances, and the recycling of graywater for toilet flushing. -Reduce or eliminate the need for potable irrigation by incorporating Hawaiian or other appropriate dryland plants in the Kona Kai Ola landscaping plan, retention of the black lava features abundant on the site, use of brackish water to irrigate vegetation that is not affected by salt levels and the use of rainwater cisterns and the recycling of graywater from,showers, laundry, dishwasher, and hand sinks for irrigation. Irrigation water may also be provided by condensation on cold water pipes buried at the root zone of landscape plants, as has been shown to be successful at the National Energy Laboratory of Hawai i. ■ Reduce demand on existing potable water sources through the possible use of desalination. Alternative 1 would result in net decrease of about five percent in terms of potable water demand. Similar to wastewater flow estimates, water demand is based on unit counts and acreages of other uses. However, water demand estimates are not population based. The following water demand rates were used: Land Use Single -Family Average Daily Demand _ _ 400 gallons/unit OMulti -Family Low Rise 400 gallons/unit Commercial 3.000 gallons/acre Industrial 4.000 gallons/acre Park 4.000 gallons/acre School 4,000 gallons/acre Public Facility 4,000 gallons/acre Hotel 700 gallons/unit 4.10.9 Energy and Communications 4.10.9.1 Electrical Electrical power on the Island of Hawaii is provided by Hawaii Electric Light Company, Inc. (HELCo), a privately owned utility company regulated by the State Public Utilities Commission. HELCo's current generation system capacity is 240MW with a reserve of 29 MW. The Keahole generating plant, along with some facilities in East Hawaii, provides capacity to the Honok6hau area. Along Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway, HELCo's existing facilities consist of double 69 kV circuits and a single 12.47 kV circuit on a joint use pole line. HELCo's electrical service to the existing commercial properties adjacent to Honok6hau Harbor consists of a mixture of overhead and underground systems. As the new development roadways are constructed, new and replacement electrical services ductlines will be routed within the shoulders and/or sidewalks of the development roadways and accessways to minimize conflicts with sewer, water and drainage Outilities. Page 4-61 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Assessment of Existing Human Environment 4.10.9.2 Telecommunications and Cable O Hawaiian Telcom (HTCo) provides telephone and telecommunications services to the DLNR site while Sandwich Isles Communications has been contracted to serve the telecommunications needs of all DHHL lands. For the DLNR property, duct systems will extend HTCo telephone trunking cables from the existing lines on Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway into the development. Sandwich Isles is prepared to extend its fiber optic network to this site to service all telecommunications needs on the DHHL parcel. The switch facility for Sandwich Isles Communications is located mauka of the DHHL parcel near Kealakehe High School. Like telecommunications, Time Warner/Oceanic cable infrastructure will extend from the existing fiber node on Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway into the Kona Kai Ola development. 4.10.9.3 Anticipated Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Electrical Based on discussions with HELCo, expansion of the existing Kealakehe Substation and provision of a Substation Site within the development may be required to accommodate the full extent of this development when coupled with the continuing development of the Villages of La`i `Opua. HELCo's expansion of the Kealakehe Substation is intended to provide the bulk of the capacity for loads in this area. However, HELCo will extend a 12.47 kV feeder from Kaloko Substation to serve as an interim back-up source should Kealakehe Substation be out of service. Since the Villages of La`i `Opua project may be developed in the same time frame as the Kona O Kai Ola project, some of the HELCo substation development costs may be shared between the two developments. Teleeemmunieatieffs Page 4-62 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Assessment of Existing Human Environment O -- At this time, seawater air conditioning (SWAC) is being considered as an alternative energy 0o t)n.;A4tA4Further description of the seawater air- eend tioning (SWAC) system is located in Section 3.9.6-7 of this DO&FEIS. This system consists of 16-18 nodes to circulate cooling water through the Kona Kai Ola development. The cold seawater used to air condition the new buildings at Kona Kai Ola is a very energy efficient system that not only reduces the cost of ownership of the facilities but also has environmental benefits in the reduction of emissions from electric generation stations. There is also less investment required by HELCo to provide electric power for the Kona Kai Ola development. SWAC provides a sustainable, renewable resource that could result in reduced energy costs for the project and a reduced impact on HELCo resources. At this time,SWAC is being cvnSitcr-e3 as an uItciat i`e cnergyvpr'roir. The following mitigation measures are proposed: ■ Reduce building energy use by 50 percent compared to a building that does not incorporate energy efficient strategies such as incorporating significant wall and ceiling insulation, utilizing windows that allow daylight without allowing heat penetration, purchasing energy efficient lighting and appliances, and designing the buildings to maximize natural ventilation. ■ Utilize renewable energy technologies on-site to provide the remaining 50 percent of overall building energy use. Examples would be incorporating solar thermal and photovoltaic technologies into each building's architectural features. O Reduce the site's peak energy demand by 50 percent thus helping HELCo reduce the probability of brownouts and blackouts. ■ Reduce site temperature and the need for cooling requirements for buildings by site vegetation, water features throughout the site, reduction of dark pavement, and shading of pathways. ■ Implement a Seawater Air Conditioning (SWAC) facility as part of the project. Telecommunications As the new development roadways are constructed, the existing telephone services must be reconnected to new infrastructure and the existing HTCo facilities will be removed. A new HTCo-owned and maintained facilities will be situated in an easement placed within the development prior to the removal of the existing unit, to provide telephone circuits for the development. After HTCo places their cables, T-1 and higher speed data lines would be available if desired. It is anticipated that Sandwich Isles Communications will provide a fiber optic network to the DHHL property. Regarding Alternative 1, preliminary estimates for electrical, telecommunications. and cable resulted in a net demand load that remains unchanged from the original master Dlan. Although there is a 36 percent decrease in hotel and time-share units, the increase in other uses (219 percent) offsets the decrease in load demand for hotel and time-share. Page 4-63 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Assessment of Existing Human Environment 4.10.10 Water Features and Lagoons O The seawater system for the marine life exhibits at Kona Kai Ola is a simple system that takes full advantage of the pristine water conditions found off the shores of Hawaii. Minimal handling of the water ensures a clean, simple and energy efficient system that maintains the quality of the water for the health of the aquatic life and human swimmers while minimizing the impacts to the environment. The exhibits at Kona Kai Ola would consist of the following features: ■ Interactive Snorkeling Lagoon ■ Ray Lagoon ■ Shark Lagoon ■ Turtle Lagoon ■ Swimming Lagoon ■ Associated Holding Pools The fish, ray, shark and turtle exhibits will display only those species which are found in Hawaiian waters. This is both to showcase the color and diversity found in Hawai`i's undersea ecosystem, as well as the need to protect this fragile environment. The water treatment system for all exhibits is a simple flow-through system. Because of the pristine quality of the water found off the coasts of Hawaii, particularly the area of the Kona Kai Ola development, there is no need to add additional treatment to the intake water for the exhibits. Each exhibit gets fresh seawater on a continuous basis. The water in some of the lagoons will get O completely exchanged within three hours. All water in fish exhibits will be completely exchanged within two hours and the snorkel lagoon which has both fish and people will be exchanged in approximately 75 minutes. These rapid.turnover times will ensure that the water in the exhibits will maintain high clarity and water quality. The high volume of sea water flowing through the exhibits into the harbor basin will dilute any pollutants that enter the harbor basin from the lagoons and the groundwater. This will improve the water quality and will be a positive impact on the nearshore marine environment. Anticipated Impacts and Reeommended-EKop =qLe#Mitigation Measures The water for lagoon exhibits is to be brought in through a pair of 56 -inch diameter pipes tunneled beneath the shoreline and extending offshore down to a depth of approximately 150 feet. At this depth the pipes will break through the benthic substrate and will lie on the bottom of the ocean bed continuing down slope to a depth of about 200 feet. These pipes will be located just north of Kaiwi Point, along the south property line and will be constructed in parallel with the smaller (36") SWAC pipe that will extend down to a depth of about 3,000 feet. The terminus of the lagoon pipelines in 200 feet of water will be approximately 1,500 feet from the shoreline. The exposed length of pipe will be fitted with slotted risers to intake water from above the benthic substrate. Page 4-64 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Assessment of Existing Human Environment OThe depth of 150-200 feet was selected as the optimum extraction depth for several reasons. Nutrient concentrations at this depth are relatively low compared to surface near -shore water, but oxygen levels are still near saturation. Below the action of most surface waves, the water quality at this depth is both high and relatively constant throughout the year. While the temperature of surface waters may vary considerably over the course of a year, at this depth the water temperature is both slightly cooler and much more stable. The intake of high water quality is important both for the maintenance of healthy marine life exhibits and to assure that the quality of effluent water is higher than the natural water quality of the nearshore coastal waters. Temperatures at the 150-200 foot depth mark are approximately one to two degrees Celsius colder than the water at the surface. Water temperature plays an important role in the health of the marine life. Water that is significantly too cold will stress the marine life and cause them to become less active than they should be. However, water that is too warm is ideal for the growth of algae, parasites, and other pathogens. It is essential that the water be kept cool at all times. The pumping system will add some heat to the water through mechanical agitation. The solar heat gain will also be a factor that must be considered. Supplying water that is one to two degrees Celsius colder than the normal surface water temperatures counteracts the heat gain from the pumping station and solar gain. The 150-200 foot depth is ideal from a safety and construction standpoint. The depth is very easily achieved by means of directional drilling and the distance off shore is very minimal due to the steep topography of the underwater volcanic cliffs. While the depth of the exposed pipe is beyond the range typically reached by recreational divers, it is still within depths that can be O attained by professional divers (using mixed gasses) for annual inspection and maintenance. Screens will be placed at the intake as additional protection from any harm coming to marine life or humans as well as to protect the pipes and pumps. Seawater will be pumped at the rate of approximately 52,000 gallons per minute. The pumps will be located in an enclosure just inland of the shoreline park. This enclosure will be located just to the north of Kaiwi Point along the south property line. Water will then flow through a pair of buried pipes up to the marine exhibits in the center of the property. This water will be distributed through a network of pipes to the various exhibits. The pipe network will ensure an even distribution of water throughout the exhibits, keeping all areas of the exhibits clean and well circulated. Water will leave the exhibits through a network of bottom drains and surface skimmers. This network will remove any floating debris through the skimmers as well as maintain good circulation and removal of heavier debris. The water will be discharged into the newly expanded harbor by one of two methods: ■ Some water will flow along the surface through a series of lined streams and waterfalls. The liner will prevent saltwater intrusion into the soils, protecting the freshwater layer below ground. ■ The remainder of the water will be piped into the harbor. This water will supplement the normal tidal and groundwater flushing of the harbor, increasing the cleanliness of the water within the harbor and improving the environmental impact of the overall Odevelopment. Page 4-65 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Assessment of Existing Human Environment Although the total amount of nutrients that will be generated per day will increase from the O nutrient output of marine animals and users, the concentration of the nutrients will be lower due to the large amount of water available for mixing within the basin. The overall impact will be a reduction of nutrient concentration in the outflowing water. Initial calculations show that the large volume of high quality seawater pumped into the harbor (-10 times the groundwater flow volume) will cause all of the mixing with groundwater to occur in the harbor. This will eliminate the present condition where a plume of high nutrient low salinity water exits at the harbor mouth on the surface and mixes with ocean water within about t/4 to 1/2 -mile radius of the harbor mouth. This extreme dilution of the incoming groundwater will result in a well mixed outflow of about 33 ppt salinity (full seawater is –36 ppt) with nutrient loading that is lower than the present coastal waters. Ammonia -nitrogen concentrations, which are within standards under existing conditions, could increase in the marina where the exhibit flow outfall is placed. This effect could be reduced by reducing the ammonia -nitrogen concentration in the exhibits flow, by reducing the amount of animals in the exhibit. Kona Kai Ola will include the following proposed Rve, ,—ended mitigation measures:inelude: ■ All water is to be screened prior to discharge for the removal of leaves, trash or other such debris that does not belong in the ocean. ■ All surface water streams and waterfall features shall be lined to prevent saltwater intrusion into the soils, protecting the freshwater layer below. SWAC water, with its high nutrient load and cool temperatures should not be introduced O into the lagoons or the harbor. The used SWAC water will be disposed of in a deep injection well to prevent temperature and nutrient impacts in the nearshore water. The well will be sufficiently deep to match the temperature of the effluent water. The water features in Alternative 1 would significantly decrease by 74 percent, from 19 acres in the proposed project to five acres in Alternative 1. This decrease in water features would result in a corresponding decrease in water source requirements and seawater discharge. Page 4-66 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Conformance with Public Plans and Policies 5 - Conformance with Public Plans and Policies 5.1 State 5.1.1 Chapter 343, Hawaii Revised Statutes This FEIS has been prepared in compliance with environmental requirements mandated in Chapter 343 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) and the Environmental Impact Statement Rules, Title 11, Chapter 200 of the Hawaii Administrative Rules (HAR). An EIS is required for this project since the project will be developed on State lands, includes lands in the Shoreline Setback Area and requires an amendment to the Hawaii County General Plan. An Environmental Impact Statement Preparation Notice (EISPN) was published on July 8, 2006, and comment letters from agencies and citizens were received in the months of July and August of 2006. Responses to the comment letters were mailed in the week of October 20, 2006. A copy of the comment letters and corresponding response letters are included in Appendix A. A Draft Environmental Impact Statement was published on December 23, 2006. Ninety-two public comments were received within a 45 -day comment period ending February 6, 2007, and comments that were postmarked after this date are also included in this FEIS All comments Oletters and corresponding response letters are included in Appendix B of Volume 1 of this FEIS. 5.1.2 State Land Use Law, Chapter 205, Hawaii Revised Statutes The State Land Use Law, as set forth in Chapter 205, HRS, establishes the State Land Use Commission (LUC) and provides this body the authority to designate all lands in the State into one of four districts: Urban, Rural, Agricultural, or Conservation. The project site lies with the Urban and Conservation State Land Use Districts. The proposed uses at Kona Kai Ola are consistent with those allowed in their respective Urban and Conservation Districts. The development itself will all be located in the State's "Urban" zone while the "Conservation" lands will remain undeveloped containing open space features such as trails and preserved cultural features. Figures W Sand X T -indicate State Land Use designations. The developer is proposing a 400 -foot setback along the shoreline of the project site. Most of the land in this setback is in the Conservation District. Consultations with the DLNR Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands occurred to identify Conservation District Use Permit (CDUP) requirements related to proposed uses in this setback Separate CDUA applications will be submitted for 1) the Kuakini Highway Extension. SWAC pipe and shoreline park and 2) the Hawaiian Cultural Park and Ocean Front trail. are t k4fi lace idea r., the best r this b Y"""' `� n-ccrctrr�crri��cacii�cvr-crno setb ek and how best to it. _Requirements for this conservation setback will likely be incorporated into Conditions of Approval for the Conservation District Use Permit, at the time it is processed. Page 5-1 'a{{ � � -` �'�. ` f � � { � ty a a 1!,ua•ec+v xi�cax�esnas�'' 1- ��� ( I P I y MF T i, M y$ V � ♦..w. ' 3--�„iyL...�. p{# t �* F x z { kYl � fi 5 147 `c" J, C r �pC� to o Ido ` du", Honokoh'au S HarborIV 1, 4 J .. � " ♦eros '_`, ,�� o Y,t. aloo,Honokot WN Kealakehe, North Kona District Island of Hawaii Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Conformance with Public Plans and Policies 5.1.3 Coastal Zone Management Program, Chapter 205A, Hawaii Revised Statutes The Coastal Zone Management Program, or CZM, is intended to -provide the public with recreational opportunities, protect historic and prehistoric resources, protect scenic and open space resources, protect coastal ecosystems, provide facilities for economic development, reduce hazards, and manage development. Objectives that are applicable to Kona Kai Ola are hereby discussed. Recreational Resources Objective: Provide coastal recreational opportunities accessible to the public. Policies: (B) Provide adequate, accessible, and diverse recreational opportunities in the coastal zone management area by: (i) Protecting coastal resources uniquely suited for recreation activities that cannot be provided in other areas; (iii) Providing and managing adequate public access, consistent with conservation of natural resources, to and along shorelines with recreational value; (iv) Providing an adequate supply of shoreline parks and other recreational facilities suitable for public recreation; (vii) Developing new shoreline recreational opportunities, where appropriate, such as artificial lagoons, artificial beaches and artificial reefs for surfing and fishing; (viii) Encouraging reasonable dedication of shoreline areas with recreational value for public use as part of discretionary approvals or permits by the land use commission, board of land and natural resources and county authorities; and crediting such dedication against the requirements of section 46-6. Discussion: Kona Kai Ola has a distinct ocean recreation theme that fully supports CZM objectives for recreational opportunities. The project includes an 800 -slip marina that will expand the region's boating opportunities and support facilities, and a 400 -foot shoreline setback will provide full public access along the coast. Throughout the project site, public access trails for walking and cycling will be designed to encourage public access throughout Kona Kai Ola to utilize the public parks, canoe launching areas, cultural areas, and community facilities that are proposed as part of this project. Further a proposed marine science center will help to educate people about coastal habitats and encourage responsible stewardship of these resources. Alternatives 1 and 2 contain the same recreational resources as the proposed project and would also comply with CZM objective and policies related to recreational resources Page 5-4 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Conformance with Public Plans and Policies OHistoric Resources Objective: Protect, preserve, and where desirable, restore those natural and man made historic and prehistoric resources in the coastal zone management area that are significant in Hawaiian and American history and culture. Policies: (A) Identify and analyze significant archaeological resources; (B) Maximize information retention through preservation of remains and artifacts or salvage operations; (C) Support state goals for protection, restoration, interpretation, and display of historic resources. Discussion: As discussed in Section 4.2.2, twenty-nine sites are ,-eeof fnenE1e ro�for preservation based on State criteria and in accordance with the Site Preservation Plan prepared for DLNR — SHPD review and approval. Thirteen of these sites are located within the legislative boundary of Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park. Forty-seven sites are ,- ^^,^,ended proposed for mitigation through data recovery, based on a detailed Data Recovery Plan that will be submitted to DLNR — SHPD for review and approval. The archaeological surveys found that the mapping, written descriptions, photography and 'e*+ exeavationsam c^ ^:+e'eKatel:,, doetifnentsphotography and text excavations of 54 sites adequately document them and no further work or preservation is re^^mmende proposed. OScenic and Open Space Resources Objective: Protect, preserve, and where desirable, restore or improve the quality of coastal scenic and open space resources. Policies: (B) Ensure that new developments are compatible with their visual environment by designing and locating such developments to minimize the alteration of natural landforms and existing public views to and along the shoreline; (C) Preserve, maintain, and where desirable, improve and restore shoreline open space and scenic resources; (D) Encourage those developments that are not coastal dependent to locate in inland areas. Discussion: Kona Kai Ola will be designed to protect and preserve the area's scenic and open space resources. Consistent with the project's sustainability goals, 40 percent of the project site will be retained in open space. The same proportion of open space would be maintained in Alternatives 1 and 2. Page 5-5 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Conformance with Public Plans and Policies A 400 -foot buffer zone along the shoreline will be preserved as open space and no buildings or O structures shall be proposed within the 400 -foot shoreline setback area, with the possible exception of culturally -related structures. To control building mass near the shoreline, development sites directly adjacent to the shoreline setback area will be limited by design covenants to a lower unit density and height limits. Buildings located further mauka will increase to a maximum of four stories, in keeping with the "coconut tree height" general limit. Along Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway, the northern edge of the large commercial parcel contiguous to the water feature will be limited to one-story structures. Structures on the remaining area of the parcel will be limited to the equivalent of three stories in height. Further, major roadways, parking areas, and areas surrounding all major structures will be landscaped in accordance with a landscape master plan. Coastal Ecosystems Objective: Protect valuable coastal ecosystems, including reefs, from disruption and minimize adverse impacts on all coastal ecosystems. Policies: (B) Improve the technical basis for natural resource management; (C) Preserve valuable coastal ecosystems, including reefs, of significant biological or economic importance; (D) Minimize disruption or degradation of coastal water ecosystems by effective regulation of stream diversions, channelization, and similar land and water uses, recognizing O competing water needs; (E) Promote water quantity and quality planning and management practices that reflect the tolerance of fresh water and marine ecosystems and maintain and enhance water quality through development and implementation of point and nonpoint source water pollution control measures. Discussion: The proposed new marina would significantly increase the size of the water body, but would utilize the existing marina entrance for the water exchange. The proposed marina to the south will intercept additional groundwater, adding these flows to the existing harbor outflow. The proposed marina will not result in any significant increase in groundwater flow to the coastline, but rather a concentration of the existing flows to the harbor entrance. There will be an expanded zone of mixing between the brackish effluent and the surrounding ocean waters due to the concentration of flows at the harbor mouth. The large amount of water will dilute any pollutants that enter the harbor basin from ground water or surface water. This may have a neutral or- will impact on the nearshore environment. Construction of a new marina will have several sl}ert short-term negative impacts on coastal marine resources. Direct construction impacts are likely to be small due to the use of a berm separating the construction area from adjacent marine waters which would serve to minimize the discharge of sediment from excavation and dredging. When the final land bridge is removed, silt curtains will be used to minimize the suspended sediment entering ocean waters. Page 5-6 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Conformance with Public Plans and Policies OThe new marina will serve as a collection point for materials utilized or generated at the development site, either through direct runoff or by interception of groundwater flow. There is the potential that fertilizers, pesticides, petroleum products, road wastes, etc, could be discharged from the mouth of Honokohau Harbor into the coastal marine environment. Most of the anticipated impacts can will be minimized through a combination of proper facilities design, public education, and enforcement of harbor rules and regulations. While there may be impacts to anchialine pools with potential changes in salinity in the groundwater, monitoring, management and mitigation measures will be taken to keep a healthy anchialine pool system. Economic Uses Objective: Provide public or private facilities and improvements important to the State's economy in suitable locations. Policies: (B) Ensure that coastal dependent development such as harbors and ports, and coastal related development such as visitor industry facilities and energy generating facilities, are located, designed and constructed to minimize social, visual and environmental impacts on the coastal zone management area; (C) Direct the location and expansion of coastal dependent developments to areas presently designated and used for such developments and permit reasonable long-term growth at O such areas, and permit coastal dependent development outside presently designated areas when: (ii) Adverse environmental effects are minimized;,, Discussion: The Kona Kai Ola project is being proposed in direct response to the State's efforts to meet the demand for more boating facilities through expansion of State harbors. Project planning and analysis have been undertaken to minimize social, visual and environmental impacts, and mitigate significant impacts that are anticipated. Locating this new marina basin adjacent to the existing Honokohau Small Boat Harbor is consistent with the policy to direct the location and expansion of coastal dependent developments to areas presently designated and used for such developments. While Alternative 1 would include a smaller marina and less boat slips. it would nevertheless meet public demand for more boating facilities. Alternative 2 would have the same level of marina development as the proposed proiect. Coastal Hazards Objective: Reduce hazard to life and property from tsunami, storm waves, stream flooding, erosion, subsidence and pollution. Policies: (B) Control development in areas subject to storm wave, tsunami, flood, erosion, hurricane, wind, subsidence, and point and nonpoint source pollution; 0(C) Ensure that developments comply with requirements of the Federal Flood Insurance Program; Page 5-7 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Conformance with Public Plans and Policies (D) Prevent coastal flooding from inland projects. O Discussion: Base flood elevations and flood area designations will most likely change if the marina is expanded as proposed. Further, buildings, primarily along the perimeter of the enlarged marina, along the entrance to the marina and along the shoreline, could be negatively impacted by flooding. Mitigation measures to address flooding impacts include siting the proposed coastline developments out of the current Zone AE and VE flood zones. Further, finished pad elevations will be kept above base flood elevations per the Flood Insurance Rate Map. Approximately half of the project site is located within a tsunami inundation zone, and structures currently proposed in the tsunami evacuation zone include time-shares, the expanded marina, roadways, infrastructure, and various accessory commercial uses. Most of the area subject to tsunami is within the planned 400 -foot shoreline setback. This area could also be subject to high surf, hurricane -force winds, and coastal flooding due to its location along the shoreline. An effective evacuation plan will be prepared and implemented. These same considerations are included in Alternatives 1 and 2. Public Participation Objective: Stimulate public awareness, education and participation in coastal management. Policies: (A) Promote public involvement in coastal zone management processes; (C) Organize workshops, policy dialogues, and site-specific mediations to respond to coastal O issues and conflicts. Discussion: The community outreach program for Kona Kai Ola has included community members who are involved in coastal management. Their input was incorporated in project planning, and through an iterative planning process, the master development plan was revised and studies were expanded to address the community concerns. Several design and planning steps were taken to address these community concerns. In addition, the community outreach program continued after the publication of the DEIS. Further information on the community outreach program is presented in Sections 1.8 and 11. In addition, Kona Kai Ola includes a marine science center that will help educate the community on the coastal environment and good stewardship practices. Beach Protection Objective: Protect beaches for public use and recreation Policies: (A) Locate new structures inland from the shoreline setback to conserve open space, minimize interference with natural shoreline processes and minimize loss of improvements due to erosion; (C) Minimize the construction of public erosion -protection structures seaward of the shoreline. O Page 5-8 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Conformance with Public Plans and Policies ODiscussion: The entire shoreline area adjacent to Kona Kai Ola, including `Alula Beach, will be protected and preserved. A 400 -foot buffer zone along the shoreline will be preserved as open space and no buildings or structures shall be proposed within the 400 -foot shoreline setback area, with the possible exception of culturally -related structures. Further, to control building mass near the shoreline, development sites directly adjacent to the shoreline area will be limited by design covenants to a lower unit density and height limits. No public erosion -protection structures will be installed seaward of the shoreline. Alternatives 1 and 2 would contain the same level of beach protection as the proposed project. Marine Resources Objective: Promote the protection, use and development of marine and coastal resources to assure their sustainability. Policies: (A) Ensure that the use and development of marine and coastal resources to assure their sustainability; (B) Coordinate the management of marine and coastal resources and activities to improve effectiveness and efficiency. Discussion: JDI had made a corporate commitment to environmental sustainability throughout Kona Kai Ola. Various design initiatives are intended to protect marine and coastal resources. These components include the 400 -foot shoreline setback, pumping seawater through the lagoons O and marina to improve water quality, and including fisheries conservation and other marine and coastal stewardship education programs in the new marina and marine science center. When the water quality models showed that the 45 acre new harbor basin was not able to circulate well enough JDI agreed to plan an alternative that included a smaller harbor basin of 25 acres that is projected to meet water quality standards. This responsive planning will ensure that the marine resources of the nearshore waters are protected. In addition, specific management measures will be taken to minimize any potential negative impacts on marine mammals and sea turtles from construction activities and additional vessel traffic from the new harbor facility. 5.1.4 Hawaii State Plan, Chapter 226, Hawaii Revised Statutes The State has set forth a Hawaii State Plan to serve as a guide for the future long-range development of the State; identify the goals, objectives, policies, and priorities for the State; provide a basis for determining priorities and allocating limited resources, such as public funds, services, human resources, land, energy, water, and other resources; improve coordination of federal, state, and county plans, policies, programs, projects, and regulatory activities; and establish a system for plan formulation and program coordination to provide for an integration of all major state, and county activities. The following addresses sections of the Hawaii State.Plan that are applicable to Kona Kai Ola. Section 226-4 State Goals: In order to guarantee, for present and future generations, those elements of choice and mobility that insure that individuals and groups may approach their desired levels self- reliance and self determination, it shall be the goal of the State to achieve: O Page 5-9 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Conformance with Public Plans and Policies (1) A strong, viable economy, characterized by stability, diversity and growth that enable O fulfillment of the needs and expectations of Hawai `i's present and future generations. (2) A desired physical environment, characterized by beauty, cleanliness, quiet, stable natural systems, and uniqueness, that enhances the mental and physical well-being of the people. (3) Physical, social and economic well-being, for individuals and families in Hawai `i that nourishes a sense of community responsibility, of caring and participation in community life. Section 226-5 Objective and policies for population: (a) It shall be the objective in planning for the State's population to guide population growth to be consistent with the achievement of physical, economic, and social objectives contained in this chapter. (b) To achieve the population objective, it shall be the policy of this State to: (3) Promote increased opportunities for Hawai `i's people to pursue their socio- economic aspirations throughout the islands. Section 226-6 Objective and policies for the economy in general: (a) Planning for the State's economy shall be directed toward achievement of the following objectives: (1) Increased and diversified employment opportunities to achieve full employment, O increased income and job choice, and improved living standards for Hawai `i's people. Discussion: Kona Kai Ola is consistent with State goals to provide economic viability, stability and sustainability for present and future generations. The project will transform vacant land into a viable mixed-use development with a distinctive marina and boating focus, recreational attractions, and a wide range of visitor facilities and local resident features. The proposed uses at Kona Kai Ola will broaden the spectrum of business opportunities in the area, and provide a wider range of employment options. Concurrent with the development of the site with hotel, time-shares, commercial and marina expansion features, the project seeks to create an attractive market for environmentally and socially sound investment activities for the West Hawaii community. Unlike the recent trend to create secluded and exclusive golf resorts which welcome only higher end visitors, Kona Kai Ola is proposing a truly integrated mixed-use community which is designed equally for visitors and residents, enhances the existing marina and fishing and water recreational businesses, and provides a range of economic opportunities, not limited to typical West Hawaii resort's employment opportunities. While a resort attracts visitors to spend most, if not all, of their stay within the resort area, the Kona Kai Ola mixed use project will contain features that will target both residents and visitors. As discussed in Section 2, a golf course was considered as a central _vroiect_feature in Alternative 2. It was eliminated as a project concept, however, due to market feasibility and the intent to O achieve an integrated mixed use project. Page 5-10 Kealakehe, North Kona District Island of Hawaii Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Conformance with Public Plans and Policies OThe expanded marina will involve employment of skilled marina support jobs, SWAC facility will feature skilled mechanical jobs, marine wildlife park, water features and the marine science center will feature marine biology and environmental education jobs. Finally, the emphasis on preservation of cultural/archaeological features will provide a connection to the Hawaiian cultural emphasis of the area. Section 226-8 Objectives and policies for the economy - the visitor industry: (a) Planning for the State's economy with regard to the visitor industry shall be directed towards the achievement of establishing the industry as a major component in the steady growth of the State economy. (b) To achieve the visitor industry objective, it shall be the policy of this State to: (1) Support and assist in the promotion of Hawai `i's visitor attractions and facilities. (2) Ensure that visitor industry activities are in keeping with the social, economic, and physical needs and aspirations of Hawai `i's people. (4) Encourage cooperation and coordination between the government and private sectors in developing and maintaining well-designed, adequately serviced visitor industry and related developments which are sensitive to neighboring communities and activities. (5) Develop the industry in a manner that will continue to provide new job O opportunities and steady employment for Hawai `i's people. (6) Provide opportunities for Hawai `i's people to obtain job training and education that will allow for upward mobility within the visitor industry. (7) Foster a recognition of the contribution of the visitor industry to Hawai `i's economy and the need to perpetuate the aloha spirit. (8) Foster an understanding by visitors of the aloha spirit and of the unique and sensitive character of Hawai `i's cultures and values. Discussion: JDI has committed to sustainability principles in developing Kona Kai Ola, as discussed in Section 1.5.2. Sustainable development includes protection of environmental quality of coastal and marine resources. It also includes energy conservation and waste reduction in the project design, construction and operations. Kona Kai Ola is based on agreements between the State and JDI that call for a cooperative arrangement that meets State economic objectives and includes developer incentives. Project components, including the proposed hotel and time-share units, will help to ensure that the visitor industry is a major economic force. Page 5-11 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Conformance with Public Plans and Policies The visitor industry is vital to the State of Hawaii in general and West Hawaii in particular. O While diversification in employment opportunities continues to be pursued as a State policy, training and preparation for current and near -future employment in the expanded visitor industry must continue. The proposed project will result in a significant increase in the region's employment opportunities providing a wider range of potential opportunities than atypically traditional limited employment offered by a feature - typical resort. A resort is a concept in which visitors are attracted to spend most, if not all, of their stay within the resort area through the design of amenities that fulfill the needs of a particular visitor market segment. This self - containment is achieved to varying degrees in resort development depending on the natural historic/cultural, and recreational resources within a resort site and the intended scale of the resort. Kona Kai Ola is a mixed use development that offers hotel and time-share units that complement an expanded marina, a wide ranee of community and visitor facilities and commercial areas. Foremost, the expanded marina will increase employment in the commercial water recreation businesses and marina serving industries. Section 226-11 Objectives and policies for the physical environment: land-based, shoreline and marine resources: (a) Planning for the physical environment with regard to land-based, shoreline and marine resources shall be directed towards achievement of the following objectives: (2) Effective protection of Hawai `i's unique and fragile environmental resources. (b) To achieve the land-based, shoreline, and marine resources objectives, it shall be the O policy of this State to: (1) Exercise an overall conservation ethic in the use of Hawai `i's natural resources. (2) Ensure compatibility between land-based and water-based activities and natural resources and ecological systems. (3) Take into account the physical attributes of areas when planning and designing activities and facilities. (4) Manage natural resources and environs to encourage their beneficial and multiple use without generating costly or irreparable environmental damage. (6) Encourage the protection of rare or endangered plant and animal species and habitats native to Hawai `i. (7) Provide public incentives that encourage private actions to protect significant natural resources from degradation or unnecessary depletion. (8) Pursue compatible relationships among activities, facilities, and natural resources. (9) Promote increased accessibility and prudent use of inland and shoreline areas for public recreational, educational, and scientific purposes. Page 5-12 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Conformance with Public Plans and Policies ODiscussion: The area's natural resources are an integral feature of Kona Kai Ola. These natural resources are what. make the project unique. As such, it is in the developer's interest and the community's interest to see that these features are preserved and where appropriate, enhanced. Per agreements with the State and consistent with State policies, the harbor will be expanded and harbor features enhanced. Anchialine-pemi-s- ols are situated on the project site and just north of the project site, within the bounds of the Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park. The DEIS presented information that indicated that mile -the Kona Kai Ola project will result in the de ion -loss of anchialine habitat in ef-some of these pools due to a possible, Xchange from brackish water to seawater ecosystems Further studies conducted in response to DEIS comments (Appendix H-2 and Appendix G-3) indicate that the remaining pools may not change salinity to levels unhealthy to anchialine biology and that there are realistic mechanisms employed elsewhere that would likely mitigate changes due to salinity changes. Mitigation to protect and enhance existing pools includes an environmental monitoring program that detects changes. and specific measures such as bioretention and salinity adiustment. -Further mitigation will be achieved through ref other- i3end^ ffliti alien in the fetz 4r the creation of new pools. f The historical Hawaiian cultural resources such as heiau, ahu and burial sites, and as proposed by the archaeology study based on State criteria will be preserved and culturally -related educational features added, where appropriate. The proposed 400 -foot buffer along the shoreline will result in the preservation of significant cultural/archaeological, fauna and floral habitats, while O ensuring that the shore is accessible and usable to residents and visitors. Alula beach will be protected and public access ensured for those seeking to carry out cultural and traditional practices such as cleansing ceremonies (hiu wai) at this beach location. Section 226-12 Objectives and policies for the physical environment - scenic, natural beauty, and historic resources: (a) Planning for the State's physical environment shall be directed towards achievement of the objective of enhancement of Hawai `i's scenic assets, natural beauty, and multi- cultural/historical resources. (b) To achieve the scenic, natural beauty, and historic resources objective, it shall be the policy of this State to: (1) Promote the preservation and restoration of significant natural and historic resources. (2) Provide incentives to maintain and enhance historic, cultural, and scenic amenities. (3) Promote the preservation of views and vistas to enhance the visual and aesthetic enjoyment of mountains, ocean, scenic landscapes, and other natural features. (4) Protect those special areas, structures, and elements that are an integral and functional part of Hawai `i's ethnic and cultural heritage. 