Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
COM 0544.001 1996-1998
c3 r - U.S.Department Central. Federal Lands 555 Zang Street of Transportation Highway Division - P.O. Box 25246 Denver, Colorado 80225-0246 Federal Highway Administration OCT 15 1997 - C�� In Reply Refer To: '' HPD-16E(SaddleRoad) AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND CITIZENS: Enclosed is a copy(s) of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed improvement of State Route 200, Saddle Road, from the Mamalahoa Highway (SR 190) to Mile Post 6 near Hilo, Hawaii. Open -house format public hearings will be held to provide opportunities for citizens to learn more about the proposed improvement and to present oral and/or written comments. Displays will include visual simulations or illustrations and maps of the project area. Representatives from the Federal Highway Administration, the Hawaii Department of Transportation, the U.S. Army Garrison -Hawaii, and Hawaii County will be available to answer questions. A court recorder will be available to take formal comments for the public hearing record. The public hearings will be as follows: Thursday, December 11, 1997, 7:00 - 10:00 PM Royal Waikoloan, King's Ballroom 60-275 Waikoloa Beach Drive Waikoloa, Hawaii Saturday, December 13, 1997, 9:00 - 12:00 PM University ofHawai`i-Hilo, Wentworth 1 200 West Kawili Street Hilo, Hawaii We invite all interested persons to attend these hearings. Comments may also be sent to: the Federal Highway Administration, 555 Zang Street (Room 259), Lakewood, CO 80228. Attention: HPD -16, Saddle Road. Comments received by December 22, 1997, will become a part of the official public hearing record. Sincerely yours, Larry D.D. e Project Development Engineer Enclosure(s) ars., b14 54y.DL I1'lle no. t l (T Note: Attachment is on file in the Clerk's Office. Itef. Tot MIL Drr. UCI 2 G 199 FHWA-FPHI-EIS-97-1-D DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Saddle Road (State Route 200) Mamalahoa Highway (State Route 190) to Milepost 6 County of Hawai' i, State of Hawai' i FHWA Project No. A -AD -6(1) U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Central Federal Lands Highway Division G- S °/`l - f FHWA-FPHI-EIS-97-1-D SADDLE ROAD (STATE ROUTE 200) Mamalahoa Highway (State Route 190) to Milepost 6 County of Hawai i, State of Hawaii FHWA Project No. A -AD -6(1) DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Submitted Pursuant to Section 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c) and Chapter 343, Hawai' i Revised Statutes by the U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Central Federal Lands Highway Division Cooperating Agencies U.S. Army Garrison, Hawai i Hawaii Department of Hawaiian Homelands Hawaii Department of Health For additional information the following person may be contacted for additional information concerning this document: Mr. Bert McCauley Environmental Planning Engineer Federal Highway Administration U.S. Department of Transportation 555 Zang Street Denver, Colorado 80228 Telephone: (303)969-5924 Comments on this Draft EIS are due by December 22, 1997 and should be sent to the above address. C mith, Division Engineer Date- FHWA, Central Federal Lands Highway Division Abstract: This document presents the evaluation of impacts associated with the proposed improvement of Saddle Road between the Mamalahoa Highway and Milepost 6 near Hilo. Twelve action alternatives under consideration incorporate use of the existing alignment and potential new alignments. The action alternatives reconstruct the existing substandard two-lane roadway to a two-lane roadway with shoulders for a design speed of 80 to 100 kilometers per hour. Existing Saddle Road is a narrow, winding, two-lane road with steep grades, sharp curves, and poor pavement, with no shoulders. The existing road passes through key training areas of the U.S. Department of the Army's Pohakuloa Training Area (PTA), creating conflict between motorists and military training units. The project will improve pavement condition, increase safety and capacity, improve quality of traffic flow, decrease cross -island travel times, and stimulate economic growth and development. Some alternatives will realign the road within the PTA to minimize conflicts between military and public uses. Substantive issues include protected species of flora and fauna, Critical Habitat for the Endangered Palila, wetlands and biological habitats of importance, archaeological resources, fire hazard, residential displacement, and noise. TABLE OF CONTENTS Preliminary Draft Environmental Impact Statement Hawaii State Route 200, Mamalahoa Highway to Milepost 6 Saddle Road TABLE OF CONTENTS .... ........................ ....................... i LISTOF FIGURES........................................................ xi LISTOF TABLES.........................................................xn LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ............................................ ABBR-I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................... ..................... S-1 S.I INTRODUCTION................................................... S-1 S.2 PURPOSE AND NEED ................................................ S-1 S.2.1 Roadway Deficiencies .......................................... S-2 S.2.2 Conflicts/Hazards with Military Operations .......................... S-2 S.2.3 Capacity ..................................................... S-2 S.2.4 Safety ...................................................... S-3 S.2.5 Social Demand and Economic Development .......................... S-3 S.3 ALTERNATIVES.................................................... S-4 S.3.1 Design Parameters Common to All Action Alternatives ................. S-4 S.3.2 Action Alternatives under Consideration ............................ S-5 S.3.3 No Action Alternative .......................................... S-7 S.4 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND FUNDING .............................. S-7 S.5 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT .......................................... S-7 S.5.1 Human Environment ..................... ..................... S-7 S.5.2 Physical Environment .......................................... S-10 S.5.3 Biological Resources .......................................... S-12 S.5.4 Cultural Resources ............................................ S-14 S.6 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ................................. S-15 S.7 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ...................................... ..... S-23 S.8 PROPOSED MITIGATION COMMITMENTS ............................. S-23 S.9 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT HISTORY OF THE SADDLE ROAD PROJECT ....................................................... S-24 CHAPTER 1 - PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION .......................... 1-1 1.1 INTRODUCTION.................................................... 1-1 1.2 DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING ROADWAY ...... ........................ 1-1 1.3 SADDLE ROAD USE PATTERNS .......................... ............ 1-2 1.4 OTHER RELEVANT TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS ...................... 1-2 1.5 BACKGROUND .................. ..................... ............ 1-3 1.6 PURPOSE AND NEED ................................................ 1-3 1.6.1 Roadway Deficiencies .......................................... 1-3 1.6.2 Conflicts/Hazards with Military Operations .......................... 1-4 1.6.3 Capacity ..................................................... 1-4 1.6.4 Safety ....................................................... 1-6 1.6.5 Social Demand and Economic Development .......................... 1-7 1.7 CRITERIA FOR SELECTION OF ALTERNATIVES ......................... 1-7 1.8 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT STATUS AND IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE ... 1-9 1.9 REQUIRED PERMITS ............................................... 1-10 CHAPTER 2 - ALTERNATIVES ........................................... 2-1 2.1 DESIGN PARAMETERS COMMON TO ALL ACTION ALTERNATIVES ....... 2-1 2.2 ACTION ALTERNATIVES UNDER CONSIDERATION ..................... 2-2 2.2.1 Segments under Consideration - Section I ........................... 2-6 2.2.2 Segments under Consideration - Section II ........................... 2-6 2.2.3 Segments under Consideration - Section III .......................... 2-7 2.2.4 Segments under Consideration - Section IV . ........................ 2-7 2.2.5 Alternative Routes ................................... .... .... 2-8 2.2.6 No Action Alternative ........... ............ ........ .... 2-12 2.3 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED ...................... 2-14 2.3.1 Transportation System Management (TSM) Alternatives and Mass Transit .. 2-14 2.3.2 Segments Eliminated from Consideration .................... .... 2-14 2.3.2.1 Segments Eliminated from Consideration - Section I ........... 2-14 2.3.2.2 Segments Eliminated from Consideration - Section II ......... . 