Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0615.000 2004-2006 oJM<r as yew'' c; S-cars-y Odan~~- I~'~• Dixie MCaetsv A~lnyor Manugnxg Orrector Peter L. Hendricks t oi~a~ Deputy blanagm; Director COUNTY OF HAWAII 25 Aupum Svcc[, Room 3U • Hln, Ilawaii 96720-4252 • BOR) 961-821 I Fax (808) 961-65?3 KONA 75-706 Kueklm I lighwag Suite 103 • Kadua-Kong Hewal'~ 96740 (X081329-i~90 FAX 8081326-±6i,; December }4, 2005 Honorable Stacy Higa, Chairman and Members of the County Council County of Hawaii 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, HI 96720 Uear Chairman Higa and Members: Change of Zone Application (REZ OS-017) Applicant: The Newton Family Limited Partnership Request: Unzaied to A-80a Tax Map Key: Z-4-8:por. 33 Change of Zone Application (REZ OS-018) Applicant: Kulana Kea, LLC Request: A-20a and RS-15 to FA-Sa Tax Map Key: 2-6-32:4 and 5 Change of Zone Application (REZ OS-Ot9) Applicant: Matsuno Enterprises, Ltd. Request: A- l a to CN-20 Tax Map Key: 2-3-36:portion 18 As required by Chapter 4, Sea 6-4.3(C), Hawaii County Charter, transmitted herewith for the County C'ouncil's consideration and action are the Planning Commission's letters and enclosures regarding the above-referenced requests. Sincerely, Harry Kim Mayor Lpill Ig87 Enclosures cc: Planning Department Comm. No. Ref. To: _ Rif. Uoie ~ ~ I lawaf'i County a an hqual Opportunity Provider end Emplo}er qtr os~ v County of Hawaii PLANNING COMMISSION Aupam 1'entcr • 101 Pauahi Sheel, Swle 3 • }~lo, Haeai'i 96720 Phune (8081961-8288 • Fax (808)Y61-8?42 December 14, 2005 Stacy Higa, Chairman and Members of the County Council County of Hawaii 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, HI 96720 Dear Chairman Higa and Council Members: Change of Zone Application (REZ OS-017) Applicant: The Newton Family Limited Partnership Request: Unzoned to A-80a Tax Map Key: 2-4-8~or. 3. The Planning Commission, aRer a duly held public hearing on December 2, 2005, voted to recommend for your approval the proposed legislative bill to change the district classification from Unzoned to an Agricultural 80-acre (A-80a) district for approximately 885.4 acres of land. The property is located approximately 3,600 feet southwest of the Hilo Country Club Estates Subdivision in Upper Kaumana, Kukuau Is`, South Hilo, Hawaii. The Commission concurs with the following Planning Directoi s reasons for recommending favorable consideration of the change of zone: The applicants are requesting a Change of Zone from Unzoned to Agricultural 80- acre (A-80a) for approximately 885.4 acres of land to subdivide the project area into eight lots ranging in size from 80 to 153 acres. The proposed subdivision is intended primarily for use by members of the Newton family as part of their estate planning. Five of the proposed lots will be for the Newton family, and the three remaining lots will be sold to non-family members at fair market value. The remaining 760.42-acre mauka portion of the property, which is not part of the application, will remain in the State Land Use Conservation district Structural improvements would include up to eight dwellings within the project area. Agriculhiral activities will be for personal and limited commercial use. Potential limited agricultural activities include vegetable gardens, citrus orchards, fruit or nut tree groves, greenhouse plant and flower nurseries, pasture or Huwai'~ Cuuntr is an Equal Opportunity Provider rand Employer Stacy Higa, Chairman and Members of the County Council Page 2 grazing. No large scale agricultural production or operations are planned. The project area was reclassified from the Conservation to the Agricultural district under the State Land Use Commission's Docket No. A99-729 on November 16, 2001, In order to consider an area for any type of zoning designation, the applicable goals, policies and standards of the General Plan must be adequately addressed. It is only through such a comprehensive policy analysis approach that evaluations and decisions can be made to better time and stage developments to achieve growth determined by the General Plan and related planning documents. The implications of these evaluations and decisions must be also considered as they may have an impact on similar areas in the County. The Change of Zone request from Unzoned to Agricultural 80-acre (A-80a) district will conform to the goals, policies and standards of the General Plan Economic and Land Use elements. The Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG) Map component of the General Plan is a representation of the document's goals and policies to guide the coordinated growth and development of the County. It reflects a graphic depiction of the physical relationship among the various land uses. The LUPAG Map establishes the basic urban and non-urban form for areas within the County. The subject area is designated Extensive Agricultural. Soils within the project area arc identified as rKGD, Keei extremely rocky muck, 6 to 20 per cent slopes. This soil consists ofwell- drained, thin organic material, very dark brown muck up to about ] 0 inches thick overlying pahoehoe lava bedrock. Permeability is slow, but water moves rapidly through the cracks. The Land Study Bureau's Detailed Land Classification System identifies soils in the project area as "D" or "Poor" for the majority of the parcel, with "E" or "Very Poor" on the northeastern portion of the project area. The project area is Unclassified by the Agricultural Lands in the State of Hawaii (AL1SH) System. The Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) designates the project area as Zone "X", an area determined to he outside of the 500-year flood plain. The project area is approximately 885.40 acres and is a portion of an approximately 1,645 823-acre parcel. The project area, located between the 1,420-foat to approximately the 1,950-foot elevation, was previously used for sugar cane and grazing in the early 1900's, is vacant and primarily in forest and heavy shrub vegetation. The average slope is approximately five to ten percent. The project site does not have any gulches or major drainageways. A modest amowrt of grazing occurs on the project area by cattle from adjacent lands. A ] 50-foot wide utility easement runs partially along the northern boundary o1 the project area. This easement serves the 20-acre HELLO site located adjacent to the makai boundary of the project area. The Puna Sugar Company, Ltd., formerly known as Ola`a Sugar Company, is the cun'entholder of aright-of--way for Stacy Higa, Chairman and Members of the County Council Page 3 a flume located in the project area at approximately the 1,950-foot elevation. The abandoned flume and the dirt road which parallels the route of the flume (commonly known as the Ola`a Flume Road) is located near the mauka boundary of the project area. The Ola`a flume system establishes the approximate boundary between the Conservation and Agricultural districts. Surrounding lands to the north and northeast are zoned A-20a, and lands to the south and west of the site are vacant, not zoned and in the State Land Use Conservation district. The area is characterized by large parcels of agricultural lands, open space, forest reserves, and rural residences. Thus, the proposed subdivision would be compatible with the character of lands located within the immediate area. A condition will be included to incorporate covenants restricting the construction of second dwelling units on each subdivided lot. The proposed access to the project area is from Wilder Road, atwo-lane, 24-foot wide paved County road which extends from Kaumana Drive to an existing 40-foot wide access easement (Easement ] 07). The applicants have provided documentation identifying the easement to the property for access road purposes. Wilder Road is located approximately 3,000 feet below the project site. Easement 107 extends southwesterly approximately 2,900 feet over the flag portion of a private parcel and HELCO's parcel, and into the project area. This access is unimproved, overgrown with vegetation, and will require the construction of a road. HELLO, as well as the private landowner, have given preliminary consent to use their properties for access to the site. The Ola`a flume system has been determined to be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion D (a site that has yielded, or is likely to yield, information important in local history). However, it has yet to be nominated for placement within the National Register. The proposed subdivision will be designed to respect the alignment of the flume system. Paul H. Rosendahl, Ph.D., Ina (PHRI} conducted inspection level field work on the project site, and no archaeological or cultural sites or features were discovered. According to PHRI, based on the historical sugarcane cultivation on the project site, significant archaeological historical sites are unlikely to have srwived. The applicants have requested a "no effect' letter from the State Department of Land and Natural Resources Historic Preservation Division. PHRI consulted with individuals recognized by the local native Hawaiian community as knowledgeable in various aspects of traditional Hawaiian culture, and no valued cultural or natural resources were identified on the project site and there are no traditional and customary Native Hawaiian rights being practiced on the site Stacy Higa, Chairman and Members of the County Council Page 4 According to the applicants, the Ola`a flume system establishes a particular boundary between areas of significance for flora as well as fauna species. Rana Productions, Ltd. conducted a fauna survey in March, 1998. There were a total of 12 bird species or which nine were alien, two were endemic, and one was considered an indigenous migatory species. The Hawaiian Hawk attd the Hawaiian Hoary Bat were sighted on the property. The survey concluded that because the estimated area of clearing and improvements would comprise approximately 5% of the site, any further clearing or improvements on the site is not anticipated to have a significant impact on native or federally protected avian or mammalian species. No IJ.S. Fish and Wildlife Services protected species were located in the project area, which is dominated by alien species and was used in the past for grazing and possibly logging. Tn addition, areas in the project area where wetland vegetation indicator species were identified were not large enough to require planning considerations. Palmer and Associates Consulting conducted a botanical survey in March/April 1998. Two kipukas were identified on the project site. One, located in the southeastern portion of the project area, was highly disturbed and dominated by alien species and thus, not significant. The survey concluded that it had a low probability of supporting U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) designated or listed plants. The second kipuka, located west or mauka of the first kipuka, was not disturbed as much and did not contain many alien species. 'the survey concluded that it had the potential to support listed plants. On the old lava Flows which occupy the project area, lowland wet forest, old Montane wet forest, Montane wet sedgelands and Montane wet mixed communities were identified. The lowland wet forest, which occurs in the lower portion of the project area, is heavily infested with strawberry guava and shows the effects of many years of human impact. The botanical survey concluded that "most of the makai portion of the property (project area) below the Ola`a Flume Road is disturbed and infested with alien species, and has a relatively luw potential to support rare and endangered plants." The proposed development has the potential to alter the mixture of plant life, however, the low density of the proposed development and conditions under Docket No. A99-729 will assure the continuation of habitat for existing resources. The subject request is not contrary to Chapter 205A, Hawaii Revised Statutes, relating to Coastal Zone Management. The project area is not located in the Special Management Area. "fhe site is located approximately five miles mauka of the shoreline and therefore will not be impacted by coastal hazard and beach erosion. There is no record of a designated public access that traverses the project area. According to the applicants, no valued cultural, historical or natural resources exist in the project area and there is no evidence of any traditional and customary Native Hawaiian rights being Stacy Higa, Chairman and Members of the County Council Page 5 practiced on the site. Thus, it is not anticipated that the proposed request will have any adverse impact on cultural or historical resources in the area. According to the DWS, water is limited to a maximum of 7 lots, or units of water at a maximum of 4,200 gallons per day (gpd). Water for 7 lots would require approximately 3,500 feet of 4-inch waterline from the end of the existing 8-inch waterline along Wilder road to the property. The DWS states, "pursuant to the Department's existing water availability conditions for this area, which are subject to change, 5,400 gallons of water per day for 8 residential lots is not available for the subject change of tone request at this time. Extensive improvements and additions, including storage, transmission waterlines, booster pumps, and distribution facilities, must be constructed. Currently, sufficient funding is not available and not time schedule is set." Wastewater generated by the proposed development will be disposed of by individual wastewater disposal systems meeting the requirements of the Department of Health. All other essential utilities and services are or will be made available to the project area. In view of the recent Hawaii State Supreme Court's "PASH" and "Ka Pa `akai O Ka'Aina"decisions, the issue relative to native Hawaiian gathering and fishing rights must be addressed in terms of the cultural, historical, and natural resources and the associated traditional and customary practices of the site: lnvesti ag tion of valued resources: The following documents were included in the application: a) A Final Environmental Assessment and Support Document for Land Use Comrnission Petition, Apri12001; b) Research and Evaluation Report and Archaeological Assessment Study dated October 30, 1997 by Paul H. Rosendahl, Ph.D., Inc.; c) Reconnaissance Botanical Survey of Newton Property, Hrlo, Hawair by Palmer and Associates Consulting, July ] 998. The valued cultural, historical, and natural resources found in the rezonin area: According to documentation provided in the application, there are no valued cultural or historical resources in the area. Of the two kipukas on the site, the mauka kipuka has a potential to support listed plants. Condition No. 5 of Docket No. A99-729 requires the protection of the kipuka during the development of the project. Stacy Higa, Chairman and Members of the County Council Page 6 • Possible adverse effect or impairment of valued resources: Native plants maybe destroyed by construction or ground alteration. According to the applicants, there is no evidence that the flora in the area are particularly desired or used for cultural practices. • Feasible actions to protect native Hawaiian rights: According to the applicants, no gathering is taking place on the site. Thus, to the extent to which traditional and customary native Hawaiian rights are exercised, the proposed action will not affect traditional Hawaiian rights; therefore, no action is necessary to protect these rights. Based on the above findings, approval of the Change of Zone request from an Unzoned to the Agricultural 80-acre (A-80a) distract would result in an appropriate land use pattern that will further the public necessity and convenience and the general welfare. The accompanying draft bill to amend Section 25-8-32 (South Hilo District Zone Map) is provided for your favorable consideration. Please note the proposed conditions of approval attached to the draft bill. We are enclosing copies of the staff Background and Planning Director's Recommendation for your information. Sincerely Fred Galdones, Chairman Planning Commission Lncwton02PC Enclosures cc: Mr. James R. Bell Mr. George Newton Department of Public Works Department of Water Supply Department of Land ~i Natural Resources-HPD/Kong Rodney Haraga, Director/DOT-Highways, Honolulu BNewtonREZ.doc-l l /1 S/OS COUNTY OF HAWAII PLANNING DEPARTMENT BACKGROUND REPORT NEWTON FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION (REZ OS-0171 The NEWTON FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP has submitted an application for a Change of Zone from Unzoned to Agricultural 80-acre (A-80a) for approximately 885.4 acres of land. The property is located in Upper Kaumana, approximately 3,000 feet southwest of the Hilo Country Club Estates Subdivision, Kukusu, South Hilo, Hawaii, TMK: 2-4-8: Por. 33. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT I. Request: The applicants are requesting a Change of Zone from Unzoned to Agricultural 80-acre (A-80a) to subdivide the project area into eight lots ranging in size from 80 to 153 acres. The proposed subdivision is intended primarily for use by members of the Newton family as part of their estate planning. Five of the proposed lots will be for the Newton family, and the three remaining lots will be sold to non-family members at fair mazket value. The remaining 760.42-acre mauka portion of the property, which is not part of this application, will remain in the State Land Llse Conservation district. Structural improvements would include up to eight dwellings within the project area. Agricultural activities will be for personal and limited commercial use. Potential limited agricultural activities include vegetable gardens, citrus orchards, fruit or nut tree groves, greenhouse plant and flower nurseries, pasture or grazing. No lazge scale agricultural production or operations are planned. (Exhibit A -Change of Zone Application) 2. Landowner: Newton Family Limited Partnership BACKGROUND 3. Chapter 343, HRS: The proposed action initially involved the use of lands in the State Land Use Conservation District. As such, an Environmental Assessment 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). The State Land Use Commission issued a Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decision and Order dated June 5, 2001, determining a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the district boundary amendment from Conservation to the Agricultural district. 4. November 16, 2001: Effective date of the State Land Use Commission's Docket No. A99-729 which reclassified the subject 885.40 acres from the Conservation to the Agricultural District, with twenty-three (23) conditions of approval. Condition No. 1 of Docket No. A99-729 restricts the proposed subdivision of the subject area to a maximum of 81ots with a minimum lot size of 80 acres. Further, Condition No. 1 states, "each deed conveying title to a subdivided lot will include a 20-year restriction commencing upon final subdivision approval against further subdivision, and a general prohibition against large-scale commercial agriculture operations, animal hospitals, campgrounds and other similaz open area recreational activities, mausoleums, group living facilities, golf courses, golf driving ranges, golf maintenance facilities, and golf clubhouse, adult care homes, community buildings, day care centers, hospitals, stadiums and sports arenas and schools." (Refer to copy of Docket No. A99-729 in Exhibit A, Change of Zone application) STATE AND COUNTY PLANS 5. State Land Use Designation: Agricultural. 6. GP LUPAG Map: Extensive Agricultural. 7. County Zoning: Unzoned. The project area is not zoned by the County. 8. Coastal Zone Management, HRS, Chapter 205A: The entire State of Hawaii lies within the Coastal Zone Management Area. The project area is located approximately five (5) miles from the shoreline and will not be impacted by coastal hazard and beach erosion. 9. Special Management Area (SMA): The Special Management Area is a part of the Coastal Zone Management Program and regulated by the County. The project area is not located within the Special Management Area. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT AREA AND SURROUNDINGS 10. Subject site: The project area is approximately 885.40 acres and is a portion of an approximately 1,645.823-acre pazcel. The project area, located between the 1,420-foot to approximately the 1,950-foot elevation, was previously used for sugaz cane and grazing in the eazly 1900's, is vacant and primarily in forest and heavy shrub vegetation. The average slope is approximately five to ten percent. The project site does not have any gulches or major drainageways. A modest amount of grazing occurs on the project area -2- by cattle from adjacent lands. A 150-foot wide utility easement runs partially along the northern boundary of the project azea. This easement serves the 20-acre HELCO site located adjacent to the makai boundary of the project area. The Puna Sugar Company, Ltd., formerly known as Olaa Sugar Company, is the current holder of aright-of--way for a flume located in the project area at approximately the 1,950-foot elevation. The abandoned flume and the dirt mad which parallels the route of the flume (commonly known as the Olaa Flume Road) is located near the mauka boundary of the project area. The Ola'a flume system establishes the approximate boundary between the Conservation and Agricultural districts. 11. Surrounding Zoning/Land Uses: Surrounding lands to the north and northeast aze zoned A-20a, and lands to the south and west of the site are vacant, not zoned and in the State Land Use Conservation district. The area is characterized by lazge pazcels of agricultural lands, open space, forest reserves, and rural residences. 12. ALISH: Unclassified. 13. Land Study Bureau's Detailed Land Classification System: "D" or "Poor" for the majority of the parcel, with "E" or "Very Poor" for a small northeastern portion of the project azea. 14. U.S. Soil Survey: rKGD, Keei extremely rocky muck, 6 to 20 per cent slopes. This soil consists ofwell-drained, thin organic material, very dark brown muck up to about 10 inches thick overlying pahoehce lava bedrock. Permeability is slow, but water moves rapidly through the cracks. 15. FIRM: Zone "X", azea determined to be outside the 500-year flood plain. 16. Flora/Fauna Resources: According to the applicants, the Ola'a flume system establishes a particulaz boundary between azeas of significance for flora as well as fauna species. Rana Productions, Ltd. conducted a fauna survey in Mazch, 1998. There were a total of 12 bird species or which nine were alien, two were endemic, and one was considered an indigenous migratory species. The Hawaiian Hawk and the Hawaiian Hoary Bat were sighted on the property. The survey concluded that because the estimated azea of clearing and improvements would comprise approximately 5% of the project azea, any further clearing or improvements on the site is not anticipated to have a significant impact on native or federally protected avian or mammalian species. No U.S. -3- Fish and Wildlife Services protected species were located in the project area, which is dominated by alien species and was used in the past for grazing and possibly logging. In addition, areas in the project area where wetland vegetation indicator species were identified were not large enough to require planning considerations. Palmer and Associates Consulting conducted a botanical survey in Mazch/April 1998. Two kipukas were identified on the project site. One, located in the southeastern portion of the project area, was highly disturbed and dominated by alien species and thus, not significant. The survey concluded that it had a low probability of supporting U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) designated or listed plants. The second kipuka, located west or mauka of the first kipuka, was not disturbed as much and did not contain many alien species. The survey concluded that it had the potential to support listed plants. On the old lava flows which occupy the project area, lowland wet forest, old Montane wet forest, Montane wet sedgelands and Montane wet mixed communities were identified. The lowland wet forest, which occurs in the lower portion of the project area, is heavily infested with strawberry guava and shows the effects of many years of human impact. The botanical survey concluded that "most of the makai portion of the property (project area) below the Ola'a Flume Road is disturbed and infested with alien species, and has a relatively low potential to support rare and endangered plants." 17. Archaeological/Historical Resources: The Ola'a flume system has been determined to be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion D (a site that has yielded, or is likely to yield, information important in local history). However, it has yet to be nominated for placement within the National Register. The proposed subdivision will be designed to respect the alignment of the flume system. Paul H. Rosendahl, Ph.D., Inc. (PHRI) conducted inspection level field work on the project site, and no azchaeological or cultural sites or features were discovered. Based on the historical sugazcane cultivation on the project site, significant archaeologicaUhistorical sites are unlikely to have survived. 18. Cultural Resources: PHRI consulted with individuals recognized by the local native Hawaiian community as knowledgeable in various aspects of traditional Hawaiian culture, and no valued cultural or natural resources were identified on the project site and there are no traditional and customary Native Hawaiian rights being practiced on the site. -4- 19. Public Access: There is no record of a designated public access that traverses the project azea. 20. Recreational Resources: There are no recreational resources or sites in the project area 21. Traffic: Traffic generated from the proposed subdivision is expected to be minimal. PUBLIC UTILITIES AND SERVICES 22. Access: Access is proposed from Wilder Road, atwo-lane, 24foot wide paved County mad which extends from Kaumana Drive, to an existing 40-foot wide access easement (Easement 107). The applicants have provided documentation identifying the easement to the property for access road purposes. Wilder Road is located approximately 3,000 feet below the project site. Easement 107 extends southwesterly approximately 2,900 feet over the flag portion of a private parcel and HELCO's parcel, and into the subject area. This access is ununproved, overgrown with vegetation, and will require the construction of a road. HELCO, as well as the private landowner, have given preliminary consent to use their properties for access to the site. In a memo dated October 11, 2005, the Department of Public Works has stated that: • The proposed subdivision road shall conform to Chapter 23, Subdivisions, of the Hawaii County Code. • Streetlights and traffic control devices shall be installed as required by the Traffic Division, DPW • The applicant shall be responsible for the design, purchase, and installation of such devices. 23. Water: According to the DWS, water is limited to a maximum of 71ots, or units of water at a maximum of 4,200 gallons per day (gpd). Water for 71ots would require approximately 3,500 feet of 4-inch waterline from the end of the existing 8-inch waterline along Wilder road to the property. The DWS states, "pursuant to the Department's existing water availability conditions for this azea, which are subject to change, 5,400 gallons of water per day for 8 residential lots is not available for the subject change of zone request at this time. Extensive improvements and additions, including storage, transmission waterlines, booster pumps, and distribution facilities, must be constructed. Currently, sufficient funding is not available and not time schedule is set." -5- 24. Wastewater: Individual wastewater systems will be utilized, meeting the standards and requirements of the State Deparhment of Health. 25. Solid Waste: Solid waste collection and disposal for the proposed subdivision will be handled by a private contractor; each parcel owner will be responsible for the disposal of their own solid waste. 26. Essential Utilities and Services: Electrical and phone services will be provided via overhead lines from Wilder Road where HELCO and GTE Hawaiian Telephone lines are cun-ently available. AGENCIES' COMMENTS 27. Department of Public Works: Exhibit B -October 11, 2005 memo 28. Department of Water Supply: Exhibit C -October 3, 2005 memo and applicants' response letter dated November 2, 2005 29. Fire Department: Exhibit D -September 12, 2005 memo 30. Department of Health: Exhibit E -September 16, 2005 memo and applicants' response letter dated September 23, 2005. 31. State Land Use Commission: Exhibit F -September 19, 2005 letter AGENCIES - NO COMMENTS OR OBJECTIONS 32. Police Department AGENCIES - NO RESPONSES 33. DLNR Land Division, DLNR Historic Preservation Division, Natural Resources Conservation Service APPLICANT'S RESPONSES TO AGENCIES' COMMENTS 34. Exhibit G -November 1, 20051etter PUBLIC COMMENTS 35. None as of this writing. -6- Beltfollins Change of Zone Application to A-80 Acres Newton Family Limited Partnership TMK 2-4-08: Portion 33 Kukuau, South Hilo, Hawaii Accepting Agency: Planning Department County of Hawaii Applicant: Newton Family Limited Partnership Prepared by: Belt Collins Hawaii Ltd. 2153 North King Street, Suite 200 Honolulu, HI 96819 August 2005 EXHIBIT I ATTACHMENT Agricultural Rezoning { °;r PLANNING DEPARTMENT COONTY OF HAWAII APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF ZONE I~ If your request is approved, do you intend to subdivide the subject land in accordance with the approved change of zone? Yes If please answer the rest of question 1 and then to question 3. a a. How many acres of the requested area do you intend to subdivide? 885.4 b. Into what lot sizes? Min.80ac. c. If your request is approved, approximately how long after the date of approval do you expect to submit your subdivision plans to the Planning Department for preliminary approval? w/in2yrs. d. Do you intend to build houses on the newly created lots? No If please answer the following questions: On how many of those lots? At what approximate price range? House Lot Total Approximately how long, after approval of the subdivision, would the first house be available for occupancy? 4Y~s If you intend to subdivide, please submit a preliminary schematic subdivision plan together with your change of zone application form. EA Fig. 4 2. If you have no firm plans of subdividing the subject area, do you intend to: a• Sell or lease the land to someone who has firm plans? b• Sell or lease the land to someone who has tentative plans? ~ Sell or lease the land to someone who has no plans? d. Keep it? e. P. D. 2 5/69 f• If you intend to do either a, b, c, please elaborate on the kind of plans the other party has. Please, also include in your answer approximately how soon after approval of your rezoning do you expect to transfer the subject land to another party. 3• Do you think that your request and your further plans for the land will alleviate the local housing situation? Yes How? Eventually, there will be eight family homes on the property. 9. Are there any buildings on the subject area? No If so, what kind? What do you intend to do with those buildings if your request is approved? 5• Is the subject land currently being used for any agricultural activity? No If so, please list the kinds of products grown and on how many square feet or acres of land per product. 6. Was your request to allow for the creation of smaller agricultural lots? No If so, did-your plan include the following considerations? a. Commodity to be produced? What kinds of commodity? b. Suitability of the proposed lot-size for that commodity? Sufficient farm size to allow reasonable chance of success in commercial agriculture? -2- d, Agricultural leases or other forms of assurance that potential buyers or leases would put the subject area into some form of agricultural use? Please state the proposed type of arrangement. Please submit your agricultural plans for the subject area and present evidence of consideration of the above requirements together with your request for a change of zone. If you do not intend to subdivide the subject land for some sort of agricultural purpose, please state your other reasons. To your knowledge, has there been any flooding and/or drainage problem on the subject area? No If so, please describe the problem. 8• Do you think that the roads leading to the subject area needs improvements? NO If so, what kind? Is the road adequate for the proposed traffic volume or load? Yes 9• What sort of governmental assistance and/or improvements do you feel will be needed in the subject area when developed? Yes No a. Schools X b. Roads X Sewer X d. Drainage X -3- ' Yes No e. Police Protection X f. Fire Protection X g. Recreational Facilities X X h. Public Utilities Other For those checked "yes", please elaborate what type or kinds of improvements and/or assistance are needed. Signature : / Belt Collins Hawaii Address : 2153 N. King Street, Suite 200, Honolulu, HI 96819 Telephone: (808)521-5361 Date: August 24, 2005 -9- 1. SUMMARY OF REQUEST FOR CHANGE OF ZONE Summary of Newton Family Limited Partnership Application for a Change of Zone The Newton Family Limited Partnership owns some 1,646 acres of property in South Hilo, Hawaii. The parcel is identified as TMK 2-4-08:33. As a part of its estate planning, the Newton family found that it needed to subdivide its 1,646 acres. Since the land was in the State's Conservation District, it could not be subdivided. To allow subdivision, the family filed a State Land Use Petition in August 1999 to change the classification of 885.4 acres of its property to State Agricultural so that it could be subdivided. In June 2001, 885.4 acres of the Newton family property were reclassified by the State Land Use Commission from Conservation to Agriculture. The remaining some 762 acres continue in the State's Conservation District. A copy of the Final Environmental Assessment (EA) and Support Document that was part of the Land Use Commission Petition is being submitted as part of this application. The Final EA followed the State's Chapter 343 environmental review process and includes a description of the proposed subdivision, existing environment, including special detailed studies of flora, fauna, traditional culture and archaeology, and major roadways in the vicinity, and anticipated impacts. The Final EA was the basis of a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) and, thus, allowing the approval of State Land Use District Amendment A99-729 from Conservation to Agriculture. Also being submitted is the State Land Use Commission (SLUG) Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decision and Order approving the Boundary Amendment. Following reclassification by the State, the family asked Hawaii County to amend the General Plan designation for the 885.4 acres from Orchard/Intensive Agriculture to Extensive Agriculture. This amendment, shown as B-18 on the proposed LUPAG map for South Hilo, was approved by the County Council in January of 2005. -1- The Newton family is now seeking appropriate County zoning, Agriculture A-80a, for the 885.4-acre area. Approval of County zoning would be followed by a request for subdivision approval. The Newton family proposes an eight-lot subdivision of the 885.4 acres. The subdivision parcels will range in size from 80 acres to about 153 acres. The proposed subdivision is intended primarily for use by members of the Newton family as part of its estate planning. The subdivision will be served by water, power, and telephone. It will also be served by a private access from Wilder Road, a County right-of-way that connects with Puainako and Kaumana roads. The access is located within an existing easement that is unimproved and will require a paved road. Alternatively, access may be provided from an existing County Department of Water Supply service road located near the Newton family's existing access easement. One of the SLUC conditions is that for the next 20 years, the 885.4 acres can only be subdivided into a maximum of eight parcels with a minimum lot size of 80 acres. The family is asking for Agriculture A-80a zoning for the 885 acres. Securing appropriate zoning and being allowed to subdivide its property would help the Newton family to finally realize its estate planning goals. August 2005 The Newton Family Limited Partnership 2. Change of Zone Application With Attachment for Agriculture Zoning CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION COUNTY OF HAWAII PLANNING DEPARTMENT (Type or legibly print the requested information) APPLICANT: The Newton F Limited Partnershi APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE: DATE: ~ ~ I Z' o S ADDRESS: P.O. Box 426. Kailua. Oahu. Hawaii 96734 LIST APPLICANT'S INTEREST IF NOT OWNER: LIST PRINCIPAL(S) INCLUDING NAMES OF MAIN OFFICERS: Georne Newton PHONE:(Bus.) (Res.) (808) 247-5524 (Fax) LANDOWNER(S): The Newton F '1 Limited Partnershi LANDOWNER SIGNATURE(S): DATE: . rll' I7- o (May be y lever LANDOWNER(S) ADDRESS: P.O. Box 426, Kailua. Oahu. Hawaii 96734 REQUEST: None TO Agricultural A-80a (Existing Zoning) (Proposed Zoning) TAX MAP KEY: 2-4-08: Portion 33 STREET ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: None SIZE OF PROPERTY OR AFFECTED AREA(S) TO BE REZONED: 885.4 Acres AGENT: Belt Collins Hawaii Ltd. ADDRESS: 2153 North Kine Street, Suite 200, Honolulu, HI 96819 TELEPHONE:(Bus.) (808) 521-5361 (Res.) (Fax) (808) 538-7819 Please indicate to whom original correspondence and copies should be sent. ORIGINAL: Belt Collins Hawaii Ltd. COPIES: The Newton Family Limited Partnership ATTACHMENT Agricultural Rezoning PLANNING DEPARTMENT COUNTY OF HAWAII APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF ZONE I• If your request is approved, do you intend to subdivide the subject land in accordance with the approved change of zone? Yes If please answer the rest of question 1 and then to question 3. x a. How many acres of the requested area da you intend to subdivide? 885.4 b, Into what lot sizes? Min.80ac. c. If your request is approved, approximately how long after the date of approval do you expect to submit your subdivision plans to the Planning Department for preliminary approval? w/in2yrs. d. Do you intend to build houses on the newly created lots? No If~es, please answer the following questions: On how many of those lots? At what approximate price range? House Lot Total Approximately how long, after approval of the subdivision, would the first house be available for occupancy? 4years If you intend to subdivide, please submit a preliminary schematic subdivision plan together with your change of zone application form. EA Fig.4 2. If you have no firm plans of subdividing the subject area, do you intend to: a• Sell or lease the land to someone who has firm plans? b• Sell or lease the land to someone who has tentative plans? Sell or lease the land to someone who has no plans? d. Keep it? e. P. D. 2 5/84 f~ If you intend to do either a, b, c, please elaborate on the kind of plans the other party has. Please, also include in your answer approximately how soon after approval of your rezoning do you expect to transfer the subject land to another party. 3• Do you think that your request and your further plans foz the.. land will alleviate the local housing situation? How? 4. Are there any buildings on the subject area? If so, what kind? What do you intend to do with those buildings if your zequest is approved? 5• Is the subject land currently being used for any agricultural activity? If so, please list the kinds of products grown and on how many square feet or acres of land per product. 6. Was your request to allow for the creation of smaller agricultural lots? If so, did your plan include the following considerations? a. Commodity to be produced? What kinds of commodity? b. Suitability of the proposed lot-size for that commodity? Sufficient farm size to allow reasonable chance of success in commercial agriculture? -2- d. Agricultural leases or other forms of assurance that potential buyers or leases would put the subject area into some form of agricultural use? Please state the proposed type of arrangement. Please submit your agricultural plans for the subject area and present evidence of consideration of the above requirements together with your request for a change of Zone. If you do not intend to subdivide the subject land for some sort of agricultural purpose, please state your other reasons. To your knowledge, has there been any flooding and/or drainage problem on the subject area? If so, please describe the problem. 8• Do you think that the roads leading to the subject area needs improvements? If so, what kind? Is the road adequate for the proposed traffic volume or load? 9• What sort of governmental assistance and/or improvements do you feel will be needed in the subject area when developed? Yes No a. Schools b. Roads Sewer d. Drainage -3- Yes No e. Police Protection f. Fire Protection g, Recreational Facilities h. Public Utilities I. Other Fox those checked "yes", please elaborate what type or kinds of improvements and/or assistance are needed. Signature: ( ~ /Belt Collins Hawaii Address : 2153 N. King Street, Suite 200, Honolulu, HI 96819 Telephone: (808)521-5361 Date: -4- 3. BACKGROUND AND COUNTY REPORT INCLUDING: A~ CHAPTER 343 EA, s) FONSI, AND C~ FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER. Background and County Environmental Report (Attachment to Change of Zone Applications) A. SUBJECT REQUEST -The Newton Family Limited Partnership 1. Details of Proposed Use/Development: See EA Sections I, IV and VIII a. Project description: EA page 8 b. Statement of objectives and reasons for the request: EA page 1 c. Number of acres/square feet: 885.40-acres d. Proposed units/lots/floor azea of proposed building envelope: 8 lots e. Timeframe and cost: EA page 10 f. Membership size/number of employees and clientele: Newton family 9. Parking arrangement: parking on each individual lot h. Traffic impacts (assessment of existing traffic conditions, anticipated increase in traffic and traffic impacts from proposed use): EA page 47 Other related information: See EA J_ Proposed on-site and off-site infrastructure: EA page 9 B. CONFORMANCE WITH STATEICOUNTY PLANS See EA Section IX 2. State Land Use designation: Agriculture 3. How the proposed use is not contrary to Chapter 205A, Coastal Zone Management (existing public access, scenic or open space resources, coastal view planes, and coastal ecosystems): EA page 62 4. Applicable goals/policies and objectives of the General Plan: General Plan revisions in 2005 to Agriculture 5. Genera] Plan designation (LUPAG Map): Agriculture 6. Zoning: Not yet County Zoued 7. Community Development Plan: Not in Community Development Plan 8. Special Management Area: Not in SMA 1 C. PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING OF THE PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING AREA See EA Section VI Physical CharaMeristics/Environmental Setting: 9. Description of subject property, location, climate, topography, slope, soils . (including size, shape, existing structures): EA pages 12 through 41 10. Lava Hazard Zone: EA pages 39 - 40 11. Distance from coastline: 5.8 miles 12. Agricultural Lands of Imgortance in the State of Hawaii (ALISH) designation: EA page 18 and figure 8 13. U.S.D.A. Natural Resources Conservation Services Soil Service Report soil type: EA page 18 14. Land Study Bureau soil rating: EA page 21 and figure 9 15. Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) designation: EA page 40 16. Existing drainage ways or improvements: EA page 23 17. Air/noise/water quality: EA pages 38 - 40 Hustoric Resources: 18. Existing azchaeological, cultural or historic sites on National or Hawaii Register: EA page 35 and Appendixes E and F Natural Resources: 19. Existing floral /fauna] resources (any native or exotic plants; any listed or candidate for endangered species): EA pages 25-35 and Appendixes C and D 20. Scenic or coastal resources: EA page 41 Vahaed Cultural Resources: 21 Identify any traditional and customary native Hawaiian rights that aze exercised in the area; the extent m which the proposed development will affect these rights; and feasible action to be taken to protect native Hawaiian rights if they exist. EA Pages 35-38 and Appendixes E and F 2 Public Access: 22. Existing public access to and along the shoreline or to mountain areas and knowledge of public access being used: there is no existing shoreline or mountain public access Social-Economic Characteristics.• See EA Sections V and VII 23. Social settlement pattern for the area: 24. Economic resowces of the azea: 25. Land values: Surrounding lands: See EA Section VI 26. Land use: 27. Zoning: D. PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES See EA Section VIII 28. Description of access: (paved or unpaved; private or county, right-of--way and pavement width. If private road, submit evidence of legal access rights): EA pages 44 - 48 29. Availability of water: EA page 48 30. Sewage disposal: EA page 48 31. Solid waste: EA page 49 32. Police & fire protection: EA page 49 32. Schools: EA page 50 33. Parks: EA page 50 34. Other utilities and services (telephone/electricity): EA page 44 E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS See EA Sections X, XI and XII 35. Relationship between local short term uses of environment and maintenance and enhancement of long term productivity: EA Section X 3 36. Mitigative measures proposed to avoid, minimize, rectify or reduce impact: EA Section XII 37. Alternatives to the proposed development: EA Section XI 38. Irreversible and irretrievable commitments of natural resources that would be involved if proposed action implemented: EA Section X F. AGENCIES -COMMENTS See EA Section XV, page 6 and Appendix A 39. You may consult with the following agencies and include discussion in your report or attach their written comments regazding your proposal: a. Department of Public Works: Done b. Department of Water Supply: Done c. Police: Done d. Fire: Done e. Department of Finance -Real Property Tax Division: f. State of Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources -Historic Preservation Division: Done 9. State of Hawaii Department of Transportation -Highways Division: Done h. State of Hawaii Department of Health: Done 1. State of Hawaii Department of Agriculture: Done J. Community groups(individuals, Civil Defense, Office of Housing and Community Development, Kailua Village Design Commission, State of Hawaii Real Estate Commission, and State of Hawaii Department of Human Services: See EA list on pages 6 and 7 rORMfi/111 (~+\wry,fiLl\@~mw\iW \~nvimmepnmF{; 4 HAWAII COUNTY GENERAL PLAN Since the EA was prepared, the Hawaii County General Plan has been updated and adopted in January 2005. Outlined below is a discussion of The Newton Family Limited Partnership's proposed Agriculture A-SOa zone change in relation to applicable Agricultural Goals and Policies of the County's General Plan. 14.2.2 Agriculture Goals (a) Preserve the agricultural character of the island. (b) Preserve and enhance opportunities for the expansion of Hawaii's Agri cul tura I 1 n d ustry. Discussion: The lands in the 885.4-acre area are not identified as Important Agricultural Lands by the State or County. They were once used for sugar cane growing and now are brush lands. The Newton family proposes to convert, over time, the 885.4 acres into 8 lots with extensive agricultural uses that will enhance opportunities for agriculture on the Island of Hawaii. 14.2.3 Agriculture Policies (p Assist in the development of agriculture. Discussion: The Newton family plans to use the 8 lots within the 885.4 acres for small family farms meeting the individual needs of each family member. These lands are mostly suited for low intensity agricultural uses that will fit in with the low density character of the surrounding area. JUN 6 2f~lt BEFORE THE LAND USE COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I In the Matter of the Petition of ) DOCKET NO. A99-729 THE NEWTON FAMILY LIMITED ) FINDINGS OF FACT, PARTNERSHIP, a Hawaii limited ) CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND partnership ) DECISION AND ORDER DETERMINING A FINDING OF NO To Amend the Conservation Land ) SIGNIFICANT IMPACT FOR A Use District Boundary into the ) STATE LAND USE DISTRICT Agricultural Land Use District ) BOUNDARY AMENDMENT for Approximately BB5.40 Acres of) Land at Kukuau, South Hilo, ) This is to CerttiY that thi818 8 tNe end COTfeCt Hawaii, TMK 2-4-08: por. 33 ) ~pYa;thadocumerttonfileintheofficeofthe ) State Lend Use Gommi io note! awau. JUN 6 5 2001 by Date Executiv ~ ~ FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND DECISION AND ORDER DETERMINING A FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT FOR A STATE LAND USE DISTRICT BOUNDARY AMENDMENT ~ . r • 0 2+ o Cn X L. tom- c- mac- ~ cn - ~ CJ _y~; W W BEFORE THE LAND USE COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF HAWAI I In the Matter of the Petition of ) DOCKET N0. A99-729 THE NEWTON FAMILY LIMITED ) FINDINGS OF FACT, PARTNERSHIP, a Hawaii limited ) CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND partnership ) DECISION AND ORDER ) DETERMINING A FINDING OF NO To Amend the Conservation Land ) SIGNIFICANT IMPACT FOR A Use District Boundary into the ) STATE LAND USE DISTRICT Agricultural Land Use District ) BOUNDARY AMENDMENT for Approximately 885.90 Acres of) Land at Kukuau, South Hilo, ) Hawaii, TMK 2-9-08: por. 33 ) FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF-LAW, AND DECISION AND ORDER DETERMINING A FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT FOR A STATE LAND USE DISTRICT BOUNDARY AMENDMENT The Land Use Commission ("Commission"), having examined the Final Environmental Assessment ("FEA") filed by The Newton Family Limited Partnership, a Hawaii limited partnership ("Petitioner"), on April 6, 2001, and upon consideration of the matters discussed therein, at its meeting of April 19, 2001, in • Honolulu, Hawai i, hereby makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The subject area covered by the FEA is situated at Kukuau, South Hilo, Hawai i, identified as TMK 2-4-08: por. 33 ("Property"). The Property is a portion of an approximately 1,695.823-acre parcel. The Property is designated within the State Land Use Conservation District and is located in the Resource Subzone. 2. Petitioner seeks to amend the State Land Use Conservation District boundary to reclassify approximately 885.40 acres of land from the Conservation District into the Agricultural District. Petitioner intends to subdivide the Property into eight agricultural parcels. Parcels 1, 2, 3, 4, and 8 are intended to provide individual agricultural homesites for members of the Newton Family ("Project"). Parcels 5, 6, and 7 will be sold in the market place to third parties as a-means to defray the cost: of the subdivision infrastructure improvements. 3. On August 31, 1999, Petitioner filed a Petition To Amend The Land Use District Boundary Of The Conservation District In Order To Reclassify Certain Land From Conservation To Agricultural ("Petition"). 4. The Petition included a Draft Environmental Assessment ("DEA") as required by section 343-5(a)(7), Hawaii Revised Statutes ("HRS"). 5. On September 23, 1999, the Commission met in Waikapu, Hawaii, to consider whether the anticipated effects as discussed in Petitioner's DEA to reclassify the Property from the State Land Use Conservation District into the State Land Use Agricultural District constituted a "significant effect" -2- pursuant to chapter 343, HRS. At the meeting, the Commission granted in part and denied in part Petitioner's Motion To Continue Action On Its Petition To Amend The Land Use District Boundary Of The Conservation District Lodged On August 31, 1999, filed on September 23, 1999. On October 12, 1999, the Commission issued its written Order. 6. On November 15, 1999, Petitioner filed a Supplement to the Petition, which included a Supplement to the DEA. 7. On November 17, 1999, Petitioner filed a - Secondary Supplement to the DEA dated November 16, 1999. B. On November 19, 1999, the Commission met in Hilo, Hawaii, to continue its consideration of Petitioner's DEA. At the meeting, the Commission granted Petitioner's oral request to allow Petitioner additional time to .supplement the DEA to c address concerns raised by the Commission and the Office of Planning ("OP"). On January 21, 2000, the Commission issued its written Order. 9. On January 21, 2000, Petitioner filed a Third Supplement to the Petition, which included a Revision to the DEA dated January 17, 2000. 10. On February 2, 2000, Petitioner filed a Fourth Supplement to the Petition, which included a Fourth Supplement to the DEA dated February 2, 2000. -3- 11. On February 3, 2000, the Commission met in Hilo, Hawaii, to continue its consideration of Petitioner's DEA. At the meeting, Petitionez filed a Fifth Supplement to the DEA dated February 2, 2000. The Commission requested Petitioner to provide further information, including proposed conditions to mitigate potential impacts, to complete the preparation of the DEA, pursuant to section 11-200-9(b)(2), Hawaii Administrative Rules ("HAR"). The Commission, upon its own motion, continued the meeting until such time that a revised and complete DEA was received from Petitioner. On February 18, 2000, the Commission issued its written Order. 12. On November 1, 2000, Petitioner filed an Amended Petition, which included an Amended DEA dated October 30, 2000, 13. On December 8, 2000, the Commission met in Honolulu, Hawai i, to continue its consideration of Petitioner's DEA. At the meeting, the Commission made a preliminary determination of a finding of no significant impact for an environmental assessment. The Commission further required Petitioner to submit the Amended DEA with the assurances, clarifications, and other revisions noted and agreed to by Petitioner's counsel at the meeting relating to the size of the Project and the proactive measures Petitioner proposes to take to ensure against "significant effects" on the environment in the future. On January 29, 2001, the Commission issued its written Order. 14. On January 25, 2001, Petitioner filed a 1st Amendment to Amended Petition, which included an Amended DEA dated January 23, 2001. This Amended DEA reflected the assurances, clarifications, and other revisions previously agreed to by Petitioner's counsel. 15. The Amended DEA was subject to a 30-day public review and comment period pursuant to section 343-5(c), HRS. The review and comment period ended on March 10, 2001. 16. Petitioner filed the FEA with the Commission on April 6, 2001. 17. On April 19, 2001, the Commission met in Honolulu, Hawaii, to consider whether the anticipated effects as discussed in Petitioner's FEA to reclassify the Property from the State Land Use Conservation District into the State Land Use Agricultural District constituted a "significant effect" pursuant to chapter 393, HRS. By letter dated April 19, 2001, the Planning Department stated that it would not be able to attend the meeting due to previous commitments. The Planning Department further stated that it had reviewed the FEA and found that the Project would not have any significant environmental effects. At the meeting, OP stated that based on Petitioner's commitment to i) retain the remaining approximately 760-acre -5- portion of the parcel as well as Parcels 1, 2, 3, 4, and 8; ii) conduct a 500-meter-wide survey of the roadway alignment and provide the results to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; iii) protect the kipukas with deed restrictions; and iv) dedicate the 80-foot right-of-way for the arterial roadway to the County of Hawaii, it found that an Environmental Impact Statement ("EIS") for the Project was not required. 18. Thereafter, a motion was made and seconded that based on the FEA, there was no "significant effect" on the environment anticipated as a result of the proposed reclassification of the Property from the State Land Use Conservation District to the State Land Use Agricultural District, and that a final determination of a finding of no significant impact was warranted based on the following reasons: i) No specific traditional cultural properties, areas, or sites were identified on the Property. The Project will not adversely impact any archaeological features on the Property; ii) The Project, in conjunction with the proposed Kaumana Homesteads project, is not expected to have a significant impact on the natural environment because farm dwellings are expected to occupy no more than 5 percent of the land area, and future development is not anticipated; iii) The Project is consistent with the State's long-term environmental policies and guidelines as expressed in chapter 399, HRS, because it preserves most of -a'- the land in its natural state and proposes agricultural uses that are compatible with the surrounding area; iv) The Project is not anticipated to substantially affect the economic welfare of the community or State because the agricultural activities anticipated on the Property are for personal and limited commercial use; v) The Project will not result in the use of hazardous materials detrimental to the public health of the community; vi) The Project will not generate any major increases in resident population nor overburden existing public facilities and services because family members will occupy all but three parcels; vii) The Project will not result in a substantial degradation of environmental quality. Large stands of native forest and clusters of major vegetation will be left intact in their natural condition; viii) The Project will not have any adverse impacts upon the native forest areas or existing rare, endangered, or threatened species on the Property; ix) The Project will result in minimal construction-related impacts to air quality and ambient noise levels; x) The Property is located approximately 5.8 miles from the shoreline and is not subject to tsunami inundation and other coastal hazards nor have potential flood areas been identified on the Property; xi) The Property is located outside of any scenic resource area, and therefore the Project will not be a visual obstruction to any adjacent lands and nearby local public roads; and xii) The small scale of the -7- Project will not require substantial energy consumption. Following discussion by the Commissioners, a vote was taken on this motion. There being a vote tally of six ayes and 0 nays, the motion carried. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Fursuant to chapter 393, HRS, and chapter 11-200, HAR, entitled "Environmental Impact Statement Rules," this Commission, having considered the criteria for determining potential environmental effects provided in chapter 11-200, HAR, and after considering the proposed action, as well as the short- term and long-term effects of the action, determines that the proposed action will not have a "significant effect" on the environment, and therefore does not require an EIS. DECISION AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the proposed action by Petitioner, as described in the Petition, as amended, filed in this docket, does not require an EIS pursuant to chapter 393, HRS, and chapter 11-200, HAR, entitled "Environmental Impact Statement Rules." ADOPTION OF ORDER The undersigned Commissioners, being familiar with the record and proceedings, hereby adopt and approve the foregoing ORDER this 1st day of June 2001. The ORDER and its -6- ADOPTION shall take effect upon the date this ORDER is certified and filed by this Commission. LAND USE COMMISSION STATE OF HAWAII By (absent) MERLE A. K. KELAI Chairperson and Commissioner By ~ LAW ~NCE N. ING Vice Chairp rson and Commissioner By (absent) P. ROY CATALANI Commissioner By (absent) BRUCE A. COPPA Commissioner By (absent) PRAVIN DESAI Commissioner BY~4sG, ISAAC FIESTA, JR. Commissioner BY ~~l 114- M. CASEY J Commissioner Filed and effective on By June 5 2001 ST Y ROE Commissioner rtified by: By ~ Executiv ficer PETER XUKIMURA Commissioner -9- BEFORE THE LAND USE COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF HAWAII In the Matter of the Petition of ) DOCKET N0. A99-729 THE NEWTON FAMILY LIMITED ) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE PARTNERSHIP, a Hawaii limited ) partnership ) To Amend the Conservation Land ) Use District Boundary into the ) Agricultural Land Use District ) for Approximately 865.90 Acres of) Land at Kukuau, South Hilo, ) Hawaii, TMK 2-9-08: por. 33 ) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the Findings Of Fact, Conclusions Of Law, And Decision And Order Determining A Finding Of No Significant Impact For A State Land Use District Boundary Amendment was served upon the following by either hand delivery or depositing the same in the U. S. Postal Service by certified mail: ` DAVID W. BLANE, Director DEL. Office of Planning P. 0. Box 2359 Honolulu, Hawaii 96809-2359 CHRISTOPHER YUEN, Planning Director CERT. Planning Department, County of Hawaii 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, Hawaii 96720 LINCOLN ASHIDA, ESQ. CERT. Corporation Counsel County of Hawaii The Hilo Lagoon Center 101 Aupuni Street, Suite 325 Hilo, Hawaii 96720 .w STEVEN S.C. LIM, ESQ., Attorney for Petitioner Carlsmith Ball CERT. 121 Waianuenue Avenue Hilo, Hawaii 96720 GENEVIEVE SALMONSON, Director Office of Environmental Quality Control DEL. Leiopapa A Kamehameha Building 235 S. Beretania Street, Suite 702 Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, this 5th day of June 2001. ANTHG J.H. CHI Executive Officer ~ i -2- BEFORE THE LAND USE COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF HAWAII In the Matter of the Petition of ) DOCKET NO. A99-729 THE NEWTON FAMILY LIMITED ) FINDINGS OF FACT, PARTNERSHIP, a Hawaii limited ) CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND partnership ) DECISION AND ORDER ) This is to certify that this is a true and correct To Amend the Conservation Land Use ) copy Of the document on file in the office of the District Boundary into the Agricultural Land) State Land Use Com ' sion, Honolulu Ha Use District for Appro~dmately 885.40 Acres) NOy 1 6 2001 by of Land at Kukuau, South Hilo, Hawaii, ) Date Executiv TMK No: 2-4-08: por. 33 ) ~ FINDINGS OF FACT. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. AND DECISION AND ORDER •n„ r y? z n© ~ l~jN /'1 O D ny • ,p ncn 0 r z BEFORE THE LAND USE COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF HAWAII In the Matter of the Petition of ) DOCKET NO. A99-729 THE NEWTON FAMILY LIMITED ) FINDINGS OF FACT, PARTNERSHIP, a Hawai i limited ) CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND partnership ) DECISION AND ORDER To Amend the Conservation Land Use ) District Boundary into the Agricultural Land) Use District for Approximately 885.40 Acres ) of Land at Kukuau, South Hilo, Hawaii, ) TMK No: 2-08: por. 33 ) FINDINGS OF FACT. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW. AND DECISION AND ORDER The Newton Family Limited Partnership, a Hawai i limited parnership ("Petitioned'), filed a Petition to Amend the Land Use District Boundary of the Conservation District in Order to Reclassify Certain Land from Conservation to Agricultural ("Petition") on August 31, 1999, pursuant to chapter 205, Hawai i Revised Statutes ("HRS"), and chapter 15-15, Hawaii Administrative Rules ("HAR"), to amend the Conservation Land Use District Boundary into the Agricultural Land Use District for approximately 885.40 acres of land at Kukuau, South Hilo, Hawaii, identified as Tax Map Key No: 2-4-08: por. 33 ("Petition Area for the development of an agricultural subdivision . The Land Use Commission ("Commission"), having heazd and examined the testimony, evidence, and azgument of the parties, both written and oral, presented during the hearing held on August 9, 2001, and having reviewed Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, Decision and Order; the Office of Planning's ("OP") Response to the Petitioner's Draft Proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decision and Order; Petitioner's and the County of Hawai i Planning Department's Stipulation for Proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, Decision and Order; Petitioner's Reply to the Office of Planning's Response to the Petitioner's Draft Proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, Decision and Order filed on September 14, 2001; and the record herein, hereby makes the following findings of fact, conclusions of law, and decision and order: FINDINGS OF FACT PROCEDURAL MATTERS 1. On August 31, 1999, Petitioner filed the Petition, which included a Draft Environmental Assessment ("DEA") as required by section 343-5(a)(7), HRS. 2. Petitioner is a family limited partnership organized in the State of Hawaii. Its general partners are George N. Newton, Trustee of the Revocable Trust of George N. Newton dated Apri15, 1976, and Mary Jo Newton, Trustee of the Revocable Trust of Mary Jo Newton dated Apri15, 1976. The limited partners are the four adult -2- children of George and Mary Jo Newton (collectively, the "Newton Children"). Petitioner's mailing address is P. O. Box 426, Kailua, Hawai i 96734. 3. On September 23, 1999, the Commission met in Waikapu, Hawai i, to consider whether the anticipated effects as discussed in Petitioner's DEA to reclassify the Petition Area from the State Land Use Conservation District into the State Land Use Agricultural District constituted a "significant effect" pursuant to chapter 343, HRS. At the meeting, the Commission granted in part and denied in part Petitioner's Motion to Continue Action On Its Petition To Amend the Land Use District Boundary of the Conservation District Lodged on August 31,1999, filed on September 23, 1999. On October 12,1999, the Commission issued its written Order. 4. On November 15, 1994, the Petitioner filed a Supplement to the Petition, which included a Sup;~lement to the DEA. 5. On November 17, 1999, the Petitioner filed a Secondary Supplement to the DEA dated November 16,1999. 6. On November 18,1999, the Commission took a field trip to the Petition Area. 7. On November 19, 1999, the Commission met in Hilo, Hawaii, to continue its consideration of Petitioner's DEA. At the meeting, the Commission granted Petitioner's oral request to allow Petitioner additional time to supplement the DEA to 3- address concerns raised by the Commission and OP. On January 21, 2000, the Commission issued its written Order. 8. On January 21, 2000, Petitioner filed a Third Supplement to the Petition„ which included a revision to the DEA dated January 17, 2000. 9. On February 2, 2000, Petitioner filed a Fourth Supplement to the Petition, which included a Fourth Supplement to the DEA dated February 2, 2000. 10. On February 3, 2000, the Commission met in Hilo, Hawaz i, to continue its consideration of Petitioner's DEA. At the meeting, Petitioner filed a Fifth Supplement to the DEA dated February 2, 2000. The Commission requested that Petitioner provide the Commission with further information, including proposed conditions to mitigate potential impacts, to complete the prepazation of the DEA, pursuant to section 11-200-9(b)(2), HAR The Commission, upon its own motion, continued the meeting until such time that a revised and complete DEA was received from Petitioner. On February 18, 2000, the Commission issued its written Order. 