0(5) Encourage the design of developments and activities that complement the natural beauty of the islands. Page 5-13 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Conformance with Public Plans and Policies Discussion: West Hawaii has its own unique rugged natural beauty. While lacking lush O vegetation, significant rainfall and an abundance of terrestrial fauna, it does contain a vibrant ocean ecosystem, panoramic vistas, a Hawaiian cultural heritage and a climate conducive to outdoor recreation. The proposed structures are designed to blend with the natural terrain, use site appropriate xeriscape landscaping and utilize earth tone colors and natural materials, to the degree possible. The proposed harbormaster facility's close proximity to the National Historical Park boundary requires special consideration to ensure that the visitor visual experience from the Park is not compromised. While there are no actual visual guideline requirements for the preservation of views from the Park, Kona Kai Ola has been, and will continue to work with the National Historical Park Service to ensure that visual experience is preserved to the degree possible while ensuring safety of the harbor entrance. A visual impact study was conducted to illustrate various views of the Kona Kai Ola development and is presented in Section 4.3. It is important for JDI and Kona Kai Ola to honor and protect the cultural history and practice on these lands. Historic sites will be protected according to the Site Preservation Plans prepared for DLNR-SHPD review and approval. Section 226-13 Objectives and policies for the physical environment: land, air and water quality: (a) Planning for the State's physical environment with regard to land, air, and water quality shall be directed towards achievement of the objective of the following objectives: (1) Maintenance and pursuit of improved quality in Hawai'i's land, air and water resources. (b) To achieve the land, air and water quality objective, it shall be the policy of this State to: (2) Promote the proper management of Hawai `i's land and water resources. (3) Promote effective measures to achieve desired quality in Hawai `i's surface, ground, and coastal waters. (4) Encourage actions to maintain or improve aural and air quality levels to enhance the health and well-being of Hawai `i's people. (S) Reduce the threat to life and propertyfrom erosion, flooding, tsunamis, hurricanes, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, and other natural or man -induced hazards and disasters. (6) Encourage design and construction practices that enhance the physical qualities of Hawai `i's communities. (7) Encourage urban developments in close proximityto existing services and facilities. (8) Foster recognition of the importance and value of the land, air, and water resources to Hawai'i's people, their cultures and visitors. Page 5-14 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Conformance with Public Plans and Policies ODiscussion: Like any new development, Kona Kai Ola will alter land, air and water quality with its construction activities and long-term increase in on-site people, physical structures and activities. A fundamental approach to Kona Kai Ola will be the incorporation of long-term sustainable development and management features. The vision for the project is to develop a project that has minimal impact on the environment by striving to significantly reduce water consumption waste disposal energy use and carbon dioxide emissions. In general these practices are designed to minimize the use of potable water, electricity, vehicles, drainage infrastructure, disruption to groundwater hydrology and impacts to habitats and cultural resources. The conditions proposed in this DERS are designed to minimize, or in some cases improve, the impacts to the resources of the site and region. The project will be required to comply with all provisions and codes designed to reduce the threat to life and property from natural disasters. At the regional level, this development is located within an urbanizing corridor with existing and proposed development in the surrounding area. Infrastructure, while needing to be upgraded and extended, is in the immediate area already. The project is located in close proximity to existing services and facilities found at Honokohau Small Boat Harbor. Section 226-14 Objectives and policies for facility systems -- in general: (a) Planning for the State's facility systems in general shall be directed towards achievement of the objective of water, transportation, waste disposal, energy and telecommunication systems that support statewide social, economic, and physical objectives. (b) To achieve the general facility systems objective, it shall be the policy of this State to: (1) Accommodate the needs of Hawai `i's people through coordination of facility systems and capital improvement priorities in consonance with state and county plans. (2) Encourage flexibility in the design and development of facility systems to promote prudent use of resources and accommodate changing public demands and priorities. (3) Ensure that required facility systems can be supported within resource capacities and at reasonable cost to the user. (4) Pursue alternative methods of financing programs and projects and cost-saving techniques in the planning, construction, and maintenance of facility systems. Discussion: The master planning and phasing of Kona Kai Ola allow for coordinated development of infrastructure, consistency of design in the architecture, and economies of scale for capital improvements. The cost of the marina and project -related infrastructure improvements will be borne by the developer resulting in significant savings for the public. The revenues generated for the State through the leasing agreements for this site will provide a significant revenue stream for capital improvement and maintenance of a range of State facilities and projects, providing an added public benefit. Page 5-15 Kealakehe, North Kona District Island of Hawaii Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Conformance with Public Plans and Policies Alternative 1 would generate less impact on certain public facility systems due to a decrease in O hotel and time-share units. Wastewater requirements would decrease by approximately ten percent, potable water requirements would decrease by approximately five percent, However, the increase in other uses, namely commercial areas, would result in a net demand load on electrical, telecommunications and cable systems, and the increase in roadways would require additional drainage infrastructure. Section 226-15 Objectives and policies for facility systems --solid and liquid wastes: (a) Planning for the State's facility systems with regard to solid and liquid wastes shall be directed towards the achievement of the following objectives: (1) Maintenance of basic public health and sanitation standards relating to treatment and disposal of solid and liquid wastes. (2) Provision of adequate sewerage facilities for physical and economic activities that alleviate problems in housing, employment, mobility, and other areas. (b) To achieve solid and liquid waste objectives, it shall be the policy of this State to: (1) Encourage the adequate development of sewerage facilities that complement planned growth. (2) Promote re -use and recycling to reduce solid and liquid wastes and employ a conservation ethic. (3) Promote research to develop more efficient and economical treatment and O disposal of solid and liquid wastes. Discussion: As part of the Kona Kai Ola development, upgrades will be required at the Kealakehe Waste-Wwater Treatment Plant (WWTP). These upgrades are currently needed at the aging facility to meet current development needs. To serve the waste -water treatment needs of Kona Kai Ola, JDI proposes to work with the County of Hawaii so that the Kealakehe the WWTP will be brought up to current requirements for health, environment, operation and expanded capacity needs. As noted throughout this FEIS, sustainable development features will be incorporated in this development resulting in re -use, recycling and reduction in solid and liquid waste generated. These sustainable development features would also be present in Alternative 1. Section 226-16 Objectives and policies for facility systems — water. (a) Planning for the State's facility systems with regard to water shall be directed towards achievement of the objective of the provision of water to adequately accommodate domestic, agricultural, commercial, industrial, recreational, and other needs within resource capacities. (b) To achieve the facility systems water objective, it shall be the policy of this State to: (1) Coordinate development of land use activities with existing and potential water supply. Page 5-16 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Conformance with Public Plans and Policies O(2) Support research and development of alternative methods to meet future water requirements well in advance of anticipated needs. (6) Promote water conservation programs and practices in government, private industry, and the general public to help ensure adequate water to meet long-term needs. Discussion: The developer is required to secure new sources of potable water to serve the project site. To minimize the water needs for this development, water conservation measures will be incorporated into the design and operation of Kona Kai Ola. To achieve that end, drought tolerant, xeriscape landscaping will be used, R-1 water will be used for landscaping to the extent possible and low flow water fixtures will be used throughout the development. The developer is working with the County Department of Water Supply to ensure the proposed water infrastructure is designed to accommodate the County goals. In addition, desalination will be explored as another means to diversifv notable water sources. Alternative 1 would result in a net decrease of approximately five percent in notable water demand. Section 226-17 Objectives and policies for facility systems — transportation: (b) To achieve the facility systems water objective, it shall be the policy of this State to: (6) Encourage transportation systems that serve to accommodate present and future development needs of communities. (11) Encourage safe and convenient use of low-cost, energy-efficient, non-polluting Omeans of transportation. (13) Coordinate intergovernmental land use and transportation planning activities to ensure the timely delivery of supporting transportation infrastructure in order to accommodate planned growth objectives. Discussion: Kona Kai Ola is in proximity to the State Honokohau Small Boat Harbor. It is currently anticipated that the proposed marina and the existing harbor will operate independently except for the shared entrance channel. The proposed expanded marina will provide transportation opportunities, and provide for possible use of transit water shuttles to Kailua- Kona. In terms of land transportation, Kona Kai Ola will generate impacts on roadways and traffic in an already stressed region. =Numerous road improvements, including a makai extension of Kealakehe Parkway south to Kuakini Highway in Kailua-Kona, will help ease traffic, reduce air pollution through fewer idling cars in traffic and reduce emergency vehicle delays. Page 5-17 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Conformance with Public Plans and Policies In addition, project sustainability goals include the reduction of transportation related impacts through provision of mass transit options. The project will provide shuttle service linking the airport, Kona Kai Ola. Kailua-Kona, and the mauka neighborhoods in the ahupua`a. Moreover the development will establish a shuttle system to transport visitors and employees around the site. Further. Kona Kai Ola will be a walkable development. The development hopes to be easily navigable on -foot or on a bike. The proposed project will include numerous walking and biking trails linking site features. Additionally, reducing site temperatures will enhance the walkability of the site. Accessibility and enhanced options for transportation with a consistent theme of reducing vehicle use are proposed at Kona Kai Ola. Bikeways, walking paths, trails and enhanced pedestrian access to the shore are incorporated into the development design. The layout of the development reduces the need for a personal vehicle. A shuttle service is planned to be used for transporting local residents and visitors between the project site and surrounding neighborhoods, the Kona International Airport., and Kailua-Kona. Alternative 1 has also set aside 40 percent of the site as parks, open space, roads, seawater lagoons, and community use areas. Section 226-18 Objectives and policies for facility systems — energy: (a) Planning for the State's facility systems with regard to energy shall be directed toward the achievement of the following objectives, giving due consideration to all: (1) Dependable, efficient, and economical statewide energy systems capable of supporting the needs of the people. O (2) Increased energy self-sufficiency where the ratio of indigenous to imported energy use is increased. (3) Greater energy security in the face of threats to Hawai `i's energy supplies and systems. (4) Reduction, avoidance, or sequestration of greenhouse gas emissions from energy supply and use. (c) To further achieve the energy objectives, it shall be the policy of this State to: (2) Ensure that the combination of energy supplies and energy-saving systems is sufficient to support the demands of growth. (4) Promote all cost-effective conservation of power and fuel supplies through measures including development of cost-effective demand-side management programs, education and adoption of energy-efficient practices and technologies. (7) Promote alternate fuels and energy efficiency by encouraging diversification of transportation modes and infrastructure. (8) Support actions that reduce, avoid, or sequester greenhouse gases in utility, transportation, and industrial sector applications. `.J Page 5-18 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Conformance with Public Plans and Policies ODiscussion: Kona Kai Ola will feature the latest energy efficient design and technology available to reduce energy demand of the project. A project environmental sustainability goal is to reduce building energy use by 50 percent compared to a building that does not incorporate energy efficient strategies, as well as use renewable energy technologies on-site to provide the remaining 50 percent of overall building energy use. These measures will help to reduce the site's peak energy demand by 50 percent. By reducing the development's demand during the range of hours that most of the Hawaii Island's citizens are using electricity. Kona Kai Ola can help HELCO reduce the probability of brownouts and blackouts. The reduction in peak enemy demand can be achieved by using smart technologies that control energy use. It will also maximize the use and production of renewable energy on the project through solar energy production, solar hot water heating, and the use of deep cold seawater for district cooling system. Using cold deep seawater piped throughout the development for air conditioning will result in substantial electrical energy savings and costs for the community and the developer. Deep, cold, seawater technology is currently being used at NELHA, near the Kona International Airport. It is a logical use in this area considering the hot dry climate, accessibility of deep cold water and the increasing cost of energy and fossil fuels. It is a renewable alternative energy source that will result in long-term cost savings and reduced energy requirements, in keeping with goals and policies of the State and County. Solar hot water heating is also being planned for use throughout the development. Section 226-23 Objectives and policies for socio -cultural advancement — leisure: O (a) Planning for the State's socio -cultural advancement with regard to leisure shall be directed towards the achievement of the objective of the adequate provision of resources to accommodate diverse cultural, artistic, and recreational needs for present and future generations. (b) To achieve the leisure objective, it shall be the policy of this State to: (2) Provide a wide range of activities and facilities to fulfill the cultural, artistic, and recreational needs of all diverse and special groups effectively and efficiently. (4) Promote the recreational and educational potential of natural resources having scenic, open space, cultural, historical, geological, or biological values while ensuring that their inherent values are preserved. (5) Ensure opportunities for everyone to use and enjoy Hawai `i's recreational resources. (10) Assure adequate access to significant natural and cultural resources in public ownership. Page 5-19 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Conformance with Public Plans and Policies Discussion: Kona Kai Ola will integrate into its surrounding community, provide diverse O activities for the visitors and residents, and result in the promotion and enhancement of cultural, economic, recreational and environmental features which make this specific site unique. The proximity to the Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park provides the opportunity for collaboration for educational, environmental and cultural goals, while the expanded marina will provide new and enhanced water recreational and business opportunities. Instead of featuring a golf course providing relatively passive recreation for a limited number of participants, Kona Kai Ola will be developed around components that are more active, social and inclusive such as seawater swimming lagoons, trails, walkways, parks, and marine life educational and interactive areas. Access to significant natural and cultural resources will be enhanced with the project's proposed shoreline park and trail system. Section 226-25 Objectives and policies for socio -cultural advancement—culture: (a) Planning for the State's socio -cultural advancement with regard to culture shall be directed toward the achievement of the objective of enhancement of cultural identities, traditions, values, customs, and arts of Hawai `i's people. (b) To achieve the culture objective, it shall be the policy of this State to: (1) Foster increased knowledge and understanding of Hawai `i's ethnic and cultural heritages and the history of Hawai `i. (2) Support activities and conditions that promote cultural values, customs, and arts that enrich the lifestyles of Hawai `i's people and which are sensitive and responsive to family and community needs. O (3) Encourage increased awareness of the effects of proposed public and private actions on the integrity and quality of cultural and community lifestyles in Hawai `i. Discussion: The Cultural Impact Assessment and archaeological studies for this site identify various cultural features on the site and in the area, as well as proposing various actions to preserve and enhance them. Paramount among these recommendations, and consistent with the proposed development, is the 400 -foot buffer for preservation along the shoreline. Most of the cultural/archaeological features are located here and shoreline access is a desired feature identified by the community. Since much of this proposed buffer is located in the State's Conservation Zone, the developer is working with relevant State agencies to plan on how to enhance and integrate various cultural and archaeological features such as trails, heiau and access in and around the site. Kona Kai Ola will also include close consultation with the local Hawaiian community, and cultural and lineal descendants in these planning efforts. Section 226-104 Population Growth and Land Resources Priority Guidelines: (b) Priority guideline for regional growth distribution and land resource utilization (1) Encourage urban growth primarily to existing urban areas where adequate public facilities are already available or can be provided with reasonable public expenditures, and away from areas where other important benefits are present, such cis protection of important agricultural land or preservation of lifestyles. O Page 5-20 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Conformance with Public Plans and Policies 0 (S) In order to preserve green belts, give priority to state capital -improvement funds which encourage location of urban development within existing urban areas except where compelling public interest dictates development of a noncontiguous new urban core. (6) Seek participation from the private sector for the cost of building infrastructure and utilities, and maintaining open spaces. (9) Direct future urban development away from critical environmental areas or impose mitigating measures so that negative impacts on the environment would be minimized. (12) Utilize Hawai `i's limited land resources wisely, providing adequate land to accommodate projected population and economic growth needs while ensuring the protection of the environment and the availability of the shoreline, conservation lands, and other limited resources for future generations. (13) Protect and enhance Hawai `i's shoreline, open spaces, and scenic resources. Discussion: The site proposed for Kona Kai Ola is identified as part of the "Preferred Urban Growth Area" for Kona in the Kona Community Development Plan currently being developed by Hawaii County. In the Keahole to Kailua Regional Development Plan, the Kona Kai Ola site is the same location selected for the new regional urban center of Kona, as well as a "harbor expansion complex", connector road from the harbor to Kailua-Kona, and a shoreline park. This was to allow for the Kailua-Kona urban area to grow to meet the needs of Kona, while relieving Othe pressures of urbanization on the village of Kailua-Kona alone. The Kona Kai Ola site is identified in the 2005 Hawaii County General Plan as "Urban Expansion Area" for the DHHL lands, and "Open" for the DLNR lands. Among ^*"ef' Gener-al Plan Amendments, the 14awai'i Getifity Planning Dir-eeter- aiid Planning Gofniift lands to "Urban Expansion Area." On November 29, 2006, the Council approved this -an amendment request to change the DLNR lands to Urban Expansion Area. This land use designation is consistent with other regional "Urban Expansion" LUPAG areas, which are located mauka of Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway, and in areas contiguous to the project site, including Queen Lili"-uokalani Trust lands to the south. For the most part, these sites are vacant, ado not have an agricultural value, and are located proximate to an existing marina operation with associated support businesses. DHHL and HHFDC are planning over 3000 homes in the ahupua'a mauka of the project site. As a proposed commercial development project, Kona Kai Ola can provide a stable employment_ base close to where people live. From a regional perspective, the project site is located along a logical commercial and industrial corridor between the airport/NELHA and the urban area of Kailua-Kona. The infrastructure improvements associated with this project would not result in the expansion of the urban periphery but would instead be viewed as urban -infill and a response to existing infrastructure inadequacies (ie—i.e. road network and existing harbor). OSection 226-103 Economic priority guidelines: -,- Page 5-21 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Conformance with Public Plans and Policies (a) Priority guidelines to stimulate economic growth and growth and encourage business expansion and development to provide needed jobs for Hawai `i's people and achieve a stable and diversified economy: (1) Seek a variety of means to increase the availability of investment capital for new and expanding enterprises. (A) Encourage investments which: (i) Reflect long-term commitments to the State; (iii) Diversify the economy; (iv) Reinvest in the local economy; (v) Are sensitive to community needs and priorities. Discussion: Kona Kai Ola is a State -initiated project intended to contribute to the State's and West Hawai`i's economy. By entering into agreements with the State, JDI is committing to a long-term relationship with DLNR and DHHL. Economic diversification is included in the project with the introduction of a new marina and marina industrial uses. Further, Kona Kai Ola will significantly contribute to the island's and region's economy by generating construction and long-term employment, and providing venues for a wide range of entrepreneurial opportunities and training local residents for the wide range of skilled jobs created by the marina and its surrounding mixed use commercial development. 5.1.5 DHHL Hawaii Island Plan O In 2002, DHHL completed the Hawaii Island Plan. This plan provides a comprehensive assessment of DHHL lands and recommends future uses for these lands. Four tracts of land in the West Region (North Kona District) were examined in the Hawaii Island Plan. The land has been identified by DHHL as one of the only major DHHL parcels with income -generating potential on the west side of the Island of Hawai°i. The Plan lists the Honokohau parcel as "recommended for commercial use." The plan notes that the parcel is close to Kailua-Kona, which provides various services and amenities. The proposed commercial development proposed at Kona Kai Ola is consistent with policies for this parcel under the Hawaii Island Plan and provisions of DHHL (DHHL 2002). Figure YU- shows the DHHL designation for the project site. DHHL has already begun development of the Villages at La`i `Opua, which will grow into a residential community of over 3,000 homes. The DHHL plan is for Kona Kai Ola to provide a stable employment base close to where people live in DHHL neighborhoods. In addition to employment and business opportunities, DHHL envisions Kona Kai Ola to bring additional public parks, trails, and harbor in order to increase public recreational and cultural access to the shoreline and ocean. Page 5-22 Project Site Legend Land Use Categories Commercial Community Use Conservation General Agriculture Industrial Pastoral Residential Special District Subsistence Agriculture Supplemental Agriculture KALAOA '.. `�„.,,�i.'it f �^ (� r� `���-(. ll �'it �r�l �'�'•'.[ 4� r� i� �' tiJ q " 4t V & > 4 KEALAKEHE V, & -Iza�K. KEA UOL A HO OKO Source: Hawaii Island Plan Final Report Figure Y: DHHL Island Plan Map N W E S JDI Not to Scale JACOBY DEvELoPMENT, INC. Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawai `i Conformance with Public Plans and Policies 5.2 County of Hawaii 5.2.1 General Plan The County of Hawai`i's General Plan is the policy document for the long range comprehensive development of the iIsland of Hawaii. The purposes of the General Plan are to ■ Guide the pattern of future development in this County based on long-term goals; ■ Identify the visions, values, and priorities important to the people of this County; ■ Provide the framework for regulatory decisions, capital improvement priorities, acquisition strategies, and other pertinent government programs within the County organization and coordinated with State and Federal programs...; ■ Improve the physical environment of the County as a setting for human activities; to make it more functional, beautiful, healthful, interesting, and efficient; ■ Promote and safeguard the public interest and the interest of the County as a whole; ■ Facilitate the democratic determination of community policies concerning the utilization of its natural, man-made, and human resources; ■ Effect political and technical coordination in community improvement and development; wand ■ Inject long-range considerations into the determination of short-range actions and implementation. In the 1989 Hawaii County General Plan, the land of the project site is designated "Urban Expansion," "Resort" and "Open." All the plans and agreements between the State agencies and JDI were developed to be consistent with this plan. The General Plan was revised in February 2005, when the County Council adopted a revised General Plan for the County of Hawaii changing the project site Resort designation to Open. In December 2005, the County Planning Director Pattern Alloeation Guide (L-UPAG) fnap. The Planning proposed that the DLNR portion of the Kona Kai Ola project, designated "Open" in the 2005 General Plan, be amended to "Urban Expansion Area." On November 29, 2006, the Hawai `i County Council approved this amendment. Figure Z contains the most recently released Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide LUPAGI map that illustrates current designations. Page 5-24 A Man- "ONIM, ®R ISO Mamas Iggawsori "m Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawai `i Conformance with Public Plans and Policies Kona Kai Ola is consistent with the Urban Expansion Area designation. The agreement between JDI and the State identifies hotel and time-share uses as possible development at Kona Kai Ola. The project is not a resort. A resort is a concept in which visitors are attracted to spend most, if not all of their stay within the resort area through the design of amenities that fulfill the needs of a particular visitor market segment. This self -containment is achieved to varying degrees in resort development, depending on the natural, historic/cultural, and recreational resources within a resort site and the intended scale of the resort. State and County laws recognize this distinction between a "resort" and a "hotel" or "time share unit." Section 514E-5, Hawaii Revised Statutes, authorizes time share units to be located in a resort area or any other area in which a county may by ordinance allow a hotel unit. The Hawai `i County Code correspondingly permits hotels and time share units in non -resort zoning districts. The proposed project may include up to 700 hotel units and 1,803 time-share units, and depending on the eventual location of these project components, rezoning may be required for O implementation. Alternative 1 may include 400 hotel units and 1.100 time-share units, intermixed with commercial, marina industrial, as well as the marina, parks, community areas, seawater lagoons. and open space. Hawaii County's General Plan (HCGP) objectives and policies applicable to the Kona Kai Ola project are hereby discussed: HCGP 2 — Economic Goals, Policies and Courses of Action Goals: (a) Provide residents with opportunities to improve their quality of life through economic development that enhances the County's natural and social environments. (b) Economic development and improvement shall be in balance with the physical, social, and cultural environments of the iIsland of Hawai `i. (d) Provide an economic environment that allows new, expanded, or improved economic opportunities that are compatible with the County's cultural, natural and social environment. Policies: (c) Encourage the development of a visitor industry that is in harmony with the social, physical, and economic goals of the residents of the County. Page 5-26 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Conformance with Public Plans and Policies O(d) Require a study of the significant cultural, social and physical impacts of large developments prior to approval. (f) Support all levels of educational, employment and training opportunities and institutions. (g) Capital improvements program shall improve the quality of existing commercial and industrial areas) (p) Identify the needs of the business community and take actions that are necessary to improve the business climate. Courses of Action for North Kona Economic: (a) Resort development in the area shall be in balance with the social and physical goals as well as economic desires of the residents of the district. Necessary pollution controls shall be available prior to development. Other necessary support facilities such as transportation and nursery facilities shall also be provided. (f) Recognize the natural beauty of the area as a major economic and social asset. This resource should be protected through appropriate review processes when development is proposed. Discussion: Kona Kai Ola is consistent with Hawaii County goals to provide residents with opportunities to improve their quality of life through economic development that enhances the County's natural and social environments. Kona Kai Ola provides an economic environment that allows new, expanded, or improved economic opportunities that are compatible with the O County's cultural, natural, and social environment. The project will transform vacant land into a viable mixed-use development with a distinctive marina and boating focus, recreational attractions, and a wide range of visitor facilities and local resident features. The proposed uses at Kona Kai Ola will broaden the spectrum of business opportunities in the area, and provide a wider range of employment options. Concurrent with the development of the site with hotel, time-shares, commercial and marina expansion features, the project seeks to create an attractive market for environmentally and socially sound investment activities for the West Hawaii community. Kona Kai Ola is proposing a truly integrated mixed-use community which is designed equally for visitors and residents, enhances existing marina, fishing and water recreational businesses, and provides a range of economic opportunities that is wider than offered in a resort in which visitors are attracted to Wend most, if not all, of their staywithin the resort area through the desien of amenities that fulfill the needs of a particular visitor market segment. ; --t limited to typic^' West 14awa `i r-esoft's. The expanded marina will involve employment related to skilled marina support jobs, SWAC facility mechanical jobs, and the water features and marine science center will involve employment of marine biology and environmental education jobs. Finally, the emphasis on preservation of cultural/archaeological features will provide a connection to the Hawaiian cultural emphasis of the area. This DEM-FEIS addresses the HCGP policy for a thorough study of significant cultural, social and physical impacts related to a project of this size. Page 5-27 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Conformance with Public Plans and Policies Kona Kai Ola is in balance with the social and physical goals of West Hawaii residents, as well O as economic desires. To help sustain this balance, JDI skis in the process of establishing the Kona Kai Ola Community Foundation to support community efforts such as community development, community health care, job training, educational and cultural programs and projects, and w4447contributed $100,000 as initial funding. HCGP Section 3 -Energy Goals: (a) Encourage the development of alternate energy resources. (f) Strive to assure a sufficient supply of energy to support present and future demands. (k) Strive to diversify the energy supply and minimize the environmental impacts associated with energy usage. (n) Encourage energy-saving design in the construction of buildings. Discussion: While Kona Kai Ola will feature the latest sustainable energy reducing technology available, its most visible energy-saving feature will be its proposed seawater air conditioning (SWAC) facility. The project is to use cold deep seawater piped throughout the development for air conditioning which will result in substantial electrical energy savings and costs for the community and the developer. Deep, cold, seawater technology is currently being used at NELHA, near the Kona International O Airport. It is a logical use in this area considering the hot dry climate, accessibility of deep cold water and the increasing cost of energy and fossil fuels. It is a renewable alternative energy source that will result in long-term cost savings and reduced energy requirements, in keeping with goals and policies of the State and County. In addition, all units will have photovoltaic energy provided from roof -top collectors as part of the designed energy efficient package. Solar hot water systems will also be used. Further. the Droiect's environmental sustainabilitv Boal is to reduce building enercv use by 50 percent_ compared to a building that does not incorporate enemy efficient strategies, as well as use renewable energy technologies on-site to provide the remaining 50 percent of overall building energy use., These measures will help to reduce the site's peak energy demand by 50 percent. By reducing the development's demand during the range of hours that most of the Hawaii Island's citizens are using electricity. Kona Kai Ola can help HELCO reduce the probability of brownouts and blackouts. The reduction in peak energy demand can be achieved by using smart technologies that control energy use. HCGP Section 4 - Environmental Quality Goals, Policies and Courses of Action Goals: (a) Define the most desirable use of land within the County that achieves an ecological balance providing residents and visitors the quality of life and an environment in which the natural resources of the island are viable and sustainable. (b) Maintain and, if feasible, improve the existing environmental quality of the island. Page 5-28 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Conformance with Public Plans and Policies O(c) Control pollution. Policies: (c) Advise the public of environmental conditions and research undertaken on the island's environment. (d) Encourage the concept of recycling agricultural, industrial, and municipal waste material. (k) Require implementation of the management measures contained in Hawai `i's Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program as a condition of land use permitting. (l) Review the County grading and grubbing ordinances to ensure that they adequately address potential erosion and runoff problems. Discussion: Kona Kai Ola will alter land, air, and water quality with its construction activities and long-term increase in on-site people, physical structures, and activities. A fundamental approach to Kona Kai Ola will be the incorporation of long-term sustainable development and management features. In general these practices are designed to minimize the use of potable water, electricity, vehicles, drainage infrastructure, disruption to groundwater hydrology and impacts to habitats and cultural resources. The mitigation measures discussed in this 13Q&-FEIS are designed to minimize, or in some cases improve, the impacts to the resources of the site and region. The project will be required to O comply with all provisions and codes designed to reduce the threat on life and property, from natural disasters. At the regional level, this development is located within an urbanizing corridor with existing and proposed development in the surrounding area. Infrastructure, while needing to be upgraded and extended, is already available in the immediate area. The master planning and phasing of Kona Kai Ola allow for coordinated development of infrastructure, consistency of design in the architecture, and economies of scale for capital improvements. The cost of the marina, connector roads, and project -related infrastructure improvements will be borne by the developer resulting in the significant savings for the public. The State expects to receive substantial lease rental revenues from the project due to the revenues generated through the leasing agreements for this site, of which the fee title will remain with the State. HCGP Section 5 - Flooding and Other Natural Hazards Goals and Policies Goals: (a) Protect human life. (b) Prevent damage to man-made improvements. (c) Control pollution. (d) Prevent damage from inundation. (e) O Reduce surface water and sediment runoff. Page 5-29 Kealakehe, North Kona District Island of Hawaii (f) Maximize soil and water conservation. Policies: Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Conformance with Public Plans and Policies (d) Any development within the Federal Emergency Management Agency designated flood plain must be in compliance with Chapter 27. (g) Development -generated runoff shall be disposed of in a manner acceptable to the Department of Public Works and in compliance with all State and Federal laws. (h) Develop a comprehensive program for the coordinated construction of a drainage network along a single drainage system. (j) The County and the private sector shall be responsible for maintaining and improving existing drainage systems and constructing new drainage facilities. (p) Where applicable, natural drainage channels shall be improved to increase their capacity with special consideration for the practices of proper soil conservation, and grassland and forestry management. (q) Consider natural hazards in all land use planning and permitting. Discussion: The mitigation measures discussed in this DS-FEIS are designed to minimize, or in some cases improve, the impacts to the resources of the site and region. The project will be required to comply with all provisions and codes designed to reduce the threat on life and property from natural disasters. At the regional level, this development is located within an urbanized corridor with existing and proposed development in the surrounding area. O Infrastructure, while needing to be upgraded and extended, is already present in the immediate area. HCGP Section 6 - Historic Sites Goals and Policies Goals: (a) Protect, restore, and enhance the sites, buildings, and objects of significant historical and cultural importance to Hawai `i. (b) Appropriate access to significant historic sites, buildings, and objects of public interest should be made available. (c) Enhance the understanding of man's place on the landscape by understanding the system of ahupua `a. Policies: (a) Agencies and organizations, either public or private, pursuing knowledge about historic sites should keep the public apprised of projects. (c) Require both public and private developers of land to provide historical and archaeological surveys and cultural assessments, where appropriate, prior to the clearing or development of land when there are indications that the land under consideration has historical significance. Page 5-30 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Conformance with Public Plans. and Policies 0 (d) Public access to significant historic sites and objects shall -be acquired, where appropriate. (e) Embark on a program of restoring significant historic sites on County lands. Assure the protection and restoration of sites on other public lands through a joint effort with the State. (f) Encourage the restoration of significant sites on private lands. (g) Collect and distribute historic sites information of public interest and keep an inventory of sites. (i) Signs explaining historic sites, buildings and objects shall be in keeping with the character of the area or the cultural aspects of the feature. (n) Consider requiring Cultural Assessments for certain developments as part of the rezoning process. Discussion: Archaeological studies are summarized in and appended to this DISMS. The historical Hawaiian cultural resources such as heiau, ahu, and burial sites will be preserved and educational features added for residents and visitors, where appropriate. The proposed 400 -foot buffer along the shoreline will result in the preservation of significant cultural/archaeological, faunal and floral habitats, while ensuring that the shore is accessible and usable to visitors and residents. A Data Recovery Plan, a Site Preservation Plan and a Burial Treatment Plan will be submitted to DLNR — SHPD for review and approval. OHCGP Section 7 - Natural Beauty Goals and Policies Goals: (a) Protect, preserve and enhance the quality of areas endowed with natural beauty, including the quality of coastal scenic resources. (b) Protect scenic vistas and view planes from becoming obstructed. Policies: (a) Increase public pedestrian access opportunities to scenic places and vistas. (b) Develop and establish view plane regulations to preserve and enhance views of scenic or prominent landscapes from specific locations, and coastal aesthetic values. (d) Access easement to public or private lands that have natural or scenic value shall be provided or acquired for the public. (e) Develop standard criteria for natural and scenic beauty as part of design plans. (f) Consider structural setback from major thoroughfares and highways and establish development and design guidelines to protect important viewplanes. (h) Protect the views of areas endowed with natural beauty by carefully considering the effects of proposed construction during all land use reviews. Page 5-31 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Conformance with Public Plans and Policies Discussion: West Hawaii has its own unique rugged natural beauty. While lacking lush O vegetation, significant rainfall, and an abundance of terrestrial fauna, it does contain a vibrant ocean ecosystem, panoramic vistas, a Hawaiian cultural heritage and a climate conducive to outdoor recreation. The proposed structures are designed to blend with the natural terrain, use site appropriate Hawaiian and other appropriate xeriscape landscaping, and utilize earth tone colors and natural materials, to the degree possible. The proposed harbormaster facility's close proximity to the National Historical Park boundary requires special consideration, to ensure that the visitor visual experience from the Park is not compromised. While there are no actual visual guideline requirements for the preservation of views from the Park, Kona Kai Ola has been, and will continue to work with the National Park Service to ensure that visual experience is preserved to the degree possible while ensuring safety of the harbor entrance. HCGP Section 8 - Natural Resources and Shoreline Goals: (a) Protect and conserve the natural resources from undue exploitation, encroachment and damage. (b) Provide opportunities for recreational, economic, and