2-16 2.3.2.3 Segments Eliminated from Consideration - Section IV ......... 2-16 CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES, AND MITIGATION MEASURES ................... ...... .. ... ... 3-1 3.1 LAND USE AND RELATED GOVERNMENTAL PLANS AND POLICIES ....... 3-1 3. Ll LAND USE .......................... ....................... 3-1 3.1.1.1 Affected Environment ......... .......... .............. 3-1 3.1.1.1.1 Ranching .................... ................. 3-1 3.1.1.1.2 Military ....................................... 3-1 3.1.1.1.3 Residential .................................... 3-3 3.1.1.1.4 Public Lands ................................... 3-3 3.1.1.1.5 Astronomy .................................... 3-4 3.1.1.1.6 Mining and Energy Development .................... 3-4 3.1.1.1.7 Commercial and Industrial Use ... ................. 3-4 3.1.1.1.8 Outdoor Recreation and Hunting .................... 3-4 3.1.1.2 Environmental Consequences, ............................. 3-6 3.1.1.3 Mitigation Measures ....... .. ......................... 3-8 3.1.2 Current Development Trends ..................................... 3-8 3.1.3 Governmental Plans, Policies, and Land Use Regulations ............... 3-10 3.1.3.1 Hawaii State Plan ..................................... 3-10 3.1.3.2 Hawai' i State Functional Plans ............................ 3-11 3.1.3.3 Island of Hawaii Long Range Highway Plan ................. 3-12 3.1.3.4 County of Hawai'; ;,eneral Plan ........................... 3-12 3.1.3.5 General Plan Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide Map and Facilities Map ............ ............... I...... 3-13 3.1.3.6 Hilo Community Development Plan ............... ........ 3-16 3.1.3.7 Northeast Hawaii Community Development Plan ............. 3-17 3.1.3.8 Land Use Regulations for State Land Use Districts ............ 3-17 3.1.3.9 Hawaii County Zoning Code ............................. 3-19 3.1.3.10 Consistency of Alternatives with Existing Plans and Policies .... 3-21 3.1 A Related Projects ............................................. 3-22 3.1.5 Land Ownership ....................... ...................... 3-24 3.1.5.1 Affected Environment ........... ............... ...... 3-24 3.1.5.2 Environmental Consequences .... . .............. ....... 3-25 3.1.5.3 Mitigation Measures .............................. .... 3-25 3.2 FARMLANDS...................................................... 3-26 3.2.1 Affected Environment ......................................... 3-26 3.2.2 Environmental Consequences ................... ................ 3-26 3.2.3 Mitigation Measures ........................................... 3-28 3.3 SOCIAL ............................. ............................. 3-28 3.3.1 Population and Settlement Patterns ...... ......... .............. 3-28 3.3.1.1 Affected Environment ........ ........................ 3-28 3.3.1.2 Environmental Consequences ............................. 3-32 3.3.1.3 Mitigation Measures ................................... 3-34 3.3.2 Socioeconomic .. ........................................... 3-34 3.3.2.1 Affected Environment .................................. 3-34 3.3.2.2 Environmental Consequences ............................. 3-37 3.3.2.3 Mitigation Measures ................................... 3-38 3.3.3 Community Identity and Cohesion . ...................... ..... 3-38 3.3.3.1 Affected Environment ... ........................ ..... 3-38 3.3.3.2 Environmental Consequences ..................... ....... 3-41 3.3.3.3 Mitigation Measures .... .............................. 3-43 3.3.4 Outdoor Recreation Resources and Hunting ......................... 3-43 3.3.4.1 Affected Environment .................................. 3-43 3.3.4.2 Environmental Consequences ............................. 3-47 3.3.4.3 Mitigation Measures ................................... 3-50 3.3.5 Public Services, Community Centers and Local Business ............... 3-51 3.3.5.1 Affected Environment .................................. 3-51 3.3.5.1.1 Fire, Police, and Emergency Services ................ 3-51 3.3.5.1.2 Schools ...................................... 3-51 3.3.5.1.3 Churches and Community Centers .................. 3-51 3.3.5.1.4 Local Businesses ............................... 3-51 3.3.5.2 Environmental Consequences ............................. 3-52 3.3.5.3 Mitigation Measures ................................... 3-53 3.3.6 Travel Patterns for Motorists, Pedestrians and Bicycles ................ 3-53 3.3.6.1 Affected Environment .................................. 3-53 3.3.6.1.1 Inter -regional Traffic: Sources and Volumes .......... 3-53 3.3.6.1.2 Function and Use of Saddle Road in Individual Communities ........ 3-54 3.3.6.2 Environmental Consequences ............................. 3-55 3.3.6.3 Mitigation Measures ................................... 3-56 3.3.7 Environmental Justice ... ..................................... 3-56 3.3.8 Native Hawaiian Culture and Values ......... ........ ........... 3-57 3.3.8.1 Affected Environment .................................. 3-57 3.3.8.1.1 Native Hawaiians ........................ ... 3-57 3.3.8.1.2 Hawaiian Home Lands Program ................... 3-58 3.3.8.1.3 Traditional and Spiritual Native Hawaiian Environment .. 3-59 3.3.8.1.3.1 Vertical Land and the Importance of Place Names 3-59 3.3.8 1.3.2 The Hiapo ... .......... .............. 3-60 IV 3.3.8.1.3.3 The Importance of"Kane-i-ka-wai-ola," Water .. ............................... 3-60 3.3.8.1.3.4 The Knowledge of Total Environment ....... 3-61 3.3.8.1.3.5 Horizontal and Vertical Land Divisions ...... 3-61 3.3.8.1.3.6 Philosophy and Relationship to the Forest ..... 3-63 3.3.8.1.4 Native Hawaiian Cultural Features and Sites .......... 3-64 3.3.8.2 Environmental Consequences ............................. 3-64 3.3.8.3 Mitigation Measures ................................... 3-66 3.4 ECONOMICS...................................................... 3-67 3.4.1 Employment and Income ....................................... 3-,)/ 3.4.1.1 Affected Environment .................................. 3-67 3.4.1.2 Environmental Consequences ............................. 3-69 3.4.1.3 Mitigation Measures ................................... 3-71 3.4.2 Tourism ................................................... 3-72 3.4.2.1 Affected Environment .................................. 3-72 3.4.2.2 Environmental Consequences ............................. 3-72 3.4.2.3 Mitigation Measures ................................... 3-73 3.4.3 Time Savings ................................................ 3-73 3.4.3.1 Affected Environment .................................. 3-73 3.4.3.2 Environmental Consequences ............................. 3-74 3.4.3.3 Mitigation Measures ................................... 3-76 3.4.4 Safety ..................................................... 3-76 3.4.4.1 Affected Environment .................................. 3-76 3.4.4.2 Environmental Consequences ............................. 3-79 3.4.4.3 Mitigation Measures ................................... 3-79 3.5 RIGHT-OF-WAY AND RELOCATION .................................. 3-79 3.5.1 Affected Environment ......................................... 3-79 3.5.2 Environmental Consequences .................................... 3-79 3.5.2.1 Right -of -Way ......................................... 3-79 3.5.2.2 Relocations .......................................... 3-80 3.5.2.2.1 Residential Relocations .......................... 3-80 3.5.2.2.2 Other Relocations .............................. 3-81 3.5.3 Mitigation Measures ........................................... 3-82 3.6 PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE FACILITIES AND USE ..................... 3-83 3.6.1 Affected Environment ......................................... 3-83 3.6.1.1 Government Plans and Policies Related to Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities .............................................. 3-84 3.6.2 Environmental Consequences .................................... 3-85 3.6.3 Mitigation Measures .......................................... 3-87 3.7 AIR QUALITY ............... .............. . 3-87 3.7.1 Affected Environment .......... .. .... ............... .... 3-87 3.7.1.1 Standards .. ... ........................... 3-87 3.7.1.2 Pollutant Levels . ............................... .... 3-89 3.7.2.1 Impact Assessment ............... ................. I .. 3-90 3.7.2.1.1 Methodology and Assumptions .................... 3-90 3.7.2.1.2 Results...................................... 3-91 3.7.2.1.3 Environmental Consequences .................... 3-92 3.7.2.1.4 Conformity ..... .... ....... 3-93 3.7.3 Mitigation Measures . ....................... ..... .... ...... 3-93 3.8 NOISE ........................................................... 3-93 3.8.1 Affected Environment ............... I ................ I . I ...... 3-93 3.8.1.1 Noise Fundamentals.................................... 3-93 3.8.1.2 Methodology......................................... 3-94 3.8.2 Environmental Consequences.................................... 3-95 3.8.3 Mitigation Measures ......................................... 3-100 3.9 FIRE HAZARD ........... ....................................... 