11. On November 1, 2000, Petitioner filed an Amended Petition, which included an Amended DEA ("ADEA") dated October 30, 2000. 12. On December 8, 2000, the Commission met in Honolulu, Hawai `i, to continue its consideration of Petitioner's ADEA. At the meeting, the Commission made a preliminary determination of a finding of no significant impact for an environmental assessment. The Commission further required Petitioner to submit the ~l- ADEA with the assurances, clarifications, and other revisions noted and agreed to by Petitioner's counsel at the meeting relating to the size of the proposed project and the proactive measures Petitioner proposed to take to ensure against "significant effects" on the environment in the future. On January 24, 2001, the Commission issued its written Order. 13. On January 25, 2001, Petitioner filed a 1'~ Amendment to Amended Petition, which included an ADEA dated January 23, 2001. This ADEA reflected the assurances, clarifications, and other revisions previously agreed to by Petitioner's counsel. 14. The ADEA was subject to a 30day public review and rnmment period pursuant to section 343-5(c), HRS. The review and comment period ended on March 10, 2001. 15. ,Petitioner filed a Final Environmental Assessment ("FEA") with the Commission on Apri16, 2001. 16. On Apri119, 2001, the Commission met in Honolulu, Hawaii, to consider whether the anticipated effects as discussed in Petitioner's FEA to reclassify the Petition Area from the State Land Use Conservation District into the State Land Use Agricultural District constituted a "significant effect" pursuant to chapter 343, HRS. The Commission determined that the proposed action would not have a "significant effect" -5- on the environment and therefore did not requue an ElS. On June 5, 2001, the Commission issued its written Order. 17. The Comm,'.ccion conducted a preheating conference regazding the Petition on June 29, 2001, at which time exhibits and lists of witnesses were exchanged by the parties. 18. On June 22, 2001, the County of Hawai i submitted its Testimony of the County of Hawaii Planning Department in Support of the Petition. 19. On June 25, 2001, OP submitted its Testimony of the Office of Planning in Support of the Petition. 20. The Commission opened the hearing on the Petition on August 9, 2001, in Hilo, Hawaii, pursuant to notices published in the Honolulu Staz-Bulletin and the Hawaii Tribune-Herald on May 23, 2001. 21. No persons appeared to testify as public witnesses, and no written testimonies or letters were submitted. DESCRII'T'ION OF THE PETITION AREA 22. The Petition Area is located in the Upper Kukuau area, South Hilo, Hawaii, and is designated as Tax Map Key No: 2-4-08: pot. 33. The Petition Area is approximately 885.40 aces and consists of a portion of an approximately 1,645.823-acre parcel ("Propert}~') of unimproved land. The remaining approximately 760.423 acres of the Property is proposed to remain in the Conservation District ("Remainder Area"). -6- 23. The Petition Area is owned by Petitioner in fee simple. There are no ceded lands in the Petition Area. 24. The annual rainfall averages approximately 230 inches. 25. The U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service identifies the soils on the Petition Area as Keei Series (rKGD), extremely rocky muck. This soil consists of well-drained, thin organic material very dark brown muck up to about ]0 inches thick overlying pahoehoe lava bedrock. Permeability is slow, but water moves rapidly through cracks. Runoff is medium and its erosion hazard is slight. This soil is used mostly for pasture. Its Capability Classification is V17s, non-irrigated, which indicates that the soil, when not irrigated, has very severe limitations that make it unsuitable for cultivation and restrict its use largely to pasture or range, woodland or wildlife. 26. According to the State Department of Agriculture's Agricultural Lands of lmportance to the State of Hawaii Map, the Petition Area is unclassified. The Land Study Bureau's overall suitability rating for agricultural purposes classifies the Petition Area as "D" or "Poor," with the exception of a small portion of land at the northeast comer of the Petition Area classified as "E" or "Very Poor." 27. Although the Petition Area is still shown within the Hilo Forest Reserve on the United States Geological Survey maps, it is no longer in the current State forest reserve jurisdiction. The Petition Area was included in the Hilo Forest Reserve under a voluntary 30-year surrender agreement with the State of Hawaz i, formalized in -7- 1948. The Petition Area was subsequently withdrawn from the forest reserve by the State of Hawaii. 28. The Petition Area has changed over the yeazs from sugazcane production to forestry and grazing. 29. The Petition Area is primarily in forest and heavy shrub vegetation A modest amount of grazing occurs within the Petition Area by cattle from adjacent lands. 30. The Flood Insurance Rate Map prepazed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency designates the Petition Area as Zone X, an azea determined to be outside the 500-yeaz flood plain 31. A 150-foot-wide easement designated for electrical transmission line purposes runs partially along the northern boundary of the Petition Area. This easement serves the Hawaii Electric Light Company, Inc. site, which is located on the makai boundary of the Petition Area. 32. A 40-foot-wide unimproved access easement runs along the Petition Area's entire northern boundary. This easement can be accessed from Wilder Road and services the Petition Area and adjacent mauka subdivisions. 33. Puna Sugar Company, Ltd., formerly known as "Ola'a Sugaz Company; ' is the current holder of a right-of-way for one or more flumes granted by Akana Amelia Richardson in favor of Ola'a Sugar Company by instrument dated -S- November 5, 1900, recorded in the Bureau of Conveyances of the State of Hawaii in Liber 212, Page 747, as modified by Quitclaim Deed dated March 31, 1938. The abandoned flume and the dirt road which pazallels the route of the flume, commonly referred to as the "Ola'a Flume Road;' are located within the Petition Area. The Ola'a Flume Road connects Kaumana Drive and Stainback Highway, and delineates the approximate alignment of the future county secondary arterial The mauka boundary of the Petition Area also coincides with this route. PROPOSAL FOR RECLASSIFICATION 34. Petitioner requests reclassification of the Petition Area from the Conservation District to the Agricultural District in order to subdivide the Property into nine parcels, consisting of eight agricultural pazcels within the Petition Area, and one lazge conservation parcel being the Remainder Area. The eight agricultural lots will range in size from approximately 80 acres to 153 acres. 35. Petitioner proposes to distribute five of the agricultural lots to George and Mary Jo Newton, and each of the Newton Children. The three remaining agricultural lots will be sold to non-family members at fair mazket value as a means of offsetting the cost of the subdivision infrastructure improvements. The Remainder Area will be retained by Petitioner. -9- 36. Structural improvements on the Property would include up to eight residences within the Petition Area, and a possible residence, subject to the approval of the Boazd of Land and Natural Resources, on the Remainder Area. 37. Agricultural activities in the Petition Area would be for personal and limited commercial use. Potential limited agricultural activities include vegetable gardens, afros orchards, fnut or nut tree groves, greenhouse plant and flower nurseries, pasture or grazing. No large-scale agricultural production or operations are planned or will be allowed. 38. The proposed subdivision will be accessed by a private road to be constructed along an unimproved easement from Wilder Road, which is located approximately 2,900 feet below the eastern boundary of the Petition Area. Alternate access to the proposed subdivision would require the use and extension of an existing County of Hawai i Department of Water Supply 20-foot-wide service road. PETITIONER'S FINANCIAL CAPABILITY TO UNDERT E THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 39. Petitioner owns the Petition Area free of any mortgages or liens. 40. The income received from the sale of three of the eight agricultural lots will be used to offset the construction expense for the infrastructure improvements. These pazcels will be sold after the County approves plans for the proposed roadway and utilities, and bonding of the improvements is completed. -lo- STATE AND COUNTY PLANS AND PROGRAMS 41. The Petition Area is designated within the State Land Use Conservation District, as reflected on the Commission's official map, H~1 (Pi'ihonua), and is located in the Resource Subzone. 42. The Hawaii County General Plan Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide ("LUPAG") Map designates the Petition Area as Conservation, which includes forest and water reserves, natural and scientific preserves, open azea and lands within the State Land Use Conservation District. The LUPAG Map designates the azea immediately to the north and east of the Petition Area as Orchards, and to the south and west as Conservation Those azeas have been designated as such since the adoption of the 1971 General Plan Under the current General Plan Revision Program, the Petition Area is proposed to be designated Extensive Agricultural. 43. Land immediately to the northeast of the Petition Area is County- zoned Agricultural (A-l0a and A-20a), and land to the southeast is Agricultural (A-20a and A-3a). Land to the south of the Petition Area is in the Upper Waiakea Forest Reserve. NEED FOR DEVELOPMENT 44. Although the uses proposed for the Petition Area will not duectly address affordable housing needs for the general public, they do meet the needs of a -11- smaller segment of the mazket by providing affordable opportunities for members of the Newton Family to become homeowners in Hawaii SOCIAL IMPACTS 45. The community surrounding the Petition Area is characteristically country and serene, with large pazcels of.agricultural lands, open space, forest reserves, and rural residences. The proposed subdivision will be consistent with the type and density of development in the area. 46. Based on the Waal and agricultural nature of the proposed subdivision, it is not expected to significantly impact or change the social character of the area. ECONOMIC IMPACTS 47. The proposed subdivision will involve residential and small-scale agricultural use for which residual sales are expected to be very small. Commercial agricultural use will be limited and is not expected to serve as the primary source of income for the residents. 48. The value of the land is expected to increase after the infrastructure is installed, resulting in increased government revenues from property taxes. 49. The proposed subdivision is not expected to result in any significant adverse economic impacts and will likely generate increased revenues for the State and County governments. '-12- IMPACTS UPON RESOURCES OF THE AREA Aericultural Resources 50. The proposed subdivision will not have any adverse impact upon agricultural resources or productivity. The reclassification of the Petition Area will allow for limited agricultural activities. ' Flora and Favna 51. The Property supports three kipuka: two in the Petition Area and one in the Remainder Area. The kipuka in the Remainder Area is the lazgest and most significant. 52. The'aku'aku (c~anea platwhvllal is the only species of flora listed as a protected species by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ("USFWS") that was located on the Property, and only a single species was found in the Remainder Area. No USFWS protected species were located in the Petition Area, which is dominated by alien species and was used in the past for grazing and possibly logging. In addition, areas in the Petition Area where wetland vegetation indicator species were identified were not large enough to require planning considerations. 53. The proposed improvements will involve clearing of approximately 42 acres (or 5 percent) of the SS5.40-acre Petition Area for residences, agricultural activities, and infrastructure and therefore will have an insignificant impact on the Petition Area's vegetation. -13- 54. Various bird and mammal species exist on the Properly. Two endemic bird species, the Hawaiian Hawk and the Hawaiian Hoary Bat, were both sighted on the Property. Any further clearing or improvements in the Petition Area is not anticipated to have a significant impact on native or federally protected avian or mammalian spe~es, including the Hawaiian Hawk and the Hawaiian Hoary Bat, given the small amount of clearing and improvements proposed. Archaeological/Historic Resources 55. Paul H. Rosendahl, Ph.D., Inc. ("PHRI") conducted inspection level field work of the Petition Area. There aze no archaeological or cultural sites or features of any kind in the Petition Area. Based on the historical sugazcane cultivation on the Petition Area, significant azchaeological/historic sites aze unlikely to have survived. 56. PHRI also consulted with four individuals recognized by the local native Hawaiian community as knowledgeable in various aspects of traditional Hawaiian culture. The purpose of the consultation was to determine if any native Hawaiian cultural practitioners might currently be exercising traditional and customary access and use rights within the Petition Area, or might have knowledge of any specific cultural sites or areas within the Petition Area that might qualify as legitimate traditional cultural properties. No valued cultural or natural resources have been identified in the Petition Area and no traditional and customary native Hawaiian rights -14- aze exercised in the Petition Area. Since such resources and activities have not been identified, they will not be affected or impaired by the proposed subdivision 57. The Ola'a flume system has been determined to be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion D (a site that has yielded, or is likely to yield, information important in local history). The proposed subdivision is designed to respect the alignment of the facility and keep it intact so that no adverse impact would result. Groundwater Resources 58. The Petition Area does not contain any perennial streams or lakes. The groundwater under the Petition Area is approximately 800 feet below the site. 59. The Petition Area is in the Hilo Aquifer System of the Northeast Mauna Aquifer Sector. The proposed subdivision is expected to draw water from the County water system for domestic and limited agricultural uses, to be supplemented by rainwater. 60. Due to the limited improvements proposed in the Petition Area, the use of individual wastewater disposal units or the use of fertilizers or pesticides for yard maintenance and limited agricultural activities is not anticipated to adversely impact groundwater resources. -15- Recreational/Scenic/Resources 61. There are no recreational resources, azeas, or sites known in the Petition Area. 62. The proposed subdivision will be slow-profile, low-density development which will not significantly change the visual or scenic characteristics of the Petition Area. Petitioner will establish design guidelines for residences and common azeas of the subdivision to insure development compatibility with the natural beauty of the area. Coastal/Aquatic Resources 63. The Petition Area is located five miles from the coast, and therefore the proposed subdivision will not have any negative impact or effect on any coastal or aquatic resources. ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES Noise 64. During construction, short-term or temporary noise is expected to be generated by site preparation activities for the subdivision access road and utilities. Construction of infrastructure will require the use of tractors, dump trucks, pavers, rollers, backhoes, scrapers and cranes. These heavy equipment will generate noise that could be audible to the nearest neighboring residents.. No blasting, however, is -16- anticipated. Dwelling construction will generate minor noise which may not be audible to adjacent properties except on very quiet days. 65. Mitigation measures, if necessary, will be employed to reduce or lessen the impact of noise on nearby residents. These measures would include installation of noise suppressant devices, such as muffler;, on heavy noise-generating machinery or equipment, and work schedules that aze arranged for daylight hours. Existing dense vegetation surrounding the site will provide a natural sound barrier for the Petition Area and with greater distance between the site and nearest neighboring residences, the impact from construction would be minimal. 66. Operational noise would be minimal when residents occupy their homes and engage in some form of agricultural activity. Lazge-scale commercial farming, mass agricultural production, and large-scale recreational activities aze not expected to occur. Air Quality 67. It is anticipated that during construction, the proposed subdivision will generate construction-related dust. This would be particularly evident during the site prepazation stage when clearing, grubbing and grading occur. Dust would be generated when underground utilities are installed and landscaping is put in place. Emissions would also be generated from construction equipment operations as well as employee and contractor vehicles traveling to and from the site. The azea of -17- construction will occur primarily along the access road and around the homes which aze expected to be sited neaz the internal road. 68. Construction-generated dust would be wntrolled by water sprinkling, dust screens, or other measures prescribed by the Chief Engineer of the County of Hawaii. Equipment used for on-site construction will emit some air pollutants via engine exhausk Thus, such equipment will be properly maintained by the contractor to maximize fuel rnmbustion efficiency and m~n;mi~e excessive emissions from heavy equipment exhaust pipes. 69. After construction is completed, the long-term impacts from residential and minor agricultural uses would be minimal. These impacts will be relatively low in comparison to specified State and National ambient air quality standards. Water Qualm 70. Fertilizers and pesticides will be used for yazd maintenance purposes and limited agricultural activities. Large-scale commercial agricultural ventures will not be permitted. The impact on groundwater from chemical uses, thus, would not be any more than what other domestic agricultural activities generate in the area. -18- ADEQUACY OF PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES Highway and Roadway Services 71. Access to the proposed subdivision will be provided by Wilder Road, a two-lane, 24-foot-wide paved County road, which extends from Kaumana Drive. Kaumana Drive is the major mauka-malcai right-of-way that connects Hilo and West Hawaii via the saddle betwe~ Mauna Kea and Mauna Loa. 72. The proposed subdivision, which is limited to eight residential lots, will have little impact on local roadways, which are presently well below the capacity of the right-of-way. No more than 29 trips (one way) per day are anticipated to be generated by residents of the proposed subdivision. This represents a small fraction of the existing traffic on Wilder Road and Kaumana Drive. Water Service 73. Water is currently available via an 8-inch line along Wilder Road. Approximately 5,400 gallons of water per day (based on County standazds) will be required to service the domestic needs of the proposed subdivision. There will be little to no need to use County water for irrigation purposes. 74. Petitioner intends to maned to the 12-inch gravity line at least 100 feet below the County reservoir and pump water to the Petition Area through a 4-inch transmission line located within Petitioner's proposed access easement. There is sufficient water available to service the proposed subdivision from the primary and -19- secondary wells in the azea. None of these sources is expected to be negatively impacted by the proposed subdivision Wastewater Disposal 75. The Petition Area is not presently serviced by a public wastewater collection system. Privately-funded individual wastewater disposal units will be utilized to serve the proposed subdivision Drainage 76. The Petition Area does not rnntain any gulches, major drainage ways, promontories, or rock cliffs. The Petition Area contains soil that is well-drained, thin in depth, and overlying pahoehoe lava. The lava is not very permeable, but water moves rapidly through the cracks. On other occasions, water will not drain as fast and will stay in the azea a little ]onger. 77. Best Management Practices will be used during construction of the proposed subdivision to control erosion and prevent runoff from damaging native forest resources. Roadway improvements will be minimized; no curbs, gutters, or sidewalks will be constructed. Drainage will occur over natural swales. Solid Waste Disposal 78. The Petition Area is not presently serviced by a solid waste collection and disposal system. -20- 79. Solid waste rnllection and disposal for the proposed subdivision will be handled by a private contractor, or in the alternative, each pazcel owner will be responsible for the disposal of his or her own solid waste. 80. The proposed subdivision is not expected to generate a significant amount of additional solid waste. Existing landfill and/or transfer stations aze adequate to accommodate the solid waste generated by the residents of the proposed subdivision Schools 81. The educational needs of any children residing in the proposed subdivision will be provided by Hilo High, Hilo Intermediate, and Kaumana Elementary schools. Each of these schools has adequate resources to acrnmmodate the small number of additional students that may move into the proposed subdivision Police and Fire Protection 82. Police protection will be provided to the proposed subdivision by the Hawaii County Police Department. The nearest police station is the Hilo Police Station located on Kapiolani Street in the central business district. Fue protection will be provided to the proposed subdivision by the Hawaii County Fire Depaztment. Fire emergency calls will be accommodated by the Kaumana Fire Station located on Kaumana Drive, with assistance from the Central Fire Station in downtown Hilo, if necessazy. -21- Electrical Utility Services 83. The electrical power and telephone service demand for the proposed subdivision is expected to be small, and will be provided via overhead lines from Wilder Road where HELCO and GTE Hawaiian Tel lines are currently available. CONIIyIITMENT OF STATE FUNDS AND RESOURCES 84. The conceptual plan for the proposed subdivision includes the privately funded development of all basic infrastruchue needed to serve the subdivision The proposed subdivision does not call for a substantial commitment of government-supplied services or facilities. CONFORMANCE TO AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT STANDARDS S5. The proposed reclassification of the Petition Area conforms to the State Land Use Agricultural District standards set forth in section 15-15-19, HAR, in the following respects: a. The Petition Area is already in limited pasture use and such use can be expanded if more acreage is opened for cattle grazing. b. The Petition Area is contiguous to agriculture zoned lands. c. The Petition Area is suitable for limited timber production. -22- CONFORMANCE WITH THE GOALS, OBTECTTVES AND POLICIES OF THE HAWAII STATE PLAN: RELATIONSHIP WITH APPLICABLE PRIORITY GUIDELINES AND FUNCTIONAL PLANS f36. The proposed reclassification of the Petition Area generally conforms to the following goals, objectives, priorities and policies of the Hawaii State Plan, as defined in chapter 226, HRS: a. Section 226-11. HRS, Land-Based, Shoreline and Marine Resources. Approximately 42 acres of the land in the Petition Area (or 5 percent of the Petition Area) will be improved or developed. This will n,;n;n,i~e the impact on the natural character of the area as well as to promote conservation practices. Rural or agricultural standards, in lieu of urban standards, for road and utility improvements will be utilized to ensure compatibility with the surrounding environment. b. Section 226-12, HRS, Scenic. Natural Beauty and Historic Resources. This project is aloes-profile, low-density development. The visual characteristics of the Petition Area will not significantly change. Improvements will be designed to complement the scenic qualities of the area. Unobtrusive, low-key design elements will be used for the farm dwellings. c. Section 226-13, HRS, Land. Air and Water OualitX. Improvements are intended to have a minimal effect on the environment, including land and water resources. There will be no curbs, gutters, or sidewalks (drainage will -23- occur over natural swales). Grading and construction will result in less alteration to the land. Groundwater resources will not be noticeably impacted. d. Section 226-15, HRS. Solid and Liquid Wastes. The proposed subdivision is not expected to be a major generator of solid and liquid waste. Recycling green waste as mulch for backyard gardens or crops, re-using bottles and cans as storage containers, and applying scrap wood as fuel or wood repair projects will be undertaken by members of the Newton Family. e. Section 226-16, HRS. Water. Rainfall in the vicinity is abundant. Catchment tanks or basins will be used. The county water system would provide only for the domestic needs in the Petition Area. f. Section 226-19, HRS. Housing. The proposed subdivision meets the needs of providing affordable housing to the Newton Children. The Petition Area is located minutes away from public facilities and services. g. Section 226-104, HRS, Population Growth and Land Resources Priorit~Guidelines. Off-site and on-site infrastructure will be developed using private funds. Most of the Petition Area will be maintained in its natural condition, preserving open space and the rural character of the azea. The Remainder Area will remain in the Conservation District, thereby maintaining critical environmental areas. -24- 87. The proposed reclassification of the Petition Area generally conforms to the following functional plans: a. State Agriculture Functional Plan (19911. The proposed subdivision will have no negative impact on important agricultural lands. The proposed subdivision puts additional lands into agricultural use on a limited scale. Relatively high rainfall provides natural irrigation reducing dependence on county potable water for use in irrigation. b. State Conservation Lands Functional Plan (1991). Most of the Petition Area will be maintained in its natural condition The Remainder Area will remain in the Conservation District, thereby maintaining critical environmental areas. c. State Historic Preservation Functional Plan (1991). An azchaeological assessment was conducted of the Petition Area, which included a review and evaluation of azchaeological and historical documents, including archival literature, legends, records, boundary awards, and cartographic sources relative to the Petition Area, an inspection level fieldwork, and a written report. Should any previously unidentified azchaeological/historic resources be encountered, they will be protected and preserved by Petitioner, as required by the State Historic Preservation Division ("SHPD"). Follow-up research and an evaluation report on cultural concerns was also prepared and submitted to SHPD. The proposed subdivision would not have any significant or adverse effect on cultural practices or sites. -25- d. State Housing Functional Plan. The proposed subdivision meets the needs of providing affordable housing to the Newton Children. CONFORMANCE WITH COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT OBTECTTVES AND POLICIES 88. The proposed reclassification on the Petition Area generally conforms to the following objectives and policies: a. Recreational Resources. The proposed subdivision does not interfere with any existing or planned recreational opportunities along the shoreline. Public access to coastal recreational resources will not be obstructed or interfered with b. Historic Resources. An archaeological assessment was conducted, which included a review and evaluation of archaeological and historical documents, including archival literature, legends, records, boundary awards, and cartographic sources relative to the Petition Area, an inspection level fieldwork, and a written report. Should any previously unidentified azchaeological/historic resources be encountered, they will be protected and preserved by Petitioner, as required by the SHPD. c. Sren1C and Open Space Resources. The proposed subdivision is slow-profile, low-density project with very large lots. Only a small portion of the Petition Area will be developed with farm dwellings and limited -26- agricultural activities. The Remainder Area will remain in its natural state and maintain e~dsting scenic qualities and visual corridors. d. Coastal Ecosystems. Inventory studies of appropriate resources on the Petition Area have been conducted, and an assessment of the proposed subdivision anticipated impacts on the natural resources has been undertaken The valuable coastal ecosystems of the island's coastline and marine waters will not be disrupted. There are no stream waters on the Petition Area that will discharge into the ocean The proposed subdivision will comply with existing State water quality standards. e. Ewnomic Uses. The proposed subdivision will not interfere with coastal dependent activities, including their social, visual, and environmental qualities. f. Coastal Hazards. There is no danger from tsunami inundation, storm waves, shoreline erosion and coastal subsidence. There are no streams or rivers on the Petition Area, thus no riverine flooding is anticipated. The Petition Area is not located in any flood designated areas. g. Managin¢ Development. The proposed subdivision is not a coastal development. However, through the environmental review process and the Commission's proceedings, public participation in the plann;ng and review process has been facilitated. -27- h. Public Participation. The Commission's process for consideration of the Petition has been consistent with objectives to stimulate public awareness, education, and participation i. Beach Protection The proposed subdivision is located more than five miles from the shoreline and will not impact shoreline resowces. No shoreline erosion-protection structures aze proposed and no interference with existing recreational and waterline activities is antiapated. j. Marine Resowces. The proposed subdivision is not located near coastal and mazine resowces. It will not have any impact with respect to efforts to promote the protection, use, and development of such resowces to asswe their sustainability. RULING ON PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT Any of the proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner or the other parties not akeady ruled upon by the Commission by adoption herein, or rejected by clearly contrary findings of fact herein, aze hereby denied and rejected. Any conclusion of law herein improperly designated as a finding of fact should be deemed or construed as the conclusion of law; any findings of fact herein improperly designated as a conclusion of law should be deemed or construed as a finding of fact. -ZS- CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Pursuant to chapter 205, HRS, and the Hawai i Land Use Commission Rules under chapter 15-15, HAR, and upon consideration of the Land Use Commission decision-making criteria under section 205-17, HRS, this Commission finds upon a clear preponderance of the evidence that the reclassification of the Petition Area, rnnsistitg of approximately 885.40 acres of land in the State Land Use Conservation District at Kukuau, South Hilo, Hawaii, identified as Tax Map Key No: 2-08: por. 33, into the State Land Use Agricultural District, is reasonable, conforms to the standards for establishing the Agricultural District boundaries, is non-violative of section 205-2, HRS, and is consistent with the Hawaii State Plan as set forth in chapter 226, HRS, and with the policies and criteria established pursuant to sections 205-17 and 205A-2, HRS. DECISION AND ORDER IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Petition Area being the subject of this Docket No. A99-729 filed by Petitioner The Newton Family Limited Partnership, consisting of approximately 885.40 acres of land in the State Land Use Conservation District at Kukuau, South Hilo, Hawai i, identified as Tax Map Key No: 2-4-08: por. 33, and approximately shown on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and by this reference made a part hereof, is hereby reclassified into the State Land Use Agricultural District, and the State land use district boundaries are amended accordingly. -29- Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law stated herein, it is hereby determined that no customary and traditional native Hawaiian rights and practices have been identified in the Petition Area, and that the proposed reclassification will therefore not significantly affect or impair the exercise of such rights and practices. The reclassification of the Petition Area shall be subject to the following conditions: 1. The proposed subdivision will be restricted to a maximum of S lots, with a minimum lot size of 80 acres. Each deed conveying title to a subdivided lot will include a 20-year restriction commencing upon final subdivision approval against further subdivision, and a general prohibition against lazge-scale commercial agriculture operations, animal hospitals, campgrounds and other similaz open azea recreational activities, mausoleums, group living facilities, golf rnurses, golf driving ranges, golf maintenance facilities, and golf clubhouse, adult care homes, community buildings, day caze centers, hospitals, stadiums and sports azenas and schools. ' 2. Endangered birds and bats, including the Hawaiian Hawk and the Hawaiian Bat, have been observed in the Petition Area. Petitioner and its successors shall implement mitigation measures to avoid any negative effects to existing rare, endangered or threatened species. Such mitigation measures will include leaving any -30- large stands of native forest trees and clusters of native vegetation intact, and focusing residential sites to azeas that were previously sleazed and inrnrporating the use of native plants in landscaping plans. Petitioner and its successors shall not develop the Petition Area into a project which would change the overall character of the azea or generate major increases in resident population. Petitioner and its successors shall preserve the existing lowland native forest, and protect the Hawaiian Hawk and the Hawaiian Bat. Any such protection or mitigation measures that aze initiated shall be first approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the State Department of Land and Natural Resources. 3. Prior to sleazing and grubbing the alignment for the subdivision roadway and utilities, Petitioner will stake the centerline for the proposed access road, conduct a500-meter wide survey of the proposed roadway alignment to assure that there are no Hawaiian Hawk and/or Hawaiian Bat nests in the azea. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ("USFWS") and the State Department of Land and Natural Resources will be provided with a copy of the results of such survey and consulted as to the need for any mitigating or conservation measures. 4. Petitioner, developers, and/or landowners shall minimize the use of night lights and shield all exterior lighting and light sources to mitigate the downing of Pelagic seabirds that may fly over the Property to return to their nesting colonies on the upper slopes of Mauna Kea. -31- 5. Theze are kipuka in the Petition Area which hazbor native forest. Petitioner and its successors shall implement conservation measures such as leaving large stands of native forest trees and clusters of native vegetation within the Petition Area intact, wntaining residential sites to areas previously sleazed, maintaining the Remainder-Area (azea above the Ola'a Flume Road) in Conservation, utilizing a grading plan that will leave undisturbed the stands of forest in the makai pazcel that extend into the Petition Area to as low as the 1,600-foot level as a buffer for the Remainder Area. The grading plan shall be approved by the State Department of Land and Natural Resources, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, and any other appropriate governmental agencies. 6. Best management practices will be used during construction to control erosion and prevent runoff from damaging native forest resources. 7. Petitioner and its successors shall complete, prior to any land alteration, an archaeological inventory survey of the acreage that would be disturbed by any specific development, including roadway, driveway, house site and agricultural site. The survey results will be provided to the DLNR State Historic Preservation Division (SHPD) and the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) for review and comment. Subsequent work shall proceed upon clearance from the SHPD. This condition shall be included in all sales documents pertaining to the lots in the proposed subdivision and in each deed conveying title to a subdivided lot. -32- 8. To the extent that any archaeological sites aze located on the Petition Area, Petitioner and its successors shall work with SHPD in developing a data ' recovery/ mitigation/ preservation plan. This plan will include input from the local native Hawaiian community and relevant Hawauan groups, including the OHA. The plan shall be approved by SHPD, and a certified mpy thereof filed with the Commission, prior to any land alteration affecting such sites. This condition shall be included in all sales documents pertaining to the lots in the proposed subdivision and in each deed conveying title to a subdivided lot 9. Petitioner and its successors shall immediately stop work and contact SHPD should any previously unidentified azchaeological resources such as artifacts, human burials, rock alignments, pavings or walls be enwuntered during the development of the proposed subdivision. This condition shall be included in all sales documents pertaining to the lots in the proposed subdivision and in each deed conveying title to a subdivided lot. 10. In connection with the subdivision of the Petition Area, Petitioner shall, if necessary, dedicate to the County of Hawaii an 80-foot right-of-way located near the Ola'a flume system to accommodate the County~s planned secondary arterial. 11. Petitioner and its successors shall fund and construct adequate individual wastewater transmission and disposal facilities, as determined by the -33- County of Hawaii Department of Public Works (DPW) and the State Department of Health (DOH). 12. Petitioner and its successors prior to any construction activities, including grading or grubbing, shall consult with the Department of the Army (DA) to determine if a DA permit will be required and to ensure compliance of development plans with the Federal Emergency Management Agency. 13. Petitioner and its successors shall provide written notification to all prospective buyers of proposed lots within the proposed subdivision of the potential odor, noise, and dust pollution resulting from surrounding Agricultural District land. 14. Petitioner and its successors shall notify all prospective buyers of the proposed lots within proposed subdivision that the Hawaii Right-to-Farm Act, Chapter 165, Hawaii Revised Statutes, limits the circumstances under which pre- existing farm activities may be deemed a nuisance. 15. Petitioner and its successors shall fund the design and construction of drainage improvements required as a result of the development of the Petition Area to the satisfaction of federal, state, and county agencies. 16. ' Petitioner and its successors shall participate in the funding and construction of adequate water source, storage, and transmission facilities and improvements to accommodate the proposed project. Water transmission facilities and -34- improvements shall be coordinated and approved by appropriate state and county agencies. 17. Petitioner and its successors shall maintain the Remainder Area in Conservation and subject all development thereof to the approval of the State DLNR. 18. Petitioner shall develop the Petition Area in substantial compliance with the representations made to the Commission Failure to so develop the Petition Area may result in reversion of the Petition Area to its former classification, or change to a more appropriate classification. 19. Petitioner shall give notice to the Commission of any intent to sell, lease, assign, place in trust, or otherwise voluntarily alter the ownership interests in the Petition Area, prior to development of the Petition Area. 20. Petitioner shall timely provide without any prior notice, annual reports to the Commission, the Office of Planning, and the County of Hawaz i Planning Department in connection with the status of the subject project and Petitioner's progress in complying with the conditions imposed herein. The annual report shall be submitted in a form prescribed by the Executive Officer of the Commission 21. The Commission may fully or partially release the conditions provided herein as to all or any portion of the Petition Area upon timely motion and upon the provision of adequate assurance of satisfaction of these conditions by Petitioner. -35- 22. Within 7 days of the issuance of the Commission's Decision and Order for-the subject reclassification, Petitioner shall (a) record with the Bureau of Conveyances a statement that the Petition Area is subject to conditions imposed by the Land Use Commission in the reclassification of the Petition Area, and (b) shall file a copy of such recorded statement with the Commission. 23. Petitloner shall record the conditions imposed herein by the Commission with the Bureau of Conveyances pursuant to Section 15-15-92 Hawaii Administrative Rules. All such conditions shall run with the land. Done at Honolulu, Hawaii, this 15th day of November 2001, per motion on November 15 2001 BAYS, DEA;V~ER, LUNG, ROSE & BABA OFFICE OF PLANNING By ~ ~erti"'~ By A. BERNARD BAYS, ESQ. DAVID W. BL E Attorney for Petitioner Directo COUNTY OF HAWAII PLANNING DEPARTMENT B ~o ~ PHER J. YUE Planning Director -36- SO ORDERED: LAND USE COMMISSION STATE OF HAWAII By absent MERLE A. K KELAI Chairperson and Commissioner By LAWRENCE N.C G Vice Chairperson and Commissioner gy P. ROY CATALANI Commissioner By BR A. OPP 'ssioner ~ ~ By DESAI Co/m~missioner By .~(mA-- ISAAC FIESTA, JR Commissioner By 4~ M. CASEY J Commissioner 37- By absent STANLEY ROEHRIG Commissioner By~l PETER' [JKARIJRA Commissioner APPROVF,'~.S TO FORM: Filed and effective on November 16 ,2001 Certified by: D puty Attomey~IGle/Ineral Executive Offic -38- 0 um subdivision Kauma D~ Kaumana HIIA Homestea CO - A T m 0 a 0 ai APPROVED AREA 0 9 Y T r C m 0 v N ° A A99.729 THE NEWTON FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, LOCATION A Hawaii Limited Partnership _ MAP Location Mep ' Tax Map Key: 2-4-1)B: por. 33 ~ - ' , Kukuau, South Hib, Hawaii ~ Scale: t" ~ 2,000. h. IiAWAI'I E:X4tIBIT "A" BEFORE THE LAND USE COMMLSSION OF THE STATE OF HAWAII In the Matter of the Petition of ) DOCKET NO. A99-729 THE NEWTON FAMILY LIlVIITED ) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE PARTNERSHIP, a Hawaii limited ) partnership ) To Amend the Conservation Land Use ) District Boundary into the Agricultural Land) Use District for Approximately 885.40 Acres ) of Land at Kukuau, South Hilo, F~awai'i, ) TMK No: 211-08: por. 33 ) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decision and Order was served upon the following by either hand delivery or depositing the same in the U. S. Postal Service by certified mail: DAVID W. BLAKE, Director DEL. Office of Planning P. O. Box 2359 Honolulu, Hawaii 96804-2359 CHRISTOPHER YUEN, Planning Director CERT. Planning Department, County of Hawaii 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, Hawaii %720 LINCOLN ASHIDA, ESQ. CERT. Corporation Counsel County of Hawaii The Hilo Lagoon Center 101 Aupuni Street, Suite 325 Hilo, Hawaii %720 A. BERNARD BAYS, ESQ., Attorney for Petitioner CERT. Bays, Deaver, HiatX, Lung & Rose 1099 Alakea Street,16th Floor Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, this 16th day of November 2001. ANTHO CHING U Executive fficer -2- Environmental Assessment and Support Document for Land Use Commission Petition Proposed Family Subdivision The Newton Family Property Hilo, Hawaii 11 Environmental Assessment and Support Document for Land Use Commission Petition Proposed Family Subdivision The Newton Family Property Hilo, Hawaii TMK 2-4-08:33, Third Division Prepared for: The Newton Family Limited Partnership Hawaii Prepnred by: Belt Collins Hawaii Honolulu, Hawaii 1/ TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION 1 Petitioner 1 Authorization Being Sought 1 Statutory Provision Allowing Authorization 6 II. APPROVING AGENCY 6 III. AGENCIES, COMMUNITY GROUPS AND PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS CONSULTED 6 IV. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION'S CHARACTERISTICS 8 Proposed Action and Reclassification Request 8 Description of the Proposed Improvements 9 Selling Price and Intended Market 10 Improvement Schedule 10 Construction Cost 10 V. NEED FOR PROJECT 11 Demand for Proposed Parcels 11 Market Absorprion Rate 11 VI. DESCRIPTION OF THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 12 Regional and Project Area Setting 12 Existing Land Use 13 Land Tenure 15 Physiography 16 Geology 16 Climate 16 Soils 18 Agricultural Potential 18 Hydrology 23 Fauna 25 Flora 28 Archaeological/Cultural Sites 35 Noise 38 Air Quality 39 Natural Hazards 39 Visual 41 i TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) VII. SOCIO-ECONOMIC 41 Local Economy 41 Economic Impact 41 Relationship of Project to Housing Needs of Low, Low-Medium, and Gap Groups 43 Social Characteristics 43 CommunityIssues 43 VIII. PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES 44 Circulation 44 Traffic 47 Water 48 Sewer 48 Electricity and Telephone 49 Solid Waste 49 Police and Fire Protection 49 Medical Facilities 50 Schools 50 Parks and Recreation 50 IX. RELATIONSHII' TO STATE AND COUNTY LAND USE POLICIES 51 State Land Use Law 51 The Hawaii State Plan (Chapter 226, HRS) 54 Applicable Priority Guidelines 58 State Environmental Policies 59 State Functional Plans 60 Hawaii Coastal Zone Management Program 62 County General Plan 67 County Zoning b9 Special Management Area 69 County Subdivision Ordinance 71 Required Permits and Approvals 71 X. SUMMARY OF MAJOR IMPACTS 71 XI. RELATIONSHIP OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, OTHER PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IN THE AREA AND ALTERNATIVE USES FOR THE PROPERTY 72 XII. PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES 73 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) XIII. DETERMINATION 74 XIV. FINDINGS AND REASONS SUPPORTING DETERMINATION 74 XV. AGENCY COMMENTS AND OWNER'S RESPONSES 76 XVI. REFERENCES 78 XVII. APPENDICES 80 LIST OF FIGURES 1. Location Map 2 2. Project Vicinity 3 3. Project Site 4 4. Proposed Subdivision 5 5. Existing Land Use 14 6. Existing Site Condition 17 7. Soil Classification 19 8. Agricultural Lands of Importance to the State of Hawaii 20 9. Overall Suitability Rating UH Land Study Bureau 22 10. Vegetation Map 29 11. Infrared Aerial Photo of Existing Vegetation 30 12. Detailed Access Plan 45 13. State Land Use District 52 14. County General Plan 68 15. County Zoning 70 LIST OF TABLES 1. Identified Soils Surrounding the Property 18 2. Avian Species Recorded in the Makai Area 25 3. Avian Species Recorded in the Mauka Area 26 4. Recorded Rare Plants on the Property 32 5. Required Permits and Approvals for Proposed Improvements 71 iii L INTRODUCTION Petitioner The petitioner is The Newton Family Limited Partnership, a Hawaii limited partnership (hereinafter referred to as "The Newton Family'). Its general partners are George N. Newton, Trustee of the Revocable Trust of George N. . Newton dated April 5, 1976, and Mary Jo Newton, Trustee of the Revocable Trust of Mary Jo Newton dated April 5, 1976. The limited partners are the four adult children of George and Mary Jo Newton (the children and George and Mary Jo Newton are hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Newton Children"). The mailing address of The Newton Family is P.O. Box 426, Kailua, Hawaii 96734. The subject property ("Property") is located in the Resource Subzone of the Conservation District. It consists of approximately 1,645.823 acres situated in Kukuau, Southwest Hilo, Island and County of Hawaii, State of Hawaii (see Figure 1). The Property is identified as Tax Map Key 2-4-08: 33, Third Division. The Newton Family has owned the Property since 1998. Prior thereto, the Property was owned by George and Mary Jo Newton for approximately 20 years. The portion of the Property which is the subject of this Petition (hereinafter referred to as the "Petition Area") consists of approximately 885.40 acres situated on the makai side of the Property (see Figures 2 & 3). The Petition Area is located on State Land Use District (LUD) Boundaries Map No. H-21. Authorization Being Sought The Newton Family is requesting the State Land Use Commission (SLUG) to amend the LUD Boundary of the Conservation District in order to reclassify the Petition Area from Conservation to Agricultural. Approval of this reclassification request would enable The Newton Family to subdivide the Property (see Figure 4) into 9 parcels, consisting of 8 agricultural parcels within the Petition Area and 1 large conservation parcel being the remaining area of the Property (hereinafter the "Remainder Area'). The Newton Family will distribute 5 of the 8 agricultural parcels to the Newton Children. The three remaining agricultural parcels will be sold in the market place to third parties as a means to defray the cost of the subdivision infrastructure improvements. The selling price for the 3 parcels has not yet been determined but will be offered at the fair market value when the lots are placed on sale. The Remainder Area is intended to be kept by the Family and will be left in the Conservation District. 1 a~cl,s~eobo~t n.sael xi To~ Ftonokaa HILO • ISLANO OF HAWAH m E.To PanaMdoa Kaumena Gry SubdiWsbn w~en4eq~e THE NEWTON ~spc. ~ PROPERITY K~Gmana Homesteads ~~JFO r ~ 1 Hib Country ib 1 Cbb Estates y Intematlonal Airport Wilder Road REMAINDER AREA ~ PARS DN Wa~k~ H I LO 1 Homesteads 1 1 1 1 Future Coumy--yl Secondary Arterial 1 ~ c 1 Stainback Road ~ 1 1 ~ A a 1 0 1 ~ TO HaWeb VdCal10e8 [ 1 1 NalbnaV Pedt 1 W Figure 1 /l LOCATION MAP {~~(jJ~~ 0 7500 15,OW 1'he Newton family Property Q'~ Hilo. Hawaii NORTH SCALE IN FEET Belt Collins Haweli 2 893.9701Ytl01-Z x123.07 13 J _ I / ~ „n 7 ~ ~ ~ l 4 'tJ~`Jr~ f- - V ! i~ '/i ~'~,y ~ w ~ i 1. ^ < ~ g`~r i.'.~ lr~) ft, ; ~ ~r j~~7 l ' \ ,tip. i ;f~l; H ~ _ 3 1, ! wi..% rte' I1. ~ i~`~ ~ ~ i t~~Yr i ~ `~I1( ~ I t p /J J~r ~ ~ ^t ~ ~ ill y ~r~. ~ ~ r h'w r 11~ J 34 ~C1 a.~~~ " ~ ~.C'1"t`~`~7t A~C:c ^'r ,t~~ r~lt: ii Y-) ~ . q~wijp r' O - ~ .:'-L^.~ i i 'n\_, ~ i•~1~, l' ~ r J ~ I e/; ¢ ...rd's ~ ~ r ~Z ..r ; ~ i rl ~ ~ ~ < fir'/ / t"`\ J ~ :off I~~ i . ~ wee y ~I _ ~ ~7 ~ :r o p . j 'i O~O~O ~ ' ~E.i'~ ~°C' ~,Yfsc. : ~p i~ ZO~f~y e~-~1~~~~V`1~j/1y,~ry~ ' ~f ~ ~ r .4, ~ ~ )`~biif .,i r vTy`- tip. IY 1 .r"' S. 1 Y ~ J Fl, LLE p i i J ~f ~~r 1 ^'j..,. ~\l i. =JmW i .-~j~`--' ~ ~ r"'l \1^vti~\~f / _ _~y _ = Sir I a¢~S , ~/I' xf~' ~q~r~ ~ 'AS : =gad ~,~t- ~ G` L~1t~`e`[~S 22 L.. ~ f i '6 N Z f ' Z~ y / tea' o N ~.~yy ' 3 89J.3700004-0 x739.01 77 O 7N Q~ o~F a LLW ~ r m a m UW m . o~ Z I I~---- 3 3 ~'i ~ i ,m 0 _J LL 2 ~2. za~ a~ 00 00 00 0 00 / o Y oo ~o ~~O ~ ~ O o e e e e o O o oP o G o 0 0 0 0 0 mm f ~ O N¢ a I w= ~ ~ Oa~a j~ ?i~$ I 8 I w¢ w / I ~ °o u- i° ? o ~ z 4 sJS.a~aw~oz•io n.zs.o~ ss a~ ~ t * W~ `F~9 ~ B G 3 ¢p~~ ~ a~~ n JJ - 1 w s j.. f ~i r ¢p cal. e ~ - ' - t ~ ~y i' u t , .t w. a w- i ~ O ~~TTtt o ~ .,,C ,e~; ~ E L y r9's;? \ o~~ vim-\; = W ! S:•' 4 s tj\ 1 ~ ~ p u p$$ mzo ~ vv, ~ li I f g o ~ +J ~ F. / ~ i , ~ w e ` ~ l l ~ as ~ . - y ( J}' - ~ ~ V ,t s r _ _ ~ w o ~ - $ ~ r a _ J ~ ~ / S ~ L 1 r'. N ~ _ ~ f \,.r~oo .k g ~ Z 5 Statutory Provision Allowing Authorization Chapter 205, Section 4.0, Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS), specifies that "any person with a property interest in the land sought to be reclassified may petition the land use commission for a change in the boundary of a district. This section applies to all petitions for changes in district boundaries of lands within conservation districts and all petitions for changes in district boundaries involving lands greater than fifteen acres in the agricultural, rural, and urban districts, except as provided in section 201E-210." The Newton Family is the owner of the Property and desires to amend the LUD boundary of the Conservation District in order to reclassify only the Petition Area from Conservation to Agricultural. II. APPROVING AGENCY As provided above and in accordance with Chapter 205, Sections 1.0 and 7.0, HRS, the SLUC is authorized to process and act on a petition to amend a LUD Boundary. The SLUC is also the approving agency for the Environmental Assessment (EA) that is submitted with the petition. III. AGENCIES, COMMUNITY GROUPS AND PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS CONSULTED The following agencies and parties were consulted by telephone, in person or by correspondence during the preliminary preparation of the Draft EA. Those that commented on the project in writing have their letters included in Appendix A of. this document. Written responses were made to those who had substantive comments on the project and are included with the comment letters in the appendices. Federal Agencies Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior Natural Resources Conservation Service, Department of Agriculture U.S. Army Corps of Engineers State Agencies Department of Agriculture Department of Defense Department of Education Department of Hawaiian Home Lands Environmental Planning, Department of Health Forestry and Wildlife Division, Department of Land and Natural Resources Land Division, Department of Land and Natural Resources Na Ala Hele Program, Department of Land and Natural Resources 6 State Agencies (continued) Office of Environmental Quality Control, Department of Health Office of Hawaiian Affairs (Oahu and Hawaii Island Office) Office of Planning, Department of Business Economic Development & Tourism Highways Division, Planning Branch, Department of Transportation State Historic Preservation Division, Department of Land and Natural Resources UH Environmental Center UH Water Resources Research Center Coun~gencies Fire Department Parks and Recreation Department Planning Department Police Department Public Works Department Water Supply Department Utility Companies GTE Hawaiian Tel Hawaii Electric'Light Co Inc. Qr¢anizations and Resource People Hawaiian Civic Club Housing and Community Development Corporation of Hawaii Kanakaole Foundation Kepa Maly Charles Langlas, Ph.D. Nature Conservancy Outdoor Circle Sierra Club Elected Officials/Individuals Senator David Matsuura Representative Jerry L. Chang Representative Eric G. Hamakawa Councilmember Bobby Jean Leithead-Todd M10, Inc. 7 IV. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION'S CHARACTERISTICS Proposed Action and Reclassification Request The Newton Family is requesting to amend the LUD boundary of the Conservation District in order to reclassify the Petition Area from Conservation to Agricultural. This reclassification would enable The Newton Family to subdivide the Petition Area into eight large agricultural parcels ranging in size from approximately 80 acres to about 153 acres (see Figure 4). The Remainder Area will remain in Conservation and constitute a separate parcel from the Petition Area. As will be noted later in the Flora and Fauna Sections of this document, the Remainder Area, which is proposed to be kept in the Conservation District, has been found to be a habitat for a number of native species that would warrant conservation considerations. The Newton Family had originally planned to reclassify the entire Property to Agricultural. However, after reviewing its consultant flora and fauna studies, The Newton Family has revised its original plan and is now proposing to reclassify only the Petition Area which is about one-half (in the lower area) of the Property. The Remainder Area, which is in the mauka half of the Property, will remain in the Conservation District. Any improvements in the Remainder Area will continue to be subject to the State Board or Department of Land and Natural Resource's review and approval. Under the Agricultural District classification as proposed for the Petition Area, the parcel owners would be allowed to build farm dwellings and engage in agricultural activities. The specific agricultural activities allowed in the Petition Area will be determined by the zoning amendment adopted by the Hawaii County Council and the protective use covenants established by The Newton Family. Under the County agricultural zone, opportunities to engage in various types of agricultural activities would be available, but a number of activities which are considered inconsistent with The Newton Family plan for the Petition Area would be prohibited by the protective use covenants, including large- scale commercial tree farming or agricultural operations, animal hospitals, campgrounds and other similar open area recreational activities, mausoleums, group living facilities, golf courses and related facilities, adult care homes, churches, community buildings, day care centers, hospitals, stadiums and other sports arenas and schools. It is also the intent of The Newton Family to maintain aloes-density character on the land and avoid further development of the Petition Area. The Newton Family is committed to placing a 20-year restriction on further subdivision of each lot within the Property. The above provisions are included as part of the proposed project 8 and as conditions imposed on The Newton Family's Land Use District [LUD] Boundary Amendment Petition (See Appendix B). Description of the Proposed Improvements The proposed eight-parcel subdivision of the Petition Area is intended to provide future individual home sites for the Newton Children. Although the proposed parcels are large, the Newton Children are expected to use only a small portion of their respective parcels for a farm dwelling and possible agricultural activities leaving the large remainder of each parcel in its natural state. George and Mary Jo Newton have owned the Property since 1979 and hope that this modest subdivision of the Petition Area would allow each of the children to ultimately have a home on the Property. The present Conservation District classification allows, with the approval of the Board of Land and Natural Resources (BLNR), only one residence on the entire Property. As previously described, the proposed amendment to reclassify the Petition Area from Conservation to Agricultural will allow The Newton Family to subdivide its Property. The proposed subdivision will be served by a private access from Wilder Road, a County right-of-way that connects with Kaumana Drive. The access, which is located within an existing easement, is unimproved, however, and will require construction of a road. Alternatively, access may be provided from an existing County Water Supply Department (WSD) service road located near The Newton Family's existing access easement. This 3,000-foot- long alternative access will traverse three private properties (see Land Tenure section) before entering the Property from the northeast. It will utilize WSD's existing 1,600-foot-long paved road that currently serves a water reservoir. The paved road is located within a 60-foot-wide waterline and road easement. A portion of the above easement is also designated for utility and road purposes and extends mauka to Hawaii Electric Light Co Inc.'s (HELLO) 20- acre substation site at the eastern boundary of the Petition Area. The Newton Family is proposing to extend WSD's road over this easement to the HELLO site and into the Property. The new road will be constructed to County rural or agricultural standards and maintained as a private right-of-way. No curbs, gutters or sidewalks are planned. The private owner who owns the land beneath the existing WSD road and proposed road extension has preliminarily agreed to provide an access easement to the Property. WSD and HELLO indicated that the use and extension of the present road by The Newton Family are acceptable. In the long term, the County of Hawaii is planning to construct across- country secondary arterial connecting Kaumana Drive, Stainback Road and Volcano Road at Mountain View. The preliminary alignment of this new 9 right-of-way crosses The Newton Family Property at about its mid-point (see Figure 3). No development schedule has been projected for the right-of-way, but in the long .term, it will provide another access to the Property. Based on flora and fauna studies as described later in Section VI of this document and on the County's proposed alignment for the secondary arterial, The Newton Family believes it would be appropriate to delineate the proposed boundary between the Conservation District and Agricultural District along this future right-of-way. While water lines for the new parcels will be underground, electrical power and telephone lines will be overhead. Private wastewater disposal units will be required for the farm dwellings. At the entrance to the subdivision and immediately mauka of Wilder Road, The Newton Family is proposing a modest landscaped entry feature consisting of a small rock wall, decorative native plants and other minor improvements. Selling Price and Intended Market It is the intent of The Newton Family to transfer ownership of five agricultural parcels to the Newton Children and sell the remaining three parcels in the market place to third parties as a means to defray the cost of the subdivision's infrastructure improvements. Improvement Schedule It is anticipated that the roadway and utilities will begin construction in the second quarter of 2001 after all land use and subdivision approvals are secured. Completion of the improvements is anticipated in the fourth quarter of 2001. Occupancy of the parcels by family members is expected to occur, depending on family and personal plans, over several years beginning in 2002. Construction Cost Projected construction cost is estimated to be approximately $1.2 million (in Year 2000 dollars). This includes site preparation, installation of infrastructure and landscaping, but does not include constnuction of the residences or soft costs, such as engineering and design fees, subdivision and staking, permitting expenses and other consultant fees. io V. NEED FOR PROJECT Demand for Proposed Parcels The need for the new parcels is internally generated by The Newton Family. These parcels will be transferred to the Newton Children after the Property has been subdivided. George and Mary Jo Newton, who will retain a parcel for themselves, have four grown children, each of whom is intended to eventually occupy a parcel. Eight parcels will be in the Petition Area, and one parcel will comprise the Remainder Area. These parcels will provide an affordable means for each family member to own an individual share of property on The Newton Family's land, to finance and build his or her own home and to engage in a limited form of agricultural activity, if desired. The transfer of property will occur after personal decisions are made by the family members. Three of the eight agricultural parcels in the Petition Area will be sold to non- Family members to help defray the cost of the subdivision improvements. A decision on which parcels are to be sold to others will be made at a later date when all government approvals are secured for the proposed improvements. The Remainder Area, notably, is intended to be retained by The Newton Family and would not be offered for sale. The actual sale of the parcels is expected to occur after the plans for the proposed roadway and utilities are approved by the County and the bonding of the improvements is completed. Construction would begin shortly thereafter. All eight agricultural parcels in the Petition Area will be subject to protective use covenants adopted by The Newton Family prior to the transfer or sale of any agricultural parcel. The covenants will establish guidelines for environmentally responsible use of the Petition Area, restrict further subdivision of the parcels and assure that the parcels are restricted to farm dwellings and agricultural activities (See Appendix B). Market Absorption Rate The sale of three agricultural parcels to non-Family members is expected to be brisk since offers of 80-acre parcels with full-fledged access and utility services are very appealing. According to Hawaii Land Company, aHawaii-based real estate company, the real estate market improved from the time a market assessment was made to when the Draft Amended Environmental Assessment was prepared. From its years of experience and knowledge of West Hawaii, Hawaii Land Company feels that the potential market for the three lots is better today than it was a year or so ago. 11 Additionally, the parcels will be only minutes away from downtown Hilo via improved public roads. The supply of similar parcels is limited and offerings of such parcels in the vicinity will generate strong local interest. VI. DESCRIPTION OF THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT Regional and Project Area Setting The Property is located on the southwestern fringe of Hilo town off of Kaumana Drive. It is situated in arural-pasture-agricultural area where large properties are dominant and single-family residences are scattered along country roads and in a few small-lot subdivisions. There are also open lands and forest reserves as well as pasture/grazing activities. Bordering the makai boundary of the Property is a six-lot agricultural subdivision corisisting primarily of 100-acre parcels. At the northern boundary are agricultural lands zoned for 10- and 20-acre parcels. Approximately 4,000 feet to the east of the Property are a number of rural homes along Hoaka and Alawaena Roads in the Waiakea Homesteads. To the north in the Kaumana Homesteads are properties ranging in size from about 10 acres to 20 acres. Smaller lots, 10,000 and 15,000 sq. ft. in size, are located along the nearby Kaumana Drive. To the west and around the mauka section of the Property are vacant lands and properties in forest reserve. These lands are owned by private entities, families and the State of Hawaii. Growth in Hilo is continuing to occur to the south in the Waiakea Homesteads and to the southwest along Saddle Road. Although this growth is slow, it has been steady. Notably, the character of the area is changing from undeveloped lands to rural settlements. Makai or east of the Property along Wilder Road is the Hilo Country Club Estates, a relatively new subdivision of approximately 160 lots with lot sizes of 10,000 sq. ft. A number of homes currently occupy this subdivision. Nearby are commercial and multi-family residential zoned lands. A new subdivision is being proposed to the north of the Newton Family Property. Known as the Kaumana Homesteads project, it will consist of 112 one-acre and larger agricultural lots and have access from Kaumana Drive and the County planned Puainako Street Extension. No access will come from Wilder Road. The project is currently seeking zoning approval for smaller lots on a major portion of its property from the Hawaii County Council. 