educational needs without despoiling or endangering natural resources. (c) Protect and promote the prudent use of Hawai `i's unique, fragile, and significant environmental and natural resources. O (d) Protect rare or endangered species and habitats native to Hawai `i. (e) Protect and effectively manage Hawai `i's open space, watersheds, shoreline, and natural areas. (f) Ensure alterations to existing land forms, vegetation, and construction of structures cause minimum adverse effect to water resources, and -scenic and recreational amenities,_ and minimum danger of floods, landslides, erosion, siltation, or failure in the event of an earthquake. Policies: (c) Maintain the shoreline for recreational, cultural, educational, andlor scientific uses in a manner that is protective of resources and is of the maximum benefit to the general public. (d) Protect the shoreline from the encroachment of man-made improvements and structures. (e) Coordinate programs to protect natural resources with other government agencies. (g) Promote sound management and development of Hawai `i's land and marine resources for potential economic benefit. (i) Encourage an overall conservation ethic in the use of Hawai `i's resources by protecting, preserving, and conserving the critical and significant natural resources of the County of O Hawai `i. Page 5-32 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Conformance with Public Plans and Policies O(p) Encourage the use of native plants for screening and landscaping. (q) Develop policies by which native Hawaiian gathering rights will be protected as identified under judicial decisions. (r) Ensure public access is provided to the shoreline, public trails and hunting areas, including free public parking where appropriate. (s) Establish a system of pedestrian access trails to places of scenic, historic, cultural, natural, or recreational values. Discussion: Kona Kai Ola has a distinct ocean recreation theme that fully meets Hawai `i County's objectives for ocean recreational opportunities. The project includes an 800 -slip marina with a canoe and marina park that will expand the region's boating opportunities and support facilities. A 400 -foot shoreline setback will provide full public access along the coast. Further, a proposed marine science center will help to educate people about coastal habitats and encourage responsible stewardship of these resources. The beaches adjacent to Kona Kai Ola will be protected and preserved. A 400 -foot buffer zone along the shoreline will be preserved as open space and no buildings or structures shall be proposed within the 400 -foot shoreline setback area, with the possible exception of possible culturally -related structures. Further, to control building mass near the shoreline, development sites directly adjacent to the shoreline setback area will be limited by design covenants to a lower unit density and height limits. O Bikeways, walking paths, trails and enhanced pedestrian access to the shore are incorporated into the development design. Connecting the project's coastal trail system with the Ala Kahakai National Historic Trail will also add to this project's conformance with this policy. HCGP Section 10 - Public Facilities Goals and Policies Goals: (a) Encourage the provision of public facilities that effectively service community and visitor needs and seek ways of improving public service through better and more functional facilities in keeping with the environmental and aesthetic concerns of the community. Policies: (b) Coordinate with appropriate State agencies for the provision of public facilities to serve the needs of the community. (c) Develop short and long-range capital improvement programs and operating budgets for public facilities and services. Discussion: Kona Kai Ola includes significant measures to improve the region's public facilities. The proposed expanded marina will provide much-needed boat slips, as well as transportation opportunities, including the possible use of transit water shuttles to Kailua-Kona. Additionally, public parks, trails, and gathering places will also be developed with this project. Page 5-33 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Conformance with Public Plans and Policies Numerous road improvements, including a makai extension of Kuakim Highway south to O Kailua-Kona and a project -sponsored regional shuttle service will help ease traffic, reduce air pollution through fewer idling cars in traffic, and reduce emergency vehicle delays. HCGP Section 11— Public Utilities Goals, Policies Goals: (a) Ensure that properly regulated, adequate, efficient and dependable public and private utility services are available to users. (b) Maximize efficiency and economy in the provision of public utility services. Policies: (a) Public utility facilities shall be designed to complement adjacent land uses and shall be operated to minimize pollution or disturbance. (b) Provide utilities and service facilities that minimize total cost to the public and effectively service the needs of the community. (d) Improvement of existing utility services shall be encouraged to meet the needs of users. (f) Develop short and long range capital improvement programs and plans for public utilities within its jurisdiction that are consistent with the General Plan. (g) Water, sewerage, electricity, gas, and telecommunication services are treated O individually in this section to clarify the factors that comprise the public utilities element. Courses of Action (North Kona - Water): (a) Continue to pursue groundwater source investigation, exploration and development in areas that would provide for anticipated growth and an efficient and economic system operation. (b) Continue to evaluate growth conditions to coordinate improvements as required to the existing water system in accordance with the North Kona Water System Master Plan. Policies for Wastewater: t (e) Plans for wastewater reclamation and reuse for irrigation and biosolids composting (remaining solids from the treatment of wastewater is processed into a reusable organic material) shall be utilized where feasible and needed. Discussion: The master planning and phasing of Kona Kai Ola allow for coordinated development of infrastructure, consistency of design in the architecture, and economies of scale for capital improvements. The cost of the marina and project -related infrastructure improvements will be borne by the developer resulting in the significant savings for the public. The State expects to receive substantial lease rental revenues from the project due to the revenues generated through the leasing agreements for this site, of which the fee title will remain with the State. O Page 5-34 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Conformance with Public Plans and Policies OThe developer is required to secure new sources of potable water to serve the project site. To minimize the water needs for this development, water conservation measures will be incorporated into the design and operation of Kona Kai Ola. To achieve that end, drought tolerant, Hawaiian and other appropriate xeriscape landscaping will be used, R-1 water will be used for landscaping to the extent possible and low flow water fixtures will be used throughout the development. The developer is working with the County Department of Water to ensure the proposed water infrastructure is designed to accommodate the County goals on recycled water use. As part of the Kona Kai Ola development, upgrades will be required at the Kealakehe Waste Wwater Treatment Plant (WWTP). These upgrades are currently needed at the aging facility to meet current development needs. To serve Kona Kai Ola, the WWTP will be brought up to current requirements for health, environment, operation and expanded capacity needs. As noted throughout this EIS, sustainable development features will be incorporated in this development resulting in re -use, recycling and reduction in waste generated. HCGP Section 12 - Recreation Goals: (a) Provide a wide variety of recreational opportunities for the residents and visitors of the County. (b) Maintain the natural beauty of recreation areas. O(c) Provide a diversity of environments for active and passive pursuits. Policies: (c) Recreational facilities shall reflect the natural, historic, and cultural character of the area. (i) Coordinate recreational programs and facilities with governmental and private agencies and organizations. Innovative ideas for improving recreational facilities and opportunities shall be considered. (l) Public access to the shoreline shall be provided in accordance with an adopted program of the County of Hawai `i. (m) Develop a network of pedestrian access trails to places of scenic, historic, natural or recreational values. This system of trails shall provide, at a minimum, an island wide route connecting major parks and destinations. (n) Establish a program to inventory ancient trails, cart roads and old government roads on the island in coordination with appropriate State agencies. (o) Develop facilities and safe pathway systems for walking, jogging, and biking activities. Courses of Action (North Kona — Recreation): f) Acquire, and/or encourage the development of additional public shoreline recreation Oareas. Page 5-35 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Conformance with Public Plans and Policies (g) Establish public access to and the development of shoreline regions along the North O Kona Coast in areas such as Keawaiki, Kiholo Bay, Ka `u-pulehu, Kukio and Kapapa Bays, Kua Bay, Kahoiawa, Makalawena, and Honokohau. (j) Protect `Opae `ula, Kaloko, and Honokohau (Aimakapa) Ponds as natural areas. (k) Encourage the development of historic trails. Discussion: Kona Kai Ola will integrate into its surrounding community, provide diverse activities for the visitors and residents, and result in the promotion and enhancement of cultural, economic, recreational and environmental features which make this specific site unique. Kona Kai Ola has a distinct ocean recreation theme that fully meets Hawaii County's objectives for ocean recreational opportunities. The project includes an 800 -slip marina with a canoe and marina park that will expand the region's boating opportunities and support facilities. A 400 -foot shoreline setback will provide full public access along the coast. Further, a proposed marine science center will help to educate people about coastal habitats and encourage responsible stewardship of these resources. The shoreline adjacent to Kona Kai Ola will be protected and preserved. A 400 -foot buffer zone along the shoreline will be preserved as open space and no buildings or structures shall be proposed within the 400 -foot shoreline setback area, with the possible exception of culturally - related structures. Further, to control building mass near the shoreline, development sites directly adjacent to the shoreline setback area will be limited by design covenants to a lower unit density and height limits. O Bikeways, walking paths, trails., and enhanced pedestrian access to the shore are incorporated into the development design. Connecting the project's coastal trail system with the Ala Kahakai National Historic Trail will also add -to -this project's conformance with this policy. The proximity to the Kaloko-Honok6hau National Historical Park provides the opportunity for collaboration for educational, environmental and cultural goals, while the expanded marina will provide new and enhanced water recreational and business opportunities. Instead of featuring a golf course providing relatively passive recreation for a limited number of participants, Kona Kai Ola will be developed around a more active, social, and inclusive components such as public parks, trails, walkways, as well as seawater lagoons and possible marine life educational and interactive areas. HCGP Section 13 — Transportation Goals: (a) Provide a transportation system whereby people and goods can move efficiently, safely, comfortably and economically. (b) Make available a variety of modes of transportation that best meets the needs of the County. Page 5-36 Kealakehe, North Kona District Island of Hawaii Policies: Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Conformance with Public Plans and Policies (b) The agencies concerned with transportation systems shall provide for present traffic and future demands, including the programmed development of mass transit programs for high growth areas by both the private and public sectors. (c) The improvement of transportation service shall be encouraged. HCGP Section 13.2 -- Transportation: Roadways Goals: (a) Provide a system of roadways for the safe, efficient and comfortable movement of people and goods. (b) Provide an integrated State and County transportation system so that new major routes will complement and encourage proposed land policies. Policies: (b) Investigate various methods of funding road improvements, including private sector participation, to meet the growing transportation needs of the island. (j) Transportation and drainage systems shall be integrated where feasible. Courses of Action (North Kona = Transportation): (b) Encourage the State to widen Queen Ka `ahumanu Highway as necessary to accommodate increases in traffic flows, in particular between Kona International Airport at Kedhole and Kailua-Kona. (d) Encourage the State to extend Kealakehe Parkway mauka to connect with the Mdmalahoa Highway. (m) Support the installation of suitable bikeways and/or jogging paths. Discussion: The proposed expanded marina will provide transportation opportunities, and provide for possible use of transit water shuttles to Kailua-Kona. In terms of land transportation, proposed numerous road improvements, including a makai extension of Kealakehe Parkway and Kuakini Highway south to the Kailua-Kona, will help ease traffic, reduce air pollution through fewer idling cars in traffic and reduce emergency vehicle delays. Accessibility and enhanced options for transportation with a consistent theme of reducing vehicle use are proposed at Kona Kai Ola. Bikeways, walking paths, trails, and enhanced pedestrian access to the shore are incorporated into the development design. The layout of the development will reduce the need for a personal vehicle. A regularly scheduled shuttle service is proposed for moving people throughout the development, as well as between Kona Kai Ola, the airport, the surrounding neighborhoods, and Kailua-Kona. Page 5-37 Kealakehe, North Kona District Island of Hawaii HCGP Section 14 - Land Use HCGP Section 14.3 -- Commercial Development Goals: Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Conformance with Public Plans and Policies (a) Provide for commercial developments that maximize convenience to users. (b) Provide commercial developments that complement the overall pattern of transportation and land usage within the island's regions, communities, and neighborhoods. Policies: (c) Distribution of commercial areas shall meet the demands of neighborhood, community and regional needs. (f) The development of commercial facilities should be designed to fit into the locale with minimal intrusion while providing the desired services. Appropriate infrastructure and design concerns shall be incorporated into the review of such developments. (h) Require developers to provide basic infrastructure necessaryfor development. (i) Encourage commercial areas to develop on an axis perpendicular to the highway. Discussion: The project complies with all of the applicable goals and policies listed for commercial development in Hawaii County. The proposed commercial developments will be oriented towards responding to retail needs of local residents with possible larger retailers, grocery stores and community -services. In keeping with the master plan approach to this development, the commercial areas will be incorporated with the rest of the development into a coherent architectural theme and design. As part of the development agreements with the State, the developer is required to meet its infrastructure needs to serve the anticipated development. In addition, Kona Kai Ola will also expand the harbor, create open space, preserve cultural resources and complete off-site roadway improvements. The commercial developments on the DHHL property will be centered on Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway for direct and easy access to patrons, reducing traffic impacts on to side streets. HCGP Section 14.7 -- Resort Development Goals: (a) Maintain an orderly development of the visitor industry. (b) Provide for resort development that maximizes conveniences to its users and optimizes the benefits derived by the residents of the County. (c) Ensure that resort developments maintain the cultural and historic, social, economic, and physical environments of Hawai `i and its people. Page 5-38 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Conformance with Public Plans and Policies OPolicies: (d) Zoning of resort areas shall be granted when the proposed development is consistent with and incorporates the stated goals, policies and standards of the General Plan. (f) Designate and allocate future resort areas in appropriate proportions and in keeping with the social, economic, and physical environments of the County. (h) Encourage the visitor industry to provide resort facilities that offer an educational experience of Hawai `i as well as recreational activities. (i) Coastal resort developments shall provide public access to and parking for beach and shoreline areas. (j) Re-evaluate existing undeveloped resort designated and/or zoned areas, and reallocate these lands in appropriate locations. (k) Require developers to provide the basic infrastructure necessary for development. Courses of Action (North Kona — Resort Development): (c) Improve and provide adequate roadways, sewer and water systems, and other basic amenities in all areas where higher density uses are allowed. Discussion: The visitor industry is vital to the State of Hawaii in general and West Hawaii in particular. The hotel and time-share project components will help to strengthen the visitor O industry in this region, while implementing other visitor industry policies of Hawaii County. Educational opportunities will be provided at the marine science center and the cultural park. Public shoreline access will be provided and enhanced with a 400 -foot shoreline setback. In addition to meeting project infrastructure requirements, the project also includes major regional roadway improvements. The agreement between JDI and the State identifies hotel and time-share uses as possible development at Kona Kai Ola. The project is not a resort, however. A resort is a concent in which visitors are attracted to spend most, if not all, of their stay within the resort area through the design of amenities that fulfill the needs of a particular visitor market segment. This self - containment is achieved to varying degrees in resort development, depending on the natural, historic/cultural, and recreational resources within a resort site and the intended scale of the resort. State and Countv laws recognize this distinction between a "resort" and a "hotel" or "time share unit " Section 514E-5, Hawaii Revised Statutes, authorizes time share units to be located in a resort area or any other area in which a county may by ordinance allow a hotel unit. The Hawaii County Code correspondingly permits hotels and time share units in non -resort zoning districts. The proposed project may includes UD to 700 hotel units and 1,803 time-share units, and depending on the eventual location of these project components, rezoning may be requiresd for implementation.. Alternative 1 would decrease hotel and time-share units. Hotel units would be reduced by 43 percent, from the proposed 700 units to 400 units in Alternative 1. Time-share units would be Oreduced by 39 percent, from the proposed 1,803 units to 1,100 units in Alternative 1. Page 5-39 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Conformance with Public Plans and Policies HCGP Section 14.8 -- Open Space O Goals: (a) Provide and protect open space for the social, environmental, and economic well-being of the County of Hawai `i and its residents. Policies: (b) Open space in urban areas shall be established and provided through zoning and subdivision regulations. (c) Encourage the identification, evaluation, and designation of natural areas. Discussion: Kona Kai Ola will be designed to protect and preserve the area's scenic and open space resources. A 400 -foot buffer zone along the shoreline will be preserved as open space and no buildings or structures shall be proposed within the 400 -foot shoreline setback area, with the possible exception of possible culturally -related structures. To control building mass near the shoreline, development sites directly adjacent to the shoreline setback area will be limited by design covenants to a lower unit density and height limits. Buildings located further mauka will increase to a maximum of four stories, in keeping with the "coconut tree height" general limit. Along Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway, the northern edge of the large commercial parcel contiguous to the water feature will be limited to one-story structures. Structures on the remaining area of the parcel will be limited to the equivalent of three stories in height. Further, major roadways, parking areas, and areas surrounding all major structures will be landscaped in accordance with a landscape master plan. O HCGP Section 14.9 -- Public Lands Goals Goals: (a) Utilize publicly owned lands in the best public interest and to the maximum benefit for the greatest number of people. Discussion: This project complies with all provisions of these goals and policies in Section 14.9. Kona Kai Ola achieves the goals for public interest facilities, at the cost of a private developer. The State expects to receive substantial lease rental revenues from the project due to the revenues generated through the leasing agreements for this site, of which the fee title will remain with the State. As part of the approval process, the developer is required to comply with the Housing Ordinance, resulting in additional housing options for residents. The revenues from the DHHL commercial development will help fund additional homestead housing including continued development of the Villages of La`i `Opua, Inauka of the project site. The marina, parks, trails, and community areas are designed as integral parts of this development. Approximately 42 percent of the project site is planned to be in open space. 5.2.2 Community Development Plans - As part of the General Plan update that the County of Hawaii adopted in 2005, community development plans were to be formulated for different regions in the County and submitted to the Planning Commission and County Council for adoption as an ordinance. The Kona Kai Ola O project is located in the Kona Community Development Plan area. Page 5-40 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Conformance with Public Plans and Policies The maps associated with the preliminary efforts of the Kona Community Development Plan (CDP) include the Kona Kai Ola project site within the Preferred Urban Growth boundary of the Kona area. This CDP process was started in 2005 and is continuing as of this writing. The Kona CDP process is guided by a Steering Committee composed of a broad cross-section of the community. The Steering Committee, appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the Council on February 1, 2006, will provide guidance, assist in the preparation of the plan, and recommend the plan's approval to the Planning Commission (NKona 2006). Currently, the 1990 Keahole to Kailua Development Plan (K -to -K Plan) guides land use actions by the public and private sectors. It is intended to carry out the General Plan goals and policies related to the development of the portion of North Kona area, including the Kona Kai Ola site. The "Preferred Growth Plan" of the Keahole to Kailua Development Plan identifies the project site as a new regional urban center to include commercial, civic, and financial business related uses, an expanded "Harbor Complex," a shoreline road, and a shoreline park. The proposed development is consistent with the recommendations in the Keahole to Kailua Development Plan. Since the DEIS was published, the Kona Communit_Develooment Plan (CDP) has progressed to the development of plans for the major urban growth corridor north of Kailua-Kona. The Kona CDP has produced a draft plan showing a transit oriented development that includes a midlevel public transit corridor along the mauka residential elevation, and a makai transit corridor that O runs along a proposed new frontage road just makai and parallel to Queen Kaahumanu Highway. To make sure that Kona Kai Ola is consistent with this new Kona CDP transit oriented plan.. Kona Kai Ola Alternative 1 was prepared and includes the Kuakini Highway -as part of this proposed frontage road and transit line from Kailua Kona to the Kealakehe area, along with a transit stop at Kona Kai Ola. The Alternative 1 plan also includes a road that could be extended to be part of the proposed frontage road should it be approved and implemented. In addition the Kona CDP has continued to emphasize the principles of smart growth planning with mixed use urban areas where people can live, work, play and learn in the same region. Kona Kai Ola has been specifically designed to be consistent with this policy_ in order to provide a stable employment base close to where people live in the mauk_ a_residential areas already planned for DHHL and HHFDC lands. 5.2.3 County Zoning As shown on Figure AAW, the project site is zoned "Open". Under Section 25-5-160 of the Hawaii County Code, "The O (Open) district applies to areas that contribute to the general welfare, the full enjoyment, or the economic well-being of open land type use which has been established, or is proposed. The object of this district is to encourage development around it such as a golf course and park, and to protect investments which have been or shall be made in reliance upon the retention of such open type use, to buffer an otherwise incompatible land use or district, to preserve a valuable scenic vista or an area of special historical significance, or to protect and preserve submerged land, fishing ponds, and lakes (natural or artificial tide lands)". Some of the proposed uses at Kona Kai Ola are permitted uses in the Open zone such as: OHeiau, historical areas, structures, and monuments; Page 5-41 4 F- Kealakehe, North Kona District Island of Hawaii t Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement ■ Natural features, phenomena, and vistas as tourist attractions; ■ Private recreational uses involving no aboveground structure except dressing rooms and comfort stations; ■ Public parks; ■ Public uses and structures, as permitted under Section 25-4-11. In addition to those uses permitted outright, the following uses are permitted after issuance of a use permit: Yacht harbors and boating facilities; provided that the use, in its entirety, is compatible with the stated purpose of the O district. Uses considered directly accessory to the uses permitted in this section shall also be permitted in the O district. The proposed time-share and hotel units and commercial uses would not be consistent with the zoning designation of "Open". Project implementation therefore requires rezoning of portions of the project to the appropriate zoning category. Page 5-43 Kealakehe, North Kona District Island of Hawaii 5.2.4 Special Management Area Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement As shown in Figure AB -X, the entire project area up to the highway is within the coastal zone management zone known as the Special Management Area, or SMA. At the County level, implementation of the CZM Program is through the review and issuance of the Special Management Area (SMA) permit. Kona Kai Ola complies with and implements the objectives and policies of the Coastal Zone Management (CZM) Program, and a full discussion is provided in Section 5.1.3. Page 5-44 Kealakehe, North Kona District Island of Hawai `i 5.3 Permits Required for Project Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Table 4 identifies permits required for project implementation, including the agency, permit triggers and time frame. Table 4: Permits Required for the Project AUncv Permit or Approval Requirement Time Frame U.S. Army Corns of Department of the Army Engineers (DOA) Individual Permit Work in navigable waters; placing fill in waters of the U.S.. placing navigation aids Will incorporate: ■ Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10 ■ Clean Water Act Sections 401 and 404 ■ Coastal Zone Management Act Section 307 ■ Endangered Species Act Section 7 Prior to anv in -water work or fill or placement of navigation aids or modification of terrestrial habitat that may impact species listed under Endangered Species Act ■ National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 Private Aids to Navigation For approval for marking Prior to placement. Note: U.S. Coast Guard placement requires DOA as p� aids to navigation Permit. State Board of Land and Easement over Submerged Prior to commencement of Natural Resources Lands / Shared Harbor HRS Section 171-53 (6) operations of new marina Channel Entrance State Department of Business, Economic Determination of Hotel HRS Section 171-42 Prior to approval of Master Development & Tourism Development Development Plan For any work in the State Department of Land conservation district and Natural Resources Conservation District Use ■ Kuakini Highway Prior to any work in the DLNR) Office of Permit (CDUP) Extension and SWAC conservation district Conservation and Coastal pipe; Shoreline Park Lands (OCCL) ■ Hawaiian Cultural Park. Ocean Front Trail DLNR Commission on For well construction or Well Construction Permit, Prior to construction or Water Resource ground water source Management Pump Installation Permit development development State Department of Health 401 Water Oualitv Start simultaneously with (DOH) Clean Water Certification Triggered by DOA permit DOA permit Branch NPDES Page 5-46 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii OAgencv Time Frame Permit or Annroval Requirement - Individual Permit Discharge into state waters Prior to construction - NOI Appendix C Construction activities on Prior to construction one or more acres - NOI Appendix G Construction dewatering Prior to construction Discharge of circulation - NOI Appendix L water from decorative Prior to construction RQnds Copy to DLNR/State Simultaneously with DOH All NPDES applications Historic Preservation NPDES submittals Division Include with NPDES for Concurrent with NPDES Zone of Mixing discharge into state waters Application Water Source Approval For new drinking water After source is identified and capacity demonstration sources For operators of water Operator Certification Before system use ss s DOH Safe Drinking Water Branch For water system Construction Plan Review improvements and Before construction connections Underground Infection For injection well Before operations Control (UIC) Permit operations O DOH Clean Air Branch Dust control management Recommended only. not During construction lean requiredplanning Comply with DOH Noise, Radiation & No permit Administrative Rules During construction Indoor Air Quality Branch Chapter 11-46. Community Noise Control Prior to any construction or Special Management Area other work in the SMA (SMA) Major Permit Work in the SMA does not include DHHL land Zonin Must be consistent with the After acceptance of EIS General Plan To erect a new structure including fences County of Hawaii swimming pools and Building Permit retaining walls more than Prior to construction 3'-0" in height, and water catchments regardless of depth or capacity Grading. Grubbing. and For volumes as specified Prior to activity Stockpiling Permits bL county Development, subdivision, drainage and flood zone For development Prior to construction reviews Page 5-47 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii UU.S. Afmy Ger-ps of Engineers Per -mit (Seetion 404) .S. Ar -my no :. ico t:., im State of Hawaili Subdivision Appr-ev 1 Page 5-48 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawai `i Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources 6 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment. of Resources Implementation of Kona Kai Ola will result in irreversible and irretrievable commitment of land, water, energy, and fiscal resources from the private sector and the State. As previously discussed, the State does not have sufficient funds to expand harbor facilities, and has entered into agreements with JDI to construct the harbor and exercise various options to develop the site. The project site is mostly vacant, and project implementation will significantly alter the land use character and visual resource. The property would be transformed from an undeveloped open area to a built, planned, service -providing, income -generating facility. This development will require on-site infrastructure, namely transportation, drainage, water and wastewater infrastructure, and private funds will be committed to construct the necessary improvements. The development will also increase the use of existing public infrastructure, including police and fire protection services, but will provide new business and employment opportunities, and new hotels and time-share complexes. Labor and materials used to construct the project are mostly non-renewable and irretrievable resources. After construction, operation of the project will require continued use of water and electricity. However, JDI intends to incorporate the latest environmental design and technology to create an energy efficient, low environmental impact, sustainable development at Kona Kai O Ola to optimize the use of environmental resources. In addition, the proposed shuttle service and pedestrian path system will help reduce the need for vehicular use, and systems will be included to produce electricity from renewable sources. The impacts represented by the commitment of these resources are outweighed by the significant positive socio-economic benefits that could be derived from project implementation. Recreational, cultural, and economic opportunities will be made available through the development of Kona Kai Ola. Infrastructure to support the project will be improved, and private funds will be used to construct public facilities including a marina and a 1.5 mile extension of Kuakini Highway. In addition, a new marine science center will be featured, and residents and visitors alike will have access to on-site cultural and recreational parks Further, Kona Kai Ola achieves goals for public interest facilities, at the cost of a private developer. The fee title in the land will remain with the State, and the State expects to receive substantial lease rental revenues from the project. As part of the approval process, the developer is required to comply with the Housing Ordinance, resulting in additional housing options for residents. The revenues from the DHHL commercial development will help fund additional homestead housing including continued development of the Villages of La`i `Opua, mauka of the project site. Page 6-1 Kealakehe, North Kona District Island of Hawaii Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement This page is intentionally blank. Page 6-2 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Relationship between Short -Term Uses of the Environment and the Maintenance of Long Term Productivity 7 Relationship between Short -Term Uses of the Environment and the Maintenance of Long=Term Productivity On a shertshort-term basis, construction equipment, earth movement, blasting and other activities would impact the area. Earth movement and construction would be visible from mauka areas, Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway, the adjacent shoreline areas and the ocean. Construction traffic would increase during work hours as cut material from the new harbor is transported if needed off-site. Short-term noise would increase, while air quality would diminish, with the commencement of construction activities. Construction activities will generate employment opportunities throughout the duration of the construction period, including overall site activities and construction of individual projects. It is anticipated that the majority of construction workers will originate from nearby communities, or commute from other regions. Due to the scope of the project, the anticipated phasing of the project encompasses a 15 year build -out. Most of the heavy grading, earth movement, marina construction and the majority of the infrastructure improvements will most likely be completed during the beginning of the build -out. Construction of lodging and commercial facilities will be completed over a longer-term period. In the long-term, as portions of the project become operational and capital construction activities decline, the addition of structures and human activity will incrementally generate impacts above O current levels for noise, air quality, and traffic. Completion and operation of the project will generate long-term impacts to public services including solid waste collection, wastewater collection and processing, energy generation and transmission, water use and distribution, and police, health, and fire protection. Long-term productivity resulting from project implementation will significantly outweigh short- term costs. This productivity will be achieved through numerous ways. The project will generate significant economic benefits. The resulting increase in income, sales and property taxes will contribute to the public sector revenue base on a long-term, ongoing basis, and the increase in employment and business opportunities will improve overall economic conditions. The project will also provide for long-term benefits for the visitor and boating industries. Regional ocean and land-based recreational resources will increase with on-site development. The boating industry will experience long-term benefits through the addition of new boat slips and the development of new marina serving facilities. The natural environment, including the shoreline environment, will be altered; but its long=-term sustainability, viability, and productivity will be enhanced. The infrastructure improvements to the site, primarily the upgrades and subsequent hookups to the wastewater treatment plant, will result in less effluent seeping into groundwater/nearshore waters from the temporary sump used for disposal of the effluent from the waste -water treatment plant, as well as input via the septic systems used at the existing marina. Page 7-1 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Relationship between Short -Term Uses of the Environment and the Maintenance of Long=Term Productivity The extension of Kealakehe Parkway to Kuakini Highway will reduce traffic delays resulting in O improved air quality and traffic noise reductions. While some anchialine& will have to be removed, and the remaining-penEls=pRols become marine ecosystems, as an unintended result of the development, improved water circulation, increased seawater flows and a zone of mixing closer to the shoreline will result in improved marine habitat overall. The proposed open spaces, shoreline setback areas, water features and other formally designated habitats, or preserved areas, will result in better managed archaeological, cultural, habitat and educational opportunities for visitors and residents. Short-term use and long-term productivity relationships are described below in context of the following four specific areas of potential concern as described in the Hawaii State Office of Environmental Quality Control (OEQC) Guidelines for F_EIS preview. The following discussion addresses each of these potential areas of concern. Narrowing the range of beneficial uses of the environment The proposed improvements in the Kona Kai Ola project have, when measured against the impacts overall, a beneficial impact on the environment. The project has a strong ocean and cultural orientation, and the proposed marine science center will help visitors and residents understand and respect the natural environment. The proposed traffic infrastructure improvements will expand the range of beneficial uses of the environment by improving traffic flow through intersections thereby reducing emissions. The proposed designation of a 400 -foot shoreline setback will preserve open space and O improve public access to the shoreline for recreational and cultural uses. Creating a brackish water pond will enhance habitat for avian fauna. Long-term risks to health and safety The proposed project is not expected to generate risks to health and safety. The project will comply with all drainage, natural hazard building codes, solid and liquid waste disposal requirements and water quality standards. The anticipated infrastructure improvements to the wastewater treatment plant are anticipated to actually improve the health and safety of the community by bringing an older facility up to higher operational standards. All structures will be built to current building and safety codes, while access to the shore and around the site will be improved. Foreclosure of future options Implementation of Kona Kai Ola will preclude a range of potential other uses of the site including keeping the site in its current condition. However, the range of uses, type of development, quantity of open space and mitigations for preservation of various environmental impacts will not foreclose future options for enhancement, expansion or preservation of various environmental, cultural, and community servicing facilities. Page 7-2 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Relationship between Short -Term Uses of the Environment and the Maintenance of Long_Term Productivity Trade-offs among short- and long-term gains and losses Construction -related activities will result in short-term impacts and project implementation will result in a long-term loss of open space and the natural environment. Potential short- and long-term negative impacts are offset, however, by planned mitigation measures. Further, long-term benefits outweigh any short-term and long-term losses. Project design is intended to complement the natural landscape and on-site features will encourage understanding and respect for the environment. Sustainable design will be practiced based on the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Green Building Rating System, which is a nationally accepted benchmark for the design, construction, and operation of high performance green buildings. Page 7-3 Kealakehe, North Kona District Island of Hawaii Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement This page is intentionally blank. Page 7-4 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Cumulative Impacts 8 Cumulative Impacts In general, West Hawaii is expected to continue to change with more urbanized uses being introduced to the region. West Hawai`i's population is forecasted to increase by 37 to 53 percent by 2020. It is expected that the economy will continue to be driven primarily by growth in the visitor industry and associated recreational real estate. afid-West Hawaii is expected to continue to attract most of the island's visitors. Visitor units and tourism related employment are expected to experience corresponding increases. The project is located in the midst of major changes due to development, and the projects nearest Kona Kai Ola are as follows: Kula Nei Proiect: Located approximately 2.5 miles northeast of Kona Kai Ola, the Kula Nei project is on approximately 150 acres. The Shopoff Group is proposing to develop the property for low density residential development which would consist of about 270 residential units of which up to 220 single-family home sites that would include affordable housing units. The project published its Environmental Impact Statement Preparation Notice in November of 2006. Kaloko Heights: The proposed Stanford Carr Development project is on approximately 400 acres of land approximately two miles northeast of the Kona Kai Ola project. The proposed development is for 1,500 residential units including affordable and moderately priced homes, and would include a five -acre commercial project. O Palani Ranch: Currently in its conceptual long-range planning, the Palani Ranch Co. Inc. owns approximately 500 acres of land approximately 1.6 miles east of the Kona Kai Ola project. Villages of La`i`Onua: Less than a mile east of the Kona Kai Ola proiect is the 1,015 acre master -planned community that would include about 4,000 plus single-family and multi -family residential units, recreational facilities, and community and neighborhood commercial complexes. DHHL owns approximately 980 acres within the villages. The project consists of 14 different villages. Villages 4 and 5 are the next phases of development and would create approximately 300 lots including single-familv homes. Additional Villages are planned for the future. University of Hawaii Community Colleges: The University of Hawaii Center at West Hawaii is planning and designing of a University of Hawaii Community Colleges on land just east of the Kona Kai Ola pr(ject. West Hawaii Business Park/Kaloko-Honokohau Business Park: Lanihau Partners L.P. is proposing the development of approximately 330 acres of land just northeast of the Kona Kai Ola project. The proposed use of the site is for light industrial, business and commercial. Phase 1 100 acres for industrial/mixed use and 100 -plus acres for general industrial zoning use (auarry and related), and Phase 2, about 80 acres for industrial/mixed use, are estimated to be completed in 2012. Phase 3, about 40 acres designated for industrial/mixed use, is anticipated to start in 2011 through 2015 in conjunction with the Phase 2 development. Page 8-1 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Cumulative Impacts Kaloko Industrial Park, Phases III & IV: Less than a mile northeast of the Kona Kai Ola O project is the approximately 233 acre Kaloko Industrial Park developed by TSA International, Limited. The proposed development is light industrial and industrial -commercial mixed use. Phase III and IV would consist of approximately 102 acres and will provide 82 lots. Phases I and II approximately 130 acres of area consisted of 85 lots been completed. West Hawaii Hospital: Planned Medical Community 21St Century is in the process of plannjn_c a new hospital on 35 acres immediately east of Kona Kai Ola project, in the Villages of