3-103 3.9.1 Affected Environment ............. .......................... 3-103 3.9.2 Environmental Consequences................................... 3-103 3.9.3 Mitigation Measures ..................................... ... 3-104 3.10 WATER RESOURCES ............................................. 3-106 3.10.1 Affected Environment ....................................... 3-106 3.10.2 Environmental Consequences .................................. 3-107 3.10.3 Mitigation Measures ......................................... 3-109 3.11 WATERS OF THE U.S./WETLANDS.................................. 3-110 3.11.1 Affected Environment ....................................... 3-110 3.11.2 Environmental Consequences .................................. 3-113 3.11.3 Mitigation Measures ......................................... 3-115 3.12 CLIMATE, GEOLOGIC HAZARDS, AND SOILS ....................... . 3.12.1 Affected Environment ...................................... . 3.12.1.1 Climate . ................... ...... ..... ........ 3.12.1.2 Geologic Formations ................................ . 3.12.1.3 Geologic and Volcanic Hazards ......................... 3.12.1 A Soils ................................ .......... . 3.12.1.5 Speleological Resources ..... ........................ . 3.12.2 Environmental Consequences ................................. . 3.12.3 Mitigation Measures .............. ......................... . vi 3-116 3-116 3-116 3-116 3-119 3-120 3-125 3-125 3-128 3.13 VEGETATION ................................................... 3-129 3.13.1 Affected Environment ............ ... ............. ........ 3-129 3.13.1.1 Nonnative Vegetation Types ........................... 3-130 3.13.1.1.1 Fountain Grass/Mixed Shrubland ................. 3-130 3.13.1.1.2 Pasture Land ................................ 3-130 3.13.1.1.3 Eucalyptus/Pine Plantings ...................... 3-131 3.13.1.1.4 Ruderal Community .......................... 3-131 3.13.1.1.5 Lowland Wet Herbland ........................ 3-132 3.13.1.1.6 Lowland Wet Grassland ....................... 3-132 3.13.1.2 Native Vegetation Types .............................. 3-132 3.13.1.2.1 Hard -stemmed Lovegrass Grassland .............. 3-132 3.13.1.2.2 'Aweoweo Shrubland ......................... 3-132 3.13.1.2.3 'A'ali'i Shrubland ............................ 3-133 3.13.1.2.4 Mamane/Naio Forest .......................... 3-133 3.13.1.2.5 Pioneer Vegetation on Lava Flows ............... 3-134 3.13.1.2.6 Lowland Wet Forest .......................... 3-134 3.13.1.2.7 Lowland Wet Shrubland ....................... 3-135 3.13.1.2.8 Montane Wet Forest .......................... 3-135 3.13.1.2.9 Montane Wet Shrubland ....................... 3-135 3.13.1.2.10 Montane Mesic Forest ........................ 3-135 3.13.1.2.11 Montane Mesic Shrubland ..................... 3-136 3.13.1.2.12 Montane Dry Forest ......................... 3-136 3.13.1.2.13 Montane Dry Shrubland ....................... 3-136 3.13.1.2.14 Montane Dry Grassland ....................... 3-136 3.13.1.2.15 Subalpine Dry Shrubland ...................... 3-137 3.13.1.3 Discussion of Vegetation Types By Section ................ 3-137 3.13.2 Environmental Consequences .................................. 3-141 3.13.3 Mitigation Measures ......................................... 3-143 3.14 WILDLIFE ...................................................... 3-144 3.14.1 Birds ................................................... 3-144 3. l4. L 1 Affected Environment ................................ 3-144 3.14.1.2 Environmental Consequences ............... ........... 3-149 3.14.1.3 Mitigation Measures .. .............................. 3-151 3.14.2 Mammals ................................................ 3-151 3.14.2.1 Affected Environment ................................ 3-151 3.14.2.2 Environmental Consequences ........................... 3-153 3.14.2.3 Mitigation Measures ................................. 3-153 3.14.3 Invertebrates ..... ...... . ........................ ........ 3-153 3.14.3.1 Affected Environment ...................... ......... 3-153 3.14.3.1.1 Snails ..................................... 3-154 3.14.3.1.2 Insects and Related Arthropods ......... ........ 3-157 3.14.3.2 Environmental Consequences ........................... 3-159 vu 3.14.3.3 Mitigation Measures ..... .. . ...................... 3-162 3.15 FLOODPLAINS.................................. ..... .......... 3-162 3.15.1 Affected Environment ................ .... . .... .. ....... 3-163 3.15.2 Environmental Consequences ........... ...................... 3-164 3.15.3 Mitigation Measures ......................................... 3-166 3.16 WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS ....................................... 3-166 3.17 COASTAL BARRIERS/COASTAL ZONES ............... ......... ... 3-167 3.17.1 Affected Environment ....................................... 3-167 3.17.2 Environmental Consequences .................................. 3-167 3.17.3 Mitigation Measures ........................ ...... ... ... 3-169 3.18 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES ......................... 3-169 3.18.1 Affected Environment ........... ........................... 3-169 3.18.2 Environmental Consequences ................................. 3-173 3.18.3 Mitigation Measures ......................................... 3-175 3.19 ARCHAEOLOGICAL, HISTORIC, and TRADITIONAL CULTURAL 3.21 VISUAL ............ ................ .... ...................... 3-207 vm RESOURCES .................. ........................... 3-183 3.19.1 Background ............................................... 3-183 3.19.1.1 Prehistoric Background ............................... 3-183 3.19.1.2 Historic Background ................................. 3-183 3.19.2 Archaeological Sites ......................................... 3-185 3.19.2.1 Affected Environment ................................ 3-185 3.19.2.2 Environmental Consequences ........................... 3-191 3.19.2.3 Mitigation Measures ..... ........................... 3-196 3.19.3 Traditional Hawaiian Cultural Sites ............................. 3-199 3.19.3.1 Affected Environment ................................ 3-199 3.19.3.1.1 Burials and Homesteads ....................... 3-200 3.19.3.1.2 Ritual Sites ................................. 3-201 3.19.3.2 Environmental Consequences ........................... 3-202 3.19.3.3 Mitigation Measures ................................. 3-202 3.20 HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES ................................. ..... 3-202 3.20.1 Affected Environment ............................ .......... 3-202 3.20.1.1 Records Search ..................................... 3-203 3.20.1.2 Site Reconnaissance .................................. 3-204 3.20.2 Environmental Consequences .................................. 3-205 3.20.3 Mitigation Measures .............................. ...... ... 3-206 3.21 VISUAL ............ ................ .... ...................... 3-207 vm 3.21.1 Affected Environment ..................................... . 3-207 3.21.1.1 Existing Visual Character ... ....... .................. 3-207 3.21.1.2 Characteristics of the Viewer . ...... .................. 3-213 3.21.2 Environmental Consequences ... ........... .......... ....... 3-214 3.21 .3 Mitigation Measures ......................................... 3-218 3.22 ENERGY........................................................ 3-220 3.22.1 Environmental Consequences .................................. 3-220 3.22.2 Mitigation Measures ......................................... 3-221 3.23 CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS ........................................ 3-221 3.23.1 Environmental Consequences .................................. 3-221 3.23.2 Mitigation Measures ............. ........ ................ 3-222 CHAPTER 4 - RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF MAN'S ENVIRONMENT AND MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG- TERM PRODUCTIVITY ................... ........................ 4-1 CHAPTER 5 - IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES...................................................... 5-1 CHAPTER 6 - CUMULATIVE IMPACTS .................................. . 6-1 CHAPTER 7 - PREPARERS ............................................... 7-1 CHAPTER 8 - LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND PERSONS TO WHOM COPIES OF THE DRAFT EIS WERE SENT ............................ 8-1 CHAPTER 9 - PROJECT DEVELOPMENT HISTORY, CORRESPONDENCE, AND COMMENT....................................................... 9-1 9.1 Saddle Road Project Development History, 1987 to 1997 ....................... 9-1 9.2 List of Agencies, Organizations, and Persons Consulted in the Preparation of this Document........................................................... 9-9 9.2.1 Saddle Road Project Development History, 1987 to 1997 ............... 9-10 9.2.2 Saddle Road Project Development History, 1987 to 1997. ............. 9-11 9.3 Saddle Road Project Mailing List through August 1997 ...................... 9-12 9.4 Chronological Comments, Correspondence, and Notices ............... ....... 