12 The Kaumana Homesteads involves land that is already agriculturally zoned, unlike the Newton Family project which is proposed to be in agricultural use. Once the Newton Family subdivision is approved, the two projects would have similar and compatible uses. One will be low density (smallest lot in the Newton subdivision will be 80 acres in size) and the other will be relatively medium density (Kaumana subdivision will have mvnimum one-acre size lots). In addition to being compatible with each other, the two projects will be surrounded by similar uses. The Kaumana area is predominantly zoned Agriculture by the County. The impact of the Kaumana Homesteads project on area infrastructure, particularly traffic and water, would be substantially larger compared to the impact from the Newton Family project. Hence, the cumulative impact from the two projects would be contributed largely by the Kaumana subdivision. The planned Puainako Street Extension is designed to relieve traffic on Kaumana Drive. When constructed, the new road will provide access to the Kaumana Homesteads as well as the Newton Family project. By itself, the Newton Family subdivision would be adequately accommodated by existing public roads. Existing Land Use Land use on the Property has changed over the years. According to the Hawaii Land Utilization Maps prepared by the Territorial Planning Board, in 1900, the mauka portion of the Property was in forest use and the makai portion showed sugar cane. Later in 1920, the entire Property was in forest use, but in 1937, the land use changed again when only the mauka portion of the Property was in forest use and the remainder makai portion was in grazing. Today, the Property is primarily in forest and heavy vegetation (see Figure 5). There is, however, a modest amount of grazing occurring within the makai area of the Property by cattle from the adjacent lands and by wild cattle throughout the Property. Approximately halfway up the Property, there are an abandoned flume and its accompanying dirt access road, commonly referred to as the "Ola'a Flume Road". This road extends across the Property generally along the 1,950-foot elevation connecting the Kaumana Drive and Stainback Highway. The County of Hawaii's future secondary arterial follows a similar route connecting Kaumana Drive, Stainback Road and Volcano Road at Mountain View. The Conservation District -Agricultural District boundary proposed by The Newton Family Petition coincides with this route. The abandoned flume and its access road are located within the Petition Area. 13 W3.370Cg02J N.3.01 1~ . b e T ~~,W CZrV _ ~ ~ ~a ~~~7 b V'^~:... ILZ ~=S y. 1 ~ - E Qe'~ ~ ~9a C. ~v~ri . ~ c / ~ ~ t / J 4,t I T / , ~ _ . ~ ,t- ~ ~ ~ / ~ I - T. 1 Q ~V A ~C ~r ? 1 . _ M _ - _ ~ i- ~ _ r \ N I Y v .`N i ~ ~ _ ` ~ _ v 14 Another dirt road traverses the Property from the southern boundary where the Ola'a Flume Road intersects, and extends approximately 3,500 feet westward in a straight alignment to the northern boundary. It continues beyond the project boundary for approximately another 6,000 feet before it abruptly terminates. Two easements currently traverse the Property. A 150-foot-wide easement runs partially along the northern boundary and is designated for electrical transmission line purposes. It serves the 20-acre HELCO site which is located on the makai boundary of The Newton Family Property. Also on the northern boundary is a 40-foot-wide access easement ("Easement 107") that originates from the Sunrise Estates subdivision located approximately 17,000 feet east of The Newton Family Property. Easement 107 runs along the Property's entire northern boundary and is intended to serve the Property and adjacent mauka properties. This access is unimproved and currently overgrown with vegetation. Access to Easement 107 can be obtained from Wilder Road which is located approximately 3,000 feet below the Petition Area. While the Property is still shown on the U.S. Geological Survey (U.S.G.S.) maps as within the Hilo Forest Reserve, it is no longer within the current State forest reserve jurisdiction. Ina 1980 report to The Newton Family by the Big Island Service Forester of the State Department of Land and Natural Resources, the Property was identified as being included in the Hilo Forest Reserve system under a voluntary "thirty-year surrender agreement with the State of Hawaii, formalized in 1948." In a recent letter, dated February 15, 1996, from the State Forestry Division to Wendy Nakamura of Honolulu, the agency indicated that State records currently show that the Property was withdrawn from the forest reserve by the State of Hawaii. Land Tenure The Property is owned by the Newton Family. Access to the Property is currently provided by Wilder Road via Easement 107. If the alternative access (via the WSD road) is selected, it will require the use of three adjacent private properties. Two properties (TMKs 2-5-44: 4 and 2-5-45: 10) are owned by M10, Inc., and the third property (TMK 2-5-46: 12) is owned by Jerry Chang. A preliminary consent has been given by M10, Inc. and Jerry Change to allow The Newton Family to use their property for access into The Newton Family Property. As previously described, the alternative access to the Property will require the use of WSD's and HELCO's access easements. Both utility companies have been contacted and have subsequently indicated that there would be no 15 problems sharing the use of the easements as long as there are no interferences with their operations. Physiography The Property measures approximately 3,900 feet wide by approximately 18,500 feet long with its length extending upslope on Mauna Loa from the 1,420' elevation to the approximately 2,400' elevation (see Figure 6). The average slope is approximately 5 percent with some areas as steep as 10 percent. There are relatively level areas in the middle and near the top of the Property. The Property does not have any gulches or major drainageways nor promontories or rock cliffs. Geology Over many centuries, the lava flows of Mauna Loa joined with the lava flows of Mauna Kea to form a major portion of the island. The Property is located on the northeastern slope of Mauna Loa approximately 5.7 miles from the coast of Hilo town. Still active, Mauna Loa has erupted twice since 1950; once in 1975 and last in 1984. Flows that occurred within the last 150 years near the Property were in 1852, 1881 and 1942. The 1942 flow headed toward and came within 3,200 feet of the Property. The 1881 flow passed by and came within 2,500 feet of the Property. Today, these flows are covered by wild vegetation and some urban and agricultural uses in the lower elevations. Climate Temperatures in Hawaii are generally mild, but at the 1,420' to 2,400' elevations, they are slightly cooler with a range of mean monthly highs of approximately 73°F to 78°F and mean monthly lows of approximately 56°F to 62°F. Rainfall is approximately 230 inches per year with the winter months (December to February) averaging about 20 to 24 inches and summer months (June to August) averaging approximately 14 to 18 inches. Winds are generally trades which come predominantly from the east northeast at typically 15 mph. At night in Hilo, the trades are replaced by southwesterly breezes that drift downslope off Mauna Loa. During the winter season, Kona or southerly winds are most common. 16 833.9700,OO~d r{5.01 1{ j' ~ r ~ i'aj f ri a ~ em.. ~ ~ ~ ~ • 3 ~5 • ~ X 1 _y ~ y ~.te''' a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Y~~. _.g ~ ``i ~ - r „ 3 a • 9 ~ ~ . li \ ~ ~ tip,(' 1 ~ V ~ ~ ~ a.. w ~i d / • b ~ .i Via' 1 J' } ~ --~i o ~ + ~ _ {f ~ . . r / N • . ~ ~ ~ , t Z ~ a. ' - ~ uK , o N { 17 Soils Soil on the Property is classified by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service, now known as the U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service (USNRCS), as "rKGD -Keei extremely rocky muck, 6 to 20 percent slopes". This soil consists of well-drained, thin organic material (very dark brown muck up to about 10 inches thick) overlying pahoehoe lava bedrock. Generally, this soil is strongly acid. The lava beneath the soil is not very permeable, but water moves rapidly through the cracks. Runoff on the soil is medium and its erosion hazard is slight. In certain places, plant roots mat over the bedrock and in other places they extend a few feet into the cracks. Other soils in the surrounding area, as identified by the USNRCS, are listed below in Table 1 and shown on Figure 7. These soils are primarily silty clay loam. TABLE 1. Identified Soils Surrounding the Property Keei extremely rocky muck, 6 to 20 percent slopes (rKGD) Kiloa extremely stony muck, 6 to 20 percent slopes (rKXD) Hilea silty clay loam, 6 to 12 percent slopes (HIC) Ohia extremely stony silty clay loam, 0 to 20 percent slopes (OSD) Ohia silty clay loam, 0 to 10 percent slopes (OHC) Pahoehoe lava flow (rLW) Kaiwiki silty clay loam, 0 to 10 percent slopes (KaC) Kaiwiki silty clay loam, 10 to 20 percent slopes (KaD) Kaiwiki silty clay loam, 20 to 35 percent slopes (KaE) Source: U.S. Soil Conservation Service Agricultural Potential The Property is not classified by the State Department of Agriculture as an important agricultural land. According to its Agricultural Lands of Importance to the State of Hawaii (ALISH) maps, the site is not considered Prime Agricultural Land, Unique Agricultural Land or Other Important Agricultural Land (see Figure 8). As described above, the USNRCS categorizes the project soil as "Keei extremely rocky muck". Its Capability Classification is VIIs, non-irrigated, which indicates that the soil, when not irrigated, has very severe limitations that make it unsuited to cultivation and restrict its use largely to pasture or 18 ess.mooaoza n2s.oi is y ~ _ ~ as t ~ ~ MW ..~t6dYV8 i'^'1~ l'. ' (O N ~ • ``tt ~7 ll ~ F- DG \ yo. Y ~ ~ ~ ~ J' .t / ~ ~ ~i ~ ~ ~ ° -.-1C ~ K1 c, } ' _ ~ ~p L . !IY°~ fp i4y' ' ~ - w 4 ~ L _ ~ . 1 4 . 1~ ~ - ~ ~ i .'I - i - ' ' ~ A ~ m ~ N / ~ ~ ti l\ ? _ ~L W i 0 t ~ • i Y - a - _ Z _~s. / ®f- ~ 19 033.3700N02.7 f1.Y9.01 13 / ~ A// ` ~ / S ~ Z ~ it _ ` ~ 2 ~ 4 o JF . C - i t _ ~ - i j` . I, ~ . _ € ~ . p 1 ~u - } t r = { v~ a s~_ - ~ _ i J_ ~I / / 1 pQ A ~ 1_ ~ \ \11\\ \li \ ~ 4 /y ~ ~ = V y. 'I / \ ~l f ) ~ kSg j... ~w ` N Z J \ / ~ 1 i 20 range, woodland, or wildlife. The primary limitation in this soil is its shallowness and stony condition. The University of Hawaii's Land Study Bureau classifies the land as D303 and E302 (see Figure 9). Land type D303 is described as pahoehoe lava with akaka and alili. It is considered poor for agricultural purposes with a overall suitability rating of "D". Land type E302 is soil that is almost bare pahoehoe. It is considered very poorly suited for agricultural purposes with an overall suitability rating of "E", the lowest of this rating system. Soils that are classified with an "A" rating are considered very good soil for agricultural use. The standards for determining agricultural district boundaries by the Land Use Commission, as provided by Hawaii Administrative Rules (HAR) Section 15-15-19, are: 1) it shall include lands with a high capacity for agricultural production; 2) it may include lands with a significant potential for grazing or for other agricultural uses; and 3) it may include lands surrounded by or contiguous to agricultural lands or which are not suited to agricultural and ancillary activities by reason of topography, soils and other related characteristics. Although the three soil classification maps show that the soil on the Property has limitations for agricultural cultivation, grazing is a potential use. The lower portion of the Property in the Petition Area was used for grazing during the 1930s and is currently being used for such purpose, although in limited form. Moreover, if more areas within the Petition Area were converted to pasture use, additional grazing would occur. In a letter, dated March 3, 1980, from Mr. Ernest Pung, Service Forester, State Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR), the State official outlined how the Petition Area can be used for raising beef cattle. The DLNR letter also detailed how the Petition Area can be used for timber production/tree farming, and, as was previously noted, the lower portion of the Property in the Petition Area was once used for sugar cane. Notably, other potential activities are feasible if appropriate soil enhancement measures and soil conservation practices are applied to improve the soil condition for crop production. Mr. Saku Nakamura of the U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service indicated (telecom June 25, 1998) that to improve the soil's productive use, the following efforts could be employed: 21 893.9706002-11 N.8.01 19 s jar., ' lip m e,--"'1 ~ - -_,_.,\r~,,.:-. ~ ~ 1~ \ ~ E z W - i ~ D ^1 <.i, "gT_Vv"\/ fad's 1 \ l~ ~ L: ~ H =Q t~ „ ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ . e ~ ti } `i ~"v ~ ')tip ,rq ~ ,~V i - t / ? v ~ ~ \ 1 ~ ~ / pg ~ 711 , } , \ i ' ~ I ~ ~ i'- ~T - \ ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ \ ~ ~1 ~ ~ ~ b ~ ~ r r•.. ` ~ I l - ~ ? \ ~ ~ - 1, - f a , i ~ _ i~ _ ~ Z ~ . o z 22 1) Rip/tear surface rock material (pahoehoe lava) to soften and provide proper infiltration drainage condition, 2) Grade crushed rocks into appropriate surface configuration, 3) Place topsoil in planting area, and 4) Plan for proper runoff drainage. Finally, in the above "Regional and Project Area Setting" section, the Petition Area is located in an area dominated by agricultural uses. It is contiguous to lands that are zoned for and are formerly or currently in agricultural use. The request to reclassify the Petition Area from Conservation to Agricultural is based on the need to take the Petition Area out of the Conservation District in order for The Newton Family to subdivide its property and pursue possible limited agricultural activities. The Newton Family reviewed the possibility of developing an agricultural subdivision in the Conservation District but found that it is not a permitted use. For reasons provided in Section IX of this EA, Subsection "State Land Use Law," which, among others, notes the removal of the Property from the State forest reserve program, the Petition Area is no longer appropriate for the Conservation District. The more suitable designation is Agricultural. As noted earlier in this section, the Petition Area meets the test for determining appropriate lands for the Agricultural District. The reclassification of this land to an Agricultural District would allow The Newton Family to give the Newton Children the opportunity to engage in limited agricultural activities. They would very likely look at small backyard agricultural operations for personal or very limited commercial use. Potential types of "limited agricultural activities" include, among others, vegetable gardens, citrus orchards, fruit or nut tree groves, greenhouse plant and flower nurseries, and pasture or grazing lands. Tree farming is a possibility, but would constitute a small scale operation. Eucalyptus tree farming, which could be very intrusive, would not be undertaken or permitted. Hydrology The Property does not contain any perennial streams or lakes. There are no discernible gulches, ravines or major drainageways. On the U.S.G.S. map, no springs or water holes are shown on the Property. The site contains soil that is well-drained, thin in depth, and overlying pahoehoe lava. The lava is not very permeable, but water moves rapidly through the cracks. On other occasions, water will not drain as fast and will stay in the area a little longer. 23 According to the State Commission on Water Resource Management, there are a number of water sources in the region. The U.S.G.S. maps identify springs, water tunnels and water holes in the Piihonua area on the Hamakua side of Kaumana Drive. The Property is located on the Keaau side of the road approximately 'three miles from Piihonua. Within the Piihonua area is the Ola'a Flume Spring. A flume extends from this spring southward across Kaumana Drive, across the Property at about the 1,920-foot elevation and then across Stainback Road to the Ola'a Reservation Homesteads, a length of approximately 10. 4 miles. Water Commission records also show that there are six water tunnels and two wells within the immediate project vicinity. Four tunnels were built in 1900 by the Puna Sugar Company at the Middle Flume Spring (elevation approximately 1,900 feet), and two tunnels, now owned by the County, were developed in 1890 at the Waiakea-Uka Springs (elevation approximately 1,540 ft.}. Water from these springs flows parallel and approximately 4,000 to 5,000 feet to the south of the Property. Also in the vicinity is the Waiakea Monitor Well (el. 915 ft.) located approximately 6,500 feet east of the Property and the Kaumana Exploratory Well (el. 1,796 ft.) located approximately 4,000 feet to the north. None of these sources is expected to be negatively impacted by the proposed subdivision. Data on the Kaumana Exploratory Well, which is about the same elevation as the Property, show that the groundwater level is at approximately the 997-foot elevation.i This would suggest that the groundwater at the Property is nearly 800 feet below the site. And as described above, the Waiakea and Kaumana wells are located at a distance from the Property. They are also being used as observation wells and not for domestic purposes. Fertilizers and pesticides will be used for yard maintenance purposes and limited agricultural activities. Large-scale commercial agricultural ventures will not be permitted. The impact on groundwater from chemical uses, thus, would not be any more than what other domestic agricultural activities generate in the area. The proposed subdivision is expected to draw water from the County water system for domestic and limited agricultural uses (see Section VIII, "Water"). Rainwater may be used to supplement this source for the agricultural activities. The sustainable yield for the Hilo hydrologic region is approximately 347 MGD, and the current average use is well below 100 MGD.z t Ground Water Well Index/Summary. Commission on Water Resource Managemen4 Department of Land and Natural Resources, State of Hawaii. Z Commission on Water Resource Management. 24 Fauna A fauna survey of the Property was conducted by Rana Productions, Ltd. in March of 1998 (see Appendix C). The survey consisted of three-and-a-half days and two nights of ornithological and mammalian reconnaissance. The primary purpose of the survey was to determine what bird and mammal species occur on the parcel or are likely to occur, given the type of existing habitat, and the presence, if any, of federally listed endangered, threatened, proposed or candidate avian or mammalian species. Upon completion of the reconnaissance, the Property was identified as having two distinct areas from an ornithological perspective. One area is located above the approximately 2,000-foot elevation which basically comprise the Remainder Area and the other area is located below the 2,000-foot elevation comprising basically the Petition Area. The natural habitat in the Remainder Area is dominated by native plant species (see flora section). The Petition Area, however, is quite different in that the vegetation is dominated by alien species and appears to have been used for grazing and possibly logging in the past. It is noted that the County's long-range plan for a secondary arterial would cross the Property generally along the Ola'a Flume Road which approximately divides the Property into the Remainder Area and Petition Area. Results of the survey showed that there were a total of 12 bird species recorded in the Petition Area. Of the 12 species recorded; 9 were alien, 2 were considered endemic to the Island of Hawaii and 1 was considered an indigenous migratory species (see Table 2). One of the endemic species recorded, the Hawaiian Hawk, is listed as endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the State of Hawaii. TABLE 2. Avian Species Recorded in the Makai Area =SYnPC;es (Common Name) tat Relative Abundance Hawaiian Hawk EE R Pacific Golden Plover IM R Spotted Dove A C Zebra Dove A C Bam Owl A R Common Myna A A Japanese White-Eye A A Red-Billed Leiothrix A C Nutmeg Manikin A C House Finch A A 25 TABLE 2. (Continued) Species (Common Namg) tat Relative Abundance Hawaii Amakihi E U Northern Cardinal A C Notes Status: EE=Endangered Endemic, E=Endemic, IM= Indigenous Migrant, A=Alien Relative Abundance: A=Abundant (26), C=Common (11 25), U=Uncommon (6 10), R=Raze (5). A total of 15 bird species were recorded in the Remainder Area. Of the 15 species, 8 were alien, 6 were endemic to Hawaii and 1 was considered an indigenous migratory species. The endangered Hawaiian Hawk was also recorded in this area (see Table 3 below). TABLE 3. Avian Species Recorded in the Mauka Area Species (Common Name) tatu Relative Abundance Hawaiian Hawk EE R Pacific Golden Plover IM R Spotted Dove A C Zebra Dove A C Hawaii Elepaio E C Hawaiian Thrush Omao E C Common Myna A A Japanese White-Eye A A Red-Billed Leiothrix A C Nutmeg Manikin A C House Finch A A Hawaii Amakihi E C Iiwi E R Apapane E U Northern Cardinal A C Notes Status: EE=Endangered Endemic, E=Endemic, IM= Indigenous Migrant, A=Alien Relative Abundance: A=Abundant (26), C=Common (11 25), U=Uncommon (6 10), R=Rare (5). Hawaii s sole endemic terrestrial mammalian species, the endangered Hawaiian hoary bat, was detected foraging in the Petition Area. Sightings, signs or remains of seven alien mammalian species including rat, house 26 mouse, domestic dog, small Indian mongoose, cat, pig and domestic cattle were detected within the overall Property. It is also likely that all three species of naturalized rats found in Hawaii (roof rat, Norway rat and Polynesian rat) are present. Rana Productions indicated that from the level of survey that was conducted in the Petition Area, categorical statements can be made of the current avifauna resources. The area is dominated by alien species as are the lower reaches of most of the Big Island's eastern side. There are three listed endemic bird species (Newell's shearwater, dark-tamped petrel and Hawaiian hawk) which potentially could be impacted by the proposed improvements. The shearwater and dark-rumped petrel are pelagic seabirds which return to their nesting colonies on the upper slopes of Mauna Loa and possibly Mauna Kea during crepuscular and night time hours between April and October. Although there are no records of nesting Newell's shearwater on the site, there are numerous records of this species seen, heard or collected near the Saddle Road on the Hilo side of the island. Hawaiian hawk was recorded on the Property which is within the normal range of this species. Hawaiian hawk occupies a wide variety of habitats and is found in almost all habitats not lacking in trees. This species is generally thought to have a population that, as a whole, is healthy and is maintaining itself, not like many other endemic species. It is currently under review by the USFWS for down listing from an endangered to a threatened status (see USFWS letter in Appendix A). Avifauna found in the Remainder Area (generally above el. 2,000 ft.) had a higher number of endemic species than the Petition Area, but no additional listed avian were recorded. Rana Productions concluded that any further clearing or improvements in the Petition Area will not have a significant impact on native or federally protected avian or mammalian species. It is noted further that the estimated area of clearing and improvements would comprise approximately 5 percent of the Petition Area. As a means to minimize the potential downing of Newell's shearwater and dark-rumped petrels, efforts should be made to minimize exterior lighting and, where unavoidable, shield light sources. Prior to clearing and grubbing the alignment for the subdivision roadway and utilities, a 500-meter-wide survey of the alignment for Hawaiian Hawk nest would be conducted. The USFWS would then be consulted regarding the results of the survey. z~ Rana Productions indicated that it was not surprised that the Hawaiian hoary bat was found foraging over the site since it is known to have relative abundance on the island's windward lowlands. It should be noted, however, that very little scientific work has been attempted on this species, in no small part due to the fact that this species is usually a solitary arboreal rooster and thus difficult to study. In any event, the development of the Petition Area according to Rana Productions will not have a deleterious impact on this species. The further clearing of the Remainder Area may eliminate roosting habitats, but no definitive studies have been published identifying and quantifying the bat's unique needs. The USFWS reviewed Rana Productions' study of the Property along with a flora study which was done by a botany specialist. The agency is concerned with potential effects from the proposed subdivision but would support the project if certain protective measures are implemented. The Newton Family has incorporated precautionary measures in the proposed project to address the agency's combined comments on fauna and flora in the "Flora 'section below. Flora In March and April of 1998, Palmer & Associates Consulting conducted a botanical survey of the Property (see Appendix D). The purpose of the survey was to inventory existing vegetation on the Property and to note the occurrence of any endangered, threaten, and proposed candidate or recommended plant species, plant species of concern, rare plants, and unique environmentally sensitive areas. The survey identified vegetation on the Property by general vegetation types using the Cagne and Cuddihy system. The identified types included: lowland wet forest, Montane wet forest, Montane wet sedgelands, Montane wet mixed communities and disturbance communities. These vegetation types were further delineated into "new" and "old" lava flows. The location of these areas and a complete listing of the vegetation species are provided in the Palmer report. Three kipuka were also identified on the Property. These areas were particularly studied because they had well developed forest. The first kipuka is located in the southeastern corner of the Property, the second is approximately in the middle section and the third is in the southwestern corner of the Property (see Figures 10 & 11). According to Palmer & Associates, the first or lower kipuka (southeastern corner) is highly disturbed and dominated by alien species and thus, not significant. It has a low probability of supporting U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) designated or listed plants. 28 633.3706tl(@-12 x1.5.01 15 t'~ - 1~ y,- ~i ~ - 1: _ 1. iii p; )~o N-sc '~i._ ~ - ° I`:` 7Q d m 4 . ~ c-~tiw uz _ ~1 iq " Nwo~~ IL W E p . W ~ w ~ r j j~ s - ~ i, ; - war C' . . _ U - Y .d+'d' _ m z E ,I u~ tY; °o 1 w i .g-~~N ~y--,: Fwd \ .,i`~.~!i oJ0 Q ~ /q mE - ~w 2 ~ 4' ~x r ~u '1 ~ _ ~ E_ ~ i L ~ ~ ~ - ~,r N i F- . 1 a""\ Iv and er~ ~ , , / 1` f ' ~ n c O. 'CIO. yG I _ C ~9 Y (7 c ~0 Yoh o.3d w. -C ~ a _ c ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ z ~ _Q" d A -~9 J L 1~i~ Q ~ - J~ ~ - y ~ i ~•`r-,' a .I .-f_~' ~ ~ ~ ~ w ' / - ~ ~r~y~_~_ / `ro 29 833.3700N084 M.5.01 13 X00 ~3~ ~'OF ~'i= ~F<a m w0 ~ z'i LL Q ~ LL a.F m wx€ ~ W ~ ~ 3 Z y m `m s o ~ u~ a m m J ~ J~ S m LL 9 0 ~s a~ ~ ~ Y C7 O (7 LL ~ O a o /1 ~ I W y° oe• ~ I E p~ J V~ I I ~ ELL o O ~3~ J o C~~ O p C70CO ffimffi t.~ ~ ~ymm ~ wm m-- v ~~E~ ~°3~'~~ E Y LL ~~g~~~~~c.~.s~ o ~aiTm.~P~g~S.~c ~ ~ c ~ m m~ m'~ p m m~ m o~ ~ a g'~ o m~£ c m c m t a f°r~ ~S cma.$9 N f- m c~ rn 5 m o c~~~ w o w ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ < N Z m'- GL UO Omp~y I- NN~Om-OOU FQJQm N W m~ l0 m Y N U T C m 3` T 6 C m~~ a o O Q m~ o W $ ~ U 9m C~~ W VJ m E m C L m a o, ~ o, a o m mmE ~m L._ ,mm,U o. N~m~~~~tA CON ~ Q Z ~ N cn O ® Z 30 The second or middle kipuka is in somewhat better shape. It is not disturbed as much and does not have as many alien species. It has the potential to support listed plants. The third or upper kipuka (southwestern comer) is the largest and most significant. It continues off the Property into the mauka lands. According to Palmer & Associates, the upper kipuka does support USFWS designated plants. Overall, there is a striking difference between vegetation communities on the new lava flows and old lava flows. These differences represent different successional stages of forest development. The new lava flows, such as the 1881 flow on the northern edge of the survey area, support forests in early successional stages with small, widely-spaced trees, whereas the old flows support stands of closed-canopy, old-growth, late successional stage forest. Vegetation type categorized as new Montane wet forest has been identified on the new lava flow. Although Hawaiian native plants dominate this plant community, several introduced alien species, such as bamboo orchid, broomsedge, swordfern and tibochina, are present. There were no endangered, proposed, candidate or recommended candidate species, species of concern or rare plants recorded. On the old lava flows which occupy the Property, lowland wet forest, old Montane wet forest, Montane wet sedgelands and Montane wet mixed communities were identified. The lowland wet forest, which occurs in the lower section of the Property, is heavily infested with strawberry guava and shows the effects of many years of human impact. The old Montane wet forest occurs primarily above the old flume road and consists of stands of late successional stage forest which have an overstory canopy dominated by koa, a middle canopy layer dominated by ohia and a lower canopy dominated by tree ferns. Loulu palm is frequently present as a canopy emergent. In some areas, the old Montane wet forest extend to the 1,800' elevation. Montane wet sedgelands and Montane wet mixed communities also occupy the upper section of the Property. These plant communities are dominated by species of the blueberry, epacris and sedge family. Throughout the Property, there is only one species that is listed as a USFWS protected species. At approximately the 2,160-foot elevation in the Remainder Area is a single 'aku'aku (cyanea platyphylla) species (see Figures 10 & 11). Rare plants which are not protected by law were also found on the Property (see Table 4). 31 Most of these species were found in the Remainder Area with the exception that the loulu was found throughout the Property and the 'oha kepau was found below the Ola'a Flume Road in the Petition Area. TABLE 4. Recorded Rare Plants on the Property Common Name Genus/Species (no common name) Bobea eliator Meu Cibotium hawaiiense 'oha kepau Clermontia hawaiiense ha'iwale Cyrtandra hawaiiense (no common name) Cyrtandra lysiosepala wawae'iole Lycopodium sp. nov pala Marattia douglasii loulu Pritchardia beccariana 'ama'u Sadleria souleyetiana 'ohe mauka Tetraplasandra oahuensis Source: Palmer & Associates Consulting Palmer & Associates also identified environmentally sensitive areas that contain stands of old flow late successional forest. These areas were found above and immediately below the Ola'a Flume Road extending in a few areas to as low as generally the 1,800' elevation. The edge of these stands of forest was difficult to define in the field and only a general boundary can be determined (see Figures 10 & 11). These stands of forest have the potential to support federally and state legally protected endangered, candidate and recommended candidate plant species, and plant species of concern. Palmer & Associates suggests, in fact, that all of the forest area above the Ola'a Flume Road in the Remainder Area be considered an environmentally sensitive area. This area supports also one of the best examples of Montane wet forest in East Hawaii. The area below the Ola'a Flume Road in the Petition Area is not as significant as above the road. Also considered as an environmentally sensitive area is the old lava flow lowland wet forest in "dieback" condition in the northern section of the Petition Area between approximately the 1,600 and 1,800-foot elevations. This area, however, is not as significant as the forest above the Ola'a Flume Road in the Remainder Area. During the flora survey, wet areas were found as scattered patches on the Property. Wetland vegetation indicator species were identified in growing areas of prolonged inundation and soil saturation. Although these areas were 32 especially abundant in the lower elevations of the Property during the survey, they were not large enough to require planning considerations. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) was consulted on how it would address such wet areas during this current preliminary planning stage (see USAGE letter in Appendix A). The USAGE indicated that when the proposed subdivision is further advanced in its design phase and when detailed drawings are available, the petitioner should then review the project with the USAGE to determine appropriate mitigation or conservation measures. The USAGE recognizes that more information as to where development would specifically occur would be available at that time and, consequently, appropriate measures could then be determined. Accordingly, the Newton Family is committed to working with the USAGE on developing appropriate conservation measures for the project during its detailed design and subdivision review process with the County of Hawaii. It appears that the Ola'a flume system establishes a particular boundary between areas of significance for flora as well as fauna species (see Fauna section). Coincidentally, this boundary is also the location of a secondary arterial which is being planned for the long term by the County. Such a public right-of-way would have a major effect on the area by providing access and bringing people to the region. It would also result in a physical division of the Property by a major facility. For these reasons, The Newton Family determined that the proposed boundary between the Conservation District and Agricultural District would be appropriate at the Ola'a flume system alignment. The USFWS reviewed the flora and fauna studies of this EA and has indicated that it supports the implementation of mitigation measures that include "leaving large stands of forest trees and clusters of major vegetation intact; focusing residential sites to areas that are already cleared; working closely with the Department of Land and Natural Resources to take necessary precautions to avoid any negative effects to rare, endangered, or threatened species; and not developing the property into a large project." The USFWS also recommended that grubbing and clearing in the makai area be done only after it has been thoroughly surveyed to assure there are no Hawaiian hawks nesting in the area, rather than halting grubbing and clearing once a nest if found. In further consultation with the USFWS (see USFWS letter in Appendix A), the federal agency indicated that when the project proceeds to the detailed design stage, it would like to review the project again to determine if additional conservation measures would be necessary. 33 The proposed improvements will involve clearing of approximately 25 acres within the 885.40-acre Petition Area or about 2.8 percent of the land for road and utilities. Eight agricultural parcels are planned in the Petition Area. The largest parcel, located in the Remainder Area, will remain classified in the Conservation District and any development or use thereon will be subject to the approval of the State BLNR. It is estimated that each farm dwelling in the agricultural pazcels and its associated yard would require approximately 20,000 to 30,000 sq. ft. of land. Some yards may include limited agricultural activity for personal and limited commercial use which may require an additional 20,000 to 60,000 sq. ft. of land. 'The total residential and possible agricultural use, thus, would comprise an area of approximately 8 to 17 acres or up to about 1.9 percent of the Petition Area. In all, the portion (approximately 42 acres or about 5 percent) of the Petition Area that woulii be cleared for the residences, agricultural activities and infrastructure will have a very insignificant impact on the Property's vegetation, especially since all of the land alterations are planned in the Petition Area where the vegetation is not as significant as in the Remainder Area. Precautionary actions, which would address concerns on the project's effect on flora and fauna resources within the Petition Area, have been incorporated into and will be a part of the proposed project (See Appendix B which provides the conditions voluntarily imposed on the petitioner's LUD Boundary Amendment Petition). In acknowledging the concerns of the USFWS, large stands of native forest trees and clusters of major native vegetation will be avoided, and the construction of dwellings within the Petition Area would be focused on areas that are a}ready cleared. No project that would change the overall character of the area or generate major increases in resident population will be developed. These provisions will be established in the protective use covenants of the proposed subdivision. Further, the area mauka of the Ola'a flume system will be retained in the Conservation District, best management practices will be used during construction to control erosion and prevent runoff from damaging native forest resources, and as many of the existing native trees, as possible, will be used for the project landscaping. 34 The endangered Hawaiian Hawk and Hawaiian Bat will be protected. Precautionary actions to avoid any negative effects to rare, endangered, or threatened species will be coordinated with the USFWS and DLNR. Prior to clearing and grubbing the alignment for the subdivision roadway and utilities, a 500-meter-wide survey of the alignment for identifying Hawaiian Hawk nest and Hawaiian Bat will be conducted. The dwellings will very likely be located adjacent to the road within the 500-meter-wide survey area or, as provided above, would be focused in areas that are already cleared. If the Hawaiian Hawk is down graded from an endangered to a threatened status, the USFWS will be consulted to determine if the above protective measure is still appropriate. Flood lights or high intensity lighting will not be used in or about the Petition Area that could disorient the Newell's Shearwater, Dark-rumped Petrel and Hawaiian Hawk. Archaeological/Cultural Sites On July 26 and 29, 1996, Paul H. Rosendahl, Ph.D., Inc. (PHRI) conducted an archaeological assessment study of the Property (see Appendix E). The study included a review and evaluation of archaeological and historical documents, including archival literature, legends, records, boundary awards, and cartographic sources relative to the project area, an inspection level field work, and a written report. The literature research revealed that the Ola'a flume (Site 20870) bisects approximately the middle of the Property and that an accompanying dirt access road meanders along side. It is noted that this flume system was tentatively assessed as a significant historic site that would be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion A (association with significant local historic events) and Criterion D (has yielded, or is likely to yield, information important in local history). Upon completion of an archaeological inventory survey and cultural study for the Saddle Road corridor3, the old flume system was determined to be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places only under Criterion D. In recognizing the potential significance of the Ola'a flume system, the proposed subdivision is designed to respect the alignment of the facility and keep it intact so no adverse impact would result. 3 The Saddle Road Corridor: An Archaeological Inventory Survey and Traditional Cultural Property Study for the Hawaii Defense Access Road A-AD-6(1) and Saddle Road (SR 200) Project. PHRI Report 1939-043099. Prepared by C. Langlas, T. R. Wolforth, and Head, 1999. 35 The sample ground survey field work revealed no archaeological or cultural sites or features of any kind. Although historic documentary research had indicated that archaeological sites, activity areas, or significant cultural remains might be present, none were physically identified. On June 26, 1997, field findings and the potential impact of The Newton Family's preliminary subdivision scheme were discussed with the State Historic Preservation Division (SHPD). Given the practical difficulties and cost inefficiencies for doing an inventory level survey fora 1,645-acre property prior to any final development plans, the SHPD agreed to defer the need for further archaeological work until parcel-specific development plans (e.g. access road alignments, building locations, etc.) are proposed. The plan was later modified and submitted to SHPD for reaffirmation of its position. In a letter dated February 3, 2000, the SHPD reaffirmed its position that further archaeological work could be deferred until parcel-specific development plans are prepared (See Appendix F). The Newton Family is committed to preparing an inventory level archaeological survey of areas that would be altered. The survey will be done when parcel-specific development plans for those areas are prepared. If any archaeological sites are found as a result of the survey, an appropriate mitigation plan would be prepared and submitted to the SHPD for review and approval. Further, if any archaeological sites are found during construction, work in the immediate area will cease and the SHPD will be consulted. Work will not resume until clearance is obtained from the agency. According to PHRl's 1996 assessment study, no cultural sites or features of any kind were found during its site survey. The PHRI study further cited an earlier historic documentary research4 that indicated that areas involving traditional Hawaiian cultural activities, such as collecting koa and carving and building canoes and heiaus, bird catching and old planting, be present in the area. A map attached to the PHRI study (Appendix E) shows the general location of the sites in the project vicinity. However, none of the sites were physically identified by PHRI, and no evidence of such activities or rights are present in the Petition Area. As prompted by the Office of Hawaian Affairs (OHA), PHRI conducted further research and review of the project's potential impact on traditional and customary native Hawaiian access and use rights by approaching a Hawaiian cultural expert (see PHRI report in Appendix G). In all, four local Hilo area residents believed to be Hawaiian cultural experts were consulted. They included Ululani Sherlock {Community Resource Coordinator and East ^ Archaeological Assessment Study, Hilo Judiciary Complex Project, prepared by A.T. Wa4ker and P. H. Rosendahl with K. Maly, 1996. 36 Hawaii liaison officer for OHA), Kepa Maly (cultural resources specialist), Charles Langlas (cultural anthropologist) and the late Ed Kanahele (representing Edith Kanakaole Foundation). Based on the review of relevant project background information, previous archaeological and historical documentary studies, and consultation with the four local Hawaiian cultural experts, the general consensus about the Property and its immediate general vicinity was that there are no specific traditional cultural properties, areas, or sites known in the Petition Area. Further, no specific or individual native Hawaiian cultural practitioners have been identified as currently exercising their rights of access and use for traditional, customary and contemporary cultural practices. At a meeting on April 13, 2000, the State Office of Planning indicated to the Petitioner's representative that OHA should again be consulted to: 1) obtain its written approval of PHRI's cultural study, or b) secure a written letter explaining why the cultural study was not satisfactory together with a list of Hawaiian cultural experts of whom OHA approves. In obliging to that request, PHRI met with OHA on May 12, 2000, and it was mutually agreed that more work should be done in order to produce the level of information and confidence that will allow decision-makers to reach an informed decision. PHRI proceeded with the work, and upon its completion, determined that there is no reason to alter, in any way, the conclusion of the project's existing cultural study (see Appendix G). Recently in Ka Pa'akai O Ka Aina vs. Land Use Commission et. al. and Plan to Protect (No. 211214); Plan to Protect vs. Land Use Commission (No. 21162), the Hawaii Supreme Court remanded the matter back to the Land Use Commission for the limited purpose of entering specific findings and conclusions regarding (1) the identity and scope of "valued cultural, historical or natural resources" in the petition area, including the extent to which traditional and customary native Hawaiian rights are exercised in the petition area; (2) the extent to which those resources, including traditional and customary native Hawaiian rights, will be affected or impaired by the proposed action; and (3) the feasible action, if any, to be taken by the Land Use Commission to reasonably protect native Hawaiian rights if they are found to exist. While the PHRI cultural study was completed prior to the issuance of the Court's ruling, it was conducted with diligence under the guidance of OHA and performed with full knowledge of the issues pending before the Court. After engaging in an intensive process to identify, locate and contact Hawaiian cultural experts and individuals familiar with the Petition Area who may have knowledge of the existence of "valued cultural, historical or 37 natural resources" in the Petition Area and/or the exercise of traditional and customary native Hawaiian rights in the Petition Area, no sources were able to provide PH12I with any specific information. Thus, no "valued cultural, historical or natural resources" have been identified in the Petition Area. Since such resources have not been identified, they will not be affected or impaired by the proposed action, and to the extent, such resources are later found to exist, The Newton Family is committed to preserving and protecting such resources by the inclusion of protective use covenants in all sales documents and conveyance instruments pertaining to the proposed subdivision. The OHA also requested whether ceded lands would be affected. No ceded lands are involved in the proposed subdivision improvements. Noise This remote tract of land is distant from any major source of noise. Only the sounds of wildlife and winds against foliage are audible, especially at night. The nearest public road is Wilder Street which is approximately 3,000 feet away, and the nearest residence is no closer than 2,000 feet away. Noise levels from these sources are inaudible. During construction, short-term or temporary noise is expected to be generated by site preparation activities for the subdivision access road and utilities. Construction of infrastructure will require the use of tractors, dump trucks, pavers, rollers, backhoes, scrapers and cranes. These heavy equipment will generate noise that could be audible to the nearest neighboring residents. No blasting, however, is anticipated. Dwelling construction will generate minor noise which may not be audible to adjacent properties except on very quiet days. Mitigation measures, if necessary, will be employed to reduce or lessen the impact of noise on nearby residents. These measures would include installation of noise suppressant devices, such as mufflers, on heavy noise- generating machinery or equipment, and work schedules that are arranged for daylight hours. Existing dense vegetation surrounding the site will provide a natural sound barrier for the Property and with greater distance between the site and nearest neighboring residences, the impact from construction would be minimal. Operational noise should be even less audible. Once residents occupy their homes and engage, perhaps, in some form of agricultural activity, noise levels would be minimal. Large scale commercial farming, mass agricultural production and large-scale recreational activities are not expected to occur. 38 Residents are anticipated to conduct primarily domestic and backyard agricultural activities. Air Quality The quality of air in the project area is very good. The site is on the fringe of Hilo town away from urban activities and air pollutant generators, such as factories, incinerators, power plants, agricultural burnings, multi-lane highways, quarries, etc. A more genuine source of pollutant to the area is the emissions from vehicles travelling on Saddle Road. The volume of this traffic, however, is small and is not expected to be a contributor of pollutants to the project area. Vog is a major natural source that can negatively affect air quality. Volcanic emissions from. the Hawaii Volcanoes National Park have affected the island of Hawaii for over the past 10 years. When wind conditions are in the northerly direction, the project site could be affected. It is anticipated that during construction, the proposed project will generate construction-related dust. This would be particularly evident during the site preparation stage when clearing, grubbing and grading occurs. Dust would be generated when underground utilities are installed and landscaping is put in place. And also, emissions would be generated from construction equipment operations as well as employee and contractor vehicles travelling to and from the site. The area of construction will occur primarily along the access road and around the homes which are expected to be sited near the internal road. Mitigation measures to reduce or lessen the anticipated impacts from construction are discussed in the upcoming section of this document. After construction is completed, the long-term impacts from residential and minor agricultural uses would be minimal. These impacts will be relatively low in comparison to specified State and National ambient air quality standards. Natural hazards Located on heavily-vegetated land, the Petition Area will be subject to forest or brush fire. County Fire Department records show, however, that forest or brush fires seldomly occur in this area. The region is generally cool and moist, and rainfall is approximately 230 inches per year. Dry tinder is not a prevalent condition. 39 If a forest fire does occur, the Fire Department will require special equipment to stop or slow the spread of fire. Helicopter service with water buckets is expected to be used, and a special fire crew to dig a break line along the advancing edge of the fire would be needed. As described in a previous section, there are several active volcanoes on the Island of Hawaii. According to the Lava Flow Hazard Map prepared by the Hawaiian Volcano Observatory of the U.S. Geological Survey, there are nine lava flow hazard zones with Zone 1 representing the most hazardous area. The zones are based solely on geologic criteria, including frequency of past lava flows and coverage, distance from eruptive vents and topography that influences lava inundation. The Petition Area is located in Lava Flow Hazard Zone 3. Notably, Hilo is located makai of the Petition Area, and most of this town is also situated in Zone 3. Earthquakes have been experienced on the Big Island, but none, at least in the past 50 years, have caused widespread destructive damage. Many minor earthquakes occur around the island and are not even detected by the general public. Many are associated with the magma or volcanic activity beneath the island. Barring any major quake in the immediate vicinity, damage to the Petition Area would be.minor or very limited, if any. Most of the project development will be ground improvements, including a road, utilities, landscaping and limited agricultural activities. Structural improvements would include farm dwellings, sheds, catchment systems and fences. Hurricanes are also a potential natural hazard and may cause severe damage to the Property. Early warning systems via the County's Civil Defense sirens, radio broadcasts and news reports should provide residents with preparation time to minimize or avoid life-threatening situations. The residents of the proposed project are not expected to be affected by any tsunami inundation. According to the Civil Defense Tsunami Evacuation Maps of the Island of Hawaii, the evacuation areas of Hilo are well below the proposed subdivision. During heavy rain storms, the ground may saturate and swell and cause flooding. Flood damage on the Property, however, is not readily evident and the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) do not identify any on-site floodways. In siting their farm dwellings, the parcel owners, through their architect, are expected to judiciously locate their dwellings on high ground away from any potential flood areas. Agricultural fields may be within potential flood zones, but the individual parcel owners are expected to consult with the U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service in such matters as proper drainage, 40 erosion, and soil conservation practices and comply with County regulations relating to floodways, erosion and sedimentation conditions. Visual Development of the Petition Area will have minor effects on the visual appearance of the Property. About 5 percent of the Petition Area would undergo change. An access road, rural-style overhead utility lines, farm dwellings in the Petition Area and several backyard agricultural fields would occupy approximately 42 acres of the Petition Area. Overall, the character of the land in the .Petition Area would remain largely in its natural state with an average density of one parcel per 110 acres. At night, the Petition Area will have lights emanating from residences and street lighting fixtures, but the effect will be minimal. Existing large trees will screen activities in the Petition Area from adjacent properties. The site will not be visible from Kaumana Drive, the nearest major public roadway which is approximately 5,000 feet away. Views of the adjacent properties from the Petition Area will be screened by the same heavy vegetation that will screen the activities within the site from the adjacent properties. In the occasional clearings scattered throughout the middle and lower sections of the Property, long-range views open up toward the Hilo Bay and coastline north of Hilo town. VII. SOCIO-ECONOMIC Local Economy Hilo is the largest population center (37,800, 1990 U.S. Census) on the Island of Hawaii. It is the county seat of government for Hawaii County and the island's commercial and transportation hub. It has the largest deep-water commercial harbor and busiest airport which recently was bypassed by the Kona International Airport at Keahole. The major industries in East Hawaii are farming, professional and business services, government and tourism. Economic Impact The agricultural activities anticipated on the Property are for personal and limited commercial use. No large-scale commercial agricultural production or operations are planned. Below is a description of the project's short-term impacts associated with construction and the anticipated long-term impacts associated with the project after construction. 41 Construction Methodology and Short-Term Impacts: Construction of the project's infrastructure will require mobilization of labor personnel and equipment in the construction industry. As a result, employment will be affected, and spending in the local economy will occur. With an estimated $1.2 million construction budget, the impact, however, would be relatively minor. Personal income will see small gains from the construction industry, and government revenues will increase slightly from income and property taxes generated by improvements on the Property. The proposed project will require the use of graders, rollers, scrappers, backhoes, and dump trucks. The first phase of construction will involve clearing, grubbing, rough grading, trenching, laying of utilities and backfilling. The second phase will involve finish grading and installation of base course and final pavement for roadways. The final stage will involve landscaping and installation of overhead utilities. No blasting is anticipated. Heavy diesel- powered equipment is expected to be used only for site preparation, road construction and utility installation. After the subdivision is completed and infrastructure installed, construction within the subdivision will occur off and on over a period of time on an as- need basis as each property owner constructs his or her own farm dwelling on an individual or personal timetable. In addition to the farm dwellings, backyard agricultural structures may be built depending on each parcel owner's preference. Long-Term Impacts: During occupancy of the site, the new parcels will be in residential and small- scale agricultural use. Sales of the agricultural products will be limited to whatever is available after the owners take what they need. The residual sales are expected to be very small. The income generated by the sale of agricultural products is expected to be modest, at most, and intended to supplement rather than serve as the primary source of income for the residents. The value of the land is expected to increase after the infrastructure for the Property is installed. With higher land values, increased government revenues from property taxes are expected to be generated. Maintenance of the subdivision's common areas, particularly the entry feature at Wilder Road, the private road segment beyond the Department of Water's driveway and the shoulder areas of the subdivision's internal roadways, will be the responsibility of the parcel owners. These owners may hire a groundskeeper or they may take care of the common areas themselves. 42 Relationship of Project to Housing Needs of Low, Low-Medium, and Gap Groups The Newton Family is proposing to subdivide the Property to convey land to the Newton Children. Only eight parcels will be subdivided within the Petition Area, while the remaining portion of the Property will be left in the Conservation District as a separate parcel. Five of the new parcels within the Petition Area will be transferred to family members. Up to three of the remaining agricultural parcels will be sold to non-family members at market price. The income from the sale of the parcels will help to defray the construction expenses for the infrastructure improvements. The development of the parcels is not intended to meet the market housing demand for low, low-medium and gap income families. Social Chazacteristics The lifestyle in this outlying community of Hilo is characteristically country and serene. There are large parcels of agricultural lands, open space, forest reserves and rural residences. Within a short distance to Hilo town, there are a number of community facilities including the Hilo Medical Center, University of Hawaii at Hilo, Hilo High School, Hilo Municipal Golf Course, Hoolulu Complex, Kaumana Learning Center, and Hilo Public Library. The proposed project will be consistent with the type and density of development in the area. Existing densities in the vicinity are, at least, about one residence per 10 to 20 acres. The proposed subdivision will be occupied also by long-term residents who would reside on the land and may engage in some limited form of farming or backyard gardening. The social character of the area is not expected to change. Community Issues Community issues may include the perception of removing lands that are conservation-oriented and placing them in intensive agricultural use, and whether additional agricultural-designated lands are needed. Others may inquire about the availability of irrigation water for agricultural endeavors in the area. Additional community issues will be identified in the coming months when public input is sought from correspondence and public review of the project EA. When the Final Environmental Assessment is completed under the Chapter 343, HRS, State Environmental Review process, issues concerning the project will be articulated and addressed, and mitigative measures will be proposed, where necessary, to reduce or lessen any adverse impacts of concern. 43 VIII. PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES Circulation Access to the project site is provided by Wilder Road which extends from Kaumana Drive at approximately the 1,200' elevation above Hilo town. At the terminus of Wilder Road is a 40-foot-wide access easement (Easement 107) extending southwesterly approximately 2,900 feet over the flag portion of a private parcel and HELCO's parcel, and into the Petition Area. Easement 107 originates from the Sunrise Estates subdivision which is located approximately 17,000 feet to the east of the project site. Wilder Road is a two-lane, 24-foot-wide paved County road within an 80-foot- wide right-of-way that currently serves the Hilo Country Club Estates, a residential subdivision of 10,000 sq. ft. lots, and several large rural and agricultural properties. It is relatively new and has stabilized shoulders and paved swales. Kaumana Drive is a major mauka-makai right-of-way that connects Hilo and West Hawaii via the saddle between Mauna Kea and Mauna Loa. At approximately the 1,650-foot elevation above Hilo, Kaumana Drive changes name to the popularly known Saddle Road. This road continues over to West Hawaii where it connects with the Mamalahoa Highway in the South Kohala District. Kaumana Drive is a two-lane State right-of-way with unrestricted access. At the project vicinity, the right-of-way is 50 feet wide and there are no curbs, gutters or sidewalks. The proposed subdivision will be served by a private access from Wilder Road, a County right-of-way that connects with Kaumana Drive (see Figure 12). The access, which is located within Easement 107, is unimproved, however, and will require construction of a road. Alternatively, access may be provided from an existing County Water Supply Department (WSD) service road located near Easement 107. This access would enter the Property from the northeast via the existing 20-foot-wide paved road owned by the WSD. The road is situated within a 60-foot-wide easement that serves the WSD's nearby reservoir and an easement that serves the HELCO site on the Property's makai boundary (see Figure 12). The two easements share the same alignment for approximately 1,600 feet from Wilder Road before they split to go to their respective utility sites. The land beneath the easements is comprised of three private properties. Two are owned by M10, Inc. and the third is owned by Jerry Chang. 44 W8.370000~•1 N.5.01 18 mq ~ ~g ~ ~ Nit ;d w~~ NN a8 U = ~ / ~ o ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ w 0 g~ ot~b. Z a BD~Gt{ ~ ~ ,~.........g.........