La`i`Opua Village 8. Construction is estimated to take place between 2008 and 2013. West Hawaii Civic Center: Located less than a mile east, the County of Hawai`i's West Hawaii Civic Center is located on seven acres of County land located in the Villages of La`i `O ua. The civic center would be the County's one-stop service center that would include meeting rooms, motor vehicle registration, driver's licensing, offices for Real Property Tax, Department of Planning, Department of Public Works, Office of Aging, the Mayor's Office, the County Council office, Liquor Control and the Department of Parks and Recreation. Construction for the first phase was to begin in 2006. Palamanui Development: Located near the Kona International Airport at Keahole, the Hiluhilu Development LLC proposes to develop a 725.2 acre parcel northeast of Kona Kai Ola. Palamanui will provide approximately 845 housing units (residences for the University of Hawai`j's West Hawai!j Campus and the community), a cultural center, commercial areas, an 18 -hole golf course, athletic fields and medical wellness facilities. Queen Lili`uokalani Trust: The Queen Lili`uokalani Trust owns land south and southeast to the O Kona Kai Ola project. The 3,500 acres of land is a mix of both developed and undeveloped lands. Undeveloped entitled lands include 100 acres of mixed use. light industrial and commercial zoned and 20 acres of general commercial zoned. Kona International Airport at Keahole: Located 3.4 miles north of the Kona Kai Ola project is the Kona International Airport at Keahole on approximately 4,422 acres of land, of which about 322 acres are leased to the Natural Energy Laboratory of Hawaii and 421 acres to the Hawaii Ocean Science and Technology Park. Plans for the airport include runway expansions and additional support facilities such as public parking, postal facilities, warehouses, and other facilities to meet the airport's growth needs. Expansion construction is expected to continue into 2015. Kalaoa/Airport Properties: DHHL has preliminary plans for approximately 483 acres of land three miles north of the Kona Kai Ola project. Preliminary plans based on the Hawaii Island Plan included 230 acres for general agriculture use, ten acres for commercial use: seven acres for community use, 100 acres for industrial use, and 136 acres for residential use. Lokahi Subdivision: Located approximately 1.5 miles northeast of Kona Kai Ola is the Lokahi Subdivision proposed development by Westpro Development, Inc. The proposed development on an area of approximately 68 acres of land would include 190 lots for residential with park and related amenities. . Page 8-2 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Cumulative Impacts OKohanaiki Golf and Ocean Club• A project by the Rutter Development Corn./ KW Kohanaiki, LLC., is on approximately 450 acres of land approximately 1.5 miles north of the Kona Kai Ola project. The proposal project includes up to 500 homes, golf course, and clubhouse. In addition to development projects, there are several proposed infrastructure improvements, as follows: ■ Water — North Kona Water Source Development. Transmission and Storage for the Villages of La`i`OQua- — Palani Road to Keanalehu Drive Transmission Line for Villages of La`i`Opua; — Kealaka`a Street to Keanalehu Drive Transmission Line for Villages of La`i`Opua, ■ Sewer Sewer along extension along Keanalehu Drive for Villages of La`i`Opua; Electrical Substation with in the Villages of La`i`Opua; ■ Roads — Keanalehu Drive Extension to Manawale`a Street-; Ane Koehokalole Highwav Extension to Henrv_Street:: — Keanalehu Drive Extension to Palani Road:; O— Kealakehe Parkway to Kealaka`a Street Extension_; — Kealakehe Parkway / Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway Intersection:; — Kealakehe Parkway Extension to Kuakini Highway:- - Queen Ka`ahumanu Road Widening:; — Kamanu Street Extension to Kealakehe Parkway:; MAN w . _ ..FIRM.. .. Page 8-3 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Cumulative Impacts Kona Kai Ola will be part of this overall context of change and growth. The most apparent cumulative change in the socio-economic environment is the visual impact of more urbanized areas replacing underdeveloped or vacant land. There will be an increase in visitor and resident populations, although Kona Kai Ola will not contribute significantly to resident population. Also expected are increases in housing and visitor units, more commercial establishments, more jobs, and more business opportunities. As the region continues to develop, archaeological and cultural resources will be affected and evaluated for appropriate mitigation. The pressure for recreational areas and facilities will increase and the need for shoreline access will continue. The demand for increased public services, including schools, police and fire protection, and medical services, will increase. The regional cumulative effects on the physical environment include the site-specific changes in topography and the increase in impervious surfaces which could affect regional drainage. There will be a change in flora and fauna habitat, and the ocean; and may be subject to runoff and pollution. Ocean habitats and the marine environment may also be affected by the increased number of resident and visitor users, more boats, and land-based runoff and activities. Construction of the Kona Kai Ola project will also potentially add to the short-term cumulative underwater acoustic impacts related to land-based construction effort (i.e., the construction of O buildings, roads and the infrastructure to service them) and, more importantly, the construction of the 45 -acre, 800 boat slip harbor. Potential impact marine mammals and sea turtles, mitigation techniques will be employed to minimize these acute affects. Overall, the trend of development in the Kona area means increased anthropogenic noise. The cumulative development will result in increased vehicular traffic, and the need for roadway improvements and alternative modes of transportation will increase. As the region continues to develop, noise levels may increase above current conditions, as more vehicles and new roadways, more structures, and generally increased human activity characterize the region. Emissions from cars and electricity -generating facilities will increase air pollution. Infrastructure facilities will also be affected by cumulative development. The overall demand for potable water will increase with population growth. Wastewater flows will increase, and the North Kona Sewer Master Plan is being developed for Hawaii County to address future sewer improvements. Solid waste disposal will also increase with the cumulative growth. (1 Page 8-4 Kealakehe, North Kona District Island of Hawaii Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Cumulative Impacts While the project will increase socio-economic and environmental impacts and demands on infrastructure systems, Kona Kai Ola will reduce or mitigate its impacts within the context of larger cumulative impacts. In working towards sustainability objectives, JDI intends to incorporate the latest environmental design and technology to create an energy efficient, low environmental impact, sustainable development at Kona Kai Ola. LEED promotes a whole - building approach to sustainability by recognizing performance in five key areas of human and environmental health: sustainable site development, water savings, energy efficiency, materials selection, and indoor environmental quality_ as discussed in Section 1.5.2 (7 EED 2006) M's Kona Kai Ola impacts on public infrastructure and utilities will be mitigated as proposed in this 13FEIS, and various measures are presented to reduce impacts related to the physical environment. Further, the project includes components intended to serve the existing and future visitor and resident population, including a new marina. Shoreline access will be enhanced by a new 400 - foot shoreline setback, various parks, including a canoe launching area, a marine science center and other recreational features. On-site commercial areas will expand shopping alternatives. Further, the extension of Kuakini Highway that is part of project implementation will help to mitigate project and cumulative traffic impacts. In addition, JDI his in the process of establishing the Kona Kai Ola Community Foundation as a 501(C)(3) non-profit corporation to promote community efforts such as community development, community health care, job training, educational and cultural programs and projects. The primary target service population includes North Kona, and Hawaii Island residents with a focus on native Hawaiians. JDI will -has contributed $100,000 as initial funding. Ongoing financial support is to be provided by the land users of the Kona Kai Ola Project. The resources from this foundation can be used to address cumulative needs and efforts. Page 8-5 Kealakehe, North Kona District Island of Hawaii Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Cumulative Impacts This page is intentionally left blank. Page 8-6 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Probable Adverse Environmental Impacts Which Cannot be Avoided O 9 Probable Adverse Environmental Impacts Which Cannot be Avoided Environmental impacts anticipated to result from the implementation of Kona Kai Ola have been discussed throughout this FEIS. This section summarizes unavoidable adverse impacts. Short-term effects are generally associated with construction, and prevail only for the duration of the construction period. Long-term effects generally follow completion of the improvements, relate either simply to their existence or to the operation of the new facilities, and are permanent. Effects that can be considered both adverse and unavoidable are discussed below. Construction impacts to air quality are short-term and temporary in nature. If mitigation measures are not provided, significant airborne emissions could include fugitive dust. Fugitive dust emissions are expected to result from earth -moving, cement -mixing activities, and vehicular travel in construction areas�HAR Section 11-60.1-33 prohibits the generation of fugitive dust without taking reasonable precautions to limit these emissions. As a result, significant fugitive dust generating activities will be minimized through mitigation measures identified in Section 3.5 of this PE49FEIS. Vehicular emissions will also result from combustion of fossil fuels from construction equipment and vehicles of commuting construction workers. In addition, noise impacts generated by the O proposed action will come from the operation of equipment during the construction phase. Construction of the new marina will cause the removal of s three anchfallne =Rpols, as well as possibly change the salinity in the remaining anchialine pools *he eh^nge from bfaekish ter to I stems the ^hia n makai of the new harbor. Monitoring, management and mitigation measures to protect the health of these anchialine pool ecosystems is described in Section 3.9.2.2. After the proposed project is completed, long-term impacts on air quality resulting from emissions from project -related motor vehicle traffic should be insignificant. The urbanization of this project will result in a loss of natural and open space. Further, there will be an increase in structural density and human activity, as well as a loss of archaeological sites classified as less significant. Solid waste and wastewater will be generated on-site, and energy and water will be consumed. Typical of development projects in general, the transformation of undeveloped land into an urban landscape is an unavoidable impact. The incorporation of the latest environmental design and technology to create an energy efficient, low environmental impact, sustainable development at Kona Kai Ola will help to mitigate such impacts. Page 9-1 Kealakehe, North Kona District Island of Hawaii Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement This page is intentionally blank. Page 9-2 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Summary of Unresolved Issues O 10 Summary of Unresolved Issues A comparison between impacts related to the proposed project and impacts related to Alternative 1 a 400 -slip marina indicates that Alternative 1 would generate less environmental, social and economic impacts This suggests that Alternative 1 might be the preferred alternative. While it can be concluded that the 25 -acre marina in Alternative 1 would be the preferred size. the DLNR agreement establishes the size of the marina at 45 acres and 800 slips. An amendment to the DLNR agreement would be needed to allow Alternative 1 to proceed with its 25 acre marina: Hence selection of the preferred alternative is an unresolved issue at the writing of this FEIS. Air conditioning for the Kona Kai Ola development may be provided by a system utilizing deep, cold ocean water for cooling or Seawater Air Conditioning (SWAC). SWAC would significantly reduce energy consumption requirements, and is being considered in keeping with the sustainability goals of the overall Kona Kai Ola project. The specific design for the proposed SWAC facility has not been finalized. SWAC is a relatively new type of technology and its use at Kona Kai Ola requires a coordinated design concurrent with the buildings, infrastructure, open spaces and lagoons. If injection wells are chosen for circulated -water disposal, the location of these will be dictated by the underlying aquifer and groundwater system. The design of the SWAC will be established as the project progresses. If SWAC is not implemented, then conventional air conditioning systems will be used. This determination will be made based on further detailed study. O The lack of affordable housing continues to be a serious problem for the West Hawaii region. The project will generate jobs possibly requiring workers to commute from existing distant housing areas, or to search for housing from the increasingly expensive West Hawaii housing market. Affordable housing requirements generated by Kona Kai Ola will be determined .in the rezoning application process. Based on the current plan, it is anticipated that the development will need to secure water quantities estimated at 2.6 million gallons a day. Currently, Department of Water Supply (DWS) sources are not adequate to support the project needs. The developer is working with the County, DLNR and others on new sources, transmission, and storage of water for the development. Developed wells storage tanks transmission and distribution mains will be dedicated to the DWS. - Page 10-1 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Summary of Unresolved Issues Because it is known that turtles frequent both the harbor and very nearshore areas adjacent to the O construction site, they will be impacted by underwater sound from the blasting. Prior experience from similar construction activities at Barbers Point Harbor suggests that turtles will be attracted to the blasting noise. It is reasonable to assume that modification of blasting techniques and in water monitoring can keep the in -water sound levels below the Level A take threshold where actual physical damage could occur. However, it is not likely that either the in -water Level B take threshold or the in -air Level B take threshold could be avoided Attempting mitigation for the Level B take by excluding the animals from the area is not deemed feasible. Clearing the turtles from the Level B take zone prior to each blast would require physical movement of the animals or other harassment to scare them away - which in itself would constitute a Level B take Given the lack of biological data on this species with regards to their responsiveness to underwater sound, the most reasonable approach may be to attach monitoring tags to turtles known to frequent the area and monitor their behavior during blasting operations. The issue of potential impact to hawksbill and green sea turtles remains both poorly defined and unresolved. Due to the very limited knowledge concerning the acoustic hearing range of sea turtles, and a lack of knowledge concerning the noise levels that would impart a significant behavioral change (Level B take) or physiological damage (Level A take), we are forced by the precautionary principle to use data from other species. Unfortunately the species with known data, seals and dolphins, are phylogeneticly distant and are perceived to have much lower thresholds. Weare therefore applying very stringent sound level limits to a species that may not require this level of protection. Page 10-2 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Public Participation in Planning for Kona Kai Ola O 11 Public Participation in Planning for Kona Kai Ola 11.1 Public Participation Overview. &nee—From November 2005 through June 2007, over 920 Big Island community members have participated in about 5 0 people have been given Kona Kai Ola presentations. Community input gathered from these presentations and facilitated by JDI's smart growth expertise, has shaped the vision for Kona Kai Ola. , and were asked r^~ eomment and inp"*. Approximately 48-238 people were contacted individually or in very small groups. An additional 37A-682 people heard the Kona Kai Ola presentations that were given at larger meetings of different organizations. Each large group meeting included a presentation, and question and answer periods; with the members of the commission, council, or club. The community concerns and priorities expressed at these meetings were gathered in this communications program, and thee -provided to the Kona Kai Ola planning and design team. Through this process, the plans for the project were redesigned, and the scope of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement was expanded to address these public concerns. Over a period of eleven 17 months, the key issues that surfaced from these public meetings and presentations include the need for improvements of the road infrastructure in the existing area, traffic concerns on Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway, the potential impact on the growth of Kona of O the proposed number of visitor accommodation units (hotel and time-share), the environmental impact of the marina and the proposed number of slips, concerns about the County of Hawai`i's Kealakehe Waste-Wwater Treatment Plant, the need for community gathering places (parks and other areas to play and learn), adequate shoreline setbacks, and greater sensitivity to Hawaiian cultural values. The community concerns and priorities expressed at these meetings were gathered in this communications program, and they-we1=e-provided to the Kona Kai Ola planning and design team. Through an iterative planning process, the master development plan was revised or the Environmental Impact Statement studies were expanded to address the community concerns. This planning process which includes consultation with neighbors and community stakeholders will help ensure a successful design of Kona Kai Ola. Some of the design and planning steps being taken to address these community concerns include: ■ design the overall project to incorporate sustainability with energy efficiency, environmental protection, and pedestrian -friendly designs to enhance community health; ■ plan to create a sustainable ahupua`a by developing a commercial mixed-use development around a new harbor in the makai region, and by developing affordable workforce housing in an area mauka of the project site in the same or adjacent ahupua`a - and connecting the ahupua`a with improved roadways, serviced by a regularly scheduled shuttle. This way, people can live close to where they work, play, and learn;-- and they can get around the ahupua`a region without needing to own a car. Page 11-1 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Public Participation in Planning for Kona Kai Ola ■ design and plan for the Kealakehe Parkway extension to Kuakini Highway to be built in O the first phase of the project as a major road connecting the harbor area to Kailua-Kona Village; ■ evaluate the safety issues with the shared entrance channel that may limit the number of slips in the new harbor basin; ■ evaluate the market for boat slips that may suggest changes to the number of slips in the new harbor basin; ■ include a substantial shoreline park, with a 400 -foot setback, providing increased public shoreline access to recreation areas and protection of culturally significant sites: ■ perpetuate the cultural history of this land through the inclusion of a cultural center as an integral part of the project; ■ include numerous community spaces in the plan including a canoe park, community gathering areas, and cultural center; ■ include a marine science education center, which will provide new opportunities for local schools to learn about the ocean and the maritime heritage of Hawaii; ■ evaluate different options for upgrading the wastewater treatment plant to improve its performance and capacity; ■ evaluate and analyze o€ -potential environmental impacts, and suggested mitigation measures that will be included in a comprehensive Environmental Impact Statement. O Table 52: Community Contacts Completed November 2005 through September 2006 • Denotes an individual or small group meeting * Denotes a group meeting Name Affiliation and Participation Bob Acree Attended Hawaii Leeward Planning Conference presentation* Marie Aguilar Attended Destination Kona Coast presentation* Colleen Aiu Ka `Ghana o Na Kupuna*- Danny Akaka Cultural Resources Director, Mauna Lani Resort• Mahea Akau Ironman Triathlon World Championship - Cathie Amelotte Rotary Club of Kona presentation* Aric Arakaki Superintendent, Ala Kahakai National Historic Trail - James Arakaki County Council person - Ron Aronson Attended Kona Kohala Chamber of Commerce Environmental and Natural Resources Committee Mtg* Kealakehe 2020 Sue Aronson Attended Na Hoapili o Kaloko Honokohau Advisory Commission meeting Rick Asbach Rotary Club of Kona presentation* O Page 11-2 Kealakehe, North Kona District Island of Hawaii Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Public Participation in Planning for Kona Kai Ola OName Affiliation and Participation North Kona Vice President Tim Ashcraft Kona Kohala Chamber of Commerce Attended Kona Kohala Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors presentation* Alan Ayano Captain, Lady Dee Sportfishing- Member, Na Hoapili o Kaloko Honokohau Advisory Commission Chad Baybayan Attended Na Hoapili o Kaloko Honokohau Advisory Commission presentation* Ron Baird Executive Director, Natural Energy Laboratory of Hawaii Authority- uthorityEarl EarlBakken President, Five Mountains Hawaii- Ed Barnett West Hawaii Fisheries Council presentation* Stephen Bauman West Hawaii Fisheries Council presentation* Marine Biologist, Kaloko Honokohau National Historical Park Sallie Beavers Attended Na Hoapili o Kaloko Honokohau Advisory Commission presentation*- Superintendent, Kaloko Honokohau National Historical Park Member Na Hoapili o Kaloko Honokohau Advisory Commission Geraldine Bell Attended Na Hoapili o Kaloko Honokohau Advisory Commission presentation*- Member Na Hoapili o Kaloko Honokohau Advisory Commission Ulalia Ka`ai Berman Attended Na Hoapili o Kaloko Honokohau Advisory Commission O presentation* Diana Bertsch Event Director, Ironman Triathlon World Championship - R. Beesow West Hawaii Fisheries Council presentation* Skip Bethea Aide, Hawaii County Council person Gary Safarik- Jean Bevan -Marquez West Hawaii Fisheries Council presentation* Elaine Blank Education Director, Jack's Diving Locker• Tropidilla Productions Jody Bright Member, Small Boat Harbors and Boating Facilities Ad -Hoc Fact -Finding Committee Integrated Resource Management, Kaloko Honokohau National Historical Richard Boston Park• Kater Bourdon West Hawaii Fisheries Council presentation* James Boyle Attended Lions Club of Kona presentation* Marsha Boyle Attended Lions Club of Kona presentation* Administrator, County of Hawaii Mass Transit Agency Tom Brown Attended Kona Traffic Safety Committee presentation* Nancy Burns Engineer consultant, former engineer for the County of Hawaii- Treasurer, Rotary Club of Kona Barbara Bush Attended Rotary Club of Kona presentation* O Page 11-3 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Public Participation in Planning for Kona Kai Ola Name Affiliation and Participation O Board member, Kaniohale Community Association at the Villages of La`i `Opua Marion Bush Attended Kaniohale Community Association at the Villages of La`i `Opua Board of Directors presentation* Joe Bussing West Hawaii Fisheries Council presentation* Zack Caldwell West Hawaii Fisheries Council presentation* Carl Carlson Kukio Resort - Brent Carmen West Hawaii Fisheries Council presentation* Guy Cellier Attended Hawaii Leeward Planning Conference presentation* Ray Chaikin Kona environmental leader and Kona businessperson - Serena Chamberlain President, Peoples Advocacy for Trails Hawai `i• Former County of Hawai `i Deputy Managing Director Henry Cho Attended Kona Lions Club presentation*- First Hawaiian Bank Winston Chow Attended the Hawaii Leeward Planning Conference presentation* President and General Manager, Keauhou Resort Greg Chun North Kona Vice President, Kona Kohala Chamber of Commerce Attended Kona Kohala Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors presentation* Walter Chung Attended Lions Club of Kona presentation* Dennis Cintas Captain and owner of Intrepid sport fishing O Attended Hawaii Fisheries Council presentation* Architect Terry Cisco Attended Destination Kona Coast presentation* Past President, Rotary Club of Kona Alan Clark Attended Rotary Club of Kona presentation* Tim Clark Director, Manta Pacific Research Foundation*- Board member, University of the Nations; member, Rotary Club of Kona Ken Clewett Attended Rotary Club of Kona presentation* President Elect, Rotary Club of Kona Bill Cliff Attended Rotary Club of Kona presentation* Queen Lili`uokalani Trust LeeAnn Crabbe Attended Hawaii Leeward Planning Conference presentation* Member Kealakehe High School Student Council Sabrina Crane Attended Kealakehe High School Student Council presentation*- Member, Rotary Club of Kona Kathy Damon Attended Rotary Club of Kona presentation* Mendy Dant Owner, Fair Wind; member, Big Island Reef Fund and Kealakekua Bay Activity group• Puhi Dant Owner, Fair Wind - Member, West Hawaii Fisheries Council David Dart West Hawaii Fisheries Council presentation* Page 11-4 OAttended Page 11-5 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Public Participation in Planning for Kona Kai Ola OName Affiliation and Participation Member (alternate), West Hawaii Fisheries Council; attended West Neil Dart Hawaii Fisheries Council presentation* Kyle Datta Managing Director, Rocky Mountain Institute• Maile David Staff to Hawaii County Councilperson Angel Pilago- Michael Davis Attended Lions Club of Kona presentation* President Elect, Kona Kohala Chamber of Commerce; attended Kona Christie Dermengian Kohala Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors presentation Roger Dills Member, Kona Community Development Plan Steering Committee• Printy Dinsmore Architect, attended Destination Kona Coast presentation* Ania Driscoll -Lind Director, Kula Naia Foundation; marine mammal scientist - Fred Duerr President, Hawaiian International Billfish Association - Roger Duquette Captain, Autumn Marine Sportfishing- Board member, Kona Kohala Chamber of Commerce; attended Kona Robin Dutson Kohala Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors presentation* ' Member Kealakehe High School Student Council; attended Kealakehe High Ivan Ebaniz School Student Council presentation* Isabel Eli Director, Manta Pacific Research Foundation* - Robbie Englehard Hawaii International Billfish Tournament Director - Cindy Evans State Representative, 7th District - Karen Eoff Staff to Hawaii County Councilperson Angel Pilago- Sean Fagan Operations Manager, Atlantis Submarines - Richard Farnham Member, Rotary Club of Kona; attended Rotary Club of Kona presentation* Joann Farnsworth Member, Kona CDP Steering Committee - Michael Federspiel Attended Lions Club of Kona presentation* Member, Na Hoapili o Kaloko Honokohau Advisory Commission; attended Dale Fergerstrom Na Hoapili o Kaloko Honokohau Advisory Commission presentation Billy Fields Cultural mason in Kona - Chuck Flaherty Member, Citizens for. Equitable and Responsible Government - Member, Citizens for Equitable and Responsible Government, attended Brenda Ford Destination Kona Coast presentation* Past President, Rotary Club of Kona Bev Fraser Attended Rotary Club of Kona presentation* Board member, Kona Coffee Cultural Festival; member, Holualoa Business Alfreida Fujita Association - Planner, PBR Hawaii " Marissa Furfaro Attended Hawaii Leeward Planning Conference presentation* Member Kealakehe High School Student Council Malia Fyffe Attended Kealakehe High School Student Council presentation* Scott Fuller Captain and co-owner TARA II sport fishing - President, Pacific Boats & Yachts; member, Small Boat Harbors and Rick Gaffney Facilities Ad -Hoc Fact -Finding Committee - OBoating Page 11-5 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Public Participation in Planning for Kona Kai Ola Name Affiliation and Participation O Salvador Galindo Attended Lions Club of Kona presentation* Sam Gaughen Commodore, Kona Sailing Club*- Guido Giacometti Attended Hawaii Leeward Planning Conference presentation* Kiah Gilbert Member Kealakehe High School Student Council Attended Kealakehe High School Student Council presentation, Gregory Gillette Commodore, Kona Sailing Club*- Joel Gimble Member, Kona Traffic Safety Committee - Commercial realtor; former long-time executive with the Kona Family Glennon Gingo YMCA; Chair, West Hawaii Fisheries Council Attended West Hawaii Fisheries Council presentation*- Rick Gmirkin Staff Archeologist, Kaloko Honok6hau National Historical Park - Mike Gomes Surety Kohala Corporation Attended Hawaii Leeward Planning Conference presentation* Don Goo Wimberly, Allison, Tong and Goo - Donna Goodale Member, West Hawaii Fisheries Council Attended West Hawaii Fisheries Council presentation* Queen Emma Foundation Les Goya Attended Hawaii Leeward Planning Conference presentation* Josh Green, M.D. State Representative, 6th District - James Greenwell Owner and General Manager, Lanihau Inc. and Palani Ranch - Kelly Greenwell Local business and community leader - Steve Halsey Commodore, Kona Sailing Club*- Rodney Haraga Director, State Department of Transportation Attended Kona Traffic Safety Committee presentation* Isaac Harp President, Public Access Shoreline Hawaii; lineal descendant from family of the Honok6hau iki ahupua`a Tammy Harp Kona environmental leader; cultural advocate - Roger Harris Planning Consultant Attended Hawaii Leeward Planning Conference presentation* Ikaika Hauanio Tui Tonga Attended Rotary Club of Mauka Kona presentation*- Lunakanawai Hauanio Member, West Hawaii Fisheries Council Attended West Hawaii Fisheries Council presentation* Mark Henshaw Member (alternate), West Hawai `i Fisheries Council; attended West Hawaii Fisheries Council presentation* Member, West Hawaii Fisheries Council Doug Herkes Attended West Hawaii Fisheries Council presentation* Member, Kona Community Development Plan Steering Committee; Administrator, West Hawaii Fisheries Council; board member, Kohala Marni Herkes Center Attended Na Hoapili o Kaloko Honok6hau Advisory Commission presentation*; attended West Hawaii Fisheries Council presentation*- O Page 11-6 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Public Participation in Planning for Kona Kai Ola OName Affiliation and Participation Retired police officer; member, Kona Community Development Plan Tommy Hickcox Steering Committee - Stacy Higa Chairperson Hawaii County Council - Deputy Director, County of Hawaii Department of Environmental Nelson Ho Management - Pete Hoffmann Hawaii County Councilperson- Member, Rotary Club of Kona Cheryl Holdcroft Attended Rotary Club of Kona presentation* Former Honolulu City Council person Steve Holmes Attended Kona Kohala Chamber of Commerce Environmental and Natural Resources Committee presentation* Captain and owner of Pamela sport fishing Peter Hoogs, Attended West Hawaii Fisheries Council presentation*- Executive Director, Hawaii Leeward Planning Conference Jacqui Hoover Attended Hawaii Leeward Planning Conference presentation*- Donald Ikeda Hawaii County Council person - Gwen Ilaban Kona environmental leader• Akinore Imai Attended Lions Club of Kona presentation* Hawaii County Councilperson Attended Kona Traffic Safety Committee presentation* O Virginia Isbell Attended Na Hoapili o Kaloko Honokohau Advisory Commission presentation*- Neal Isaacs Captain and owner, Anxious Sportfishing- Chairman, Hawaii Community Federal Credit Union John Iwane Attended Lions Club of Kona presentation* Merna Izawa Attended Lions Club of Kona presentation* Take Izawa Attended Lions Club of Kona presentation* Bob Jacobson Hawaii County Council person - Member, Kona Community Development Plan Steering Committee; board Kate Jacobson member, Innovations Charter School - Felicity Johnston Principal, Hualalai Academy- cademyFrank Board member, Housing and Community Development Corporation of FrankJung Hawaii- Dixie Kaetsu Hawaii County Managing Director - Community Policing Officer Reynold Kahalewai Attended Kona Traffic Safety Committee presentation* Maurice Kahawai Attended Lions Club of Kona presentation* Board member, Kaniohale Community Association at the Villages of La`i `Opua; member, Na Wai Puna O Kona Klipuna Group; attended Kaniohale Edith Kahoalii Community Association at the Villages of La`i `Opus Board of Directors presentation* Na Wai Puna O Kona Kupuna Group presentation*• OAttended Page 11-7 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Public Participation in Planning for Kona Kai Ola Name Affiliation and Participation O President, Kaniohale Community Association at the Villages of La`i `Opua; Bo Kahui attended Kaniohale Community Association at the Villages of La`i `Opua Board of Directors presentation*- Rachele Kalili Member, Ka `Ohana o Na Kupuna o Kona*- Ulalia Ka`ai Berman Member, Na Hoapili o Kaloko Honokohau Advisory Commission* Josephine Keliipio Member, Kona Traffic Safety Committee- John Kellam West Hawaii Fisheries Council presentation* Sue Kellam West Hawaii Fisheries Council presentation* Linda Jane Kelly Ironman Triathlon World Championship- James Kent and Associates James Kent Attended Kona Kohala Chamber of Commerce Environmental and Natural Resources Committee presentation* Lei Kihoi Attorney, attended Destination Kona Coast presentation* Harry Kim County of Hawaii Mayor- Alex Kinzler Attended Hawaii Leeward Planning Conference presentation* Greg Knapp Board member, Hawaii Island Paddlers Association - Board member, Kona Kohala Chamber of Commerce Vicky Kometani Attended Kona Kohala Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors presentation* Lily Kong Ka `Ohana o Ka Kupuna o Kona*- County of Hawaii Deputy Managing Director; attended West Hawaii O Barbara Kossow Fisheries Council presentation* Attended Kona Traffic Safety Committee presentation*- Member, Rotary Club of Kona Renee Kraft Attended Rotary Club of Kona presentation* Michael Kramer Owner, Natural Investment Services; founder, Kona Kohala Chamber of Commerce Kuleana Green Business Program- Moana Kuma Hawaiian cultural advocate Attended Destination Kona Coast presentation* Brad Kurokawa County of Hawaii Deputy Planning Director - Gary Lambert Co-owner, Gentry's Kona Marina; member, Small Boat Harbors and Boating Facilities Ad-Hoc Fact-Finding Committee- Executive Director, Kona Kohala Chamber of Commerce Vivian Landrum Attended Kona Kohala Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors presentation*- Keller Laros Director, Manta Pacific Research Foundation*- Wendy Laros Director, Manta Pacific Research Foundation*- Wally Lau Neighborhood Place of Kona- Member, Kona Community Development Plan Steering Committee; board member, Kona Kohala Chamber of Commerce Gretchen Lawson Attended Kona Kohala Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors presentation*- O Page 1]-8 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Public Participation in Planning for Kona Kai Ola OName Affiliation and Participation Hawaiian cultural advocate Brenda Lee Attended Destination Kona Coast presentation* Elizabeth Lee Kupuna,.member of long-time Kona Hawaiian family- amilyReggie ReggieLee Member of long-time Kona Hawaiian family- amilyRobert RobertLee General Contractor, member of long-time Kona Hawaiian family Member, West Hawaii Fisheries Council Kawika Leicher Attended West Hawaii Fisheries Council presentation* Jeff Leicher Owner, Jack's Diving Locker - Owner, Jack's Diving Locker Teri Leicher and Attended Destination Kona Coast presentation** President, Kuakini Hawaiian Civic Club, former President Kaniohale Gene Leslie Community Association Executive Director, Hawaii County Mayor's Office Andy Levin Attended West Hawaii Fisheries Council presentation* Robert Liebasck Attended Lions Club of Kona presentation* Allan Liftee Crew, Autumn Marie Sportfishing- West Hawaii Fisheries Council presentation* Laura Livnat Attended Na Hoapili o Kaloko Honokohau Advisory Commission presentation* Reporter, West Hawaii Today OCarolyn Lucas Attended West Hawaii Fisheries Council presentation*- Executive Director, Office of Hawaiian Affairs; Chair, Na Hoapili o Kaloko Honokohau Advisory Commission Ruby MacDonald Attended Na Hoapili o Kaloko Honokohau Advisory Commission presentation*- Member, Kona Community Development Plan Steering Committee; Kona Lydia Mahi representative, Hawaii County Economic Opportunity Council - James Kent & Associates Trish Malone Attended Kona Traffic Safety Committee presentation* David Marquez Kealakehe 2020• Lisa Marrack Staff Scientist, Kaloko Honokohau National Historical Park - Attorney in Kona; member, Kona Community Development Plan Steering Mike Matsukawa Committee; board member, Kona Community Health Center - Nancy Matsukawa Principal, Kealakehe Elementary School - Hawaii State Teachers Association Norma Matsumoto Attended Lions Club of Kona presentation* Director, County of Hawaii Department of Public Works Bruce McClure Attended Kona Traffic Safety Committee presentation* Executive Director, Hawaii Island Economic Development Board; board member, Kona Kohala Chamber of Commerce Mark McGuffie Attended Kona Kohala Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors presentation*- OJan McLaughlin Director, Manta Pacific Research Foundation presentation - Page 11-9 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Public Participation in Planning for Kona Kai Ola Name Affiliation and Participation O Mike Melear Attended West Hawaii Fisheries Council presentation* Land Manager, Kamehameha Schools Jeff Melrose Attended Kona Kohala Chamber of Commerce Environmental and Natural Resources Committee* Ken Melrose Planning Consultant and Project Manager Attended Hawaii Leeward Planning Conference presentation* Randy Millare Insurance Hawaii Attended Lions Club of Kona presentation* Robbie Mist Attended Destination Kona Coast presentation* Greg Mooers Planning and Permitting Consultant Attended Hawaii Leeward Planning Conference presentation* Bill Moore Kohala Ranch Attended Hawaii Leeward Planning Conference presentation* Rebecca Most Staff Scientist -Resource Manager, Kaloko Honokohau National Historical Park - Wil Murakami Principal, Kealakehe High School - Harold Murata Member, Kona Traffic Safety Committee Attended Kona Traffic Safety Committee presentation*- Sachiko Murata Mauna Lani Resort Attended Hawaii Leeward Planning Conference presentation* Joyce Murphy Realtor - Nancy Murphy Hawaii Island District Manager, Department of Land and Natural Resources, Division of Boating and Ocean Recreation - Member, Na Hoapili o Kaloko Honokohau Advisory Commission Joseph Nahale Attended Na Hoapili o Kaloko Honokohau Advisory Commission presentation* Mike Nakachi Member, West Hawaii Fisheries Council Attended West Hawaii Fisheries Council presentation* Miles Nakahara Wildlife Biologist, Department of Land and Natural Resources, Hawaii Division of Forestry and Wildlife - Teresa Nakama Member, West Hawaii Fisheries Council Attended West Hawaii Fisheries Council presentation* Member, Na Hoapili o Kaloko Honokohau Advisory Commission Cynthia Nazara Attended Na Hoapili o Kaloko Honokohau Advisory Commission presentation* Dickie Nelson Former Department of Hawaiian Homes Commissioner; former Governor's Liaison - Vicky Newman Director, Manta Pacific Research Foundation*- Allen Nobriga Attended Lions Club of Kona presentation* Mark Norman Supervisor of Operations, Kealakehe Waste-Wwater Treatment Plant, County of Hawaii- Greg Ogin Commercial realtor; President; Kona Family YMCA- 011ie 011inger Treasurer, Royal Order of Kamehameha• O Page 11-10 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Public Participation in Planning for Kona Kai Ola OName Affiliation and Participation Co-chair, Kona Traffic Safety Committee Dan Olson Attended Kona Traffic Safety Committee presentation* Queen Lili`uokalani Trust Michelle Orian Attended Hawaii Leeward Planning Conference presentation* Kazumi Oshita Attended Lions Club of Kona presentation* Director, Kula Naia Foundation; member, Big Island Reef Fund and Jan Ostman-Lind Kealakekua Bay Activity group; marine mammal scientist Attended West Hawaii Fisheries Council presentation*- Member (alternate), West Hawaii Fisheries Council; Tina Owens co-founder, Lost Fish Coalition Attended West Hawaii Fisheries Council presentation*- Member Kealakehe High School Student Council Jordan Ozaki Attended Kealakehe High School Student Council presentation*- Rob Pacheco President, Hawaii Forest & Trail• Lineal descendant from family of the Honokohau ahupua`a; cultural Mahealani Pai consultant* Member, West Hawaii Fisheries Council George Paleudis Attended West Hawaii Fisheries Council presentation* Sharon Paoa Retailer; attended Destination Kona Coast presentation* Weejay Paris Attended Hawaii Leeward Planning Conference presentation* O George Parker Inductee, International Game Fish Association (IGFA) Hall of Fame; noted long-time Kona sport fishing captain - Long-time Kona sport fishing industry leader and Kona sport fishing Phil Parker tournament communication director• Jillyn Parker Co-owner, Paradise Gourmet Catering - Marlin Parker Captain, Marlin Magic 11 - Sea Grant Extension Agent, West Hawaii; Ex -Officio, Sara Peck West Hawaii Fisheries Council Attended West Hawaii Fisheries Council presentation*- Member, Na Hoapili o Kaloko Honokohau Advisory Commission Nainoa Perry Attended Na Hoapili o Kaloko Honokohau Advisory Commission presentation* Board member, People Attentive to Trails Hawaii (PATH); employed by Ann Peterson the Kona Historical Society- ocietyAngel AngelPilago Hawaii County Councilperson- County consultant; local coordinator, Kona Community Development Plan; Nancy Pisicchio member, Kona Farm Bureau; member, Plan to Protect* Board member, Kaniohale Community Association at the Villages of La`i Stephanie Place `Opus; attended Kaniohale Community Association at the Villages of La`i `Opua Board of Directors presentation* Shelby Pudwell Attended West Hawaii Fisheries Council presentation* O Page 11-11 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Public Participation in Planning for Kona Kai Ola Name Affiliation and Participation O Cultural committee member, Kukio Resort; youth related cultural and Cindi Punihaole natural resource activities coordinator, Kealakehe High School Attended Na Hoapili o Kaloko Honokohau Advisory Commission meeting Doug Robbins Member, West Hawaii Fisheries Council Attended West Hawaii Fisheries Council presentation* Naomi Radtke Member, Na Wai Puna O Kona Kupuna Group Attended Na Wai Puna O Kona Kupuna Group presentation* Ed Rapoza President, Island Land Co.; member, Kona Community Development Plan Steering Committee - John Ray Trustee, Parker Ranch; attended Hawaii Leeward Planning Conference presentation Nadja Ray Attended Hawaii Leeward Planning Conference presentation* David Reese -Thomas Member, Rotary Club of Kona; attended Rotary Club of Kona presentation* Chief of Interpretation, National Park Service Theresa Reveira Attended Na Hoapili o Kaloko Honokohau Advisory Commission presentation* Monty Richards Attended Hawaii Leeward Planning Conference presentation* Dana Riddle Operator, Kealakehe Waste-Wwater Treatment Plant, County of Hawaii- Tim Robertson Owner, Melton Tackle - Member, Na Hoapili o Kaloko Honokohau Advisory Commission Mikahala Roy Attended Na Hoapili o Kaloko Honokohau Advisory Commission O presentation; and attended Destination Kona Coast Presentation* Verna Roy Na Hoapili o Kaloko Honokohau Advisory Commission presentation, and attended Destination Kona Coast presentation* Gary Safarik Hawaii County Council person - Administrative Director, Kohala Coast Resort Association; board member, Sharon Sakai Kona Kohala Chamber of Commerce Attended Kona Kohala Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors presentation*- Norman Sakata President, Kona Coffee Cultural Festival; attended Lions Club of Kona presentation* John Santangelo Waimea Water Services Attended Hawaii Leeward Planning Conference presentation* Dale Sarver Member, West Hawaii Fisheries Council Attended West Hawaii Fisheries Council presentation* Donald Sasaki Kona businessman Attended Lions Club of Kona presentation* Laura Sciacqua Guluzzy Member, Rotary Club of Kona Attended Rotary Club of Kona presentation* Barbara Scott Co-chair, Kona Traffic Safety Committee Attended Kona Traffic Safety Committee presentation*- Danny Scott USCG Captain, Jack's Diving Locker - Page 11-12 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Public Participation in Planning for Kona Kai Ola OName Affiliation and Participation The Nature Conservancy; member West Hawaii Fisheries Council; Rob Shallenberger Attended West Hawaii Fisheries Council presentation Janna Shackeroff West Hawaii Fisheries Council presentation* Board member, Kona Kohala Chamber of Commerce Karin Shaw Attended Kona Kohala Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors presentation* Sonny Shimaoka Member, Concerned Citizens for Kona - Kirk Shorte Marketing Director, Jack's Diving Locker - Principal, Kona Blue Water Neil Sims Attended West Hawaii Fisheries Council presentation* Andy Smith Governor's West Hawaii Liaison - Riley Smith Parker Ranch; attended Kona Kohala Chamber of Commerce Environmental and Natural Resources Committee presentation Mike Souther Commodore, Kona Sailing Club*- Department of Education Complex Area Superintendent, West Hawaii Art Souza Complex Area Schools - Former County