9-28 9.4.1 1994 ..................................... ................. 9-28 9.4.2 1995 ...................................................... 9.72 9.4.3 1996 ....................................................... 9.98 9.4.4 1997 ...................................................... 9.144 9.5 Saddle Road Newsletters ................................... ......... 9-258 Im INDEX .................... BIBLIOGRAPHY............ ................. ...................... BIB -1 APPENDICES A. Farmland Conversion Impact Rating ........................................ A-1 B. Plant and Arthropod Species T fists .......................................... B-1 C. Sand Quarry Parcel Map ................................................. C-1 TECHNICAL APPENDICES Volume I - Westside Botanical Study Eastside Botanical Study Vomume lI - Ornithological and Mammalian Study Invertebrate Study Volume III - Biological Assessment Wetlands Determination Volume IV - Archaeologic:.:, Historicand Traditional Cultural Assessment Volume V - Social Impact Assessment Appendix A: Impacts to Hunting Appendix B: Indigenous Hawaiian Cultural Values Volume VI - Noise Analysis Air Quality Analysis Hazardous Materials Survey Volume VII - Visual Resource Impact Assessment x LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.6.1, Typical Section, Existing Roadway ....... . .......................... 1-4 Figure 2.1.1, 7ypical Sections Proposed .... .... 2-2 Figure 2.2.1, Overview of Segments Under Consideration .......................... 2-2 Figure 2.2.2, Segments Under Consideration - Section I ............................ 2-4 Figure 2.2.3, Segments Under Consideration -Section H ............................ 2-4 Figure 2.2.4, Segments Under Consideration -Section IV ........................... 2-4 Figure 2.2.5, Plan Sheet .......................................... ......... 2-6 Figure 2.2.6, Plan Sheet ....... ........................................... 2-6 Figure 2.2.7, Plan Sheet ........ .......................... ....... ........ 2-6 Figure 2.2.8, Plan Sheet ........ .......................................... 2-8 Figure 2.2.9, Plan .Sheet ............................. ...................... 2-8 Figure 2.3.1, Alternate Segments Considered bin I7iminated ........................ 2-14 Figure 3.1.1, Existing Land Use ....................................... ...... 3-2 Figure 3.1.2, PTA Maneuver Training Areas ............................ ........ 3-4 Figure 3.1.3, General Plan L(IPA G Map Designation ............................. 3-16 Figure 3.1.4, State Land Use Districts ........................... ............. 3-18 Figure 3.1.5, Conservation District Sub. -ones ................................... 3-20 Figure 3.1.6, Zoning ..................................................... 3-20 Figure 3.1.7, Land Ownership ............................................... 3-24 Figure 3.2.1, Agricultural Lands of Importance .................................. 3-26 Figure 3.3.1, Recreation Resources .................... ......... ............ 3-44 Figure 3.3.3, Hawaiian Homes Commission Land ................................ 3-60 Figure 3.8.1, Section I Modeled Receptor Sites .................... . .......... . .. 3-96 Figure 3.8.2, Section H Modeled Receptor Sites ......................... ....... 3-96 Figure 3.8.3, Section IVModeled Receptor Sites ................................. 3-98 Figure 3.11.1, Wetland Key Map ............................................ 3-114 Figures 3.11.2 and 3.11.3, Wetland Types and Welland Conditions - Segment EX -3 ..... 3-114 Figure 3.11.4, Wetland Types and Wetland Conditions - Segment EX -4A ............. 3-114 Figure 3.11.5, Wetland Types and Wetland Conditions - Segment E-3 ................ 3-114 Figure 3.12.1, Lava Hazard Zones ........................................... 3-120 Figure 3.13.1, Biological Resources ......................................... 3-130 Figure 3.15.1, Major Drainages .......................................... 3-164 Figure 3.15.2, FEMA Floodplairns .............................. ............ 3-166 Figure 3.19.1, NRHP-Eligible Archaeological Sites .............................. 3-186 Xi LIST OF TABLES Table S.1, Current and Future Traffic Volumes and LOS .. ........................ S-3 Table S.2, Design Features ................................................. S-5 Table S.3, Comparison of Segments ........................................... S-7 Table S.4, Estimated Travel Distance .......................................... S-9 Table S.5, Special Status Species in the Vicinity of the Project Area .................. S-14 Table S.6, Summary of Impacts ..... ................... ...... ............. S-16 Table S.7, Community Organizations .................. ...................... S-29 Table 1.6.1, Current and Future Traffic Volumes andLOS .. . ....................... 1-6 Table 1.8.1, Implementation Schedule .................. . ...................... 1-10 Table 1.9.1, Permits and Approvals .............. ..... ............ ......... 1-11 Table 2.1.1, Design Features .... ........ ........ .......... ........... 2-2 Table 2.2.1, Comparison of Segments .................. . ....................... 2-5 Table 2.2.2, Comparison of Action Alternatives ....... ........................... 2-9 Table 3.1.1, Land Use by Segment ............................................. 3-5 Table 3.1.2, Hawai 'i County Statistics, 1991 through 1995 .......................... 3-9 Table 3.1.3, General Plan LUPAG Categories by Alternative ..................... . . 3-15 Table 3.1.4, State Land Use Classifications by Alternative ......................... 3-18 Table 3.1.5, Zoning Designation Definitions .................... ............... 3-20 Table 3.1.6, Zoning Designations by Alternative .......... . ...................... 3-20 Table 3.1.7, Conformance with Land Use Plans and Policies ....................... 3-21 Table 3.1.8, Percent Land Ownership by Segment ................................ 3-24 Table 3.2.1, Direct Conversion of Agricultural Lands of Importance ................. 1 3-27 Table 3.3.1, Population Trends, 1960 to 1990 .............................. .... 3-28 Table 3.3.2, Visitor Accommodation Units, 1960-1994 ............................ 3-29 Table 3.3.3, Population of Major Towns in Study Area ............................ 3-30 Table 3.3.4, M -K Series Population Projections ................................. 3-31 Table 3.3.5, County of Hawai 'i General Plan Population Projections, Year 2005 ........ 3-31 Table 3.3.6, Land Transportation Masterplan Population Projections, Year 2020 ........ 3-32 Table 3.3.7, Selected Socioeconomic Characteristics by District, 1990 Census .......... 3-35 Table 3.3.8, Selected Socioeconomic Characteristics, by Chy or Town, 1990 Census ..... 3-36 Table 3.3.9, Hunting Units in Central Hawai'i.................................. 3-44 Table 3.4.1, Employment: 1980, 1990, and 1994 ................................. 3-68 Table 3.4.2, Income Characteristics: 1980 and 1990 .............................. 3-69 Table 3.4.3, F.'stimated Annual Construction Expenditures .................. ...... 3-70 Table 3.4.4, Estimaled Travel Time in Minutes .................................. 3-73 Table 3.4.5, Accidents per Million Vehicle Miles, Saddle Road 198610 1994 . _ ......... 3-77 Table 3.5.1, Total Estimated Right -of --Way Take by Segment .. ....... ............. 3-80 Table 3.5 2, Available Residential Units, Hilo ................................... 3-81 Table 3.5.3, Potential Relocations within P]A ...... .......................... . 3-81 Table 3.7.1, Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards ...................... 3-88 xii Table 3.7.2, Air Quality Summary 1993, Maximum Ambient Concentrations at Puna, Hawaii ,-g'm3(PPm) .. ............................. .... .... ............ 3-89 Table 3.7.3, Maximum Predicted I -Hour Concentrations of CO, Saddle Road .......... 3-92 Table 3.8.1, Noise Abatement Criteria, Hourly A -Weighted Sound Level - Decibels (dBA) 3-95 Table 3.8.2, Existing and Future Noise Levels (dBA) at Modeled Receptor Sites, Section 1 3-96 Table 3.8.3, Existing and Future Noise Levels (dBA) at Modeled Receptor Sites, Section H 3-97 Table 3.8.4, Existing and Future Noise Levels (dBA) at Modeled Receptor Sites, Section IV 3-99 Table 3.8.5, Summary of Noise Impacts on Noise -Sensitive Receptors .. . . ...... ..... 3-100 Table 3.8.6, Barrier Analysis for Ahernative F_-3 ................... ..... ...... 3-102 Table 3.12.1. Geologic Material, .Saddle Road Study Corridor .............. ... . . . 3-118 Table 3.12.2, Generalized .Soil Types, Saddle Road Study Corridor .. ............... 3-124 Table 3.14.1, Birds Detected or l specied to Occur Within the Vicinity of the Project Area 3-146 Table 3.14.2, Mammal Species Recorded in the Project Area ......... . ..... ... . . . 3-152 Table 3.14.3, Land Snail and Slug Species Recorded in the Project Area ........... 3-154 Table 3.14.4, Insects and Related Arthropod Species of Concerti Recorded in the Project Area ..... 3-157 Table 3.19.1, Impacts and Recommended Mitigation for NRNP -eligible Archaeological Sites ............. 3-194 Table 3.20.1, Hazardous Material Issues ...................................... 