~ ~~-q~ ~ I ~ o~ NW I sa ~ ~ Z LL ~ o ~ 3¢f W ~ I / Um~ 1 `0 ~ W III ~ •il i ~ i I € ml 9 N ~ II j ° Il $ ~ m~ ~ a gg T I m S~ LL ~ III ° ~ a yE ~ I~ ~ ~ ~ I g ~ c m I ~ =7 ~ ~ III W ~ I N LL :II ~ ~ • ^ W ~I Q m I U rn X o y ~ W c b 'X W Z 45 The Newton Family's proposed road will require the use of the two easements and a 400-foot extension beyond HELCO's easement to the Property. M10, Inc. and Jerry Chang have preliminarily consented to the use of their respective land by The Newton Family for access purposes, and the two utility companies have indicated that there would be no problems in sharing their access easements with The Newton Family. The proposed access will consist of a paved road that will meet County rural or agricultural standards and will be located within a 50-foot-wide easement extending from Wilder Road through the two utility easements and into The Newton Family Property. The proposed access will provide cost-saving benefits over the existing access. Approximately half of the new access is already improved and meets minimum County standards. The Newton Family's existing access is undeveloped and overgrown with thick vegetation over its entire length. The cost for improving the existing access would be substantial. The proposed road will traverse private property whose owner has already granted preliminary permission to The Newton Family for access over its land. A formal access agreement is presently being prepared. In the long term, the County is planning to develop across-country secondary arterial connecting Kaumana Drive, Stainback Road and Volcano Road at Mountain View. The preliminary alignment for this new right-of-way crosses the Property at about its mid-point near the old Ola'a flume system. The Newton Family has incorporated the planned right-of-way into its conceptual subdivision plan and plans to dedicate it to the County of Hawaii during the subdivision process. To date, the planned secondary arterial, which would provide a new access to the Property, has no development schedule. Also shown on the County zoning maps are new collectors roads makai of the Petition Area. These maps indicate that the County is expecting long-term growth in Kaumana and is anticipating the need for new roads in the project vicinity including one that would extend Wilder Road to the south and eventually turning east to connect with other future roads. A new collector road is also envisioned along Easement 107 that currently serves the Property and adjacent property to the west. This future access will turn northwest before touching the Property. It and other long-term accesses would be built when the region is much further developed. A description of other roads that are planned further from the Property, including the Saddle Road improvement and Puainako Street Extension, are provided in Appendix H. 46 Traffic A 24-hour traffic count was taken by the State Department of Transportation (DOT) on Kaumana Drive at Country Club Drive (approximately 6,000 feet mauka of Wilder Road) on July 15 and 16, 1996. It showed a volume of 2,351 vehicles (both directions) which is an increase over the 1,630 vehicles recorded in 1994. There were two noticeable peak-hour traffic periods; one occurring in the morning between 6:45 a.m. and 7:45 a.m. with a volume of 193 vehicles and the other in the afternoon between 3:45 p.m. and 4:45 p.m with a volume of 222 vehicles. These elevated traffic counts apparently identify and characterize the area's regular commuting periods. Another 24-hour traffic count was taken on Kaumana Drive at Akolea Road approximately 1,700 feet makai of Wilder Road. Traffic volumes here showed 4,066 vehicles (both directions) in 1996 and 3,839 vehicles in 1994. The peak- hour traffic at this lower location occurs between 7:15 a.m. and 8:15 a.m. with a volume of 335 vehicles and between 4:30 p.m. and 5:30 p.m. in the afternoon with a volume of 370 vehicles. These volumes are relatively low for this road. The State DOT does not have traffic counts on Wilder Road, but it is reasonable to estimate that the volume of traffic on this County road would not exceed 2,000 vehicle trips (both directions) per day and that its peak-hour traffic would not surpass more than 210 vehicles per hour. These volumes are well below the capacity of the right-of-way. There are no major developments pending in the area that would generate significant new trips. Approximately 10 years ago, a golf course was planned immediately makai of the Petition Area. According to the Hawaii County Planning Department, the permit for the golf course has since voided after no activity occurred on the property. The Planning Department also indicated that no development permits for construction have been filed for the residential zoned lands adjacent to the existing Hilo Country Club Estates. The proposed project will have very little impact on the local roadways. No more than 29 trips (one way) per day would be generated by residents of the proposed subdivision. This total is only a small fraction of the existing traffic on Wilder Road and Kaumana Drive. Further, the proposed subdivision would not contribute to any traffic on the County's planned secondary arterial since access to the new parcels will be from Wilder Road. Present plans show only the Remainder Area of the Property having a possible alternative access 47 to the secondary arterial. Thus, overall, no mitigation measures to reduce traffic impact from the proposed project will be necessary. Water Water is currently available via an 8-inch line along Wilder Road. This line serves a number of residential properties including the Hilo Country Club Estates. The primary source of this water is the Piihonua Well located at approximately the 975-foot elevation below the Property. A secondary source is the Ola'a flume spring located at about the 1,975' elevation on the Hamakua side of Kaumana Drive. A new well is being drilled by the County in the Kaumana City subdivision to replace the Ola'a flume spring as a source for the water system. Pumps are required to transport the Piihonua Well water to a reservoir at elevation 1,330' immediately above Wilder Road and approximately 1,500 feet northeast of the project site. The reservoir provides a 0.3-million gallon storage facility for the water system. A 12-inch gravity line from the reservoir feeds the 8-inch line along Wilder Road. Approximately 5,400 gallons of water per day (based on County standards) will be required to service the domestic needs of the proposed subdivision. The Newton Family intends to connect to the 12-inch gravity line at least 100 feet below the County reservoir and pump the water through a 4-inch transmission line to the Petition Area. The new line would follow and be located within The Newton Family's proposed access easement. Depending on the type of agricultural activity that would occur within the subdivision, the amount of water that might be required for irrigation will vary. Rain catchment and storage systems may be installed by the individual parcel owners to supplement their supply of irrigation water. With rainfalls of approximately 230 inches per year, a bountiful source is available for agricultural use. There may be little or no need to use County water for irrigation purposes, particularly for the modest type of agricultural activity that is expected to occur on the Property. Sewer There is no County wastewater collection system in the area. Residential homes on adjacent properties are currently served by individual wastewater disposal units such as septic tanks or cesspools. The proposed project will be served by septic tanks. According to Hawaii Administrative Rules, Title 11, Chapter 62, subdivisions which do not have access to a public wastewater treatment facility and which has 50 lots or less with minimum 10,000 sq.ft. areas may install individual wastewater disposal 48 units. The Newton Family is proposing eight agricultural parcels within the Petition Area and one conservation parcel in the Remainder Area. The parcels range in size from 80 acres to approximately 153 acres in the Petition Area. Further, all applicable State Department of Health standards will be met in installing the wastewater disposal units. It is noted that there are no sources of County water directly makai of the Property. Electricity and Telephone Electricity and telephone lines are currently available for connection along Wilder Road. HELCO and GTE Hawaiian Tel, respectively, are the providers of these services. The Newton Family will request connection via overhead lines to Wilder Road. Within the project site, utility lines will continue to be overhead which are characteristic of this rural area. The electrical power and telephone service demand will be small for the proposed subdivision. The Newton Family will install all necessary off-site improvements to connect and be serviced by existing utilities in the area. Solid Waste The County of Hawaii currently provides solid waste disposal sites for residents in Hilo at various transfer stations around the town and at a public land fill near Hilo International Airport. Residents are required to haul their own waste to these sites or contract with a private hauler. Plans for the proposed subdivision call for disposing of the project's solid waste via a private contractor who would haul the material to the Hilo landfill. This facility also has an area for "green' waste or yard clippings. Alternatively, each parcel owner could take care of his or her own waste. 'The new parcels are not expected to generate a significant amount of additional solid waste which cannot be accommodated at the existing landfill or transfer stations. Therefore, mitigation measures are not necessary for this project. Police and Fire Protection Police and fire protection will be provided by the Hawaii County Police Department and Fire Department, respectively. The nearest police station, the Hilo Police Station, is located on Kapiolani Street immediately above Hilo's central business district. It is the department's headquarters for seven other district offices located throughout the island. 49 Police regularly patrol segments of Kaumana Drive as part of their normal beat. Response time would be approximately 10 to 20 minutes (depending on the location of the beat officer) for any emergency calls to the site. All fire emergency calls will be accommodated by the Kaumana Fire Station with assistance from the Central Fire Station in Hilo downtown, if necessary. The Kaumana Fire Station, which is located on Kaumana Drive immediately mauka of Waianuenue Avenue, is equipped with an engine truck with a 1,000 gallon tank, a 500-gallon tanker and a hazardous material truck. It is on 24hour duty and can respond to an emergency call from the project site in about 9 to 10 minutes. Medical Facilities Hilo Medical Center, which is located near the central business district of Hilo, is approximately 5.5 miles from the Property. Emergency calls could provide ambulance service within about 11 to 12 minutes. The Hilo facility offers full medical services including acute care, long-term care, out-patient and home health services. The medical center has 166 acute care and 108 long- term care beds, about 100 doctors with privileges at the hospital and over 300 nurses on staff. Schools Hilo is served by 2 high schools, 2 intermediate schools, and 8 elementary schools. Hilo High, Hilo Intermediate and Kaumana Elementary Schools would be the primary public facilities serving the children residing at the Property. With a conservative estimate of 10 to 12 children in the subdivision, it does not appear the proposed project would be a burden on the three public schools. Parks and Recreation Hilo contains a number of neighborhood parks and playgrounds. There are also golf courses, beach parks and recreational centers. All are highly accessible and available to residents, including those of the proposed subdivision. None of these facilities will be overburdened by activities generated by the project residents. so D(. RELATIONSHIP TO STATE AND COUNTY LAND USE POLICIES State Land Use Law The Property is located in the Conservation District (see Figure 13), Resource Subzone, which was established by the SLUC. The objective of the Resource Subzone is to develop, with proper management, areas to ensure sustained use of the natural resources of those areas. According to Section 13-5-13, Hawaii Administrative Rules, the Resource Subzone shall encompass: 1) Lands necessary for providing future parkland and lands presently used for national, state, county, or private parks; 2) Lands suitable for growing and harvesting of commercial timber or other forest products; 3) Lands suitable for outdoor recreational uses such as hunting, fishing, hiking, camping, and picnicking; 4) Offshore islands of the State of Hawaii, unless placed in a Protective or Limited Subzone; and 5) Lands and state marine waters seaward of the upper reaches of the wash of waves, usually evidenced by the edge of vegetation or by the debris left by the wash of waves on shore to the extent of the State's jurisdiction, unless placed in a Protective or Limited Subzone. In reference to the first criterion for Resource Subzones, the Newton Family Property is not being used as a national, state, county or private park nor is it being planned by any government agency for such use. As earlier described, The Newton Family Property is presently shown as Hilo Forest Reserve on the Piihonua quadrangle map of the U.S.G.S. map series. This appears to indicate that the project site is under the jurisdiction of the Forestry and Wildlife Division of DLNR. In a recent correspondence with the Forestry Division, it was determined that although The Newton Family Property was once in the forest reserve, it no longer holds that designation. It should be noted also, that in establishing the conservation districts, State Land Use Law: Chap. 205-2 (a)(4) states that in the delineation of the boundaries for the conservation districts, the "forest and water reserve zones", as provided in Act 234, Section 2, Session Laws of Hawaii 1957, are renamed "conservation districts'. Now that the subject land is no longer a forest reserve, one of the bases for establishing the Conservation District for the Property is eliminated. 51 833.97001U2@ ~S.{.01 7{ 1 i' f na 71- i.y~ oiv_~l ~_s_a2 1- ~ D _ ~srus®avs eomsu~uc ^~1_ Y l~` ~ ~ y a I ~ e i ~ _ ~ \ \ \ ~ ` ~ ~1 I r _ ; _ ~ 1 ~ ~ / ~ ' i 1 v! o J C ~m.:.. ~ _ Z'N Ifs ~I\,, ~.v.,. \ ~ _ C1'~ / ~ in / ~ ~ 4~ r ~ ~ ~ ~V* ~ ~ , \ ~ / ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~A ~ a~'VA,,,.~'~ ~ i - 11 \ R N _ l ~ _ / ~ ~ .4 - O .-J ~ J \ ? _ ~ ®O z 52 Although the Newton Family Property consists of a large forested area in the uplands of Hilo, it does not have any particularly special qualities that demand it be used as an outdoor recreational area. As indicated above, it is not currently being used for park purposes nor is it being planned by any government agency for such use. In terms of the other criteria for the Resource Subzone, the Newton Family Property is not anoff-shore island of the State of Hawaii nor any land or state marine water seaward of the shoreline. In assessing the Petition Area's (approximately 885 acres of Parce133) appropriateness for classification in the Agricultural District, the SLUC standards for determining Agricultural District boundaries were reviewed. The standards indicate that the property: 1) shall have land with a high capacity for agricultural production; 2) may include land with a significant potential for grazing; and 3) may include land surrounded by agricultural lands and which is not suited to agricultural and ancillary activities by reason of topography, soils, and other related characteristics. It appears the second and third standards are applicable to the Petition Area. The Petition Area is in limited pasture use and can be expanded if more acreage is opened for cattle grazing. This would involve some clearing of heavy vegetation to allow pasture grass to occupy the area. Adjacent lands are already in such pasture use. Timber production is also a potential use as already identified by the DLNR. If Petitioner considered this use it would be only as a limited operation. Other agricultural uses may be limited due to existing soil constraints. In Section VI of this document, the soil constraints were described as shallowness and stony conditions. Despite these soil limitations for agricultural cultivation, the Property can still be improved by employing soil enhancement measures and soil conservation practices. As previously described, Mr. Saku Nakamura of the U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service indicates that to improve the soil's productive use, the following efforts could be employed: 1) Rip/tear surface rock material (pahoehoe lava) to soften and provide proper infiltration drainage condition, 2) Grade crushed rocks into appropriate surface configuration, 3) Place topsoil in planting area, and 4) Plan for proper runoff drainage. 53 Applying these practices, the Newton Children could then engage in agricultural activities that focus on small-scale agricultural operations such as growing vegetables, fruits and/or flowers, small orchards and timber trees for personal and/or limited commercial use. From a land use standpoint, the Property is surrounded by agricultural, open space and rural uses. To the east are 100-acre agricultural parcels, and to the north are agricultural properties of various sizes. The zoning for these lands is A-20a Agricultural, which permits agricultural uses on minimum 20-acre parcels. Approximately 3,200 feet to the south are additional agricultural lands which are zoned A-3a Agricultural (minimum 3-acre parcels). Many of these properties are in diversified agricultural activities. The Hawaii State Plan (Chapter 226, HRS) The proposed action will be consistent with the following relevant objectives and policies of the Hawaii State Plan, as provided in Chapter 226, HRS. Section 226-11 Land-Based. Shoreline. and Marine Resources To achieve the land-based, shoreline, and marine resources objectives, it shall be the policy of this State to: • Exercise an overall conservation ethic in the use of Hawaii s natural resources. • Ensure compatibility between land-based and water-based activities and natural resources and ecological systems. • Take into account the physical attributes of areas when planning and designing activities and facilities. • Manage natural resources and environs to encourage their beneficial and multiple use without generating costly or irreparable environmental damage. • Encourage the protection of rare or endangered plant and animal species and habitats native to Hawaii. Discussion: In the planning of the proposed subdivision, The Newton Family engaged the services of an archaeologist, botanist and zoologist to review and assess the presence and significance of archaeological and natural resources on the 54 Property. The results of their studies provided information on sensitive areas within the Property. Planning then took into account this information during the subdivision concept preparation process. Notably, the archaeological study suggested that the Ola'a flume system be preserved which consequently will be protected in accordance with The Newton Family's current plan. The flora and fauna studies indicated that the mauka land above the Ola'a flume system is a sensitive area consisting of significant native flora and fauna species. Thus, disturbance to the area should be avoid. After completing the various assessment studies, The Newton Family has decided to reclassify only the area below the Ola'a flume system. This area comprises the Petition Area. The remaining mauka area will be left in the Conservation District. It is estimated that approximately 42 acres of the land in the Petition Area would be improved or developed. This represents approximately five percent of the Petition Area. Such a nominal percent should minimize the impact on the natural character of the area as well as to promote conservation practices. Rural or agricultural standards, in lieu of urban standards, for road and utility improvements will be utilized to ensure compatibility with the surrounding environment. SPrtion 226-12 Scenic Natural Beauty and Historic Resources To achieve the scenic, natural beauty, and historic resources objective, it shall be the policy of this State to: • Promote the preservation and restoration of significant natural and historic resources. • Provide incentives to maintain and enhance historic, cultural, and scenic amenities. • Promote the preservation of views and vistas to enhance the visual and aesthetic enjoyment of mountains, ocean, scenic landscapes, and other natural features. • Protect those special areas, structures, and elements that are an integral and functional part of Hawaii's ethnic and cultural heritage. • Encourage the design of developments and activities that complement the natural beauty of the islands. 55 Discussion: The proposed subdivision will be developed as slow-profile, low-density development consisting of minimum 80-acre parcels. The Remainder Area, comprising approximately 760 acres above the Ola'a Flume Road, represents a single parcel. The visual characteristics of the Property will not significantly change. The proposed improvements will be designed to complement not distract from the scenic qualities of the area. Unobtrusive, low-key design elements will be used for the farm dwellings, and rural or agricultural, in lieu of urban, standards will be used for the infrastructure. The Newton Family will establish a design guideline for the residences and common areas of the subdivision to insure development compatibility with the natural beauty of the area. Sgction 226-13 Land, Air, and Water Quality To achieve the land, air, and water quality objectives, it shall be the policy of this State to: • Promote the proper management of Hawaii's land and water resources. • Reduce the threat to life and property from erosion, flooding, tsunamis, hurricanes, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, and other natural or man-induced hazards and disasters. Discussion: The Newton Family is proposing to minimize impacts on the land and water resources of the area by developing improvements that would have very little effect on the environment. Roadway improvements will be minimized; no curbs, gutters or sidewalks will be constructed (drainage will occur over natural swales). Grading and construction, hence, will result in less alteration to the land. Area water resources are not expected to be noticeably impacted. The small number of homes in the proposed subdivision represent a fraction of the demand for water that would be generated by regional residents. Moreover, the anticipated discharge of wastewater from The Newton Family subdivision via cesspools or septic tanks is not expected to significantly impact groundwater resources. As described in the "Natural Hazards" section of this document, the Property is located above Hilo town in a forested area that is subject to forest fire, lava flow, earthquake, flooding and hurricane, but not tsunami inundation or 56 erosion. It is noted that most of these natural hazards also pose a threat to life in the rest of the region, including Hilo town. As previously described, an early warning system, such as the Civil Defense sirens, media broadcasts and County emergency procedures will help to prepare residents for these natural dangers. Further, on an overall basis, the low-intensity development of the proposed subdivision would not result in extensive property damage from these hazards. Section 226-15 Solid and Liquid Wastes To achieve solid and liquid waste objectives, it shall be the policy of this State to: • Promote re-use and recycling to reduce solid and liquid wastes and employ a conservation ethic. Discussion: The proposed agricultural subdivision is not expected to be a major generator of solid and liquid waste such as a commercial facility. The Newton Family will, however, have the opportunity to educate their family members on the benefits of recycling green waste as mulch for their backyard gardens or crops, re-using bottles and cans as storage containers, and applying scrap wood as fuel or wood repair projects. SPrtion 226-16 Water To achieve the facility systems water objective, it shall be the policy of this State to: • Coordinate development of land use activities with existing and potential water supply. • Reclaim and encourage the productive use of runoff water and wastewater discharges. • 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: Rainfall in the vicinity is abundant. Use of this source for irrigation would reduce the need for potable ground water as a supplier. Catchment tanks or basins could provide a supplemental source for this irrigation demand. The 57 County water system, thus, would provide only for the domestic needs in the Petition Area. Section 226-19 Housine To achieve the housing objectives, it shall be the policy of this State to: • Effectively accommodate the housing needs of Hawaii s people. • Stimulate and promote feasible approaches that increase housing choices for low-income, moderate-income, and gap-group households. • Promote design and location of housing developments taking into account the physical setting, accessibility to public facilities and services, and other concerns of existing communities and surrounding areas. Discussion: The Newton Family desires to subdivide its Property and subsequently convey title to the Newton Children. Although this development does not directly address the affordable housing needs of the general public, it does meet the needs of providing affordable housing to a smaller segment of the market that includes the Newton Children. Notably, they too, will require housing in a market place that is still very expensive. For George and Mary Jo Newton, it will be a major benefit.xo help family members to fulfill their desire to become homeowners in Hawaii. The Petition Area is in a desirable location in a beautiful setting above Hilo town and is only minutes away from public facilities and services. Applicable Priority Guidelines The proposed project is applicable to the following priority guidelines of the Hawaii State Plan: Section 22b-104 Population Growth and Land Resources Priority Guidelines • Seek participation from the private sector for the cost of building infrastructure and utilities, and maintaining open spaces. • Identify all areas where priority should be given to preserving rural character and lifestyle. • Identify critical environmental areas in Hawaii to include but not be limited to the following: watershed and recharge areas; wildlife habitats (on land and in the ocean); areas with endangered species of plants and wildlife; natural streams and water bodies; scenic and recreational 5s shoreline resources; open space and natural areas; historic and cultural sites; areas particularly sensitive to reduction in water and air quality; and scenic resources. • Protect and enhance Hawaii s shoreline, open spaces and scenic resources. Discussion: The Newton Family, using private funds, will develop the off-site as well as on-site infrastructure to service the proposed eight-parcel subdivision within the Petition Area. This would include the roadways, sewage disposal units, and water, electrical power and telephone utilities. A vast majority of the Property will also be maintained in its natural condition. The Newton Family believes in maintaining the rural and agricultural character of the Ahupua'a of Kukuau and will use its property accordingly. Notably, nearly half of the total Property will remain in the Conservation District, thereby maintaining critical environmental areas. The proposed subdivision will be developed using rural or agricultural roadway standards and be maintained as slow-density development. There will be no more than eight residences in the Petition Area. The Newton Family has conducted archaeological, physiographical, hydrological, visual, flora and fauna studies via consultants to determine critical environmental areas on the Property. Planning of the subdivision took into account the findings of these studies. The Property is not located on the shoreline and therefore will not raise issues on the need for shoreline protection resulting from the proposed subdivision. State Environmental Policies The proposed action is consistent with the environmental policies of Chapter 344, HRS, which states, among others, to conserve and protect the natural resources of the state and enhance the quality of life by creating opportunities for Hawaii's residents through diverse economic activities which are stable and in balance with the physical and social environments and by establishing communities which provide a sense of identity, wise use of land, efficient transportation, and aesthetic and social satisfaction in harmony with the natural environment. The proposed project will allow the residents of the subdivision to pursue their interest in nature as well as engage in limited agricultural activity and backyard gardening. It is a lifestyle suited to this area where open space and 59 abundant natural resources in land, plants and wildlife exist. The density of the development is in character with the area, and the overall ambience, which is tranquil and open, is expected to be embraced by all the project residents. State Functional Plans The State Functional Plans are intended to provide more detail to the Hawaii State Plan in fourteen specific areas of concern -agriculture, conservation lands, education, higher education, employment, energy, health, historic preservation, housing, human services, recreation, tourism, transportation and water resource development. The proposed project is consistent with the following State functional plans and their objectives and policies. . tat ®griculture Functional Plan (1991) Objective H: Achievement of productive agricultural use of lands most suitable and needed for agriculture. Policy H(2): Conserve and protect important agricultural lands in accordance with the Hawaii State Constitution. Objective I: Achievement of efficient and equitable provision of adequate water for agricultural use. Policy I(1): Expand agricultural water resources statewide. Discussion: The proposed subdivision will not negatively impact important agricultural lands that are identified by the Agricultural Lands of Importance to the State of Hawau. Therefore, the proposed subdivision will not interfere with the best agricultural lands in the state. The proposed subdivision, in fact, will put additional lands into agricultural use, although on a limited scale. The Property is located in an area of relatively high rainfall which provides a benefit in terms of natural irrigation. The owner, thus, would depend less on County potable water for use in irrigation. State Conservation Lands Functional Plan 991) Objective IA: Establishment of data bases for inventories of existing lands and resources. Policy IA(5): Conduct inventories of aquatic and terrestrial resources. Policy IA(6): Survey important native aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems and species. 60 Objective IIA: Establishment of plans for natural resources and land management. Policy IIA(1): Formulate and maintain a management plan for resources and lands having significant conservation value. Objective IIB: Protection of fragile or rare natural resources. Policy IIB(4): Continue aggressive management to protect Hawaii's intact forested ecosystems. Discussion: The Property is not located on the shoreline, thus no aquatic resources were surveyed. Terrestrial resources, however, including floral and faunal species, were surveyed and assessed in terms of significance. Recommendations on the treatment of significant species were made and are included in Section VI. State Historic Preservation Functional Plan ji991) Objective A: Identification of historic properties. Policy A.1: Expand statewide Historic Sites Inventory Program Objective E: The establishment of programs to collect and conserve historic records, artifacts, and oral histories and to document and perpetuate traditional arts, skills and culture. Policy E.1: Provide support and coordination to activities involved with the collection and conservation of historic records and materials. Discussion: As provided in Section VI, Subsection Archaeological/Cultural Sites," an archaeological assessment was conducted on the Property by an archaeology consultant. The study included a review and evaluation of archaeological and historical documents, including archival literature, legends, records, boundary awards, and cartographic sources relative to the Property, an inspection level field work, and a written report. Significant sites will be protected and preserved by the owner, as required by SHPD. A follow-up research and evaluation report on cultural concerns was also prepared and submitted to SHPD. Based on the study and a recently completed addendum, the consultant determined that the proposed project would not have any significant or adverse effect on any existing cultural practices or sites. 61 Mate Housing Functional_ Pla_n_ Objective A: Homeownership for at least sixty percent, or roughly 248,500 households by the year 2000. Policy A(2): Encourage increased private sector participation in the development of affordable for-sale housing units. Policy A(5): Use alternative approaches in providing affordable housing for sale. Discussion: The Newton Family desires to subdivide its Property and convey title to the Newton Children. Although this development does not directly address the affordable housing needs of the general public, it does meet the needs of providing affordable housing to a smaller segment of the market that includes the Newton Children. Notably, they too, will require housing in a market place that is still very expensive. For The Newton Family, it will be a significant benefit to help family members to fulfill their desire to become homeowners in Hawaii. Hawaii Coastal Zone Management Program The Property, which is located at the approximately 2,000-foot elevation and about 5.8 miles from the shoreline, will be consistent with the objectives and policies of the Hawaii Coastal Zone Management (CZM) Program. ~.PCreational Resource Objective; Provide coastal recreational opportunities accessible to the public. Policy: A) Improve coordination and funding of coastal recreational planning and management B) Provide adequate, accessible, and diverse recreational opportunities in the coastal zone management area by . Discussion: The Petition Area is located more than five miles from the shoreline. The proposed subdivision improvements will not interfere with any existing or planned recreational opportunities along the shoreline including surfing, beachgoing, picnicking and fishing. No public access to such coastal recreational resources will be obstructed or interfered with by the proposed subdivision. The proposed subdivision will be in compliance with existing State water quality standards and point and nonpoint sources of pollution regulations. 62 Historic Resources Objective: Protect, preserve, and, where desirable, restore those natural and manmade historic and prehistoric resources in the coastal zone management area that are significant in Hawaiian and American history and culture. Policy: A) Identify and analyze significant archaeological resources. B) Maximize information retention through preservation of remains and artifacts or salvage operations. Discussion: As previously described, an archaeological assessment was conducted on the Property by an archaeology consultant. The study included a review and evaluation of archaeological and historical documents, including archival literature, legends, records, boundary awards, and cartographic sources relative to the Property, an inspection level field work, and a written report. Significant sites will be protected and preserved by the owner, as required by the Historic Preservation Division of the State of Hawaii. A follow-up research and evaluation report on cultural concerns was also prepared and submitted to SHPD. Based on the study, the consultant determined that the proposed project would not have any significant or adverse effect on any existing cultural practices or sites. S~-Pn;~ and Open.~pace Resources Objective: Protect, preserve, and, where desirable, restore or improve the quality of coastal scenic and open space resources. Policy: A) Identify valued scenic resources in the coastal zone management area. 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. D) Encourage those developments which are not coastal dependent to locate in inland areas. Discussion: The proposed subdivision is not coastal dependent and is located inland of the shoreline. It will be aloes-profile project developed as a very low-density subdivision with very large lots. Only a small portion of the Petition Area will be developed with farm dwellings and possible limited agricultural 63 activities. The large remainder of the lot will stay in its natural state and maintain existing scenic qualities and visual corridors. ['oastal_ Ecosystems Objective: Protect valuable coastal ecosystems, including reefs, from disruption and •minimize adverse impacts on all coastal ecosystems. Policies: A) Improve the technical basis for natural resource management B) Preserve valuable coastal ecosystems, including reefs, of significant biological or economic importance C) Minimize disruption or degradation of coastal water ecosystems by effective regulation of stream diversions, channelization, and similar land and water uses, recognizing competing water needs D) Promote water quantity and quality planning and management practices which reflect the tolerance of fresh crater and marine ecosystems and prohibit land and water uses which violate state water quality standards Discussion: Inventory studies of appropriate resources on the Property have been conducted, and an assessment of the proposed action's anticipated impacts on the natural resources has been undertaken. Management and/or mitigative measures were recommended, if such impacts were major. The proposed subdivision is located inland of the shoreline and will not disrupt the valuable coastal ecosystems of the island's coastline and marine waters. There are no stream waters on the Property that discharges into the ocean. The proposed subdivision will comply with existing State water quality standards. R~onomic Uses Objective: Provide public or private facilities and improvements important to the State's economy in suitable locations. Policy: A) Concentrate coastal dependent development in appropriate areas. 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 adverse social, visual, and environmental impacts in the coastal zone management area. 64 Discussion: The proposed subdivision is not a coastal dependent development and is not located on the shoreline. It will not interfere with coastal dependent activities, including their social, visual and environmental qualities. Coastal Hazards Objective: Reduce hazard to life and property from tsunami, storm waves, stream flooding, erosion, subsidence, and pollution. Policy: B) Control development in areas subject to storm wave, tsunami, flood, erosion, hurricane, wind, subsidence, and point and nonpoint source pollution hazards. C) Ensure that developments comply with requirements of the Federal Flood Insurance Program. Discussion: The proposed subdivision is located more than five miles from the shoreline. There will be no danger from tsunami inundation, storm waves, shoreline erosion and coastal subsidence. There are no streams or rivers on the Property, thus no riverine flooding is anticipated. The Newton Family Property is not located in any FIRM flood designated areas. It is not located in an area that is subject to point and nonpoint source pollution hazards. ~~~ginv Development Objective: Improve the development review process, communication, and public participation in the management of coastal resources and hazards. Policy: A) Use, implement, and enforce existing law effectively to the maximum extent possible in managing present and future coastal zone development. Discussion: The above objective and policy are directed at government agencies. The application review process for the Newton Family project will include a public hearing during the Land Use Commission review. During this hearing proceeding, public participation is encouraged, project information and community input are exchanged, and coastal zone management awareness is promoted. 65 Public Particy~tion Objective: Stimulate public awareness, education, and participation in coastal management. Policies: A) Maintain a public advisory body to identify coastal management problems and to provide policy advice and assistance to the coastal zone management program. B) Disseminate information on coastal management issues by means of educational materials, published reports, staff contact, and public workshops for persons and organizations concerned with coastal related issues, developments, and government activities C) Organize workshops, policy dialogues, and site-specific mediations to respond to coastal issues and conflicts. Discussion: The above objective and policies are directed at government agencies. The Newton Family concurs with these objective and policies and will maintain its project so that the proposed improvements will be consistent with them. Beach Protection Objective: Protect beaches for public use and recreation. Policy: A) Locate new structures inland from the shoreline setback to conserve open space and to minimize loss of improvements due to erosion. B) Prohibit construction of private erosion-protection structures seaward of the shoreline, except when they result in improved aesthetic and engineering solutions to erosion at the sites and do not interfere with existing recreational and waterline activities. Discussion: The proposed subdivision is located more than five miles from the shoreline and will not impact shoreline resources. No shoreline erosion-protection structures are proposed and no interference with existing recreational and waterline activities is anticipated. 66 Marine Resources Objective: Implement the State's ocean resources management plan. Policy: A) Exercise an overall conservation ethic, and practice stewardship in the protection, use, and development of marine and coastal resources. Discussion: The above objective and policy are directed at government agencies. The proposed subdivision will not interfere with any government programs designed to implement the State's ocean resources management plan. County General Plan The Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG) Map of the General Plan (1989) designates the Property as Conservation (see Figure 14). This designation reflects the fact that the Property is on the U.S.G.S map as a "forest reserve' and is in the Conservation District of the State Land Use District Maps. As previously described, a petition will be filed with the SLUC to amend the LUD boundary of the Conservation District in order to reclassify the Petition Area from Conservation to Agricultural. Upon securing this reclassification, an amendment to the LUPAG Map will be sought from Conservation to Intensive Agriculture. This amendment action will require review by the County Planning Commission and approval by the County Council. An amendment to the County LUPAG would bring the County land use plan in line with the anticipated State land use district map for the area. It is noted that the proposed amendment will not represent a spot zoning or designation on the LUPAG Map. Areas to the north, south and east of the Property are already in the Intensive Agriculture District. It is further noted that as part of the County's comprehensive 10-year revisions to the General Plan, the County Planning Department is proposing to redesignate the Petition Area from Conservation to Other Agricultural. If the County Council adopts this designation, the Newton Family would not need to amend the General Plan for its Property to show the originally proposed Intensive Agricultural use. 67 esaa~anaoz.e Ne.o~ u ,.~~,~~.,;a r g : ~ ; ~xx a~ s~ i" ~ LL ¢ I`' ase4v6 - W ' f \ ~ ~ . - _ ~ o . ~ > ~ ~ ~ 3 - - ~ ' ~ ;ate--~ L ~ - ~ r ~ I a ii ~ ~ / _ ,~J \ ~ 1~.. i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ \ ~ 1. Y _ Cr ~ Y J pr{ ~ ~ f ^ ' 1 / ~ \ :mom --t ~id\ v'. o e \ t ~ ` ~ ~_.p ~ PP ~o ~ ~ ~ ~ . _ ~ %~i - > ~ T. i t ~ ~ _?A4 \ ®i \ 68 On an accompanying Facilities Map for the General Plan, a secondary arterial road is planned by the County to cross the Property at about its mid-way point. It is part of the County's long-range plan for public facilities on the island. Construction scheduling and funding are yet to be determined and secured, respectfully, for the project. County Zoning The Hawaii County's South Hilo District Zone Map shows the Property within the "Waiakea Forest Reserve" (see Figure 15). Since the Property is located within the State Conservation District jurisdiction over land use is with the State Department of Land Natural Resources. Reference to Forest Reserve is also reflected on the County's Tax Maps and U.S. Geological Survey maps. It is noted that the zoning map anticipates future growth in the area and is showing additional collector roads throughout the Kaumana area. As provided above, a petition will be filed to amend the LUD boundary of the Conservation District in order to reclassify the Petition Area from Conservation to Agricultural. A County LUPAG Map Amendment, subsequently, will be sought, and then a Change of Zone Amendment will be requested from the Hawaii County Council to establish an A-20a Agricultural designation for the Petition Area (a zoning designation that is predominant in the vicinity). This zoning district requires that parcels have a minimum size of 20 acres: The final land use approval would result in a County zoning consistent with the anticipated State land use district amendment. Although the Agricultural zoning will allow various agricultural uses and related activities, the Newton Family will adopt protective use covenants that will be more restrictive on the allowed types of agricultural activities on the Property. They are intended for the proposed use to be sensitive to the project area's native flora and fauna. Notably, the Agricultural zoning would allow the Petitioner to further subdivide the Property into smaller lots. The Newton Family, however, will impose a condition on the project under a unilateral agreement that will keep the number of lots to eight (as proposed in the LUC Petition) for at least 20 years. Special Management Area The Property is not located in the Special Management Area of the County of Hawaii, and therefore is not required to file an SMA Use Permit Application. 69 ex.s~ooaoxa!~.e.oi n y ^ ~ y` ~j ) \ .4 I bbb a 10 G w r' Q _ ~ p ' <t / assxavs '^a~ ~ ':l ~ ~0 g, ~ LL z t / ~ ~ l ` ~ \ @° _ ~ ~ ` ~ a ~ \i 1 ~ 10 ~ ~ ~ ) ~ 1 is ~.~.1 'N _ ~L r. ai' ~ ~V` .g„' LLr. / ~r • ~ , ~ \ " ~ 4V y ~ ~ 1 t T ~ ~ . _ 1 ~ ~ ~ -e. \ ~ ~ ..,~z i.± a \ ~ 'ti ~~~y.ra~ N -1 Y ` lei ~ ~ ` i _ 1~ \ - ±rc> a ~ tr \ G ~ ~ - b' [ ~ ~ r~ c3 ` ~ o 1 aaaa°i \ z ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ l` 1 J~ G Q 1 ~ ~ ~l i ~ ~ p .:Y; . 1 11 - - f ~y W ~ ~ LL - ~ - ~ O ^St 70 County Subdivision Ordinance The proposed subdivision will require compliance with the County Subdivision Code. Before any application for the subdivision is filed, it must comply with all land use requirements, including zoning regulations, etc. (see above). The subdivision application will be subject to review and approval from various County and State agencies and final approval from the County Planning Department. After the Petition Area is subdivided up to the eight agricultural parcels as described in Section IV, a restriction on further subdivision will be included in the deeds conveying title to the parcels. This is intended to avoid an increase in the intensity of use on the Property after it has been initially subdivided for distribution to the Newton Children. Required Permits and Approvals The following table lists the required land use permits/approvals and their respective approving agencies. TABLE 5. Required Permits and Approvals for Proposed Improvements Permit and Approvals fApnro~in~Agency_ State Land Use District Amendment State Land Use Commission County General Plan Amendment Hawaii County Council County Zoning Hawaii County Council Subdivision Approval Hawaii County Planning Department Grading Permit Hawaii County Dept. of Public Works X. SUMMARY OF MAJOR IMPACTS Major impacts will occur during the construction phase of the project. These impacts, however, will be temporary and short term. When initial site preparation occurs, heavy earthmoving equipment will be used to clear vegetation from the site, grade an alignment for the new road, install utilities, pave the new access road and landscape the roadside and project entry. These activities will stir dust, generate noise, and create site conditions that might cause erosion and sedimentation. Construction equipment and supplies will be brought to the site causing occasional minor delays in traffic, particularly in and around the project area. Mitigation measures, as described below, will be implemented, if necessary, to reduce or prevent major adverse impacts. 71 As provided in Section VI of this Environmental Assessment, the proposed farm dwellings and limited agricultural activities will not have significant adverse impacts on the botanical and biological resources of the area. The floral study by Palmer and Associates Consulting and fauna study by Rana Productions, Ltd. have extensively surveyed the Property and have assessed the anticipated impacts of the proposed subdivision. They have determined that the low-density subdivision in the Petition Area would not have significant adverse impacts on the Property's floral and fauna resources. Further, proposed mitigation measures by The Newton Family are included with the project that would address other concerns relating to potential adverse effects on floral and fauna resources in the Petition Area. Long-term impacts would occur when the subdivision is occupied by the residents. With eight parcel owners, the anticipated impacts on local roads, public schools, librazies, neighborhood parks, County water supply, local utilities and police and fire emergency services would be insignificant. More intensive use of the land would be controlled by the County zoning and protective use covenants that are planned for the subdivision. Also, further subdivision of the Property will be prohibited for a period of 20 years. This would be included in the deeds conveying title to the subdivided parcels. XI. RELATIONSHIP OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, OTHER PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IN THE AREA AND ALTERNATIVE USES FOR THE PROPERTY The proposed subdivision within the Petition Area will maintain the rural/agricultural character of the area. It will have an average density of 110 acres per parcel and include possibly agricultural activities, but at a small scale. The planned uses are expected to be compatible with the surrounding area that includes open space, rural and agricultural uses. The agricultural properties to the north and east have zoned densities of at least 10 to 20 acres per parcel, which are in fact smaller than the planned project parcels. The Property is currently in forest or woodland use. An alternative to the proposed rural/agricultural subdivision, is to maintain the Property in its existing use. This would mean the land would retain its forest or woodland use and continue to be idle and unproductive for the owner. Another alternative is to develop the Property for park use. It could be used as a camping site, nature/hiking park or picnic ground. Such facilities would be popular since they are not readily available in the Hilo area. From the owner's standpoint, however, although such facilities would have many beneficial effects, they would entail a high maintenance cost and generate only minimal revenues. Such facilities would be more appropriately developed by the State or County. The Property may also offer opportunities for a retreat or lodging accommodation for long-term staying guests. It would include such facilities as guest cottages, recreational facilities, dining area, library/reading room and multi-purpose building. Although a retreat or lodge has tremendous appeal, it would satisfy only a limited market. Its success would rely on, among others, marketing, customer service, prestige and quality of guest stay. Afirst- rate facilities manager would be essential for this operation. This type of activity would be beyond and outside the expertise of the owner. XII. PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES During construction and operation of the proposed action, impacts are expected to occur on natural, cultural and man-made resources in the area. It is the Petitioner's intent to protect and conserve these resources as much as possible. Suggestions and recommendations have been received from both government agencies as well as consultants on appropriate measures. Various forms of these measures have been discussed in previous sections of this document, but a formal list of measures addressing impacts to floral, faunal, archaeological, cultural, and infrastructural resources, is provided in Appendix B and will be included in a unilateral agreement by the Petiiioner for the project. The listed conditions of the agreement are proposed to run with the land. They are separate from any additional conditions which may be imposed by the State LUC and/or State Office of Planning. It is noted that other mitigation measures would be implemented, where necessary, to reduce or lessen any significant adverse impacts generated by the project's construction contractor. For example, noise generated by construction equipment would be mitigated by limiting the use of heavy machinery to normal daylight working hours and employing muffler devices or noise suppressants on gasoline or diesel-powered equipment. Construction-generated dust would be controlled by water sprinkling, dust screens or other measures prescribed by the Chief Engineer of the County of Hawaii. Equipment used for on-site construction will emit some air pollutants via engine exhaust. Thus, such equipment will be properly maintained by the contractor to maximize fuel combustion efficiency and minimize excessive emissions from heavy equipment exhaust pipes. During site preparation, when clearing, grubbing and grading occur, areas will be devoided of vegetation and conditions for potential erosion and sedimentation may result. Possible mitigation measures could include creating sedimentation basins, covering dirt stock piles with tarp, developing infrastructure in phases to minimize active construction areas and landscaping as soon as possible. 73 Also during construction, there will be some construction vehicles on the area roadways transporting material and equipment to and from the Property. The number of vehicles involved in this operation would be small and should have little effect on traffic except when the heavy, slow-moving vehicles travel up Kaumana Drive. These vehicles, however, would be moving at various times of the day and would not be concentrated during the regular peak hour traffic. A wastewater plan would be prepared and submitted to the State Department of Health for review and approval. 7dII. DETERMINATION This environmental assessment demonstrates that the proposed action with proposed mitigation measures will have no significant adverse impact on the environment and that an Environmental Impact Statement is not warranted. Therefore, a Finding of No Significant Impact is determined for this project. XIV. FINDINGS AND REASONS SUPPORTING DETERMINATION The following findings and reasons indicate that the proposed action with proposed mitigation measures will have no significant adverse impact on the environment, and consequently, support the above determination. 1) The proposed subdivision will not involve total or massive use of the Petition Area. Selective siting of the farm dwellings within the individual parcels will be made. The subdivision will be designed to respect the natural resources in the area. Large stands of forest trees and clusters of major vegetation will be left intact, while areas that are already cleared will be likely used as residential sites. An archaeological study was conducted and mitigative measures will be employed to protect any significant archaeological features from removal or destruction. Prior to any development in the Petition Area, archaeological clearance will be sought from the State Historic Preservation Division for affected areas. A cultural study was also conducted and no specific traditional cultural properties, areas or sites were identified. 2) The large native forest areas will be essentially maintained in their natural condition. The proposed subdivision improvements, which include dwellings, yards, agricultural activities and infrastructure, would occupy only approximately five percent of the Petition Area. The Ola'a flume system, which crosses the Property at mid elevation, will be preserved and its access/service road will be left intact. 74 3) The proposed action is consistent with the State's long-term environmental policies and guidelines as expressed in Chapter 344, HRS. 4) The proposed action is expected to have some economic benefits. Its construction will generate jobs and infuse business and personal income into the local economy. No negative effects on the social welfare of the community are anticipated. In an area of high cost-of- living, the proposed action will provide affordable housing for the Newton Children. The proposed action will not displace any existing homes or facilities nor require employee housing. 5) The proposed landscape improvements will not result in the use of hazardous materials detrimental to the public health of the community. 6) There will be no significant adverse social impacts generated by the proposed project. The proposed action will not change the character of the area nor generate any major increase in resident population. The proposed action will not cause significant negative impacts on traffic or overburden existing public facilities and services. 7) The proposed subdivision will include farm dwellings, yards, agricultural activities and infrastructure that would occupy approximately five percent of the Petition Area. It will be compatible with the surrounding lands and result in no substantial degradation of the environmental quality. 8) The proposed subdivision is being planned by a private family who has no intention of developing the Petition Area into a larger project. No long-term degradation of the natural environment nor negative impacts from a larger action are anticipated. 9) Flora and fauna studies have been conducted and necessary precaution will be taken to avoid any negative effects on existing rare, endangered or threaten species in the Petition Area. The USFWS, USACE and State DLNR have been consulted in determining appropriate mitigative measures. 10) The anticipated impacts associated with the project construction, such as dust and noise, will be short term and temporary. These impacts are expected to be minimized by the implementation of mitigative measures, in accordance with applicable laws, statutes, ordinances, and rules and regulations of the U.S. Government, State of Hawaii, and ~5 County of Hawaii. Negative impacts on groundwater resources are not anticipated. 11) The Property is located approximately 5.8 miles from the shoreline and is not subject to tsunami inundation and other coastal hazards. Potential flood areas, as defined by the Flood Insurance Rate Maps, are not identified on the Property. 12) The Property is located outside of any scenic resource area and is not a visual obstruction to any adjacent properties and nearby local public roads. 13) The small scale nature of the project will not require substantial energy consumption. XV. AGENCY COMMENTS AND OWNER'S RESPONSES A copy of the Amended Draft Environmental Assessment for this project was transmitted to the following agencies, organizations and private interests for review and comment. The parties that responded are indicated below and a copy of their correspondence with a response from the proposing agency is attached to this section. Comments that were substantive and applicable were incorporated into the Final Environmental Assessment. Agencies Agency Letters Responding and Responses Agencies w/No Attached in Federal Agencies Responded Comment this Section U.S. Army Corps of Engineers X X U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Geological Service Water Resources Division U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service State Agencies Department of Agriculture Department of Defense Department of Education X X Department of Hawaiian Home Lands Dept. of Health X X Department of Transportation 76 Agencies Agency Letters Responding and Responses Agencies w/No Attached in tat Agencies Responded comment this Section DLNR Forestry and Wildlife Division X X DLNR Historic Preservation Division DLNR Land Divison DLNR Na Ala Hele Program X X Land Use Commission X X Office of Environmental Quality Control X X Office of Hawaiian Affairs - Honolulu X X Office of Hawaiian Affairs - Hilo Office of Planning X X University of Hawaii - Environmental Center University of Hawaii -Water - Resources Research Center ou Agencies Dept. of Parks and Recreation Dept. of Public Works X X Dept. of Water Supply X X Fire Department Planning Department X X Police Department X X i iti Hawaii Electric Light Co., Inc. Verizon Hawaii Organizations and Private Interests Charles Langlas, Ph.D. Housing and Community Development Corporation of Hawaii Kanakaole Edith Foundation Kepa Maly 77 Agencies Agency Letters Responding and Responses Organizations Agencies w/No Attached in and Private Interests Responded Comment this Section M10, Inc. Moku Loa Group Prince David Kawananakoa Hawaiian Civic Club The Nature Conservancy The Outdoor Circle Elected Officials Senator David Matsuura Representative Jerry L. Chang Representative Eric G. Hamakawa Councilmember Bobby Jean Leithead-Todd 78 z g ~ 8 ~ ~ ~a ~ ~ ~~9 a ~ 5 s U 55 ~ 0 3 ~ ~>`a r~ ;Z p iy 5 S:_ ;i W ~eP Br S$.a'@~ i~.d S ~ z ~ ~ g6 'a B'" 8~ n~ 5~~~ z ~ a 1 ~ ~ a OT~ g~ ~$aSs ~ ~ ~ \ ~ ~ ~ e~ ~z u~ ~zs ti ~U s = g ~ ~ ~ $ g g C~~ 9 gg ALa ~gg ci y7 ~ ~ z-a! s xN y~~ 5.~ 3~ A Bid p3 ~?p~' i V V1 U ~ 'J ^ qe~~ 9' O m T W ~ w B ~ ~ 4 € a ° e - fA r. °n' 3 X o a t o >pw u R j r $ ~ S~ ~ ~ 3a~ ~8.~.~ 3 c`< L p C m O = L~~i. y y E 3 m p 0 W O C p L n W U m n N y ~8_a m O W m m U ,I 61 Y U 9 W c A d~ _ L a~ M C U rv y r \~tF\ 00 > N w gg9o0 Om 4? H.< Q y NF 00 LyEm ~q.ii U W a O iw~MAry HP U W U.pi f~¦ rv NG'b Hrv wm V ~ mwu 3 H yy U U U LL t2 n v E ISE W m .,C< m w A G F OS~ r 8 mmUO m hU u~ w ~ q L Cmi-IYO pm `f y 7 A'. ~M .N W `p 6~ iiiiiiG ~ N ~ W u i y Cy m b 0 W a m 9 rv 6 Gy 7 E'O p O 5 N m m E N 0EO H E U U Ym r O py .iw ryry y M y y y 0 t q p la > 0 G .mi C ux U 7. m~n N w~0-OiH H-Ui E F Y m C N T O w~ V O 0 0 0 C j W H.r Lx ~ YO~.pi m ~ 9~ mb-NCm p .i U 7 E x m i A'0 ~ ,C m F ~ .i y ..i . n U y 0 M C'O u i m ti H N m O d ~ N H d U tm~n2 O q wt W h N N O N Yy N • V Y V O V Y Y e • o u Y y ~ ~ w y y Y tl ! Y Y w a ,'pi(~ K 4 O 4 Of tlal ~ O 4 c O 6 .01 p U O N Oi( Y K C \ O V .1 yeEC Y V U q C V ^p 4 C y O • O Y V O 4 +Y Z j~ V G i m }O C O EN T 49 O V ^ Y KO.rv L 139tl O 0 V 4 Z y .4 \ N O O U ] q 4 O q 2 0. i m 0 U ~y i~ Y 9 V O CE d V Y y O u Y • T C M O Y q O T Iql p V C ti y j C q M q C T O q C O Y C V V i V C < Og4VHyM ]Y qY4 M y 4 8 q Y q K ¦ 9 U c O Y 4 Y Y~ c~q q '1 Y yV ~ C MV py y W COK tl Y ~I C Y'1 '90~JU Y ~l L 4 4 3 p\ YMYiY~H Y>~tiY4Y ~l Y^1 YVONp -0~ C ~ O O d O i O Y A G C\ Y~ Y w~ c C a p qY \ ~ i Y Y O V Y Y; <yy 6 Y •g 8 Y Y 6 yU ~yY ~Y6~~4O COM'J Va6iY~p Y]0tiu e 6yC V YV YpyY UaOCOM U YYT d Y• 9 9 P Y Y p V O• • V ~ 9 Y O d O V Y \Ta C O q C u c q t+ N f C~ .i C P • p p p y C O yC M C tl O Y yp V V M C~ Y p ~t N O] O Y O • O c M q d Y! pc O 4 6 O w M 9 Y 9 O D U K 4 a tlS5 o.i oe~a"' \ aYa ao-°Yw c° °4 °n z 4o e.~ pYTY gaeu TW Ot3u \ ] p ~ H V S g C .4 i ] N Y q 4 0 Y~ Y Y $Q$ py 0 q Y Yp 4 p Y O Y ti O O 4 Y 4\ K 4 S] O _ ~ ry ` q Y1 ~ ~ V C\ V u/ p Y\ Y O O O V C Y K w c S N 4 O• Y•• .Y Y y .1 Y q O Y O 'j O ~.~p( d Y M9 paq YO pL1p Q ~ a T N 'M 4 p< _ u K C q p Y q p 9 9 a C u q U W 3 8` 4 r Y 4 >q q C K O Y~ G N O p] Y .cl a c q y6 Y t i ~Vi .70i 4 O 0~ OG Y~V~~6q .I I'i6TV.1•ggN 4i[L YC1C t fLYY sY4 y O ( pp p G yGG •Y OMV Y~u(y ~ ( F Y' V O yeCye K U Y p O J p O C i] w Y_ Y '4i 'YJ V T Y y~ 4 YM ~[Y ~YgYpYY Yd]TW \Y]] OLCCO Y c V p G E~] V g y u q .y y U O Y H 6 W pU Y L Lei ! O C• i u { S~ Q 4~ Y O Y U p Y~ up ~ O 6 p C u n O C V Y a Y O C c g T O T Y 4<( C \ Y X 1 4 ~ Y p V g Y O O 4 I~ y 4 Y 6 a O g V tl V F 1. 9 0 U Y y Y .gy 6 N W] y V d q g Y Y •1 ] Y N w K V N Y O V H g q g Y q C w ~y ] a+~ O V p.~ C g y C ^ y Y o I N V E Y Y O W V p K M C Y g tl C a p M p Y H Q 6 9 Y fi.y Y Y O •1 .y .r1 W q M 4 M Y Y p a ~ Y E Y~ f M G tl O Y~J i Yi{{ 6 tl Y 6 q ET w C q ET V j Y F O w ~.ci p~ ti O S N g W 4 V N F• p F Y g q O Y ti O Y Y C .ci ~iy a ~ U S] N , S Y N ~ O Y O M 6 O C Y S m V S ~ 6 ~S~g g~O.6~ F+,7 F ~~n~ a g-~ e ~ ~ ~ n w g~ 8~~ ~ ~$q~~ ~~L~yye~ ~ X38 ~n~e 3.c7 SgE~~ 3 ~j !S < ~ ~za~y~~ ~9 ~~t e ~:s ~~~~~c3 8 g N CA ~ ~'S e ~ e ~ i 'sB.. ~ bps ~ Y • a ~y} i O ~~p Yp. .7ai. ~Y ~~pp ~V~ ~ E ~ q T. 'R+$ ~ A $ _ .9 S G I ~R ~ LE~°> +LS~.~OEy 9tjO ~jaAS CL ~y[+ 'd WCC 8`a ;J m° o ~ fffiii ~ s ~ g a 2 6 ~ ~ V gee ~ o CF- g~n3S~E asZ °m~~ y A y • ggg 2 ~ CpZw W<~ ~Bg.E 5SpSLL x~.~ u}~; ~'yV '8 sE~-p u O F ~ O looaf xg N ~ ~yyyy Q6Q S ± •3r E N S e.' $u ~'p b L`' Z ~ ' ~ ~ W r B R7 ~v 7~$~~ s E~~E ~a ~a'g~ ~'o ~o~s e oO- ~ < a o~ y ~s ZDBmc X~S g~mm ~~C- g_ ~ s~ ~ x~`~~~ oag a~sa .3~-x as , _ y p 9X n by = PU^NT ~ YO „`^.t ~~~ti~~ ~.3a o.=EE ~9La (w- S (V 41 pp gg qq O Y~ M LFJj' X~}j A y O O ~ V~gyo3 F F'~~¢~'+x FW~~, ..=e, F~~ ~ F Sid 35a'.°-, ~y°s ~ .5z m~~`~ za9e ~ za z: eta ~ ~ YC ~ a ~ . ~g~ ~ ~~w a sg~ ~ a~s was N 8 ~ ~ ` GGG ~ gg S ~ ~ o z ~ ~.6 N y v 8 ss a • • ~ '~d°w ~Ya w ~ vswi'a U$a'< 9~ ~~~E ii ~ e g s ~ g ° ~ r ~ ~ o ~ ~x $~~3~ _ _ _ a ` 2W ~ ~s ~ ~ a~~ ~~~~s ~W z _ ~ ! ~ S~'g8 E C OW o~13 x ° g ~ g~ S 8- 9 y g> a$ a [-Fga3 pG Ari ro ~C <~wa Cm ~a 3 z° ov°<g ~ N °~5t~~§ r.gZ ~ASi~*EFcF Hnriaiic~ T a 1~SB OEC -b P 55 z 3 GG F9[ SSYY ~ X07 ~ g u g yy g h<"O s~ a~~.9 e N 4' ~ ~8 o ~i g S Ua~U 4 ~ La v. f~ • ~ 7 0 r. Z S~ S Q ~ a~ tl 9 mQ. a g 0 ty Fz, 2E C~ `o ~Y7~ bl S ~ ~ $ ~ r ~ ~ ~ 6 ~ y ~ 3 _ <St ~ ~ x ~m ° F w yai a 3 $ 2 ~°gg ,g 9 ~ ° ~ s $ .rd . O t a. U+ ~4 Z E., V ~ x E 0 8 ~ i~ L9~ ~ 3 o g ~ fig` ~ 3 8~~ f gx: a ~ 9 w 8 « ~ o ~ B ~ ~.~~~g ~ s ~Q~`a ~ @ ~ ~ ~ ~ a~'g ~ e 5..22 ~ a o `o S ~ :4 in G7 A O ~ o~ ~ ~ ~ 3 °g a 9 T G ~y •'w j~ N X $ ~q 88.. `0 ~ ~~y.1 .jy~ Z 0.Y ~$y a EE _ ~g v O. g ~t $ e < ~t 3 ~ 7 ~ '7 0 u S i'i o a 8~ eV .4 S~ .L+ g ° ~ o ~ < u a~ ~ y ~ ~ X m ~ S w q m _Y ~ < C o Y a S a w ° d $ L E$ i~ Y ~ 3 8' o ~a o _ U ~ 3~ 5g ~ cv ~ ~ t o 4 .yy5 a E~ rv gg ~Es Tg 'g eYa 0 ~ d~ d~ ~ ~ 6 Ll y a 0. 4 ~ ~ ~ gg•~~gg~~ ggti~ ~ ~ ~ ~ E 2 3 9 3 ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ 9 ~ ~ O p~ ~ ~ ~9 ~c o 3~~~ ~~`e:^~ O a s ' a ~ 6 ~ ~ ~ [8 0 ~ ~ ~ s~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 2 Y Y L E ~ x ~ ~ y ~ w v~i U 39 ~ ~ ~y c S y. W IC 'C pCp N O 9 _ .C. 9 O 1F.i 5' V ~ q ~ !p1 G Gp :Y y 'T' C G < Y A SJ' ~ Sl~ " V eJ. vP~ O eC a 00 .S C~. O'~ 5O 5 a y .y F 6 9 =q OV O ~ 0. q ~ UCO Y 5 O jX( V' L o F~ ° u o 4 y UUu Su a pT ~ Bj ~ u p 4 ~ ~ i 5 r E Fr. 'S Y i T $ ~ u ti 6 i7 V 4 fj i E_ 0 3 m Y c p S ~ ~ o g 3 O. u ° g ¢ tt k1 `k9 gp~ EEQ p u a F 6~ y 0 6 L V EEEE6 6 "v ~ b S' C ~ t4 ~ ~ ~ 3~~~$~ ~ ~ ~s~~ ~ ~~4 u ~ _ ~ L ~ 3 e 3 ~ 9 g ~ ~ L 3 ~ .Y t~ $ ~ _ 7~ y ~ T ~ AFL 3 o a 9 ~ r' c : $ m py o •Z` C E S ~ ~ ~ 5 p,~ ~ E Y § O .5 ~ ~ w o pCYy V q8 ~ C F ~ c 4 ~ 38 r ~ ~ 6 Y ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ # V G 'a gg~ 1_CC y e Yi ~ ~ _ ~ ~c s ~ lCpg a ~ ~ N 5' Q ' C P. ~ 4 y ~ EC ~ ~ .g tJ' H O .E ~ .'i rpm €F p > Q. ~ ~ ~p 5 ~ ~ :3 ~ iS ~ s. B r~ ~S 8 vi i tl' @ ~ ~ ~ .5 ~ Ti u 5 ~ $ n $ S H 9 ~ ~ ~ T ~ .5 U Y .~1 a' ~ R j~ ~ ~ 2 a ~J _ S6 5 < aC ~ 5 ~ ~ ~ ~ = 5' ~a~~ ~ ~ :~s~~~~ C ~ s ~ V N ? 9 ~ "n q a S ~ ~ ~ .CJ V •3 4 ITy] C~.11 'q 45 J a •AS i. S GY ~ •8 g S ~ ~ ~ C 8 y_ y ~ O Td ~ }4t ~ W ~ i ~ s .~J. '4 $ ~ ~ ~ ifif9f444ff ag§,, ~ 7g4( ~ ~ ~ ~g G F ~ x ~ s ~ ~g i 'Su"t ~ S. $ u E r'" o ,5 g ° 5 ~ g i. $ F ~ s ~ 3 ~ ° o s m ~ ~ C ~ O 7'peg O ~ ~ S p Y~y ~ ~ 9 T_ ~~J 'S ~ ~ Tyypp. kC 'n S ~ 4 T T S .sl Y Lam" C C ~ ~ M ~ y ~pC L Y qF~ yeV 5 u £ ~ V ~ 'q y ~ y. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ V h .O Y L Qa ~ '~J tl ~ 9g G O 3 € pp 'e ~ S' d 'a > E ~ ~ 3 c $g$ ~ ysg y~ m o ~ P ~ o E Da. ~ ~ ~ ` .5 5 w ~ ~ •E .E € LLS'' a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ s_ ~ a s g s ''"a ~ a 6 t 3~ 3~~ ~ s~~ a R ~a 3 y~ '4 ~ a Ri ° 55 gg Eby a C b' gE 2 e~ ~ ~ u ~ Lj ~ ~tQ@5S y3 Y ~ m ~ s x ~ a s3 m _6 ~ a ~ ~ ? 3 " pp a J 7 vi ~ v ~ 8 ~ 3 ~ ~ ~ w N ~ o° if 'y ~ 8 ~ a 7 ~ W r `o s > ice' > v~ 3 ~ E u o e 3 {y~ _C W L1~ O ft i ~ Y ~ r7 ' ~ m ~ • e7 3$ 5 E ~ $ u E u a $ r 5 ~ g 5 ~~~eSeee'"' ~ ~ s o ~ ~ T° c gg •a_ ~ ~ 9_ y: g ~ E ~ a ~ y c a < ''L .E o ~ 5 ~ e E 8 i ~ > ~ ° < "yf ° oa - 5(=~~ ~V~ X ~ y ~ ~ Cp 'yS 5 ~ y4 m y M3 Ea u W C ~ W ~ ~ 0 j~ .~tj m ~ D ° fY 6 C O+ '4 L N m G s C < V _ ° G d 3 p~ q m p ~ C a ° ° w 4 c ~ 2 a 1C<I00 ~ 3 e. ~ a x 2 $ E 6 8 v"~i ~ 6e a r~ = a°. S ~ ''L o. E V ~ g V5$p ~4 € a E: 5 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ ~ ~ ~ ` ~ E ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ E ~ ~ y~ 88 ` y Y ~ ° i ~ o ~ EQ. 4 ~ 3 ~ o ~S m ~ ~ ~ ~ o E E ~ a ~ ,5 3 c o m 3 dL' ~ 9~~€ 3 ~ 5 6 5~ g~° ° r .g $ m ~ m $ V a u ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ $ o ~ 3 ~ ~ ~ o s s ,qy X o ~ u ~ K~ 3? g 3 A$ 5$ r~~~ 5 m c~y 2 c_° m 2 y ~ 8 as a a e u E a 4o E m~ 'Lc c° ~ E° S s v in ~ ~ e~ ~ 2 i o a4!t ~ E V s g m a m a c~ ~ E 0 $ u u ~ e u m $ Fi ~ 0 9 a 3 S a a$ Sy ~ ~ 3 Q E a ~ o ~ 3 e j b+ X g s U c `u :q 3 E o g' E y m O p o m ` O W .°q 'C - of O a SZ j O L 9 E Y a p, = ~ m S .m a a a e CC m S ~i `o a ~ m e=> F- _ b u u 3 E° e e; S g u ~ g 3 c 3 RW 0 v .5 i ~ a ~ .S4 E R ''p~ ~y~ dr ~5 me ; 7 n ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ ~ Y, ~ M a ~ 0 ~ 7 5 ~ a 5 ~ N ~ ~ Y ~ 'a ~ ~ Ws 'Q L ~ ° O ~ ~ n ~ a 6 ~ `a 9 J' ~ O ° ~ m : ~ ~ s S a ~ ~ 3 53 ~ = °g0 x ~ S rTi a ° a. ~i r5r~~. '~_6 a o $P 8 .Y ~ S ~ 5gg S ~ $ ° e ~ ~ ~ ae. u3 g°Y ~ m 00 e6e g ~ ~ g '4 e g $ y E c 5 C ~ ~ Y m ~ 3 ~ .~i ~ u7 m m ~ 0. ~ v ~ 5 8 b° S 2b~ $ ~ ' qpp 8 > ~ E .gy5l ~ ~ yy 'yyyy~ S 3 e ~ ~ ~ 5 ~ ~ ~ 9 V ~ 3 ~ B ~ ° 5 Y g ~ yg u p _ yy .~rr ~Y 9 w ~ fi<~~@ S~ 4 ~ 5 E g~g L i r~ S, g~go v ~Y q s o if E ~ CC fi aa F[ p °y, ~J! y C y u 6 O O C L S ~ p~ < 'y~ Y 4. A ti ~ ~ GO ° u S v O ~ CO ~ ~ ~ ° ~ U L' ~ G •9 ° ~ ~ ~ L A ~ < O ~ ~ S u p °2 ~ ?