of Hawaii Planning Commissioner; cultural committee Hannah Springer Tomich member for Hui Laulima O Kekaha Kai Board, Hualalai Resort, Kukio and Kohanaiki Advisory Group - General Manager -Kona, Atlantis Submarine; member, Small Boat Harbors and Boating Facilities Ad -Hoc Fact -Finding Committee O Mike Stanton Attended Na Hoapili o Kaloko Honokohau Advisory Commission presentation*- Member, Na Hoapili o Kaloko Honokohau Advisory Commission JoAnne Kahanamoku Sterling Attended Na Hoapili o Kaloko Honokohau Advisory Commission presentation*- M. Carolyn Stewart President, Malama Kai Foundation - Bobby Stivers Executive Director, Kona Family YMCA - Hawaii Forest and Trails Jessica Stone Attended Kona Kohala Chamber of Commerce Environmental and Natural Resources Committee presentation* Member, Kealakehe High School Student Council Ally Thompson Attended Kealakehe High School Student Council presentation - Stanley Tokunaga Attended Lions Club of Kona presentation* Jeff Turner Attended Kona Kohala Chamber of Commerce Environmental and Natural Resources Committee presentation* Former Kona County Council person; member, Kona Community Development Plan Steering Committee Curtis Tyler Attended Na Hoapili o Kaloko Honokohau Advisory Commission presentation*- Glen Uchimura Contractor, Attended Lions Club of Kona presentation* Edwin Ueda Attended Lions Club of Kona presentation* O Page 11-13 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Public Participation in Planning for Kona Kai Ola Name Affiliation and Participation O Biologist and Wildlife Consultant for U.S.D.A. Natural Resources Conservation Service Kim Uehara Attended Na Hoapili o Kaloko Honokohau Advisory Commission presentation*- Administrative Officer, National Park Service Administrative Officer; Linda Underwood attended Na Hoapili o Kaloko Honokohau Advisory Commission presentation* Member, Rotary Club of Kona Scott Unger Attended Rotary Club of Kona presentation* Larrio Ursua Member, Kaniohale Community Association at the Villages of La`i `Opua; Attended Na Wai Puna O Kona Kupuna Group presentation David Vaughn Friends of Natural Energy Laboratory of Hawaii Authority- uthoritySue SueVermillion Producer and Event Director, G350 Productions - Member, Governor's Advisory Commission; board member, Kona Kohala Rick Vidgen Chamber of Commerce Attended Kona Kohala Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors presentation*- President, Kona Kohala Chamber of Commerce Eric von Platen Luder Attended Kona Kohala Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors presentation*- Biologist and Wildlife Consultant, also works at Cyanotech Corporation Scott Waddington Attended Na Hoapili o Kaloko Honokohau Advisory Commission presentation*- O Jill Wagner Member, TREE; attended Kona Kohala Chamber of Commerce Environmental and Natural Resources Committee presentation*- George Wallace Attended Lions Club of Kona presentation* Marilyn Wallace Attended Lions Club of Kona presentation* Aquatic Biologist, Department of Land and Natural Resources, Division of Bill Walsh Aquatic Resources; Ex -Officio, West Hawaii Fisheries Council Attended West Hawaii Fisheries Council presentation*- Brian Wargo Owner, Bite Me Sportfishing- Captain and co-owner of Sunseeker and Manu Iwa Paul Warren Attended West Hawaii Fisheries Council presentation*- Ben Watai Founding member, Kealakehe Homeowners Association - Elaine Watai Founding member Kealakehe Homeowners Association; member, Governor's West Hawaii Advisory Council - Wayne Watanabe Attended Lions Club of Kona presentation* Executive Vice President, Hawaii Community Federal Credit Rodney Watanabe Union; County Planning Commission member representing Kona - Gretchen Watson Kabei Secretary, Rotary Club of Kona; attended Rotary Club of Kona presentation* Mariska Weijerman Staff Scientist, Kaloko Honokohau National Historical Park - Member, West Hawaii Fisheries Council Andrew West West Hawaii Fisheries Council presentation* Page 11-14 OAttended Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Public Participation in Planning for Kona Kai Ola OName Affiliation and Participation John Michael White Attended Hawaii Leeward Planning Conference presentation* Phyllis White Attended Lions Club of Kona presentation* Approximately 50 people present Former Parker Ranch trustee; former board member, Natural Energy Tom Whittemore Laboratory of Hawaii Authority Noelani Whittington Staff to Hawaii County Councilperson Virginia Isbell - 7 members present Member, Kona Community Development Plan Steering Committee; former Anne Irene Wilcox president, Kona Outdoor Circle - George Wilkins Retired professor, Hawaii Institute of Geophysics - Marian Wilkins League of Women Voters - Ron Williams CEO, Atlantis Submarines - Member, West Hawaii Fisheries Council Vern Yamanaka Attended West Hawaii Fisheries Council presentation* Chris Yuen Planning Director, County of Hawaii- Owner, Captain Zodiac; board member, Kona Kohala Chamber of Linda Zabolski Commerce; attended Kona Kohala Chamber of Commerce Board of Committee* Directors presentation* Table 64: Presentations to Community Organizations Organization Participation O Destination Kona Coast* Approximately 70 people present Hawaii Leeward Planning Conference* Approximately 50 people present Ka `Ghana o Na Kupuna o Kona*- 3 members present Kaniohale Community Association at the 7 members present Villages of La`i `Opua Board of Directors*- Kealakehe High School Student Council*- 7 Members present Kona-Kohala Chamber of Commerce 13 members present Board of Directors* Kona-Kohala Chamber of Commerce 13 members present Environmental and Natural Resources Committee* Kona Sailing Club*- 4 members present (the current commodore, and three former commodores) Kona Traffic Safety Committee* Approximately 25 people present Lions Club of Kona* Approximately 30 members present Manta Pacific Research Foundation 5 directors present Board of Directors*. Na Hoapili o Kaloko Honokohau 9 commissioners, at least three Kaloko- Advisory Commission* Honokohau National Historical Park N4�& staff, and approximately 35 other people present Wai Puna O Kona Kupuna Group* More than 20 members present ONa Page 11-15 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Public Participation in Planning for Kona Kai Ola Organization Participation Rotary Club of Kona* Approximately 45 Rotary members, guests and visiting Rotarians present West Hawaii Fisheries Council* 17 Members present Approximately 23 Guests present 11.2 Ongoing Public Participation Process Continues After DEIS Publication The Kona Kai Ola team continued its effort to meet with communitv members after the Draft EIS was released in September 2006. From October 2006 through June 2007, an additional 81 project presentations were delivered to an additional 361 community members. These presentations included individual meetings, small group presentations and larger gatherings. All of the meetings allowed for in-depth question and answer periods. These presentations were productive and the project plan revisions reflect community input gathered throughout the communication process. In addition to responding to formal comments generated from the draft EIS, the Kona Kai Ola team has worked with its ahupua'a neighbors regarding additional environmental studies and EIS alternatives. Puwalu - Advocating for the Ahupua'a of Kealakehe: Live, Work. Play and Learn Kona Kai Ola recently participated in the first of a series of Puwalu (or gatherings) Advocating O or the Ahupua'a of Kealakehe: Live, Work. Play and Learn, initiated by the Kaniohale Community Association and its board president Bo Kahui. Key ahupua'a stakeholders including kupuna and representatives from Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park, County of Hawaij, Kaniohale Community Association, Kealakehe Community Association. Department of Hawaiian Home Lands and Kona Kai Ola along with cultural descendants came together to: 1. collectively establish basic cultural values for the Kealakehe ahupua'a and 2. discuss external forces pressuring the ahupua'a. Stakeholders identified immediate and future needs of Kealakehe ahupua'a and agreed to guiding principles for the Puwalu. These principles include looking at the Kealakehe ahupua'a from mauka to makai and in context with neighbors, and to strengthen the collective vision to include future generations. The initial Puwalu established that the ahupua' a strive to be akamai (smart)—one that connects neighbors and neighborhoods with good roads, trails and paths, recognizes the importance of growing in balance, being lokahi (in balance) with nature, man and spirituality, and honor its Hawaiian culture and sense of place. O Page 11-16 Kealakehe, North Kona District Island of Hawaii Kaniohale Community Association—Support Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Public Participation in Planning for Kona Kai Ola Kona Kai Ola's community outreach has emphasized the importance of its closest neighbors, the Kaniohale at the Villages of La`i `Opua Community Association (Kaniohale Community Association). Kona Kai Ola engaged the Kaniohale Community Association's Board of Directors through presentations and ensuing discussions focusing on an alternative development plan to be presented in the FEIS with a smaller marina basin and less number of hotel and time share units (Alternative 1). As a result of this ongoing dialog, the Kaniohale Community Association at the Villages of LaTOpua Board of Directors unanimously approved a resolution supporting Kona Kai Ola's plan for a smaller marina and less number of hotel and time share units at their regular meeting on June 6, 2007, which is excerpted below and included in the comment letters on the DEIS. "As this process to plan Kona Kai Ola proceeds, the Kaniohale Community Association Board of Directors expresses its support for Kona Kai Ola project in its reduced density version... As neighbors in the Kealakehe ahupuda. the Kaniohale Community Association welcomes the involvement of this partnership of Jacoby Development, Inc., Department of Hawaiian Home Lands. and Department of Land and Natural Resources, in cooperative efforts to plan and implement steps to achieve a sustainable ahupuda and a healthy community. " Kaniohale at the Villages of La'j'Opua Community Association. approved June 6, 2007 Over the entire time of project design, preparation of the Draft EIS and preparation of the Final EIS, Jacoby Development has received input on Kona Kai Ola from over 920 Big Island community members, has adjusted and revised project plans, and is committed to build a sustainable development. Community participation will continue to help guide and shape this project to protect the region's natural and cultural resources and better the West Hawaii community's well being with recreational, educational and employment opportunities. Page 11-17 Kealakehe, North Kona District Island of Hawaii Table 7: Kona Kai Ola Comm October 200 •Denotes an individual or small group meeting *Denotes a group meeting Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Public Participation in Planning for Kona Kai Ola Name Affiliation and Partici action Board member, Kaniohale Community Association at the Villages of LaTopua - - Rudy At Attended Kaniohale Community Association at the Villages of LaTopua Board of Directors presentation* Board member, Kaniohale Community Association at the Villages of LaTopua Dora Aio Attended Kaniohale Community Association at the Villages of LaTopua Board of Directors presentation* Cultural Resources Director Mauna Lani Resort Danny Akaka Individual project meetings Keauhou Punahele Home Owners Association Jim Anderson Attended Keauhou Outreach Group presentation* Commissioner, Hawaiian Homes Commission Billie Baclig Individual project meeting* Marine Biologist, Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park Sallie Beavers Attended Na Hoapili o Kaloko-Honokohau Advisory Commission presentation* Individual project meeting.• Commissioner, Hawaiians Homes Commission Billie Bach g Individual project meeting - General Manager, Roberts Hawaii: cultural advocate Casey Ballao Individual project meeting• Kona Realtor• former President Kona Kohala Chamber of Commerce Scott Bell Individual project meeting.• President, Holualoa Village Association Sarah Bello Attended Holualoa Village Association presentation* Keauhou Canoe Club Jane Bockus Attended Keauhou OutreachGroup* Page 11-18 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Public Participation in Planning for Kona Kai Ola OLYa= Affiliation and Particillation President Hawaii Island Paddlesport Association Randi Botti Individual project meeting• Carla Brown Attended Kailua Kona Lions Club presentation President, Body Glove Cruises Maggie Brown Individual project meeting* President. Kai 'Opua Canoe Club Bo Campos Individual project meeting* Keauhou Villas Geri Cardoza Attended Keauhou Outreach Group presentation* Director of Natural Resources Hualalai Resort David Chai Individual project meeting• President. PATH Serena Chamberlain Attended PATH Board of Directors presentation* Founder Na Wai Iwi Ola Foundation: Kumu hula O Keala Ching Attended Na Wai Iwi Ola Foundation small group meeting Land Management Division Administrator. Department of Hawaiian Home Lands Linda Chinn Attended Ahupua'a o Kealakehe puwalu* Executive Director, Kids for Kona Dick Chov Individual project meeting• Boyd Coffman Attended Kailua Kona Lions Club presentation Contributing Editor, West Hawaii Today Bobby Command Individual project meetings Vice President & co-founder: TREE Hawaii Skip Cowell Individual project meeting• Keauhou Estates Chuck Crowe Attended Keauhou Outreach Group presentation* ouncil School clerk: Kealakehe Elementary School Communit(Council Nani Demasco Attended Kealakehe Elementary School Community Council presentation* Big Island news bureau. Honolulu Advertiser Kevin Dayton OIndividual project meeting* Page 11-19 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Public Participation in Planning for Kona Kai Ola Name Affiliation and Participation O Kaulana At Kona Charlene David Attended Keauhou Outreach Group presentation* Owner, Blue Hawaii Sportfishing James Dean Individual project meeting* Laura Diernfield Attended PATH Board of Directors presentation President, Hawaiian International Billfish Association Fred Duerr Individual project meeting* Parent: Kealakehe Elementary School Community Council Kelly Duff-DePovo Attended Kealakehe Elementary School Community Council presentation* Vice President, Kaniohale Community Association at the Villages of La'i opua Charmaine Duvouchelle Attended Kaniohale Community Association at the Villages of LaTopua Board of Directors presentation* State Representative, 7th District Cindy Evans Individual project meeting• Cultural mason in Kona Billy Fields O Individual project meeting• Founder, Hawaiian International Billfish Tournament Peter Fithian Individual project meeting• Editor, West Hawaii Today Reed Flickinger Individual project meeting* Board member, Kona Coffee Cultural Festival: member Holualoa Business Association- Professional Business Women's Association Alfreida Fu'member, ita Attended Professional Business Women's Association & Holualoa Business Association presentations* Captain and co-owner of TARA II Scott Fuller Individual project meeting=• Administration Danny Garcia Attended Kealakehe High School Community Council presentation* Keauhou Kona Surf &Racquet Club Homeowners Association Michael Gardner Attended Keauhou Outreach Group presentation* O Page 11-20 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Public Participation in Planning for Kona Kai Ola OName Affiliation and Participation M.D., State Representative, 6th District Josh Green Individual project meeting• Owner and General Manager. Lanihau Inc. and Palani Ranch James Greenwell Attended Hawaii Leeward Planning Conference presentation* Individual project meetings President. Kealakehe Community Association. member. Kealakehe Elementary School Community Council Kelly Greenwell Attended Destination Kona Coast & Kealakehe Elementary School Community Council presentations* Individual project meeting - Bob Goodwin Attended Kailua Kona Lions Club presentation* President. Moku o Hawaii Canoe Association Jerry Halverson Individual project meeting• Member West Hawaii Fisheries Council, member, Laiopua 2020 Lunakanawai Hauanio Attended West Hawaii Fisheries Council & Kaniohale Community Association at the of La'i opua Board of Directors presentations* OVillages Marlin Harris Attended Kealakehe High School Community Council presentation* Aide, Councilperson Ford Debbie Hecht Attended Na Wai Iwi Ola Foundation small group meeting* Parent Kealakehe Elementary School Community Council Marrisa Hendrickson Attended Kealakehe Elementary School Community Council presentation* Retired police officer: member. Kona Community Development Plan Steering Tommy Hickcox Committee, member, Concerned Citizens of Kona Individual project meeting• Director of Operations. Red Sail Sports Stephen Hicks Individual project meetings Janet Higa-Miller Attended PATH Board of Directors presentation Chair, Hawaii County Council Pete Hoffman Individual project meeting - Board member. Kaniohale Community Association at the Villages of La'i opua Mel Hoomana-wanui Attended Kaniohale Community Association at the Villages of La'i'ooua Board of presentation* ODirectors Page 11-21 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Public Participation in Planning for Kona Kai Ola Nam Affiliation and Participation O Member, Professional Business Women's Association Roberta Jaques Attended Professional Business Women's Association presentation* Secretary, Kealakehe High School Community Council Linda Jeffery Attended Kealakehe High School Community Council presentation Clark Realty Kathy Jensen Attended Keauhou Outreach Group presentation* Lona Johnson Attended Kailua Kona Lions Club presentation* Keauhou Akahi Homeowners Association Terry Jones Attended Keauhou Outreach Group presentation* Member, Kealakehe Community Association Patrick Jones Attended Ahupua'a o Kealakehe puwalu Secretary, Rotary Club of Kona: Legal Administrator/Principal Broker SVC -Hawaii, L.P. Gretchen Watson-Kabei Attended Rotary Club of Kona presentation* Individual project meeting.• Hawaii County Managing Director O Dixie Kaetsu Individual project meeting• President, Kaniohale Community Association at the Villages of LaTopua Attended Kaniohale Community Assoc at Villages of LaTopua Board of Directors* Bo Kahui Attended Ahupua'a o Kealakehe puwalu* Individual project meeting - Board member, Kaniohale Community Association at the Villages of LaTopua-, member, Na Wai Puna O Kona Kupuna Group Edith Kahoalii Attended Kaniohale Community Assoc at Villages of LaTopua Board of Directors & Na Wai Puna O Kona Kupuna presentations* Commissioner; Hawaiian Homes Commission Malia Kamaka Individual project meeting.• Board member, Kaniohale Community Association at the Villages of LaTopua Marion Bush Keliikipi Attended Kaniohale Community Association at the Villages of LaTopua Board of Directors presentation* Kathy Kirk Attended West Hawaii Explorations Academy presentation* O Page I1-22 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Public Participation in Planning for Kona Kai Ola OName Affiliation and Partici ap tion County of Hawaii Mayor Harry Kim Individual project meetine• Board member. Hawaii Island Paddlers Association Gree Knapp Individual project meetine• Hawaii State Senator Russell Kokubun Individual project meetings County of Hawaii Deputy Managine Director Page 11-23 Attended West Hawaii Fisheries Council & Kona Traffic Safety Committee Barbara Kossow presentations* Attended Ahupua'a o Kealakehe puwalu* Individual project meetine• Former chancellor. UH -West Hawaii Walter Kunitake Individual project meeting* Nani Kupihe Attended Kailua Kona Lions Club presentation* County of Hawaii Deputy Planning Director OBrad Kurokawa Individual project meeting! Executive Director Neighborhood Place of Kona: Chair. Hui Laulima Wally Lau Attended Ahupua'a o Kealakehe puwalu* Individual project meeting• K� - Elizabeth Lee Attended Ahupua'a o Kealakehe puwalu* Individual Droject meeting* Jamielvnn Leialoha Attended Kealakehe High School Community Council presentation* President Kuakini Hawaiian Civic Club: former President. Kaniohale Community Association at the Villages of La i oDua Gene Leslie Attended Kuakini Hawaiian Civic Club presentation* Individual project meetine• Flash Libero Attended Kailua Kona Lions Club presentation Trustee, Office of Hawaiian Affairs Robert Lindsey Individual Droiect meeting• Page 11-23 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Public Participation in Planning for Kona Kai Ola Na= Affiliation and Participate Business Agent, Hawaii Carpenters Union Mark Lossing Individual project meeting- Member Holualoa Village Association Mary Lovein Attended Holualoa Village Association* Bayview Estates Homeowner Association Stuart Lowry Attended Keauhou Outreach Group presentation* Member. Holualoa Village Association Paul Maddox Attended Holualoa Village Association presentation Attorney, County Family Support Division Margaret Masunaga Individual project meeting- Principal, Kealakehe Elementary School, member. Kealakehe Elementary School Communitv Council Nancy Matsukawa Attended Kealakehe Elementary School Community Council presentation* Individual project meeting- Board member. Kaniohale Community Association at the Villages of LaTopua Herb Maunu Attended Kaniohale Community Association at the Villages of LaTopua Board of Directors presentation* Janet McClure Attended Kealakehe High School Community Council presentation* Lil McGuire Attended Kailua Kona Lions Club presentation* Chuck McGuire Attended Kailua Kona Lions Club presentation* Triad Management. Inc. Tom Metz Attended Keauhou Outreach Group presentation* Hawaii Carpenters Union Robert Mierdicks Individual project meeting • Rainbow Asset Regulator and Physical Maintenance Ron Mitchell Individual project meeting • Member. Holualoa Village Association Tomoe Nimori Attended Holualoa Village Association presentation Page 11-24 Page 11-25 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Public Participation in Planning for Kona Kai Ola ONa= Affiliation and ParticilZtiQu West Hawaii Liaison, U.S. Representative Mazie Hirono: Former Department of Hawaiian Homes Commissioner. former Governor's Liaison Dickie Nelson Attended Destination Kona Coast presentation* Individual project meeting* Sheraton Keauhou Bay Resort & Spa Revel Newton Attended Keauhou Outreach Group presentation* President, Aloha Insurance Services Inc. Tad Nottage Individual project meetings Member Professional Business Women's Association Gav Okada Attended Professional Business Women's Association presentation* Kanaloa at Kona Homeowners Association Chuck Okazaki Attended Keauhou Outreach Group presentation* Lineal descendant from family of the Honokohau ahupua'a• cultural consultant Mahealani Pai Attended Ahupua'a o Kealakehe puwalu* project meetings OIndividual Teacher: Kealakehe Elementary School Community Council Greg Paulson Attended Kealakehe Elementary School Community Council presentation* Member, Professional Business Women's Association Maggie Penrose Attended Professional Business Women's Association presentation* West Hawaii Explorations Academy School Services Coordinator Kathy Penwell Attended West Hawai `i Explorations Academy Leadership presentation* Parent Kealakehe Elementary School Community Council Rowena Pike Attended Kealakehe Elementary School Community Council presentation* Member, Na Wai Iwi Ola Foundation Nitta Pilago Attended Na Wai Iwi Ola Foundation small group meeting* Secretary. Kaniohale_ Community Association at the Villages of La'i opua Board of Directors Stephanie Place Attended Kaniohale Community Association at the Villages of LaTopua Board of Directors presentation* Parent, Kealakehe High School Community Council Janis Prinslow Attended Kealakehe High School Communitv Council_Dresentation* Page 11-25 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Public Participation in Planning for Kona Kai Ola Nam Affiliation and Participation O Cultural committee member. Kukio Resort: youth related cultural & natural resource activity coordinator. Kealakehe HS Cindi Punihaole Attended Na Hoapili o Kaloko-Honokohau Advisory Commission presentation* Individual project meeting• Teacher Kealakehe High School Larry Rice Attended Kealakehe High School Community Council presentation* Bob Rhee Attended Kailua Kona Lions Club presentation* Member. Big Island Sailing Foundation Jim Riley ' Attended Big Island Sailing Foundation small group meeting• Member, Big Island Sailing Foundation Debbie Riley Attended Big Island Sailing Foundation small group meeting • Treasurer. Kaniohale Community Association at the Villages of La'i opua Tom Roberts Attended Kaniohale Community Association at the Villages of La'i opua Board of Directors presentation* Kamehameha Investment Company John Rocha Attended Keauhou Outreach Group presentation* O Bob Roesler Attended Kailua Kona Lions Club presentation* Gerry Rott Attended PATH Board of Directors presentation* Parent, Kealakehe High School Community Council Linda Sanborn Attended Kealakehe High School Community Council presentation* Student, Kealakehe High School Community Council Conrad Sanborn Attended Kealakehe High School Community Council presentation* Frank Saver Attended PATH Board of Directors presentation* Chair Kona Traffic Safety Committee Barbara Scott Attended Kona Traffic Safety Committee presentation* Individual project meeting - Dick Scritchfield Attended Kailua Kona Lions Club presentation* Keauhou Kai Condominiums Homeowners Association Jean Sellers Attended Keauhou Outreach Group presentation* Member, Holualoa Village Association John Sevick Attended Holualoa Village Association presentation* O Page 11-26 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Public Participation in Planning for Kona Kai Ola ONanw Affiliation and Partici ap tion Teacher Kealakehe High School Communitv Council Randy Shelor Attended Kealakehe High School Community Council presentation* Member Concerned Citizens for Kona Sonny Shimaoka Individual project meetings Hale Kehau Homeowners Association Carol Simson Attended Keauhou Outreach Group presentation* Governor's West Hawaii Liaison Andy Smith Individual project meeting• Outrigger Keauhou Beach Resort Annabelle Smith Attended Keauhou Outreach Group presentation* Former member, County of Hawaii Planning Commission: member, Hui Laulima O Hannah Springer Tom" Kekaha Kai Hualalai Resort, Kukio. Kohanaiki Advisory Group Individual project meeting* Board member. Big Island Sailing Foundation; member, Hilo Sailing Club Alicia Starsong Big Island Sailing Foundation small group meeting * OAttended Board member. Big Island Sailing Foundation Daniel Stara "n Attended Big Island Sailing Foundation small group meeting* Member. Na Hoapili o Kaloko-Honokohau Advisory Commission. member. Polynesian Voyaging Society, curator. Kealakowaa Heiau Preservation Council; member. Kona JoAnne Kahanamoku-Sterling Outdoor Circle Attended Na Hoapili o_Kaloko-Honokohau Advisory Commission presentation* Individual project meeting• Executive Assistant. County of Hawaii Roy Takemoto Individual project meeting.• Vice Principal: Kealakehe Elementary School Community Council Verna Takemoto Attended Kealakehe Elementary School Community Council presentation* Member Professional Business Women's Association Roni Teshima Attended Professional Business Women's Association presentation* Big Island news bureau Honolulu Star Bulletin Rod Thompson Individual project meeting* Keauhou Kai Homeowners Association O Carol Trowbridge Attended Keauhou Outreach Group presentation* Page 11-27 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Public Participation in Planning for Kona Kai Ola Nam Affiliation and Participation O Keauhou Akahi Homeowners Association Terry Varney Attended Keauhou Outreach Group presentation* Ocean sports enthusiast: employed by NELHA Jan War Individual project meeting.• Founding member Kealakehe Homeowners Assoc,• member, Governor's West Hawaii Adv Council: community member, Kealakehe Elementary School Community Council Elaine Watai Attended Kealakehe Elementary School Community Council presentation* Individual project meeting• Bayview Estates Homeowners Association Dan Woolley Attended Keauhou Outreach Group presentation* Captain, Sea Genie II Sportfishing Gene Vanderhoek Individual project meeting • Chairman, Friends of Natural Energy Laboratory of Hawaii Authority David Vaughn Individual project meeting • Producer and Event Director, G350 Productions Sue Vermillion O Individual project meeting • Pacific Pest Management Ron Yamashita Individual project meeting - Table 8: Kona Kai Ola Presentations to Community Organizations, October 2006 through .Tune 2007 nrpanization Partici a Ahu uaa O Kealakehe puwalu 10 people attended Big Island Sailing Foundation 6 members were present Holualoa Village Association 4 members were present Hui Laulima 25 people in attendance Ka Wai Iwi Ola Foundation 10 members in attendance Kailua Kona Lions Club 13 members in attendance Kaniohale Community Association at the Villages of La'i opua BOD 10 members in attendance (x2 mtgs) Kealakehe Elementary School Community Council 10 council members were present Kealakehe High School Community Council 10 council members were present Keauhou Outreach Group 20 people were in attendance O Page 11-28 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Public Participation in Planning for Kona Kai Ola OOrganization Partici action Kona Executive Association 40 people attended Kona Outdoor Circle Board of Directors presentation 9 board members attended Kuakini Hawaiian Civic Club Presentation 20 members attended North Hawaii Rotary Club 40 people attended West Hawaii Explorations Academy 25 students and teachers were present Page 11-29 PATH Board of Directors 8 board members in attendance Professional Business Women's Association meeting 20 members present West Hawaii Explorations Academy 25 students and teachers were present Page 11-29 Kealakehe, North Kona District Island of Hawaii Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement This page is intentionally blank. Page 11-30 Kealakehe, North Kona District Island of Hawaii Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Supporting Documentation Marina Design Moffatt and Nichol Harbor Water Quality Modeling Study Moffatt and Nichol Water Feature Design EDSA Cloward Environmental Planning and Community Outreach Marine and Coastal Solutions International, Inc. Economic Study The Hallstrom Group, Inc. Groundwater Impact Analysis Waimea Water Services Inc. Groundwater Contaminant Study Oceanit Zone of Mixing Oceanit O Wave Attenuation Study Oceanit Cooling Water Intake Analysis Oceanit Underwater Noise Impacts Oceanit Water Quality Testing AECOS Labs of Hawaii, LLC Water Quality Baseline Survey Oceanic Institute Marine Biological Baseline Surveys Oceanic Institute Inventory and Assessment of Anchialine Pools in Southern Complex Aquatic Resources Management And Design Affected Environment for Marine Mammals and Sea Turtles Marine Acoustics. Inc. Underwater Ambient and Acoustics Noise Impacts Marine Acoustics. Inc. Cultural Impact Assessment (2006) Taup6uri Tangar6, Ph.D. Cultural Impact Assessment (2001) Pualani Kanaka'ole Kanahele Archaeological Inventory Surveys Haun and Associates Traffic and Transportation Analysis Parsons Brinckerhoff Geotechnical Analysis Mactec Geotechnical Air Quality Survey B.D. Neal and Associates Noise Impact Study D.L. Adams Associates, Ltd. Fauna Survey Rana Productions Ltd. Flora Survey Environmental Consultant OSocial Impact Analysis John M. Knox and Associates Page 12-1 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Supporting Documentation 12.2 List of Consultation Agencies as Part of the DEIS Process O County of Hawaii Department of Environmental Management — Wastewater Division Department of Parks and Recreation Hawaii County Mass Transit Agency Civil Defense Department of Public Works Department of Research and Development Fire Department Planning Department Police Department Department of Water Supply Office of Housing and Community Development State of Hawaii Department of Accounting and General Services Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism, State Office of Planning Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism, State Energy Office Department of Defense Department of Land and Natural Resources, Commission on Water Resource Management Department of Land and Natural Resources, Land Division Department of Land and Natural Resources, Division of Conservation and Resources Enforcement O Department of Land and Natural Resources, Division of Boating and Ocean Recreation Department of Land and Natural Resources, Division of Aquatic Resources Department of Land and Natural Resources, Division of Fish and Wildlife Department of Land and Natural Resources, State Historic Preservation Division Department of Land and Natural Resources, Na Ala Hele Trails and Access Program Department of Land and Natural Resources, Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands Department of Health, Clean Water Branch Department of Health, Safe Drinking Water Branch Department of Health, Clean Air Branch Department of Health, Noise Radiation and Indoor Air Quality Branch Department of Hawaiian Home Lands Office of Hawaiian Affairs Office of Environmental Quality Control Department of Transportation, Highways Division Department of Transportation, Harbors Division Department of Transportation, Airports Division Federal Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service Army Corps of Engineers, Pacific Ocean Division Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service Department of the Interim, National Park Service, Ala Kahakai National Historic Trail O Page 12-2 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Supporting Documentation ODepartment of the Interior, National Park Service_ Kaloko-Honok6hau National Historical Park Federal Aviation Administration Department of Homeland Security, Coast Guard Division National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration — National Marine Sanctuaries 12.3 Comment Letters and Responses as Part of the Public Notice of the EISPN An Environmental Impact Statement Preparation Notice (EISPN) was published on July 8, 2006, and comment letters from agencies and citizens were received in the months of July and August of 2006. Responses to the comment letters were mailed in the week of October 20, 2006. A copy of the comment letters and corresponding response letters are included in Appendix A. Table 10-5 contains information on comments received in response to the EISPN. Table 105: Information on Comment Letters on EISPN Agency/Party Date Comments Response/Action and Date Sent Received Response mailed 8/2/06 - All OEQC 8/2/06 requested changes to be made to O DEIS Response mailed 7/25/06 - All Department of Hawaiian Home 7/24/06 requested changes to be made to Lands DEIS Sierra Club, Hawaii County 8/7/06 Response mailed 10/20/06 Marie Aguilar and Philip Mosher 8/8/06 Response mailed 10/20/06 Scott Gorrell 8/8/06 Response mailed 10/20/06 National Park Service 8/18/06 Response mailed 10/20/06 Page 12-3 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Supporting Documentation 12.4 Comment Letters and Responses Related to the DEIS O The publication of the DEIS elicited 92 comment letters and information____is presented in Table 11. Appendix B contains the letters and responses to comments. Table 11: Information on Comment Letters on DEIS Agencv/Party Lame Date Comments Date Envelope Response/Action Received Postmarked and Date Sent Originally addressed to DLNR. Transmittal U.S. Army Corns of Todd C. Barnes Letter from Response mailed Engineers, Engineering and p E.. Chief DLNR to JDI, Julv 23 07 Construction Division Mav 31 07. Received pdf file Jun 04 07. U.S. Department of Commerce. National Chris Yates Oceanic and Atmospheric ant Assistant Response mailed Administration National Regional Feb 07 07 Feb 06 07 Julv 23 07 O Marine Fisheries Service Administrator Pacific Islands Regional for Protected Office Resources U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Patrick Leonard. Feb 08 07 Feb 07 07 Response mailed Service Field Supervisor July 2307 U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Aric Arakaki Response mailed Service, Ala Kahakai Superintendent Feb 07 07 Feb 06 07 Julv 23 07 National Historic Trail U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Geraldine Bell Response mailed Service. Kaloko-Honok6hau Superintendent Feb 07 07 Feb 06 07 July 23 07 National Historical Park Environmental Planning Kelvin H. Response mailed Office, State of Hawaii, Feb 09 07 Feb 08 07 Department of Health Sunada, Manager Julv 23 07 Chelsie Department of Marine Science, University of Settlemier. Feb 08 07 Feb 07 07 Response mailed Research Julv 23 07 Hawaii at Hilo Assistant O Page 12-4 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Supporting Documentation OName Date Comments Received Date Envelope Postmarked Response/Action and Date Sent Peter Rappa Environmental Center Environmental Received Fax Response mailed University of Hawaj`j Review Feb 06 07 Feb 06 07 Julv 23 07 Coordinator State of Hawaii Department Ernest Y. W. of Accounting and General Lau, Public Response mailed Jan 23 07Jan 22 07 Services. Division of Public Works Jan 29 07 Works Administrator Duane Y. State of Hawaii Department Kashiwai, Public Fax Received Response mailed of Education Works Feb OS 07 Feb 05 07 Julv 23 07 Administrator State of Hawaii, Department Harold Yee. Fax Response mailed of Health, Wastewater Chief Feb 14 07 Feb 14 07 July 23 07 Branch Patti Miyamoto. State of Hawaii Department Interim Response mailed of Human Services Hawaii Jan 18 07 Jan 17 07 Executive Jan 29 07 Public Housing Authority Director State of Hawaii Department W Roy Hardy of Land and Natural Hydrologic Hand Delivered Response mailed Resources. Commission on Program Feb 06 07 Feb 06 07 Jul 23 0 O Water Resource Manager Management State of Hawaii, Department of Land and Natural Edmund Hand Delivered Response mailed Resources, Division of Underwood, Feb 06 07 Feb 06 07 Julv 23 07 Boating and Ocean Administrator Recreation State of Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Paul J. Conry. Hand Delivered Response mailed Resources, Division of Administrator Feb 06 07 Feb 06 07 Julv 23 07 Forestry and Wildlife State of Hawaii. Department of Land and Natural Eric T. Hirano Hand Delivered Response mailed Resources, Engineering in Chief Engineer 06 07 Feb Feb 06 07 July 23 07 Division Keith State of Hawaii Department -Chun Planning and Hand Delivered Response mailed of Land and Natural Development Feb 06 07 Feb 06 07 July 23 07 Resources, Land Division Manager State of Hawaii, Department Russell Y. Tsuji, Hand Delivered Response mailed of Land and Natural Administrator Feb 06 07 Feb 06 07 July 23 07 Resources, Land Division Page 12-5 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Supporting Documentation gencv/Party Name Date Comments Date Envelope Response/Action Received Postmarked and Date Sent State of Hawaii. Department of Land and Natural Samuel J. Hand Delivered Response mailed Resources, Office of Lemmo. Feb 06 07 Feb 06 07 Julv 23 07 Conservation and Coastal Administrator Lands State of Hawaii Department Barry Fukunaga Response mailed of Transportation Interim Director Feb 08 07 Feb 07 07 July 23 07 of Transportation- Response mailed .......................... ................................ ............... ........... ..................... State of Hawaii, Department ............ ...... ..... ...... ................................ . ............ ............. ................ ..................................... .......... .................... ..... . ................... ---- .......... . .............. ...... ......... . ....... of Transportation Statewide Barry Fukunaca. Fax Received Response mailed Transportation Planning Interim Director Feb 06 07 Feb 06 07 JulvJuly 23 0707 Office Christopher Response mailed State of Hawaii. Office of Genevieve Jan 18 07 Jan 17 07 July 23 07 Environmental Quality Salmonson. Jan 30 07 Fax received Response mailed Control Director Jan 30 07 Jul 23 OZ Clyde W. Pdf Feb 060 1 State of Hawaii. Office of Chief received pdf in Response mailed Hawaiian Affairs Namu`o Feb 06 07. prig email oris Feb July 23 07 Administrator. Feb 07 07 0607 Strategic Industries Division, Maurice H. State of Hawaii Department Kava. Chief Response mailed of Business, Economic Technology Jan 08 07 Jan OS 07 Jan 23 07 Development & Tourism Officer County of Hawaii. Milton D. Pavao Response mailed Department of Water Supply P.E.. Manager Feb 13 07 Feb 12 07 July 23 07 Response mailed County of Hawaii. Darryl Oliveira, Jan 04 07 Jan 03 07 Jan 23 07 - All Fire Department Fire Chief requested changes to be made to FEIS County of Hawaii. Planning Christopher Response mailed Department Yuen Planning Jan 18 07 Jan 17 07 July 23 07 Director County of Hawaii Lawrence K. Response mailed Mahuna, Police Jan 19 07 an 1 0 Police Department Chief Julv 23 07 Page 12-6 Page 12-7 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Supporting Documentation OName Date Comments Received Date Envelope Postmarked Response/Action and Date uA � P ° ..... C'OIVIMTINI ORCTANIZATIONS W Hawaii Island Paddlesports Rand Botti Feb 07 07 Feb 06 07 Response mailed Association President July 23 07 Hal Kamigaki. Hawaii Electric Light Acting Manager Feb OS 07 Feb 02 07 Response mailed Company. Inc. Engineering July 23 07 Department HawaiiMark Island Economic McGuffie. Response mailed Development Board Executive Feb 12 07 Fax Feb 12 07 Julv 23 07 Director Hawai`i's Response mailed Hawai`i's Thousand Friends Thousand Jan 10 07 Jan 0 07 July 23 07 Friends Hawaiian International Fred Duerr. Feb 06 07 Fax Received Respailed onse m Billfish Tournament President Feb 06 07 Julv 23 07 Stephanie Place, Kaniohale Community Board of Response mailed Jul 13 07 Association(KCAL Directors Jul 23 07 Secretary Kuakini Hawaiian Civic Gene Leslie Feb 06 07 Fax Received Response mailed O Club President Feb 06 07 Jul 23 0 Jan Ostman- Response mailed Kula Nai`a Lind, Ania Feb 07 07 Feb 06 07 July 23 07 Driscoll-Lind Henry Curtis. Response mailed Life of the Land Executive Feb 06 07 No Envelope Julv 23 07 Director Response mailed Melton International Tackle Tim Robertson Feb 14 07 Feb 13 07 July 23 07 Moku Loa Group of the Janice Palma- Email Received Response mailed Sierra Club Glennie Feb 07 07 Feb 07 07 Jul 23 0 � ......... ...... ...... ..... ...... ...._........_. ............ ....................................... ................ ....... ........... .... .............. ................. ..... ........... Moku Loa Group of the _...... ....._.... _........ ... _.............. ...... ..... ...... ..... ... _............ Janice Palma- .......................... ................................................. Feb 09 07 .................................................................................._...._....._...._........... Feb 06 07 Response mailed Sierra Club Glennie July 23 07 Na Kokua Kaloko- Fred Cachola Feb 08 07 Feb 06 07 Response mailed Honokohau July 23 07 Plan to Protect Kona Duane Erway. Feb 08 07 Feb 0_701 Response mailed President July 23 07 Response mailed Alice Bailey Julv 23 07 Student Na Wai Iwi Ola Feb 20 07 Feb 06 07 Knight Three Ring Ranch Exotic Ann Goodv.. Feb OS 07 Feb 02 07 Response mailed Animal Sanctuary Curator Jul 23 OZ Page 12-7 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Supporting Documentation eencv/Party Name Date Comments Received Date Envelope Response/Action Postmarked and Date Sent O West Hawaii Explorations Amber Adams Feb 05 07 Response mailed Academv July 23 07 West Hawaii Explorations Amber Feb 05 07 Response mailed Academv Matsumoto Jul- 23 07 West Hawaii Explorations B. J. Lawrence Feb 05 07 Response mailed Academv July 23 07 West Hawaii Explorations Benjamin Duke Feb 05 07 Response mailed Academv July 23 07 West Hawaii Explorations Bree Rivera Feb 05 07 Response mailed Academy July 2302 West Hawaii Explorations Dominic F. Feb 05 07 Response mailed Academy Chinen July 23 07 West Hawaii Explorations Isaiah Chinen Feb 05 07 Response mailed Academy July 23 07 West Hawaii Explorations J.D. Ansel Feb 05 07 Response mailed Academy July 23 07 West Hawaii Explorations Jared Wike Feb 05 07 Response mailed Academy Julv?3 07 West Hawaii Explorations Response mailed Academy Joey Donaldson Feb 05 07 July 23 07 West Hawaii Explorations John Chadband Feb 05 07 Response mailed O Academy July 23 07 West Hawaii Explorations Kainui Rapaport Feb 05 07 Response mailed Academy July 23 07 West Hawaii Explorations Kaniela Guieb Feb 05 07 Response mailed Academy Jul 23 0j West Hawaii Explorations Katie Clemons Feb 05 07 Response mailed Academy July 23 07 West Hawaii Explorations Lorelei Feb 05 07 Response mailed Academy Nakaeawa July 23 07 West Hawaii Explorations Makena Feb 05 07 Response mailed Academy McCluskey July 23 07 West Hawaii Explorations Merien Agayeva Feb 05 07 Response mailed Academy Ju lv 23 07 West Hawaii Explorations Micaela Pierce Feb 05 07 Response mailed Academv July 23 07 West Hawaii Explorations Mva Beck Feb 05 07 Response mailed Academy Ju lv 23 07 Certified Response mailed West Hawaii Explorations Roya Sabri Feb OS 07 Received Julv 23 07 Academy Feb 05 07 West Hawaii Explorations Savannah Feb OS 07 Response mailed Academy Onufer-Estrada Julv 23 07 Q Page 12-8 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Supporting Documentation Response/Action Date Comments Date Envelom Name Received Postmarked and Date Sent West Hawaii Explorations Response mailed Academv Tony Eaton Feb 05 07 July 23 07 West Hawaii Explorations Response mailed Academy Una Burns Feb 05 07 July 23 07 West Hawaii Explorations Zachar Feb OS 07 Response mailed Academy McClure July 23 07 �,INDI.VIDUAtiS Adam S. Response mailed Frankel, Ph.D. Feb 08 07 Feb 06 07 Julv 23 07 Response mailed Barbara E. Scott Feb 08 07 Feb 06 07 Julv 23 07 Response mailed Betsy Morriean Feb 28 07 Feb 27 07 July 23 07 ' Response mailed Charles Flahertv Feb 08 07 Feb 06 07 July 23 07 ........... ............. .................. ................................. ............ .......................................... ...... ........... .............. _............................... _................. _........................................................................... Charles Flahertv ................................. .................. ..................... ........................................................... ..... ...... _........................ _....._.... Response mailed (second letter) Feb 08 07 Feb 06 07 Julv 23 07 Feb 09 07 Response emailed Curtis Tyler O Via email Feb 12 07 Feb 04 07 Response mailed Diane Aoki Feb OS 07 via email July 23 07 ................ ............ _..... .................. ................ ............... ............ .... ......... ..... ................................................ ....... ..... .................... _........ ....................................... ............ ..... ............ ............................... ............ .............. ..... ........................... ........................... ....................................... ................ ...................... Response mailedJulv Diane Aoki Feb 06 07 Feb OS 07 23 07 Dore Dokos- Response mailed Loewenthal Feb 07 07 Feb 06 07 July 23 07 Eric von Platten Response mailed Luder Feb 16 07 Feb 13 07 Julv 23 07 Response mailed Harold Murata Feb 07 07 Feb 06 07 July 23 07 Response mailed Jene Michaud Feb 05 07 Feb 02 07 Julv 23 07 Response mailedJuly Jennifer Bach Feb 07 07 Feb 06 07 23 07 Response mailed Jill Wagner Feb 02 07 Feb O1 07 Julv?3 0707 Response mailed Kim Murphv Feb 02 07 Feb 0107 July 23 07 Response mailed Lvnn Olival Feb 05 07 Feb 02 07 Julv 23 07 Marie Aguilar Response mailed . Philip Mosher Feb 08 07 Feb 06 07 Julv 23 07 Page 12-9 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Supporting Documentation A90cv/Puty Name Date Comments Received Date Envelope Postmarked Response/Action and Date Sent O Response mailedJulv Marni Herkes Feb 14 07 Feb 13 07 23 07 Michelle R. Response mailed Disaue Feb 05 07 Feb 02 07 Julv 23 07 Nancy Response mailed Redfeather Feb 06 07 Feb OS 07 JulvJuly 23 0707 Pamela Response mailed Greenaway Feb 07 07 Feb 06 07 July 23 07 Philia Fernandez Feb OS 07 Feb 0207 Response mailedJuly 23 07 Fax Response mailed Rick Gaffnev Feb 13 07 Feb 13 07 Julv 23 07 Sara J. Peck Feb 06 07 Feb 05 07 Response mailed July 23 07 Shannon Response mailed Rudolph Feb 07 07 Feb 06 07 July 23 07 Fax Fax Response mailed Feb 14 07 Feb 14 07. July 23 07 Sue Vermillion OriEinal Ori final Feb 15 07 Feb 14 07 O Page 12-10 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Bibliography and References Bibliography and References Ala Kahakai National Historic Trail Planning Team, National Park Service — Pacific West Region, U.S. Department of the Interior (2004). Ala Kahakai National Historic Trail Comprehensive Management Plan /Environmental Impact Statement — Planning Update: Draft Management Prescriptions and Alternatives. Antonelis GA, Baker JD, Johanos TC, Braun RC, Harting AL (2006) Hawaiian monk seal: status and conservation issues. Atoll Research Bulletin 543. Baker JD, Johanos TC (2004) Abundance of the Hawaiian monk seal in the main Hawaiian Islands. Biological Conservation 116:103-110. Balazs, G.H., Chaloupka, M. Thirty-year recovery trend in the once depleted Hawaiian green sea turtle stock. Boil conserve 117:491-498 (2004). Balazs GH, Forsyth RG, Kam AKH (1987) Preliminary assessment of habitat utilization by Hawaiian green turtles in their resident foraging pastures. Honolulu Laboratory Southwest Fisheries Science Center. pp 107 Balazs GH, Katahira LK, Ellis DM (2000) Satellite tracking of hawksbill turtles nesting in the O llkYYWL4l.4/G lJ4l.4/41A. 111. AV1liU-V1VVVlJ (eds) Proceedings of the 18' internat, TM-NMFS-SEFSC-436. pp 279-281. Banner, A. H. Ciguatera: A disease from coral reef fish. Pp 177-213. In Jones, O. A. & Endean, R. (eds) `Biology and geology of coral reefs 3' (Academic Press: London) 1976. Bartol SM, Ketten DR (2006) Turtle and Tuna Hearing. In: Swimmer Y. Brill R (eds) Sea Turtle and Pelagic Fish Sensory Biology: Developing Techniques to Reduce Sea Turtle BY_c_a_ tch in Longline Fisheries, vol NOAA Tech. Memo., NOAA-TM-NMFSPIFSC-07 Bartol SM, Musick JA, Lenhardt ML (1999) Auditory evoked _potentials for the loggerhead sea_ turtle (Caretta caretta ). Copeia 3:836-840. Bauer GB (1986) The Behavior of Humpback Whales in Hawai `i and Modifications of Behavior Induced by Human Interventions. University of Hawai `i at Manoa, Honolulu, pp 314. Bauer, G.R. (Bauer, G. R., 2003). A study of the ground -water conditions in North and South Kona and South Kohala Districts Island of Hawai `i, 1991-2002: Commission on Water Resource Management Report, PR -2003-01, State of Hawai `i, 94 p. Prepared for the State of Hawai `i. 2003. Beider L, Dawson SM, Harraway JA (1999) Responses by Hector's dolphins to boats and swimmers in Porpoise Bay, New Zealand. 15:738-750 Beider L, Samuels A, Whitehead H, Gales N (2006a) Interpreting short-term behavioural Oresponses to disturbance within a longitudinal perspective. Animal Behavior 72:1149-1158. Draft 070207 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawai `i Bibliography and References O Beider L Samuels AMY, Whitehead HAL, Gales N Mann J, Connor R Heithaus M Watson - Capps J. Flaherty C. Krutzen M (2006b) Decline in Relative Abundance of Bottlenose Dolphins Exposed to Long -Term Disturbance. Conservation Biology 20: 1791-1798. Benoit -Bird, K. J., W. W. L. Au, R. E. Brainard and M. O. Lammers. 2001 Diel horizontal migration of the Hawaiian mesopelagic boundary community observed acoustically. Marine Ecology Progress Series 217:1-14. Calambokidis, J., G.H. Steiger, J.M. Straley, T.J. Quinn II, L.M. Herman, S. Cerchio, D.R. Salden, M. Yamaguchi, F. Sato, J. Urban, J. Jacobsen, O. von Ziegesar, K.C. Balcomb, C.M Gabriele, M.E. Dahlheim, N. Higashi, S. Uchida, J.K.B. Ford, Y. Miyamura, P.L. de Guevara, S.A. Mizroch, L. Schlender, K. Rasmussen. 1997. Abundance and population structure of humpback whales in the N. Pacific Basin. Final Report to the Southwest Fisheries Science Center, P.O. Box 271, La Jolla, CA 92038. Carretta, J. V., K. A. Forney. M. M. Muto, J. Barlow, J. Baker, B. Hanson and M. Lowry. 2004. U.S. Pacific marine mammal stock assessments: 2004 U.S. Department of Commerce NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SWFSC-375. 316 pp. Center for Environmental Quality -Environmental Justice and NEPA (CEQ, 2002). Web site. http://hydra.gsa.gov/pbs/pt/call-in/factshet/0298b/02 98 3.html. Accessed November 2002. Chaloupka, M., Balazs,G.H., Murakawa, S.K.K., Morris, R., and Work, T.M. Cause -specific temporal and spatial trends in green sea turtle strandings in the Hawaiian Archipelago (1982- 2003). (In Prep) 2006. Chaloupka M, Balazs G (2005) Modeling the effect of fibropapilloma disease on the somatic growth dynamics of Hawaiian green sea turtles. Marine Biology 147.1251-1260 Community Planning and Engineering, Inc.(CP&E 2006). Preliminary Engineering Report Kona Kai Ola Development. October 2006. Corkeron PJ (1995) Humpack whales (Megantera novaeangliae) in Hervey Bay, Queensland: Behaviour and responses to whale -watching vessels. Canadian Journal of Zoology 73:1290- 1299. County of Hawai `i (ISWMP 2002). Hawai `i County Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan - updated in 2002. 2002. County of Hawai `i Department of Environmental Management (NKSMP 2006). North Kona Improvement District Project. 2006. Frankel AS, Clark CW (2000) Behavioral responses of humpback whales (Megantera novaeangliae) to full-scale ATOC signals. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 108:1930-1937. Frankel AS, Clark CW (2002) ATOC and other factors affecting the distribution and abundance of humpback whales off the North Shore of Kaua'i. Marine Mammal Science 18:644-662. Draft 070207 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawai `i Bibliography and References Frankel, A. S., Mobley JR, ir, Herman LM (1995) Estimation of auditory response thresholds in humpback whales using biologically meaningful sounds. In: Kastelein RA, Thomas JA Nachtigall PE (eds) Sensory System of Aquatic Mammals. DgSpil Publishers, Woerd_e_n,_ The Netherlands, nn 55-70 Fristrua K. M., L. T. Hatch and C. W. Clark. 2003. Variation in humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) song length in relation to low -frequency sound broadcasts. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 113:3411-3424. Gregory PR, Rowden AA (2001) Behaviour patterns of bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncates) relative to tidal state, time -of -day, and boat traffic in Cardigan Bay, West Wales Aquatic Mammals 27:105-113. Giambelluca, T.W.. Nullet. M.A.. and Schroeder, T.A. 1986 (Giambelluca et al 1986) Hawaii Rainfall Atlas, Report R76, Hawai `i Division of Water and Land Development, Department of Land and Natural Resources, Honolulu. Hallstrom, James E., Jr., et al. Market Study, Economic Impact Analysis and Public Costs/Benefits Assessment of the Proposed KONA KAI OLA COMMUNITY, Kealakehe, North Kona, Hawai `i. The Hallstrom Group, Inc. October 2006. Hamilton PK, Stone GS, Martin SM (1997) Note on a deep humpback whale Megaptera novaeangliae dive near Bermuda. Bulletin of Marine Science 61:491-494 Haviland-Howell G, Frankel A, Sayi ,,h L. Powell C, Bocconcelli A. Herman R (in press) Recreational boating traffic: A chronic source ofanthropogenic noise in the Wilmington. North Carolina Introcoastal Waterway. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. Hawaii Health Systems Corporation (HHSC, April 2006). Information Paper for the 2005-2006 Legislature, HHSC Healthcare Services, April 2006. Hawaiian Independence (PASH 1995). Website. Public Access Shoreline Hawai `i v. Hawai `i County Planning Commission. Certiorari to the Intermediate Court of Appeals. (CIV. NO. 90- 293K). http://www.hawaii-nation.org/pash.html. Accessed October 2006. Hawai `i Island Community Development Portal (NKona). Kona Urban Growth Boundary Map. http://www.hawaiiislandplan.com/northkona.asp. Prepared for the County of Hawaii Planning Department. 2006. Herbst (1994) Fibrol2apillomatosis of marine turtles Annual Review of Fish Diseases 4:389- 425 Holing, Dwight (Holing, Dwight 1994). "The Sound and The Fury: Debate Gets Louder Over Ocean Noise Pollution and Marine Mammals. " The Amicus Journal. 16(3):19-25. 1994. Johnson, J.H., A.A. Wolman. (Johnson et al 1984) The humpback whale, Megaptera novaeangliae. Marine Fisheries Review, 46: 30-37. 1984 Draft 070207 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Bibliography and References Kanahele, Pualani Kanaka'ole (Kanahele 2001). Cultural Impact Assessment. Kealakehe Commercial/Industrial Park North Kona Island of Hawai `i. Prepared for the State of Hawai `i Department of Hawaiian Homelands. 2001. Kaneshiro, B., and Peterson, F., University of Hawaii (Kaneshiro, B. and F. Peterson, 1977). Groundwater recharge and coastal discharge for the northwest coast of the Island of Hawai `i: A computerized water budget approach: Water Resources Research Center, Technical Report No. 110, p. 83. 1977. Kauahikaua, J., Trusdell, F.A., and Heliker, C. (Kauahikaua, J., Trusdell, F. A., and C. Heliker, 1998). The probability of lava inundation at the proposed and existing Kulani prison site. Prepared for U. S. Geological Survey Open -File Report 98-794, p. 21. 1998. Ketten DR (1992) The marine mammal ear: specializations for aquatic audition and echolocation. In: Webster D, Fav R, ,Popp_ er A (eds) The Evolutionary Biology of Hearing. Springer -Verlag, New York, pp 717-750. Kona Hospital Foundation. Vital Signs, Kona Community Hospital News January — February 2006. ri Lammers, M., A.A. Pack, L. Davis. 2003. Historical Evidence of WhaleNessel Collisions in Hawaiian Waters (1975 — Present). Prepared for the Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary, Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, NOAA, U.S. Department of Commerce. OSI Technical Report 2003-01. 25 pp. August 19, 2003. O Langenheim, V.A.M., and Clague, D.A. (Langenheim, V.A.M. and D.A. Clague, 1987). The Hawaiian -Emperor Volcanic chain Part II. Stratigraphic framework of volcanic rocks of the Hawaiian Islands. United States Geological Survey Prof. Paper 1350, pp. 55-84. 1987. Lockwood, J.P., and Garcia, M.O. (Lockwood, J. P., and M. O. Garcia, 2004). Volcanic Hazards at the HELCO Kedhole Generating Station, North Kona, Hawai `i: Final Report. Prepared for Belt Collins Hawai `i, Ltd. 2004. Luna-Valiente NV, Bazua-Duran C (2006) Behavioral response of spinner dolphins(Stenella longirostris) to human activities in the archipelago ofHawai'i. In: ECS 2006, Gydnia Poland. Lusseau D (2003) Male and female bottlenose dolphins Tursiops spp. Have different strategies to avoid interactions with tour boats in Doubtful Sound New Zealand Marine Ecology -Progress Series 257:267-274 Mazzuca L., S. Atkinson and E. Nitta. 1998. Deaths and entanglements of humpback whales Me aptera novaeangliae, in the main Hawaiian Island 1972-1996. Pacific Science 52(1): 1-13 McCauley RD, Cato DH, Jeffery AF (1996) A study of the impacts of vessel noise on humpback whales in Hervey Bay. McCraken ML (2000) Estimation of the sea turtle take and mortality in the Hawaiian longline fisheries. Honolulu Laboratory, Southwest Fisheries Science Center, National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA, Honolulu, Hawaii, p) 29 O Draft 070207 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement rte\ Island of Hawaii Bibliography and References Meylan A (1988) Spongivory in hawksbill turtles: a diet of glass. Science 239:393-395 Miller PI J. O., N. Biassoni, A. Samuels and P. L. Tyack. 2000. Whale songs lengthen in response to sonar. Nature 405:903. Mobley, J., S. Spitz, R. Grotefendt. 2001. Abundance of Humpback Whales in Hawaiian Waters: Results of 1993-2000 Aerial Surveys, prepared for the Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine Sanctuary, Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, NOAA, U.S. Department of Commerce. 17 pp. September 2001. Moore, J. G., Normark, W., and Gutmacher, C. (Moore, J. G., Normark, W., and C. Gutmacher, 1992). Major landslides on the submarine flanks of Mauna Loa, Hawai `i. Landslide News, no. 6, pp. 13-16. 1992. Moore, R.B. and Clague, D.A. (Moore, R.B. and D.A. Clague, 1991). Geologic Map of Hualdlai Volcano, Hawai `i. U. S. Geological Survey, Misc. Investigation Series Map I-2213, 1:50,000 scale. 1991. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAH 2006). Website: Excessive Rainfall from the Remnants of Darby August 3-4, 2004. http://www.prh.noaa.gov/hnl/pages/events/darbyrains; and http://www.prh.noaa.gov/hni/pages/zone.php?zone=PHZ123. v�pages/zone.php?zone=PHZ123. Prepared for the National Weather Service Forecast Office. 2006. Na SL, Leung S (2003) Behavioral response of Indo-Pacific humpback dolphin (Sousa chinensis) to vessel traffic. Marine Environmental Research 56:555-567. Nitta, E. and J. R. Henderson. 1993. A review of interactions between Hawa`ii's fisheries and protected species. Marine Fisheries Review 55(2):83-92. Norris, Tom F. (Norris, Tom F. 1994). "The Effects of Boat Noise on the Acoustic Behavior of Humpback Whales. " Proceedings of the Acoustic Society of America. (128th Meeting). 96(5):3251.1994. Norris K. S. and T. P. Dohl. 1980. Behavior of the Hawaiian spinner dolphin Stenella longirostris. Fishery Bulletin 77:821-849. North Carolina Cooperative Extension (EJ 2002). Website: Selected Definitions Associated with Environmental Justice -Public Issues Education http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/depts/agecon/PIE/enviust2.html. Accessed December 2002. Nowacek SM, Wells RS. Solow AF (2001) Short-term effects of boat traffic on bottlenose dol hins, Tursiops truncates, in Sarasota Bay, Florida. Marine Mammal Sciene 17:673-688 Oki, D.S. (Oki, D.S., 1999). Geohydrology and numerical simulation of the ground -water flow system of Kona, Island of Hawai `i. Prepared for the U. S. Geological Survey, Water -Resources Investigation Report 99-4073, p. 70. 1999. Draft 070207 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawai `i Bibliography and References Oki, D.S., Tribble, G.W., Souza, W.R., and Bolke, E.L. (Oki., D. S., Tribble, G. W., Souza, W. R., and E. L. Bolke, 1999). Ground -water resources in Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park, Island of Hawai `i, and numerical simulation of the effects of ground -water withdrawals. Prepared for the U. S. Geological Survey Water -Resources Investigation Report 99-4070, p. 49. 1999. Oki Delwyn S., G. W. Tribble, W. R. Souza, and E. L. Bolke. 1999. (Oki NPS 1999) Ground Water Resources in Kaloko-Honokohau National Historic Park. Island of Hawai `i and Numberical Simulation of the Effects of Ground -Water Withdrawals U.S. Geological Survey_ Water -Resources Investigations Report 99-4070. Ostman-Lind, J., A. D. Driscoll -Lind and S. H. Rickards. 2004. Delnhinid abundance distribution and habitat use off the western coast of the Island of Hawaii. Administrative report LJ -04-02C prepared under Contract No. AB 133F -02 -CN -0123 from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 28 pp. Pacific Disaster Center (PDC 2006). Website. Pacific Disaster Center. http://www.pdc.org/iweb/hazard_info.jsp. Accessed May 2006. PBR (DHHL 2002). Hawai `i Island Plan. Prepared for the State of Hawai `i Department of Hawaiian Home Lands. May 2002. Polhemus, D.A. 1995. The Orangeblack Hawaiian Dameselfly. Megalagrion xanthomelas (Odonata: Coenagrionidae ): Clarifying the Current Range of a Threatened Species. On file Hawaii Biological Survey, Bishop Museum, Honolulu, Hawaii. Radle, Autumn Lyn (Radle, Autumn Lyn, 2004). The Effect of Noise on Wildlife: A Literature Review World Forum for Acoustic Hydrology. http://interact. uoregon. edu/MediaLit/WFAE/readings/radle.html#7. 2004. Rainfall Atlas of Hawaii (NOAA-NWS Technical Paper No. 43) 1986 Rainfall -Frequency Atlas of the Hawaiian Islands (1962) For areas to 200 square miles. durations to 24 hours, and return periods from I to 100 years. Randall, J. E. A review of ciguatera tropical fish poisoning with a tentative explanation of its cause. Bulletin of Marine Sciences of the Gulf and Carribean 8: 236-267. 1958. Raymond Bagnis. Natural versus anthropogenic disturbances to coral reefs: Comparison in epidemiological patterns of ciguatera. 1994. Rice, D.W. 1978. The humpback whale in the North Pacific: Distribution, exploration and numbers. Pp. 29-44. In: K.S. Norris and R.S. Reeves (Eds.) Report on a workshop on problems related to humpback whales, (Megaptera novaeangliae) in Hawai=i. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NTIS PB -280 794. 1978. Rice MR, Balazs GH, Hallacher L, Dudlev W, Watson G, Krussell K. Larson B (1999) Divin basking, and foraging patterns of a sub -adult green turtle at Punalu'u. Hawai'i. In: Proceddein s of the 181h Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. U.S. Dept. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SEFSC 0 Draft 070207 6 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawai `i Bibliography and References Rickards, S. H., G. L. Ross and J. Gilardi. 2001. Spinner Dolphins (Stenella longirostris) of Midway Atoll, Northwest Hawaiian Archipelago: February — November. 2000. Unpublished report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service, 50 pp. Ritter F (2002) Behavioural observations of rough -toothed dolphins (Steno bredanensis) off La Gomera, Canary Island (1995-2000). with special reference to their interactions with humans. Aquatic Mammals 28:46-59. Samuel, Y., Morreale S.J., Clarke, C.W., Greene C.H., and Richmond, M.E. (Samuel Y., Morreale S.J., Clark C.W., Greene C.H., Richmond M.E. 2005). Underwater, low frequency noise in a coastal sea turtle habitat. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 117:1465- 1472.2005. Scamaci C, Bigger SW, Corkeron PJ, Nugegoda D (2000) Bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncates) increase whistling in the presence of `swim -with -dolphin' tour operations. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management 2:183-185. Scheidat M. Castro C, Gonzalez J, Williams R (2004) Behavioural responses of humpback whales Megaptera novaeangliae) to whalewatching boats near Isla de la Plata. Machalilla National Park, Ecuador. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management 6:63-68. State of Hawai `i Environmental Council (CI 1997). Guidelines for Assessing Cultural Impacts. Adopted November 19, 1997. State of Hawai `i Department of Health Clean Air Branch (DOH 2005). Annual Summary: Hawai `i Air Quality Data. 2005. State of Hawaii Department of Hawaii Home Lands (DHHL 2002). Hawai'i Island Plan. Mav 2002. State of Hawai `i Department of Land and Natural Resources (DNLR 1998) Chapter 275. State of Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources, Commission on Water Resource Management (CWRM 1990). Water Resources Protection Plan. June 1990. State of Hawaii Land Use Commission (Forum 2002). Forum and Information Fair County of Hawai `i/State Land Use Commission - Staff Summary. 2002. Stearns, H.T., and MacDonald, G.A. (Stearns H. T. and G. A. MacDonald, 1946). Geology and ground -water resources of the iIsland of Hawai `i. Hawai `i Division of Hydrography, Bulletin 9, p. 363. 1946. Thomas J, Moore P, Withrow R, Stoermer M (1990) Underwater audiogram of Hawaiian monk seal Monachus schauinslandi ). Journal of the Acoustical Society -of America 87:417-420. U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service, Soil Survey of the Island of Hawai `i State of Hawai `i (1972) United States Department of the Interior (GMP 1994). General Management Plan - Environmental Impact Statement Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park. 1994. Draft 070207 Kealakehe, North Kona District Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Island of Hawaii Bibliography and References United States General Services Administration (GSA 2006). Sustainable Design Program. http://www.gsa.gov/Portal/gsa/ep//. Accessed October 2006. United States Geologic Services (USGS. 2007). Geologic Resource Evaluation of Pu'ukohold Heiau National Historic Site, Hawaii. Scientific Investigations Report 20-6_-5254 Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. National Park Service. U.S. Green Building Council (LEED 2006). Website: U.S. Green Building Council. Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design. http://www.usgbc.org/ Accessed September 2006. Van Pariis SM, Cockeron PJ (200 1) Boat traffic affects the acoustic behaviour ofPacific humpback dolphins. Sousa chinensis. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 81:533-538. Waimea Water Services (Waimea Water Services, 2007). Ground -water effect on anchialine ponds. 2007. Waimea Water Services (Waimea Water Services, 1996). Kealakehe WWTP Effluent Reuse and Management Project: Final Progress Report on Effluent Discharge, Reuse, and Quality. Prepared for the County of Hawai `i, 107 p. + Appendices. March 1996. West Hawaii Coastal Monitoring Task Force (WHCMTF 1992). West Hawai `i Coastal Monitoring Program: Monitoring Protocol Guidelines, 1992. Wolfe, E.W., and Morris, J. (Wolfe, E.W. and J. Morris, 1996). Geologic Map of the Island of Hawai `i. Prepared for U.S. Geological Survey, Misc. Investigation Series Map 1-2524-A, 1:100,000 scale. 1996. Wright, T. L., Chun, J. Y. F., Esposo, J., Heliker, C., Hodge, J., Lockwood, J. P., and Vogt, S. M. (Wright, T. L., Chun, J. Y. F., Esposo, J., Heliker, C., Hodge, J., Lockwood, J. P. and S. M. Vogt, 1992). Map Showing Lava -Flow Hazard Zones, Island of Hawai `i. Prepared for U.S. Geological Survey Misc. Field Studies Map, Map MF -2193, 1:250,000 scale. 1992. Draft 070207 Kealakehe, North Kona District Island of Hawaii AAQS: An Air Quality Study Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement List of Abbreviations List of Abbreviations ALISH: State Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Lands of Importance to the State of Hawaii BA: Basal Aquifer BLNR: State Board of Land and Natural Resources BMP: Best Management Practices CDP: Kona Community Development Plan CDUP: Conservation District Use Permit CEQ: Center for Environmental Quality CIA: Cultural Impact Assessment CPUE: Catch Per Unit Effort CZM: Coastal Zone Management Program dBA: Decibels DBEDT: State Department of Business, Economic Development, and Tourism DEIS: Draft Environmental Impact Statement DEM: Hawaii County Department of Environmental Management DHHL: State Department of Hawaiian Home Lands DLNR: State Department of Land and Natural Resources DOBOR: DLNR Division of Boating and Ocean Recreation DOH: State Department of Health DOT: Department of Transportation Draft 070207 DP: Development Plan DPW: Hawaii County Department of Public Works DWS: Hawaii County Department of Water Supply EA: Environmental Assessment EJ: Environmental Justice EPA: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency EIS: Environmental Impact Statement EISPN: Environmental Impact Statement Preparation Notice FEIS: Final Environmental Impact Statement FHWA: U.S. Federal Highway Administration gpm: gallons per minute gpd: gallons per day HAR: Hawaii Administrative Rules HCGP: Hawaii County General Plan HCM: 2000 Highway Capacity Manual HHFDC: Hawaii Housing Finance and Development Corporation HIBC: Hawaii Island Burial Council HRS: Hawaii Revised Statutes HELLO: Hawaii Electric Light Company, Inc. HDOT: State Department of Transportation 9 Kealakehe, North Kona District Island of Hawaii JDI: Jacoby Development, Inc. and Kona Marina Development Group, LLC, an affiliate of Jacoby Development, Inc. Kw: Kilowatts Ldn: Day - Night Average Sound Level, diurnal noise levels LEED: Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design Leq: Equivalent Sound Level LOS: Levels of Service (traffic) LUC: State Land Use Commission (LUC) LUPAG: Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide mauka: inland makai: ocean MGD/mgd: Million Gallons per Day msl: mean sea level (ft.) Mw: Megawatts NAAQS: National Ambient Air Quality Standards NELHA: Natural Energy Laboratory of Hawai `i Authority NHP: Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park NMFS: National Marine Fisheries Service NPDES: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NPS: National Park Service Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement List of Abbreviations 03: Ozone OCCL: DLNR's Office of Conservation and Coastal Lands OEQC: Office of Environmental Quality Control ppt: parts per thousand QLT: Queen Lili`uokalani Trust rLw: Pahoehoe lava rLv: A`a lava ROW: right-of-way SAMBT: Simulation and Animation Model of Boat Traffic SAP: Special Area Plan SHPD: DLNR State Historic Preservation Division SIA: Social Impact Assessment ) SMA: Special Management Area SWAG: Seawater Air Conditioning UBC: Uniform Building Code UIC: Underground Injection Well USGS: U.S. Geological Survey Vog: Volcanic Haze WWS: Waimea Water Services WWTP: Wastewater Treatment Plant Draft 070207 10 Kealakehe, North Kona District Island of Hawaii 0- C, Kona Kai Ola Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices Appendices July 2;4009 Kaloko General Plan Amendment Planning Department ; , Aupuni Center 101 Pauahi St. #3 Hilo, HI 96720 Aloha, ` qy4 This is written in support of reclassifying the area south of Kaloko-Honokohau. National Historical Park from "urban expansion'.to "open". Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park contains nationally significant cultural resources, including the Kaloko Fishpond, burial sites, two heiau, many anchialine pools, and other sacred sites. Native Hawaiian rights protected by the Hawaii Constitution that are practiced within Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park include pole, spear and net fishing, gathering of limu, wan 'a, opihi, and octopus; gathering the opae'ula in anchialine pools for bait and chum for offshore fishing; and religious ceremonies, including pikai ceremonies using near -shore waters. A few years ago, the State Land Use Commission concluded that Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park'is "a natural and cultural resource of the utmost value both to the State of Hawaii and the nation as a whole, representing some of the State's most important natural systems, habitats, and valued cultural, historical, and natural resources." Any large-scale development project on lands adjacent to the National Park will significantly impact the National Park's cultural landscape,, traditional and customary practices by native Hawaiians in the" Park, and cultural and natural resources. Measures should be taken to protect the National Park cultural and natural resources. Development on lands near Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park could significantly impact the National Park's cultural and natural resources as well as adversely affect coastal water qualify. In addition, such development would important cultural and,nawral resources that are found' the lands just south of Kaloko- Honok6hau National Historical Park. The proposed amendment implements the Kona Community Development Plan's "vision of a 17 mile long protected stretch of open coastline from Makaeo north to Kikaua Pt. at the Kuki`o development Mahalo for'your consideration. Pulani Kaopuiki Planning. Dept. Exhibit 10 JUL ?1,100- k D. Piilani Kaopuiki " 838 Hauoli Street�€ ,{li 3a fL` �oi ` Honolulu, Hawaii 96826 July 2;4009 Kaloko General Plan Amendment Planning Department ; , Aupuni Center 101 Pauahi St. #3 Hilo, HI 96720 Aloha, ` qy4 This is written in support of reclassifying the area south of Kaloko-Honokohau. National Historical Park from "urban expansion'.to "open". Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park contains nationally significant cultural resources, including the Kaloko Fishpond, burial sites, two heiau, many anchialine pools, and other sacred sites. Native Hawaiian rights protected by the Hawaii Constitution that are practiced within Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park include pole, spear and net fishing, gathering of limu, wan 'a, opihi, and octopus; gathering the opae'ula in anchialine pools for bait and chum for offshore fishing; and religious ceremonies, including pikai ceremonies using near -shore waters. A few years ago, the State Land Use Commission concluded that Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park'is "a natural and cultural resource of the utmost value both to the State of Hawaii and the nation as a whole, representing some of the State's most important natural systems, habitats, and valued cultural, historical, and natural resources." Any large-scale development project on lands adjacent to the National Park will significantly impact the National Park's cultural landscape,, traditional and customary practices by native Hawaiians in the" Park, and cultural and natural resources. Measures should be taken to protect the National Park cultural and natural resources. Development on lands near Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park could significantly impact the National Park's cultural and natural resources as well as adversely affect coastal water qualify. In addition, such development would important cultural and,nawral resources that are found' the lands just south of Kaloko- Honok6hau National Historical Park. The proposed amendment implements the Kona Community Development Plan's "vision of a 17 mile long protected stretch of open coastline from Makaeo north to Kikaua Pt. at the Kuki`o development Mahalo for'your consideration. Pulani Kaopuiki Planning. Dept. Exhibit 10 JUL ?1,100- k >i .F Miranda Watson a� a = • , .s i; P® Box 390087 A_ Keauhou, HI 96720 July 24, 2009 Kaloko General Plan Amendment Planning Department Aupuni Center 101 Pauahi St. #3 Hilo, HI 96720 Dear Director Leithead-Todd: I'm writing this letter to express my sincere support for your proposed reclassification of the Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park from urban expansion to open. Your proposal suggests you are already aware of the many significant cultural and natural resources that exist in the park. The reclassification is a step in the right direction to protecting the park from the adverse affects any development in or near the park would have. The 2006 reclassification to urban expansion was a decision made in haste without any studies to evaluate how it would affect all of the resources this park holds. I applaud you in your efforts to protect the rights of the people of Hawaii and hope this is just the first action of many. I hope you will continue to spearhead the protection of the cultural and natural resources in the Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park and the many others that exist in Hawaii. Sincerely, O���lISI A U l �I�/�1��\�L �G Miranda Watson Planning Dept. Exhibit—LI ______ FSCANNAUG 0 7 2009 552� The State Land Use Commission called Kaloko-Honokohau Park "a natural and cultural resource of the utmost value to the State of Hawaii and the nation as a whole, representing some of the State's most important natural systems, habitats, and valued cultural, historical, and natural resources." The Commission "determined that, for all proposed development adjacent or near a National Park that raises threats of harm to the environment, cultural resources, or human health, precautionary measures should be taken to protect the National Park cultural and natural resources, even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established." The Honokohau Study Advisory Commission recommended that "The County General Plan and zoning ordinances of the area should limit the uses of lands immediately surrounding Ka-loko, Hono-ko- hau to compatible activities. Lands further mauka should be restricted in density in order to preserve the integrity of the park and protect its water resources." The Kona Community Plan envisioned "a 17 mile long protected stretch of open coastline from Makaeo north to Kikaua Pt. at the Kuki'o development" and called for a 1000 -foot shoreline setback. Reclassification would implement this. Moku Loa Group, P.O. Box 1137, Hilo, Hawaii 96721 Planning Dept. Exhibit 1 1, SCANNED AUG 06 2009 By;Q55175 F4 �_ Planning.Director'Bobby Jean Leithead-Todd . Planning Department _ , F } _ ► ; l ; ' Aupuni Center - 101 Pauahi St. #3 Hilo, HI 96720 July 30, 2009 SIERRA RE: Kaloko General Plan Amendment CLUB Dear Director Leithead-Todd, FOUNDED 1s92 We are in full support of your proposal to reclassifythe area south of Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park from "urban expansion" to "open." The park has nationally significant cultural resources such-as the Kaloko Fishpond, burial sites, two heiau, and many anchialine pools. Many Native Hawaiian rights, protected by the Hawai'i Constitution, are practiced in the park--pole, spear, and net fishing; gathering of limu, wana, opihi, octopus, and opae'ula; and religious ceremonies. The Superintendent of'Kaloko-Honokohau Park said "Any large-scale development project on lands adjacent to the National Park will significantly impact the National Park's cultural landscape, traditional and customary practices by native Hawaiians in the Park, and cultural and natural resources." The State Land Use Commission called Kaloko-Honokohau Park "a natural and cultural resource of the utmost value to the State of Hawaii and the nation as a whole, representing some of the State's most important natural systems, habitats, and valued cultural, historical, and natural resources." The Commission "determined that, for all proposed development adjacent or near a National Park that raises threats of harm to the environment, cultural resources, or human health, precautionary measures should be taken to protect the National Park cultural and natural resources, even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established." The Honokohau Study Advisory Commission recommended that "The County General Plan and zoning ordinances of the area should limit the uses of lands immediately surrounding Ka-loko, Hono-ko- hau to compatible activities. Lands further mauka should be restricted in density in order to preserve the integrity of the park and protect its water resources." The Kona Community Plan envisioned "a 17 mile long protected stretch of open coastline from Makaeo north to Kikaua Pt. at the Kuki'o development" and called for a 1000 -foot shoreline setback. Reclassification would implement this. Moku Loa Group, P.O. Box 1137, Hilo, Hawaii 96721 Planning Dept. Exhibit 1 1, SCANNED AUG 06 2009 By;Q55175 PP�ENT QF,�.TyA T 9 R gRCN 3 A8 IN REPLY REFER TO: L1425 August 6, 2009 United States Departs ent pf the Interior NATIONAL PARK SERVICE" Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park 73-4786 Kanalani St, Suite 14 1 Kailua-Kona, HI 96740 ktj Ms. Bobby Jean Leithead-Todd Planning Director County of Hawaii Planning Department 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3 Hilo, Hawaii 96720 RE: Proposed Amendment to the County of Hawaii General Plan Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide Map 11. Dear Ms. Leithead-Todd: Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Proposed Amendment to Map 11 of the Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG) Map of County of Hawaii General Plan, which was adopted by Ordinance No. 0525 and amended by Ordinance No. 06153. The lands -in the Proposed Amendment are. adjacent to Kaloko-Honokohau. National Historical Park and extend south of the Honokohau Small, Boat Harbor,. in the Kealakehe ahupua a, North Kona, Island of Hawaii. The National Park Service is strongly supportive of the proposed amendment to change the land use designation.from "Urban Expansion" to "Open.' and recommends that the Planning Department support this amendment when it comes before the Planning Commission. As the National Park Service stated during the County of Hawaii Workshop on July7, 2009, it is especially important that lands north of the Honokohau Harbor basin immediately adjoining the Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park boundary not be designated "Urban Expansion." The National Park Service and the County of Hawaii share a commitment to care for and preserve our cultural and natural resources and values for the people of Hawaii and the United States. Conservation of National Park resources and values is the fundamental purpose of the National Park System. The 1916 Organic Act (16 USC 1, as amended) mandates that the National Park Service preserve and protect these resources and values in an unimpaired condition in order to perpetuate their inherent integrity for the benefit and inspiration of present and future generations. Kaloko-Honok6hau National Historical Park wascreated in 1978 through the efforts of members of the Hawaiian community to preserve, interpret, and perpetuate traditional Hawaiian activities and culture (16 USC 1 §396d). In particular, they were concerned that this place of great significance to Hawaiians would be lost to .urban development. The Hono: ko-hau Study Advisory Commission recommended in their 1974 report to Congress,, "The Spirit of Ka-loko.Hono-k6-hau," that the Honok6hau Settlement National Historical Landmark (NHL; designated in 1962) and, its adjacent waters be preserved for the benefit -of the Hawaiian people and the nation as part of the National Park . System. The National Park's and the National Historic Landmark's (NHL) southern boundary adjoin the lands proposed for rezoning from Planning Dept. Exhibit N— E r'rS.jrb Cr A� `� 2009 .. �a "Urban Expansion" to "®pen." In their recommendations to Congress, the Hono-k6-hau Study Advisory Commission was concerned about future land use adjacent to the National Park. They stated: "Furthermore, since most of the land in the ahupua'a of Ke-ala-kehe is owned by the state, its use will have direct impact on Ka-loko, Hono-k6-hau. Finally, lands that are designated or owned by the state in the area should be given special zoning limiting their uses to activities compatible to a cultural park. The County General Plan and zoning ordinances of the area should limit the uses of the lands immediately surrounding Ka-loko, Hono-ko-hau to compatible activities. Lands further mauka should be restricted in density in order to preserve the integrity of the park and protect its water resources." (p. 54) The Advisory Commission report and the 1994 General Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement for Kaloko-Honokohau NHP point out that Kaloko-Honokohau is a small and fragile portion of the larger environment that has influenced its history and that continues to affect it today. The enabling legislation of the National Park (16 USC 1 §396d et seq.) states that the Park shall be administered generally in accordance with the guidelines provided in the 1974 Hono-k6-hau Study Advisory Commission report, and that management "shall to the maximum extent feasible utilize the traditional Native Hawaiian ahupua a concept of land and water management." The Commission reminds us: "Each ahupua'a developed around a recognition that all of its elements were interdependent. What affected the mauka regions, affected the makai. What affected the neighboring ahupua'a affected it. What affected the land affected the fishponds and the sea. What affected the water cycle affected the total environment. This is the way it was and is at Ka-loko, Hono-ko-hau." (p. 51) The National Park Service is seriously concerned that urban development projects on lands adjacent to the National Park and NHL, especially the cumulative effects of these projects, will result in long term degradation of the Park's resources and threaten the integrity of the Honokohau Settlement NHL. Large-scale urban development adjacent to the National Park will fundamentally alter the water, air, sounds, sights, cultural landscape, and traditional and customary practices by native Hawaiians in the Park and the NHL. Water quality and quantity will be altered forever by fresh and brackish groundwater withdrawals, and non point source pollution inputs; the air will be filled with construction dust, and the smells of cars, restaurants, and boat exhaust; the natural sounds in the Park will be impacted by heavy machinery, automobiles, and the incessant hum of air conditioning. Development on these lands will be visible from the National Park, forever degrading Park cultural landscape and vistas. The urban expansion foreseen by the Advisory Commission in 1974 is underway. The National Park Service, in fulfillment of its legislative mandates, takes a regional, watershed approach and strives to work with local agencies, land owners, and land developers to protect these nationally significant resources from the cumulative impacts of urbanization. This Proposed Amendment of the General Plan provide a rare opportunity for outright protection and preservation of the last remaining undeveloped coastal lands and resources around the park to the benefit of all citizens of Hawaii and the United States. 2 As the County is well aware, commitment of coastal lands for development has irreversible and far reaching consequences. The National Park Service greatly appreciates the County Planning Department's careful consideration of zoning of these sensitive and fragile lands. The NPS strongly supports the Proposed Amendment, however we respectfully urge the County of Hawaii to take a further step and propose to increase the proposed area of "Open" designation in the General Plan to more closely reflect the current zoning of "Open" for makai coastal lands in the Kealakehe and Keahuolu ahupua'a. Preservation of coastal open space will benefit the quality of life in the Kona community, Native Hawaiian values and traditional and customary practices, and nationally significant natural and cultural resources. Sincerely, Geraldine K. Bell Superintendent -cc Na Kokua O Kaloko-Honokohau Makani Hou o Kaloko-Honokohau Superintendent, Ala Kahakai National Historic Trail National Park Service PWR National Park Service Pacific Area Regional Office National Historic Landmark Program 8085870450 Line 1 f t LINDA LINGLE GOVERNOR OF HAWAII D�Iynd and Na ecc �d 'ti 4 G S��e Df Ha�°o TP.3 s.,s e e_I0 #.3 I 14 -.44:17 08-07-2009 112 STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES POST OFFICE BOX 621 HONOLULU, HAWAII 96809 August 7, 2009 VIA FACSIMILE (808) 961-8742 ORIGINAL BY REGULAR MAIL Ms. B.J. Leithead Todd, Planning Director Planning Department County of Hawaii Aupuni Center 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3 Hilo, Hawaii 96720 LAURA H. THIELEN CHAIRPERSON BOARD OFIAND AND NATLRAL RESOLRCFS CONIMISSIONON WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT RUSSELL Y. TSUJI FIRST UBPUrY KEN C. RAWAHARA DEPUTY DIRCCTOR - WATER AQUATIC RESOURCES BOATING AND OCEM RECREATION BUREAUOFCONVEYANCES COMMISSION ON WATER RESOURCE MANAGPME Tr CONSERVATION AND COASTAL LANDS CONSCRVATION AND RESOURCES ENFORCEMENT ENGINEERING FORESTRY AND WILDLIFE HISTORIC PRFSCRVATION KAIIOOLAWE ISLAND RESERVE COMMISSION LAND STATE PARKS Re: Proposed Interim Amendment to the General Plan Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG) Map for Lands at Honokohau Harbor, Kealakehe, North Kona, Island of Hawaii Dear Ms. Leithead Todd: This letter responds to your letter dated June 26, 2009, which requested comments to the Planning Department's proposed LUPAG map amendment changing the land use designation for State-owned lands near and south of the Honokohau Harbor from "Urban Expansion" to "Open". According to your letter, the purpose of the proposed amendment is to settle a lawsuit filed by Kaliko Chun and Richard Nelson III against the County of Hawaii (Civil No. 07-1-243K) regarding the County's 2006 General Plan ("GP") amendment. The Department of Land and Natural Resources ("DLNR") owns and manages the lands that are the subject of the proposed LUPAG map amendment. However, DLNR was not a party to the afore -mentioned lawsuit nor was DLNR a participant in any settlement discussions or proceedings. We are also not aware of any allegations made in the lawsuit against DLNR or of any consideration to be paid to DLNR in connection with the proposed map amendment. Accordingly, there does not appear to be any nexus between the lawsuit and the proposed settlement, which targets only DLNR's lands and no other lands amended by the County's 2006 GP amendment. As such, DLNR respectfully objects to the proposed LUPAG map amendment. In addition, DLNR is not aware of any reasons, other than the settlement of the above- mentioned lawsuit, supporting the amendment, including but not limited to why this area is more Planning Dept. Exhibit_. 