3-206 Table 3.21.1, Visual Quality ............................................... 3-216 Table 3.21.2, Visual Character ............................................. 3-217 Table 5. 1, Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources ................... 5-1 Vascular Plants Detected or Expected to Occur Within the Vicinity of the Project Area .................................... B-1 Insects and Related Arthropods Collected Within the Vicinity of the Project Area ........ B-15 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AASHTO ............. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials ACC/MVM ............... ..................... accidents per million vehicle miles ADT ................. ...................... .... ........ average daily traffic ALF ....... ......... ......... ................. ........ A'a Lava Flows ALISH ............... ... .... Agricultural Lands of Importance to the State of Hawai' i ASTM ................ ................... American Society of Testing and Materials BCE ..................... ................ ............ before the Common Era BMP ..................... ............................ best management practice BRD............................................... Biological Resources Division C..... ................. ..... ................... ... ......... ... Celsius CAA ................. ................................... Federal Clean Air Act CAAA........................................... 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments CDP ............. ....... .................. ... Hilo Community Development Plan CE............................................................. Common Era CFR ..................... .......................... Code of Federal Regulations CWA ................. ....................................... Clean Water Act CZM.......................................... Hawaii Coastal Zone Management DAR ..................................................... Defense Access Road dB......................................... ........... ......... decibels dBA .............. ................................... A -weighted decibel scale DEIS ............................... ........ Draft Environmental Impact Statement DI -111L ................ ......... State of Hawai' i Department of Hawaiian Home Lands DLNR ...................... State of Hawai' i Department of Land and Natural Resources DOA .............................................. U.S. Department of the Army DOD ................................................ U.S. Department of Defense DOFAW ............................ State of Hawai i Division of Forestry and Wildlife DOH ........................................ State of Hawai' i Department of Health EIS ............................................. Environmental Impact Statement EO -PTA .............. ............. ............ Environmental Office of the PTA EPA ..................... ...................... Environmental Protection Agency F .................... ................................. Facultative (Vegetation) FU ................... ... ......... ....... ..... Facultative Upland (Vegetation) Fly . . . .... . . .... ................ ............ Facultative Wetland (Vegetation) FEIS .. ................... ................... Final Environmental Impact Statement FEMA ...... ..................... . ...... Federal Emergency Management Agency FHWA ............................ .............. Federal Highway Administration GVP ..................... ......... .............. ...... Gross Value Product ha................... ............................................. hectares HAR .............. ............ .. Hawai' i Administrative Rules HCM................................................. Highway Capacity Manual HDLIR ................ ... State of Hawai' i Department of Labor and Industrial Relations HDOT .... ................ .......... State of Hawai' i Department of Transportation HELCO ..................... ............ Hawaiian Electric Light Company, Inc. HFBS ............ .............. ........ .... .. .. Hawaii Forest Bird Survey MCA .............................. ..... .... Hawaiian Homes Commission Act HHL ....................... ..... ......... .. .. ....... Hawaiian Home Land HHLP ..................... .... .. Hawaiian Home Land Program HRS ...................... ........ .... Hawaii Revised Statutes km ........................ ......... .... ........................ kilometers kV................................. ................................ kilovolt L.....................................................................liters Leq ........................ average noise level over a 1 -hour period LOS ......................................................... Level of Service LUPAG.................................. ...... Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide m................ ...... ........... ............ ...... ........... meters m3 .......... .................. .. ... ... ..................... cubic meters mm.............................................................. millimeters MOA ...................... ........ .... ... ....... Memorandum of Agreement MP.............................. ....... ...................... milepost MPO ......................................... Metropolitan Planning Organizations MTMC................................... . Military Traffic Management Command NAAQS ................... ........ ....... National Ambient Air Quality Standards NAC ..................................... ............ Noise Abatement Criteria NEPA ..................... .. . ..... ........ National Environmental Policy Act NOAA .............................. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NPDES .............................. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NPL ..................................................... National Priority List NPS ..................................................... National Park Service NRC . ................................................ National Research Council NRCS ..................... ............ U.S. Natural Resource Conservation Service NRNP ......................................... National Register of Historic Places NWI .......................... .......... .......... National Wetlands Inventory OBL.............................................. Obligate Wetland (Vegetation) OHA................................................. Office of Hawaiian Affairs PCB ...................... ........................... Polychlorinated Biphenyl PLF...................................................... Pahoehoe Lava Flows PM10 .... . ........... I .......... particulate matter smaller than ten microns in diameter PTA ................................................... Pohakula Training Area R......................... ................... ................... receptors RCRA ..................... .................. Resource Conservation Recovery Act RCRIS ....................... Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System ROD ...................................................... Record of Decision SEE Team .................... ..... Social, Economic, and Environmental Study Team ::: . SIPS . . ... ..... ... . . . .. .................. .... State Implementation Plans SLU ...................... .. ....... .. .............. ...... State Land Use SMA ............. ........ . . ...... .......... ..... Special Management Area SR 200 ............. ............................ . State Route 200 (Saddle Road) SR 190 ...... State Route 190 (Mamalahoa Highway) SR 19 .................... .. ...... ...... . State Route 19 SR I I ... ....... . . ........................... ...... State Route I I SRTF ......... ............ . - - Saddle Road Community Task Force SWPPP ....................................... Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan TRB ............................................. Transportation Research Board UPL .................................. ................. Obligate Upland Plants URARPAPA ....... Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act U.S. DOT ....................................... U.S. Department of Transportation USACE .. . .......... ...... ... U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USACH. ....... ........ .. ..................... USARG-HI .......................................... U.S. Army Garrison, Hawaii USARPAC ...................... U.S. Army Pacific Command USFWS .... ............ ...... ..... U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service USGS ........................................... ...... U.S. Geological Survey UST ................................................ underground storage tanks VA ....... ......... ......... ......... ............. Volcanic Ash Deposits EXECUTIVE SUMMARY SA INTRODUCTION The Federal Highway Administration, Central Federal Lands Highway Division (FFIWA), in cooperation with the State of Hawai' i Department of Transportation (HDOT) is proposing to improve Saddle Road, State Route 200 (SR 200). The U.S. Department of the Army (DOA), Military Traffic Management Command (MTMC), along with the FHWA co -administrator the DAR Program. FHWA is the lead agency for environmental compliance. This Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) has been prepared to evaluate the proposed action in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 as amended (NEPA) and Chapter 343 of Hawai' i Revised Statutes (HRS) related to Em ironmental Impact Statements. The proposal would upgrade and modernize Saddle Road as a two-lane highway that would meet contemporary design standards for arterials and provide adequate capacity to handle anticipated traffic volumes through 2014 and beyond. The portion of Saddle Road to be improved by this project is approximately 78 kilometers (km) in length and extends from the Mamalahoa Highway (SR 190) to Milepost (MP) 6, near Hilo, Hawaii (Figure 2.2.1, Overview of Segments Under Consideration). This project will be added in the federally -required State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) prior to construction. Saddle Road is approximately 85 km in length extending west from Hilo to its junction with the Mamalahoa Highway, approximately 10 km south of Waimea, on the Island ofHawai'i. It was constructed in 1942 by DOA. Saddle Road is a narrow, winding, two-lane road with steep grades, sharp curves, poor pavement, and substandard drainage. It does not meet contemporary design standards. Saddle Road is the only paved arterial serving the astronomical observatory complex on Mauna Kea, Waiki' i Ranch, upper Kaumana, Mauna Kea State Recreation Area, Kilohana Girl Scout Camp, and major hunting areas. Saddle Road is also an important cross -island link for business travel, the transport of goods and services, tourism, recreation, shopping, and commuting. Saddle Road is the only paved arterial serving the Pohakuloa Training Area (PTA). PTA serves as the only light infantry, live -fire training facility in the Pacific for the U.S. Army Pacific Command (USARPAC) and other Pacific Command Units. Transportation of ammunition, water, training equipment, and troops from harbors on both sides of the island creates long, slow-moving convoys on Saddle Road, Saddle Road is also used by PTA personnel to commute to work. S.2 PURPOSE AND NEED The purpose of this project is to provide a safe and efficient route for access along Saddle Road and for cross -island traffic between East and West Hawaii. The proposed improvements to S-1 Saddle Road would address five general types of needs: roadway deficiencies, conflicts and hazards with military operations, capacity, safety, and social demand and economic development. S.2.1 Roadway Deficiencies Although Saddle Road is presently two -directional, however, in practicality deterioration of the pavement has reduced much of the road to one asphalt travel lane, roughly 4 meters (m) in width, with shoulders less than 1 in in width. Shoulder pavement is more patchy than continuous and shoulder areas do not have adequate "clear zone" or recovery areas. The narrow width and poor pavement conditions encourage motorists to drive in the center of the road, increasing the potential for accidents, including head-on collisions. One stretch of Saddle Road contains six one -lane bridges. Saddle Road is characterized by steep grades and sharp curves with horizontal and vertical alignment deficiencies, which in many places prevent motorists from being able to see ahead a safe distance. Under these conditions, passing slow-moving vehicles is very hazardous. In addition, pavement markings and roadway signage over much of the road are currently inadequate. Drainage structures are undersized. Saddle Road is often closed during major storm events because of flooding and hazardous road conditions. 5.2.2 Conflicts/Hazards with Military Operations Saddle Road crosses through the northern portion of the PTA. Extensive training along and across the road has created conflicts between the traveling public and military training exercises, and has reduced the quality of many training maneuvers. Some military operations require artillery to fire over Saddle Road. Training operations by infantry require troops to break from a "tactical mode" to an "administrative mode" to move across the road. With little warning, motorists may encounter soldiers or military equipment crossing the road. 5.2.3 Capacity The 1994 average daily traffic (ADT) on Saddle Road was 900 vehicles. Without the project, Saddle Road ADT is projected to be 4,400 by 2014. This level of need far exceeds the road's existing traffic capacity. With the proposed improvements, Saddle Road ADT is expected to increase to 14,000 by 2014, a four -fold increase over that of the No Action Alternative. The projected increase is because of a variety of demands including increased usage associated with commuter traffic; residential development at both ends of the road; tourism and recreation; agriculture; military operations; the Mauna Kea telescope complex, and increasing congestion along alternative cross -island routes. Level of Service (LOS) expresses quality of traffic flow. It relates to the density of traffic in comparison to the roadway's capacity and expresses conditions of speed, travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort, convenience, and safety. The quality of traffic flow is S-2 described in six categories of service, A through F, with LOS A representing traffic in a free flow or uncongested condition, and LOS F representing serious congestion and considerable delays (Table S.1, Current and Future Traffic l'olumes and LOS). On a two-lane road, such as Saddle Road, LOS is primarily determined by the ability to pass. Using operational analysis procedures presented in the Highway Capacity Manual, Third Edition, 1994, the LOS under current conditions was calculated. Based on these procedures, Saddle Road is operating at LOS B in some segments, and LOS D in most areas (Table S.1). Given the poor condition of the pavement, its narrow width, alignment deficiencies, and poor sight distances, LOS B overstates the road's current level of service. The FHWA has concluded that the overall LOS for Saddle Road is D. In this instance, LOS D reflects that passing demand is high wnde passing capacity is very low. With projected traffic growth and no road improvements, Saddle Road is expected to deteriorate to LOS E by the year 2014. With LOS E, passing in most locations would be unsafe and platooning (slow-moving vehicle causes the backup of vehicles unable to pass) would occur. With the proposed improvements, the road's current LOS D would be improved to LOS B. TABLE SA Current and Future Traffic Volumes and LOS Year Alternative ADT LOS 1994 Estimated Traffic Baseline Conditions 900 D 2014 Projected Traffic No Action Alternative 4,400 E 2014 Projected Traffic All Action Alternatives 14,000 B S.2.4 Safety Roadway deficiencies, conflicts with military operations, and capacity limitations contribute to safety concerns on Saddle Road. Saddle Road's accident rate of 5.43 accidents per million vehicle miles (ACC/MVM) is notably higher than the average rate for rural two-lane highways throughout the State of Hawai' i (3.0 ACC/MVM). Roadway deficiencies also hinder the response of emergency vehicles responding to fires, accidents, and other incidents along Saddle Road. S.2.5 Social Demand and Economic Development East and West Hawaii are somewhat diverse in economic opportunities and development. Without an efficient, safe, cross -island route, business opportunities across the island are more S-3 limited, and the economies of East and West Hawai' i would be expected to continue to diverge. Government functions are located on the east side of the island in Hilo, where housing costs are generally lower, while much of the tourism -related economic growth and employment is occurring in West Hawai' i. In addition, these conditions create a need for some people to commute cross - island. Decreased cross -island travel times would increase labor force mobility. SR 19 along the Hamakua Coast is considered the most feasible alternative to Saddle Road for cross -island transportation. SR 19 is longer than Saddle Road between Hilo and Kailua/Kona, and Hilo and Waikoloa. Between Hilo and Waimea, SR 19 is the shorter route. Because of the deficiencies of Saddle Road, the lack of services and few roadside amenities, SR 19 currently carries a larger percentage of the cross -island traffic, resulting in congestion on SR 19 during peak travel hours and increased travel time. S.3 ALTERNATIVES Over a two-year period, 1994 to 1996, alternatives for improvement of Saddle Road were developed and refined with input and involvement of a Social, Economic, and Environmental Study Team (SEE Team), the Saddle Road Community Task Force (SRTF), government agencies, local residents, landowners, and citizens -at -large through public meetings. This process allowed for early consideration of engineering and environmental issues and numerous refinements of the alternatives under consideration. A preferred alternative has not been identified for the project. The final selection of an alternative will be made only upon full consideration of impacts and public hearing comments. The Final EIS will