~?i Z E E 7 `o ~ 3 V~ ~ o S i 5 a~ til 3 0 ~ ~ x_ 5 g 3 s r ~ d 3' ~ ~ $ Y+ ~ E ~ ~gg S 5 ~ _ $ ~ u Y °O e o 5 t rv D 2 `o ~ m° u ~ °o 7 5 3~ p-° ~ 8 ,g~ 5 ~ ~ u ~ .Y `u K ~ o. ro ~ r b ~ S N ~ ~ p" ` .9 II nn E i4 ° s S e S c ~ ~ ~ < 5 7Y, ~ S .E ~5 ~E ° ~ s w~ m ~ a U K $ 8 ~.-y '7Lq b SeY C yy~ W ~ q 'R O S ~ 9 ~ g~ $a ~e 9 2e Y T pS_ pe N 2 gg 3 f C ~l fYt g a~m 0'°85$ ,9 y'.~Q'R~i 3~8 =A Y~ ~ ~ ~ R ' ~~a N~~ a58 v~~3 3~ ~ 3. ~D ~ ~ 7~ m ~ ~ s 'r $oax° ~ r5s~ ~ a8 s z ~ e p ~ 9p ^7m~i 6 N a.m r C ~ C U ~ ~ ~ P~G 5 ~ ~ 0 3 W 2 W ~ ~oo m $D ti ~ ~ ~ m w ~ o u ~ ~ 9 ~ T N N C7 .m W ~ ~ ~=p En ~oa firv 3 ~ m u ,ICJ y <'T' p ~ P E a ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ? 0 P0QQ7~~ 0.G 2 m n N r U ~ a ,~=3x aoa~c2~~ ~~y~ Wg~ o~'~ s 2 q a.5 7~G'~''~j ~m`o9m mo ~ OO~~ m~a p °0 <fa<~S OaCg«r ~6UN'"~ 2sS ~>.5 A _ 3 0 s ~ .9 y ~ q n E p~ F ~ 3 ~ ~ ~ m$ aa a 9a ip ~r~j1] N i ~ N ~ ~ a 1 'rN PO V ~ ~s~~ ~ ~ °~4aa a atl~ ~9~ ~ ~ ~ zw ~ ~ n~ ~ B~idE ao~y..~$ ~~~s'~~l~a ~b~'Qy s~~ pp Sq ~ ~$~~'~S~Q 971 ~gao 3.5nS~ ~B~aO~8 '~B,g ~w°.~2'~S c~'~o a sa~g~a30~~ ~ g~79•~E~o'm it c°x~ m a m °<i~y e~~8 X3,8 0`.. o. 3a" ° ~y 3 00g ~ ~ U o.~~<~~''~ 5" ~9 Sg~~q 96~~ ~ 5 ~rey vi 9 $w,a"yt"appK ~ ~ ~'~a,rd j~a'mZ °S,~P ~x5++~~ 3~'." ~ ~°e 3~~ mo ~3WE•$ a o~... w°o~a uv0 ~ $ud°~Tw<p ooa 3" •E~.5 vl° c g._aP. a°o off" o ~5.~~$edv E~.. oO u~ >g S. ~U~~~~,luy( y y E~08.~80p~p u ~-°~$e'gy~0•a°~',.$ Q~N O tj ~ T ~ C C ~ ~ m .O a9~L C~ ~ O_ 6 <o. o ~a ° ~ ga ~ ga Ec~a._ 8Av a < 'S aas._ Ec~ 1 z s'8 N AI N ^ ~ fffAAA 8 O ~ 1^ 9 $ `a U ` ~ ~ ~ E'-' ~ s s ~ ~ e ~ r ~ ~ ' E GG a. ~ 1 ~e C 'q~ 8z 2W v e ~ ~ e - ~ a ~ g5~gee e~ W ~n ~ ~ ~ ~ o~ ~ _ =a E~ g e ~ ~ ~ m~ s ~ ~ ~x °e $ e ' Xo`o gg < ~ ~~Bo ~ 3~~ 3 cid 255v~,~ ~ ~ o~x 2 ~ ~ O dge~~€~ ~ w m ~ ~~~Igg6g~~ ~E~ F~~ c .3 v ~ a ~ ~ aa111 ~6~Be~; o gm W mmq9g Ro m Q q W L W C w z m o L°3~o ~ c 2 ~ ~ a e mom W N W.~ ;~~E g a~ Ao~~ ~ a3 `o c 0 c¢ o o« moo m a S m- iSYs_ 2 ° me is ~ LE N` I L LL~ Q; U m 7 y N ~ Q t a'~ m°a ~°,wv ~ m u~ ` d i~ EN 'm~ oa ~ m` ~ w~ jf~0 Eoi, m 8 0 .3 m'm GA io LL~ p a 2 w O a S Y S O W O m W N W N W Z C Q f 2 Y c nY L^ W° LL O m« Q 3 ~ 3 m« U W O ~ O°c m` y~EE a 5s f m tOD 2 O ¢ u o ~ u U ~ ~ ~ 5 . 9 ~ S ,Cj ~ ° 6COzS<za C ~g O m1~y°g$ a .~pCa3° w. ii ~g~ ~~a~.~ h ~ ~pp~§~ ~ A ~ ~a ~ . k i. T O ~ 6 T ~ O _ ~g ~ ~ ° ~ u~ $ 5= co $g s ~iu.E 1 c 'a $u n~3"S'.a e~a'~~$ fa~yya GcJJ 2 w w k <a O2 ~ 3 ~~°•~g eJ F• gU ~c°O~~ ~3'$s~a~ ~5'a 9Fi ega O.~ y ~cg u .Je q O ~hO Xs ~ `p~0 N ,FL's ~ ° ~ ~Ji ~ y~~ 9 9 w S B so$ s~~ ai< u ~ Er> g~~x r~~~~~b y~E~ pp o O < F4 W t~ r~ ee 8 ~ 2a~~~ ~~ao ~d~ w ~a E~'S •'O °O g T o~ r E 025 •E AE o~ c cc ~o ~y ~yS ?~~9 px o u pp F C7 m e x a4 S ? F a U 3 5 u~ ~ ~ cv 6 ~s~ a=~ %so ~a~~• a o~.~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .9 ~ o S ~ Q~~eaa ~ ~ ~ ~1 z s8 a ~~W ETA '^en ~S z~ ~ a.RR5< g3.~ ~ E O 800 $~?~y1t ~pp 05y y5 '$s33 °9~ ~ U C C C D~~ 1! ~.i.~ 3 3 9 ~ y p~ ,w .Q u .0 0. a. S 8 ~ T~ .S '8 it Q < ~ i a°e~ 7~~S~d i1q s~'i~Y7 g7 F g~ s$g{ ~ s 5~,~ 8z ~ ~,a`o a~ ~ ~ g ~,b a€ l ~g~ 5~ o~'ea~ ~p58$ g~$~= 1 d g OLD o~ ~ y~~~~~ t E ~ ~ a u ' 22 c 7 6.O2q'r~a ~ ~9 .95~'~9° .90 ~ '~o'4e~;3 i~ ~ ~25C ex ~ ~E ° ~4~E3ao b' 88° ci ~'~'$999 '~°o i u,p3 g ~ s'~' ~ ~"'~~:~3~ a 8 .LyGO~~ o ~ Cm~,o ~ ~ ~ 8 9 m z 8g .e $ ~ os S ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ p 88 9 ~ i t~ I~ r^~ u V pp fjj~~~.j '9Qx2 O .t $ ~ V G 5~3~ ~ O N yp$ ? CC G N ~ ~ ~Sf i 9 S $ ~ u,. ~ ° ~ 0 15 ~ S ~ ~ ~ ~e 8 °a~~s a~~ao s~ i € ~i c.~ ~C O UN ~ ~ ~ "J ii Q.a C{~ g~ ~6 yg= G V O O Z C~ G^ a V ~Gp~,~ ~ ~ ~ 6C. y S ~ ~ R ViM o<~ 9~ q pp3 ~ byY~ 5~`~ r o u ° 'S ~ gg 3F ~ . ~ ~ ~ g ~ sppy pop $ ~ 'pp ~ yo 3 a ' 8 ~ ~c® ~ ~ON[~S Q WN ~ Di~~Mi~ O~OG iGr ~ 4 ~ e as ~ ~ ~p s z ~ ~ y ~ ~ 8 B z $g .~~i ~ g 's ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ r n Yl ~g i ~ a E ~ ~ ~ ~ s ~ y~ > >iJp ~~YCiyj L ~ {L ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I V M fIl N ~ Y ~7 x ~ ~ L. y i Cj' p S Lam` O T s ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ ~ eo~ ~ a gs~ ~ ~ ti € g v ~ ~ .E• 5~ ~g~~F~,ege6 EO>, '°j9°q,°, 3os3o_ $g5 3V .5 s'~~. Sia i~~` S ~e~ E ~~"a c 3~ y~ m$ ° 3 ~n ~i 33~~§ g a, a. ~~es o a-1 z,~ ~a_r'o ~X ~~D ° a b ~ s~ > ~ '~g ~ ~ ~x~ 8 €e iLa F~ °d ~ ~ E C7m ~~yqqy ai{{ i. p p u iL SS u u ~ ~ 6.0~. to ~ a ~5 ~~J Sd L p F~ui._ O ~'R ~d 3 u z s8 ~ ~ a ~ Q~i @ ~ U ~ E'-' ' s 3 ~ ; ~i CQ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 3~ ~y 8z a ~ r- e~~ ~ ~ ~ o. d ~ ~~g~~' e~~ s 's s ~ ~Z wad Ll c5 :t c 0 9 r F iii _ ~ h~= ~~e/~^~ 8 C~ C ~ $p~ N Y ~p~ ~O Q al N ~ B ~ p V! .Z t y in ~ ~ I ~ ~pp ^ c s W~ R ~ d eo o` 3 ~ n.a 8 4 ~ ~ F W 4. E N 'CJ s ~ a eF ~ y o ~ SET a a. ~ o ~-.S iG ad tFt C7UQ ~ ~ t c m ' ~ Z ~ Y f in e 2 ~ m z ~ a _ o ~a ~ gg ~ } _ , ~ 3 ~:S J i E ~ ~ _ f /h~ \ ~ ~ € M $b yy 3 a 3$^ ~ pp ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ s°e ~ t 8~.. gz o~ m ~ F ~ 6 ~ ; efL~ ~ g.~°'~ ~e C ~ o ~~`g~ ~ ~ Y b $ w ~ m ~ppe _ ~ g~g ~ W m < ~ ` y.g ~ ~ w iX 2Y` 5g. gu 5 .a ~ •5 _r ~ C5 ~ ; u .o ~ ~y ~ GG ~~g ~3 Ni4 X. ~ W'J. 3 7 u e t ' ~ i~ f 9 g n m m ~ m~ 8~ c 88~~~ ~ 2 ~ ~ ~ ~ E~~~~ g~ $3 w q S <i mw ~ ~ L~ ws ~W z ~z m _O E ~ ~4 Wm f d Ii e ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ f p a ~tp Wax.. ° S ~ ,2 m c~ ! ILO ~~~1 ~9~Cw~~ ~ m ~,'~G~~ 0sm C v j~ 8 LL~~ m W m 3 ~ r ~ V~ .2 T i mw3 m~ ~ w~ ~m C~~ TyC3 G~ u E10~- 10 ELY v~gg w R wm wg~~ ~m f7~ 2 Y ~m~~ ~~~'m 8~= 2t oil E j ~~_aa W ~ ~m~~ s8 ~ z~ ix f~'~= o m' 33~v8 ~c~~~ 'd~^' ~m' y o3 3 u~ z 88 S/~' ~ N Al N N b 111F8---1111 .9 ~ I Y 0 ~a z t ^g e ~ ' Y ~ ~ ~ ~ i a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ b ~ ~ ~ a~ ~ ~ z ~ ° _ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ zw" t~ amv8i u~'. ,k~ ~ r+3x F~ ~ S S 3 a ~ 6 S 8 ~ ~ 8 ~ k. E r ~ N h ~ 0 ~ O ~pMmbpp ~ ~Q~4~j W~~Q, ~ g r m° fi ~ g ° E'^ ~ o yy N f G!~ .Yi O i. u i, C7 U ff< ~ ,`~~5 ~ ,~G ,"92 ~Vd ~ ~ Fry' ~ ~ Nu b S i~ t% l-~ t• ~ VJ 4 0 d x ~ ~ ~7 ~ ~ ~ 6 ~S s ~ ~ ~ 8 m 9 ~ .a m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U N V ~ ~ ~ ~ ~y ~ y • d N ~ss~~ A ~ ~ 8~~~ d ~~~Q ~ ~ $ ~ ~ ~ s o ~s~ _ v3,dz C a e ~ ~ a ~ m Z ~ ~ ~ o ~ < y w C 9 m a z~ ~ ~ ~g P~3 Sy Ffay-7 ~iC f~ +g~ ~ iC ~ ~ w G t+ <a G1 ~ U g ~ 3 ~ ~ e w ; w W R ~ r~ Sr~~~ c ~ s~~ dd ~ < ~ ~Q ~~~r~~ z z8 $ 5 ~ ~ 3 ~ ~ d 3 Z °o c: m o ! m y~ iS iLQI~ i m ~5 ~ _ ~ N o ~ ~ ~ U m ~~Q~~ ~ ~~o~ e~~7o ~ pp ~ ~ ~ ~ ~qa S OO~~aS ~ N 2$2 o C F m 8 N O N N fIV O m o; d z ~ ti°~~ o z ~ ~ m ~ o~z o ~o+~~yCj Q[y+p~gJ~ < T~~j pace ~ 7 uU s~~z ~ S ~ 6T<+p• F{ZFy Ff~41 ~~8~~ ~ 5 e w ~ v "o~~ ~ ~ ~~~'v ~ ^ Y' ~ _ G~ <<~ ~8yy{ a $ NNN E O r t~@ r0 ~ m ~ < ~~Eai ~ ~ O Z ~ ..1 ~ N Q <03~5~ 2~u ~ g 5 K 1 ~ CCC~~~ ° o.u$."3s ice-. 5 ~~S t°-Xai84F s ~ fJ v~ s _ ~ a s 2g x S e x ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ti ~ ~ a ~B. v < iA m ~ d Ir y M1l ¦ ~ a.j ~ 8 Q ~u < r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~r ~ $86Ce pypT ~~0.~ 4 tJ C m '(i < ru < 6 ~ ~ ~ ~~s ~ ~s ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 ~s~ 8~ ~ ~r 3 a~ ° ~o ~m ~ ma a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o w a o'6 U G o s~ E 5 \ Q'S g ~ ~ c ~p 9 P\ ~ a Du.~ v r yY V ~f~ U ~ 4 ~ a 3 ~ y ~ ~ g ~ ~ ~ ~ $ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a :r ~ F ~ 8 ~j U j~ 3~ z E ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ 8~ C s E OR~ J g ~y ~ ~g $ ~ $ ~ s+ o ~ ~ _ oa G~ ~~m e a ~ 8 o°e~os~ a3~ '8w ~N N O, ~ ~ ~ 9 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ g m ~ g J C T ~ ~ E <cg < ~ ac°~ E~`w d~ 9 ~ C~~p ~ u E 4. rF. 07 b r7. VJ 3 i H ri O ~/i 2 3 ~ ~ zm 3 ~ E ~g ~ ~ Ny W 0. V ~ 8gn 5.9 S - a " _ g~ " ~ s U ~g ~ ~ ~ 9~i SY 9~ ~o6h < ~I ~ 'aB^ ~-x Y ~~W ~ 8 W; e'~~ ~ a8 ~9~ ~4 ai.~ ~ ~ -`wY ~ ~U g~ 5SS e~4,y~~fi ~i i~ W~ Y~ xssi~ X~ Y~~O ~W v cizt o~ a2€ agate ~'3' ~5 +~g4c ~i q a"s ~o< ;?~Q ~9e Y.~ S~s4~:~ ~II ;E rN e z po g qp ~p :~C~ s QC3 ~N t e T $L OC 69 ~y~Y O YR 5 ~ a i GG6 ~1 L1om ~ Yx 9~g yy YC YTy_ t; ~m wv+~p ~ ~ "Uo "a9 ~d~~_ Y r E~~Y~: <~Ea 3a3 SEE 3 e.`%= U ~ ~ < o ~ ~ ; ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ ,g o p~.5 ~ ~ o ~mUrx ~ u3h ~3 ma ~ 0 3 ~ Lam'? acm o L Q c u ad+ 3 q d l Q ~ ~ u Y V l > > ~ ~ T o 0 LL LL ` N N o~ c c a N ~ w a d L c ' J wy Op u iA6~ EDp r' ~ ~ C C p; O~ T N O. o N ~l L a V a O ~ d u EE$ V p~ N ~ nqo, m ~ L l Y _ (9 u Lp N d d 2 Z Oi Q O N d q q q q 40.1 c p C d p u 3 3 O q E u q N Z Y ~ O Ey r J p m n Y j ~ L 3~ u c u N LL _ ZU - T T ~ ~ o a+ a s ~C~ w ate: ~ m a N r~ L oo mpC _ p' W N > Q d W I t 'Y N C Q ] L L O O qy d y O p y V ~ O 6 ~ u p~ C` j U N S F W O ~ ~ q C Cy Vy ~ ~ p pC~ ~ WLp G Q)_ ~ F N u L C_ N 41 d~ T q O~ p o L u E LL° p ~ y~ G q v N ? q 3 ~ x q>~ n t~ J J ( K~ Q Cy V1 3 LJ d a L Q d L O n W Y Q F¢~ E Q L O~ C L.Y N VO- d q Q9! Z N ~ F O= O O L q u .C L V 3 C p p u d O W VI ~ Y W W q Y N f0 LL C N W 2 O L W y C yE y O {QQ{.~~'' O FC C Y ~ O= Yyy F ~ O Q R V d O q d u AyTJ/ yq q L E 0 r.~i Q V ~Wn'.QWJ H n Yi Ou%pC yq cN Q> W N 'E I- W N tJ ~ N q W ' C d CL d G O q .L S VI ~ o. c c p~ a J o r " w N~ A y p N _a q gy ` C m 2 P O Y - q N L 4- L W d 9 0\ C~~ W~ N ~ ~ _d T~ u p Y_ L N N L y N S V~ n N S d r L. • Q V of } > c gYwy E qv S p l C Y- - W Z O O J Y L Ol O q O W d d O y g O O Y! _U O p% O~ O F- W 4J G E C O N O ME E d m O N N~ Q > d C L N EI O N > Q' C'~ > d L p V Y u W L q N y V u •'r~I.~. ,.a~~ Y u q CCC O L q NEE V O N yyy u q W q W Uk O c F- 1-~O~ x d E L E .0 d Z U p w w w K 000000 g y N N O W O n S p p pr n ly F S n U l~ ~ N t7 6. p q q y=j S G ~~Npp € 00 3 ~ I o" ~ 4 O 9~ > 5 o~ . J [i a ~ 8 ~ 6 a U1 n ~ a. n 'Wdi sky u yy 3~ m a ~ G ~ m a w O ~ n [..Z ~r Z.. c F ZZW O0.' ~8 $3y~ ~ w 8 z~q ~y~ 9 C' q ~o ~ c v f Z ^ ~ W pp.~ W m j ~m W.~dy~ `^6 O XS w~ ry;~~Y ~~v ~ 3 D E $ V < o r= L p ,E7 ' y p 3 X 4%4.-. wFr .~COb2 <aZF 3vF ti h < z A. "s8 N~ Y~QQY~''.y ~}Ij ~a ~ Q i.. a.9 .g~~ ~ ~g c C ppp J # U ~ O '8> 6O S~ ~ J ~ ~ i ~ ~ A o3 ~ 3 ` ~ ;1111 ~ ~ ~T. 's E :~YfT N~ d$ 8~~ ~ Vl RI C7 C ~oF ~ ~.~83 E . 9 ° W'~ 3g~~~8 ~ arq ! 9 R '~3^t 8 0 .E ~ 8x _ a ~ m° p ~ ~~~x ~ L d O Y L A A V O ; U C ~ U C r d C C G O n A A d N N % d a c w A L O a V N rn c a = C L Y O r' L ~ A N V- p d a, d 2' O ~ O y d d > L Y A O a+ w 3 O L v VO- qp C p E V a S % C C L a O U p n O g a ~ d V C d r a W L ~ V a p a L T A A D p A y C ~ ~ U 3 O A OI ~ L • C Y p'~ C N d vi N o a J d c ~ o ~ w m a a" i' ~ c vi n O~ O1 A b 7 O~ L L ~O CI A~ l J A ~ OJ O a a.~ G O 3 O C) d A T t a ~O ~ A N L O O a~ L Ol 6 2 V a+ C N Y a C L O A C L O YE N E a a Q C E O L C a d q C! L J dl V O T A 6 OI p L d ^y L N O A ~ q C a~ V N~ 6 N 1aJ. A 3 d H N [O Z L 3 W z ~g ~ ~ e = O ~ a g .a ~ r o ~ ` ~ ~E ~i w . ~ ~ ~ y ~L ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i aB^ ~ >s ~ r ti ~ ai ~ 9~u sz ~ ~ ~ ~ g~ y w V Ei ~~F ~ ~ ~i ~ ~ y+ K Sm'. ~ a~j .gQ. ~ ko ~ ~ ~ 3 x $ $`u ^ e 8 ~ = y• zw a~~ 8._~~ x m asp ~ p~o~ -.p.~{{ E<~ pp Np T ~ V iF CI ay 8 p~ ~ ~~.a i 5 vR1 ~i u°a m 0 8 $$p ~ ~ ~ ~ xX O Y a i~ ~~Y r o' ~ c A U ~r3 ~ S x ¢ ~ a LLo ~ ~ 2 d ~ E~~~ ~ ~ g g ~~1gp~ E Fd~~ ~ Q ~~/Q~~ C y Y ~ f~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ E iZ p Ei s XVI. REFERENCES James R. Bell is a principal in the office of Belt Collins Hawaii and is the supervising planner for this EA. A resume of Mr. Bell is included in Appendix I. Below is a list of references that were used in the preparation of this EA. • County of Hawau (1998). Tax Maps for sections 2-45 and 2-5s, Third Division • _ (November 1989). The General Plan, Hawaii County. • _ Zoning Code, Amended December 1996. • - (April 2000) in conjunction with State Department of Transportation and Federal Highway Administration. Puainako Street Extension and Widening, South Hilo, Hawaii, Final Environmental Impact Statement. • Federal Emergency Management Agency (1988). Flood Insurance Rate Maps, Community Panel No. 155166-0870C. • MacDonald, G.A., Abbott, A.T., and Peterson, F.L. (1983). Volcanoes in the Sea, The Geology of Hawaii, University of Hawaii Press. • Mullineaux, D.R., and D.W. Peterson (1974). Volcanic Hazards on the Island of Hawaii (U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 74-239). • State of Hawau. State Functional Plans, 1984, 1989, 1990, and 1991. • _ Department of Transportation (1996). 24-Hour Traffic Counts- Station Summary Reports. • _ Department of Agriculture (1976/1977). Agricultural Lands of Importance to the State of Hawaii, Island of Hawaii. • _ Department of Land and Natural Resources (1986). Rainfall Atlas of Hawaii. • Hawaii Administrative Rules (1995), Title 11, Chapters 54, 59 & 60; Title 13, Chapters 236 & 256. • _ Hawaii Revised Statutes (1990), Chapters 103, 188, 205, 205A, 226, 262 and 343. • _ Hawaii Revised Statutes (1992), Chapter 103-24.6. _ Land Use Commission (1998). Land Use District Boundary Map, H- 61, Piihonua, Hawaii Quadrangle. • _ Office of the Governor (1995). The Hawaii State Plan. • _ Office of State Planning (1992). State Land Use District Boundary Review-Hawaii. • _ (1998). The State of Hawaii Data Book. • U.S. Department of Commerce (1969). Catalog of Tsunamis in the Hawaiian Islands. Washington, D.C. • _ Bureau of the Census. 1990 Census of Population and Housing. Washington, D.C. • _ Geological Survey (1981). Piihonua, Hawaii Quadrangle -Hawaii County, Island of Hawaii, Topographic Map, 7.5 Minute Series. • _ Soil Conservation Service (December 1973). Soil Survey of the Island of Hawaii, State of Hawaii. • _ Weather Bureau (1967). Climates of the States: Hawaii. XVII. APPENDICES A. Preconsultation Comment Letters B. Conditions on LUD Boundary Amendment Petition C. Reconnaissance Survey of Terrestrial Vertebrate Species D. Reconnaissance Botanical Survey E. Archaeological Assessment Study F. DLNR Letter on Further Archaeological Work G. Cultural Concerns Study and Addendum H. Future Major Road System in the Vicinity I. James R. Bell Resume APPENDIX A PRECONSULTATION COMMENT LETTERS United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE _ _ 3 Pacific Islands Ecoregion I"I I I' ~ 300 Ala Moana Blvd, Rm 3122 _ . Box 50088 - Honolulu, HI 96850 In Reply Refer To: MMB SEP 2 9 19x David W. Blane Duector Office of State Planning 235 South Beretania Street, 6'" Floor Honolulu, Hawaii 96804 Re: Petition for Amendment to the State Land Use District Boundaries for the Newton Family Limited Partnership (TMK 3-2-4-08), Kukuau, Hilo, Hawaii Dear Mr. Blane: The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service} has received your letter of September 17, 1999, requesting comments on the petition for amending the State Land Use District Boundaries for Kukuau, Hilo, Hawaii (TMK 3-2-4-08). The proposed action is to reclassify the subject pazcel from Conservation to Agricultural District, enabling the owners to construct an agricultural subdivision. A draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) in support of the proposed amendment was provided with the petition. The Service offers the following comments for your consideration. The Service believes that the DEA adequately describes the primary anima] and plant resources present on the property but does not adequately assess anticipated impacts to native resources from the proposed subdivision. Statewide, very little native forest remains at the elevation of the proposed project (1,400-2,000 feet). The main causes of forest loss at this elevation have been agricultural and residential development and invasion by alien species of plazits and animals. Conversion of forest land to agricultural or residential uses generally entails replacement of some or all of the native vegetation with introduced species, reducing or eliminating the land's conservation value. In addition, construction of roads provides an invasion route for destructive alien species, such as cats, ants, and weeds. Because many extensive areas with native vegetation are already fragmented by roads, making them vulnerable to degradation, roadless areas that remain dominated by native species are especially valuable for the conservation of native Hawaiian ecosystems. Given the past losses of native Hawaiian ecosystems and the existing rate of degradation of the remaining lowland forests, removal of such forest lands from conservation status in general is not supported by the Service. Even if alien species are well-established within the pazcel, the unfragmented forest (1) continues to be habitat for numerous native species, (2) acts as a buffer zone for more intact adjacent forest, and (3) offers the potential to restore native community integrity with appropriate management. The Service strongly agrees that the mauka portion of the parcel should remain zoned for Conservation, especially since one of only three known populations of the federally endangered plant Cyanea platyphylla occurs there. Cyanea platyphylla was previously known from only two populations totaling fewer than 20 individuals, making this new population extremely important to the survival of the species. Based on the results of the botanical survey contained in the DEA, the vegetation in the makai parcel is also significant lowland wet forest in which the federally endangered Hawaiian bat (Lasiurus cinereus semotus) and Hawaiian hawk (Buteo solitarius) have been observed. In addition, the federally threatened Newell's shearwater (Puj~nus auricularis) is known from the general area and may fly through the parcel. The Service supports the implementation of the mitigation measures proposed in the DEA, including leaving lazge stands of forest trees and clusters of major vegetation intact; focusing residential sites to areas that aze already cleared; working closely with the Department of Land and Natural Resources to take necessary precautions to avoid any negative effects to rare, endangered, or threatened species; and not developing the property into a lazge project. Furthermore, we recommend that grubbing and clearing in the makai pazcel should not begin until the azea has been thoroughly surveyed to assure there are no Hawaiian hawks nesting in the area, rather than halting grubbing and clearing orrce a nest is found. The Service would concur with the DEA's Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) and would support the proposed amendment if conservation actions aze taken to enhance the existing lowland forest and protect the endangered Cyanea platyphylla, Hawaiian bat, and Hawaiian hawk in the mauka parcel. The Service is willing to discuss with the landowner the possibility of implementing additional conservation actions that would protect and enhance the ever-decreasing lowland wet forest habitat and the endangered and threatened species found within it and how we may be able to assist in these efforts. Finally, the Service would like to remind the landowner to contact the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for permits needed to modify any wetlands. The Service appreciates the opportunity to provide these comments to assist the Land Use Commission in deciding whether to grant this petition to amend the Conservation District boundaries. If you have questions regarding these comments, please contact Fish and Wildlife Biologist Marie Bruegmann at (808) 541-3441. _ Sincerely, fo~c Robert P. Smith Pacific Islands Manager cc: Michael Buck, DOFAW Jon Giffin, DOFAW Glen Koyama, Belt Collins United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE i Pacific Islands Ecoregion 300 Ala Moana Blvd, Rm 3122 Box 50086 Honolulu, HI 96850 In Reply Rekr To: IviD~ Glen Koyama Belt Collins Hawaii Ltd. 680 Ala Moana Boulevard, First Floor Honolulu, Hawaii 96813-5406 Re: Petition to Amend State Land Use District Boundaries for the Newton Family Limited Partnership Property (TMK 3-2-4-08), Kukuau, Hilo, Hawaii Dear Mr. Koyama: The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has received your letter of May 19, 2000, requesting comments on the revised petition for amending the State Land Use District Boundaries for Kukuau, Hilo, Hawaii (TMK 3-2-4-08). The proposed action is to reclassify the subject parcel from Conservation to Agricultural District, enabling the owners to construct an agricultural subdivision. A draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) in support of the proposed amendment was provided with the original petition on September 17, 1999. The Service supports the proposed amendment to the petition. It is difficult to identify the specific conservation actions needed prior to reviewing more detailed plans identifying which specific areas are proposed for what type of development and which will be left intact. The Service is willing to continue working with the landowner as detailed plans aze developed to ensure that anticipated impacts to native resources will be adequately addressed through additional conservation actions. The Service appreciates the opportunity to provide these additional comments to assist the landowner and the Land Use Commission. If you have questions regarding these comments, please contact Fish and Wildlife Biologist Marie Bruegmann at (808) 541-3441. Siric~erely, Paul Henson Field Supervisor Ecological Services cc: Michael Buck, DOFAW Jon Giffin, DOFAW David Blane, OSP United States Department of the Interior ' ' • " FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE , i _t . Pacific Islands Ecoregion " ' i ~ A 1' : 300 Ala Moans Blvd, Rm 3122 - - - - Box 50088 Honolulu, HI 96850 In Reply 12efer To: ]TN ~an~ i 7 ?oot Glen Koyama Belt Collins Hawaii 680 Ala Moans Boulevard, First Floor Honolulu, HI 96813-5406 Dear Mr. Koyama: This letter follows up on the phone conversation you had on December 11, 2000, and January 9, 2000, with Fish and Wildlife Biologists, Jay Nelson and Mick Castillo, respectively, and your fax request of December 26, 2000, for confirmation in writing by the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) regarding the Service's current review of the listing status of the Hawaiian Hawk (Buteo solitarius). The Service's technical advisory group, the Io Recovery Working Group will be meeting in late February to reconsider down-listing the species to threatened in light of new demographic, breeding success and habitat trend data. Feel free to contact us in late March or April if you would like updated information at that time. If you have any questions or find you will need additional information, please contact Fish and Wildlife Biologist, Jay Nelson, by phone at (808)541-3441 or by facsimile transmission at (808) 541-3470. Sincerely, I Paul Henson Field Supervisor Ecological Services DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY U. S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, HONOLULU ~ ~ Ff. SHAFTER, HAWAII 98SSS-5N0 ~ I$ ~ ~ 1 ~ I I. PEPLY TO June 28, 1999 ATTENTION OF ! 1949 JAN 29 ~ P i' I ~ Civil Works Technical Branch :%~_l Mr. Glen T. Koyama Belt Collins Hawaii, Limited 680 Ala Moana Boulevard, 1st Floor Honolulu, Hawaii 96813-5406 Dear Mr. Koyama: Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Environmental Assessment for the Proposed State Land Use District Boundary Amendment for Property Located in North Hilo, Hawaii (TMK 2-9-8: 33). Since this is an administrative action, a Department of the Army (DA) permit is not required at this time. Consultation should take place with our Regulatory Branch to determine if a DA permit may be required should any future land- disturbing activities be planned for the area. Additionally, any construction work in the future will have to adhere to the requirements of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. We will need to review any future documentation when it becomes available so that project specific information can be provided to you. If you require additional information, please feel free to contact Ms. Jessie Dobinchick of my Civil Works Technical Branch staff at 438-8676. Sincerely, ames K. Hatashima Acting Chief, Civil Works Technical Branch DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY U. S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT. HONOLULU _ Ff. SHATTER, HAWAII 9SSSB-SMO ATTENTION OF September 13, 2000 Regulatory Branch Mr. Glen Koyama Belt Collins Hawaii, Ltd. 680 Ala Moans Boulevard, First Floor Honolulu, Hawaii 96813-5406 Dear Mr. Koyama: This letter is written regarding your request in determining the Corps regulatory jurisdiction should wetlands be identified on the 1,646 acre Newton Property, TMK 2-4-08:33 located in Hilo, Hawaii. Based on the information provided and a meeting with Ms. Lolly Silva of my staff, it appears that portions of the parcel may contain wetlands. However the extent may not be known until a wetland delineation is done. Although the Corps is the lead federal agency for conducting wetland delineations for private landowners, it is done on a time permitting basis. For an area this large, I would suggest you consult with Mr. Grant Gerrish, Professor, University of Hawaii Hilo who has in the past, conducted wetland delineations acceptable to the Corps. Please note that the Corps does not endorse the use of Mr. Gerrish or other wetland consultants, however Mr. Gerrish has extensive knowledge of the area as he was consulted on for two major Federal and State highway projects in the surrounding area. For your information, the Corps has jurisdiction over any activity which would impact waters of the U.S., including wetlands. A Department of the Army (DA) permit would be required for the discharge of fill material into waters of the U.S. which is regulated under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Although Mr. Newton is proposing to subdivide the parcel, it is unclear whether there will be any land disturbing activity associated with the subdivision. The Corps would appreciate a review of the environmental assessment or other documents prior to any work being conducted on this parcel. A final determin- ation regarding Corps permit requirements will be issued upon review of these documents. -z- If you have any questions or need additional information, you may call Ms. Silva at 438-7023 or Mr. Farley Watanabe at 438-7701 (FAX 438-4060)and reference file number 990000400. Sincerely, George P. Young, P.E. Chief, Regulatory Branch DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY U. S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, HONOLULU FT. SNAFTER, HAWAII 96866.6410 ~nENTIONOF October 2, 2000 Regulatory Branch Mr. Glen T. Koyama Belt Collins Hawaii, Ltd. 680 Ala Moans Boulevard, First Floor Honolulu, Hawaii 96813-5406 Dear Mr. Koyama: The Newton Family Limited Partnership Property This letter is written to confirm your September 28, 2000 meeting with Ms. Lolly Silva of my staff regarding the :=cope of the Corps involvement should wetlands be found ~n the Newton Family Limited Partnership Property located in Hilo, Hawaii. It is my understanding that the owner has submitted a petition to the State Land Use Commission to reclassify a portion of its property from Conservation to Agricultural and then intends to subdivide the petitioned area into 8 parcels. With respect to my previous letter dated September 13, 2000, 2 wish to clarify that the Corps does not require a wetland assessment in connection with a land use district boundary amendment review. During this stage, the project's development plans are conceptual and any wetlands delineation and discussions on mitigation or conservation measures would be premature. However, if in the future, the owner has intentions of constructing roadways and houses or performing any activities that would involve work within any wetlands or waters of the U.S., a Department of the Army permit may be required at that time. When a project is in its permit approval process/design/subdivision stage, definite construction areas can be identified. A wetlands assessment would then be appropriate, and impacts to wetlands, if any, could be addressed in mitigation or conservation measures. -z- If you have any questions or need additional information, you may call Ms. Silva at 438-7023 or Mr. Farley Watanabe at 438-7701 (FAX 438-4060)and reference file number 990000400. Sincerely, r~~~ George P. Fo P Chief, Regulatory Branch •~rM BENJAMIN J. CAYETANO ~ ~ ~ JAMES J. NAKATANI Govertgr ~ ~ _ CheiRerwn. Board dApAaAWia t~ LET1r1A N. UYEHARA ~`°"°O~ ~19~1 JJt ~ ~ ~ 20 oaWly ro ma chakpanan State of HaWail ~ P.O. Box 22758 DEPARTMENT OF AGR(~LftJRE~~~~-= ~ir`.ir=ill 96B2y21 1428 South King Street Fax: ItWB)873-8513 Honolulu, Hawaii 98814-2512 July 9, 1999 Mr. Glen T. Koyama Belt Collins Hawaii, Ltd. 680 Ala Moana Boulevazd First Floor Honolulu HI 96813-5406 Dear Mr. Koyama: Subject: Environmental Assessment Proposed State Land Use Boundary Amendment from Conservation to Agricultural Newton Family Limited Partnership TMK: 2-4-08: por. 33 North Hilo, Hawaii Area: approximately 885 acres Thank you for the opportunity to review the subject proposal. We offer the following comments. Background According to the summary sheet, the subject azea will be subdivided into six lots for use by family members to engage in limited agricultural activities. Up to three of these lots maybe sold to non-family individuals to assist in the financing of the subdivision's infrastructure. The property has an elevation range from 1,420 to 1,980 feet. Minor cattle grazing is found in some sections of the property. The property has been removed from the State Forest Reserve System by the Department of Land and Natural Resources. Adjacent properties are in forest, open space, and agricultural uses. The County General Plan shows a secondary road crossing the applicant's mauka edge of the proposed subdivision. Ivlr. Glen T. Koyama July 9, 1999 Page -2- Additional land use permit approvals required include a General Plan amendment, zoning amendment, and subdivision approval. Additional information Our recent historical files (1978-80) show sugarcane cultivation about ahalf--mile north of the property, up to an elevation of 1,500 feet. Other uses of nearby lands included grazing. There were no adjacent agricultural uses of the subject property or abutting lands. This may be due to the predominant soil of the azea, Keei extremely rocky muck, whose rockiness and shallow surface soil makes it unsuited to cultivation and limits its use to pasture, woodland, or wildlife (Soil Survey of Island of Hawaii, USDA/Soil Conservation Service; December, 1973). Also, the property and adjacent lands are not classified according to the Agricultural Lands of Importance to the State of Hawaii (ALISH) system. Rainfall in the area is about 170 inches per yeaz. Comments The Department of Agriculture supports efforts to establish bona fide agricultural operations. Also, there is widespread criticism that there are lands in the State Agricultural District unsuited for agricultural production. Based on the information at hand, there is no compelling reason to redesignate this parcel to the Agricultural District. We suggest specification of what comprises the "possible limited agricultural activities" of the lots to be created. Also, the applicant may wish to in:-estigate the feasibility of the proposed subdivision and agricultural plans while retaining the Conservation District designation. Should you have any questions, please contact Earl Yamamoto at 973-9466. Sincerely, ES AKATANI Chairperson, Board of Agriculture BELT COLLINS August 19, 1999 633.3 700/99 P-314 Mr. }amen Nakatani, Chairperson Board of Agriculture State of Hawaii P.O. Box 22159 Honolulu, Hawaii 96823-2159 Dear Mr. Nakatani: Environmental Assessment Newton Family Limited Partnership TMK 2-4.OR_oor. 3~, North Hilo, Hawaii Thank you for your letter of July 9, 1999 responding to our pre-assessment consultation letter on the upcoming Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) for the Newton Family limited Partnership property. We will elaborate in the DEA the reason the current Conservation District is not appropriate for the owner's property and why an Agricultural District is the appropriate land use classification. We will also elaborate on possible limited agricultural activities for the owners proposed "family" subdivision. We have reviewed the possibility of developing an agricultural subdivision in the Conservation District and have found that it is not a permitted use; thus the need to reclassify the property's State Land Use District designation. After we submit our DEA to the Office of Environmental Quality Control for publication of an announcement in The Environmental Notice, we will transmit a copy to you for review and comment. We look forward to your additional input on this project. Sincerely yours, BELT COLLINS HAWAII LTD. ~ • Glen T. Koyama GTK:If cc: George Newton bcc: )ohn Michael White Bernard Bays BELT COLLIN$ HAWAII LTD. • 680 ALA MOANA BOULEVARD, fIRST FLOOR. HONOLULU, HAW.411 96813-Si06 U.5..4. TEL BOB iA•5361 FAX BOB 5)8.7819 SMALL: haxaiiObelaollins.<om WEB: ww+~.leltcolluu.com PLANNING • ENGINEERING • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE • EN VIRON.~IENTAL CONSULTING HAWAII • SINGAPORE • HONG KONG • AUSTRALIA • THAILAND • 4.ALAYSIA • PHILIPPINES • GVAl1 • SEATTLE • SCOTTSD.AlF fell Cellle• Nveu b en Eu•J JPMnen4e Espern. ENJAMN J. CAYETANO e ~ w' F......... ~ ^ PAUL G. IaMAN1EU, PRO. OOVERNON , f " t:T; l', ,1~}r ~wrcNOENr \ ~ !'4~9 Jul -t3 t~ ti STATE OF HAWAII c~c l'i- ~ } , DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION P.O.80X 2180 NONOLUw. NAwrJi eeeoe =FICE OF 711E SUPERINTENDENT July 1, 1999 Mr. Glen T. Koyama Belt Collins Hawaii, Ltd. 680 Ala Moana Boulevard, First Floor Honolulu, Hawaii 96813-5406 Deaz Mr. Koyama: Subject: Newton FamilxProperty Pre-consultation The Department of Education has no comment on the subject project ai this time. Thank you for the opportunity to respond. truly yours, Q ~/~~Z'vu~^ov Pau G. L ahieu, Ph.D. Superinten ent of Education PLeM:hy cc: A. Suga, OBS P. Bergin, HIDO AN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER NJAMIN J. CAW:TANO ~ 1 7 LAB C . ANDERSON, Rh.O., Y.RN. OVERNOR OF HAWAII :.!RECTOR OF HEALTH ~'°ti--~~~ ~ ~i99 JtlN Z5 P 2~ I iJL L: '~~~L DE AflTMEONTOFHVEALTH r,~rr ~~?;5'~'r~.`:a~I'° w?"°"'°xOO P.O. BOX 3378 HONOLULU, HAWAII 96801 June 22, 1999 99-131/epo Mr. Glen T. Koyama BELT COLLINS HAWAII LTD. 680 Ala Moana Boulevard, First Floor Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 Dear Mr. Koyama: Subject: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PREPARATION NOTICE Project: State Land Use District Boundary Amendment from Conservation to Agricultural Location: North Hilo, Hawaii TMK: 3-2-4-08: Por. of 33 Thank you for allowing us to review and comment on the subject project. We do not have any comments to offer at this time. However, we would like to review the draft environmental assessment upon completion. Sincerely, G GILL Deputy Director for Environmental Health t ~FM q j, r ` " ' L' moth E. Johns IENJAMW J. CAYETANO { ~ Y GOVERNOR OF HAWAII ~ ~ ~ ~a CNAI0.PERSON BOAROOf IANp ANO lMIURAL RE80URCE8 '"•,,•,s`° ;19:19 .iU'~ 21 ' !i: 3,~et°E xawelo STATE OF HAWAII - ~ _ _ _ , , , , DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES ~ ~AOUecuLTURE pEVewfuENr RRODRIW DIVISION OF FORESTRY AND WILDLIFE AOIMTK RE6WRCES SWTINp ARD OCFAN RECREATION 1151 PUNCHBOWL STREET CORSERVATpN ANp HONOLULU, HAWAII 96813 ENNRONMEMTK I.FFI11R3 CON6ERVATIdl ARO RESOURCES ENfORCE4ENT CORVEYANCEg June 16, 1999 FORESTRY AND WILDLIFE HISTORIC RRE6ERVAT1pN tANO iMXMfE4ENT 6TATE PMK6 - WATER ANO IANp OEVELORMENT WATER RESOURCE MAIUpEMENT Mr. Glen T. Koyama Belt Collins Hawaii Ltd. 680 Ala Moana Boulevard, First Floor Honolulu, Hawaii 96813-5406 Dear Mr. Koyama: RE: Environmental Assessment, Proposed State Land Use District Boundary Amendment from Conservation to Agricultural TMK 3-2-4-08: Por. of 33, North Hilo, Hawau We have reviewed the information provided by your June 10, 19991etter to the Division of Forestry and Wildlife and anticipate no objections to the Newton family's proposed subdivision of 885 acres and amendment of the Siate Land Use District Boundary from Conservation to Agriculture. Thank you for allowing us to comment on this application which is located west of the Hilo Country Club Estates off of Wilder Road and near Kaumana Homesteads. Sincerely, G~J Michael G. Buck Administrator C: DOFAW, Hawaii Branch BENIAMIN J. CAYETANO c ~ KAZU NAYASHIDF GOVERNOR << ~~b DIRECTOR pe• T~ ~a~ I17~ ~,•t/f 1(,I"~' B~RIMI K. MINMI ~ ~ ! t? i! S U U i.~ GLENN M. OKRAOT i STATE OF HAWAl1 + 19~i9 JIiL -1 ~ P I : Ob IN RELY REFER TI DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 869 PUNCHBOWL STREET g~i~i ~~tl_~I j HWY-PS HONOLULU, HAWAII 96813-5097 2.4389 JUN 3 0 199.9 bir. Glen T. Koyama Belt Collins Hawaii Ltd. 680 Ala Moana Boulevazd, First Floor Honolulu, Hawaii 96813-5406 Dear Mr. Koyama: Subject: Environmental Assessment, Proposed State Land Use District Boundary Amendment, Conservation to Agricultural, Newton Family Limited Partnership, North Hilo, Hawaii, TMK: (3) 2-4-08: por. 33 Thank you for your letter to Ronald F. Tsuzuki, Engineering Program Manager, Planning Branch, and the opportunity to review the subject proposed amendment and subdivision of 885 acres into six parcels. We have the following comments: 1. The future county secondary arterial shown on the mauka (western) border of the area proposed for land use reclassification is the Puainako Street Extension. The proposed land use amendment should be coordinated with the County of Hawaii, which is taking the lead on the Paainako Street Extension. Piecemeal development of the 335-acre land should be discouraged. We suggest that the applicant prepaze a master plan for the use of the land and address the traffic impacts in the Environmental Assessment. 2. The applicant should reserve and dedicate land for the future Puainako Street Extension right-of--way to the County of Hawaii. If you have any questions, you may call Mr. Tsuzuki at 587-1830. Very truly yours, PERIGEES MANTHOS Administrator Highways Division ~ I I ~ BELT COLLINS August 19, 1999 633.3700/99P-316 Mr. Pericles Manthos, Administrator Highways Division Department of Transportation State of Hawaii 869 Punchbowl Street Honolulu, Hawaii 96813-5097 Dear Mr. Manthos: Environmental Assessment Newton Family Limited Partnership TMK 2-4-08: por. 33, North Hi1Q, Hawaii Thank you for your letter of June 30, 1999 responding to our pre-assessment consultation letter on the upcoming Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) for the Newton Family Limited Partnership property. I believe the Puainako Street Extension is planned below the project site and does not connect with the subJ'ect property. The Hawaii County General Plan Facilities Map, however, does show along-term planned secondary arterial that would cross at about the middle of the Newton property. A master plan has been prepared for the owner's property and includes a corridor for the future secondary arterial. Also, an assessment of the projects traffic impact will be included in the DEA. After we submit our DEA to the Office of Environmental Quality Control for publication of an announcement in The Environmental Notice, we will transmit a copy to you for review and comment. We look forward to your additional input on this project. Sincerely yours, BELT COLLINS HAWAII LTD. Glen T. Ko ama Y GTK:If cc: George Newton bcc: John Michael White Bernard Bays BELT COLLINS HAWAII LTD. • 680 ALA MOANA BOULEVARD, FIRST FLOOR, HONOLULU, HAWAII 96811-5406 U.S.A. TEL: 80d 5:1.5761 FAX: 808 Sld-1d 19 EMAIL: hawaii®helccallim.com WEB: www.helttollinE.com PLANNING •ENGINEERING •LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE•ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING HAWAII • SINGAPORE • NONG KONG • AUSTRALIA • THAILAND • MALAYSIA • PHILIPPINES • GUAM • SEATTLE • SCOTTSDALE a•4 Cnlbm N•~ae i• m EVU•1 DPWIIUnRr EnPln,er. ? t ' I`i ~`1~) ~ ^ FAX 808 5941555 PHONE (808) 594-1888 U A ! i ~ 2 y ~ ) ~ ..._.i.i~;j . r; STATE OF HAWAII OFFICE OF HAWAIIAN AFFAIRS 711 KAPI'OLANI BOULEVARD, SUITE 500 HONOLULU, HAWAII 98873 iuly I3, i999 Mr. Glen T. Koyama rc uss Belt Collins Hawaii Ltd. 680 Ala Moana Blvd., First Floor Honolulu, HI 96813-5406 Re: Pre-assessment Consultation for the Prepazation of an Environmental Assessment for the Proposed State Land Use District Boundary Amendment From Conservation to Agriculture; TMK:3-2-4-08:por. 33, North Hilo, Hawaz i. Dear Mr. Koyama: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the preparation of a draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) for the District Boundary Amendment for the Newton Family Limited Partnership. Th:, viaClCe Of Hawaiian nff82rS i5'ynII'iai,ly COuCEnled Wiu : (i) iIii~aCiS i0 Cultural and 1i15iGi1C resources that may be found in the project area, (2) any traditional gathering rights which may have occurred in the azeas to be acquired (3) the affect upon the Hawaiian community by the use of ceded lands in this manner and (4) any endangered species which may be in or near the project azeas. In order to address the cultural concerns, we suggest that you contact a Hawaiian cultural expert to define and interpret impacts to the native Hawaiian community. We strongly suggest that the Hawaiian cultural expert you choose should be a person who is recognized within the Hawaiian community for his/her cultural expertise. The concems of the community and this office will not be addressed if the DEA contains an analysis provided solely by a person whose knowledge of Hawaiian culture is limited to a study of archaeology or anthropology. Mr. Glen Koyazna July 13, 1999 Page two We look forward to receiving your DEA. We will cazefully review the document, especially as it pertains to cultural impacts and make appropriate comments. If you have any questions, please contact us at 594-1835. Sincerely, c.~~ Colin Kippen C. Sebastian Aloot Deputy Administrator Director, Hawaiian Rights Division cc: Boazd of Trustees OHA's East Hawaii Community Affairs Office p•"~® ~ ~ BELT COLLINS August 19, 1999 633.3700/99P-315 Mr. Colin Kippen Office of Hawaiian Affairs State of Hawaii 711 Kapiolani Boulevard, Suite 500 Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 Dear Mr. Kippen: Environmental Assessment Newton Family Limited Partnership TMK 2-4-0 or. 33, North Hilo. Hawaii Thank you for your fetter of July 13, 1999 responding to our pre-assessment consultation letter on the upcoming Draft Environmental Assessment (DFA) for the Newton Family Limited Partnership property. We will address the project's potential impact on historic and cultural resources in the area, including any traditional gathering rights and ceded lands. We will also assess the project's impact on any endangered fauna and flora species. After we submit our DEA to the Office of Environmental Quality Control for publication of an announcement in The Environmental Notice, we will transmit a copy to you for review and comment. We look forward to your additional input on this project. Sincerely yours, BELT COLLINS HAWAII LTD. Glen T. Koyama GTK:If cc: George Newton bcc: John Michael White Bernard Bays BELT COLLINS HAWAII LTD. • 680 ALA MOAN,1 BOULEVARD, FIRST FLOOR. HONOLULU. HAWAII 9881)•34011 U.S.A. " - TEL: 808 521-1361 FAX: 808 i}8.1819 EMAIL: hawaiiObelcmllins.com WEB: ww.belccollins.com PLANNING • ENGINEERING • LANDSI'APE ARCHITECTURE • ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING NAR'All • SINGAPORE • HONG KONG • AUSTRALIA • THAILANp~• M.A4AY51.\ • PHILIPPINEi • GUAM • SEATTLE • SCOTTSDALE hh C.•IL•• N•a,~ b •n F,1ul pPM1~•rum0' EnPI•rn. O I y ENJAMN J. CAYEGNO ~ DONAID K W. LAU OOVERNOA ' L~ ~ EXECUTVE OIRECTOx y~~ I f9~1 JUl -1 P h 2~ STATE OF HAWAII g"~'N ~ `11TT (''r)) S r"';~,Gll EXECUTIVE ~85~ST~xT DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS, ECONOMIC DEVELOP T3 TofJRISA~I' ` HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF HAWAII Bn OUEEN STNEE7 SUfTE 300 HONOLULU, NAWAll3Eet3 99:PE0/1966 FA%IBOS)SST•0300 July 2, 1999 Mr. Glen T. Koyama Belt Collins Hawaii Ltd. 680 Ala Moana Boulevard First Floor Honolulu, Hawaii 96813-5406 Dear Mr. Koyama: Subject: Environmental Assessment for Proposed District Boundary Amendment, Newton Family Partnership, TMK (3) 2-4-8: Portion of 33, Kukuau, North Hilo, Hawaii Thank you for the opportunity review the preliminary information for the proposed District boundary amendment for the Newton Family Limited Partnership. We have no c ments to offer at this time. S' cerel , / / Do . W. La~ x utive Director APPENDIX B CONDITIONS IMPOSED ON THE NEWTON FAMILY'S LUC BOUNDARY AMENDMENT PETTI'ION CONDITIONS TO BE IMPOSED WITH RESPECT TO DEVELOPMENT IN THE PETITION AREA PROPOSED SUBDIVISION • The proposed development of the Petition Area will be restricted to a maximum of 8 lots, with a minimum lot size of 80 acres. Each deed conveying title to a subdivided lot will include a 20-yeaz restriction commencing upon final subdivision approval against further subdivision, and a general prohibition against large-scale commercial agriculture operations, animal hospitals, campgrounds and other similaz open azea recreational activities, mausoleums, group living facilities, golf courses, golf driving ranges, golf maintenance facilities, and golf clubhouse, adult care homes, churches, community buildings, day Gaze centers, hospitals, stadiums and sports azenas and schools. The foregoing restrictions shall be amended or modified only upon the prior approval or consent of a majority of the then owners of subdivided lots in the Petition Area and, a majority vote of the Land Use Commission and the County Planning Department. The foregoing restrictions shall run with the land. BIRDS, BATS AND HAWKS • Endangered birds and bats, including the Hawaiian Hawk and the Hawaiian Bat, have been observed in the Petition Area. Therefore, Petitioner and its successors shall implement mitigation measures to avoid any negative effects to existing rare, endangered or threatened species. Such mitigation measures will include leaving any lazge stands of native forest trees and clusters of native vegetation intact, and focusing residential sites to areas that were previously cleared. Petitioner and its successors shall not develop the Petition Area into a project which would change the overall chazacter of the area or generate major increases in resident population. Petitioner and its successors shall preserve the existing lowland native forest, and protect the Hawaiian Hawk and the Hawaiian Bat. Any such mitigation measures that aze initiated shall be first approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the State Department of Land and Natural Resources. • Prior to clearing and grubbing the alignment for the subdivision roadway and utilities, a 500 meter wide survey of the alignment will be conducted for the existence of Hawaiian Hawk nests or Hawaiian Bats. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ("USFWS") and the State Department of Land and Natural Resources will be provided with a copy of the results of such survey and consulted on the appropriate conservation measures required. • Flood lights or high intensity lighting will not be used in or about the Petition Area that could disorient the Newell's Shearwater, Dazk-romped Petrel, the Hawaiian Hawk and the Hawaiian Bat. This condition shall run with the land. LUC CONDITIONS 12-26-00 PLANTS • There aze kipuka in the Petition Area which harbor native forest. Petitioner and its successors shall implement such mitigation measures as are required by appropriate governmental agencies to avoid or minimize negative effects on existing rare, endangered or threatened native species. Such mitigation measures will include, but not be limited to, maintaining the Remainder Area in conservation, leaving lazge stands of native forest trees and clusters of native vegetation intact, containing residential sites to areas that were previously cleazed, prohibiting the development of the Petition Area into a project which would change the overall character of the area or generate major increases in resident population, and the use and enhancement of existing native lowland forest as much as possible for landscaping. • Best management practices will be used during construction to control erosion and prevent runoff from damaging native forest resources. ARCHAEOLOGY • Other than the Ola'a flume system (which will be preserved for historic preservation purposes to the extent necessary), a reconnaissance study of the azea has revealed that there are no known archaeological sites in the Petition Area. The State Historic Preservation Division of the Department of Land and Natural Resources, State of Hawaii ("SHPD") has determined that an intensive inventory survey can be deferred until parcel-specific development plans are prepazed. Petitioner and its successors shall complete, prior to any land alteration, an azchaeological inventory survey of the acreage that would be disturbed by any specific development, including roadway, driveway, house site and agricultural site. • To the extent that any archaeological sites are located on the Petition Area, Petitioner and its successors shall work with SHPD in developing a data recovery/ mitigation/ preservation plan. This plan will include input from the local native Hawaiian community and relevant Hawaiian groups, including the State Office of Hawaiian Affairs. The plan shall be approved by SHPD, and a certified copy thereof filed with the Commission, prior to any land alteration affecting such sites. • Petitioner and its successors shall immediately stop work and contact SHPD should any previously unidentified archaeological resouroes such as artifacts, human burials, rock alignments, pavings or walls be encountered during the development of the proposed subdivision. LUC CONDITIONS 12-26-00 2 • These conditions relating to archaeology shall be included in all sales documents pertaining to the lots in the proposed subdivision and in each deed conveying title to a subdivided lot. These conditions shall run with the land. TRADITIONAL HAWAIIAN GATIIERING RIGHTS • Although there is no evidence of the exercise of traditional and customary rights by native Hawaiians in the Petition Area and no evidence of the existence of valued cultural, historical or natural resources that would be the objective of such traditional rights, Petitioner and its successors will preserve and protect all rights customarily and traditionally exercised for subsistence, cultural and religious purposes by descendants of native Hawaiians who inhabited the Hawaiian Islands prior to 1778, subject to the right of the State to regulate such rights. This condition shall be included in all sales documents relating to the lots in the Petition Area and in each deed conveying title to a subdivided lot. This condition shall run with the land. TRAFFIC IMPACTS • In connection with the subdivision of the Petition Area, Petitioner shall dedicate to the County of Hawaiian 80-foot right-of--way located neaz the Olaa flume system to accommodate the County's planned secondary arterial. WASTEWATER • There is no existing County wastewater collection system in the vicinity oFthe Petition Area. Petitioner and its successors will develop a wastewater plan in conformance with the applicable provisions of the Administrative Rules of the Department of Health, State of Hawaii (Chapter 11-62, "Wastewater Systems"). Petitioner's wastewater plan will be approved by the Department of Health, State of Hawaii. LUC CONDrrIONS 12-26-00 3 APPENDIX C RECONNAISSANCE SURVEY OF TERRESTRIAL VERTEBRATE SPECIES REPORT: A RECONNAISSANCE SURVEY OF TERRESTRIAL VERTEBRATE SPECIES ON THE NEWTON PROPERTY, KUKUAU 1, SOUTH HILO, ISLAND OF HAWAII. Prepared by: Reginald E. David Rana Productions, Ltd. P.O. Box 1371 Kailua-Kona, Hawaii 96745 Newton Properly Feurtel Survey 1 Table of Contents Table of contents 2 lntroduction 3 General Site Description 3 Previous Surveys 3 Mamma/lan Study Methods 5 Avian Study Methods 5 Results 6 Discussion 6 Literature cited 11 Tables Table 1. Avian species detected on the lower portion of the Newton property, Kukuau, Hawai`i......... 8 Table 2. Avian species detected on the upper portion of the Newton property, Kukuau, Hawai'i 9 Figures Fgure 1. Study Site 5 NewWn Property Faunal Survey 2 Introduction This report summarizes the findings of a three and a half day and two night ornithological and mammalian reconnaissance survey of the Newton property (TMK 2-4-08.33) located in the Kukuau 1 Division, District of South Hilo, Island of Hawaii, (Fig 1). The field work was conducted on March 14", 15", 16" and 27". The site surveyed covers an area of approximately 1600 acres. The primary purpose of the surveys was to determine what bird and mammal species occur on the parcel, or are likely to occur given the type of habitat available, and to determine the presence of any native species; particularly, any federally listed endangered, threatened, proposed, or candidate avian or mammalian species on, or in the immediate vicinity of the proposed development. In addition, we were asked to assess the probability of any usage of the site by listed species given the habitat available. General Site Description The site runs in a westerly direction from approximately the 1420 foot level past and including a portion of the 'Ola'a Flume Road at the 1950 foot level, and continues west, to an elevation of approximately 2450 feet. Currently, the only practical access to this parcel is from the 'Ola'a Flume Road which bisects the property (Fig 1). There are two other access easements to the property. One is an easement which starts at the Sunrise Estates Subdivision, located approximately 17,000 feet east of the subject property, the other starts at the southern terminus of Wilder Road. Neither of these two easements has been cleared so currently do not offer convenient access to the property. From an ornithological perspective the property can be divided at approximately the 2000 foot level just west of the 'Ola'a Flume Road. The vegetation on the property east of this line, that is below the flume road, is dominated by alien species and appears to have been used for grazing and possibly logging in the past. Within this portion of the property there are dense stands of guava (Psidium sp.), numerous species of alien grasses and weedy species as well as Christmas berry (Schinus terebinthifolius) and dense patches of `uluhe fern (Dicranopteris linearis). The upper portion of the property is quite different in that the vegetation is dominated by native species, including; ohi`a (Metrosideros polymorpha koa {Acacia koa), 'uluhe fern, Myrsine sp., Broussaisia arguta and Hapu'u (Cibotium sp.). There are also several very densely vegetated kipuka in the upper portion. For a detailed description of the vegetation present on the parcel, please see Palmer (1998). Previous Surveys The first systematic surveys of the avifauna of Hawaii were not undertaken until 1976. Starting in Newton Property Faunal Survey 3 - ~ .._J ~ r ~ ~ NEWTON PROPERTY SURVEY MAP ~ BAT CENSUS STATION ~ ~ ~a, l J~_ NORTH r - ~ _ _ ~ 1000 ...`~\a ~ , ~ --T ` I . ~ 'Ola`a FYu , rte Ifioad G "°°°'.~j- -:t ~oMrl -yam / \r ~9 I I1 J _ i Y~ 1I^ ` \u\-, ~ \ / 1_~. Q . _ ` / \ ~ ~ \ iii ~ l ~ \ \ i , - 8 n~ ^A s gbh . i v ' ~ 'L 009 \ ~ ~ a J - r~ g,, ~ C, _ ~ J (N J I ~ - FW ~ _i II ~ Y _ 9 Il ~ ~ ~ / flw~ Newton Property Faunal Survey q that year and continuing until 1983 the lj.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) conducted a state wide survey of the avifauna of Hawaii (Scott et al. 1986). During the course of the Hawaii Forest Bird Surveys (HFBS) one transact was sited to the west of the subject property and terminated just above it (Scott et al. 1986). In recent years a series of extensive faunal surveys were undertaken during the course of preparing the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed improvement and realignment of the Saddle Road which is located between 1200 and 3500 meters north of the site (David 1997). Only four comprehensive bat surveys have been conducted on the Island of Hawaii (Jacobs 1994, Cooper et al. 1995, Cooper and David 1995, David 1997). Two of these surveys addressed lands close to the proposed development site. David Jacobs conducted an Island wide survey between 1990-1993 which attempted to ascertain the distribution and abundance of Hawaiian hoary bats by sampling along paved principal roadways around the Island of Hawaii (Jacobs 1994). During the course of the recently completed faunal studies for the Saddle Road Project EIS the author sampled for bats along the Saddle Road north of the sites (David 1997). The bulk of the remaining published literature relies heavily on anecdotal and incidental information on bat distribution and abundance on the Island (Baldwin 1950, Bryan 1955, Tomich 1986). Mammalian Survey Methods: In an effort to detect the presence of the endangered Hawaiian hoary bats (Lasiurus cinereus semotus) or 'Ope`ape'a, two stationary remote bat census stations were deployed on two successive nights. Sampling was conducted on March 14"and 15", 1998 (Fig.i). Broadband AnaBat II ultrasonic bat detectors coupled to voice activated cassette recorders and remote timing devices were used to detect bat vocalizations. In addition; visual scans were made for bats during crepuscular periods on three evening and two mornings. Count stations were sampled once. Following techniques developed by Krusic et al. (1996), units were calibrated using a pet ultrasonic flea collar. The tapes were reviewed and the number of bat passes recorded were counted. The survey of feral mammals was limited to visual and auditory detection, as well as observation of scat, tracks and road kills. No trapping study was conducted in an attempt to quantity the usage of the site by alien mammalian species. Avian Survey Methods: Walking counts were performed through the portion of the property below the `Ola`a Flume Road. The density of the vegetation combined with the short duration of the survey precluded the using of linear transacts and standardized circular plot counts as used during the Hawaii Forest Bird Surveys (Reynolds et al. 1980, Scott et al. 1986). Field observations were made with the aid of Newlon Pmpery Faunal Survey 5 Leitz 10 X 42 binoculars and by listening for vocalizations. Walking counts were concentrated during the early morning hours between 0600 hrs. and 1100 hrs, the peak bird activity time. A running tally was kept of all bird species observed and heard while walking through the site. An additional 2 hours were spent on the lower portion of the site between 1800 hrs. and 2000 hrs. on the evenings of the 14"' and i5" in an attempt to detect the threatened Newell's Shearwater (Puffinus newell~) ,and the endangered Dark-romped Petrel (Pterodroma phaeopygia sandwichensis) overtlying the site. Time on site not spent counting was spent prospecting in pockets of vegetation in an attempt to locate any species not recorded during census periods. The coverage of the upper portion of the property above the 'Ola'a Flume Road was less exhaustive. Access was sufficiently limited that walking counts were made up the northern boundary of the property to an altitude of approximately 2100 feet and diagonally across this portion from the intersection of the southern boundary and the flume road, up to the 2200 foot level along the barrier road (Fig 1). Avian phylogenetic order used in this report follows Birds Of The World: A Checklist 4th Edition (Clements 1991), and the 1st and 2nd Supplements to Birds O/ The World: A Checklist 4th Edition (Clements and Principe, Jr. 1992, Clements 1997); scientific nomenclature follows The AOU Checklist of North American Birds (AOU 1983), and the 35th through the 41st Supplements to The AOU Checklist (AOU 1985-1997), Mammal scientific names follow Mammals in Hawaii (Tomich 1986), plant names follow Manual of the Flowering Plants of Hawaii (Wagner et al. 1990). Place names follow Place /Names of Hawaii (Pukui et al, 1976) Results: The avifauna) makeup of the upper and lower portions of this property are so different that I have chosen to discuss the results separately. A total of 12 bird species representing 11 families were detected during walking counts and while transiting the lower portion of the site (Table 1). Of the 12 species recorded; 9 are alien (introduced to Hawaii by man), two are considered endemic to the Island of Hawaii, and one, the Pacific Golden Plover (P/uvia/is fulva) is considered an indigenous migratory species (native to Hawaii, but also found elsewhere). One of the endemic species recorded, the Hawaiian Hawk (Buteo solitarius), is listed as endangered by the USFWS and the State of Hawaii (USFWS 1996, DLNR 1986). A total of 15 bird species representing 12 families were detected during walking counts and while transiting the upper portion of the site (Table 2). Of the 15 species recorded; 8 are alien, 6 are endemic to Hawaii, and one, the Pacific Golden Plover, is considered an indigenous migratory species. The endangered Hawaiian Hawk was also recorded in this section. Hawai'i's sole endemic terrestrial mammalian species, the endangered Hawaiian hoary bat, or 'Ope'ape`a, was detected foraging over the lower portion of the property. Sightings, sign or Newton Property Faunal Survey 6 Key To Tables 1 & 2 STAT =STATUS RA= RELATIVE ABUNDANCE E E Endangered Endemic A - Abundam > 26 E Endemic C-Common 11 S 25 M Indigenous Migrant U -Uncommon 6 < 10 A Alien R -Rare < 5 Table 1 AVIAN SPECIES DETECTED ON THE LOWER PORTION OF THE NEWTON PROPERTY, KUKUAU, HAWAl7 Common Name Scientific Name STAT RA HAWKS & EAGLES - Acci itridae Hawaiian Hawk Buteo solitarius. E E R PLOVERS & LAPWINGS - Charadriidae Pacific Golden Plover. Pluvialis tulva. M R PIGEONS & DOVES - Columbidae S otted Dove. Stre to elia chinensis. A C Zebra Dove. Geo elia sfriafa. A C BARN OWLS - T onidae Bam Owl. T o a/ba A R STARLINGS - Sturnidae Common M na. Acridotheres tristis. A A SILVEREYES -Zostero idae Ja anese White-E e. Zostero s 'a onica. A A BABBLERS - Timaliidae Red-billed Leiothrix. Leiothrix lutea. A C WAXBILLS 8 ALLIES - Estrilididae Nutme Manikin Sca{ -breasted Munia Lonchura unctulata to ela A C FRINGILLIDS - Frin illidae House Finch. Car odacus mexicanus mexicanus. A A HAWAIIAN HONEYCREEPERS- Dre anididae Hawai'i'Amaldhi. Hemi nathus vireos E U EMBERIZIDS - Emberizadae Northern Cardinal. Cardinalis cardinalis. A C Newton Property Faunal Survey 7 Table 2 AVIAN SPECIES DETECTED ON THE UPPER PORTION OF THE NEWTON PROPERTY, KUKUAU, HAWAI`! Common Name Scientific Name STAT RA HAWKS & EAGLES - Acci itridae Hawaiian Hawk Buteo solitarius. E E R PLOVERS & LAPW INGS - Charadriidae Pacific Golden Plover. Pluvialis fulva. M R PIGEONS & DOVES - Columbidae S otted Dove. Stre to ella chinensis. A C Zebra Dove. Geo lie striate. A C MONARCH FLYCATCHERS - Monarchidae Hawaii 'Ele aio. Chasiempis sandwichensis ridgwayi E C JAYS CROWS 8 MAGPIES - Corvidae HawaiianThrush'O'mao' Myadestesobscurus. E C STARLINGS - Stumidae Common M na. Acridotheres tristis. A A SILVEREYES -Zostero idae Ja anese White-E e. Zostero s 'a onica. A A BABBLERS - Timaliidae Red-billed Leiothrix. Leiothrix lutes. A C WAXBILLS & ALLIES - Estrilididae Nutme Manikin Scal -breasted Munia Lonchura unctulata to ela A C FRINGILLIDS - Frin illidae House Finch. Ca odacus mexicanus mexicanus. A A HAWAIIAN HONEYCREEPERS- Dre anididae Hawai'i'Amakihi. Hemi nathus virgins E C I'iwi. Vestiaria coocinea. E R ' a one. Himatone son uinea. E U EMBERIZIDS - Emberizadae Northern Cardinal. Cardinalis caro'inalis. A C Newton Property Feunel Survey 8 remains of 7 alien mammalian species; rat (Rattus sp.), house mouse (Mus muscu/us), domestic dog (Canis f. familiaris), small Indian mongoose (Herpestes a. auropunctafus), cat (Fells talus) pig (Sus s. scrofa) and domestic cattle (Bos taurus) were detected within the boundaries of the property. It is likely that all three species of naturalized rats found on Hawaii ;roof rat (Rattus rattus), Norway rat (Rattus norvegicus), and Polynesian Rat (Rattus exulans hawaiiensis), are also present on the property. Without conducting a trapping program, it is difficult to assess the population densities of these often hard-to-see mammals. All of the introduced mammalian species detected are deleterious to avian populations. Discussion: The coverage of the lower section of the property was sufficient to make categorical statements as to the current avifauna resources present on this portion of the proposed development site. The avifauna in the lower portion of the site, that is, below the 'Ola'a Flume Road is dominated by alien species as are the lower reaches of most of the eastern side of the rest of the Island. There are three listed endemic bird species which potentially could be impacted by the further clearing and development of this portion of the site. These are the Newell's Shearwater, Dark-romped Petrel and Hawaiian Hawk. The first two species mentioned are pelagic seabirds which return to their nesting colonies on the upper slopes of Mauna Loa and possibly Mauna Kea during crepuscular and night time hours between April and October. Both species of seabirds, especially fledging birds, can become disoriented by exterior lighting on their way to sea in the fall. When disoriented, seabirds often collide with manmade structures and, if not killed outright, the dazed or injured birds are easy targets of opportunity for feral mammals. Although there are no records of nesting Newell's Shearvvater specifically from the site, there are numerous records of this species being seen, heard or collected close to the Saddle Road on the Hilo side of the Island (Banko 1980a, Kepler et al. 1979, Conant 1980). Sheila Conant recovered a dead bird on Kaumana drive in 1978 (Conant 1980). Newell's Shearwater have been heard along the Wailkuku river north of the Saddle Road (Kepler et al 1979), and numerous downed birds have been recovered from different locations in and around Hilo (R. David pers. obs., Banko 1980 b, Kepler et al. 1979). Dark-romped Petrels nest much higher and in lower numbers than do Newell's Shearwaters. Several downed birds have been recovered from along the Saddle Road, and various locations around Hilo (R. David, pers. obs. , J. Jeffrey, pers. comm.). It is probable that both species overtly the site between late April and late October. Hawaiian Hawks were recorded on three of the four days on site. This is not surprising since the property is well within the normal range of this Hawaii Island endemic. It is probable that this species nests in some of the kipuka within the general vicinity, if not on the property itself. This species has seemingly adapted better than any other endemic avian species to the alien dominated lowland areas of the Island. Hawaiian Hawks occupy a wide variety of habitats, they are found in almost all habitats not lacking trees. They are all but absent from treeless or close to Newton Properly Faunal Survey 9 treeless grasslands and lava fields. The current population of this species is estimated to be approximately 1600 birds (Morrison et al. 1994). It is generally thought that the population as a whole is healthy and maintaining itself, unlike many other endemic spaces. This species is currently under review by the USFWS for down listing from endangered to threatened status (USFWS 1993). The avifauna found on the upper portion of the site had much higher number of endemic species than found on the lower portion (Table 2). This is readily explainable by the high quality, native species dominated forest found on most of the site above the 'Ola'a Flume Road. No further listed avian were detected on the upper portion. However, we were unable to survey the upper reaches especially the south western corner of this portion. Of special note were goodly numbers of Hawaii 'Elepaio an endemic monarchine flycatcher, which is declining throughout it's remaining range, and numbers of O'ma'o, the endemic Hawaii Island thrush. No 'I`wi were detected during this short survey. This finding may be as a direct result of the high numbers of mosquitoes encountered above the flume road. 