808587;9450 Line 1 44:49 08-07-2009 2/2 Ms. B.J. Leithead Todd,{ .tinning Director County of Hawaii August 7, 2009 Page 2 of 2 suitable for designation as 'open" rather than "urban expansion." Settlement of a lawsuit seems an inadequate reason for the County to amend the GP, which was the subject of numerous studies and public hearings over the course of many years. Finally, according to the County of Hawaii Office of Corporation Counsel's letter dated March 6, 2009, the proposed LUPAG map amendment seeks to "undo" the 2006 LUPAG map amendment affecting the DLNR lands by changing the current "Urban Expansion" designation back to its previous "Open" designation. However, prior to the 2006 GP amendment, portions of the DLNR lands near the Honokohau Harbor were already designated "Urban Expansion" and two other areas were designated "Resort". As such, it appears the proposed LUPAG map amendment seeks not only to undo the 2006 reap amendment, but seeks to further amend the designations provided in the prior 1989 LUPAG map. Therefore, in addition to DLNR's general objection to the proposed LUPAG amendment, DLNR also objects to the proposal in that it seeks to amend the land use designations for the DLNR lands further than what was accomplished by the 2006 GP amendment. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact Morris Atta, Land Division Administrator, at 587-0422. Sincerely, aura H. T ielen Chairperson cc: Land Board member Central Files District Files 66/11/2009 107:25 X03 Ms, Kaliko Chun Dost Office Box 823 Kailua-kona, Hawaii 96745 August 07, 2009 ,_7259 Ms. Robbie Jean Leithead-Todd, Director Department of Planning County of Hawaii Aupuni Center 901 Pauahi Center, #3 Hilo, Hawaii 96720 FEDEX OFFICE '803 PAGE 02 RE,: Amendment to the General Plan, to return the classification of the area Kailua-side, or south, of 'Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park and the Honokohau Small Boat Harbor, to . "Open." This letter is to express whole -hearted support of your above proposal. Remembering the so very strong protests to the construction and development of the harbor, and if wishes could conte true, then that -harbor area would instead be whole and a part of the park interior. Daily we observe the construction of a golf course and appurtenant development in the area Kohala-side, or north, of the Park. It is by sheer accident that a treasure trove of historic and. cultural significance was found, and has been kept in hiding in order to protect and respect it. This whole area should be part of the Park. The Honokohau Federal Study Advisory Commission went to Hawaiian communities on all islands, and listened to Hawaiians talk about their family connections to Honokohau and the surrounding area, --- to how their ohana live, and lived. This is now called traditional and customary practices. With a reverent respect for the environment and natural resources, Hawaiians created and observed strict rules of protection, or kapu. The Study --- the testimony, the findings /recommendations, the report --- is itself historic. The findings of the Commission recommended that the southern park boundary extend to Noio Point, south of Honokohau Small Boat Harbor. And, that it ._,since most of the land in the ahupua'a of Ke-ala-kehe is owned by the state, its uses will have direct impact on Ka-loko, Hono-ko-hau." Lands controlled by the state in'the area "._.should be given special zoning limiting their uses to - activities compatible to a cultural park." "The County General plan and ,zoning ordinances of the area should limit the uses of lands immediately surrounding Ka-loko, Hono-ko-hau to compatible activities. Lands further mauka should be restricted in density in order to preserve the integrity of the park and protect its Planning Dept. Exhibiti5 .L-.. y..� x Q&/1/2009 7 F�: 808 -� 9-7259 FEDEX OFFFFICE f :j303 water resources." Kaloko-Honokohau contains nationally significant and unique cultural resources. have been informed, that a few years ago the State Land Use Commission concluded that Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park is :"...a natural and cultural resource of the utmost value both to tfie State of Hawaii and the nation as a whole, representing some of the State's most important natural systems, habitats, and valued cultural, historical, and natural resources." There are fishponds, including the huge Kaloko Fishpond, which attest to the onlly culture to develop this unique system for the care and propagation of fish, and species of fish found onl y in Hawaii. This requires love and respect for the fish. There are anchialine pools in which are found opae'ula. This is noteworthy•because many pools on the west hawaii coast have been destroyed by development -- either by negligence or purpose. Opae'ula, very tiny red shrimp, were used as bait for offshore fishing. The pools are found on the south side of the bark. There are burial sites, heiau, other sacred sites, and most especially --- spiritual presence, The Commission report is called " The Spirit -of Kaloko-Honokohau 11 The 2006 change (and ensuing changes) to the, general plan, failed to properly consider impacts to traditional and customary practices, which are Native Hawaiian rights protected by.the Hawaii Constitution. The change(s) also failed to consider the impacts to natural systems and habitats; the coastal wafter quality, the very valued cultural, historical, and natural resources_ The change (s) reflect accommodation to the demands for development, with a shrug. It seems no thought is given to loss and degradation of resources, no second thoght given to failure to give protection to resources, no thought given to failure tp protect constitutional rights. i urge you to look to the whole of Ka-loko, Hono-ko-hau --- to mauka, (and mauka of the highway), makai, both north and south sides,--- to protect all that is there, to contain the harbor footprint and restrain the urban uses within. Without dedicated protection today, there will be nothing for tomorrow.. appreciate very much the time and opportunity to address this urgent concern, and thank you most sincerely. Mahalo nui, (Ms.) 'Kaliko Chun PAGE 03 Kaloko General Plan amendrnc Dacayanan, Melissa From: Janice Palma-Glennie [palmtree7@earthlink.net] Sent: Sunday, August 09, 2009 9:36 PM To: planning@co.hawaii.hi.us Subject: Kaloko General Plan amendment Importance: High Janice Palma-Glennie P.O. Box 4849 Kailua-Kona, Hawaii 96745 Tet#:808-324-0093 Planning Department Aupuni Center 101 Pauahi St. #3 Hilo, HI 96720 Page 1 of 2 .°.� a P August 4, 2009 Re: Support for Kaloko General Plan Amendment Aloha, I am writing in support of the planning director's proposal to reclassify the area south of Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park from "urban expansion" to "open" for the purpose of protecting the natural and cultural resources on that and adjacent lands and watershed. In 2006, the County adopted wildly unpopular interim amendments to the general plan, including one that re-classified the area adjacent to and south of Kaloko Honokohau National Historic Park from "open" to "urban expansion". The proposed Jacoby Development project for that area is now dead. This re-classification is necessary, if not overdo. It will better protect the natural and cultural resources of the area as well as acknowledge and be in accordance with the overwhelming amount of public input into the Kona Commmunity Development Plan's original scoping process. When KCDP breakout groups met to share input on what areas should be developed and which should be left open/conservation protected, approximately 80% of the charette participants showed the area including the one being considered for this amendment as top priority for protection (along with other critical coastal lands). The change in classification would acknowledge the overwhelming public opposition to the GP amendment that changed this land to "urban expansion" to begin with. Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park is a gem, and my husband and I frequent it regularly. It contains nationally significant cultural resources as well as the Kaloko Fishpond. As I have witnessed many times, cultural practices including spear and net fishing, gathering, and spiritual ceremonies continue on that land. The State Land Use Commission concluded that Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park is "a natural and cultural resource of the utmost value both to the State of Hawaii and the nation as a whole, representing some of the State's most important natural systems, habitats, and valued cultural, historical, and natural resources." These were some of the many reasons the change of classification was so forcefully fought against in 2006. In 1974, the Honokohau Study Advisory Commission recommended the establishment of the Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park, including a recommendation that the park's southern boundary be extended south of Honokohau Small Boat Harbor. As State land, the LUC recommended that lands owned by the state in the area "should be given special zoning limiting their uses to activities compatible to a cultural park." They also recommended that only compatible activities be allowed when the County considered land use in that area. Studies and legal actions taken against upslope development also show how development on the lands mauka of the park are damaging water quality in and off -shore of the park (making it even more critical that zoning surrounding the park should restrict density in order__,,_ to preserve the integrity of the park and protect its water resources). Both the uperinjenddent kal f Kaloko-Ho uA �. % X11nnin Dept. Rin ni?nn4 E:�i%i�_ �______ '5 tC T7 Kaloko General Plan amendmer'' Page 2 of 2 j r. National Historical Park and the The State Land Use Conunission urged dire cautions regarding development near the park for cultural, environmental ,and other health and quality of life reasons. It is clear that development on lands near Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park could significantly impact the National Park's cultural and natural resources as well as adversely affect coastal water quality. Important cultural and natural resources that are found on the lands just south of Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park also face grave harm from inappropriate development near and mauka of the park. Again, I remind you that I am not alone in supporting this legislation which would undo what never should have been done by the County a couple of years back. If you will recall, the County Council meetings in which the bill changed this land to "urban expansion" were some of the most well -attended of any council hearings that I have attended in recent times. I encourage the Planning Director and Planning Commissioners to peruse testimony delivered by the public at those hearings. That testimony was overwhelmingly in favor of retaining the "open" classification. The amendment to change the land to "urban expansion" was also opposed by the West Hawaii representatives, joined by Councilman Bob Jacobson. The reclassification being considered is also fully consistent with the KCDP's guidelines that development be restricted to a minimum 1000 feet from the shoreline (though the KCDP charette break-out groups asked that there be no development at all in this area up to the Queen Ka' ahumanu Highway). In conclusion, the 2006 GP amendment showed a desire by the County to accommodate the demands for development. Though able to muster a slim margin that allowed the amendment to pass, the County failed to base the changes upon scientific studies nor public will to do so (again, in direct conflict to the KCDP as well as other public input regarding how this conservation -protected and open -designated coastal land should be honored). In response to the failure by the County to do its homework, a lawsuit followed. Again, as you are aware, the proposal before you is the result of the settlement made with those who were forced to sue the County in order to make things right. I hope that the above County agencies will do what is pono by re -instating the "open" classification of this land before more harm is done to the irreplaceable natural and cultural resources of the Kaloko-Honokohau area, and especially the National Park that lies therein. Mahalo for your consideration of my views in this matter that is critical to West Hawaii and beyond. Sincerely, Janice Palma -Glenne and Alastair Glenne PO Box 4849 Kailua-Kona, HI 96745 8/10/2009 08/11/2009 15:41 FAX IN 10*111N RE! FIZ To L1425 (PWRH) 8085413x696 PWR HONOLULU OFFICE l August 11, 2009 r:. United States Departinentiof;the, NA110NA.L. PARK SERVICE Pacific Nest Region 30'1 :ala kloana Bl d Rox y0 f 6� -.J E:` Q Room 6 -?^6 llnnolulu, Hawaii 96550 Ms. Bobby Jean Leithead-Todd Planning Director County of Hawaii Planning Departme.at Aupuni Center 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3 Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Dear Ms. Leithead-Todd: U002/003 NATIONAL * PARK SERVICE Re: Proposed Amendment to the Cotl;.lty of Hawaii General Plan Land Use Pattern Allocation. Guide Map 1.1 Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment oil the Proposed Amendment to Map 11 of the Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG) Map of County of Hawaii General Plan, which was adopted by Ordinance No. 05 25 and amended by Ordinance No. 06 153. The lands in the Proposed Amendment are adjacent to Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park and extend south of the Honokohau Small .Boat Harbor, in the Kealakehe ahtiptca 'a, North Kona, Island of Hawaii. The National Park Service, Pacific West Region Honolulu Office, strongly supports the proposed amendment to change the land use designation from "Urban Expansion" to ,open,, and requests that the Planning Department support this amendment when it comes before the Planning Commission. Please refer to the August 6 2009 letter forwarded to you by Kaloko- Honokohau National Historical Park Superintendent' Geraldine Bell, for specific recommendations, concerns and reasons for supporting t1le change in land usI' designation. .die, If: t;n.., ns ; p 41 Planning Dept. Exhibit 11 t F05 1446 08/11/2009 15:42 FAX 8085413696 PWR HONOLULU OFFICE U003/003 The National Park Service tn greatly appreciates the County Planning Department's careful consideration of zoning of the sensitive and fragile lands adjacent to Kaloko-HonokohaLt. Preservation of this open space will greatly benefit the efforts to preserve rationally significant natural and cultural resources. Please contact Superintendent Bell at 808-329-6881 extension 7. if you have any questions about these comments. Sincerely, Frank R. Hays Pacific Area Director cc: Superintendent, Kaloko-Honokohau national Historical Park Superintendent, Ala Kahakai National Historic Trail LEEWARD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAII HEARING TRANSCRIPT AUGUST 28, 2009 A regularly advertised hearing on the PLANNING DIRECTOR'S INITIATED AMENDMENT TO LAND USE PATTERN ALLOCATION GUIDE (LUPAG) MAP 11 OF THE COUNTY OF HAWAII GENERAL PLAN was called to order at 11:35 a.m. in the King Kamehameha's Kona Beach Hotel, Ballroom I, 75-5660 Palam Road, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii with Chairman Rodney Watanabe presiding. PRESENT: Rodney Watanabe ABSENT & EXCUSED: Geraldine Giffin Brandi Beaudet Lam Bowman Frederic Housel Wayne Iokepa Brandon Gonzalez, Deputy Corporation Counsel BJ Leithead Todd, Planning Director Norman Hayashi, Planning Program Manager Phyllis Fujimoto, Staff Planner Jeff Darrow, Staff Planner Maija Cottle, Staff Planner And approximately 17 people from the public in attendance INITIATOR: PLANNING DIRECTOR Amendment to Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG) Map 11 of the County of Hawaii General Plan (Ordinance No. 05 25, as amended) by changing the land use designation from "Urban Expansion" to "Open" for the area affecting state-owned lands in the vicinity and south of the Honok6hau Harbor, Kealakehe, North Kona, Hawaii. WATANABE: Our last agendized item, the initiator is the Planning Director. It's an amendment to Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide, LUPAG, Map 11. And so, oh, you are handling this also? COTTLE: Yes. WATANABE: Busy day. Maija. COTTLE: Thank you. This item is a Planning Director initiated General Plan amendment. Specifically, it's amending Map 11 of the LUPAG Map, and this is in the Kealakehe area and the Honok6hau Harbor area. The Planning Director held two public workshops to give the public an opportunity to .provide comment on the proposed amendments. Those workshops were held in Kona on July 7th and in Hilo on July l Oth. About 15 members of the public showed up at the Kona workshop and around five people showed up at the Hilo workshop. This is a shoreline photo aerial view of the General Plan amendment area. This is the National Park, the Kaloko-Honok6hau National Park is in this area here. And the amendment area runs along the southern border of the park from the shoreline all the way to Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway, which is in the upper portion of the slide. You can also see the harbor area, and their parking lots are within the amendment area. You have the.`Ai`6pio fish trap here off in the water, and there is also a heiau next to the fish trap here. This area is actually Park property. So the amendment would affect along this line south including the harbor area. And let me just move forward to -. This is what the Director is proposing; so she is proposing to return the LUPAG designation to the 2005 map layout, which had the area hatched in red as Open. And so just to go back to the shoreline slides, where I was pointing out the line from the highway to the shoreline along the southern Park boundary is here, and then the amendment area runs along the shoreline and creates like a boot, or a little shoe, here. So I'll go back and kind of point that out on the slides. So it would run along the shoreline inland a little bit. You can see the Kealakehe Wastewater Treatment Plant in the top right portion of the slide. So the boot area would actually encompass that, and that would run around here and the curve up and in. The State owns most of this property over here, and the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands owns this property in this area here. And they both provided comments on the proposed amendment. Again, you can see the Wastewater Treatment facility here, and there are some natural resources in this area. There are some anchialine ponds right around in this area here. This is a LUPAG Map from 1971. Again, you can see the southern boundary of the Park. The harbor and these red areas were designated Resort areas. The dark is Open and then the crosshatch was Urban Expansion. And it's the same layout as what shown here on the 1989 LUPAG Map; you have the Open area, Urban Expansion and the three Resort areas. And then in 2005 during the comprehensive General Plan update, the Resort areas were removed, those three Resort areas were removed. One of them was changed to Open and then two of them were put into, I'm sorry, two of them were changed to Open and one was changed to Urban Expansion right here. And then in 2006 the Planning Director initiated an interim amendment to the LUPAG Map, and removed all of that boot area, or shoe area, that was designated Open and to Urban Expansion. So again, the Planning Director is recommending approval of the amendment to the LUPAG Map in this layout here. And just to also let you know the State Land Use designation for the area is Urban except right along the coastline that's Conservation. And the current zoning designation, the County zoning designation for the area is Open. That's shown here in dark green. You should have received two letters of public testimony this morning. And one of them, I think, is from Mr. Nelson and he is replacing it with testimony that he had provided earlier; he made some changes. Are there any questions? 2 WATANABE: Staff? Okay, thank you. Thanks, Maija. Let's see, there is no applicant in this case, so why don't we move onto the public testimony. I have nine individuals who have requested to provide public testimony. I'll call them up in the order that they signed up. We do have four chairs up there, four seats up there, so I'll call you up four at a time. I have Geri Bell, Diane Aoki, Richard Nelson and Debbie Hecht. May I swear you in? Ms. Hecht, you were already sworn in, so go ahead. Raise your right hand, please. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth now before the Planning Commission? TESTIFIERS: I do. WATANABE: Thank you. And I believe you are Geri Bell? BELL: I am. WATANABE: Yes? So Ms. Bell, would you state your name and address for the record, and then you may begin your testimony. Because we do have nine people, I'm going to request that the testifiers be concise, not be overly redundant. If you have handed in like, you know, a letter of testimony that's five or six pages long, please don't read the whole thing to us. We can read. Instead, contain your testimony to three minutes and just highlight your thoughts, okay? We'd appreciate your cooperation in this. With that, Geri? BELL: I will. I'm Geri Bell. I'm at 73-4786 Kanalani Street, Kailua-Kona. And Mr. Chair and Members of the Commission, I brought my water up with me because I have cold and I might need it during my testimony, and because my voice may either sound sexy or hoarse. But anyway, thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on this agenda item. Again, I am Geri Bell, the Superintendent at Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park. And the Park's southern boundary adjoins the lands included in the proposed amendment to Map 11, including 15 and a half acres of State-owned lands in the Kealakehe ahupua`a. And Kaloko- Honokohau is one of 391 areas in the National Park System established by Congress for its nationally significant cultural and natural resources. So I'm going to skip down because you do have my testimony. The Park was created in 1978, through the efforts of this community, to preserve, interpret, and perpetuate traditional Hawaiian activities and culture. The community was concerned that this place of great significance to Hawaiians would be lost to urban development. And the citizens prevailed in 1978, but even today the imminent threat to the Park's resources from urban development continues. Any large- scale development project on lands adjacent to the National Park will significantly impact its cultural landscape, traditional and customary practices by native Hawaiians in the Park, and its resources. Again, I'd like to reiterate that the National Park Service is seriously concerned that urban development projects on lands adjacent to the Park, which is also a National Historic Landmark, especially cumulative effects of these projects, will result in long-term degradation of the Park, threaten the integrity of the Honokohau Settlement National Historic Landmark, and diminish the rapidly disappearing Hawaiian cultural landscape. As you know, large-scale urban development adjacent to any National Park will fundamentally alter the water, air, sounds, sights, and traditional and customary practices of native Hawaiians. And water, we are particularly concerned with water quality and quantity that will forever, would be altered forever by fresh and brackish groundwater withdrawals. You know, the urban expansion foreseen by the Advisory Commission 35 years ago is now underway. This proposed amendment of the General Plan provides a rare opportunity for outright protection and preservation of the last remaining undeveloped coastal lands and resources around the Park to the benefit of all the citizens of Hawaii and the United States. As you are all well aware, commitment of coastal lands for development has irreversible and far- reaching consequences. The National Park Service greatly appreciates your careful consideration of zoning of these sensitive and fragile lands. The National Park Service strongly supports the proposed amendment, and we respectfully urge the County of Hawaii to take a further step and increase the proposed area of Open designation in the General Plan to more closely reflect the current zoning of Open for makai coastal lands. Preservation of coastal open space will benefit the quality of life in the Kona community, native Hawaiian values and traditional and customary practices, and nationally significant natural and cultural resources. Mahalo for the opportunity to speak to you on this important issue. Thank you. WATANABE: Thank you, Ms. Bell. Fellow Commissioners, do we have any questions of Ms. Bell? Seeing none, Diane? Name and address first, please. AOKI: Okay. Diane Aoki, P.O. Box 991, Kealakekua 96750. I am a 4th and 5th grade teacher at Kealakehe Elementary School. And I was first introduced to this area called Alula through hula. My kumu, Keala Ching, would have us to here for hi`uwai, a cleansing ceremony, prior to any ho`ike or at the beginning of the new year. He has written oli and hula about this place, and we have danced there to honor the area several times. I was concerned when, a few years ago when that area was planned to be developed. And I did not know what I could do as a citizen, but as a teacher, I felt that I could teach my students about special places in their own community, if not in their own ahupua`a. So three years ago I started to bring my students to the area to study the anchialine ponds there. This year will be my fourth year. The bay itself is lovely and unique, laden with archaeological evidence of ancient Hawaii but undetected or unknown by untrained eyes. When I point out the stones that mark the house sites or the heiau to people who go there almost regularly but have never really seen the sites there, they are pretty much surprised. Last year when we went to do our studies there, we did, like a service project, we tried to clear out pickleweed and fish out the mosquito fish. It's our goal to restore the place, which is a monumental task. But as long as I plant seeds in the kids that they can try to make a difference, they can try to make their communities abetter place, then that's my goal. The area is just so rich in learning experience for the kids — not only the anchialine ponds, the tide pools, the - archaeology. And we have a chance now to keep this place for our children and for the future generation, so that this kind of education can continue into the future. Anchialine ponds, as you might know that their unique ecosystems have been diminished over the years mainly due to development. And we have a very unique opportunity to preserve them for perpetuity. I had an assignment with my kids to write letters if they had direct experience with the area. And this is the first time I've ever testified for public testimony; so I didn't know about the none copies each. I'm hoping that — and there are 43 letters so that would have been a lot of paper — but I'm hoping that they can be entered into the public record somehow, so that the kids will know that, you know, they did contribute to the discussion. I'll just read a few of them, and just, just cute little, you know, their writing and their thought process. This is the third paragraph: "I heard you want to build a hotel over the anchialine pond. I really don't want you to build hotel because most hotels have golf courses and golf courses ruin anchialine ponds. Because lots of hotels already did, so I want to save them." "This is a fun place to relax in Alula Bay, a beautiful beach. We came here to clean the pond to help the opae`ula by cleaning the pickleweed and taking out the guppies. And can you not kill and destroy the anchialine pond. You will take away the `auku`u nests and Alula Bay and the habitat of all these species, and will put more pollution and cut oxygen. And can you keep this place how it is? Why do you want to take down all the nature? There are a lot of hotels already." Anyways, they go on and on and on. There was only, actually to just show that I did not tell them what to write — I said that you can have an opinion one way or the other, just got to back it up with evidence — so this is my one that's different from all the rest. So I just wanted to be fair. It says, "I think you should make hotels without making it on the ponds because if there are hotels, then they might know how to have fun so then they might have a job over there." So anyways, I just wanted to let you know that I wasn't, you know, brainwashing them, you know, I really wanted them to give their honest and evidenced opinions. So thank you very much. WATANABE: Thank you. Do we have any questions for Ms. Aoki? HOUSEL: Quick one. WATANABE: Yes. HOUSEL: How old are your students? AOKI: They are nine and ten. WATANABE: Thank you. Ms. Bowman. BOWMAN: I just, I want to thank you very much. I do similar things in Kohala, and it really does make a difference in their lives. And you know, testimony like this is something cute. WATANABE: Seeing that there are no other questions, Mr. Nelson? 5 NELSON: Aloha. My name is Richard Alihilani Nelson. P.O. Box 2245, Kealakekua, Hawaii. As a Hawaiian born on this -. Incidentally, you have a copy of my report; so I'll just sort of highlight it and -. WATANABE: Thank you. NELSON: Move on because a half of the people here were listening to it the other day. So we can speed this thing up. But anyway, as a Hawaiian born on the shores of Kalia, Waikiki in 1933, it was a place where pristine shoreline, an abundance of fish, and roads without traffic snarls — a place that I could vividly remember to this day. Today, there is nothing left to remind me of that place of birth. The Hawaiian Village, the `Ilikai . Hotel and the Waikiki Yacht Club dominate the landscape. Vehicle traffic is horrendous during the daylight hours, as well as into the evening. And there's no more sustenance fishing. The waterway is cluttered with pleasure boats and tourists. The once progress got there for our benefit it has replaced the natural beauty that I once remembered by. Over time I chose to move to a place called Kona, which reminded me of my childhood memories. It was rural and uncluttered with "progress." As we all know, Kona's steadfast climate, calm waters and an attractive shoreline ecosystem is being challenged today with "progress" designed to enhance our lifestyle and community. In 1974 the Honok6hau Study Advisory Commission recommended the establishment of the Kaloko-Honokahau National Historic Park. That recommendation was fulfilled. There are significant cultural resources within the Kaloko-Honok6hau National Historic Park, including Kaloko Fishpond, burial sites, heiaus, anchialine pools and other sacred sites. Our Hawaiian rights are protected.by the Hawaii Constitution that are practiced within the area I described, including pole, spear and net fishing, the gathering of limu, wana, `opihi and he`e. A few years ago the State Land Use Commission concluded that Kaloko-Honok6hau National Historic Park is a "natural and cultural resources of the utmost value both to the State of Hawaii and the nation as a whole representing some of the State's most important natural systems, habitats and cultural, historical and natural resources." In 2006 Hawaii County re-classified the adjacent to and south of Kaloko-Honok6hau National Historic Park from "Open" to "Urban Expansion." This change to the General Plan failed to properly consider impacts to traditional and customary practices and to public trust resources. The change simply reflected a desire to accommodate the demands for development and failed to be based on all the studies documented as a deterrent to destroying the natural resources and cultural beauty of this area. Consequently the Jacoby Development proposed, in partnership with Hawaiian Home Lands, to build a marina and timeshare project. That capital investment for profit is no longer on the table for consideration. 3 Well, Kaliko Chun and I are part of a lawsuit challenging the County's failure to protect native Hawaiian rights and public trust resources, as well as its failure to plan -properly. Hawaii County Planning Director Bobby Jean Leithead Todd is proposing to reclassify the area back from "Urban Expansion" to "Open" — a classification that will better protect the natural and cultural resources of the area. As a concerned community member, and in particular a Hawaiian indigenous to these islands, I fully support Hawaii County Planning Director Bobby Jean Leithead Todd's proposal to reclassify the area in question from Urban Expansion to Open. Thank you. WATANABE: Do we have any questions of Mr. Nelson? Thank you. Ms. Hecht? You-. HECHT: My name is -. WATANABE: Need not to state your name and address. You already did -. HECHT: Okay. My name WATANABE: So go ahead. HECHT: Is Debbie Hecht, and I do support the rezoning (sic) from Urban to Open. The Kona workshop was poorly attended because there was a whole another meeting on another zoning issue over at the, another hotel. So I think they would have been more focused and it's too bad that they weren't, but you know, it's just how it worked out. The Kaloko-Honokohau National Park is a jewel for Kona and our island. They have wonderful plans for an extensive Hawaiian cultural center. The surrounding area should be preserved as much as possible to protect and buffer the park. I would hope the County would provide a no - build buffer zone in that area. If you look at the aerial photo here, you can see how already the area to the north of the harbor has been graded and grubbed. And that is pretty, I think, it's pretty close to where the Park is. So you can see how encroaching an industrial area — that is an industrial area, there is boat finishing areas, there is a sailing club, there is harbor, there is parking — has encroached on the Park. And for any more development on that area will affect the ponds and the anchialine areas, so I would, I think that should just be preserved as a no -build, no -anything buffer area. It was mentioned in the public meeting that the property adjacent to the harbor in north may be used to expand the industrial area. That is a really bad idea. There are already some septic systems in the area that are suspected to be faulty; there is one at the restaurant, there are restrooms at the small beach on the south side, the fuel dock restrooms, there's sewer or restrooms in the industrial area, not sure how many, there's, the sailing club has restrooms, and there're standalone restrooms for the fish cleaning area. Nitrate leaking from these faulty septics are increasing algae and, according to ocean scientists, have caused a diatom bloom. When the algae increases, it increases the turtles which, and the turtles. attract sharks; this is obviously a safety issue. The Kaloko Ponds are also be impacted. Again, I think it would be a great idea for the County to just institute a buffer overlay zone in that area to further protect the Park. That's pretty much it. So I hope the County -. I mean I do applaud Bobby Jean taking the step to downzone the area, and I hope that the County would even take one step further and put a buffer overlay zone around that area to protect the Park further. Thank you. WATANABE: Any questions, fellow Commissioners? Seeing none, thank you. You may be seated. Let's move on to the next four testifiers: Shannon Rudolph, Charles Flaherty, Janice Palma-Glennie, Kaliko Chun. Do we have a Kaliko Chun? CHUM: Yes, I - WATANABE: Yes. Okay, may I swear the four of you in? Mr. Flaherty, again, just like with Debbie Hecht, you don't need to do it, yeah? Okay. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth now before the Planning Commission? TESTIFIERS: Yes. WATANABE: Thank you. And shall we begin with you, ma'am? RUDOLPH: Okay. Aloha-. WATANABE: Name and address, and then -. RUDOLPH: My name is Shannon Rudolph, and I live in H61ualoa at Post Office Box 243, 96725. And for the sake of brevity, I just want to say I support this zoning change (sic). And I want to reiterate what Debbie said about the surrounding area, keeping it pristine, because I think as more people move in to the area, we're going to need more places like this for people to come and get away from concrete. Thank you. WATANABE: Any questions for Shannon? None? Mr. Flaherty, no need for address, just -. FLAHERTY: Aloha. And I'm so sorry I didn't say aloha to Members of the Leeward Planning Commission and Bobby Jean. I want to also say I really appreciate Bobby Jean supporting and proposing this amendment and also the efforts of the individuals who have been working to have this area declared as Open. As it had been mentioned earlier, this was in the 1989 General Plan. There were certain rezone ordinances that had been proposed for this area. And then in 2006 this area was, a General Plan amendment was proposed as part of a number of General Plan amendments, and that have made this Urban Expansion. That proposal had actually been made by Virginia Isbell and it was to help facilitate the development of the Kona Kai Ola development, which as Dickie Nelson has previously said, was a joint -venture of the State of Hawaii, Department of Hawaiian Home Lands and a private developer. That fell apart when Menehune Development, which had signed the lease with the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands and Jacoby, went bankrupt. In addition the harbor was proposed to be expanded. And you can't see it here — you can see the harbor here — but it was proposed to be expanded to the south, and they were going to blast to the south to basically put in luxury slips that would have provided additional income, and the State had actually had plans for this project to help fund improvements for harbors on all of the islands in the State of Hawaii. So there was an economic reason for the proposed development plans. Unfortunately, this area is the second largest outflow of freshwater, which you don't see is that there is water flowing under the ground here. All on the cost of the leeward coast you have this. The largest is down at Umi's Well in Kealakekua Bay, but this is the second largest freshwater outflow from the coast. The USGS, the United States Geological Services, has done studies and has proven this. And so what is interesting is that the offshore water monitoring from the National Park is showing that there is a plume of polluted water that's coming out from this area, which we believe is related to the sump where they are putting in untreated — well, it's only treated once — water from the Kealakehe Wastewater Treatment Plant further mauka. But we are not certain; it could be related to harbor activities as well. There was a study done in 2006 that Chris Yuen had asked to be done in response to a Supreme Court ruling, which said that the County had an affirmative duty to protect the near shore water quality of our island. That study, the findings of that study was that over the past 15 years near shore water quality along our coastline has deteriorated substantially, and.that we are on the verge of environmental, extreme environmental degradation offshore. And these are supposed to be Class AA waters for 300 meters offshore, which means that the waters are not influenced by human activity. So obviously we've got a problem that's developing here. I also wanted to point out that the Kona Community Development Plan process, there were 109 meetings that were held over about four months. In those meetings thousands of comments were taken. Working Groups were then formed by citizens and we basically boiled down these comments into final themes. And one of the themes was protect, no development in the near shore area. Then we had some public charrettes where people actually were able to draw on maps. And the majority of people at those stated they did not want any development between Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway and the coastline, recognizing the importance of this near shore area. That's another reason why I think that the proposed amendment has community support. Ms. Hecht has said that there had not been much public attendance as far as support of this particular amendment. But back in 2006 when this General Plan amendment was being proposed, there was huge community outpouring at County Council meetings against this. The reason that it passed was because the County Council refused to split the different General Plan amendments out, and so they had to vote on the whole thing all together. And so that's how it got thrown in. . Referring to Ms. Aioli's (sic) testimony, there are, I actually have been a part of Na Wai Iwi Ola, the halau, that has been using the Alaula beach area, which is not shown here -. WATANABE: Mr. Flaherty, can you -? FLAHERTY: Okay, I'll summarize, I'm sorry. Let's see if there is anything else I haven't missed. I guess that's -. Oh, the one thing is regarding Geri Bell and as far as adjacent 9 development, that is a huge concern as far as you've got major industrial development going on to the east of the National Park. This area, you've already seen the development here right to the south of the National Park, and to north is Kohanaiki development and they are already having issues with the SMA Permit on as far as the amount of, they are not supposed to be raising the elevation more than five feet on their house lots or house pads that are being built above that adjacent to the National Park; so it's looking down some of those lots into the, actually looking into the National Park. So that's an issue at this time. Thank you very much. WATANABE: Okay. Do we have any questions of Mr. Flaherty? None? Thank you. Janice? Is that correct? PALMA-GLENNIE: That's right. Good morning and aloha, Commissioners. My name is Janice Palma-Glennie, and I live in Kailua-Kona. I provided written testimony previously on this issue. But I'm speaking today again in support of the General Plan amendment that would right a wrong that was done a few years ago — one that would have opened a highly sensitive, natural and cultural area to urban development. By giving a positive recommendation for this corrective amendment, Planning Commissioners will be supporting a true win-win land use decision. First, supporting the current amendment honors the wishes of Kona residents. When the current General Plan became law, the land in question was an Open protective designation. The 2006 ad hoc Planning Director initiated Urban change but nothing but grief to the Kona community. When Bill 309 to upzone the area was before the County Council, there was a huge public turnout, as Chuckie had mentioned, and almost all if not totally unanimous testimony was against that change of land use classification. Second, the current amendment honors Hawaiian host culture, as you've heard much about today. Third, a decision in favor of the amendment honors the Kona Community Development Plan mandate, again, as Chuckie mentioned. Community support for protecting coastal lands to the highest degree including 1,000 -foot shoreline setbacks for development is clear from avalanche of input provided during the ongoing KCDP process. On Wednesday, in fact, as you probably have heard, the KCDP Action Committee voted unanimously to support this amendment and protection of this coastal area and an effort to follow what is now County law. Fourth, last thing, supporting the amendment honors the Federal mandate that the land surrounding the Kaloko-Honokohau National Park be ultra -protected due to the Park's highly sensitive, natural and cultural resources. This decision is made easy for Commissioners since the amendment protects crucial coastal resources and supports Federal and local law without the complication of a takings issue. In closing I ask the Commissioners to follow the lead of the thousands of people who have worked since the 1970's to protect this area, and I ask that you'vote in favor of this win-win General Plan amendment. Mahalo. WATANABE: Do we have any questions of the testifier? None? Okay. Kaliko Chun. CHUN: Good morning. I am Kaliko Chun. And in particular to this morning's appearance I've been involved with Richard Dickie Nelson in this legal action that was provoked by -. 10 WATANABE: Ms. Chun, could you state for the record your address? CHUN: Oh, I'm sorry. Kaliko Chun. My residence is Post, resident of Kona, Post Office Box 823, Kailua-Kona. WATANABE: Thank you. CHUN: With Dickie Nelson involved in a legal action provoked by the lease to the Jacoby Development Company by the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands and the Department of Land and Natural Resources of the area just south — you can see some of it back toward the highway and then just beyond the harbor — because of the extremely negative impact to this extremely sensitive area. And I appreciate very much the Planning Director's proposal to change the classification, as you've heard from the others that have appeared, back to Open space. And that it was changed to Urban Expansion only in 2006 in order to accommodate the development in lease of lands. Now that lease has been cancelled by the DLNR and the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, it is vitally necessary to protect this area and to do this by this designation of returning it to Open. My family and I became involved with the care and preservation of this area now known as Kaloko-Honok6hau National Park and the abutting area in the early '70's and late '60's. When the harbor was proposed — you might think that, well, the harbor is here, so why not have urban — well, the harbor went in under vehement community protest and objection, and even with the 1962 National Landmark designation of the Honokohau settlement. So it behooved all of us as a community to do what we could to preserve this area. And in 1972, it was advocacy of family members and the community and Congress the Federal Honok6hau Study Advisory Commission was created and appointed 14 Hawaiian members. And they went to every island to find people and families who lived in this area, who could remember how they lived, the traditions and practices, and do they carry it on, which is held in a large book in the Federal Register, and the families said yes. Even though they might be living in Kauai or Molokai, that they came from this area. They recounted their growing experiences and many members said they still engaged in them. So the Advisory Commission completed its work and recommended an area of over 1,000 acres to preserve that goes just to this end, the great Kaloko Fishpond believed to be from the 16th century and demonstration of extremely skilled engineering skills, and the fishpond here. The anchialine ponds are just that side, the south side. A study teams from MIT, the University of Maine and, I understand, TUFS have come to look at these anchialine ponds. And if you haven't seen them, they are like land lop just within the shoreline, I mean, back from the shoreline, and are endangered ecosystems within themselves. The Spirit of Kaloko Honok6hau, which is the report written by the Study Commission, opens with a poem, and part of that poem is, "Bound by the spirit of Honok6hau to our kupuna, Who settled in the sacredness of the living honua." This area has, as I say, it's culturally sensitive, critically important. America described it as nationally significant resources; it has anchialine ponds, fishponds, artifacts, burials, flora and fauna, natural habitats, heiau, historical sites, ocean and land, offshore and onshore habitats, offshore geological resources. The Park extends 600 acres into the ocean for two reasons: One, Hawaiians lived ahupua`a from the mountains to the sea, there are protection and preservation -. 