present a preferred alternative alignment. A legally binding Record of Decision (ROD) will then be prepared selecting a final alignment. S.3.1 Design Parameters Common to All Action Alternatives Saddle Road is to be developed to arterial design standards, incorporating design controls presented in the following table. Uphill passing lanes, truck escape ramps, scenic pullouts, and military vehicle crossings will be incorporated into project designs as needed to enhance safety and improve the projected level of service. Table S.2, Design Features, provides a summary of the design features of the proposed project. S-4 TABLE S.2 Design Features Design Speed 80 lcm per hour* Minimum Curve Radius 230 in Maximum Superelevation 8 percent Curves Simple curves with 67 percent of runoff on tangent Maximum Grade 8 percent " Design speed may be increased up to 100 km per hour in areas where feasible. The proposed improvements to Saddle Road would incorporate two 3.6-m travel lanes with two 2.4-m paved shoulders. Passing lanes may be added in select locations. In environmentally vulnerable portions of the study corridor within the PTA, additional features would be constructed to minimize fire hazards, including paved fire breaks, fencing, and extruded asphalt curbs. S.3.2 Action Alternatives under Consideration The project area has been divided into four sections. Section I begins at the junction with SR 190 and extends east to Saddle Road MP 42. Section II extends from MP 42 to MP 28. Section III extends from MP 28 to MP 9, and Section IV extends from MP 9 to the eastern project terminus, MP 6. A total of 20 segments within the aforementioned sections were initially considered. Of these, 12 segments were eliminated from further consideration by consensus of the SEE Team. These alternatives were eliminated because they failed to meet the criteria developed in the purpose and need (e.g., road deficiencies, capacity) or because the anticipated impacts of their construction were clearly greater than other alternatives. The remaining eight segments under consideration are W-2 and W-3 in Section I; PTA -1, PTA -3, and EX -2 in Section II; EX -3 in Section III; EX -4A and E-3 in Section IV. In addition, the No Action Alternative is also considered. Section I. Segments W-2 and W-3 represent alternative routes to the existing Saddle Road alignment within Section I. Located south of the existing alignment, W-2 would connect Saddle Road to SR 190 at Waikoloa Road, Segment W-3 would connect with SR 190, 4.8 km south of Waikoloa Rd. Section 11. Segment EX -2 would rebuild Saddle Road with grade and alignment improvements along the existing Saddle Road. It would not accomplish the desired separation of motorists from military maneuvers. Segments PTA -1 and PTA -3 represent alternative routes to the existing Saddle Road alignment within Section II. Located north of the existing roadway, PTA -1 and PTA -3 would succeed in separating Saddle Road motorists from military maneuvers. S-5 Section II1. Segment EX -3 would rebuild Saddle Road with major grade and alignment improvements along the existing Saddle Road. No feasible or practicable alternatives to the existing corridor were identified within Section I11. Section IV. Segment EX -4A would rebuild Saddle Road with major grade and alignment improvements along the existing Saddle Road on the west and east ends of Section IV, but would split from the existing roadway for a 2 -km portion in the middle to follow an existing transmission line corridor. EX -4A was identified in an effort to relocate a portion of Section IV away from existing residential development in Kaumana. Segment E-3 represents an alternate alignment to EX -4A through Section IV and relocates the road farther away from the residential areas in upper Kaumana. Table S.3, Comparison of Segments, provides a summary of the key engineering characteristics and costs of each segment. Costs to purchase lands for Palila mitigation are yet to be determined. All cost estimates are provisional. TABLE S.3 Comparison of Segments Segments and Corresponding Station Numbers Length (lin) ROW (hectares) Max. Grade (%) Estimated Construction Cost (S) Estimated Mitigation Cost (s) Total Cost (S) Section I - MP 53.6 (Mamalahoa Highway) to MP 42 W-2: 17.0 72 8.0 37300,000 500,000 37.900,000 W-3: 15 5 72 8.0 39,100,000 500,000 39,600 000 Section H - MP 42 to MP 28 EX -2: 21.6 47 5.2 38,000,000 5,000,000 43,000 000 PTA -1: 205 83 7.8 38.500,000 7,800,000 46,300 000 PTA -3: 22.1 85 7.8 40.500,000 8,000,000 48,500 000 Section III - MP 28 to MP 9 EX -3' 30.9 60 8.0 60300000 1000,000 61300000 Section IV - MP 9 to MP 6 F.X4A: 4.0 12 10,9 11L000,000 5.000,000' 15,000000 I,-3: 5.5 29 8.0 17,000,000 1,000,000 18000,000 ' Cost estimates include additional design features for fire prevention, critical habitat replacement lands, and construction mitigation requirements. Cost estimate also includes residential relocation expenses. Note: Additional mitigation costs for the management of Palila relocation efforts are to be provided by other funds through separate programs. These costs are not reflected in this table. The Biological Assessment prepared for this project summarizes these costs. S-6 S.3.3 No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative would maintain Saddle Road as it is today and would include the completion of short-term, or minor, maintenance, and restoration activities. It would not enhance safety, eliminate roadway deficiencies, improve level of service, improve operational function, accommodate future traffic levels, nor reduce or eliminate conflicts between motorists and PTA military operations. SA PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND FUNDING A formal public comment period begins with the issuance of the Saddle Road Draft EIS (DEIS). Public hearings will be held during this comment period to provide information and solicit formal comments on the project. The DEIS will be revised, as appropriate, and responses prepared to address public comments. Current schedules anticipate completion of the Final EIS (FEIS) in early 1998, and the issuance of the ROD in spring of 1998. Phased construction could begin in the fall 1998 as funds are available, assuming that one of the build alternatives is selected in the ROD. The project would be phased over a number of years as funding becomes available. The MTMC has determined that the design and construction of the Saddle Road improvements within the approximate limits of the PTA would be eligible for Defense Access Road (DAR) funds. Funds for constructing the DAR section of highway must be authorized and appropriated by Congress. HDOT will improve the remaining portion of the road, as funds become available. S.5 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT S.5.1 Human Environment Saddle Road provides access to land uses along its corridor, including the astronomical observatory complex on Mauna Kea, Waiki'i Ranch, Kaumana, the Mauna Kea State Recreation Area, and major hunting areas. The road is also an important cross -island link for business travel, the transport of goods and services, tourism, recreation, shopping, and commuting. Saddle Road is not used regularly by bicyclists or pedestrians because of the substantial change in elevation along its length, foggy and rainy weather, and the lack of adequate shoulders. Hunting is a long-standing tradition in Hawai' i. Introduced pigs, sheep, goats and a variety of gamebirds are hunted in public hunting units accessed by Saddle Road on the PTA, and nearby state hunting areas. Many areas have limited access because of rugged terrain, sparse road networks, or military limitations. Much of the Saddle Road corridor is rural in nature. Figure 3.1.1, Existing Land Use, depicts general land uses within the study corridor. The primary land use in Section I is ranching. The local population is clustered in Waiki'i Ranch, a residential development with agricultural lots S-7 located along the existing Saddle Road alignment. Recreational resources include the Kilohana Girl Scout Camp, and limited hunting lands. Land uses within Section II are primarily characterized by military use of the PTA. Barracks and other base housing facilities support the military personnel training and working at the PTA. Mauna Kea State Park, the only public park within the study area, offers opportunities for camping, picnicking, hiking, and birding. Public areas for hunting are also available. Section II includes lands set aside for the Hawaiian Home Lands Program (HHLP), which created a land reserve available to qualifying Native Hawaiians for residential, agricultural/farming, and pastoral/ranching homesteads. The primary land use within Section III is open space, ranching activities are also present. No notable population is present. As in Section Il, lands are set aside in this area for the HHLP. Designated hunting areas are located within this section. The primary land use within Section IV is farming; single-family residential development characterizes a portion of the existing Saddle Road corridor. Population within Section IV is clustered in upper Kaumana, an older suburb of Hilo. Public