'I'wi are almost completely intolerant of avian malaria. The faunal survey results for the lower portion of the site were consistent with the habitat available. No unexpected species were detected, nor were any expected species missed. The survey of the upper portion was less than exhaustive, though the results were gratifying from an ornithological perspective, we detected three times the number of endemic species on the upper portion than recorded on the lower portion. Any further clearing or development of the lower portion of the site, that is below the 'Ola'a Flume Road will not have a significant impact on native or federally protected avian or mammalian species. In an attempt to minimize the downing of Newell's Sheanvater and Dark-romped Petrels an effort should be made to minimize exterior fighting, and where unavoidable efforts should be made to shield light sources. If during clearing and grubbing a Hawaiian Hawk nest is found, construction should cease within 500 meters of the nest tree and consultation should be initiated with the USFWS under the terms of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. If further clearing or development is initiated on the upper portion of the site the same caveats identified above should be noted. Additionally thought should be given to undertaking a more thorough survey of the upper third, especially the southwestern corner of this portion. It should be noted that the upper reaches of the site are still lower than the majority of listed extant passerine species are currently thought to inhabit in this area of the Island. The finding of Hawaiian hoary bats foraging over the site is not surprising considering it's relative abundance in the lowland areas of the windward side of the Island (David 1997). There has been very little scientific work attempted on this species, in no small part due to the fact that this bat is Newton Properly Faunal Survey 10 usually a solitary arboreal rooster and therefor difficult to study. The existing scientific evidence is conflicting as to what effect alien species, plant or otherwise, may have had on this species (Jacobs, 1994, Kepler et al. 1990, 7omich 1986). It should be borne in mind that little is known about the possible changes in this species range, population density or habitat preferences since the advent of humans and their impacts on the native Hawaiian ecosystems. The development of the lower portion will not have a deleterious impact on this species. The further clearing of the upper portion of the site may eliminate roosting habitat, though no definitive studies have been published identifying and quantifying this bat species unique needs. Newton Properly Faunal Survey 11 Literature Cited American Ornithologist's Union 1983. Check-list of North American Birds. 6th edition. AOU. Washington D.C. 877 pp. 1985. 35th Supplement to AOU Checklist. Auk vol. 102: 680-686. 1987. 36th Supplement to AOU Checklist. Auk vol. 104: 591-596. 1989. 37th Supplement to AOU Checklist. Auk vol, i 06: 532-596. 1991. 38th Supplement to AOU Checklist. Auk vol. 108: 750-754. 1993. 39th Supplement to AOU Checklist. Auk vol. 110: 675-682. 1995. 40th Supplement to AOU Checklist. Auk vol. 112: 819-830. 1997.41st Supplement to AOU Checklist. Auk vol. 114: 542-552. Baldwin, P. H. 1950. Occurrence and behavior of the Hawaiian bat. J. Mammal. 31 (4): 455-456. Banko, W. E. 1980 a. Population Histories- Species Accounts Seabirds: Hawaiian Dark-rumped Petrel ('Ua'u). Cooperative National Park Resources Studies Unit, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Department of Botany, Technical Report #5B. 1980 b. Population Histories- Species Accounts Seabirds: Newell ('A'o). Cooperative National Park Resources Studies Unit, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Department of Botany, Technical Report #5A. Bryan, E. H., Jr. 1955. The Hawaiian bat. 'Elepaio Vol. 15: 63-64. Clements, J.F. 1991. Birds Of The World: A Checklist. Ibis Publishing Co., Vista, California. 617 pp. Clements, J.F. and W. L. Principe, Jr. 1992. English name index and Supplement No. 1 to Birds Of The World: A Checklist, 4th Edition. Ibis Publishing Co., Vista, California. 68pp. Clements, J.F. 1997. Supplement No. 2 - 1993, 1994, 1995 and 1996 to Birds Of The World: A Checklist, 4th Edition. Ibis Publishing Co., Vista, California. 11 pp. Conant, S. 1980. Recent records of the 'U'au (Dark-rumped Petra{) and "A'o (Newell's Shearwater) in Hawai'i.'Elepaio, Vol. 41:11-13 Cooper, B. A. and R. E. David 1995. Radar and Visual Surveys of Seabirds in the HELCO SSP Unit 71, Puna, Hawaii, During July 1995. Prepared for R. M. Towill Corporation & Hawaii Electric Light Co. 19 pp. Cooper, B.A., David, R.E. and R.J. Blaha 1995. Radar and Visual Surveys of Endangered Seabirds and Bats in the Pohakuloa Training Area, Hawaii, During Summer 1995. Prepared for R.M. Towill Corporation and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Pacific Division (POD). David, R. E. 1997.Ornithological and Mammalian Surveys of the Proposed Improvement and Realignment Corridors of the Saddle Road (State of Hawaii Route 200), Island of Hawaii, Newron Properly Faunal Survey 12 Hawaii. Prepared for: Rust E&I & The Federal Highways Administration, Central Federal Lands Highway Division. 99pp. DLNR 1986. Indigenous wildlife, endangered and threatened Wildlife and plants, and introduced wild birds. Department of Land and Natural Resources. State of Hawaii. Administrative Rule dated 28, August 1986. Jacobs, D.S. 1994. Distribution and Abundance of the Endangered Hawaiian Hoary Bat, Lasiurus cinereus semotus, on the Island of Hawaii. Pacific Science, Vol. 48, no. 2: 193- 200. Kepler. C. B., and J. M. Scott 1990. Notes on the distribution and behavior of the endangered Hawaiian Hoary Bat (Lasiurus cinerus semotus) 1964-1993. 'Elepaio 50(7):59-64. Kepler, C. B., J. Jeffrey and J.M. Scott 1979. Possible breeding colonies of Manx Shearwaters on the Island of Hawaii. 'Elepaio, Vol. 39, No.: 115-116 Krusic, E.A. , M. Yamasaki, C.D. Neefus, and P.J. Pekins 1996. Bat habitat use in the White Mountain National Forest. J. Wildl. Manage. 60(3):625-631. Palmer, R. 1998. Botanical Reconnaissance survey of the Newton Property, Hilo, Hawaii. Unpbl. Report prepared for Belt Colins, Hawaii. 15pp. Pukui , M. K., S. H. Elbert, and E. T. Mookini 1976. Place Names of Hawaii. University of Hawaii Press. Honolulu, Hawaii. 289 pp. Morrsion, M. L., L. S. Hall and P. H. Bloom. 1994. Hawaiian Hawk (Buteo solitarius) population Survey. Upbl. Report. 50 pp. Sibley, C. G., Burt Monroe, Jr. 1990. Distribution and Taxonomy of Birds of the World. Yale University Press, New Haven. 1111pp. Reynolds, R.T., J.M. Scott and R.A. Nussbaum. 1980. A variable circular plot method for estimating bird numbers. Condor. 82:309-313 Scott, J. M., S. Mountainspring, F. L. Ramsey and C. B. Kepler. 1985. Forest Bird Communities of the Hawaiian Islands: Their Dynamics, Ecology, and Conservation. Studies in Avian Biology No. 9. Lawrence, Kansas: Allen Press Inc. 431 pp. Tomich, P.Q. 1986. Mammals in Hawaii. Bishop Museum Press. Honolulu, Hawaii. 375 pp. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Federal Register 1993. Vol. 58, No 149. Proposed Rules Pg. 41684-41688 1996. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. 50CFR 17:11 and 17:12. United States Department of the Interior. Washington. 46 pp. Wagner, W.L., D.R Herbst, S.H. Sohmer 1990. Manual of the Flowering Plants of Hawaii. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu, Hawaii 1854 pp. Newlon Property Faunal Survey 13 APPENDIX D RECONNAISSANCE BOTANICAL SURVEY, RECONNAISSANCE BOTANICAL SURVEY OF NEWTON PROPERTY, HILO, HAWAII by Palmer & Associates Consulting P.O. Box 637, Pahoa, Hawaii 96778 808-936-0564 July 1998 RECONNAISSANCE BOTANICAL SURVEY OF NEWTON PROPERTY, HILO, HAWAII TABLE of CONTENTS SUMMARY 1 INTRODUCTION 2 SURVEYMETHODOLOGY 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 4 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 4 VEGETATION 6 ENDANGERED PLANT SPECIES and RARE PLANTS 10 OTHER SITE CHARACTERISTICS 12 PROJECT EFFECTS -IMPACTS, MITIGATIONS and RECOMMENDATIONS......14 References .................................................................15 APPENDIX -Vascular Plants of Newton Property Figure 1 RECONNAISSANCE BOTANICAL SURVEY OF NEWTON PROPERTY, HILO, HAWAII by Palmer & Associates Consulting SUMMARY The vegetation of the property varies from degraded Lowland Wet Forest heavily infested with strawberry guava and other introduced species at the lower, or eastern end, to high quality native Hawaiian Montane Wet Forest at the upper or western end of the property. These vegetation types are found throughout the general region of the forest east of Hilo at compazable elevation. The property is logically divided into an upper or mauka portion above (west) of the old Ola'a Flume Road, and a makai portion below (east of) the Ola'a Flume Road. Most of the makai portion of the property below the Ola'a Flume Road is disturbed and infested ti~th alien species, and has a relatively low potential to support rare and endangered plants. By contrast, the mauka portion of the property supports high quality native forest with significant botanical resources, including rare and, in one instance, endangered, plants. Significant Botanical features discovered in the survey area include: One (1) USFWS listed Endangered Species plant population, representing a single unique species (Cyanea piatyphylla), found in the mauka portion of the property; numerous populations of Raze Plants, some found throughout the property, but most found primarily in the mauka portion; and Environmentally Sensitive Areas, consisting of high quality Hawaiian native rainforest (Montane Wet Forest) and wet areas containing vegetation associated with wetlands, found in the maulca portion of the property. 1 INTRODUCTION This report describes the results of Palmer & Associates Consulting's environmental surveys, evaluation, and documentation for botanical resources, including Endangered, Threatened, Proposed, Candidate and Recommended Plant Species, Plant Species of Concern, Rare Plants, and unique Environmentally SensitiveAreas, for the "Newton Property", Island of Hawaii, Hawaii County, State of Hawaii. This report describes only results of surveys for Endangered, Threatened, Proposed, Candidate and Recommended Plant Species, and Plant Species of Concern, Rare Plants, and unique Environmentally Sensitive Areas. Botanical surveys were carried out for vascular plants (flowering plants and ferns), bryophytes were not surveyed. Wildlife surveys for the proposed project were conducted by Rana Productions and are reported sepazately In this report, we sununarize methodology for botanical surveys, describe the affected environment, discuss adverse impacts and recommend mitigations for the proposed project. In almost all cases of plant names, the Latin name is used, with the common name in pazenthesis only at the first occurrence in the report, unless it is inserted again for clarity. The common name is used alone for specific plants that are well-known and where it will provide better understanding for the reader. Plant nomenclature follows Wagner et al. 1990 and St. John 1973. Vascular plant species encountered in the project area aze listed in the appendix. 2 SURVEY METHODOLOGY Survey techniques for Endangered, Threatened, Proposed, Candidate and Recommended Species, Species of Concern and Rare Plants, follow Nelson (1987), Given (1994), and Palmer, et al. (1987). Palmer and Paul spent six days in the field. Surveys for Endangered, Candidate, and Species of Concern were conducted using the "timed meander survey" method (Nelson 1987). Surveys were completed between Mazch 25 and April 10. Access to the survey area was by means of the Ola`a Flume Road, the Helco powerline road following the north and east property boundaries, and by the "Barrier Road" running diagonally through the upper pazt of the survey azea. Air photos supplied by Belt-Collins were used to identify three kipuka of well developed forest, one in the south-east corner of the survey area, one in approximately the middle of the survey azea, and one, the largest and most significant, above the Ola`a Flume Road. Field surveys focused on these areas, as most likely to harbor endangered plants. 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING General Information The survey azea is located west of Hilo, in the vicinity of Kaumana, and is accessible by driving south, through Matos Ranch, on the Ola'a flume Road. The property is approximately 2.5 miles south of State Route 200 (Saddle Road). The survey azea encompasses the majority of the old hawaiian ahupua'a or land division of Kukuau. The survey azea rnnsists of the entire 1645 acre "Newton Property", which extends from near the end of Wilder Road at approximately 1420ft, to about 2400ft above (west of) the Ola'a Flume Road. Proposed project The 1645 acres ~~ould be subdivided into seven parcels ranging in size from approximately 80 acres to approximately 770 acres. Four 80 acre parcels would be defined at the eastern end of the property. Two pazcels of approximately 270 acres each would be located mauka of the four 80 acre parcels. A 770 pazcel would be located above the Ola'a Flume Road. Pazcels would be accessed by a new private road extending from Wilder Road. (Figure 1) Description of area The survey area is approximately 18,800 feet long and approximately 3,800 feet wide. The area is almost entirely forested. The azea is logically divided into mauka (above the Ola'a Flume Road), and makai (below the Ola'a Flume Road). The upper portion of the survey area is drained by Middle Flume Spring and associated tributaries which aze mostly off the property in the adjacent forest reserve. No major surface stream drainages occur in the lower or eastern part of the survey azea. Gem A series of lava flows have descended from Mauna Loa to the outskirts of Hilo during historical times, covering parts of the ancient Punahoa Flow, other ancient underlying flows, and portions of the Pahala Ash or other ancient volcanic ash deposits (Lockwood 1996). The survey area is significant geologically because most of these old flows and ash deposits are still exposed. The area above the Ola'a Flume Road is particularly significant, with exposed ancient flows and ash deposits extending beyond the survey area into the adjacent forest reserve. 4 633.3)OUWY~101529.99 5 I r 4 ~ ~ ~ l V d> ¢ y C W Cpl 1 ~ N e'a .i 3 1~ ~ ~ O J~ pf J ~y r i 2 OI; n o c m ~ ~ 2?fEkvS W p c " - L v ~ ~ ~y ~ o e ' ' m; • C' W I- J I, ' " E ~ ' ~ .,I nor' .1 a i ~ , ~ 1 t. N ~ ; 1 ~ < a _ ~ C f I J' Ceti-TI - ,I~ ~I`\ / ~ \ _ r ~ ~ ~ 1 - ~ RWL. \ ~ 4 V \ 1 I V L _ .a / -w I JL P J t yr i ~ - ~ _'Y 1..54 ~ ~ . t..., . - M _ 1 Grp ~ .'alp ~ ~ a•m m ~ \ v i l e \ R 'YI;- / ~ ~r~ y w a.V ~ o . ~ .p .C..C... J . ~ ~ l : ~ ' ~ i' . i pY 9 N ~ ~ Q ~ / . ' 1 _ _ \ , '"9... _ ~ - 2 Climate Climate is equal in importance to substrate in determining the overall nature of the vegetation. Everson (1983) has recently summarized climate data for the Saddle Road area. The climate classification of the survey azea fits the category rerngnized worldwide as tropical montane rainforest (Ellenberg and Mueller-Dombois 1967. Other Environmental and Anthropo~enic Factors In addition to the introduction of "alien" (introduced after 1887) plant and animal species to the Hawaiian Islands and increasing accessibility to previously remote wilderness azeas by feral animals and people, a number of other factors are important in determining the structure and species composition of the vegetation. Factors that commonly create and contribute to disturbances and modification of the original native vegetation in the study azea aze fire, flood, drought, lava flows, earthquakes, cultural and prehistoric use, logging and agriculture. We also observed evidence of significant activity by feral pigs (and pig hunters) throughout the survey area. 5 VEGETATION The occurrence of vegetation types is determined by a complex set of factors, including flow age, substrate type, climate, community edge integrity and environmental disturbances. The natural vegetation of Hawaii has been classified by several authors into compazable, but different systems. Most authors have traditionally called the forest in the survey area and vicinity "rainforest". This report's classification of vegetation follows the Cagne and Cuddihy (1990) system, which recognizes four vegetation types in the survey area. This survey further delineates "New" and "Old"lava flows. An additional vegetation type, "Disturbance Areas"is also delineated in this survey. Following Cagne and Cuddihy (1990), we recognize the following vegetation types in the survey area: Lowland Wet Forest Montane Wet Forest Montane Wet Sedgelands Montane Wet Mixed Communities Disturbance Communities Within the survey area, striking differences occur between vegetation communities on new and old lava flows. These differences represent different successional stages of forest development (Cagne and Cuddihy 1990). New lava flows, such as the 1881 flow on the north edge of the survey area, support forests in early successional stages vt~ith small, widely spaced trees, whereas the old flows (>several thousand yeazs) support stands of closed-canopy, old-growth, late successional stage forest. Since the area has previously been environmentally impacted, there are numerous "Disturbance Communities" present in the survey azea, most resulting from similar impacts. They occur on both new and old flows. Disturbance communities are found primarily along roads and powerline cuts in the survey azea. They are dominated by alien grass species such as: Anthoxanthumodoratum (vernal grass) Digitaria violescens (violet crabgrass) Melinus minutiflora (molasses grass) Pennisetum clandestinurn (kikuyu grass) Poa praetensis (Kentucky bluegrass) 6 Other characteristic species in the disturbance communities in the survey azea include: Ageratina riparia (pamakani) Centella asiatica (pohe kola) Dicranopterts linearis (uluhe fern) Lycopodium cernuum (wawae'iole clubmoss) Paspalum conjugatum (Hilo grass) Rhyncospara cauduca (beak-rush) New Flow Plant Communities are found on the 1881 pahoehce flow on the northern edge of the survey azea. They rnntain less soil and biological diversity than forest on older flows. Although Hawaiian native plants dominate New Flow Communities, several introduced alien species are also present. No Endangered, Threatened, Proposed, Candidate and Recommended Candidate Species, Species of Concern or Rare Plants were found in the New Flow Communities below. -New Montane Wet Forest occurs on the 1881 pahoehce flow on the northern edge of the survey area. Invasive alien species Arundina graminifolia (bamboo orchid), Andropogon virginicus (broomsedge), Nephrolepis multiflora (swordfern), and Tibochina herbacea (tibochina) aze present, but currently aze not displacing the native vegetation. This community is dominated by: Dicranopteris linearis (uluhe) Metrosideros polymorpha ('ohi'a) Chazacteristic species also include: Lycopodium cernuum (wawae'iole) Machaerina angustifolia ('uki) Sadleria cyatheoides ('ama'u) Vaccinium calycinum ('ohelo la'au) 7 Old Flow Communities are found on the ancient Punahoa flow (>several thousand years ago), on ancient ash deposits, and on other ancient volcanic substrates. These substrates occur throughout the survey area. Some of these old flow communities are unique to the regional environment, to the island, or, to the state. Many of these areas have been environmentally impacted, but above 1800ft they are not heavily invaded by introduced alien species. However, in the survey azea below 1800ft, most azeas aze invaded by introduced alien species and are somewhat degraded. Old Lowland Wet Forest occurs in the survey azea below Ola'a Flume Road, below about 1800 ft. Lowland Wet Forest in the survey azea is heavily infested with strawberry guava and shows the effects of many years of human impacts. These areas were formerly dominated by lazge koa trees, which were logged many years ago. The present infestation with introduced alien species appears to be inhibiting koa regeneration. Old Montane Wet Forest occurs primarily above the Ola'a Flume Road in the survey area, in some azeas extending to about 1800 ft, and includes examples of the 'Ohi'a/Hapu'u Tree Fern Forest, the Ohi'a Montane Wet Forest, and the Koa/'Ohi'a Montane Wet Forest plant communities of Cagne and Cuddihy (1990). Sohmer and Gustafson (1987), group all these plant community types as Rainforest. These stands of late successional stage forest have an overstory canopy dominated by koa, a middle canopy layer dominated by 'ohi'a, and a lower canopy dominated by tree ferns. Pritchardia beccariana (loulu palm) is frequently present as a canopy emergent. Numerous other nondominant native tree species may be present. Under the canopy, the forest is open, with a well developed herb layer dominated by ferns. A high diversity of bryophytes (mosses and liverworts) and Hawaiian native fungi (mushrooms) aze present in the understory. In low lying spots, patches of bog vegetation aze found. 8 Chazacteristic species in Old Montane Wet Forest include: Acacia koa Ilex anomaly Adenophorus pinnatifidus Labordia hedyosmifolia Antidesma platyphylla Lycopodium spp. Asplenium tritomanthes Machaerina spp. Astelia rnenziesii Maratha douglasii Athyriurn spp. Mariscus spp. Broussaisia arguta Mecodiurn recurvum Carex alligata Metrosideros polyrnorpha Cibotium spp. Myrsine spp. Clermontia spp. Oreobolus furcatus Cheirodenron trigynum Paspallum urvillei Coprosma ochracea Pe[ea spp. Cyanea spp. Peperomia spp. Cyclosorus sp. Pittosporum sp Cyrtandra spp. Polypodium spp. Dicranopteris linearis Pritchardia beccariana Dryopteris wallichiana Psychotria hawaiiensis Dubautia spp. Rubus spp. Elaphoglossurn spp. Sadleria spp. Freycinetia arborea Stenogyne calarninthoides Hedyotis spp. Styphelia tarneiarneia Vaccinium spp. -Old Montane Wet Sedgelands occurs above 1800ft, in small patches of water-logged bogs in low spots adjacent to other bog communities. 'Phis vegetation type is dominated by Carex alligata . -Old Montane Wet Mixed Communities occur above 1800ft. These aze true bogs of both "ombrogenous" (fed by rainwater) and "soligenous" (fed by rain and ground water) types (Gagne and Cuddihy 1990). Characteristic species include: Machaerina angustifolia Vaccinium caiycinum Sphagnum spp. V. reticulatum Styphelia tameiarneiae 9 ENDANGERED PLANT SPECIES and RAREPLANTS Rare and Endangered Species: One location of an Endangered Plant Species was located within the Survey Area. Numerous locations of raze plants also occur throughout the survey azea. USFWS Protected Species Designations: The USFWS maintains lists of plant and animal speaes in several different categories. In its "19% Candidate Notice of Review", USFWS (11/7/%) classifies organisms as: -Endangered (E) -Threatened (T) -Formally Proposed as Endangered or Threatened (PE) or (PC) -Candidate for Listirt~ as Endangered or Threatened (C) -Recommended for Lstingg as Endangered or Threatened (RL) - Recommended forCandidacy (RC) Spedes of Concern (SOC1 -Possibly Extinct in the Wild All species listed as Endangered, Threatened, or Proposed by USFWS,legallyrequire planning consideration as specified in the ESA of 1973 (as amended), and CWA Section 404. he State of Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) assigns state legal protection to these same speaes designations. State legislation also considers other botanical resources. Rare Plants (RARE): As listed by Fosberg and Herbst (]975), these Hawaiian native plant species are considered "rare" -endemic and possibly slowly disappearing-but are not currently listed as Endangered, Threatened, Proposed, Candidate or Recommended Candidate Species, nor considered a Spedes of Concern, by USFWS. These Plants are biological resources unique to the state of Hawau. These plant populations face many threats including feral animals, introduced insects and pathogens, but are not legally protected. Endan erg ed Species Protected Under Endangered Species Act Found Cyanea platyphylla (A. Gray) Hillebr. (E) A wet forest shrub of the Lobelia Family (CAMPANULACEAE), found approximately 0.5 mile north of the end of the driveable portion of the "Barrier Road". This population is a new discovery. It brings to three the number of populations known. The species has been removed from its known location near Saddle Road for captive propagation, leaving oltly this new population and one other surviving in the wild. Rare Plants Found The following species of rare plants were found in the survey area: Bobea eliator Cibotium hawaiiense Cler•montia hawaiiense Cyrfandra hawaiiense 10 Cyrtartdra lysiosepala Lycapodium sp. noa Marattia douglasii Pritchardia beccariana Sadleria soletiana Tetraplasandra oahuensis Most of these species were found above the Ola'a Flume Road. However,Clermontia hawaiiense is found below the Flume Road, and Pritchardia beccariana (Hawaiian Fan Palm or Loulu) is found throughout the survey azea. 11 OTHER SITE CHARACTERISTICS Environmentally Sensitive Areas with stands of old floes' late successional forest were found in the mauka portion of the property above the Ola'a Flume Road and on few areas of ancient lava flow below the road. The lower elevation boundary of these stands of forest roughly coincides with the Ola a Flume Road, but, based on the air photographs, extend in a few areas to as low as 1800 feet. However, nothing makai of the Flume Road compares in botanical significance to the forest in the mauka area. These stands of forest have the potential to support federally and state legally protected Endangered, Candidate and Recommended Candidate Plant Species, and Flant Species of Concern, along with Raze Plants, and raze native birds and invertebrates. Furthermore, they are outstanding examples of unique Hawaiian native forest vegetation, representing an important reservoir of biodiversity. The forest that is the source of the north fork of Middle Flume Spring, in the southwestern corner of the survey area, supports one of the best examples of Montane Wet Forest left in East Hawaii. In fact, all of the forest above the Ola'a Flume Road in the survey azea should be considered an environmentally sensitive azea. Because of the difficulty of access, we ~n'ere not able to penetrate through the dense forest above the Ola'a Flume Road to the extreme southwest corner of the property. From the air photographs it is appazent that a lazge tract of old-growth forest occupies this remote kipuka. If so, the azea may be highly ecologically significant. To properly survey the mauka portion of the property, a team of biologists would need to be dropped into the area by helicopter, set up a base camp, and spend several days in the field. This type of expedition was beyond the scope of the present survey. Degraded old lava flow Lowland Wet Forest in "dieback" condition, occurs below 1800ft and extends to approximately 1600ft on the north side of the survey azea. This azea is not nearly as significant as the forest above the Ola'a Flume Road, but it may also be considered sensitive. Environmentally Sensitive Areas: As defined the State Department of Health, Hawaii Administrative Rules (HAR), Title 11, Chapter 200, Environmental Impact tatement Rules and by the Hawaii State Environmental Policy, Chapter 344-3(1) and Chapter 343, Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS), these areas ma contain critical habitat for plants listed by USFWS as Endangered, Threatened, Proposed, Candidate or RecommendedySpedes, or, Species of Concern, or, re resent examples of natural native ecosystems, andJ oche important components of a regional environment These areas are considered "sensitive" as they have unique biological or ecological features that depend on the inte~nty of the immediate site and surrounding ecosystem. In the survey area, Environmentally Sensitive Areas are primanly Hawaiian native rainforest - (Montane Wet Forest) and Wetlands, both often occurring on ancient lava flows or ash deposits. 12 Wet azeas occur as scattered patches throughout the survey area, and were identified as sites occupied by vegetation associated with wetlands growing in areas of prolonged inundation and soil saturation. Topographic changes create a mosaic of wet basins and intervening areas of elevated ground, where most trees occur. The dimensions of these areas are extremely variable. Vegetation associated with wetlands is found in the lower elevation portions of the survey area, but bog vegetation associated with Montane Wet Forest is found primarily in the mauka portion of the property. It is doubtful that any of the wet sites found in the makai portion of the property are lazge enough to require planning consideration. 13 Project Effects -Impacts. Mitigations, and Recommendations Project Effects Impacts of the proposed project include development of four 80 acre parcels at the lower or eastern end of the survey area, and the two 270 acre parcels in the middle of the property, including an access road from the end of Wilder Road. Environmental effects would include clearing of brush and trees from somewhat less than 5 percent of the property, and some increase of access for people and feral animals. Mitigations and Recommendations The most important recommendation is to maintain the area above the Ola'a Flume Road in conservation, with little or no development. This will effectively mitigate most potential impacts to endangered and raze plants (and other organisms). Furthermore, hunting should be continued, especially above the Ola'a Flume Road, in order to prevent degradation of the forest by feral animals. Other recommendations include: • if the land use district classification of the mauka portion of the property is changed from Conservation to Agricultural, conduct further biological surveys of the mauka portion of the property above the Ola'a Flume Road • Avoid wet areas during development • Use as many existing native trees as possible is landscape during development 14 References Cagne, W. C. and L.W. Cuddihy. 1990. Vegetation. pp. 45-114. in Wagner, W., et al. (eds.). 1990. Manual of the Flowering Plants of Hawaii. Univ. Hawaii Press, Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu. Ellenberg, H. and D. Mueller-Dombois. 1967. Tentative physiognomic-ecological classification of plant formations of the eazth. Ber. geobot. Inst. ETH Stiftg. Rubel, Zurich 37:21-55. Evenson, W. E. 1983. Climate Analysis in `Ohi`a Dieback Area on the Island of Hawaii. Pacific Saence 37(4):375-384. Fosberg, F. R. and D. R. Herbst.1975. Rare and Endangered Species of Hawaiian Vasculaz Plants. Allertonia 1:1-72. Given, D. R. 1994. Principles and Practice of Plant Conservation. Timber Preess, Portland, Oregon. Lockwood, J. P., P. Lipman, L.D. Peterson, and F.R. Warshauer. 1988. Generalized ages of surface lava flows of Mauna Loa volcano. USGS. Nelson, J.R. 1987. Raze Plant Surveys: Techniques for Impact Assessment. in Elias, T.S. (ed.) Conservation and Management of Rare and Endangered Plants. Publ. By Calif. Native Plant Society., Berkeley. Palmer, R. E., R. Vanbianchi, L. Schofield, and S. Nugent. 1987. Ecology and Distribution of Poa marcida Hitch. in Northwestern Oregon. i n Elias, T.S. (ed.) Conservation and Management of Raze and Endangered Plants. Publ. By Calif. Native Plant Society., Berkeley. Sohmer, S.H. and R. Gustafson. 1987. Plants and Flowers of Hawaii. U. of Hawaii Press, Honolulu. ' St. John, H. 1973. List and Summary of the Flowering Plants in the Hawaiian Islands. Pacific Trop. Bot. Gard. Mem. 1:1-519. US Army Corps of Engineers. 1987. Wetland Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1. 15 US Fish and T~Vildufe Service, Department of the .interior. 1996. 1996 Candidate Notice of Review (Adapted from The Federal Register, February 28, 1996) US Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior. 1996. Hawaiian Island Plants: Updated November 7, 1996 -Listed and Candidate Species, As Designated Under the U.S. Endangered Species Act Wagner, W.L., D.R. Herbst, and S.H. Sohmer. 1990. Manual of the Flowering Plants of Hawaii. 2 vols. U. Of Hawaii Press and Bishop Museum Press. 16 Appendix VASCULAR PLANTS of Newton Property, Hilo, Hawaii Surveyed by Re~d'ord Palmer and David Paul, Palmer ~ Associates Consulting June 1998 VASCULAR PLANTS of Newton Property, Hilo, Hawaii Surveyed by Rexford Palmer and David Paul, Palmer ~ Associates Consulting PTERID PHYTE FAMILY USFWS USFWS Dist.& Flow Genus /Species Common Name Wtlnds. Status Abun. Tvpe DICKSONIACEAE Tree Fern Famlly Cibotirrm c/wmissoi Kaulf. hapu'u 'i'i FAC" - E-C N, O Ciborium glaucum (SmJ Hook. & Am. hapu'u FAC' - E-C N, O Ciborium hawarense Nakai & Ogura meu - - E-R O Microlepiastrigosa (Thunb.) Presl. Palapalai - - E~U O GLEICNENIACEAE Winged Fern Famlly Dicranopreris linemis (Butm J Underw. uluhe FACU - I-C N, O Hicriopterispinnata (G. Kunze) Ching uluhe lau loo - - E-U O Siicheris owhyhensis (Hook.) Ching uluhe - - E-U O HYMENOPHYLLACEAE Filmy Fern Family Gonocormus nrinutus (BI.) v.d. Bosch dwarf(ilmyfem - - I-U O Mecodiurn recruwum (Gaud.) Copel filmylem - - I-C N, O Sphaeroconium obtusum (H.Bc A.) Copel filmy fern - - I-C O LYCOPODIACEAE Club Moas Family Lycopodiwn cernuum L. wawaetiole FAC'" - I-C N, O Lycopodiwn phytlanthrun Hook.& Arn. aawae'iole - - E~U O Lycopodium venustulum Gaud. wawae5de FACU= - E-U N, O MARATTIACEAE Mule's-foot Fern Family Angiopreris evccta (Forst.) Hoffmn. angiopteris - - I-R O Marattiadaugkuii (Presl)Baker pals - - E-R O OPHIOGLOS3ACEAE Adder's Tongue Fern Family Ophiodernrafalcruurn Degener puapuamoa - - 1-U O POLYPODIACEAE Common Fern Family Adenophorussarmentosus (Brack) Wilson aderrophorvs FACU - &U N, O syn. A. tripinnatijrdus Gaud. Aderrophorurtamariscinus (Kaulf) wahini noho mauka FACU - E~C N, O Hook.& Grev, Amarrropeltaglobulifera (Brack.) Holt palapalai a kamapua'a - - E-U O Asptenium adiantum-nigrum L. iwaiwa - - I-C N, O Asplenium contigrrum Kaulf. spleenwort - - 1-U O Asplenium lobulntum pi'ipi'i lau manamana - - 1rU O Aspleniwn monondres L. spleenwort - - I-U N, O PTERIDOPHI'TES (am'q FA IL USFWS USFWS Dist.& Flow Genus /Species Common Name Wdnds. Status Abun. Tvce POLYPODIACEAE(con't) Common Fern Family Asplenium trichomanes L. spleenwort - - I-C N, O Athyrium esculentum (RetzJ Copal pacofem - - A-C O, D Athyrium microphyllum (Sm.) Als[on 'akdea FAC - TiU O Athyrium sandwichianum (Brack,) Milde ho'i'o - - E-U O syn. Diplazium snndwichkrnum CF Athyrium sp. trailing athvrium - - E-U O Blechrrwnoccidentale L. blechnum - - A-C O Coniograrnrrte pilosa ]o'ulu - - &U O Cycbsoruscyatheoides (Kaulf.) O. Ktze. kikawaio - - E-C O Dryopterisderuata (Forsk.) C. Chr. oak fern - - A-C O, D Dryopteriswa[lichiwra (Spreng.) Hyl. laukahi - - E-C O Elaphoglosswn lrirtum vaz.micans (Melt.) ekaha - - E-C O C. Chr. Elaphoglossum reticulatwn (KaulfJ Gaud, ekaha - - E-C N, O EJaphoglossumwmvrae (Luerss.) C. Chr. ekaha FAC - E-C O Grtwrmitis terrella Kaulf. mahinalua - - I-C N, O Mirrosorhunscolopendrin (BurmJ Copal laua'e FACU - I-C N, O syn.Potypodium scolopendria Hurm. Nephrolepiscordifolia (L.) K. Presl swortlfem FACU - A-C N, O, D Nephrolepisesakata (L.) Schott. ni'ani'au FAC* - I-C O Nephrolepishirsurala (Forst.) Presl swordfem FAC* - A-C N, O, D syn. N. multiJiora PeUaeaternifolia (Cav.) Link kalamoho lau li'i - - I-C N, O PhleiSodiwnaweum (L.) J. Sm. laua'ehade - - A-C N, O Piryrograrrurwcalonrelanos (L.) Link silver fern - - A-C O, D Pityrogramrna chrysophylla (Sw.) Link gold fern- - A-C O, D Pleopeltrs thundergiana Kaulf. pakaltakaha - - I-C N, O Polypodium pellucidum Kaulf. 'ae - - E-C O Polypodium pellucidum var. vulcauicwn 'ae - - )rC N, O Skottsberg Pol}yadium saffordii Maxon Saffotd's fem - - E-U O Pteridium aquilinum var. decompositum pai'a - - E-C N, O (Gaud.) Tryon Pteris vitlata L. pteris - - A-C N, O Sad/erta e)rttheoides Kaulf. 'ama'u FACU - E-C N, O Sadlena pal&da Hook.Bc Arn. 'ama'u FACU - E-C N, O Sadkriasou/eyetiwu: 'ama'u - - E-U O Sphenomerischusana (LJ Copal pala'a FAC* - 1-C N, O, D syn. S. chirrensis (LJ Maxon PSILOTACEAE Wisk Fern Family Psibtum complaruuttm Sw. pipi FAC" - I-U O Psilonun nudwn (LJ Griseb. moa FACU - I-C N, O, D SELAGINELLACEAE Cedar Moss Family SelaginelGr arbuscula (KaulfJ Spring. lepelepe a moa - - 1-U O GYMNOSPERMS FAMILY USFWS USFWS Dist.& Flow Genus /Species Common Name WUnds. Sta[us Abun TVOe ARAUCARIACEAE Island Pine Family AraucariaheterophyGa (Salisb.) Frnc. Norfolk Island pine - - A-C O cult. CUPRESSACEAE Cypress Family Cupressusarizwtica Greene Arizonacypress - - A-C N cult. TAXODIACEAE Yew Family Cryptomeria japonica (L.F.) D. Don Sugi pine - - A-C O cult. DICOTYLEDON F L USFWS USFWS Dis[.& Flow Genus /Species Common Name Wtlnds. Status Abun. Tvpe ANACARDIACEAE Mango Family Mm:gijera indica L. mango FACU - A-C O Rhos sandwicensis A. Gtay neneleau - - E~U N, O Schinus terebircthifolius Raddi wiielaiki FACU - A-C O APIACEAE Parsley Family Centellaasiatiea (L.) Urb. pohe kola FAC - A-C O, D Ifydrocotylebowtesioides Math.& Coast, penn}nvort FAC - A-C O syn. H. sibthorpioides Lam. APOCYNACEAE Plumeria Family Alyxia olivijormis Gaud. made FACU- - IrU O AQUIFOLIACEAE Holly Fsmily Ilexattomala Hook.& Arn. }awa'u FACU - E-C O ARAILIACEAE Ginseng Family Cheirodendrontrigynum (Gaud.) Heller 'dapa FAC - )rC N, O Sche,~'Jera actinophylla (End{.) Hanns octopus Vee - - A-C O Tetmplasmtdra oahuenris (Gray) Harms 'ohe mauka FACU - E-R O ASTERACEAE Sunflower Family AchiRea millifolium L. yarrow - - A-C O, D Ageratina riparut (Regel) King lZ Robns. pamaiani FACU - A-C O, D syn. Eupatorium riparium Regel Ageratwn lwustonianum L. made hohono - - A-C O, D Bidens pilosa L. ki nehe - - A-C O, D Chrysmghemwn leucandiemum L. pua poke - - A-C D DICOTYLEDONS (won't) MILY USFWS USFWS Dist.& Flow Genus /Species Common Name Wdnds. Status Abun Tvce ASTERACEAE (Don't) Sunflower Family Cirsiran vrtlgare (Savi) Ten. pua kala - - A-C O, D Conyza banariensis (L.) Cronq. hairyhorseweed - - A-C O, D Conytncanadenas (L.) Cronq. hotseweed - - A-C O, D Crassocephalroncrepulioides (BenthJ pualele FAC - A-C O, D S. Moore Crepiscapilliaris (LJ Wallr. hawk's beard - - A-C O, D Dubautialinearis (DC) Keck na'ena'e - - )iU O Dubautia scabra {DC) Keck na'ena'e FACU - E-C N, O Elepluuttopus mollis Kunth. elephant's foot FACU - A-C O Erecdtesvalerianifolia (Wolt) DC pualele FAC - A-C O, D Gnaphalium,Iaponicran Thunb. everlasting - - A-C D Gnaphaliumpurpureum L. Cudt~reed - - A-C N, O, D Gnaphnliumsandwicensium Gaud. 'ena'ena - - &U O, D Hererothecagrandijlora Nutt. telegraphweed - - A-C D Hypoclroeris radicata L. hairy cat's ear FACU - A-C N, O, D Pluchea symphyufolia (Mill.) Gillis sourbush FAC' - A-C N, O, D syn. P.odorata (L.) Cass. Senecio mrkanioides O[to ex Walp. German ivy - - A-C O Senecia vulgaris L. gtwttndsel FAC - A-C O Sonchasolernceus L. pualele FACU - A-C O, D Tarasacumo~icinale W.W. Weber dandelion - - A-C O, D Youngia japonica (LJ DC hawk's beard FACU - A-C O, D BALSAMINACEAE Touch-me-not Family IrrrpatienswaUerana J.D. Hook. impatiens - - A-C O, D BIGNONIACEAE Bignonia Family Spatlrodea canrpanulata P. Beauv. African tulip - - A-C O BRASSICACEAE Mustard Family Brnssicanigra (L.) W. Koch blackmustard - - A-C O, D Iepidium oblongum Sm. pepperwort - - A-C O, D Nasturtium sarmentosum (Forst. ex DC) pa'ihi FACW+ - A-C O BUDDLEIACEAE Dog Tail Family Buddleia asiatira Lour. dog tail - - A-C O, D CAMPANULACEAE Lobelia Family Clermontia hawaiiensis (Hillebr.) Rock 'oha kepau - - )iR O Clenrrontia mortis-!oa Rock 'oha wai - - )rU O Clermontia parviJlora Gaud. ex A. Gray 'oha wai FACU - EU O Cyaneadegneriana F. Wimmer baba FAC - E-R O DICOTYLEDONS (Don't) FAMILY USFWS USFWS Dist.& Flow Genus /Species Common Name Wdnds. Status Abun. Tvce CAMPANULACEAE (Dori t) Lobelia Family Cyanea pilosa ssp. pi/osa A. Gray baba FAC* - E-R O Cyrmea platyphytla (A. Gray) Hillebr. 'aku'aku - E E-R O Hippobrorna longiflora (L.) G. Don pus hoku FACU - A-C O, D CARYOPHYLLACEAE Pink Family Arenariaserpyllijolra L. scarletpimpemel - - A-C D Diaruhtcr armeria L. Deptford pink - - A-C D Drymaria cordata (L.) Willd. ex Rcem. pipili FAC - A-C O, D Polycarpon tetrap/ryllwn (L.) L. polycarpon - - A-C O, D CASUARINACEAE She-oak Family Casuarinrtegmsetifotia L. paina,ironwood FACU - A-C N CELASTRACEAE Bittersweet Family Perronetiasandwicensis A. Gray olomea FACU - E-U O CLUSIACEAE Mangosteen Family Ctusia roses Jacq. autograph tree - - A-C O Hypericwn mutilum L. St. John's e~ort FACW - A-C O, D CONVULVULACEAE Morning-glory Family /pamoeaindica (J. Hurm.) Merr. koali FACU - I-C O EPACRIDACEAE Epacris Family Styphelia tameiarneiae (Cham.& Schlect.) pukiawe - - I-C N, O F.r. Muell. ERICACEAE Blueberry Family Vaccinium calycinum Sm. 'ohelo la'au FAC - E-C N, O Vaccinirun dentatmn Sm. 'ohelo FACU - IrC N, O Vaccinium reticubtum Sm. 'ohelo'ai - - E-C N, O EUPHOBIACEAE Poinsettia Family Aruidesma platyphyllum H. Mann. mehamehame FACU - IrU O Charrwesycehirta (L.) Millsp. garden spurge FACU - A-C O, D syn. Euphorbiahirta L. Chamnesyceprostrata (Alton) Sm. prosUatespurge - - A-C DICOTYLEDONS (con't) FAMILY USFWS USFWS Dist.& Flow Genus /Species Common Name Wtinds Stains Abun Tvpe FABACEAE Bean Family Acacia koa A. Gray koa - - E-C N, O CJutmaecristaructitau (L.) Mcench partridgepea - - A-C O, D Crotalmia assamica Benth. Rattlepod - - A-C O, D Desmodiwn incanwn DC ka'imi - - A-C D Desnuxlium tortuosum (Sw.) DC Florida beggarweed - - A-C D Desmodium triftorum (L.) DC tick clover FACU* - A-C O, D Desmodimn uncinatum (Jacq.) DC pua pilipili FACU* - A-C O, D Glycine wigluii (WhL & Am.) Verdc. beggaz's tick - - A-C D Lotus subbifiorus Lag. vefoil - - A-C O, D Medreago lupulina L. black medick - - A-C O, D Matwsapudica L. hilahila FACU - A-C O, D Pararerianthesfalcateria (L.) I. Neils. albitia - - A-C N, O Trijolium arvense L. rabbit's-foot clover - - A-C O, D Trijolium pretense L. redclover - - A-C D Trijolium repens L,. whiteciover - - A-C O, D GENTIANACEAE Gentian Family Centauriumerytlvacea Raf. bitter herb - - A-C D GERANIACEAE Geranium Family E~adurm cicutarium (L.) L' Her. pin clover - - A-C D GESNERIACEAE African Violet Family CynandrahawaiensisC.B. Clarke ha'iwale - - 1rU Cyrtnndralyysiosepala(A.Gray)C.B.Clark - - gU CyrtandrapaludosaGaud. hahala - - )sU Cyrtarulra plntypiryUa A.Gray `ilihia - - E-U GOODENIACEAE Ha![-dower Family Scaevolac)~arnirsoniarm Gaud. naupakakuahiwi FACW* - !sU N, O HYDRANGEACEAE Hydrangea Family Broussasia arguta Gaud. lainawao FAC - )rC O LAMIACEAE Mint Family Phyllostegia macrophylJa (Gaud.) Benih. - - &R O Stenogyarcalaminrhoides A. Gray mohihi FAC - TrU O LAURACEAE Laurel Family Persea americatra Mill. avocado - - A-C N, O DICOTYLEDONS (Don't) F MI USFWS USFWS Dist.& Flow Genus /Species Common Name Wtlnds. Status Abun. Type LOGANIACEAE Strychnine Family Inbordinhedyosmifolia Baill. lmmakaltala FAC• - lrU O LYTHRACEAE Loosestrife Family Cupheacarthagwtensis (JacgJ Maebr. tarwead FAC - A-C O, D Cuphea hyssopifolia Kunth false heather FAC - A-C O, D MALVACEAE Hibiscus Family Malvaparviflara L. cheeseweed - - A-C D MELASTOMATACEAE Melastoma Family Arehrostema ciliatum Pav. ex D. Don arthrostema FACW - A-C D CGdernin Aida (LJ D. Don Koster's curse FACU - A-C O, D Dusotis raundifolia (Sm.) Triana dissotis - - A-C Q D Melaslomactmdirlwn D. Don glorybush - - A-C N, O, D Oxysparapantculata (D. Don) DC oayspora - - A-C O Tibochittaherbacea (DC) Cogn. firebush FAC - A-C N, O, D MELIACEAE Mahogany Family Toonacitiotata M. Rcem. Austtailian toon - - A-C N cult. MORACEAE Fig Family Ficusrnicroatrpa L. fil. banyan - - A-C N, O MYRSINACEAE Myrsine Family Myrsine tessertiana A. DC kdea FACU• - E-C O Myrsine smulwicenris A. DC kolea lau li'i FAC - IrU O MYRTACEAE Myrtle Family Euca[yprus robtrsta Sm. swamp mahogany FACU - A-C O cult. Melaleucn qurnquenervia (Cav.) S. Blake paperback FACU - A-C O Metrosiderospoiymorpha Gaud. 'ohi'a - )1C N, O var. glaberrima FAC+ var. ircana FAC var. macrophylla FAC var. newelli FACW var. polymarpha FAC- Psidium cattleianum Sabine waiawi FACU - A-C N, O, D Psidiumguajava L. guava FACU - A-C N, O, D Syzygium jumbos (L.) Alston rose apple FAC - A-C O syn. Eugenia jumbos L. DICOTYLEDONS (Don't) A IL USFWS USFWS Dist.& Fiow Genus !Species Common Name Wtlnds. Status Abun Tvpe ONAGRACEAE Evening Primrose Family Epilobiutn biUardierianum Ser. willow herb - - A-C O, D Epilobium ciliatum Raf willow herb - - A-C D Ltdwigiapalusrris (L.) Elliot marsh purslane OBL - A-C O, D Latdwigia octomlis (Jacq.) Raven kamde OBL - P-C O, D OXALIDACEAE Wood Sorrel Family Oxaliscorniculata L 'ihi FACU - P-C O, D PIPERACEAE pepper Family Peperomiacookiana C. DC 'ala'ala wai nui FAC* - &U O Peperomia hypo%uca Miq. 'ala'ala wal nui - - SU O Peperarua rrc~n C. DC 'ala'ala wai nui - - E-U O Pepetorteia tetraphylla (G.ForstJHook.&Arn. 'ala'ala wal nui - - I-C N, O PITTOSPORACEAE Pittosporum Family Pittosporum confertijiorum A. Gray ho'awa - - E-U O Pittosponan hawaiiense Hillebr. ho'awa - - &U O PLANTAGINACEAE Plantain Family Platuagoiarxeolata L. plantain FACU - A-C O, D Plantagotnajor L. plantain FAC* - A-C O, D POLYGALACEAE Milkwort Family Potygalapaniculata L. milkwort FACU* - A-C D POLYGONACEAE Sorrel Family Podygonum capitatum F. Ham. krxxweed - - A-C O, D Polygonum glabrum Willd. kamole OBL - A-C O, D Rumex acetosella L. sorrel FACU - A-C O, D RANUNCULACEAE Buttercup Family Anemone hupehensis Lemoine Japanese anemone FAC - A-C D ROSACEAE Rose Family Fragariavesca L. European strawberry - - A-C O Osteomeksatuhyllidifolia (SmJ Lindl. 'ulei - - I-C O Rubus ellipticus Sm. Himalayan raspberry - - A-C O, D DICOTYLEDONS (Don't) FAMILY USFWS USFWS Dist.& Flow Genus /Species Common Name Wilnds. Siatus Abun. Tvpe ROSACEAE (Don't) Rose Family Rebus hawaiensis A. Gray 'akala - - E-C N, O Rubes rasifolius Sm. thimbleberry FAC - A-C N, O, D RUBIACEAE Coffee Famtly Coprosmaenwdioides A. Gray i.-ukae nene - - E-C N, O Coprosmnrnontarw Hillebr. pilo - - E-C N, O Coprosmaochracea W. Oliver pilo FAC - E-U O HedYOtis ceruraMJroides (Hook.&Am.)Steud .F,io'ele FAC - E-C N, O Xedyotis terminalts (Hook.& AmJ manono - - &C O W.L. Wagner & D. Herbst Nerteragranodensis (L.filJDruce makde FACW - I-C O Poederiascandens (Lour.) Merr. pilau made - - A-C O, D Psychotria hawaueruis (A. Gray) Fosb. kopiko - - E-C O Spermacoce assw•gerrs Ruiz & Pav. buttonweed - - A-C D RUTACEAE Citrus Famtly PekaclusUfolia A. Gray alani FAC - E-C O Peleavolcmuca A. Gray alani - - IrU O SANTALACEAE Sandlewood Famtly Santalum paniculatum Hook.Bc Am. 'iliahi - - EU O SAPINDINACEAE Soapberry Family Dodonaeaviscosa Jacq. 'a'ali'i - - I-C N, O, D SCROPHULARIACEAE Figwort Family Castillefa arvenris Cham.& Schlect. Indian paintbrush - - A-C N, O, D Tareniaasiatica L. Ola'abeauty FAC - A-C O,D Verbascum tbapstts L. great mullein - - A-C O, D Veronica arvensis L. com speedwell - - A-C D SOLANACEAE Tomato Family Solantun americanum Mill. popolo FACU - I-C O, D syn. S. nigrum L. Solnnunr nigrescens Mart..@ Gal. popolo - - A-U O STERCULIACEAE Chocolate Family Melochinwnbellnta (Houtt.) Stapf melochia - - A-C N, O DICOTYLEDONS (con't) FAMILY USFWS USFWS Dist..@ Flow Genus !Species Common Name Wtlnds. Status Abun Tvpe THYMELACEAE 'Akia Family Wikstrcemia samiwicensis Meisn. 'alda - - IrU O ULMACEAE Elm Family Tremaorienurlis (LJBlume gunpowdertrce - - A-C O URTICACEAE Nettles Family Pipturus al6idus {Hook.[t Arn.} A. Gtay mamaki - - E-C N, O, D ToucluudialarifoGassp. angusta St John olona FAC* - I1R O TouchardialatiJoliavar. Hawn. cult. Gaud. olona FAC* - E-U O VERBENACEAE Vervain Family Stachytarphetaurticifolia (SalisbJ Sims btuevervain FAC* - A-C O, D Verbena litoralis Kun[h ha'uoi - - A-C O, D MO T L D FAMILY USFWS USFWS Dist.& Flow Genus! Species Common Name Wtlnds. Status Abun. Type AGAVACEAE Agave Family Cardyliree frukcosa (LJ A. Chev. ti - - P-C O ARECACEAE Palm Family Archontophoenixalexandrae (F.v. MueIIJ alexandrapalm - - A-C O ' Wendt.&Dnde iflritduvdiabeccarianaRacl• loulu FAC - E-R O COMMELINACEAE Spiderwort Family Commelina diffusa L. honohono FACW - A-C O, D CYPERACEAE Sedge Family Bulbosrylis capillaris (LJ C.B. Clarke nutgrass - - A-C D Carex alGgata Boott bog sedge FAC W+ - E-U O Cyperushalpaa L. nutgrass FACW+ - A-C O, D Edeodunisobtusa (Willd.) Schutt. pipiwai OBL - I-C O Fimbristylu dichotoma (L.) Valil mau'u'aki'aki FAC+ - I-C D Caluuagaludformis (Gaud.) A. Heller galuua - - I-C O Kyllinga 6revifolia Rottb. kili'o'opu - - A-C O, D MONOCOTYLEDONS (wn't) FAMILY USFWS USFWS Dist.& Flow Genus /Species Common Name Wdnds Status Abun Type CYPERACEAE(con t) Sedge Family Kyllinga nemoralis (Forst.& Forst) kili'o'opu - - A-C D Dandy ex Hutch.& Dalz. MacherinannguslifoGa (Gaud.)Koyama 'uki FAC - I-C N, O Macherirtalnariscoides (Gaud,) J. Kem 'uki FACU - I-C N, O Mariscus phleoides Nees ex Kun[h 'ahu'awa - - E-U O Oreolwlusfrwcatus H. Mann. oreobolis FACW+ - E-U O, D 1?ycreus polystacyos (Rottb.) P. Beaux, mau'u pu'uka - - I-C O, D Rhyrrchosporacaduca Elliott beakrush FACW* - A-C O, D Rlivnchospora chinensis Nees & Meyen kuolohia FACW* - I-C O, D Rhyttc/wsporaglobularis (Chapm.) Sm. globe beakrush FAC* - A-C N, D Uncinia wuinata (L. fil.) Kukenth. uncinia FAC - I-C O IRIDACEAE Iris Family Arislea gerrardii Weim. aristea - - A-C D Crocosmia x crocosmimiifolia tritonia - - A-C D (Lem. ex Mar.) N.E. Brown Sisvrinc%ium acre H. Mann mau'u la 'ili FACU* - E-U O Sisyrinchium rosulatum E.P. Bicknell wild rose iris - - A-C D JUNCACEAE Rush Family Juncos effuses L_ Japanese mat-rush OBL - A-C O Juncos planijolirts R. Br. flat rush FACW - A-C O Luzu/a hawaiiensis Buch. wood rush FACU - E-C O, D LILIACEAE Lily Family Asteliamenziesiann Sm. pa'iniu FAC - E-U N,O ORCHIDACEAE Orchid Family Arundinagrarninifolia (D. Don) Hochr. bamboo orchid FACU - A-C N, O, D syn. A.bambusifolia (Roxb.)Lindl. Phnius tankarvilleae (Banks ex L'Her.)Blume nun's-hood FACU - A-C O Spathoglattis plicrua Blume Philippine ground - - A-C O, D orchid PANDANACEAE Screw-pine Family Fre}cinetia arbvrea Gaud. 'ie'ie FACU - I-C O POACEAE Grass .Family Andropogon vlrgirticus L. broomsedge FACU - A-C N, O, D Anthoxanthtun odoraum L. vemalgrass - - A-C O, D Avenn faNa L. wildoats - - A-C D Brachiariamutica (Forssk.) Stapf California grass FACW - A-C O, D Brornus rigidus Roth ripgu[ grass - - A-C D Bromus willdenowii Kunth resi-ue grass - - A-C D Coixlachryma-jobi L. Job's tears FACW+ - A-C O, D Cpwdon dactylon (L.) Pers. manienie FACU - A-C D MONOCOTYLEDONS (oon'q FAMILY USFWS USFWS Dist.& Flow Genus /Species Common Name Wtlnds. Status Abun. Tvpe POACEAE(con't) Grass Family Dacrylis glornerata L. cock's fax - - A-C D Desehampsia nnbigena Hillebr. pill 'uka - - E-C O, D Digitaria violescens Link vide[ crabg[ass FAC - A-C O, D EleacGre indica (L.) Gaertn. goose grass FACU- - A-C D /saclu~e distichophylla Munro ex Hillebr. 'ohe FAC - E-U O Melinus rninutifolia P. Beauv. mdasses grass - - A-C O, D Oplisrnenus hirtellus (L.) P. Beauv. honohono FACU - A-C O Panicum maximurn Jacq. Guinea grass FACU - A-C O, D Panicwn repens L. Wainaku glass FAC+ - A-C D Paspalrun coajugaMn Bergius Hilo grass FAC+ - A-C O, D Paspadandilatnuan Pdr. Dallis grass FACU - A-C D Paspalumscrobiculawrn L. mau'u laiki FAC* - I-C N, O, D Pnrpalum urvilki Steud. vasey grass FAC - A-C O, D Pennisetum elmtdes[inum Chiov. kikuw grass FACU- - A-C D Poa anrwa L. bluegrass FACU- - A-C D Poacompressa L. Canadian bluegrass - - A-C D Poapratensis L. Kentucky bluegrass - - A-C D Rhynche[ytrtrm repens (WilidJ Hubb. Natal redtop - - A-C D Saccharum officirtorurn L. sugarcane FACU - A-C O Sacciolepis irutica (L.) Chase Glenwood glass FAC+ - A-C N, O, D Scluzachyrimn comfensaturn (Kunth) Nees beardgrass - - A-C O, D Setaringracilis Kunth yellow foxtall FAC* - A-C O, D syn. S. gtauca (L.) Beauv. Setaria pabrtifolia (J. Konig) StapC palm grass FACU - A-C O, D Sparaliolus irulicus (LJ R Br. rattail - - A-C D 1'he[r[eda villosa (Poir.) A. Camus Lyon's grass - - A-C D Vidpia bromaides (LJ S.F. Gray brome fescue FACU - A-C D SMILACACEAE Sarsaparilla Family Smilax melastomifolia Sm. hoi kuahiwi FACU - E-U O XYRIDACEAE Yellow-eyed Grass Family Xyris ptarylepis Chapm. yellow-eyed grass OBL* - A-C N, D ZINGIBERACEAE Ginger Family Hedychium comnarium J. Konig white ginger FAC - A-C O, D Hedychium jlavescens Carey ex Rosco yellow ginger FAC- - A-C O, D Hedychiumgardueriarttan Ker-Gavel kahili ginger - - A-C O, D Hedychiumgreurei orange ginger - - A-C O,D Zingiber zerumbet (L.) Sm. 'awapuhi FACU* - P-C O Key: USFWS STATUS: E =Listed endangered spades; SOC = Spades of concern. USFWS national wetland inventory deli~nnations: OBL =Obligate wetland species; FAC = Facultative species; FACU = Facultatve upland spades; FACW =Facultative wetland species. DISI'RIBUTK)N: E = Endemic I = Indigenous; A= Adventive. ABUNDANCE:C=Common; U= UncommorV R=Rare. FLOW TYPE: N = new; O =01d. APPENDIX E ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT STUDY pH~~ Paul H. Rosendahl, Ph.D., inc. Archaeological Historkel Cultural pesource Management Studies 45ervkes 101 W~imunnun A.~nun • Hile. Harnii f{710 • (BBq lN•1Ii1 • fAX Pltl f{I•{ff{ P.O. {et 1]1aS • G.M.F.. Gunw 9if11 • ({71)171.1111 • FAX({71){71.7171 Letter Report 1735-080196 October 30, 1997 Mr. George Newton do Mr. John Michael White Hawaii Land Company P.O. Hox IO Honolulu, Hawaii 96810 Subject: Archaeological Assessment Study Kukuau 1st Mauka Parcel (TMK:3-2-4-08:33) Land of Kukusu 1st, South Hilo District Island of Hawaii ('fMK:3-2-4-08:33) Dear Mr. Newton: At your request, Paul H. Rosendahl, Ph.D. Inc. (PRAT) conducted an archaeological assessment study of TMK:3-2-4-08:33, located in the land of Kt7kusu 1st, South Hilo District, Island of Hawaii (Figwa 1, ar end). The field work for the study was conducted on July 26 and 29, 1996 by Projects Supervisor Alan T. Walker, B.A., and Field Archaeologists Blair McPhatter, H.A., and Harley Lanham, B.A. Principal Archaeologist Dr. Paul H. Rosendahl provided overall guidance for the project The field work required about twenty-two man-hours of labor to complete. The primary objectives of the assessment study were: (a) to determine the general nature and extent of archaeological remains present, and the implications of such remains with regard to the feasibility of development; and (b) to estimate the general scope of any subsequent azchaeological work that might be required in the course of the proposed development. Based on a review of readily available background literature, general familiarity with the project arca, and extensive familiarity with the current requirements of review authorities, the following specific tasks were determined to constitute an adequate scope of work: I. Review and evaluate archaeological and historical documents, including archival literature, legends, records, boundary awards, and cartographic sources relative to the project area; 2. Conduct inspection level field work on a portion of TMK:3-2.4-08:33; and 3. Prepare a final report on the assessment study. The significance of the archaeological remains identified within the project area was to be assessed in terms of: (a) the National Register criteria contained in the Code of Federal Regulations (36 CFR Part 60), and (b) the criteria for evaluation of traditional culttual properties prepared by the National Park Service (1490). The Department of Land and Natural Resources -State Historic Preservation Division Leger Report 1735-080196 2 (DLNR-SHPD) uses these criteria to evalusu eligibility for both Hawaii Stau and National Registers of Historic Places. The project area comprises c. 1,646 acre within the Hilo Forest Reserve. It is c. 1,400-2,450 R above mean sea level, and a 5.7 miles from the coast. It is bounded oa the north, east, and west by the, Hilo Forest, and on the south by the Wailikea Forest Reserve. The project attain slopes grntly down to the northeast The principal soil type pmrnt is Keei extremely rocky muck, 6 to 20 percrnt slopes. The Keel series soils are thin, organic, well-drained soils that overlie pahoehoe bedrock. Twenty to thirty percent of the Keei extremely rocky muck contains rock outcrops and much of this soil is used for pasttm (Sato et aL 1973). Rainfall in the project area is c. 200 inches per year, and the avenge annual. temperature is 75-80 degrees F. (Armstrong 1983). The vegetation is the project area includes, primarily, 'chi'n leltua (Matrosiderar calling), kaa (Acacia koa), laua'a ~crosorium scolopandria), strawberry guava (Psidium eartleianum), uluGe (Dicanopteris linearis), bamboo orchid (Arvndia bambusijolia), kapu'u (Ciborium sp/enens), and wild iris (Tritonia sp.). Although there has been no previous archaeological worst in the project area, a 598-acre parcel located immediately downslope underwent an archaeological field inspection in 1990 (Jensen and Kalima 1990). No archaeological remains of any kind were encounurcd during the field inspection Other previous archaeological studies conducted in the general vicinity of the projeM area are summariud below. In 1988, PHRI conducted a reconnaissance survey of five proposed Hilo Judiciary Compkx sius for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) (M.L.K. Rosrndahl 1988). One of the five proposed sius (Siu 3) is in the Lands of Kukuau 1st and 2nd, and exunds from Kilauea Street to Kinoole Street No archaeological sius were located within Siu 3. M.L.K. Rosrndahl observed that all five of the proposed sites had "...undergone profound transformation as the city of Hilo has evolved; no traces of prehistoric or early historic land use patterns were presrnt on the ground surface of the sites" (M.L.K. Rosendahl 1988:8). In 1996, PHRI conducted as assessment study of seven parcels for the proposed Hilo Judiciary Complex (Walker gad Rosendahl 1996). During the survey, four previously identified sites (Sites 19431 through 19434) were relocated, and one newly idrntified site (Siu 21133) was recorded. Included in the assessmrnt smdy was a historical documentary smdy by PHRI Cultural Resources Specialist Kepi< Maly. Although the project area was within Wainaktt, Pbnahawai, Pi'ihorttra, and Wai3kea, Maly's research also included the Land of Kukuau 1st, which is between Waiiikea and Kukusu 2nd Malys archaeological sources included Thrum (1907, 1917), Hudson (n.d.), Stokes gad Dye (1991), and Boundary Commission information from AD 1873, which contained testimonies of native and foreign residents of Hilo. While all contained relevant archaeological gad cultural information, only the Boundary Commission testimony specifically referred to the land of Kukusu 1st In the testimony describing the boundaries between Kukuau 1st and Waidkea to the south gad KaOmana to the north, reference is made to a kulana kauha/e (house siu, midrnce) s Kawalele {place for sports diving and leaping), a heiau (ceremonial site), a wall, and planting grounds. These sites were mentioned as known points along the boundary in c. AD 1873. However, none of these sites appear to be located above 1,000 ft AMSL or within the current project area. Historical documentary research done as part of an archaeological inventory survey and cultural assessment project recently completed by PHRI in connection with the preparation of a federal EIS for the Saddle Road Project found that the Ola'a Flume (Site 20870) bisects the middle of the current project area (Langlas et al. 1997). It also states the flume is not locaud adjacent to the existing flume road (sae Figure 1, at end), but that the road meanders according to elevation while the flume runs straight across the area. According to the report, a person could be within 3.0 m of the flume foundation and not see it because of the dense vegetation. The Saddle Road study (I-angles et al. 1997) has untatively assessed the Ola'a Flume system as a significant historic site that would be eligible for the National Regisur of Letter Report 1735-080196 3 Historic Places under Criterion A (association with significant local historic events) and Criterion D (has yielded, or is likely to yield, information important in local history). Also included in the Saddle Read study (Langlss et al. 1997) is documentation that an area named 'Aina Kahukahu is located north of the current project arcs, on the AD 1881 lava flow, at c. 2,250 R AMSL in the Laad of PSnahawai. This area was used by residrnu saying prayers prior to making long journeys and the area is said to contain several aha Boundary Commission testimony (AD 1873) and a map is the report also identified several traditional cultural areas along the border of Kukuau 1st and Kukusu 2nd or Wai3kea. The locations include areas for collecting lma for canoes (Nehuiku), for canoe building (Kaileo), a house for carving canoes (Kuakumakau), a haiau (Ahuliipe), a bird catching area (ICapalaha), and old planting places (Palau and Kanekaulukamt). The locations of these areas (oaa Figure 1) must be considered ss only approximate because they are plotted based on descriptions in the Boundary Commission rcwrds. The present archaeological assessment study consisted of a sample ground survey of the projeM area performed using boat pedestrian sad automobile sweeps. The automobile survey involved driving over approximately 1,280.0 m (4,200 ft) along the north-south road and 2,134.0 (7,OOOft) along the east-west road At the time of the srrrvey, the area appeared unaltered except for the two four-wheel drive roads oriented N-S and E-W across the property. Because of the dense vegemtion, visibility was only c. 5.0 m (16.4 ft) on each side of the road Forty-eight pedestrian sweeps were done at 0.1 mile intervals off the main four-wheel drive road (Figura Each pedestrian sweep measured c. 20.0 m (65.6 ft) long by 20.0 m wide. Based on the above figures, an estimated sample of approximately 0.7% of the project area was surveyed Tho assessment survey focused primarily an the attempted identification of surface structural and portable remains. The survey was facilitated by 1"°2,000' Scala photocopies of a USGS Quad map and Mnp Nos. 573 and 574 (Baker et al. 1965). No archaeological or cultural sites or features of any kind ware found during the assessment study sample ground survey field work. Historic documentary research previously mentioned (Langlas et al. 1997) had indicated that archaeological sites, activity areas, or significant cultural remains (areas for collecting koa, and carving and building canoes, a heiaa, a bird catching area, and old planting places) might be present in the area, but none of these were physically identified While no archaeological sites were idrntified within the project area, previous records indicate that the Ola'a Fltrme cuts directly across the project area is the vicinity of the north-south four-wheel drive road; therefore, this site has been assessed for significance based an the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, as outlined in the Code of Federal Regulations (36 CFR Part 60). DLNR-SHPD uses the National Register criteria for evaluating archaeological and cultural resources. To be assessed es significant, a site must possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and must be characterized by one or more of the following four criteria: (a} it must be associated with eveau that have made a sig~cant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; (b) it must be associated with the lives of persons significant in the past; (c) is must embody distinctive characteristics of a type, period, ar method of construction, or represent the work of a master, or possess high artistic value or represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; ar (d) it must have yielded or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. The Ola'a Flume waz also assessed for archaeological and cultural significance using: (a) guidelines for evaluating traditional cultural properties prepared by the National Patk Service (1990), and (b) guidelines established by the State of Hawaii ("Draft Aules Governing Procedures for Historic Preservation Review" [DNLR 1994]). The Hawaii State guidelines utilize an additional fifth criterion (Criterion E) which defines significant cultural resources az ones that "have an important traditional culttral contribution or value to the native Hawaiian people or to other ethnic groups of the state" (DNLR 1994). Letter Report 1735-080196 4 Bued on the federal and state criteria mfemnced above, and in concordance with the findings of the pmviously mentioned report on the Saddle Road Project (Langlu et aL 1997), it would appear that the Ola`a Flume rystem, so fsr ss any remains have survived within the present project aces, should be tentatively assessed u a significant historic sits that would be eligible for both the National and Hawaii State Registers of Historic Places under Criterion A (association with significant local historic events) and Criterion D (has yielded, or is likely to yield, information important is local history). PHRI tmderstaads that the client is already awam of the presence of the Oht`a Flume within the property and is receptive to preservation of any surviving portions of the flume rystem that might by identified. Oa June 17, 1997, a Subdivision Concept Plan for the property wu meived fivm Mr. Glenn Koyama of Belt Collins Hawaii. This plan divided the c. 1,646 ac property into siz parceht -four lots of c. 80 ac each at the makai end of the property, a mauls end lot of c. 860 ac, and a middle one of c. 466 ac. On June 26, 1997, field survey findings and potential impacts of the subdivision scheme wan discussed with DLNR-SHPD Chief Archaeologist Dr. Ross H. Cordy. Given the practical difficulties and cost inefficiencies for doing inventory-level survey of such lands prior to the presentation of specific development proposals, Dr. Cordy agreed that he would find it acceptable to defer further archaeological work until parcel-specific development plans were proposed. Once development of a specific parcel is propoud - i.e., access road alignments, building locations, and so on -then appropriate archaeological survey could be conducted On July 11, 1997, a revised Subdivision Concept Plan for the property was meived from Mr. Koyama. This mvised subdivision scheme divided the c. 1,646 ac property into seven parcels -four lots of c. 80 ac each at the makai end of the property, a nraukn end lot of c. 860 ac, and two middle Iota of c. 233 ac each. Aa this revised concept plan is not substantially different from the initial one, Dr. Cordy's concurrence regarding the deferred timing of subsequent archaeological survey should nat be affecmd The evaluations and mcommendations in this report have been made solely on the basis of an assessment survey. It should be noted that there is always the possibility, however remote, that potentially significant, unidentified subsurface cultural remains and/or surface structural features will be encountered during future archaeological investigations or subuquent development In such situations, azchaeological consultations should be sought immediamly. This letter report summarizes the work conducted and constitutes the final report on the assessment study. If you have any questions, or if we can be of further urvice to you, please call me at our main Hilo office (808) 969-1763. \'ncemv ly y~ot ~ t Paul H. Rosendahl, P1i.D. President and Principai Archaeologist References Cited Baker, H.L., T. Sahara, T.M. Ryan, E.T. Murabayashl, A.Y. Ching, F.N. Fujlmura, E.L. Awai, and I. Kuwahara 1965 Detailed Land Classification -Island of Hawaii. Land Study Bulletin No. 6. Land Study Bureau, University of Hawaii, Honolulu. Letter Report 1735-080196 5 CFR (Code of Federal Regttlatloas) 36 CFR Part 60: Natonal Register of Historic Places. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Washington, D.C. Historic Sites Section, Division of State Parka, Department of Land and Natural Resources. DLNR (Department of Land and Natural Resources) 1994 Hawaii Administrative Rules, Title 13, Department of Land and Natural Resources, Subtitle 6, State Historic Preservation Division Rules, Chapter 146-154. (November)(Fotath Draft) Hudson, A.E. n.d. Archaeology of East Hawaii. Manuscript. Department of Anthropology, B.P. Bishop Museum, Honolulu. (1932) Jensen, P.M., and L. Kalima 1990 Archaeological Field Inspection Survey, Kukttau Mauka Golf Course Project Site (Wilder Road), Land of Kukuau 1, South Hilo District, Island of Hawaii (TMK:2-4- 08:2,27-31). PHRI Report 941-101690. Prepared for M/10, Inc. Langlas, C, T.R. Wol[otth, J. Head, and P. Jensen 1997 Archaeological Inventory Survey and Historic and Traditional Cultural Assessment of the Hawaii Defense Access Road A-AD-6(1) and Saddle Road (SR) 200 Project, Districts of South Kahala, Hamahra, North Hilo, and South Hilo, Island of Hawaii, PHRI Report 1522-022897. Prepared for RUST Environmental & Infrastructure, Inc. (February) (Draft Report) National Park Service (NPS) 1990 Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties. National Register Bulletin 38, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington D.C. Rosendahl, M.L.K. 1988 Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey for Environments] Impact Statemrnt (EIS), Hilo Judiciary Complex Sites, Hilo, District of South Hilo, Island of Hawaii. PHRI Report 356-020588. Prepared for Wilson Okamoto and Associates, Inc. Sato, H.H., W. Dteda, R. Paeth, R. Smythe, and M. Takehirw Jr. 1973 Soil Survey aj the Island of Hawaii, State of Htrwaii. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service and University of Hawaii Agricultural Experiment Station Washington, D.C.: Government Ptiatittg Office. Stokes, J.F.G., and T. Dye 1991 Heiau of the Island of Hawaii. Bishop Museum Bulletin in Anthropology 2. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu. Thrum, T.G. 1907 Tales fzom the Temples. Hawaiian Almanac and Annua! 1908:48-78. T.G. Thrum, Honolulu. 1917 Hmvaiian Annua! and Almanac jot 1917. 'I. G. Thrum, Honolulu. Letter Report 1735-080196 6 ~ .i' ; t. I ~ " ow 1 '~rallu .ui I !O tSi l r ~ I e a I ~ ' ` ` ~ ~ I OI.D.puNTINOPLAt~ lMV• rLOw ~ ~ ~ U/:.LRANEKAULUKAHU IIK N ql JI Y A ~ y. ~ ` Z ~ ~ `1- . jjr~~, ~~t~ r.ouN. ooNUt'[.n -"~~J 1 61RD GTGNIN f I l - ~ ~ ~ L (rT KAPALANA ` ~ ~ ~I` ~ - ~ , AREA ~ ~ I . ~ , ~ f / t PROJECT ~ ~ : ~ l S ~I. , t\l ` 1/ i ~ UPI 1\ ~KAUHALE lNOUSE)KAYAIWAA \ ~ , ' ~1 AT KUAKtlltAKAU ti•~ ~ ,I~ ~ I ~ OLD? NTING !!I S pUCEY AlA{Y ~ ~ r'i~ II _ / iCl?.d rI ~ ~x \ ~ ~ 'ANULIIiE \ H=P Ate.. I•i \ 1 .f.,.~ I ~ i'~• ~ r j. ( ~ •i• ~ KOA FOR GNaEE sr•.r. `l - ~ 111,,,------... yI I AT NENUIKI ` ~ ~ / ~ ,Lc~•1' ~ 1 ~ GNOB ELDG. ~ ` nTKAIeEO ~P.."_'y'"T;..' ~ ~•+Po I ~A ` I \ \reA ~ I F 0 R"': ~E 5 T B. E S 6 R,1 V E e - I 3 r. ` ISLAIE 1.26000 \ ~ ~ , vrw ~ ' Iom a mm mm mm Nm Imo 1® » nn i IO•M ~ a : •+o+v Mlb CONfOVR INIERVaI IO FEET r1lC~~Y WNN ~1 NVN fu ~LV[L t,NN. 'LOVroN ` L J~~L ~•WHEEL DRIVE ROADS: TICK MARKS SNOW ~ Y r" i I APPROXIMATE LOCATIONS OF PEDESTRIAN SWEEK. .~~i ~ lOGT10Ni of PLACES/SITES ARE APPROXIMATE 0 IOMller SovVI relm (Pertlen a/ 19E I USCA l.t' pwdranllo mw ^PIIhoNw. Nwrorr~ Figure 1. Project Area and Places/Sites Locotion Map APPENDIX F DLNR LETTER ON FURTHER ARCHAEOLOGICAL WORK •i. NJNAMIM ul'E1AEl0 i'~ r.' ~ TW TNr i ANNS. cNAwr~IwN wv~INCR W IMWM nuo of i.u,C aNO un,Rr f[nuRC[f COWdLMI ON •~IER 1tp1,IR;f NAN~G(Y[N! C[PVTIEf sN~ ~ ~ JaN[T f. uWRO IINNf NISM05A STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES ACUA :'C RFSO:MICFS ECAT:NG ANO CCFAN ~FCAEAbCN HISTORIC PRESERVATION DMISION CCNSER•;A^.CN ANC 9ESC•ACES K~t~NiMwa [MnM'wq, Room 555 ENECAC E.4fN* gpl R~mot9~ BouMrwd C~NV[v ANrf9 R~PON1, Mfwr 96J07 •CAESTM ANC .NWI:~E +ISTCI4C eRESFRV A'ICN . ANO STATE oUVlS February 3, 2000 HATER >tESCIACE MANAGEMEYT Dr. Paul Rosendahl LOG NO: 24828 PHRI DOC NO: 0002RC01 204 Waianuenue Avenue Hilo. Hawaii 96720 Dear Dr. Rosendahl: SUBJECT: LUC Petition Newton Family Property Kukuau. South Hilo. Hawaii. TMK: 2-4-08: 33 This responds to your letter of January 18. 2000, on this petition. This project area is divided by a road and the Ola'a Flume (site 20.870)(which we agree is significant). The lands upslope are not proposed for a change in zone, lands which are still in more native forest. The seaward (makai) lands are proposed for a zone change to Agricultural. Your records search indicated that this seaward area was in sugarcane in the early 1900s, and the botanical evidence today supports this with non-native plants in this ores. Areas under sugarcane usually have no significant historic sites surviving (with the rare exceptions of heiau or small burial plots which were avoided). Your field checks (not a complete survey) found no sites in the seaward area. All the above evidence suggests that significant historic sites are unlikely to have survived in the seaward areas, except for in any forested gulches. The proposal to rezone the land, and then conduct an archaeological survey when each project's-specific area is proposed for development, and probably then locating developments to avoid sites seems quite acceptable -particularly given the above information. Again, it appears unlikely that the non-gulch land in the seaward area will have sites. Aloh~i~' L/~ men ibba ,Administrator State Historic Preservation Division RC:amk - - - P H R t Paul fi. Rasen¢aht,;;Ptxt~nc. Archaeological • Historical • [ultural Resouice-Managtme'nt Stu~es & Services 204 Waianuenue Avenue • Hilo, Hawaii 98720 • (808) 969-1.743 -FAX (808) 961-6998 P.O. Box 23305 • G.M.F., Guam 96921 • (671) 472.3t1T~•~fAX (671) 472-3137 ia~J s;~a 20 P sb Letter 2040-010300 " ` January 18, 2000 Ross H. Gordy, Ph.D. Archaeology Branch Chief State Historic Preservation Division 555 Kakuhihewa Building 601 Kamokila Boulevard Kapolei, HI 96707 Subject: Proposed Family Subdivision - The Newton Family Property State Land Use Commission Petition - Docket No. A99-729 Kukuau 1st Mauka Parcel, Land of Kukuau 1st South Hilo District, Island of Hawaii (TMK:3-2-4-08:33) Dear Dr. Cordy: In connection with the above subject State Land Use Commission (SLUG) petition, I am writing to request that you provide a written statement to document your prior orai cpinion that you find it acceptable to defer further archaeological work (i.e., inventory survey) within the subject project area until parcel-specific development plans are proposed. PHRI conducted an archaeological assessment Study of the project area in July 1996, and a copy of our report (Letter Report 1735-080196) is enclosed for your convenience. Also enclosed for your information and assistance in preparing your response are selected pages from the Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) (BCH 1999) and Revision (BCH 2000) that have been or will be submitted to the SLUG in support of a boundary amendment petition by the landowner to redesignate the makai portion of the subject parcel as Agricultural, while leaving the mauka portion in it current Conservation designation. As documented in the Draft EA, the mauka portion of the project area situated inland of the old flume road was determined to be essentially in natural condition, with extensive areas of largely native forest and associated native vegetation, while the makai portion of the project area situated seaward of the old flume road had been considerably modified in historic times--initially for cultivation of sugarcane, and subsequently for cattle grazing--and was dominated by introduced floral species. The current proposal of the owner, and the one that forms the basis for the pending SLUG petition, is to have the makai portion only redesignated as Agricultural by the SLUG, and then to submit a change of zone and subdivi- sion application to the County of Hawaii to divide the makai portion into eight agricultural lots, The subdivided lots would then be distributed Letter 2040-010300 2 3anuary 18, 2000 among the members of the Newton family for the development of single- family residences with associated small-scale agricultural activities. Three of the parcels would be put on the market for sale to non-family members to help defray the cost of infrastructure improvements. Later, when individual lot development plans have been formulated and specific areas--relatively small proportions of each lot--potentially to be affected by development are known, appropriate archaeological inventory survey work would be done. We have discussed the subject parcel several times subsequent to our 1996 archaeological assessment study of the parcel (PHRI 1997); most recently on November 24 and December 8, 1999, when you reaffirmed to me your opinion on the acceptability of deferring inventory survey until after subdivision of the m k i portion of the project area and formulation of parcel-specific development plans. You also indicated to me that, given the extensive and substantial historic period modifications to and use of the makai portion of the project area, you believed it possible that a "no effect" determination might become likely. Please call me if you have any questions or comments, or need any additional information. Your prompt response would be greatly appreciated, as I have just learned that the continuation of the pending petition action is scheduled to be on the agenda of the SLUC meeting on February 3, 2000. Sincerely yours, Paul H. Rosendahl, Ph.D. President and Principal Archaeologist References Cited BCH (Belt Collins Hawaii) 1999 Draft Environmental Assessment and Support Document for Land Use Commission Petition: Proposed Family subdivision, The Newton Family Property; Hilo, Hawaii; TMK 2-4-08:33, Third Division. Prepared for The Newton Family Limited Partnership. (August 24) 2000 Revision--Draft Environmental Assessment and Support Document for Land Use Commission Petition: Proposed family subdivision, The Newton Family Property; Hilo, Hawaii. Prepared for The Newton Family Limited Partnership. (January 17) Letter 2040-010300 3 January 18, 2000 PHRI (Paul H. Rosendahl, Ph.D., Inc.) 1997 Archaeological Assessment Study, Kukuau 1st Mauka Parcel (TMK;3- 2-4-08;33); Land of Kukuau 1st, South H11o District, Island of Hawaii (TMK;3-2-4-08:33). Letter Report 1735-080196. Prepared for Mr. George Newton. (October 30) Encls.; (a) PHRI Letter Report 1735-080196 (6 pp.) (b) Selected pages from Draft EA (BCH 1999:1-5,7-9,12-14,26-31) (c) Revision (BGH 2000) (8 pp.) cc: G. Koyama - Belt Collins Hawaii (w/encls.) L.L. Brawn - Bays, Deaver, Hiatt, Lun®, Rose (w/o encls.) GNCL - Paul H. Rosendahl, Ph.D., Inc. ArcAaeological Historkal Cultural Resource Management Studley & Serrku 301 Waianuanu~A.mu• • Milo. Havd{ 6710 • (B01)1N•17O • FAX (1/1)f{1•{ff1 P.O.IeY 17705 • G.M.R. Guam 9{fll • ({71)71.7117 • FAX({71)172.7171 Letter Report 1735-080196 October 30, 1997 Mr. George Newton do Mr. John Michael White Hawaii Land Company P.O. Box 10 Honolulu, Hawaii 96810 Subject: Archaeological Assessmen[ Study Kukuau 1st Mauka Parcel (T',~IIC:3-2-4-08:33) Land of Kukuau 1st, South Hilo District Island ofHawai`i (T.~IIC:3-2.4-08:33) Dent Mr. Newton: At your request, Paul H. Rosendahl, Ph.D. Inc. (PHRn conducted as archaeological assessment study of 'f.~IIC:3-2-3-08:33, located in the land of Kukuau 1st, South Hilo District, Island of Hawaii (Figure 1, at endJ. The field work for the srudy was conducted oa July 26 and 29, 1996 by Projects Supervisor Alan T. Walker, B.A., and Field Archaeologists Blair McPhatter, B.A., and Harley Lanham, B.A. Principal Archaeologist Dr. Paul H Rosendahl provided overall guidance for the project The field work required about twenty-two man•hours of labor to complete. The primary objectives of the assessment srudy were: (a) to determine the general nature and extrnt of archaeological remains present, and the implications of such remains with regard to the feasibility of development; and (b) to estimate the general scope of any subsequent archaeological work that might be required in the course of the proposed development Bazed on a review of readily available background literature, general familiarity with the project area, and extensive familiarity with the current requiremrnts of review authorities, the following specific tasks were determined to constitute an adequate scope of work: 1. Review and evaluate archaeological and historical documrnts, including archival literature, legends, records, boundary awards, and cartographic sources relative to the project area; 2. Conduot inspection level field work on a portion of T~IIC:3-2-4-08:33; and 3. Prepare a fmal report on the assessmrnt srudy. The significance of the archaeolo¢ical remains identified within the project area was to be assessed in terms of. (a) the National Register criteria contained is the Code of Federal Regulations (36 CFR Part 60), and (b) the criteria for evaluation of traditional cultural properties prepared by the National Patk Service (1990). The Department of Land and Narural Resources -State Historic Preservation Division Letter Re¢orc 1735-080196 2 (DLNR-SHPD) uses these criteria to evaluate eligibility for both Hawaii State and National Registers of Historic Places. The project area comprises c. 1,646 acres within the Hilo Forest Reserve. It is c. 1,400-2,450 R above mean sea level, and c. 5.7 miles from the coast It is bounded on the north, east, and west by the Hilo Forest, and oa the south by the Waiakea Forest Reserve. The project terrain slopes grntly down to the northeast The principal soil type present is Keei extremely rocky muck, 6 to 20 percrnt slopes. The Keei series soils are this, organic, well-drained soils that overlie pahoehoe bedrock. Twenty to thirty percent of the Keei extremely rocky muck contains rock outcrops and much of this soil is used for pasture (Sato et al. 19'73). Rainfall in the project area is c. 200 inches per year, and the average annual temperature is 75-80 degrees F. (Armstrong 1983). The vegetation is the projec[ area includes, primarily, 'ohi'a lehua (tLfetrosideros collina), kna (:acacia Imo), laua'eMicrosorium scaloaendria), strawberry guava (Psidiurn cattleianumf, alulte (Dicanopteris linearis), bamboo orchid (.~lrtmdia bambusijolia), hapu'u (Ciborium splenena), andwild iris (Tritania sp.). Although there has been no previous archaeological work in the project area, a 598-acre parcel located intmedia[ely downslope underwent an archaeological field inspection in 1990 (Jensen and Kalima 1990). No archaeological remains of any kind were encountered during the field inspection. Other previous archaeological studies conducted in the general vicinity of the project area are summarized below. In 1983, PHRI conducted a reconnaissance survey of five proposed Hilo Judiciary Complex sites for an Environmental Imcact Statement (EIS) (~t.L.K. Rosendahl 1983). One of the flue proposed sites (Site 3) is in the Lands of Kukuau 1st and 2nd, and extends from Kilauea Street to Kinoole Street \o archaeological sites were located within Site 3. M.L.K. Rosendahl observed that all flue of the proposed sites had "...undergone profound transformation as the city of Hilo has evolved; no traces of prehistoric or early historic land use oattems were present on the ground surface of the sites" (M.L.K Rosendaial 1983:3). In 199b, PHRI conducted an assessment study of seven parcels for the proposed Hilo judiciary Complex (Walker and Rosendahl 1996). During the survey, four previously identified sites (Sites 19431 through 19434) were relocated, and one newly identified site (Si[e 21133) was recorded. Included in the assessmrnt study was a historical documen[ary study by PHRI Cultural Resources Specialist Kepi Maly. Althou¢h the project area was within Wainaku, Ponahawai, Pi'ihonua, and Waiakea, Maly's research also included the Land of Kukuau 1st, which is between Waiakea and Ktrkuau 2nd Malys archaeological sources included Thrum (1907, 1917), Hudson (n.d.), Stokes and Dye (1991), and Boundary Commission information from AD 1873, which contained testimonies of native and foreign residents of Hilo. While all contained relevant archaeological and cultural information, only the Boundary Commission testimony specifically referred to the land of Kukuau 1st 1a the testimony describing ttte boundaries between Kukuau 1st and Wai~kea to the south and Karimaoa to the north, reference is made to a kulana kauhale (house site, residence) a Kawalele (place for sports diving and leaping), a heiau (ceremonial site), a wall, and planting grounds. These sites were mrntioned as known poinss along the boundary is c. AD 1373. However, none of these sites appear to be located above 1,000 R AMSL or within the current project area. Historical documentary research done as part of an archaeological inventory survey and cultural assessment project rec:ntly completed by PHRI in comrection with the preparation of a federal EIS for the Saddle Road Project found that the Ola`a Flume (Site 20870) bisecss the middle of the current project area (Langlas et al. 1997). It also states the flume is not located adjacent to the existing flume road (see Figure 1, at end), but [hat the road meanders according to elevation while the flume runs straight across the area..4ccordin¢ to the report, a person could be within 3.0 m of the flume foundation and not see it because of [he dense vegetation. The Saddle Road study (Langlas et al. 1997) has tentatively assessed the Ola`a Flume system as a significan[ historic site [hat would be eligible for the ~lational Register of Letter Report 1735-080196 3 Historic Places under Criterion A (association with significant local historic events) and Criterion D (has yielded, or is likely to yield, information important in local history). Also included in the Saddle Road study (I.anglas et al. 1997) is documentation that an area named `Aina Kahukahu is located north of the current project area, oa the AD 1881 lava flow, at c. 2,250 R ANISL in the Land of Pdnahawai. This azea was used by residents saying prayers prior to making long journeys and the azea is said to contain several ahu Boundary Commission testimony (AD 1873) and a map in Ure report also identified several traditional cultural areas along the border of Ktrkuau 1st and Kukusu 2nd or Wai3kea. The locations include azeas for collecting kaa for canoes (Nehuiku), for canoe building (Kaileo), a house for carving canoes (Kuakumakau), a heiau (Ahuliipe), a bird catching area (Kapalaha), and old planting places (Palau and Kanekaulukanu). The locations of these areas jsee Figtve I) must be considered as only approximate because they are plotted based on descriptions in cite Boundary Commission records. Tne present archaeological assessment study consisted of a sample ¢round survey of the project area performed using both pedestrian and au:omobile sweeps. The au[omobile survey involved driving over approximately 1,'_30.0 m (4,300 R) alon¢ the north-south road and 3,134.0 (7,OOOft) along the east-west road. At the time of the survey, the azea appeared unaltered except for the two four-wheel drive roads oriented N-S and E-W across the property. Because of the dense vegetation, visibiiiry was only c. S.0 m (16.4 fr) on each side of the road. Forty-eight pedestrian sweeps were done at 0.1 mile intervals off the main four-wheel drive road tF'igure Each pedestrian sweeo measured c. 30.0 m (65.6 fr) long by 20.0 m wide. Based on the above figures, an estimated sample of approximately 0.7% of the project area was surveyed. The assessment survey focused primarily on the attempted identification of satiate s-.ructural and portable remains. The survey was facilita[ed by 1"='!,000' scale pho[ocopies of a L'SC•S Quad map and Viap Dios. 573 and 574 (Baker et al. 1965). No archaeolo¢ical or cultural sites or features of any kind were found during the assessment study sample ground survey field work. Historic documentary research previously mentioned (Langlss et al. 199i) had indicated that archaeological sites, activity areas, or signifrcant cultural remains (areas iot collecting koa, and carving and building canoes, a heiau, a bird catching area, and old planting places) might be present in the area, but none of :here were physically identified. While no archaeological sites were identified within the project area, previous records indicate that the Ola'a Flume cuts directly across the project azea in the vicinity of the north-south four-wheel drive road; therefore, this site has been assessed for significance based on the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, as outlined in the Code of Federal Regulations (36 CFR Part 60). DLNR-SHPD uses the National Register criteria for evaluating archaeological and cultural resources. To be assessed as significant, a site must possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and must be characterized by one or more of the following four criteria: (a) it must be associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; (b) it must be associated wi[h the lives of persons significant in the past; (c) it must embody distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of conswction, or represent the work of a master, or possess high artistic value or represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose componrnts may lack individual distinction; or (d) it must have yielded or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. The Ola`a Flume was also assessed for archaeological and cultural si¢nificance using: (a) guidelines for evaluating traditional cultural properties prepared by the National Patk Service (1990), and (b) guidelines established by the State of Hawaii ("Draft Rules Governing Procedures for Historic Preservation Review" [DNLR 1994]). The Hawaii State guidelines utilize an additional fifth criterion (Criterion E) which defines significant cultural resources as ones that "have an important traditional cultural contribution or value to the native Hawaiian people or to other ethnic groups of the slate" (D; ~ZR 1994). Letter Report 1735-080196 4 Based on the federal and state criteria referenced above, and is concordance with the fmdings of the previously mentietud report an the Saddle Road Project (Langlas et al. 199'1), it would appear that the Ola`a Flume rystem, so far as any remains have survived within the present project area, ahould be tentatively assessed as a significant historic site that would be eligible fot both the National and Hawaii State Register of Historic Places under Criterion A (association with significant local historic events) and Criterion D (hu yielded, or is likely to yield, information important in local history). PHRI understands that the client is already aware of the presence of the Ola' a Flume within the property and is receptive to preservation of any surviving portions of the flume rystem that might by identified. On June 17, 1997, a Subdivision Concept Plan for the property was received from Vfr, Glenn Koyama of Belt Collins Hawaii. This plan divided the c. 1,646 ac property into six parcels -four lots of c. 80 ac each at the makai end of the property, a mauler end lot of c. 8b0 ac, and a middle one of c. 466 ac. On June 26, 1997, field survey findings and potential impacts of the subdivision scheme were discussed with DLNR-SHPD Chief Archaeologist Dr. Ross H. Cordy. Given the practical difficulties and cost inefficirncies for doing inventory-level survey of such lands prior to the presentation of specific development proposals, Dr. Cordy agreed that he would fmd it acceptable to defer further archaeological work until parcel-specific development plans were proposed. Once development of a specific parcel is proposed - i.e., access road ali¢nmena, building locations, and so on -then appropriate archaeological survey could be conducted. On July I1, 1997, s revised Subdivision Concept Plaa for the Property was received from vlt. Koyama. This revixd subdivision scheme divided the c. 1,646 ac property into xven parcels -four lots of c. 80 ac each at the maJ:ai end of the property, a mauka end lot of c. 860 ac, and two middle lots of c. 233 ac each. As this revised concept plan is no[ substantially different from the initial one, Dr. Cordy's concurrence regarding the deferred timing of subsequent archaeological survey should not be affected. The evaluations and recommeaaations in this report have been mad: solely on the basis of an assessment survey. It should be noted that there is always the possibility, however remote, that potentially significant, tmidentifed subsurface cultural remains and/or surface structural ftaturcs will be encountered during future archaeological investigations or subsequent development. In such situations, archaeological consultations should be sought immediately. This lettez report summarizes the work conducted and constitutes the final report on the assessment study. If you have any quesrions, or if we can be of further service to you, pleax call me at our main Hilo office (808) 969-1'163. acerely yours, ^ \ Panl I~i. R ~ , 1. President and Principal Archaeologist References Cited Baker, H.L., T. Sahara, Tat. Ryan, E.T. ,llurabayashi, A.Y. ChioQ, F.N. Fujimura, E.L. Awal, and I. Kuwahara 1965 Detailed Land Classification -Island of Hawaii. Land Study Eullarin Iv*o. b, Land Study Bureau, tiniversiry of Hawaii, Honolulu. Letter Repoli f T35-080146 5 CFR (Code of Federal Regttlatlons) 36 CFR Patt 60: National Regiser of Historic Places. Departraent of the Inurior, National Park Service, Washington, D.C. Historic Sites Section, Division of Stau Parks, _ Departrnent of Laad and Natural Resources. DLNR (Department otLand sad Natural Resources) 1994 Hawaii Administrative Rules, Title 13, Department of Land and Natural Resotrces, Subtitle 6, State Historic Preservation Division Rules, Chapter 146-154. ~ovember)(Fourth Draft) Hudson, A.E. a.d. Archaeology of East Hawaii. Manuscript. Department of Anthropology, H.P. Bishop Museum, Hcnolulu. (1932) Jensen, P.M, and L. Kalima 1940 Archaeological Field Inspection Survey, Kukuau Mauka Golf Course Project Siu (Wilder Road), Land of Kulcuau 1, South Hilo District, Island of Hawaii (T~II{:2-t- 08:2,'_7-31). PHRf Repon 941-101690. Prepared for M/10, Inc. Langlas, C, T.R. Wolforth, J. Hesd, and P. Jensen 1997 Archaeological Inventory Survey and Historic and Traditional Cultural Assessment of the Hawaii Defense Access Road A-AD-6(1) and Saddle Road (SR) 200 Project, Districs of Scuth Kohala, Hamakua, North Hile, and Sauth Hilo, Island of Hawaii, PHRI Report 1522-032897. Prepared for RUST Eavtrottmental & Infrastructure, Inc. (February) (Drag Report) Natlonal Park Service (NPS) 1990 Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties. .~larional Register Bulletin 38, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington D.C. Roseadahl, M.L.K. 1988 Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey for Environmental Impact Statemrnt (EIS), Hilo Judiciary Complex Sites, Hilo, District of South Hilo, Island of Hawaii. PHRI Report 3 5 6-0205 8 8. Prepared for Wilson Okamoto and Associates, Inc. Sato, H.H., W. Ikeda, R. Paeth, R. Smythe, and 1VL Takehiro, Jr. 1973 Soi! Survey of the Island of Hawaii, State of Hawaii. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Sail Conservation Service and University of Hawaii Agricultural Experiment Staeion. Washington, D.C.: Gavernntrnt Printing Office. Stokes, J.F.G., sad T. Dye 1991 Heiau of the Island of Hawaii. Bishop D•fuseum Bulletin in anthropology 2. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu. Thrum, T.G. 1907 Tales from the Temples. Hawaiian almanac and annual 1908:48-78. T.G. Thrum, Honolulu. 1917 Hawaiian annual and almanacfor 1917. T. G. Thnrm, Honolulu. Letter Report 1735-080196 6 ~ ~ ' . 6.57"•..••• 1•.r ~ a r1 I_ - ,.~"~~_~~_s l~ / a' O ~ ~i`•- 3 tip ~l.~~i<y y.... I ' ~ J \ 1 O\DJ+LANT1NG alA I :M~w r:Ow rfF lest A A t{ N; i Y ,1 1 ~ - ~.p.T1W NElUULUKANU S` . ~~l •w ua.xw ipil xrtwop~"" ~ j 61RO CATCMINO I ~ j ..c " l ~ V ' j ~ I / PRO' ECT AREA ' S ~ ( • i ~l ev / i ..l / r / X f ~ 1, / / KAUNALE fMOUSEl KA1;AIWAA ~ / AT KUAKLRyAKAU - \ ' ~ ~ \ •J l` OLD P{,~NTINO 1 7 _ ~'i• ~ L ~ ~ ~PLACEYg,..iAI.AD 7 /Y1' 1 ,1 ~ 1 \JC. ~/•/NEIAU AT ~ l ~ , ~ . j ~ KOA FOR GANQES ~ ~ ~ ' J ~y~~ / • ~ AT NEMUIKI CANOS SLDO. ~ ~ 1~ ~ ' Ar KAIeEO~c.«-~a~~:::.:c,^~ I,~ I ~ L L ~ \ \ii ~ ~ ~ F 0 R; B S T B. E S E B E l~ - SCaI: 3.20090 - ° iJf'w / e ~ ~i _ ' ~aa a i4A m m w parr +m xs. nn . ~ .p N l n i.xpxrnx ' ,.~i. - Nlla CONTOUR ~NTERwI t0 F£ET a,.r; ~ PRCIIE~~ WNn ie N4M S4 :C+tt ~ LOOITION " . k ` ~,.,,.J_y, a.wNEEL DRIVE ROADS; TICK MARKS SHOW ""_r.. 1 I AP?ROXIMATE LOCATIONS OF PEDESTRIAN SWEEPS. • LOCATION5 OP PLACES/SITES ARE APPROXIMATE p lpHees e.~h b~n< (Porelon d 1911 USGS ^.S' Quadn~la map °Pllhenua, Wwari") rc 1. Project Area and Places/Sites Location Mop Nvc~~.. U DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND SUPPORT DOCUMENT FOR LAND USE COMMISSION PETITION PROPOSED FAMILY SLJBDMSION THE NEWTON FAMILY PROPERTY HILO, HAWAII TMK 2-4-OS: 33, Third Division August 24,1999 Prepazed for. The Newton Family Limited Partnership Hawaii Prepazed by: Belt Collins Hawaii Honolulu, Hawaii rnn nv, Ou0 OJO i~ltl Cl2 REVISION DRAFT E~IVIRO~M1iENTAL ASSESSME~\T A.~'D SL~PI'ORT DOCUYfENT FOR LAND USE C01~LMISSION PETITI©\ Proposed )4'amily Subdivision The Newtor, Farniiy Property Hilo. Hawaii January 1', '~OOU Prepared for: The Vewton Family Limited Partnership Huwaii Prepared by: fielt Collins Hawaii Honciulu, Hawaii APPENDIX G CULTURAL CONCERNS: POTENTIAL IMPACTS UPON TRADTITONAL AND CUSTOMARY NATIVE HAWAIIAN ACCESS AND USE RIGHTS P H R i Paul H. Rosendahl, Ph.D., inc. Archaeological • Historial • Guttural Resource Management Sfudes 6 Services 204 Waianuenue Avenue • Hib, Hawaii 98720 • (808) 989-1763 • FAX (808) 961-8998 P 0. Box 23305 • G.M.F., Guam 96921 • (871) 472.3117 • FAX (871) 472-3131 Report 2040-012100 RESEARCH AND EVALUATION REPORT Cultural Concerns: Potential Impacts Upon Traditional and Customary Native Hawaiian Access and Use Rights Proposed Family Subdivision - The Newton Family Property State land Use Commission Petition - Docket No. A99-729 Kukuau 1st Mauka Parcel, Land of Kukuau 1st South Hilo District, Island of Hawaii (TMK:3-2-4-08:33) INTRODUCTION At the request of Mr. A. Bernard Bays, Esq., of the firm Bays, Deaver, Hiatt, Lung, Rose, and on behalf of their client, The Newton Family Limited Partnership, Paul H. Rosendahl, Ph.D., Inc. (PHRI) has researched and evaluated the cultural concerns raised by the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA), the State Office of Planning (OSP), and the State Land Use Commission (LUG) in connection with the subject petition for the reclassification from Conservation to Agricul- tural of approximately 885 acres of land located in the mauka (inland) section of the land of Kukuau 1st, North Hilo District, Island of Hawaii. More speci- fically, the cultural concerns raised were related to the potential impact of the proposed land use classification change and subsequent development upon any traditional and customary access and use rights that might be currently exer- cised by native Hawaiian cultural practitioners within the overall approxi- mately 1,646 acre parcel of land owned by the petitioner, The Newton Family Limited Partnership, and identified as TMK:3-2-4-08:33. As proposed and discussed in detail in the Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) (BCH 1999) and Revision (BCH 2000) that have been or will be submitted to the LUC in support of the boundary amendment petition, the landowner proposes to reclassify the makai (seaward) portion (c. 885 ac) of the subject parcel to Agricultural, while leaving the mauka portion (c. 760 ac) in its current Conser- vation designation. The mauka portion of the parcel situated inland of the old Ola~a Flume Road was determined to be essentially in natural conditicn, with extensive areas of largely native forest and associated native vegetation. In contrast, the makai portion of the parcel situated seaward of the old Ola~a Flume Road had been considerably modified in historic times--initially for the cultivation of sugarcane, and subsequently for cattle grazing--and was domi- nated by introduced floral species. The proposal forming the basis for the pending LUC petition is to reclassify only the makai portion to Agricultural, and then to submit a change of zone and subdivision application to the County of Hawaii to divide the makai portion into eight agricultural lots. The sub- divided lots would then be distributed among the members of the Newton family for the development of single-family residences with associated small- scale agricultural activities, Three of the parcels would be put on the market for sale to non-family members to help defray infrastructure improvement costs. Report 2040-012100 2 GENERAL BACKGROUND The general purpose of the present research and evaluation was to assess the potential impact of the proposed land use reclassification petition upon any cultural resources within the subject parcel in accordance with the general guidance provided by the "Guidelines far Assessing Cultural Impacts" prepared by the Office of Environmental Quality Control (OEOC) and adopted by the Environmental Council in November 1997 (OEOC 1997). The guidelines evolved out of what are commonly referred to as "PASH/Kohanaiki" issues--issues relating to native Hawaiian traditional and customary access and land use rights as they were reaffirmed by the Hawaii State Supreme Court decision in August 1995 in Public Access Shoreline Hawaii v. Hawaii County Planning Commission, Commonly referred to as the "PASH decision," and as further clarified more recently in its 1998 decision in State of Hawaii v. Alaoai Hanaoi--and the need for appropriate means to address these issues within the State environmental impact review process. For a good discussion of the issues and options involved, the "Report on Native Hawaiian Traditional and Customary Practices Following the Opinion of the Supreme Court of the State of Hawaii in Public Access Shoreline Hawaii v. Hawaii County Planning Commission" prepared by the PASH/Kohanaiki Study Group (1998) should be consulted. Initial attempts to address various issues relating to native Hawaiian traditional and customary access and land use rigfits within the framework of the State environmental impact review process were made in the form of proposed changes to the State EIS law as contained in Chapter 343 (HRS). These attempts to require a r'ormal cultural impact assessment failed to pass the State legislature in 1996 and 1997. A subsequent, second attempt was made in the form of proposed changes in the "Administrative Rules" for compliance with Chapt. 343 (DOH Title 11, Chapt. 200). This attempt to require an explicitly defined cultural impact assessment also failed, as the governor declined to approve the proposed amendments. The third attempt to address various issues relating to native Hawaiian traditional and customary access and land use rights within the State environmental impact review process resulted in the current OEOC "Guidelines for Assessing Cultural Impacts" (OEOC 1997). Draft guidelines were initially issued for public review and comment on September 8, 1997, and the guidelines in their final form were formally adopted by the Environmental Council on November 19, 1997. The relationship of the OEOC guidelines to the State Supreme Court "PASH decision" was clearly stated on the front page of the September 8, 1997 issue of the OEOC bulletin, "The Environmental Notice", when the draft guidelines were first issued for public review and comment: For years, a controversy has simmered over developer's responsi- bility to perform a "Cultural Impact Study" prior to building a project. The recent Supreme Court "PASH" decision reaffirmed the state's duty to protect the gathering rights of native Hawaiians. In light of these events, the Environmental Council has drafted a guidance document to provide clarity on when and how to assess a project's impacts on the cultural practices of host communities. As "guidelines", the OEOC guidelines would seem to have neither the speci- fic statutory authority of law, nor the regulatory authority of administrative Report 2040-012100 3 rules. As guidelines, they should be regarded as providing general guidance; that is, they represent general suggestions and recommendations as to how to approach the assessment of potential cultural impacts. The guidelines provide little or no guidance relative to many important questions relating to the identification and evaluation of specific cultural claims, and the assessment of potential impacts upon any such claims. (See PHRI 1998:7-8 for a list of principal questions.) It should also be noted that the guidelines for cultural impact assessment are meant to include consideration of the cultural resources of all the different groups comprising the multi-ethnic community of Hawaii; however, this inclusiveness is generally understated, and the clear emphasis is meant to be upon aspects of native Hawaiian culture. Generally speaking, cultural resources include a broad range of often over- lapping categories of cultural items--places, behaviors, practices, values, beliefs, objects, records, stories, and so on. A traditional cultural property (TCP) is one specific type of cultural resource that falls within the purview of the historic preservation review process. A TCP is a historic property or place that is important because it possesses "traditional cultural signif- i cance'~ "Traditional" in this context refers to those beliefs, customs, and practices of a living community of people that have been passed down through the generations, usually orally or through practice. The traditional cultural significance of a historic property, then, is significance derived from the role the property plays in a com- munity's historically rooted beliefs, customs, and practices.... A traditional cultural property, then, can be defined generally as one that is...(important/significant]...because of its association with cultural practices or beliefs of a living community that (a) are rooted in that community's history, and (b) are important in maintaining the continuing cultural identity of the community (Parker and King 1990:1). In addition, it is important is to realize that sometimes a traditional cultural property may not have a visible physical manifestation: Although many traditional cultural properties have physical manifestations that anyone walking across the surface of the earth can see, others do not have this kind of visibility, and more important, the meaning, the historical importance of most tradi- tional cultural properties can only be evaluated in terms of the oral history of the community (Sebastian 1993:22). There are at least two significant differences which distinguish tradit- ional cultural properties as a subset within the larger sphere of cultural resources. First, while cultural resources such as practices and beliefs may be spatially associated with general types of geographical areas, such as mauka forest regions like the inland portion of the subject parcel, a traditional cultural property is a specific physical entity or feature with a definable boundary, such as a specific location within the subject parcel. Second, while cultural resources such as practices and beliefs can include general cultural Report 2040-012100 4 behaviors such as the gathering of various plants for general subsistence or ceremonial uses, a traditional cultural property is a specific place or feature directly associated with specific behaviors the continuity of which over time can be demonstrated. Based on these two significant distinctions, it is possible to suggest three types of practitioner claims relating to cultural practices, beliefs, and features that are likely to be encountered in the course of conducting a cultural impact assessment study. These claims can be referred to as (a) tradi- tional cultural property claims, (b) traditional and customary cultural practice claims, and (c) contemporary, or neo-traditional, cultural practice claims. Traditional cultural property claims would be those which lie within the purview of the current historic preservation review process; that is, they are claims involving the traditional practices and beliefs of a local ethnic community or members of that community that (a) are associated with a definable physical property (and entity such as a site, building, structure, object, or district), (b) are founded in the history of the local community, (c) contri- bute to the maintenance of the cultural identity of the community, and (d) demonstrate a historical continuity of practice or belief up to the present--through either actual practice or historical documentation. Further- more, to qualify as a legitimate traditional cultural property within the historic preservation context, a potential traditional cultural property must be able to demonstrate its historical significance in terms of established evaluation criteria, such as those of the National Register of Historic Places and/or the Hawaii Register of Historic Places. Traditional and customary cultural practice claims would be those which lie within the purview of Article XII, Section 7, of the Hawa ii State Constitution ("Traditional and Customary Rights"), and various other state laws and court rulings, particularly as reaffirmed in 1995 in the "PASH decision," and as further clarified more recently in its 1998 decision in State of Hawaii v. Alapai Hanapi. The notable points of the decisions in PASH and in Hana°i can be summarized as follows: (a) the reasonable exercise of ancient/traditional native Hawaiian usage is entitled to protection under Article XII, Section 7 of the Hawaii State Constitution; and (b) those persons claiming their conduct is constitutionally protected must establish that (1) they are a native Hawaiian as defined in PASH, (2) the claimed right is constitutionally protected as a traditional and customary native Hawaiian practice, and (3) the exercise of the right is occurring on undeveloped or less than fully developed property. While traditional cultural property claims, as defined above, would certainly fall within the general domain of traditional and customary cultural practice claims, not all traditional and customary cultural practice claims would necessarily qualify as traditional cultural property claims. Traditional and customary cultural practice claims subsume a broad range of cultural practices and beliefs associated with a general geographical area or region, rather than a clearly definable property or site--for example, the gathering of various plant products from an upland or forest area for traditional subsis- tence or ceremonial purposes, in contrast to the gathering of a specific plant Report 2040-012100 5 species for a specific use by current generation members of a family that had obtained the same plant from the same recognized site for several generations. Contemporary, or neo-traditional, cultural practice claims overlap with neither traditional property claims nor traditional and customary practice claims. Contemporary cultural practice claims would be those made by cultural practitioners relating to current practices or beliefs for which no clear specific basis in traditional culture can be clearly established or demons- trated--for example, the conducting of ritual ceremonies of uncertain authen- ticity at sites or features for which no such prior use can be demonstrated, or the gathering or collecting of plant or animals resources for which no native Hawaiian traditional or customary use can be documented. ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT STUDY In July 1996, PHRI conducted an archaeological assessment study of the subject parcel (P.H. Rosendahl 1997). As part of this assessment study, a number of previous PHRI studies (Jensen and Kali ma 1990; Langlas et al. 1999; Maly 1996; M.L.K. Rosendahl 1988; Walker and Rosendahl 1996) which included historical documentary research that covered the subject parcel andior its general vicinity were reviewed for relevant information, which was then incorporated into the report on the archaeological assessment study of the subject parcel (P.H. Rosendahl 1997). Of particular interest were several traditional cultural areas and associated activities mentioned in Boundary Commission records from AD 1873, which contained testimonies of both native and foreign residents on Hila: ...While all [references consulted] contained relevant archaeo- logical and cultural information, only the Boundary Commission testimony specifically referred to the land of Kukuau 1st. In the testimony describing the boundaries between Kukuau 1st and Waiakea to the south and Kaumana to the north, reference is made to a kulana kauhale (house site, residence), a kawalele (place for sports diving and leaping), a heiau (ceremonial site), a wall, and planting areas. These sites were mentioned as known points along the boundary in c. AD 1873. However, none of these sites appear to be located above 1,000 ft AMSL or within the current project area (P.H. Rosendahl 1997:2), ...Boundary Commission testimony (AD 1873) and a map contained in the [Langlas et al. 1999] report also identified several tradi- tional cultural areas along the boundary of Kukuau 1st and Kukuau 2nd or Waiakea. These locations included areas for collecting koa for canoes (Nehiku), for canoe building (Kaileo), a house for carving canoes (Kuakumakau), a heiau (Ahuliipe), a bird catching area (Kapalaha), and old planting places (Palau and Kanekaulukanu). The locations of these areas (see Figure 1) must be considered as only approximate because they are plotted based on descriptions in the Boundary Commission records (P.H. Rosendahl 1997:3). No tangible archaeological remains of any traditional cultural sites, features, or areas were identified in the course of the sample ground survey Report 2040-012100 g fieldwork carried out as part of the archaeological assessment study of the subject parcel. The historical documentary research reviewed for the study had indicated that archaeological remains--i.e., physical remains traditional cultural sites or activity areas--might be present within or in the immediate general vicinity of the subject parcel, even though none had been physically identified. NATIVE HAWAIIAN CULTURAL CONCERNS In an effort to determine if any native Hawaiian cultural practitioners might currently be exercising traditional and customary access and use rights within the subject parcel, or might have knowledge of any specific cultural sites or areas within the subject parcel that might qualify as legitimate traditional cultural properties, four local Hilo area residents believed to be regarded as Hawaiian cultural experts--i.e., individuals recognized by the local native Hawaiian community as knowledgeable in various aspects of tradi- tional Hawaiian culture--were identified and consulted. These four individuals were Ululani Sherlock, Kepa Maly, Charles Langlas, and Edward Kanahele. Ululani Sherlock is of native Hawaiian ancestry and is currently serving as the Community Resource Coordinator and East Hawaii liaison officer for the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA). She has been active for many years in various Hawaiian Civic Clubs and other Hawaiian organizations. During our meeting at her Hilo office on December 28, 1999, I provided her with project background and information, and we discussed alternative means to deal with native Hawaiian cultural impact assessment issues and concerns. She herself had no specific knowledge relating to the subject parcel; nor did her mother, who she had queried after my initial telephone contact, but prior to our actual meeting. While she also stated that she did not know of any individual cultural practitioners that she thought likely to be accessing tfie subject parcel or its general vicinity, she did suggest several sources she believed knowledgeable in traditional Hawaiian culture and worth contacting for possible knowledge of current practitioners. The sources she suggested included the Edith Kanakaole Foundation, Cultural Resources Specialist Kepa Maly, and UH-Hilo Cultural Anthropologist Chuck Langlas. Kepa Maly is fluent in the Hawaiian language and knowledgeable in both the unwritten content of Hawaiian culture and the historical documentary resources of Hawaiian history and traditions, and he is recognized by the native Hawaiian community as an expert in many aspects of native Hawaiian culture. For many years, one of his principal activities has been the preservation of traditional Hawaiian culture and history through the recording of oral history interviews with knowledgeable elderly Hawaiians and part-Hawaiians, and he has maintained a wide network of contacts with other cultural experts and practitioners throughout the islands. Based in Hilo, he works as a cultural resources specialist through Kumu Pono Associates, and in recent years has conducted numerous historical documentary research and oral history projects focused on different areas of Hawaii Island. As Kepa is quite familiar with the general area of the subject parcel and because we had worked together on many projects in prior years, I was able to consult with him by telephone on December 28, 1999. Based on his cultural informant contacts and extensive research--particu- larly into the Boundary Commission records, he felt he had a good understanding Report 2040-012100 ~ of the variety and general location of traditional cultural areas and acti- vities likely to have taken place in the general vicinity of the subject parcel; however, he himself did not have knowledge specific to the subject parcel, and he did not know any individual cultural practitioners currently believed likely to be accessing the subject parcel or its general vicinity. Furthermore, he said that he could not suggest any other cultural experts or informants that he believed might well have knowledge specific to the subject parcel. Chuck Langlas is a cultural anthropologist who has lived and worked for many years on Hawaii Island, and he currently teaches cultural anthropology and ethnography at UH-Hilo, He is proficient in the Hawaiian language and knowledgeable in both Hawaiian culture and the literature of Hawaiian history and traditions. He has carried out several oral history projects with native Hawaiian cultural informants--of particular value was his extensive work with the Kalapana community, and has studied and worked closely with "Papa" Henry Auwae of Hilo, who is widely recognized throughout Hawaii for his knowledge of traditional Hawaiian culture and his familiarity with places and areas of traditional cultural use and importance. As Chuck and I have known each other for many years--having initially been graduate students together in anthro- pology at UH-Manna in the mid-late 19605, and he had recently worked with PHRI conducting a study of traditional Hawaiian cultural sites potentially impacted by the Saddle Road Corridor Project (Langlas et al. 1999), I was able to consult with him by telephone on December 29, 1999. He himself did not have knowledge specific to the subject parcel, and he did not know any individual cultural practitioners currently believed likely to be accessing the subject parcel or its general vicinity. Furthermore, he said that he could not suggest any other cultural experts or informants that he believed might well have knowledge specific to the subject parcel. He did, however, believe it possible that unidentified younger Hawaiian cultural practitioners might be accessing the general area for gathering purposes. He strongly suggested that cultural experts at the Edith Kanakaole Foundation be consulted for their possible knowledge of any possible current users, or potential uses, of the either the subject parcel or the general vicinity. I established initial contact with the Edith Kanakaole Foundation on January 3, 2000, when Ed Kanahele was able to return my earlier call of December 29, 1999. The Edith Kanakaole Foundation was established as a living memorial to the knowledge and spirit of "Aunty" Edith Kanakaole, who was perhaps the most widely recognized and revered native Hawaiian cultural expert, educator, and ku una (literally, "grandparent;" figuratively, "knowledgeable, respected elder") on Hawaii Island. Over many years, she worked to perpetuate and pass on her knowledge of all aspects of traditional native Hawaiian culture to younger generations, and especially to her daughters Pualani and Nalani, who have continued to work in her spirit through the Edith Kanakaole Foundation. I know Ed Kanahele, who is married to Pua Kanakaole, from his previous service on the Hawaii Island Burial Council and our mutual involvement in the cultural impact assessment aspects of several more recent projects. Initially we discussed general project background and information, particularly concerns relating to the identification of any traditional cultural areas within the subject parcel or its vicinity, and any cultural practitioners that might be Report 2040-012100 g accessing the subject parcel. We mutually agreed that I would prepare and transmit to him a packet of relevant project background and information for him to review, and that he would contact me again later. On January 21, 2000, Ed called me back; he said he had reviewed the packet of information I had provided for him on January 3, 2000, and that he had subsequently consulted with other cultural experts at the Edith Kanakaole Foundation, and had also contacted several local native Hawaiian cultural practitioners that he knew. He stated that he himself had no specific knowledge of the subject parcel or its immediate vicinity. With regard to traditional and customary native Hawaiian uses of the subject parcel or its immediate vicinity, he said that he himself did not personally know any cultural practitioners currently exercising their rights of access and use, nor did any of the several local cultural practi- tioners he had contacted have any such knowledge. Finally, he said that both he and the local cultural practitioners he had consulted all agreed that the portion of the subject parcel above the old Ola'a Flume Road that was still in native forest was perhaps likely to be accessed by unidentified mails pickers, but probably only very infrequently, CONCLUDING ASSESSMENT Based on the review of relevant project background and information, and previous archaeological and historical documentary studies, and on consulta- tions with local Hawaiian cultural experts--four individuals recognized 6y the native Hawaiian community for their knowledge of traditional Hawaiian culture, a general consensus about the subject parcel and its immediate general vicinity was reached with regard to any cultural practitioner claims relating to native Hawaiian cultural sites or areas (traditional cultural property claims), tradi- tional access and use rights (traditional cultural practice claims), and con- temporary access and use rights (contemporary, or neo-traditional, cultural practice claims: t. No specific traditional Cultural properties, areas, or sites known to any of the four cultural experts or any individual native Hawaiian cultural practitioners have been identified as being present; 2. No specific or individual native Hawaiian cultural practitioners have been identified as currently exercising their rights of access and use for traditional and customary cultural practices; 3. No specific or individual cultural practitioners have been iden- tified as currently taking advantage of unrestricted access for any contemporary cultural practices; 4. While there may be unidentified individual cultural practitioners accessing the subject parcel for various traditional and custo- mary uses, or contemporary uses, such incidence of access is probably only infrequent; and 5. Given the nature of the proposed LUC petition--which would affect only the makai portion which has been extensively modified in historic times, and which would leave the native forest of the Report 2040-012100 ~ g mauka portion protected in its current condition, it is believed that any current or future accessing of the subject parcel by any as yet unidentified cultural practitioners would not in any way constrain, restrict, prohibit, or eliminate the exercise of any native Hawaiian rights for traditional and customary access and use. Based on the research and evaluation presented here, it is my professional opinion that the proposed LUC petition for the reclassification from Conser- vation to Agricultural of approximately 885 acres of land located in the mauka (inland) section of the land of Kukuau 1st, North Hilo District, Island of Hawaii (TMK:3-2-4-08:33) should have no significant or adverse effect on any existing, but as yet unidentified, cultural practices or sites. More speci- fically, it is my professional opinion that the cultural concerns raised by the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, the State Office of Planning, and the State Land Use Commission related to the potential impact of the proposed land use classification change and subsequent development upon any traditional and customary access and use rights that might be currently exercised by native Hawaiian cultural practitioners within the overall approximately 1,646 acre subject parcel have been adequately addressed in that (a) a reasonable, good faith effort to identify any cultural practitioners who might currently access the subject parcel for traditional native Hawaiian or contemporary uses has been demonstrated, (b) no specific individual practitioners making any claims relating to traditional cultural properties, traditional and customary access and cultural practices, or contemporary cultural practices have been identified, and (c) given the nature of the proposed LUC petition, any current or future accessing of the subject parcel by any as yet unidentified cultural practitioners to exercise their native Hawaiian rights for traditional and customary access and use would nct in any way be constrained, restricted, prohibited, or eliminated. REFERENCES CITED BCH (Belt Collins Hawaii) 1999 Draft Environmental Assessment and Support Document for Land Use Commission Petition: Proposed Family subdivision, The Newton Family Property; Hilo, Hawaii; TMK 2-4-08:33, Third Division. Prepared for The Newton Family Limited Partnership. (August 24) 2000 Revision--Draft Environmental Assessment and Support Document for Land Use Commission Petition: Proposed Family subdivision, The Newton Family Property; Hilo, Hawaii. Prepared for The Newton Family Limited Partnership. (January 17) Jensen, P.M., and L. Kalima 1990 Archaeological Field Inspection Survey, Kukuau Mauka Golf Course Project Site (Wilder Road), Land of Kukuau 1st, South Hilo District, Island of Hawaii (TMK:3-2-4-08:2,27-31). PHRI Letter Repcrt 941- 101690. Prepared far M/10, Inc. (October 17) Report 2040-012100 10 Langlas, C., T.R. Wolforth, and J. Head 1999 The Saddle Road Corridor: An Archaeological Inventory Survey and Traditional Cultural Property Study for the Hawaii Defense Access Road A-AD-6(1) and Saddle Road (SR 200) Project; Districts of South Kohala, Hamakua, North Hilo, and South Hilo; Island of Hawaii. PHRI Report 1939-043099. Prepared for Okahara 8 Associates, Inc. (April) [Earlier draft version, PHRI Report 1522-022897, was available in February 1997.) Maly, K. 1996 Appendix A: Historical Documentary Research. IN Walker and Rcsendahl 1996. OEOC (Office of Environmental puality Control, State of Hawaii) 199i Guidelines for Assessing Cultural Impacts. Adopted by the Environ- mental Council; November 19, 1997. PASH/Kohanaiki Study Group 1998 Report on Native Hawaiian Traditional and Customary Practices Following the Opinion of the Supreme Court of the State of Hawaii in Public Access Shoreline Hawaii v. Hawa ii County Planning Commission. Prepared in Response to H. R. No. 197, H.D. 1, Regular Session of 1997, Nineteenth State Legislature, State of Hawa ii. Submitted by the Office of Planning, State of Hawa ii. (January) Parker, P.L., and T.F, King 1990 Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties. National Reoister Bulletin No 38. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Dept. Interior, National Park Service. PHRI (Paul H. Rosendahl, Ph.D., Inc.) 1998 Cultural Impact Assessment Study: Identification of Native Hawaiian Cultural Practices Associated with Wa'ahila Ridge; HECO Kamoku-Pukele 138-kV Transmission Line Project; Lands of Manoa, Palolo, and Waikiki; Honolulu (Kona) District, Island of O'ahu. Technical Report for Environmental Impact Statement. PHRI Report 1872-091498. Prepared for Hawaiian Electric Company, Inc. (November) Rosendahl, M,L.K. 1988 Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey for Environmental Impact State- ment (EIS), Hilo Judiciary Complex Sites, Hilo, District of Soutfi Hilo, Island of Hawaii. PHRI Report 356-020588. Prepared for Wilson Okamoto & Associates, Inc. (February) Report 2040-012100 11 Rosendahl, P.H. 1997 Archaeological Assessment Study, Kukuau 1st Mauka Parcel, Land of Kukuau 1st, South Hilo District, Island of Hawaii (TMK:3-2-4-08:33). PHRI Letter Report 1735-080196. Prepared for Mr. George Newton. (October 30) Sebastian, L. 1993 Protecting Traditional Cultural Properties Through the Section 106 Process. CRM Vol. 16 (Special Issue):22-26. Walker, A.T., and P.H. Rosendahl 1996 Archaeological Assessment Study, Hilo Judiciary Complex Project; Lands of Wainaku, Ponahawai, Pi'ihonua, and Waiakea; South Hilo District, Island of Hawaii. PHRI Report 1721-061496. Prepared for State of Hawaii-Department of Accounting and General Services. {June) PHRI Paul H. Rosendahl, Ph.D., Inc. ArcAeeolojical Historical Cuhural Resource Monajement Studies & Servkes t01 Wri,nu~nu~benue Nila. H,wrii 9[7)0 • (90a)9N.: 7i3 FAX (a06)961.699a P.O. Box 37 )07 • G. M.F.,Guam 96f11 • ([71)171.7117 • FAX ([71)47)•71)1 Report 2040-081300 ADDENDUM TO PHRI Report 2040-012100: RESEARCH AND EVALUATION REPORT Cultural Concerns: Potential Impacts Upon Traditional And Customary Native Hawaiian Access and Use Rights Proposed Family Subdivision -The Newton Famih' Property State Land Uu Petition -Docket No. A99-729 Kukuau I" illauika Parcel, Land of Kukuau 1" South Hilo District, Island of Hawaii (TIVIIC:3-2-~-08:33) Introduction and Background This report has been prepared by Paul H. Rosendahl, Ph.D., Inc. (PHRI), at the request of Mr. A. Bernard Bays, Esq., of the fum Bays, Dcavcr, Hiatt, Lung, Rose, and on behalf of their client, The Newton Family Limited Parmership, as an addendum to the Research and Evaluation Report (PHRI 2000) previously prepared and submitted in January 2000 in support of s State Land Use Petition (Docket No. A99-729) for the Proposed Family Subdivision of The Newton Family Property. The Istter report presented the results of research into and evaluation of cultural coneems that had been raised by the Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA), the State Office of Planning (OP), and the State Land Use Commission (LUC) in connection with the subject petition for the reclassification from Conurvation to Agriculture of approximately 885 acres of land in the mauka (inland) section of the Land of Kukuau 1°, South Hilo District, Island of Hawaii. At a meeting held on April I3, 2000 at the LUC otlice in Honolulu to discuss the status of the Revised Draft Environmental Assessment (RDEA) being prepared in support of the LUC petition, OP recommended that the petirioner's consultant meet once a¢ain with OHA to obmin their confirmation that their concerns had born adequately addressed. To this end,~Dr. Paul H. Rosendahl of PHRI met on May 12, 2000 with OHA staff members Mr. C. Sebastian Aioot, Director, Hawaiian Rights Division, and Ms. Lynn J. Lee, Policy Analyst. The extrnt of PHRI's previously prepared study w25 discussed, and it was mutually `...agreed that more work should be done in order to produce the level of information and confideox that will allow decisions-makers to reach an infortncd decision' (letter of May 19, 2000, from OA?. Deputy Administrator Colin C. Kippers, Jr., to Paul H. Rosendahl, PHRI),. More specifically, the meeting was concluded with an a>aeement that additional effort would be made to teach the Hawaiian wmmmity with information about the project by means of the foliowiag actions: 1. A Public Notice would be placed in the local East Hawaii newspaper, the Hawaii Tribune~Herald, to explain the project, and to seek information firm the community on access and uses issues related to the lands that were the subject of the LUC petition; 2. A Public Notice would be placed in the OHA newspaper. Ka Wai Ola o OXA, to explain the project, and to seek information lrom the community on access and uses issues related to the lands that were the subject of the LUC petition; 3. PHRI would contact representatives of the Kona Hawaiian Civic Club to seek informaton from the community on access and uses issues related to the lands that were the subject of the LUC petition; and Report 2040-081300 2 4. PHRI would work with the Hilo Community Affairs Office of OHA to seek information fiom the community on access and uses issues related to the lands that were the subject of the LUC petition. If any additional information were to be acquired ttrrough these or any other actions taken, PHRI would revise the previously prepared Reseazch and Evaluation Report to include such additional information. Publication of Public Notices An appropriate public notices was published in newspapers of both local and statewide distribution. The published notice addressed the full undeveloped parcel (c. 1,646 ac) idrntified as TMK:3-2-4-0833, and contained (a) descriptive and locational information, (b) identification of seversl contact persons, and (c) indication of the landowner/applicant's intent to petition the LUC to reclassify the makai portion (c. 885 ac) of the parcel to Agricultural District, while leaving the maukn portion (c. 760 ac) in Conservation District. Copies of each Affidavit of Publication and Public Notice arc attached to this addendum report (.4nachments A and B). Notices were published az follows: • Hawaii Tribune-Herold -three consecutive Sundays, Juno 4, 11, and I8, 2000 (Attachment A); and • Ka R'ai Ola o OHA- the June 2000 issue (Attachment B Notices requested that all Native Hawaiian cultural practitioners, or person traving knowledge of any such practitioners, currently accessing the mauka portion of the ahupua'a of Kukuau 1", South Hilo District, Island of Hawaii, for purposes of exercising their rights of access. nerd use for traditional and cusmmary cultural practices to contact, within 30 days of the notice publication date, eery of the following individuals: G. Ululani Sherlock, Community Resources Coordinator, OHA (War Hawai'i); Paul H. Rosendahl, Principal, PHRI (Hilo); and/or P. Holly McEldowney, History and Culture Section, Department of Land and Natural Resources-State Historic Preservation Division (SHPD). Mrs. Sherlock of OHA did receive two limited responses to the publication of the notices. On June 23, ?000, she received a telephone call from Mr. Krnneth Amaral of Hiio requesting clarification of the location of the parcel described in the published notices, and asking why the notices did not refer to the Land of Kukuau 2°', as the rcferrnced Hilo Country Club Estates subdivision waz in the latter ah:epua'a. Upon being provided with clarification that the Hilo Country Club Estates subdivision had been referenced only to provide general location infortnatioo for the subject parcel, he did not indicate that be had knowledge of any dative Hawaiian cultural practitioners currently accessing the mauka portion of the ahupua'a of Kukuau 1". On July 5, 2000, Mrs. Sherlock received a telephone call from Mr. James Helenihi of Hilo requesting clarification of the location of the parcel described in the published notice he had found in the June issue of Ka Wai 0Ia o OfU. Upon receiving such clarification, Mr. Helenihi-who Mrs. Sherlock believed [o be in his SOs-related how, as a youngster, he had been taken hunting and hiking in the general vicinity by his ¢randfather, but that be had not rngaged in such aMivities recently. He also did not indicate that he had knowledge of any I~rative Hawaiian cultural practitioners currently accessing [be mauka portion of the ahupua'aofKukuau l". Neither Dr. Roseadahl of PHRI nor Dr. McEldowney of SHPD received any responses to the publication of the notices. Consultations Two representatives of the Kona Hawaiian Civic Club were contaMed in an effort to seek information from rho community on access and uses issues related to the lands that were the subject of the LUC petition. Mt. Eugene "Bucky" Leslie, current President of the Kona Hawaiian Civic Club, and Mts. Ruby 'JtcDonald, Liaison Officer in the West Hawaii Office of OHA and an active, long-time member of the Kona Hawaiian Civic Club, were both contacted and consulted; neither of these individuals knew of any Native Hawaiian cultural practitioners, nor any persons having knowledge of any such ptaairiooers, currently accessin¢ the mauka portion of the ahupua'n of Kukuau l", South Hilo District, [shod of Hawaii, for purposes of exercising their ri¢hts of access and use for traditional and customary cultural practices. Upon bein¢ advised of the identity of the four local Hilo area residents consulted az Hawaiian cultural experts-i.e., individuals rccomized by the local native Hawaiian community as knowledgeable in Report2040-081300 3 various aspects of traditional Hawaiian cultvre-during the preparation of the previous research and evaluation report, Mr. Leslie opined that these individuals wets certainly likely to be able to identify, if anyone were, any Native Hawaiian cultural practitioners, or any persons having lnowledge of any such practitioners, currently accessing the Kukuau 1° parcel, and that he could provide w additional infotmatioa Mrs. McDonald expressed much the same opinion. Mrs. G. i)lulani Sherlock, Community Resottme Coordinator with tbrHilo Community Affairs Office of OHA was contacted and consulted several times as part of a further effort to seek additional information from the community oa access and uses issues related to the lands that were the subject of the LUC petition. While she did provide a list of local community members-inc?nding sevcml kupuna knowledgeable in traditional Hawaiian culture and practice, she felt upon careful review of this list that none of the individuals would be likely to provide any additional information regarding any Native Hawaiian cultural ptactitioncrs, or aay persons having lmowledge of any such practitioners, currently accessing the Kukuau 1"parcel. Sbe also reiterated her belief that the three local Hilo residents, in addition to herself, that had been consulted a Hawaiian cultural experts doting the preparation of the previous research and evaluation report represented the bat possible local souma of relevant information. Concluding Assessment At the request of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, additional efforts were made to reach the Hawaiian community with information about the projeM in order to assess further the potential impacts of the subject LUC petition for the reclassification from Conservation to Agriculture of approximately 885 aces of land in the maulm (inland) section of the Laod of Kulntau 1°, South Hilo District, Island of Hawaii upon traditional and customary native Hawaiian access and use rights, and to provide the level of information and confidence that will allow decisions-makers to reach as informed decision. More specifically, the additional efforts included (a) the placing of public notices in the local East Hawaii newspaper, the Hawaii Tribune-Herald, and in the OHA newspaper, Ka Wai Ola o OH~I, to explain the project and to seek information frorn the community on access and uses issues elated m the lands that were the subject of the LUC petition, and (b) consultations with represeotativa of the Kona Hawaiian Civic Club and the Hilo Community Affairs Office of OHA to seek information firm the community oa access and uses issues related to the ]ands [hat were the subject of the LUC petition. Neither the publication of the public notices nor the wnsultatioos provided aay new or additional information regarding native Hawaiian cultural pmctitioners, or person having knowledge of any such practitioners, currently accessing the maulra portion of the ahupua'a of Kukuau I", South Hilo District, Island of Hawaii, for purposes of exercising their rights of access and use for traditional and customary cultural practices. Thus there is no reason to alter in any way the conclusion of the previous research and evaluation report that the proposed LUC petition "...should have no significant or adverse effect on any existing, but as yet unidentified, cultural practices or sits. More specifically,...": ...jT]he coocems mired by the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, the State Office of Planning, and the State Land Use Commission related m the potential impact of the purposed land use classification change and subsequent development upon any traditional and customary access and use rights that might be currently exercised by native Hawaiian cultural practitioners within the overall approximately 1,64G acre subject parcel have been adequately addttssed in that (a) a reasonable, good faith effort to identify any cultural practitianers...has been demonstrated, (b) no specific individual practitioners making aay claims...have bern identified, and (c) given the nature of the proposed LUC petition, any current or future accessing of the subject parcel by any as yet unidentified cultural practitioners to exercise their native Hawaiian rights for traditional and customary access and use would no in any w•ay be coostcainecl, restricted, prohibited, or eliminated (PHRI 2000:9). Reference Cited PHRI (Paul H. Rosendahl, Ph.D., Inc.) 2000 Research and Evaluation Report - Culrural Concerns: Potential Impacts Upon Traditional and Customary Native Hawaiian Access and Use Rights; Proposed Family Subdivision -The Newton Family Property. State Land Use Petition - Docket No. A99-729. Kukuau I" Mauka Parcel, Land of Kukuau South Hilo District Island of Hawaii (TMK:3-2-4-08:33). PHRI Report ?040-O1?500. (January) Report 2040-081300 4 ATTACHIV~NTS A. Affidavit of Publication and Public Notice: Hawaii Tribune-Herald; June 4, 11, and 18, 2000 B. Public Notice from the June 2000 issue of Ka Wai OJa o OHA (Volume 17, Number 6) Repoli 2040.081300 5 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION State of Hawaii County of Hawaii LEILANI K.R. HIGAKI .being first duly sworn, deposes and says: 1. That she is the BUSINESS MANAGER of HAWAII TRIBUNE-HERALD .a newspaper published in the Citv of Hilo. State of Hawaii. 2. That the- Public Notice- All Native Hawaiian cultural practitioners,or persons having knowledge of any such practitioners, who might be currently accessing the mauka portion of the ahuoua'a of Kukuau 1st South Hilo District Hawaii Island etc , was published in said newspaper on the following date:(s) June 4,11,18,2000 #138651 nave Nnv M WR? ~w]iM N111IF ]471WM1.'" 9MC/] 1]FIW ~e." M OG\ Subscribed and sworn to before me "°~"]-anp°M~Ma.~.'~aM-...~,-'".a4.e,..=,,,.,a, Ic ivua aaown. wwti awa..w4] aee.aw :m :Jrr. na...eec~vr . auN+4e ul"~a~WS..nc~ a rag. ]4a+ ~ se aee"e +1sea 4a r. ~4r w4,ay t4MnW GAy $,p"wMM. N4MMn aeaew~. M] 1W Guar (`np Ma 4]ecn Y N4 ea W a G4aa Mee - a o"ee4w Y w40w•0 eav nCwe a mna this 23rd day of June .2000 "pNe"r"'"M°"'"""°'""'°"""^-~'^'°^°°°'°°~"-" M a'w'i: G. 1lMM SW~e1 CMarne? aeLYa GMYYaI. illlu 1 w] Mn. i]l nYY4"4e AM_ 3Yle 1 W. Ma. al M r !'JI W-01,1:1]Y M. M4pq. Pm,ee4. ?tial. !e? nr4ar4e {w.. ai14 al !!:T ,lp, !{4f p; y ? 4CFIppw'F. amll MO G.Me YCYTA S J,a 4a WYa An4R? 1ypR h]e]tnnn pn4M. NMM,Ia+] LOp. M. {pl 1{anMee Yq, <~r, M H]e:. lCn Ml~. i1 r-i ~ C~ nr ea]MY enw w aewen]e In] Sua uno LM ~Y41eeW, a n"]]M? ]4 ~.4 ,~,1 ~ ~ ]ena• 4 ^e aere4 ~cNS crni a !qe a+Y Psc was iewp as ,,,?„n ya4, Ic:10 ]e/n. n :M "eM01 G.n"Nne iAM1 C]aGipl. a LyM6]en ww O rill SHARON H.P. OGATA „~G °:an 4e. {„.:,l...,e 4ev4,? , =,.ra^ ".era, M .sYw FJlve?~Mai WeaM X41. M W'+n pe^r0 taTpan YY?0 a]vY9 -aa~ ir,y . Notary Public Third Circuit State of Hawail '"'°""""°"""°"°'"0e'"^"°"°'"°°'=""""'°°'~„'wv0 , eewec-urowN4 azr?]can e]+newwvRaaamr«mnm. P]M5~-wr Trllaa+lrea: ' M N :I 0.'0001 My commission expires Report 2040-081300 6 - } WLUME 17. NVNIBEP 6 y ~ a."z`c a, Q ~ IUNE (AJNE) ~q h C ~ ~ ,p ~t Ci rt ` iC SRS ~ ~ s ~ A' R ~ a :~x ~„~x;, ~ k k~Y ~ R x 4 M y ~ A j3~ t L'L3~1A'!E'~awauaa'tulaaaCc` l°~ ~N'•- O~~_L4~t X SQi4Fnran nifk'm pcabaao~s~os ~ ~ dOC~eJf~><:----~~-~-+µ~~.~~ ) s .s', ~b -r {7~ar~kU+~,~.° Vl'.8ad~ ',aone~~bai, ~ aYReseuiees~Stau~His a"~ ~fLcmaul(a+pocgvu°~fsr ~yaa'n.~sioa.:K>ik~u6'ibewa^~Tdg.~->' the ahuyna~`a~o€,ICnkuau:ls~s'wt~,;., .K~SS~,kQlfiSem~laBi~~~ ~r~, iHiloDuhu~Hawa>iyislanaz . KEpola.;1~9670'~~808)~b'8~-8028: `sPecific~aA~,646-aa~undbya~ '~f~`~rapaioperty~ommtrhaspetmcner¢ i°Ped`'r'~~~&~~, „.dreS~ '~~~bmmustonroo -08:~au7uc~s' ,~paaxZ~ £ , ~ .ahe-Sa dl~.Ro""e("if~snd.drc r A' ~°vicuri£Ka4maaalC'ity8' ~x ilea ~sion;, (7mana Homesteads o ,Ihe'Ol tlgt'8t'lUIIleB~ ~"'COaNCCa~ w ~ 3 xr > `~t~~" ~-`~Npk mpf)SCS.t)~q(eLQSta~'d1eIC, > ; ~access~nd.nac~"ocaadtaona[ S ~ •4l` ps. -oivner~t~mtk~k8uepaci~,am~~x~ Mcustomacy o(tlaa~ipcacaces'..me:i' taF2lssess- sherebycregaesea~tocoatacG:oaao -mmt-~1}.pam"e~havm~nfor-' 'the foIlowa)g-'Cri.CRul~mi'Sbesta~d~~p• mation~ ~.shou~sapo,' ~vush~et#istyl ~CAIIImQalLxrfeSOOICe3.:(700TdlaSwaNp..~ ~`,(~0~ dS~S."f~,fh~,aDhCC End~W1F.1dC-°~ ~CC:O}3H8Wa11at11~ffa1i4i, ~1 ;Ie1CV8aG7~0IlII8hUII:iDSOIICSO~~1C -:J~' aWaiSnnenacAvr:;,Smoe104;Hilm,~s '~contac~pemethsve'~tfat>'`.~. 'HI967120~($b8)933-0418;;PavY,1~~ ::'sllk:(titmal,t~coaceinscaneha~~a8e: Rosendahl, prihc)Pa1; PHRI..'2043se.• ' gaatelg and aPP~YEdd~ssed3 Waiea(unucAve. Hilo,.HI96720;,. 1!% u~ "K ,s+ ~ si ~ M,a . APPENDIX H FUTURE MAJOR ROADWAY SYSTEM IN VICINITY OF NEWTON FAMILY LAND Future Major Roadway System in Vicinity of Newton Family Land The future major roadway system in the vicinity of the Newton Family land is shown in the Facilities Map of the Hawaii County General Plan. A copy of this map for the Hilo area is shown as Figure 1. The system includes: 1) the Saddle Road upgraded, 2) Puainako Street extended, 3) Ponohawai Street and/or Akolea Street extended, and 4) a planned secondary arterial on the approximate alignment of the old Ola'a Flume Road. Additional smaller roadways are shown on the Hawaii County's Road Alignments, Rights of Way, and Zoning Map. A copy this map in the vicinity of the Newton Family land is shown in Figure 2. The additional roadways shown are: 5) the extension of Wilder Road to the south and east and 6) a collector road to the north and east. In addition, Norman Hayashi of the County Planning Department and Galen Kuba of the County Public Works Department have been consulted on the future major road in the Hilo area. 1. Saddle Road Upgraded. This major roadway is in the process of being upgraded with Federal, State, and County funds. A Record of Decision (ROD) dated October 30, 1999 covering the improvements proposed for the Saddle Road indicates that in the vicinity of the Newton Family land, Alternative E-3 has been selected. Figure 3 is a portion of Figure 3.3.3 from the EIS for the Saddle Road project and shows the location of the alignment of ARernative E-3 in relation to the Newton Family land. Detailed design of this roadway is scheduled to commence in 2000. There are no funds as yet authorized for its construction. 2. Puainako Street Extension. A Final EIS for this extension project with a proposed 120-foot right-of-way has been completed and accepted. The roadway improvements are to be financed by Federal, County, and State funds. Altemative 10 has been identified as the preferred alternative and its approximate location is shown in Figure 4. This alternative was selected because it minimizes costs, minimizes adverse effects to the environmental resources and represents the "least environmentally damaging practicable -1- alternative" in terms of the Clean Water Act. Construction is projected to begin in 2000 and be completed in 2002. 3. Ponohawai Street and/or Akolea Street Extensions. Both of these extensions with 80-foot right-of-ways are shown either on the General Plan or the County Roadway Alignments maps and are subject to future availability of funds and/or subdivision of the lands that they may cross. When the land is subdivided, the provision of the right-of-way will be a condition of the subdivision process. Both facilities are to the east of the Newton Family land and are part of the major roadway system through the urban and agricultural area of Hilo. There is no definitive schedule for either of these extensions. 4. Secondary Arterial near the Old Ola'a Flume Road. This road will traverse the Newton Family land at the proposed location of the boundary between Conservation and Agriculture. The County will acquire the 80-foot wide right-of way from the Newton Family at the time of subdivision for the lots proposed in this petition. The funds for constructing this road may come from Federal, State, and County sources. The Newton Family contribution will be the 6+ acres (80' x 3300') needed for the right-of--way. There is no definitive schedule for the development of this secondary arterial. It should be noted that the County is currently updating its General Plan as part of its comprehensive 10-year revisions to the long-range planning document and is currently reconsidering the status of the secondary arterial as a planned road for the area. 5. Wilder Road Extension. This secondary arterial with an 80-foot wide right- of-way will be extended to the south and then to the east in accordance with the County's plans. The extension will take place at the time of subdivision of the land it will cross. There is no schedule for development of this extension. 6. Collector Road to the Nortfi. This 60-foot wide right-of-way would be provided at the time of subdivision of the land it crosses. 1t is planned to connect Akolea Street extended to the Saddle Road. There is no schedule for development of this collector road. -2- The proposed Newton Family subdivision will not rely on any of the above major roadways for access. The secondary arterial crossing the Newton Family parcel near the Old Ola'a Flume road would be at the west boundary of the proposed Agriculture reclassification. The Newton Family land to the west of the proposed roadway would remain in the Conservation District. JRB:gk Attachments Bett Collins Hawaii June 19, 2000 April 4, 2001 (Revised) -3- 6339700'003-/ r1.11.00 2 • I 1 ~ • ; . The Newton , Family Property / ~ ~ ~ II 1tl • J/ ~ .a. ~ ~ i / i • / ' ~ ~ • ~ ~ ~ i ~ i ~ ~ i . ~ ~ ~ ti ~ ~ t • L ~ - - ~ S 1.. t S~~ewrc0ul 1. ~ ' l~ ~ t 1. ~ 1. t x / ~t HILO ~ ~ ~ i~S~ ? J ~ ~~t ~ f~~ r Figure 1 FACILITIES MAP COUNTY OF HAWAII GENERAL PLAN 0 600 1?AO The Newton Family Property ® Hib, Hawaii NORTH SCALE IN FEET Bett Collins Hawaii 839,7MUb07.5 n.75.0~2 Q Cp~NTR o 1 P ~ N Q D ~ I N O 0 D D ~ N ~ D d ~ - ~ 1, r ~ N O ~ p 1 r f ~ r'- N D t r 40 V t ..1 r / P . . UI{t~l r ' ID St , ' W . N 1 ~ 70 ~ ~ O;, O D N ro c p e 1 * v' ~ o % a ~ O ~ o 9 Vl :1 _ r ' G Figure 2 ROAD ALIGNMENTS, RIGHTS-OF-WAY AND ® ZONING MAP- COUNTY OF HAWAII 0 600 7200 The Newton Family Property ® Hib, Hawaii NOFlTH SCALE IN FEET Batt Colline Hawaii &73.370610012 n.1l.002 MOIE -d-01 1NM"N NOTE Wq3 (aCN11m iNh 7-1-07-1 lm tr"~"~R u~o • z-ale- ww, ooNF.- unm dN77w7 a o7rmr nec z-aol-a NNN. OONi: wrFD c~zNO7 of a71ar (e6. a 7MleR AYN41~ r171e :-s-o1-n suae ~ NNMII (7eow16 swrt) srAre of www me z-e-1a-1 nuc z-s-rra ADDLE ROAD) , :<ue a` NNW EX_4A rule z-a-1a-1O sr~re a NNI 1 ~ z-s-0r-z sere a NMN 7WRN NG SUGW, ?-S-Ot-1 rrc z-~-ae-1 wuw Ku suraR we i I' nuc: z-5-6t-~ y~ro6ug YiG OF . Zy~ The Newton Family Property Figure 3 ® FIGUAE 3.3.3 OF SADDLE ROAD EIS The Newton Fernfly properly • Hiio, Hawed NORTH Belt Collins Hawaii 833.9)Ola403.1 ~B./8.00 Q uct.AV+...,. Q . - 7H PAOiIC Q p paµ K A c~ HAWAIIAN ISLANDS ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' K~,W LOCATION MAP ~ N~TM • ~ ~ ~ 8 ~ v noxrn nKO e nAUAKUA PROJECT . ' 4 LOCATION HQtTI 1(ONA sang nLO . ~ ~ ~ w. W. .i°~~ .l sauna KQIA PWA NAU ~ hl~ • -Y IMIIfI ~f¢ I %1. i y. ~ , sr _ LY_ . a--' . °fP°~ r . ~ 1 ~ i_..O • - ~ r~ _ A' r ~ S.r. T _ T / _ I 'i'_l ~ljK~~~~'r' c~ /i f'~• ~ _ ~ P~O`M~A., 1 t ~ p ~ a t PPER.'P 'fK~i e=4 V , _ ~r ALTERNATIVE ` _ ALIGNMENT #10 ` ! UPPER PORTION The Newton ~ LIGf~ ENT ,M Family Property PER Pp,~T_ ,a ~ M s ~ - ~ - ~ ~ Date of Source. Apnl 2000 Figure 4 ® PUAINAKO STREET EXTENSION 0 1000 2000 The Newton Family Property Hilo, Hawaii NORTH SCALE IN FEET Belt Collins Hawaii P N JAMES R. BELL RESUME BELT COLLINS JAMBS R. BELL Chairtmn, BCA Holding Company, Ltd. The Chaimtao of BCA Holdity{ Company, Ltd. has been with the firm fm [rate that[ 20 year and has over 30 years of intertu[iotul experience in land use planning, masts plan stadia, nice planning, acrd management of Verge multi•diacipline projav. Hia planning and management expertise includn deviled land planning fm implemenvtion of development; resort planning and development city, county, and regional Planning; urban renewal, Pula std tourism planning: toning, subdivision and other development permitting: and mwter planning for educational facilities. Mr. Bell's aucceasful experience with major clirna sod projects in Hawaii and around the world demonarntea the high avndards set for all work of the firm. E%PERTISE Detailed Land Planning for lmplemenvtion of EtXJC~TtO>r M., Regional Planning, Cornell University, New York, 1957 Development B.S., Land Planning, Cortaell Ufaiversity, 1956 Resort Planning and Development RECISIRATION Landscape Architect • Hawaii x2786, 1971 City, County and Regional Planning PROFESSIONAL A6flLIAT10Ns American Planning Association (Officer, 1968 - 1974) Urban Renewal, Parka and Urban Land Itutitute American Institute of Certified Plannea Tourism Plarming Chamber of Commerce of Hawaii (Dirator) Fellow American Society aF Landscape Archiacn Zoning, Subdivision, sod Ocher Developmen[ SELECTED PRO)ECfS Permirting 1 sod 1 Plan.+inaAlrba., Plan„ino School Maarer Planing Amfac Ninini Point Land Planning, Kauai, Hawaii Gmpbellrown Pxpamion Plan, Ausmlia Davies Kukeiau end Hemakua Land Planning, Hamakua, Hawaii Hilo Downtown Redevelopment Plan, Hawaii Kohals Ranch Plan, Hilton Head Co., North Kohala, Hawaii Land Uae En[itlemenu for Hamakua Sugar Lands, Hawaii Resor Develooment Keauhou Resort Expetuion Plan, Kona, Island of Hawaii Mauro Kee Beach Aeaort, Island of Hawaii Mauna Lani Resort, South Kohda, Island of Hawaii m unity Dev loom nt Dixovery Bay Development, Hong Kong Haleakala Ranch Piilani Plan, Maui, Hawaii Knudsen Trusts Poipu•Koba Master Planning, Kauai, Hawaii Mililani Town Development, Oahu, Hawaii South Padrc Island Master Plan, Padrc Island, Texas Taman Dayu, Surabaya, Indonesia BELT COLLINS LAMES R. BELL Chairman SELECTED PROJECTS, SBmmuoifac.ikxsloDmrot contitured... Diacovuy Bay Development, Horre Kong Haleakala Rarrch PiiLvni Plan, Maui. Hawaii Knudren Trues Poipu-Koloa Mauer Planning, Kawi, Hawaii Mililsni Toren Development, Oaten, Hawaii South Padre lahnd Master Plan, Padre Island, Texas Taman Dayu, SiaahaYa, Indorwia Mid-Pacific lnatimrc Cempru Masrcr Plan, Honolulu, Hawaii Kamehameha Schoob Campo Plan, Honolulu, Hawaii Hawaii Prepawtorq Academy Campo Plan. Hawaii Punahou School Physical Education Facilitier Plan, Honolulu, Hawaii 4. LOCATION MAPS LUPAG MAP AND ACCESS PLAN eava~ovam-t .ats.os s To Flonokee HILO • lsuwo of HAwal m m Fro Kaurnane City _ SubdNision Hll o. 9a y Wat~en`egye THE NEWTON FAMILY ~ Ho ~ ~°~9~9oc PROPERTY ~ Hib ~ Irrtemetbnal arport Wilder Hoed r ~ PRQIECT ' H I LO ~ Weiakea r Homesteads r Future--.r Secondary r Arterial ~ ~ Z r £ ~d ~ Stalnback Road r r ~ r $ o ~ m 7o Hewell w,k:enoea r 'g 1 Netbnal Perk LOCATION MAP ® o sooo to.ooo ts.ooo y~ y~~ The Newton Fami'bP Hawaii BCnr,9~108 NORTH SCALE IN FEi- ~ Beft Cdlins Hawaii i ,\`l''l' , I / 833.9701A09.1 ~8.15A53 Ir i r ~ ~ o~'P~ / ~ f' 1, { ~~Y ~ ~ t~ ` T _ j } ) a / ly c Z5a f i 1, ~ i,~ `I'~ ,'/5 ;~i~_ v > ~ < cv f ~ yam.; ~ ` l<~ p l _ \v!I ~~'1J. it ~1 'Irr ~ i ~~~r 'd- i .aft'/~~~ /V F,`j~l( \ ~~~i r ~IJ~ fit:,, ~i~\\~~~ r~.`\ .~_I i~'i rd r v I ~ / V ~ ~ ~ l ~ k i .S • .f ~ / 1 _I fib' L ~ 1)y~~ ~~^\v3t t.. \ !~~1. 'l' iT r'/~ yJ _.r _j ^Ji= 1~J4 .J~ lf_ .'L ~ l _ { vii V r ~ .!l ~.J r\ F ' t. ti rJ ..t-" _ 5 ~ \ _i y.. ~;~V tie - / i , < \ N LL y J - ? ~ Vim'` $ 1 ~ LL 4 i' \ / .J 'l` 'rte h - ~ _ / ° R Y ' Z 7~ cS K Page 1 of 1 :.r r~ ' r ~.~;r =F~~ _a- x ~ ~ ~ ~ t~~: ,r a*fi > , ~ Mn , ,a, ~ _ ;r" $ r~ y ~ ay '~..c. ~"n.''.: _ s~Y ;~~t y- r JiKx,} J} .tT ~ ~ Y S_j~ lY_ 4 e Y.`: ~~i~ ~ ~ Y ~C yy~~V~ Y4 ~3'x,-,r ~v;t,~ Asa.. ~4~~x-~' ~.Y` ~^',e~.. ~ r may. ham. ~ 'c+} 'S' r _ r x `h:~ ~ 'ti'p: n F Y sn ~F "„ter ^,a?: ty :'S . `til[ -:<:;z'`' _ _ _r;a~~},r,;,r fi~ - - Pp ' . ~"~'3' a e ~i ~ ~~r^•N•........ ........r., /..e..ornl r.lan rov/rnvicinn/mane/h man/e o/7f16il.,OJ 7l1Z ']/71 /~1MC 0008.33.3701A01-t ~8.15A52 g m r SHgE d ao ~YW N ~ ~ W ~ _ V ~ r i ~ a W I~ O ~ ~~J g ~ ~ I E I r ~ S g I '0~'b,~~ ~ _ s I I I ~ I g m I 3¢ I~ I z a c° ~ ~ I I ~ ~ I ~ Vc / m = y 1 W ~i ~I j ~m ~I ~ •i Iii ~ ~ L ~ a I~ E lL i,,~ ~ z ~ ~ E ~3 ~ ~;i ~ ~ ~ ° .~i ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ I z I~~ ~ W . ray 5. PROPOSED FAMILY SUBDIVISION p ~9~J _ > ,oc- ~ n,. O ~q E ~ . r P ~ LL _ i ~ ~ ~ 1 L_ l _.r , . . , , ~~1 r•s`i~ i ~ . ~ S~~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ : l ~I r T ~ ~ l!'y\ ~ -p \ ~ ` ~I / \ ~ /1~.` tom./,~~ ~~/1 H _ --~i~~ tom,: \ i / ` y J DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS COUNTY OF HAWAII HILO, HAWAII DATE: October 11, 2005 Memorandum TO: Christopher J. Yuen, Planning Director FROM: Department of Public Works SUBJECT: CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION (REZ 05-017) Applicant: The Newton Family Limited Partnership Request: Unzoned to A-80a Tax Map Key: 2~1-08: por. of 033 We have reviewed the subject application forwarded by your memo dated September 6, 2005 and offer the following comments for your consideration. The proposed subdivision road shall conform to Chapter 23, Subdivisions, of the Hawaii County Code. All development-generated runoff shall be disposed of on site and shall not be directed toward any adjacent properties. A drainage study shall be prepared and the recommended drainage system shall be constructed meeting the approval of the DPW. All earthwork activity, including grading and grubbing, shall conform to Chapter 10, Erosion and Sedimentation Control, of the Hawaii County Code. For areas intended for agricultural use, the applicant should consult with the Natural Resources Conservation Service, formally known as the Soil Conservation Service. Streetlights and traffic control devices shall be installed as required by the Traffic Division, Department of Public Works. The applicant shall be responsible for the design, purchase, and installation of such devices. Questions may be referred to Kelly Gomes of our Engineering Division at ext. 8327. KG EX-~_ e``, az w~re~rB~^'` li ri DEPARTMENT OF WATER SUPPLY COUNTY OF HAWAII ?~,~NJw~~~'*, 345 KEKOANAB'A STREET, 9UfTE 20 HILO, HAWAI'1 96720 TELEPHONE (808) 981-8050 FA%(808) 981.8857.~~! ri I~ . _ October 3, 2005 TO: Mr. Christopher J. Yuen, Planning Duector Planning Departrnent FROM: Milton D. Pavao, Manager SUBJECT: CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION (REZ OS-Ol'n REQUEST: UNZONED TO A-80A APPLICANT -THE NEWTON FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP TAX MAP KEY 2-4-OOS:PORTION OF 033 We have reviewed the subject application for a change of zone and have the following comments. Please be informed that water is limited to a maximum of seven lots, or units, of water at a maximum of 4,200 gallons per day and would require approximately 3,500 feet of 4-inch waterline from the end of the existing 8-inch waterline along Wilder Road to the property. Pursuant to the Department's existing water availability conditions for this area, which aze subject to change, 5,400 gallons of water per day for 8 residential lots is not available fot.the subject change of zone request at this time. Extensive improvements and additions, including storage, transmission waterlines, booster pumps, and distribution facilities, must be constructed. Currently, sufficient funding is not available and no time schedule is set. Should there be any questions, please call Ms. Shan Komata of our Water Resources and Planning Branch at 961-8070, extension 252. Sincerely yours, ' ton D. Pavao, P.E. Manager SHK:dms copy - Belt Collins Hawaii Ltd. ~0~031 The Newton Family Limited P~artn/ership EXHIBIT UUater drirz~~ proc~re~~... The Department of Water SupWy is an Equal Opportunity provitler antl empbyer. To file a complaint of discrimina0on, write: USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rignts, Room 326-W, Whitten 8uikling, 1401 end Intlependence Avenue, SW, Washingbn DC 20250-94t0. Or call (202) 720-5964 (voice antl TDD) r, BeltColtins ~ November 2, 2005 Ta 633-3701/OSA-399 ~ ~ Mr. Christopher 3. Yuen, Director Planning Departrnent County of Hawaii 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3 Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Dear Mr. Yuen: Change of Zone Application (REZ OS-017) The Newton Family Limited Partnership TMK: 2~-g: Por. 33. SouthHilo.:Hawaii In regard to the Hawaii County Department of Water Supply (DWS) memorandum to you of October 3, 2005, we submit the following response on behalf of the Newton Family Limited Partnership, owner of the property. Honolulu In a follow-up telephone call to the County DWS, it was confirmed that DWS would approve Gu.m up to seven units of water (for seven lots) at a maximum of 4,200 gallons per day for the proposed "°"g "°"9 Newton family subdivision. The applicant would be required to connect with the DWS water system Phlnppn°: seams along Wilder Road. singapore Thsllsntl The eighth lot in the Newton subdivision would require possible off-site improvements of modification of water usage by the subdivision. During the subdivision application review process, the owner will work with DWS to determine the needs for obtaining water allocation approval for the last lot. We trust this response adequately addresses the cottcems of the'Deplarttnent of Water Supply. Should there be any questions regazding the above, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely yours, BELT COLLINS H~A~WA~II~LTD. es R. Bell 'r41 JRB:GTK:gk Q~'~ cc: Milton D. Pavao, Manager, County DWS The Newton Family Limited Partnership Batt Collins Hawaii LM. 2153 Nonh King Street, Suae Z00 . Honolulu. Hawaii 98819 USA TJ808 521 5381 ° FI808 538 7819 ° Aanolulu~bellcolline.com . www.beltcolline.com Batt Collins Newell b an EquY GPVOnuMIY EmpbyM Harry Kim ~ Darryl J. Oliveira Mayor F4t Chk/ ~;~.w,~~;,:° Desmond K. Wery yl~bF4c Chtef ' FIRE DEPARTMENT 25 Aupunl Street • Sulte 103 • Hilo, Hawaf`I 96720 (808) 961-8297 • Faz (608) 961-8296 September 12, 2005 TO: CHRISTOPHER J. YUEN, PLANNING DIRECTOR FROM: DARRYL OLTVEIRA, FIItE CHIEF SUBJECT: CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION (REZ OS-017) APPLICANT: THE NEWTON FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP REQUEST: UNZONED TO A-80a TAX MAP KEY: 2-4-8:por. 33 In regards to the above-mentioned Change of Zone application, the following shall be in accordance: Fire apparatus access roads shall be in accordance with UFC Section 10.207: "Fire Apparatus Access Roads "Sec. 10.207. (a) General. Fire apparatus access roads shall be provided and maintained in accordance with the provisions of this section. "(b) Where Required. Fire apparatus access roads shall be required for every building hereafter constructed when any portion of an exterior wall of the fast story is located more than I50 feet from fire department vehicle access as measured by an unobstructed mute around the exterior of the building. "EXCEPTIONS: 1. When buildings are completely protected with an approved automatic fire sprinkler system, the provisions of this section may be modified. " 2. When access roadways cannot be installed due to topography, waterways, nonnegotiable grades or other similar conditions, the chief may require additional fire protection as specified in Section 10.301 (b). DEBIT SOS®20 = P,1 t:a~ HavMi'i Caunly is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer. Christopher J. Yuen September 12, 2005 Page 2 " 3. When there are not more than two Group R, Division 3 or Group M Occupancies, the requirements of this section may be modified, provided, in the opinion of the chief, fire-fighting or rescue operations would not be impaired. "More than one fire apparatus road may be required when it is determined by, the chief that access by a single road maybe impaired by vehicle congestion, condition of terrain, climatic conditions or other factors that could limit access. "For high-piled combustible storage, see Section 81.109. "(c) Width. The unobstructed width of a fire apparatus access mad shall meet the requirements of the appropriate county jurisdiction. "(d) Vertical Clearance. Fire apparatus access roads shall have an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet 6 inches. "EXCEPTION: Upon approval vertical clearance may be reduced, provided such reduction does not impair access by fire apparatus and approved signs are installed and maintained indicating the established vertical clearance. "(e) Permissible Modifications. Vertical clearances or widths required by this section may be increased when, in the opinion of the chief, vertical clearances or widths are not adequate to provide fire apparatus access. "(fJ Surface. Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of fire apparatus and shall be provided with a surface so as to provide all- weather driving capabilities." (20 tons) "(g) Turning Radius. The fuming radius of a fire apparatus access road shall be as approved by the chief." (45 feet) "(h) Turnarounds. All dead-end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided with approved provisions for the fuming around of fire apparatus. "(i) Bridges. When a bridge is required to be used as access under this section, it shall be constructed and maintained in accordance with the applicable sections of the Building. Code and using designed live loading sufficient to carry the imposed loads of fire apparatus. "(j) Grade. The gradient for a fine apparatus access road shall not exceed the maximum approved by the chief." (15%) Christopher J. Yuen September 12, 2005 Page 3 "(k) Obstruction. The required width of any fire apparatus access road shall not be obstructed in any manner, including pazking of vehicles. Minimum required widths and clearances established under this section shall be maintained at all times. "(1) Signs. When required by the fire chief, approved signs or other approved notices shall be provided and maintained for fire apparatus access roads to identify such roads and prohibit the obstruction thereof or both." Water supply shall be in accordance with UFC Section 10.301(c): "(c) Water Supply. An approved water supply capable of supplying required fire flow for fire protection shall be provided to all premises upon which buildings or portions of buildings are hereafter constructed, in accordance with the respective county water requirements. There shall be provided, when required by the chief, on-site fire hydrants and mains capable of supplying the required fire flow. "Water supply may consist of reservoirs, pressure tanks, elevated tanks, water mains or other fixed systems capable of providing the required fire flow. "The location, number and type of fire hydrants connected to a water supply capable of delivering the required fire flow shall be protected as set forth by the respective county water requirements. All hydrants shall be accessible to the fire department apparatus by roadways meeting the requirements of Section 10.207. U~1R---- A1tR OLIVEIRA Fire Chief JCPapc 1~ 01 M1 q? lppp T LINDA LINOLE ! CNIYOME L. FUKINO, M.D. GOVERNOR D~gECTOq DF HE~L111 STATE OF HAWAII. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH P.O. BOX 916 HILO, HAWAII %721.0916 MEMORANDUM DATE: September 16, 2005 TO: Christopher J. Yuen Planning Director, County of Hawaii FROM: Aazon A. Ueno District Environmental Health Program Chief SUBJECT: Change of Zone Application (REZ OS-017) Applicant: The Newton Family Limited Partnership Request: Unzoned to A-80a TMK: 2-4-S:por. 33 The Department of Health (DOH), Clean Water Branch (CWB), acknowledges receipt of the subject document on September 6, 2005. The CWB has reviewed the limited information contained in the subject document and offers the following comments: 1. The Army Corps of Engineers should be contacted at (808) 438-9258 for this project. Pursuant to Federal Water Pollution Control Act (commonly known as the "Clean Water Act" (CWA)), Paragraph 401(a)(1), a Section 401 Water Quality Certification (WQC) is required for "[a]ny applicant for Federal license or permit to conduct any activity including, but not limited to, the construction or operation of facilities, which may result in any discharge into the navigable waters...". The term "discharge" is defined in CWA, Subsections 502(16), 502(12), and 502(6); Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 122.2, and Hawaii Administrative Rules (HAR), Chapter 11-54. 2. In accordance with HAR, Sections 11-55-04 and 11-55-34.05, the Director of Health may require the submittal of an individual permit application or a Notice of Intent (NOI) for general permit coverage authorized under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). a. An application for an NPDES individual permit is to be submitted at least 180 days before the commencement of the respective activities. ~p53~~ EX BIT Planning Director, County of Hawaii Page 2 September 16, 2005 The NPDES application forms may also be picked up at our office or downloaded from our website at htto://www.hawaii. pov/health/enviromnental/water/cleanwater/form s/i ndiv-index.html. b. An NOI to be covered by an NPDES general permit is to be submitted at least 30 days before the commencement of the respective activity. A sepazate NOI is needed for coverage under each NPDES general permit. The NOI forms may be picked up at our office or downloaded from our website at: htta:/lwww.hawaii.govfhealthlenvironmentallwaterlcleanwater/formsle enl-index.html. i. Storm water associated with industrial activities, as defined in Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Sections 122.26(b)(14)(i) through 122.26(b)(14)(ix) and 122.26(b)(14)(xi). [HAR, Chapter 11-55, Appendix B] ii. Construction activities, including clearing, grading, and excavation, that result in the disturbance of equal to or greater than one (I) acre of total land area. The total land area includes a contiguous area where multiple separate and distinct construction activities may be taking place at different times on different schedules under a lazger common plan of development or sale. An NPAES permit is required before the commencement of the construction activities. [HAR, Chapter 11-55, Appendix c] iii. Dischazges of treated effluent from leaking underground storage tank remedial activities. [HAR, Chapter 11-55, Appendix D] iv. Discharges of once through cooling water less than one (1) million gallons per day. [HAR, Chapter I 1-55, Appendix E] v. Dischazges of hydrotesting water. [HAR, Chapter 11-55, Appendix F] Planning Director, County of Hawaii Page 3 September 16, 2005 vi. Discharges of construction dewatering effluent. [HAR, Chapter 11-55, Appendix G] vii. Dischazges of treated effluent from petroleum bulk stations and terminals. [HAR, Chapter 11-55, Appendix H] viii. Discharges of treated effluent from well drilling activities. [HAR, Chapter 11-55, Appendix I] ix. Discharges of treated effluent from recycled water distribution systems. [HAR, Chapter 11-55, Appendix J] x. Discharges of storm water from a small municipal separate storm sewer system. [HAR, Chapter 11-55, Appendix K] xi. Dischazges of circulation water from decorative ponds or tanks. [HAR, Chapter 1 I-55, Appendix L] 3. In accordance with HAR, Section 11-55-38, the applicant for an NPDES permit is required to either submit a copy of the new NOI or NPDES permit application to the State Department of Land and Natural Resources, State Historic Preservation Division (SHPD), or demonstrate to the satisfaction of the DOH that the project, activity, or site covered by the NOI or application has been or is being reviewed by SHPD. If applicable, please submit a copy of the request for review by SHPD or SHPD's determination letter for the project. 4. Any dischazges related to project construction or operation activities, with or without a Section 401 WQC or NPDES permit coverage, shall comply with the applicable State Water Quality Standazds as specified in HAR, Chapter 11-54. Hawaii Revised Statutes, Subsection 342D-50(a) requires that "[n]o person, including any public body, shall discharge any water pollutants into state waters, or cause or allow any water pollutant to enter state waters except incompliance with this chapter, rules adopted pursuant to this chapter, or a permit or variance issued by the director." If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Alec Wong, Supervisor of the Engineering Section, CWB, at (808) 586-4309. woxn:xez os-on.a~ BeltCollias ~ ' , September 23, 2005 OSA-315/633-3701 Mr. Christopher J. Yuen, Duector Planning Departrntmt County of Ilawaii 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3 Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Dear Mr. Yuen; Change of Zone Application (REZ OS-017) The Newton Family Limited Partnership TMK: 2-4-8: Por. 33. South Hilo. Hawaii In regard to the State Department of Health (DOH), Clean Water Branch, memorandum of September 16, 2005, we submit the following response: 1. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers was contacted about the project during the environmental assessment preparation stage. During that process, no navigable waters Honaafu of the U.S. on or near the Newton Family property were identified. Gaam Hong Kong 2. Should work on the planned subdivision require a Nations] Pollutant Discharge a""'pp'^ea Elimination System (NPDES) Permit or Notice of Intent (NOn, the owner will comply seam' Sinpepore with Hawaii Administrative Rules (HAR), Sections 11-55-04 and 11-55-34.05, and file rn.ibnd the necessary application for the required permit. 3. If an NPDES Permit or NOI is required, a copy of the application or notice will be submitted to the State Department of Land and Natural Resources, State Historic Preservation Division, for review. 4. Any discharges relating to project construction or operation activities will comply with applicable State Water Quality Standards as specified in HAR, Chapter I 1-54. We trust this response adequately addresses the concerns of the State DOH, Clean Water Branch. Should there be any questions regarding the above, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely yours, BELT COLLINS HAWAII LTD. J es R. Bell QOS~j53 JRB:gk cc: Aaron A. Ueno, DOH, District Environmental Health Program The Newton Family Limited Partnership Belt Collins Hawaii Ltd. 2153 NoM King Sleet, Suite 200 . Honolulu, Hawaii %879 USA Tllia6 521 5361 . FlBOB 538 7918 . twnolulu®beltcol8ns.com • www.beltcollins.com Batt CotlMa Mawali is an EQUaI Opponuniry Employer LINGA LINGLE i ~ e r x, ANniONY J.N. CHING GOVERNOR : r ~o syo~ % E%ECUTIVE OFFICER ~Rp. STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT & TOURISM LAND USE COMMISSION : - P.O. Box 2359 - . Honolul0. Hawaii 96804.2359 Telephone; 806-587-3822 Fez' BOB-587-3827 September 19, 2005 Mr. Christopher Yuen, Director Planning Department County of Hawaii 101 Pauahi Street Hilo, Hawaii 96720-3043 Dear Mr. Yuen: Subject: Change of Zone Application (REZ 05-017) Applicant: The Newton Family Limited Partnership Request: Unzoned to A-80a Tax Map Key: 2-4-008: 033 (por.) We have reviewed the subject application for the request forwazded by your correspondence dated September 6, 2005, and confirm that the subject parcel is within the State Land Use Agricultural District. We note that the Applicant`s Change of Zone Application is consistent with the Applicants previous representations made to the Land Use Commission in LUC Docket No. A49-729 recJ.acsifving the Petition Area from the State Lana Use Conservation District to the State Land Use Agricultural District. Given the location, scope, and nature of the proposed activity, the State Land Use Commission defers to the judgment of the County of Hawaii regarding other matters in the application. We have no further comments to offer at this time. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the subject application. Please feel free to contact Max Rogers of my office at 587-3822 if you have any questions or need clarification. Sincerely, a3U560~ I ANTHONY J. H ~ EXH~IT Executive Office i s 'S{Irr h~i BeltCollies j November 1, 2005 633-3701lOSA-398 Mr. Christopher J. Yuen, Director Planning Department County of Hawaii 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3 Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Dear Mr. Yuen: Change of Zone Application (REZ OS-017) The Newton Family Limited Partnership TMK: 2-4-8: Por. 33. South Hilo. Hawaii In regard to the Hawaii County Department of Public Works memorandum of October 11, 2005 to you, we submit the following response on behalf of the Newton Family Honplulu Limited Partnership, owner of the property. ~°°m Hong Kong Philippines The new road for the proposed subdivision will be private and will conform to the s°°,g° private road requirements of Chapter 23, Subdivision, of the Hawaii County Code. sl~gep°~ Theilantl A County approved drainage system will be installed, and all development generated runoff will be disposed of onsite and not directed toward adjacent properties. All earthwork, including grading and grubbing within the subdivision, will conform to Chapter 10, Erosion and Sedimentation Control, of the Hawaii Gounty Code. We have discussed potential uses of the Newton Family property with the Naturai Resources Conservation Service and have noted in the applicant's Environmental Assessment the agency's suggestions on what could be done to improve the soil's productive use. Regarding streetlights and traffic control devices for the subdivision, the applicant will install the necessary improvements as required by the Hawaii County Code for the applicant's private road connection with the County's Wilder Road right-of--way. Along the subdivision's access and internal road section, private mad standards will be used. ©e;~z23 a~ mine Hawaii EXHIBIT 2153 North King S6eel, SuHe 200 a Hondulu, Heweii 95819 USA T/505 521 5351 a F/505 535 7819 a honolulu~bellcd9na.com . www.beltcollina.com Bak Cdllne Hew.li h en Equal OPpor4nY1Y Errpbyer Mr. Christopher J. Yuen November 1, 2005 - OSA-398 Page 2 We trust this response adequately addresses the concerns of the Depaztment of Public Works. Should there be any questions regazding the above, please do not ~esitate to contact me. Sincerely yours, BELT COLLINS HAWAII LTD. ~rfies R. Bell GTK:JRB:gk cc: Hawaii County Department of Public Works The Newton Family Limited Partnership RNew[onREZ.doc -l l/15/05 COUNTY OF HAWAII PLANNING DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION NEWTON FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION (REZ OS-Ol'n Upon careful review of the request against the guidelines for granting a change of zone, the Planning Director is recommending that a favorable recommendation for a Change of Zone from Unzoned to Agricultural 80-acre (A-80a) for approximately 885.4 acres of land be forwarded to the County Council. Since this recommendation is made without the benefit of public testimony, the Director reserves the right to modify and/or alter this position. This favorable rewmmendation is based on the following findmgs: The applicants are requesting a Change of Zone from Unzoned to Agricultura180- acre (A-80a) for approximately 885.4 acres of land to subdivide the project area into eight lots ranging in size from 80 to 153 acres. The proposed subdivision is intended primarily for use by members of the Newton family as part of their estate planning. Five of the proposed lots will be for the Newton family, and the three remaining lots will be sold to non-family members at fair market value. The remaining 760.42-acre mauka portion of the property, which is not part of the application, will remain in the State Land Use Conservation district. Structural improvements would include up to eight dwellings within the project azea. Agricultural activities will be for personal and limited commercial use. Potential limited agricultural activities include vegetable gardens, citrus orchards, fruit or nut tree groves, greenhouse plant and flower nurseries, pasture or grazing. No lazge scale agricultural production or operations are planned. The project azea was reclassified from the Conservation to the Agricultural district under the State Land Use Commission's Docket No. A99-724 on November 16, 2001. In order to consider an azea for any type of zoning designation, the applicable goals, policies and standards of the General Plan must be adequately addressed. It is only through such a comprehensive policy analysis approach that evaluations and decisions can be made to better time and stage developments to achieve growth determined by the -1- General Plan and related planning documents. The implications of these evaluations and decisions must be also considered as they may have an impact on similar areas in the County. The Change ofZone request from Unzoned to Agricultura180-acre (A-80a) district will conform to the goals, policies and standazds of the General Plan Economic and l.,and Use elements. The Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG) Map component of the General Plan is a representation of the document's goals and policies to guide the coordinated growth and development of the County. It reflects a graphic depiction of the physical relationship among the various land uses. The LUPAG Map establishes the basic urban and non-urban form for areas within the County. The subject area is designated Extensive Agricultural. Soils within the project azea aze identified as rKGD, Keei extreme]y rocky muck, 6 to 20 per cent slopes. This soil consists of well- drained, thin organic material, very dark brown muck up to about 10 inches thick overlying pahoehoe lava bedrock. Permeability is slow; but water moves rapidly through the cracks. 7'he Land Study Bureau's Detailed Land Classification System identifies soils in the project area as "D" or "Poor" for the majority of the pazcel, with "I:" or "Very Poar" on the northeastern portion of the project area. The project azea is Unclassified by the A~icultural Lands in the State of Hawaii (ALISH) System. The Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood lnsutance Rate Map (FIRM) designates the project azea as Zone "X", an area determined to be outside of the 500-yeaz flood plain. The project area is approximately 885.40 acres and is a portion of an approximately 1,645.823-acre parcel. The project area, located between the 1,420-foot to approximately the 1,950-foot elevation, was previously used for sugaz cane and grazing in the eazly 1900's, is vacant and primarily in forest and heavy shrub vegetafion. The average slope is approximately five to ten percent. The project site does not have any gulches or major drainageways. A modest amount of grazing occurs on the project azea by cattle from adjacent lands. A 150-foot wide utility easement runs partially along the northern boundary of the project area. This easement. serves the 20-acre HELCO site located adjacent to the makai boundary of the project area. The Puna Sugaz Company, -2- Ltd., formerly known as Olaa Sugar Company, is the current holder of aright-of--way for a flume located in the project area at approximately the; 1,950-foot elevation. The abandoned flume and the dirt road which pazallels the route of the flume (commonly known as the Olaa Flume Road) is located near the mauka boundary of the project azea. The Ola'a fhune system establishes the approximate boundary between the Conservation and Agricultural districts. Surrounding lands to the north and northeast aze zoned A-20a, and lands to the south and west of the site are vacant, not zoned and in 1;he State Land Use Conservation district. The area is characterized by large pazcels of agricultural lands, open space, forest reserves, and rural residences. Thus, the proposed subdivision would be compatible with the chazacter of lands located within the immediate area. A condition will be included to incorporate covenants restricting the construction of second dwelling units on each subdivided int. The proposed access to the project area is from Wilder Road, atwo-lane, 24-foot wide paved County road which extends from Kaumana Drive to an existing 40-foot wide access easement (Easement 107). The applicants have provided documentation identifying the easement to the property for access road purposes. Wilder Road is located approximately 3,000 feet below the project site. Easement 107 extends southwesterly approximately 2,900 feet over the flag portion of a private parcel and HELCO's pazcel, and into the project area. This access is unimproved, overgrown with vegetation, and will require the construction of a road. HF.LCO, as well as the private landowner, have given preliminary consent to use their properties for access to the site. The Ola'a flume system has been determined to lbe eligible for the Nafional Register of Historic Places under Criterion D (a site that has yielded, or is likely to yield, information important in local history). However, it has yet to be nominated for placement within the National Register. The proposed :;ubdivision will be designed to respect the alignment of the flume system. Paul H. Rosendahl, Ph.D., Inc. (PHRI) conducted inspection level field work on the project site, and no azchaeological or cultural sites or features were discovered. According to PHRI, based on the historical -3- sugarcane cultivation on the project site, significant azchaeological/historical sites are unlikely to have survived. The applicants have requested a "no effect" letter from the State Department of land and Natural Resources Historic Preservation Division. PHRI consulted with individuals recognized by the local native Hawaiian community as knowledgeable in various aspects of traditional Hawaiian culture, and no valued cultural or natural resources were identified on the project site and there aze no traditional and customary Native Hawaiian rights being practiced on the site According to the applicants, the Ola'a flume system establishes a particular boundary between areas of significance for flora as well as fauna species. Rana Productions. Ltd. conducted a fauna survey in Mazch, 1998. There were a total of 12 bird species or which nine were alien, two were endemic, and one was considered an indigenous migratory species. The Hawaiian Hawk and the Hawaiian Hoazy Bat were sighted on the property. The survey concluded that because the estimated area of clearing and improvements would comprise approximately 5% of the site, any further cleazing or improvements on the site is not anticipated to have a significant impact on nafive or federally protected avian or mammalian species. No U.S. Fish and. Wildlife Services protected species were located in the project area, which is dominated by alien species and was used in the past for amazing and possibly logging. In addition, azeas in the project area where wetland vegetation indicator species were identified were not lazge enough to require planning considerations. Palmer and Associates Consulting conducted a botanical survey in Mazch/April 1998. Two kipukas were identified on the project site. One, located in the southeastern portion of the project area, was highly disturbed and dominated by alien species and thus, not significant. The survey concluded that it had a low probability of supporting U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) designated or listed plants. The second kipuka, located west or mauka of the first kipuka, was not disturbed as much and did not contain many alien species. The survey concluded that it had the potential to support listed plants. On the old lava flows which occupy the project azea, lowland wet forest, old Montane wet Forest, Montane wet sedgelands and Montane wet mixed communities were -4- identified. 1`he lowland wet forest, which occurs in the lower portion of the project area, is heavily int ested with strawberry guava and shows the effects of many yeazs of human impact. The botanical survey concluded that "most of the makai portion of the property (project areal below the Ola'a Flume Road is disturbed and infested with alien species, and has a relatively low potential to support rare and endangered plants." The proposed development has the potential to alter the mixture of plant life, however, the low density of the proposed development and conditions under Docket No. A99-729 will assure the continuation of habitat for existing resources. The subject request is not contrary to Chapter 205A, Hawaii Revised Statutes, relating to Coastal Zone Management. 'the project area is not located in the Special Management Area. The site is located approximately five miles mauka of the shoreline and therefore will not be impacted by coastal hazard and beach erosion. There is no record of a designated public access that traverses the project area. According to the applicants, no valued cultural, historical or natural resources exist in the project area and there is no evidence of a~iy traditional and custormuy Native Hawaiian rights being practiced on the site. "Thus, it is not anticipated that the proposed request will have any adverse impact on cultural or historical resources in the area. According to the DWS, water is limited to a maximum of 71ots, or units of water at a maximum of 4,200 gallons per day (gpd). Water for 71ots would require approximately 3,500 feet of 4-inch waterline from the end of the existing 8-inch waterline along Wilder road to the property. The DWS states, "pursuant to the Department's existing water availability conditions for this area, which aze subject to change, 5,400 gallons of water per day for 8 residential lots is not available for the subject change of zone request at this time. Extensive improvements and additions, including storage, transmission waterlines, booster pumps, and distribution facilities, must be constructed. Currently, sufficient funding is not available and not time schedule is set." Wastewater generated by the proposed development will be disposed of by individual wastewater disposal systems meeting the requirements of the Department of Health. All other essential utilities and services are or will be made available to the -5- project area. In view of the recent Hawaii State Supreme Court's "PASH" and "ICn Pa'akai O Ka'Aina"decisions, the issue relative to native Hawaiian gathering and fishing rights must be addressed in terms of the cultural, historical, azid natural resources and the associated traditional said customary practices of the site: • Investigation of valued resources: The following; documents were included in the application: a} A Final Environmental Assessment and Support Document for Land Use Commission Petition, Apri12001; b)12eseazch and Evaluation Report and Archaeological Assessment Study dated October 3Q, 1997 by Paul H. Rosendahl, Ph.D., Inc.; c) Reconnaissance Botanical Survey of Newton Property, Hilo, Hawaii by Palmer and Associates Consulting, July 1998. • The valued cultural, historical, and natural resources found in the rezoningarea: According to documentation provided in the apllication, there are no valued cultural or historical resources in the azea. Oi'tlre two kipukas on the site, the mauka kipuka has a potential to support Listed pliants. Condition No. 5 of Docket No. A99-729 requires the protection of the kipuka during the development of the project. • Possible adverse effect or impairment of valued resources: Native plants may be destroyed by construction or ground alteratiun..According to the applicants, there is no evidence that the flora in the azea aze particulazly desired or used for cultural practices. • Feasible actions to protect native Hawaiian ris:hts: According to the applicants, no gathering is taking place on the site. Thus, to the extent to which traditional and customary native Hawaiian rights aze exercised, the proposed acfion will not affect traditional Hawaiian rights; therefore, no action is necessary to protect these rights. Based on the above findings, approval of the Change of Zone request from an Unzoned to the Agricultura180-acre (A-80a) district would result in an appropriate land use pattern that will further the public necessity and convenience and the general -6- welfare. "I'he accomp~mying draft bill to amend Section 25-8-32 (South Hilo District Zone Map) is provided for your favorable consideration. Please note the proposed conditions of approval attached to the drafit bill. CNew[onREZ.doc-I UIS/OS NEWTON FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION (REZ OS-01'n CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL A. The applicants, its successors or assigns shall be responsible for complying with all of the stated conditions of approval. B. The applicants, successors or assigns shall be responsible for complying with all conditions of approval under Docket No. A99-729. C. The applicants, successors or assigns shall be responsible for complying with all requirements of Chapter 205, Hawaii Revised Statutes, relating to permissible uses within the State Land Use Agricultural District. D. The required water commitment payment shal I be submitted to the Department of Water Supply in accordance with its "Water Commitment Guidelines Policy" within ninety (90) days from the effective date of this ordinance. The applicant shall construct improvements and additions, including storage, transmission waterlines, booster pumps, and distribution facilities for the proposed 8 lots. E. Final Subdivision Approval of the proposed agricultural subdivision shall be secured from the Planning Director in accordance with Section 25-2-70, Chapter 25 (Zoning Code), Hawaii County Code, within five (5) yeazs from the effective date of this ordinance. F. Access to the property shall be provided, meeting with the approval of the Department of Public Works. G. Install street lights and traffic control devices as required by the Traffic Division, Depaztment of Public Works. The applicant shall be responsible for the design, purchase, and installation of such devices. H. The proposed subdivision road shall conform to Chapter 23, Subdivisions, of the Hawaii County Code. I. Restrictive covenants in the deeds of all the proposed lots within the project azea shal I give notice that the terms of the zoning ordinance prohibit the construction of a second dwelling unit and condominium property regimes on each lot. This -i- restriction may be removed by amendment of this ordinance by the County Council. The owners of the property may also impose private covenants restricting the number of dwellings. A copy of the proposed covenant(s) to be recorded with the State of Hawaii Bureau of Conveyances shall be submitted to the Planning Director for review and approval prior to the issuance of Final Subdivision Approval. A copy of the recorded document shall be tiled with the Planning Deparhnent upon its receipt from the Bureau of Conveyances. J. A drainage study of the project azea, if required, shall be prepared for review and approval by the Department of Public Works. Drainage improvements, if required, shall be constructed in a manner meeting with the approval of the Department of Public Works prior to the issuance of Final Subdivision Approval. K. All development generated runoff shall be disposed of on-site and not be directed toward any adjacent properties. L. To protect the kipuka in the project azea, the applicant shall leave intact large stands of native forest trees and clusters of native vegetation. M. Should any remains of historic sites, such as rock walls, terraces, platforms, marine shell concentrations or human burials, be encountered, work in the immediate area shall cease and the Department of Land and Natural Resources- Historic Preservation Division (DLNR-HPD) shall be itnmediately notified. Subsequent work shall proceed upon an archaeological clearance from the DLNR- HPD when it finds that sufficient mitigative measures have been taken. N. Should the Council adopt a Unified Impact Fees Ordinance setting forth criteria for imposition of exactions or the assessment of impact fees, conditions included herein shall be credited towazds the requirements of the Unified Impact Fees Ordinance. O. An annual progress report shall be submitted to the Planning Director prior to the anniversary date of enactment of the ordinance. The report shall include, but not be limited to, the status of the development and the extent to which the conditions of approval are being satisfied. This condition shall remain in effect until all of -2- the conditions of approval have been satisfied and the Planning Director acknowledges that further reports are not required. P. Comply with all applicable County, State and Federal laws, rules, requirements and regulations. Q. An initial extension of time for the performance of conditions within the ordinance may be granted by the Planning Director upon the following circumstances: 1. The non-performance is the result of conditions that could not have been foreseen or are beyond the control of the applicants, its successors or assigns, and that are not the result of their fault or negligence. 2. Granting of the time extension would not be contrary to the General Plan or Zoning Code. 3. Granting of the time extension would not be contrary to the original reasons for the granting of the change of zone 4. The time extension granted shall be for a period not to exceed the period originally granted for performance (i.e., a condition to be performed within one year may be extended for up to one additional year). 5. If the applicant(s) should require an additional extension of time, the Planning Department shall submit the applicants' request to the County Council for appropriate action. Should any of the conditions not be met or substantially complied with in a timely fashion, the Director may initiate rezoning of the azea to its original or more appropriate designation. -3- BILL 1V0. (PLANNING DEPT) ,.°d~.4~"I1`11':.1`1^„t~ f'I~_.'~o a 1`i rtiRT~Ir`lANt'E AMENhh1~'~ SF,CTI(lN 7.5-R-32 (SOUTH HIL(1 DISTRICT 7ONP. M API, AR l ICLE 8, CHAPTER 25 ('CONING CODE), OF THE HA WAI`I COUNTY CODE 1983 (2005 EDITION), BY CHANGING TIIE DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FROM UNZONED TO AGRICULTURAL (A-80a) AT KUKUAU 1sr, SOUTH HILO, HAWAII, COVERED BY TAX MAP KEY 2-4-8:33. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE COUNTY OF HAWAII: SF,CTION 1. Section 25-8-32, Article 8, Chapter 25 (Zoning Code) of the Hawai `i County Code 1983 (2005 Edition), is amended to change the district classification of property described hereinafter as follows: The district classification of the following area situated at Kukuau 1st, South Hilo, Hawaii, shall be Agricultural (A-80a): Beginning at the East comer of this parcel of land, being also the East corner of Lot 11-A as shown on Map 53 of Land Court Application 1205, the coordinates of said point of beginning refereed to Government Survey Triangulation Station "HALM" being 20,307.O~I feet South and 16,901.63 feet West, thence running by azimuths measured clockwise from Tme South: 1. 65° 35' 10,500.93 feet along the Government Land of W aiakea; 2. 156° l8' 3,871.03 feet along the remainder of Lot I 1-A as shown on Map 53 of Land Court Application 1205; 3. 247° SS 10,60].44 feet along Royal Patent 5706, Land Commission Award 8521-B, Apana 2 to G.D. Hueu; 4. 337° 55' 3,441.96 feet along Lots ] 0-A-6-A and 10-A-6-S as shown on Map 70 of -1- Land Coru-t Application 1205 to the point of beginning and containing an area of 885.400 acres, more or less. All as shown on the map attached hereto, marked Exhibit "A" and by reference made a part hereof. SECTION 2. In accordance with Section 25-2-4~4, }{a~,vai`i County Code 1983 (2005 Edition), the County Council finds the following conditions are: (1) Nc;cessary to prevent circumstances which may be adverse to the public health, safety and welfare; or (2) Reasonably conceived to fulfill needs directly emanating from the land use proposed with respect to: (A) Protection of the public from the potentially deleterious effects of the proposed use, or (B) Fulfillment of the need for public service demands created by the proposed use. SEE ATTACHED CONDITIONS SECTION 3. In the event that any portion of this ordinance is declared invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other parts of this ordinance. SECTION 4. This ordinance shall take effect upon its approval. INTRODUCED BY: COUNCIL MEMBER, COUNTY OF HAWAl`I INTRODUCED BY: COUNCIL MEMBER, COUNTY OF HAWAII Hawaii Date of introduction: Date of 1st Reading: Date of 2nd Reading: Effective Date: -2- -A-fOa AdOa A-10a -A-20a ~ N ~ A-16a A-TOa A-10a --6 A10a -fai - _ _ A-la UNZONED - L ICaUfrydna 0 A fa 9-20a ~ yy rr - C ~ j ~ > ~ ,i k ~ A fa UNZ6NED 'A~fOa' ~-'C ~ A-20a OPEN pi A 10a , ~ - ~j A-ta ~ - A-f0a ~ ~ ,4-f0a ~ ~ A l0a UNZONED ~ ~ _ _ r A-20a - U - A-AOa A-10a A-20a A-20a A,10a A-10a - ggnpd. I ~ t??iti . F, ..x. A-20a i ; UNZONED A-ZOa 20,307.09 S 1 16,901.63 W UNZONED 1 "HALM", uNZONED _ TO AGRICULTURAL (A-80a) _J 885.400 ACRES UNZONED A-3a 2200 1100 0 24W 4.400 G600 8,800 11 UOIi Fez' AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING CODE AMENDING SECTION 25-8-32 (SOUTH HILO DISTRICT ZONE MAP) ARTICLE 8, CHAPTER 25 (ZONING CODE) OF THE HAWAII COUNTY CODE, BY CHANGING THE DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FROM UNZONED TO AGRICULTURAL (A-80a) AT KUKUAU 1st, SOUTH HILO, HAWAII PREPARED BY: PLANNING DEPARTMENT COUNTY OF HAWAII MK: 2-4-008:por. 033 Date September I3, 20C EXHIBIT ~,A~~ (The Newton Family Limited Partnership 1l