11 WATANABE: Ms. Chun - CHUN: They realized the importance of the ocean and lived that way — I will — and two sites are offshore. I just want to say that personally I go there and observe the rising of the makali`i at makahiki time and at other times, and I'm always aware of the spirit of this place. From birth to burials Hawaiians have observed and practiced rites, they've lived lives there, traditions and practices ongoing that we enrich what we call a living. And it is very much a living honua. And we all can be, and we all should be, concerned with this sacred spirit that is Honok6hau, Kaloko-Honokbhau. Thank you very much. WATANABE: Okay. Do we have any questions of Ms. Chun? Okay, the three of you may be seated. Then I have one last person who signed up to testify — that .would be Isaac Harp. Mr. Harp? May I swear you in, sir? Do you swear or affirm to, tell the truth now before the Planning Commission? HARP: Yes, I do. WATANABE: Thank you. And then name and address, please. HARP: My name is Isaac Harp. I'm here representing Makani Hou o Kaloko- Honok6hau, and the mailing address is Post Office Box 437338, Kamuela, Hawaii 96743. I'm here presenting this testimony on behalf of the president of Makani Hou o Kaloko-Honokahau, Mr. Fred Cachola. And before I do that, I would like to provide some comments from myself. I'm a lineal descendant of this area. My mom was the last generation to have spent time living in this area. And as a young girl she caught her what they called "candy," the little fishes in the `Ai`6pio fish trap. `Ai`6pio literally translate into food for the children. They built what they call `ahua into the water, which is stone piles; they piled up stones all around in the `Ai`6pio and surrounded that with their net, after the stones were sitting for quite a while to gather fish and then they broke down the stone piles to catch fish in their net, take it out and dry it and that's what the candy was for the kids down there back in the old days. Unfortunately, the family was evicted from the area shortly after the bombing of Pearl Harbor, as most families along the coast were, as a matter of national security, I guess, at that time. So my mom ended up moving to Oahu. And she returned several decades later, and we went down to the Park and visited the area, and she broke down in tears, seeing the harbor built there. They had a pet turtle, a giant female turtle and by the name of Daisy; and she said that's where Daisy lived, and she just broke down in tears and cried for about an hour before she was able to recover. And I have worked as a cultural monitor for James Greenwell and Lanihau Production, or Lanihau Property; they are developing the area mauka of the highway just to the left of the screen here to continue the light industrial area development from Costco going back south. And I was hired to protect the burial because some of our family burials are located there. They're primarily tube, lava tube burials. So I sealed all of the burial tubes and created some buffer all the way around. I feel those are generous provisions for buffers, like 50 feet from the burial sites. And I hope that serves as sort of a model for future. development where they bring cultural monitors in and protect the burial sites and things. And he also contributed a culturally rich area, a lot of historical sites and things, basically to the families — a five -acre cultural preservation area 12 that he donated out of the kindness of his heart. So hopefully, future developers will follow the same path. But anyway, let me go ahead and read this testimony from our president, Fred Cachola. "Aloha Planning Commissioners and Action Committee Members. And Madam Planning Director, thank you for introducing this proposal, which is I believe a very beneficial proposal if adopted for the entire community. Mahalo for the opportunity to comment on the proposed amendment to Map 11 of the Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide Map of the County of Hawaii General Plan. The lands in the proposed amendment area adjacent to the Kaloko-Honokbhau National Historical Park and extend south of the Honokohau Small Boat Harbor in the ahupua`a of Kealakehe, North Kona. This testimony comes from the Makam Hou o Kaloko-Honokohau, a Kona/Kohala community- based volunteer group incorporated in the State of Hawaii and currently seeking a 5016 tax status with the IRS. We are working cooperatively with the Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park to provide k6kua to its Superintendent Geri Bell to plan, establish and manage a Hawaiian Cultural Live -In Center at the Park as envisioned by the 14 -member native Hawaiian advisory commission appointed by the Department of Interior in 1972 to study the feasibility and desirability of establishing a National Park at the Honokohau Settlement National Historic Landmark (designated in 1962). Congressional action in 1978 created the Park generally in accordance with guidelines provided by the native Hawaiian commissioners in their 1974 report entitled `The Spirit of Kaloko-Honokohau.' I was honored to be a member of that commission and was one of three members who delivered and discussed the `Spirit Report' at the Department of Interior in 1974. The Makani Hou o Kaloko-Honokohau strongly supports this amendment to change the land use designation from `Urban Expansion' to `Open' for these reasons: 1. The amendment is an excellent acknowledgement that the National Park Service and the County of Hawaii share a common commitment to malama (care for), protect and preserve the Kaloko-Honokohau cultural and natural resources for the people of Hawaii, the nation and the world. We note that the native Hawaiian commissioners in 1974 were very concerned that the rich cultural legacy at Kaloko-Honokohau would be overwhelmed and lost to urban development. Their `Spirit Report' of 1974 (page 54) states: `... since most of the land in the ahupua`a of Kealakehe is owned by the state. Its use will have a direct impact on Kaloko-Honokohau ... lands that are designated or owned by the state in the area should be given special zoning limited' — I believe he meant `limiting' —'their uses to activities compatible to a cultural park. The County General Plan and zoning ordinances of the area should limit the uses of the lands immediately surrounding Kaloko-Honokohau to compatible activities -.' WATANABE: Mr. Harp -. 13 HARP: `Lands further mauka should be restricted to density in order to preserve the integrity of the Park and protect its water resources."' WATANABE: Mr. Harp, actually we have his letter, yeah? HARP: Yes. WATANABE: So, okay, I realize it is important to you, and the bulk of the to-, well, not the bulk, all of the testimony was for, yeah, so -. HARP: I think it's most important to Fred since he has spent over 30 years on this effort. WATANABE: Yeah, but can you summarize his thoughts? HARP: I guess in summary we support the plan and I hope you do too as well. Thank you. WATANABE: Thank you. Okay, this concludes the public testimony. So we are now closed for the public testimony. Just for the record I'd like to indicate that Commissioner Beaudet has rejoined the Commission; so he is not recused from this particular item. You are available to vote. Madam Director, you have some comments then? LEITHEAD TODD: I just wanted a couple of comments. This is initiated as a result of the settlement of a lawsuit, and the agreement on the settlement did not require me to support the amendment; it only required me to initiate. I could have chosen to remain neutral, I could have chosen to recommend denial, I could, in this case I chose to recommend approval of the proposed amendment. And in part it's because, you know, all of us have a history, and I have to fess up I was one of the original people back in '71 and '72 as a Hawaiian study student who came down to Kaloko-Honokohau to protest the proposal to develop this area into a hotel/resort area, and joined with many other residents throughout the island to ask that this be set up as a park and be preserved; so I have that history with the land. And also, in order to try and decide whether I would remain neutral or make a recommendation, I went to the land — and I know this isn't like professional planning perspective, it's just that I wanted to walk the land and I wanted to have the land speak to me — and I felt that this was consistent with the area, and that the earlier proposal to move it to Urban Expansion was premature, and that if there were a proposal by DLNR or DHHL to do industrial, commercial, you know, hotel types of activities in those areas, that they should be required to come with a full-blown proposal and go through the process of presenting that proposal to the County for any amendments. I have to admit I would generally be opposed to significant activity in the area, and part of that is because of the proximity not only to the National Park but also the proximity to the County sewage treatment facilities, which I don't think are compatible with heavy resort commercial types of activities that had been some of the proposals in the Jacoby. And I just felt that it was premature, and that reverting to the prior designation was the appropriate thing to do at this time. WATANABE: Ms. Bowman. 14 BOWMAN: I have a question. Can we, could we see the LUPAG map again? And Conservation is, is there any Conservation? Along this shoreline, right? COTTLE: This would be Open. BOWMAN: Uh huh. Okay, but no Conservation per se. COTTLE: No, the Conservation was the State Land Use designation and it's just a strip along the coastline. BOWMAN: Okay. And that Conservation area, the big one? COTTLE: This? BOWMAN: Yeah. COTTLE: This is the Queen Lili`uokalani Trust land just south of the amendment area. BOWMAN: Okay. I guess my question is, because of the sensitivity and cultural and historical significance, why isn't it Conservation? LEITHEAD TODD: That would be a question for the State of Hawaii and the Land Use Commission because they are the ones that would classify Conservation or Urban. I think that this was probably, generally when they were looking at this entire area, they were looking at most of it for urban uses, and DLNR and DHHL subsequently had thought that this would be revenue generation properties for them. BOWMAN: And the Park is not, the National Park is Open; it's not Conservation. LEITHEAD TODD: I think the National Park for some strange reason actually has Urban classification from the State -. BOWMAN: Yeah, that's what looks like there. I just -. Okay, thank you. WATANABE: Mr. Housel. HOUSEL: Yes, I had a question of the Planning Director. With this, if this is approved to, you know, revert this back to Open and which includes -. LEITHEAD TODD: Maija, can you back up the slides? HOUSEL: Which, the Open area would include all of the harbor areas, is that correct? LEITHEAD TODD: Yes. 15 HOUSEL: Okay. Now, there are existing commercial and industrial uses in the harbor area. How would those and which would, those do not, are not allowed in the Open classification. How would those -? LEITHEAD TODD: Those areas were built when this was Open anyway. They just went ahead and did it: I don't think it will impact those activities. HOUSEL: Okay. LEITHEAD TODD: Most of this designation impacts areas that they have not developed. And in Open you can have, you know, some recreational types of activities. So you know, I'm not really happy with the location of the small boat harbor, but it's already there. HOUSEL: Right. So this would, the Open classification would limit any future commercial or industrial use of that area? LEITHEAD TODD: It will probably boil down to a legal battle between the State and the County in that the State frequently, as well as DHHL, takes the position that the County doesn't really have authority over their lands. I have a different view of that, and part of that is if the State is going to lease it to private entities, then those private entities, I believe, have to conform to the County General Plan. And similarly I believe if DHHL is going to lease land to private entities as opposed to beneficiaries of the estate, I think that those lessees should have to conform to the County General Plan. HOUSEL: Thank you. WATANABE: Any further discussion? Is anyone ready to make a motion? BOWMAN: I would -. WATANABE: Ms. Bowman. BOWMAN: Be honored to make the motion that we approve the amendment to the Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide Map 11 of the County of Hawaii General Plan, Ordinance No. 05 25, as amended, by changing the land use designation from "Urban Expansion" to "Open" for the area affecting state-owned lands in the vicinity and south of the Honokohau Harbor, Kealakehe, North Kona, Hawaii. WATANABE: This is, forward favorable, I think, yeah? HOUSEL: Yeah, this is a recommendation to the Council. WATANABE: Not approve, forward favorable -. BOWMAN: Favorable. WATANABE: Thank you. 16 HOUSEL: I'll second that. WATANABE: Thank you. Any further discussion? Maija? COTTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Commissioner Bowman? BOWMAN: Aye. COTTLE: Commissioner Housel? HOUSEL: Aye. COTTLE: Commissioner Beaudet? BEAUDET: Aye. COTTLE: Commissioner Iokepa? IOKEPA: Aye. COTTLE: And Mr. Chairman? WATANABE: Aye. COTTLE: Okay, the motion passes, five -zero. The discussion ended at 12:33 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Noriko Sauer, Secretary Leeward Planning Commission 17 PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAII HEARING TRANSCRIPT SEPTEMBER 4, 2009 A regularly advertised hearing on the PLANNING DIRECTOR INITIATED AMENDMENT TO LUPAG MAP 11 was called to order at 11:26 a.m. in the Aupuni Center Conference Room, 101 Pauahi Street, Hilo, Hawaii with Chairman Rell Woodward presiding. PRESENT: Rell Woodward Wallace Ishibashi Takashi Domingo Zendo Kern Shelly Ogata Brandon Gonzalez, Deputy Corporation Counsel Norman Hayashi, Staff Planner Phyllis Fujimoto, Staff Manner Jeff Darrow, Staff Planner Maija Cottle, Staff Planner And approximately 8 people from the public in attendance ABSENT & Andrew Iwashita EXCUSED: INITIATOR: PLANNING DIRECTOR Amendment to Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG) Map 11 of the County of Hawaii General Plan (Ordinance No. 05 25, as amended) by changing the land use designation from "Urban Expansion" to "Open" for the area affecting state-owned lands in the vicinity and south of the Honokohau Harbor, Kealakehe, North Kona, Hawaii. WOODWARD: We have one more item on the agenda, Item No. 4. Initiator is the Planning Director, Amendment to Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide Map 11 of the County of Hawaii General Plan by changing the land use designation from "Urban Expansion" to "Open" for the area affecting state-owned lands in the vicinity and south of the Honokohau Harbor, Kealakehe, North Kona, Hawaii. Okay, Maij a. COTTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Okay. So the Planning Director initiated this amendment to the General Plan as a result of a settlement agreement in a law suit of Kaliko Chun/Richard Nelson versus County of Hawaii; and that agreement required that the Planning Director initiate the amendment, but not necessarily support it or not support it. The Department held two public meetings for the community to provide input on the amendment change. Those meetings were held in Kona on July 7"' and in Hilo on July 10th; and about 15 people showed up at the Kona meeting and about 5 members of the public attended the Hilo meeting. This next slide shows the proposed amendment to the General Plan LUPAG Map; and the area in green is currently designated as Open. The area in horizontal/diagonal cross -hatched is Urban Expansion. And then the proposed amendment area is shown in a red outline, shaped kind of like a shoe and diagonal cross -hatched. This area layout is, matches the 2005 General Plan LUPAG Map. So the Director is amending the Urban Expansion designation back to Open, which is what it was in 2005. I'm just going to go through some aerial photos that show you the location of the amendment. This is the Honokohau Harbor, and you can see Queen Kaahumanu Highway on the top of the slide running in a left -right direction. This is the road coming off of the Highway to the Harbor. It wraps around right here. And the Kaloko-Honokohau National Park is off to the left of the slide, and then also their property comes right around to here. This is the boundary of the Park. You can also see the Aiopio Fish Trap off in the water here, and this is going a little bit further south. You can see the whole harbor area here. There's a heiau right about here near the fish trap; and that's actually located on the National Park land. And, also, up in the top corner of the slide you can see the Kealakehe Wastewater Treatment Plant. So the amendment area would begin right about here. It comes from near the shoreline up to the Highway, and then it curves, it includes this entire area here. And then it starts up again right about in this location, and it curves around and includes the wastewater treatment plant. And this is like the boot, the shoe or boot part of the amendment area, and then it curves back up right around here. So, again, most of this area right here is in the amendment area. There are also some anchialine pools that you can make out a little bit right about in this area; and those pools are in the amendment area. This is a LUPAG Map from 1971. It shows the Land Use Designations at that time which were . Urban Expansion near the Highway, Open along the coastline, and then you can kind of make out that similar boot shape. There were also three Resort areas at that time that are shown here in red. And then in 1989 there were no changes made during the General Plan Comprehensive Update. In 2005, however, the three Resort areas were taken out, and the Open and Urban Expansion areas remained. And then in 2006 the Planning Director initiated an amendment, an interim amendment, that pulled all of that Open area out into Urban Expansion. So, again, this request is to revert the Urban Expansion area back to the 2005 layout. And the State Land Use Designation for that area is Urban, that's shown here in pink. And the current County Zoning Designation is Open; and that is shown in the dark green. The Planning Director is recommending that the Planning Commission send a favorable recommendation for the amendment request to the County Council. And you should have received three new letters in your package this morning. One is from Makam Hou Kaloko Honokohau, one is from the State DLNR, and another is from the National Park Service. Are there any questions? WOODWARD: Commissioner Domingo. 2 DOMINGO: So then what you're saying is the Planning Director changed the LUPAG Map from Open to Alternate Urban Expansion near the Harbor? COTTLE: Yes. DOMINGO: Yeah, but that, south of that it's still Open? COTTLE: South of the -? DOMINGO: This particular area that we're considering today. COTTLE: The amendment area, actually south of that area is Urban Expansion. DOMINGO: I thought I saw in the map that the bottom part of that portion was in green also. COTTLE: Okay, that was probably -. DOMINGO: Yeah, that part -. COTTLE: This is the County Zoning Map. DOMINGO: Okay, so that is the County zoning. COTTLE: Yes. DOMINGO: So from the perspective of County zoning, that being left Open then will not provide for any more expansion of Urban or Resort kind of operations, uses? COTTLE: That would be true, unless the landowner came in for a change of zoning. DOMINGO: Yes. And that needs to be further deliberated by the Planning Commission and the Council? COTTLE: That's correct. DOMINGO: Okay. But only, but in 2005 that dot, shaped shoe that you showed us, the Planning Director initiated a change from Open to Alternate Urban and Resort, in 2006? COTTLE: Actually, yeah, in 2006 -. DOMINGO: Okay. COTTLE: It was just a change to Urban Expansion. 3 DOMINGO: And then the County was sued because of that action, was taken to Court. What was the Court's rationale in ordering the County to initiate steps to bring that to the original designation of Open? What was the Court's rationale? COTTLE: I don't believe it was the Court that ordered it. It was a settlement agreement; and part of the settlement agreement was for the Planning Director to initiate an amendment back to the 2005 layout, because it was felt that the Director at that time in 2006 when the Director initiated that interim amendment that the cultural and historic resources of that property and the nearby National Park were not considered when that change was made. Did that answer your question? DOMINGO: Yes. Thanks. WOODWARD: Any further questions? Okay. We do have four people from the public signed up to testify. If they could come up and have a seat, Kevin Moore, Geri Bell, Isaac Harp and Kaliko Chun. Okay, if I could swear you all in first. If you'll raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth today before the Windward Planning Commission? TESTIFIERS: Yes. I do. WOODWARD: Okay, very good. I would like to ask you keep your testimony to five minutes. And I know a lot of you have submitted volumes of things, so if you have please don't read your testimony, just summarize for us. So, again, and please try to hold it down to five minutes. First thing, if you'll give us your name and address then we'll begin. Mr. Moore, you signed up first so -. - MOORE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, counsel. My name is Kevin Moore. I'm the District Land Agent for the Department of Land and Natural Resources, Land Division based here in Hilo. The address of our office is 75 Aupuni Street, that's Room 204 here in Hilo. And the DLNR basically wanted me to come here today to make sure that the Chairperson's letters have been received; and I understand now that they have been, and especially the September 2, 2009 letter. And those letters state the Chairperson's objections to the General Plan Amendment. The gist of the objection is that, you know, the amendment appears to be in response to a law suit to which the State was not a party. It was a law suit against the County. The State did not participate in the settlement negotiations or the proceedings. So the County's proposed action seems to place the burden of the amendment solely on DLNR without any consideration of DLNR's interests. Apart from that and despite the impact of the proposed action falling squarely on DLNR no notice of today's hearing or last week's hearing before the Leeward Planning Commission was sent to DLNR, either locally or through our central office in Honolulu. DLNR only learned of the hearings after receiving a letter from the Native Hawaiian Legal Corporation. So DLNR objects to this process to the extent that the County fails to provide notice of proceedings directly to the State. That's the extent of my testimony. WOODWARD: Okay. Thank you. Any questions? 11 DOMINGO: Yeah, Mr. Chairman. WOODWARD: Commissioner Domingo. DOMINGO: Sir, the lands that are being considered here for changing, does it belong to the State of Hawaii? MOORE: Yes, it does. DOMINGO: So what are the plans, future plans, of the State with regards to the use of theselands? MOORE: Well, there had been an agreement in place which was cancelled by the Land Board earlier this year, that was with the Jacoby Group for the development of that area. So that contract has been cancelled. To the extent that you're asking about future plans, I'm not really in a position to answer that because the planning for the Department's, you know, projects, especially commercial projects in that area, come out of our central office. DOMINGO: So the agreement with the Jacoby Group was a lease of those properties, for development by them? MOORE: Correct. DOMINGO: Not the sale of lands? MOORE: Correct. DOMINGO: I see. So what you're saying is that you folks should have been included with this kind of deliberation leading to this change before us? MOORE: Right, that's our position. DOMINGO: Is it a matter because of pride has been hurt or you guys just were left out? MOORE: No. I think the State's entitled to due process, just like an ordinary citizen. I think the State had plans, for its property. And to find out that a law suit that does involve the State is changing the very nature of what the State can do with that property is significant to the State. DOMINGO: You know, I'm reminded on two occasions when Governor Lingle was inaugurated into office. The first speech that she made was let us not make the selling of our lands an industry, I guess, interpreting that so that no developments come in and the density of our islands are increased thereby probably causing more demands for improvements and the State and the County having have to foot the bill. And she made that same remark in the second inaugural speech, let us not make selling of our lands an industry. I think the DLNR didn't get her message, you know. That's the way I feel right now, because it's, it contradicts her comment with what, you know, the concerns you folks are expressing. And I don't know what, you know, I don't know what the plans of the DLNR or the State is. But since you folks made an agreement, since the State made an agreement with the development group, you know, it seems obvious that, you know, the State is open for development of their lands for other uses than the preservation of the cultural and the historical values of the lands that we, what little lands we have remaining on the islands today. So, you know, that's just thinking out loud. Thank you for being here. WOODWARD: Okay. I did happen to ask our counsel, Mr. Gonzalez, what effect any county zoning regulation would have on the State and asked him to address that, and several other issues regarding notification of the State. So he has got some information for us. Mr. Gonzalez? DOMINGO: Right on. GONZALEZ: Okay. Oh, Maija. COTTLE: The General Plan requires that the Planning Director hold a public workshop whenever the Director initiates an amendment. And the public workshop was held in Kona and Hilo; and both DLNR and DHHL, which are the two landowners whose properties are within the amendment area, were also notified of the public workshop in writing. The General Plan does not require that individual property owners are notified of amendments other than the public workshop. WOODWARD: Thank you. You had something else, Mr. Gonzalez? GONZALEZ: Yes. Additionally, the Department is abiding by a settlement agreement, the terms of the settlement agreement, by putting forth this proposed change. And, additionally, the Plamling Commission is operating within its jurisdiction and.power to make amendments to the designations within the County. So I think that's the primary issue for the Commission to be concerned with, is if, whether or not you're violating your powers and authorities in this case; and you're not. WOODWARD: All right. Thank you. Any further questions for Mr. Moore? Okay,, seeing none, Geri Bell is the next person. If you could give us your name and address, and then begin your testimony. BELL: Aloha, I'm Geri Bell. I'm the Superintendent at Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park, address 73-4786 Kanalani Street, Kailua-Kona. And thank you for giving me the opportunity to address you this morning. The National Park's southern boundary adjoins the lands included in the proposed amendment to Map 11, and that includes 15 1/2 acres of State lands in the Kealakehe ahupua`a. Kaloko-Honokohau is one of 391 areas m7the National Park System established by the Congress of the United States for its nationally significant cultural and natural resources. The National Park Service is strongly supportive of the proposed C� amendment to change the land use designation from "Urban Expansion" to "Open", especially those lands immediately adjacent to the National Park boundary. Kaloko-Honokohau was created in 1978, through the efforts of the Kona community, to preserve, interpret, and perpetuate traditional Hawaiian activities and culture. In particular, the community was concerned that this place of great significance to Hawaiians would be lost to urban development. These concerned citizens prevailed in 1978, but even today the imminent threat to the Park's resources from urban development continues. Any large-scale development project on lands adjacent to the National Park will significantly impact its cultural landscape, traditional and customary practices by Hawaiians in the Park, and cultural and natural resources. In 1974 the Hono-k6-hau Study Advisory Commission recommended in their report to Congress, "The Spirit of Ka-loko Hono-k6-hau," that the Hono-k6-hau National Historical Landmark and its adjacent waters be preserved for the benefit of the Hawaiian people and the nation as a part of the National Park System. Even at that time in the early seventies, in their recommendations to Congress, the Advisory Commission was concerned about future land uses adjacent to the National Park. The Advisory Commission's report and the. Park's 1994 General Management Plan/Enviromnental Impact Statement point out that Kaloko-Honokohau is a small and fragile portion of the larger environment that has influenced its history, and that continues to affect it today. The Park Service is seriously concerned that urban development projects on lands adjacent to the Park and the Historic Landmark, especially the cumulative effects of these projects, will result in a long-term degradation of the Park, threaten the integrity of the Honokohau Settlement National Historic Landmark, and further diminish the rapidly disappearing Hawaiian cultural landscape. Large-scale urban development adjacent to the Park will fundamentally affect the water, air, sounds, sights, and traditional and customary practices by native Hawaiians. The urban expansion foreseen by this Advisory Commission 35 years ago is now underway. This proposed amendment to the General Plan provides a rare opportunity for outright protection and preservation of the last remaining undeveloped coastal lands in Kona. As you are well aware, commitment of coastal lands for development has irreversible and far- reaching consequences. The National Park Service greatly appreciates your careful consideration of zoning of these sensitive and fragile lands. We strongly support the proposed amendment; and we respectfully urge the County of Hawaii to take further steps and increase the proposed area of Open designation in the General Plan to more closely reflect the current zoning of "Open" for the makai coastal lands. Preservation of coastal open space will benefit the quality of life in the Kona community, Native Hawaiian values, and traditional and customary practices, and nationally significant natural and cultural resources. Mahalo for the opportunity to speak to you on this important issue. WOODWARD: Thank you. Do we have any questions for Ms. Bell? BELL: No more, Mr. Chairman? 7 WOODWARD: I guess you must have snowed them. They're speechless. Okay, next we have Isaac Harp. Okay, Mr. Harp, if you can give us your name and address; and then you're free to begin your testimony. HARP: Aloha. My name is Isacc Harp. I live in Waimea, 64-217 Wailani Place. First of all, I want to thank you all for volunteering your time. I know this is not a paid position that you take on but volunteer for the community; and I appreciate all of your time and effort. I'm presenting this testimony on behalf of the president of Makani Hou O Kaloko Honokohau, Mr. Fred Cachola. I am the Vice -Chair. We are an organization from the community that has taken on the role that started up nearly 40 years ago to create a cultural education living center within the park; and we're working closely with Ms. Bell on making that happen. There were several kupuna involved in the effortyears ago and most of thein have passed on, and our president Fred Cachola is one of the remaining kupuna. He's in his late seventies now and we hope to make this happen during his lifetime. And I'm excited for that to occur. Mr. Cachola was working on the feasibility study back in the early seventies for the Park and he was one of three members that went to the Department of Interior in 1994 to present "The Spirit of Ka-loko Hono-k6-hau" report. And I just want to read a small excerpt from that report, and I quote, "...since most of the land in the ahupua`a of Kealakehe is owned by the state. Its use will have a direct impact on Kaloko-Honokohau... lands that are designated or owned by the state in the area should be given special zoning limiting their uses to activities compatible to a cultural park. The County General Plan and zoning ordinances of the area should limit the uses of the lands immediately surrounding Kaloko-Honokohau to compatible activities. Lands further mauka should be restricted to density in order to preserve the integrity of the Park and protect its water resources." And I'd just like to wrap it up with a final paragraph in his letter, "The urban expansion foreseen by the Advisory Commission in their `Spirit Report' of 1974 is happening now, with alarming cumulative results. Supporting this amendment is a clear call to all that the County is fully committed to malama our wahi pana (special places), to protect our cultural and natural resources, and to respect the constitutional rights of Native Hawaiians. There is overwhelming evidence that this amendment is sorely needed for this area. We strongly urge the Planning Commissioners and the Action Committee Members," which they have already adopted this, "to support this amendment ... to concur with the State Land Use Commission... to empower the Kona Community Development Plan ... to heed the dire warnings of the Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park_ .to follow the wise advice of the 1974 Advisory Commissioners ... and to send a unified, supportive message to the County Council." Mahalo. WOODWARD: Thank you, Mr. Harp. Any questions for Mr. Harp? HARP: And my mom also grew up in the area before it was a park. WOODWARD: Okay, thank you. All right, next testifier is Kaliko Chun. If you'd speak in the microphone, naive and address; and then you're free to begin. CHUN: Good morning. Thank you very much for attending the meeting this morning and allowing us to present our case. I am Kaliko Chun, Kona resident, Post Office 823, Kailua-Kona 96745. First I would like to say that I am the party of this settlement. Our attorney, David Frankel, of the Native Hawaiian Legal Corporation is here with me today. I did attend both public workshops in Kona and in Hilo. And the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands did send a staff member having to do with leases and land development to the Kona meeting; and Mr. Moore beside me attended the Hilo workshop. My family and I first became aware of this aina in the late sixties, it's just beyond Kailua. And as we grew, we grew to know how important it is, so culturally and critically significant. And in approximately 1962 because of this an area of it was designated a National Landmark. However, the Kona community didn't think that was enough and sought to preserve it. The fact that there is the Honokohau Harbor there and that it is in Urban and Resort area should not let one say, well, let's let it go, it's Urban, we can add anything to it. Because the Kona community turned out in strong protest and objection to the construction of the Harbor, and they still object to it becoming a larger harbor. It has a designation of a small boat harbor. And the community that objected to it before -- which was large, many have passed on -- do not want to see it become a marina or a development, such as that proposed by the Jacoby Development which had leased it from both Department of Land and Natural Resources and Department of Hawaiian Home. The Department of Hawaiian Home received their, it's all ceded land. But in the settlement of 1990's the Department of Hawaiian Home got approximately 200 acres; and then the rest of the area that Jacoby leased was from DLNR, which Mr. Moore has mentioned. But I'm here to wholeheartedly support, vehemently advocate based on my family's connection and history with this aina, to advocate that this is the only way to protect the area. And to further protect it will only take even more constant vigilance by Members of this Commission and by the Leeward Commission when further interest is shown in the area for Urban expansion. _ But it is awfully necessary, critically necessary, to put this back into Open. And, hopefully, we can, even though the State Land Use Commission has stated that it is a significant area and it should be having, have a special zoning, as was noted by the map when the presentation that had for some reason an Urban designation. We will need to go and change that. But there are historical sites, burials, flora and fauna habitat, artifacts, burials, ocean and land, off shore and on shore geological resources, and natural systems. As was mentioned the anchialine ponds are on the southern side. Studies have been made of that area by study teams from MIT, the University of Maine and Tech (phonetic), who declared that an endangered area, the ecological systems are landlocked, they are endangered. What was not shown is the great Kaloko Fishpond, a fishpond from the 16"' century and noted for its outstanding and extraordinary engineering skills, that's the 16th century. So this whole area is covered with so many sites and fragile, a fragile nature that it demands as much protection as we can, and it only starts with an Urban Expansion. I would like to, "The Spirit of Ka-loko Hono-k6-hau", which I believe report you have there, it opens with a poem. And I would like to quote a phrase from it, "Bound by the spirit -of Honokohau to our kupuna when settled in the sacredness of the living honua., which says that this land is living within the spiritual context for us today and to our kupuna that spiritual context lives." And we can feel this connection. And when you go to the area you might say, gee, this is G] kind of dry and I don't see anything. But if you sit down at the shoreline, which by the way is a marine preserve, the on -shore and off -shore area; and, additionally, may I add that the park extends 600 acres into the ocean because Hawaiians lived that way, caring for the aina mauka to makai, heavens to the sea. This is a living area. You'll note the quiet of the area and the spiritualness of the area. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. WOODWARD: Thank you very much. Commissioner Domingo. DOMINGO: There are other living areas of similar significance throughout the island, especially along the coast of Kona, aren't there? CHUN: Yes, I believe we should save all of them when we can. DOMINGO: Very good. When was the Jacoby Development proposed? CHUN: Let's see -. DOMINGO: You have any idea what year? CHUN: No, I don't. I am aware that the lease was cancelled sometime this past. year with DLNR, and I think sometime in 2009 with Department of Hawaiian Home Lands. I don't know when it was originally presented to, you know, with its development plans presented. DOMINGO: I see. Thank you. WOODWARD: Okay, Commissioner Ishibashi. ISHIBASHI: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you all for your manao. Thank you for being, vigilantly guarding the Honokohau. I remember, cause my family come from Milolii. I remember going to Honokohau and never have road, never had anything. And we parked and walked in; and we'd spend the weekend with my grandfather, and walked all along the places in there. CHUN: I'm sure your grandfather must have testified then because in 1972 or thereabouts after many trips to Congress a Federal Commission, Study Advisory Commission, was organized with 14 native Hawaiians and they went to every island, and different communities on the islands, to speak with descendents of the area of Honokohau and Hawaiians who practiced these traditions that were known to be practiced at Honokohau; and I'm sure your kupuna must have been present because there were so many, and many tears. ISHIBASHI: That was back in '68 when we used to walk in there, so that was quite a while back. But, no, I appreciate that and -. CHUN: You must have helped to get to that point of 1978 and the creation of the Park. 10 ISHIBASHI: So I just wanted to thank you, yeah. Thank you. CHUN: Thank you. WOODWARD: Okay, we have one other testifier today. You could all have a seat back in the audience. We have Mr. Frankel signed up to testify. Okay, if I can swear you in. If you will raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth today before the Windward Planning Commission? FRANKEL: Yes, I do. WOODWARD: Okay, if you'd give us your name and address, and then take your best shot. FRANKEL: Sure. My name is David Frankel. My office is in Honolulu, 1164 Bishop Street, My home address here is in Volcano, PO Box 1185. I wasn't planning to testify but I wanted to address a few things that came up. Our office represents Kaliko Chun, or represented, I should say, Kaliko Chun. We've settled the law suit and the dismissal is already in the works. Bill Brilhante represented the County in the case and the settlement. And the dismissal is all before the Judge to sign. I wanted to address a few things that came up to just make things clear. The 2006 proposal that amended the General Plan changed an area that had long been Open to Urban Expansion. And it was at that time that the Jacoby project was proposed. So it was in the timeframe when the Jacoby project was, 2006, I mean, there's not, you know, a number of years, but 2006 is when things were happening, and they were testifying and lobbying for their project. The 2006 amendment was one of many that went, that were passed; and there's not opportunity to actually separate this one from the package, but there was a lot of opposition in the Kona community from, to that 2006 General Plan Amendment. The settlement of the law suit does not require you folks or the Planning Director at this point to do anything; but we were thrilled when Bobby Jean testified before the Leeward Planning Commission last week Friday strongly in support of this General Plan change in the settlement. You know, we had hoped to get a recommendation, but that wasn't part of the settlement at all. All it was is that the plan would be, the General Plan change would be initiated. But we were thrilled to get that recommendation. And I'm also happy to tell you that the Kona Community Development Plan Action Committee unanimously supported this proposal about a week and a half ago; and last week the Leeward Planning Commission meeting in Kona unanimously voted in support of this change. I did nearly two weeks ago send notice to the Department of Land and Natural Resources, cause I was actually concerned that we would be ambushed at some point with DLNR saying, hey, we didn't get notice. But, in fact, as you heard, they did get notice. I went out of my way to make sure they got extra notice. And I would advise the DLNR representative to get on the County Council's mailing if they'd like to fully track this before the County Council. It is incumbent 11 upon them to follow-through now that they've been participating, just as it's incumbent upon us to get County Council agenda notices. There is a provision in the Hawaii Revised Statutes, I can't give you the exact citation, 226 something, that essentially requires that the State follow the County General Plan designation in how it uses lands; and, you know, there is a way you can get around that by getting legislative approval. But I think it's important that the County do this to protect the cultural and natural resources that are there. Thank you. WOODWARD: Thank you, Mr. Frankel. Do we have any questions for Mr. Fankel? Okay, seeing none I would entertain a motion. Commissioner Domingo. DOMINGO: Mr. Chairman, I move for the amendment to the Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide Map I 1 of the County of Hawaii General Plan (Ordinance No. 05 25, as amended) by changing the land use designation from Urban Expansion to Open for the area affecting State-owned lands in the vicinity and south of Honokohau Harbor, Kealakehe, North Kona, Hawaii. WOODWARD: So you're recommending a favorable recommendation to Council? DOMINGO: , Yes, sir. Yes. WOODWARD: Okay. Do we have a second? KERN: Second. WOODWARD: Okay, any discussion? DOMINGO: I was, Mr. Chairman? WOODWARD: Yes. DOMINGO: I was concerned when the Jacoby development was struck with the State and naturally this would have been a part of the County's responsibility in reviewing those issues. I was only concerned because I thought I was a part of it, being on the Council for 20 years. But I'm glad it was done in 2005. But thereby, -. WOODWARD: Dodged that bullet. DOMINGO: But if I had done that, my action today in approving this hopefully will negate some of the actions that were taken in the past in, you know, taking historical lands and giving it to other developers for other uses. Now as all these years passed I finally see the light, you know. What is right is right; and I have a deeper respect for those lands which are historical which are a part of Hawaii and its people, yeah. Like, for instance, you know, that individual who wanted to build an addition and hold, do a bed and breakfast over cemetery lands which the 12 Hawaiians had buried their ancestors. That's really against what I believe in and against my philosophy. So, you know, I strongly support this issue. WOODWARD: Thank you, Commissioner Domingo. Any further discussion? Okay, seeing none, Maija, if you'll call the vote. COTTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Commissioner Domingo. DOMINGO: Aye. COTTLE: Commissioner Kern? KERN: Aye. COTTLE: Commissioner Ishibashi? ISHIBASHI: Aye. COTTLE: Commissioner Ogata? OGATA: Aye. COTTLE: And Mr. Chairman? WOODWARD: Aye. COTTLE: Motion passes, five -zero. WOODWARD: All right, thank you. So a favorable recommendation will be submitted and you'll be notified. Thank you. CHUN: Thank you very much. The discussion ended at 12:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon M. Nomura, Secretary 13 ,i ;i