recreational resources include hunting lands. Three categories of valuable agricultural land were assessed for the state of Hawai' is Prime Agricultural Lands, Unique Agricultural Lands, and Other Important Agricultural Lauds. Prime Agricultural Lands are present within Section IV of the study corridor, Other Important Agricultural Lands are present within Sections I and II. Section 4(f) properties are afforded protection under 49 U.S.C. Section 303. Such properties include any publicly owned land of a public park, recreation, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge of national, State, or local significance, or land of an historic site of national, State, or local significance. Properties in the vicinity of the proposed project include Mauna Kea State Park, Kipuka ' Ainahou Nene Sanctuary, and 16 historic sites. No use of these Section 4(f) properties occur within any of the action or no -action alternatives. Ambient noise levels along Saddle Road within the project corridor are generally low, reflecting the light traffic volumes on Saddle Road and the undeveloped and unpopulated nature of much of the landscape. Noise levels in the vicinity of PTA can be periodically high in association with military training activities and low-flying aircraft. The Island ofHawai'i supports two distinct regional economies. The regional economy on the East is centered in Hilo, the seat of island government and home to the Hilo Campus of the University of Hawai' i. Historically, the economy on the east side was based on agriculture, with sugar as the main crop. A steady decline in the sugar industry over the past 20 years resulted in the closure of the last commercial operations in 1996. OR The regional economy on the western side of the island is primarily based on tourism. Overall, economic activities related to tourism have been rapidly expanding since 1980 and are expected to continue to expand into the next century. A declining economy in East Hawai' i has resulted in an increasing number of individuals seeking employment in tourism -related activities in West Hawai' i. There are three routes between Hilo and Waimea/Kailua-Kona. The northern route is SR 19, north from Hilo through Waimea and continuing on to Kailua-Kona. The southern route follows SR 1 I southwest from Hilo through Volcanoes National Park. The third route is Saddle Road. Table S.4, Estimated Travel Distance, compares the distance between major destinations for each route. TABLE SA Estimated Travel Distance Saddle Road is the shortest route between East and West Hawai' i, especially between Hilo and the Kona Coast. Although Saddle Road :- currently narrow, with steep grades and sharp curves, travel time is still as low or lower than for the other two routes. Total employment on the island has been expanding since 1980. The average annual employment growth rate for 1980 to 1994 was 5.1 percent on the west side compared to 1.8 percent on the east. Growth rates in job creation have been declining in East Hawaii, while increasing in West Hawai' i. Income trends parallel those ofjob creation growth rates. More workers in East Hawai' i are seeking job opportunities in West Hawai' i. Roughly l .1 million tourists visited the Island of Hawai' i in 1995, with approximately 33 percent visiting the east side of the island and 67 percent visiting the west. Because of the condition of Saddle Road, automobile rental agencies restrict or prohibit use of their vehicles on the road, discouraging some tourists from including cross -island trips in their itineraries. The native Hawaiian culture began at least 2,000 years ago when people from other Polynesian lands arrived to the archipelago. Hawaiian culture developed independently from the rest of Polynesia, although there was intermittently significant input by subsequent Polynesian visitors. Stages of development include the settlement era and the era of high culture. The settlement era S-9 Estimated Distance (km) Route Hilo - Kailua/Kona Hilo - Waimea SR 19 152 87 SR 11 200 265 Existing Saddle Road 140 97 Saddle Road is the shortest route between East and West Hawai' i, especially between Hilo and the Kona Coast. Although Saddle Road :- currently narrow, with steep grades and sharp curves, travel time is still as low or lower than for the other two routes. Total employment on the island has been expanding since 1980. The average annual employment growth rate for 1980 to 1994 was 5.1 percent on the west side compared to 1.8 percent on the east. Growth rates in job creation have been declining in East Hawaii, while increasing in West Hawai' i. Income trends parallel those ofjob creation growth rates. More workers in East Hawai' i are seeking job opportunities in West Hawai' i. Roughly l .1 million tourists visited the Island of Hawai' i in 1995, with approximately 33 percent visiting the east side of the island and 67 percent visiting the west. Because of the condition of Saddle Road, automobile rental agencies restrict or prohibit use of their vehicles on the road, discouraging some tourists from including cross -island trips in their itineraries. The native Hawaiian culture began at least 2,000 years ago when people from other Polynesian lands arrived to the archipelago. Hawaiian culture developed independently from the rest of Polynesia, although there was intermittently significant input by subsequent Polynesian visitors. Stages of development include the settlement era and the era of high culture. The settlement era S-9 encompasses settlement from southern Polynesian communities, development of stable water and food sources, and acclimatization of these settlers and their culture to the new environment. It ended about 800 years ago, with the advent of the era of high culture. The era of high culture includes the refinement of the Hawaiian society. In this era, political power was coalesced through powerful military chiefdoms. The end of the era of high culture was marked by the abolishment of the kapu system by the ruling caste in 1819. The Hawaiian Kingdom then evolved into a westernized constitutional monarchy. Native Hawaiians relied on the environment for survival. They recognized and practiced respect for a hierarchy of life based on regeneration and protection of food sources. They prioritized the non -disturbance of seed producing forest areas to promote new growth. To the Native Hawaiians the older trees are primary or most sacred, those who use these trees as residence or food source are secondary. For this reason, mamane forest and kipuka are regarded as having special value to native Hawaiians. The mountains or land, water, and sky were a necessary part of the life cycle. The most prominent, celebrated, and sacred place within the project corridor is Mauna Kea, a natural land feature and sacred site. 5.5.2 Physical Environment Hawai' i, the largest island of the Hawaiian Archipelago, covers an area of approximately 16,360 km2. The island was formed by the activity of five volcanoes. The proposed project is located along the southern flank of Mauna Kea Volcano. The Saddle, located between Mauna Kea and Mauna Loa volcanoes, was formed by lava flows from both volcanoes which coalesced and formed a broad upland apron. Mauna Kea has not erupted in historical time, and is considered dormant. Mauna Loa remains active and is responsible for recent lava flows visible from the road. Ground elevations along the study corridor range from 390 m above mean sea level, occurring in Section IV, to 2055 m, occurring in Section II. The elevational differences and the open vegetation through the Saddle provide panoramic views of distant vistas and interesting geologic features. Rolling hills, cone shaped pu u (cinder cones), broad valleys, and mountains are examples of the diverse landforms found within the corridor. In Section I, the landscape consists of a predominantly pastoral setting with few built features. The section is characterized by a broad, open grassland used for grazing. The existing visual quality is moderately low to moderate. Section II traverses a relatively flat valley. Much of the landscape is dotted with pu'u. Other elements include the built features of the PTA, grasslands, and shrublands. The eastern end of this section enters lava flows with sparse emergent vegetation. The existing visual quality ranges from moderately low to moderately high. Section III enters a landscape in which the lava flows are older and vegetation is more pronounced. The roadway weaves though mature forests with a dense understory of ferns and shrubs. The existing visual quality is predominantly moderately high. In Section IV, single family residences are located along the existing alignment of Saddle Road, creating a more urban setting for Segment 5-10 EX -4A. Segment E-3 departs from the existing alignment and traverses mature forest with a dense understory of ferns and shrubs. The existing visual quality of Segment EX -4A ranges from moderately low to moderately high. The existing visual quality of E-3 is moderately high. The proposed roadway alignments are generally underlain by four types of geologic materials, including volcanic ash deposits, cinder sand deposits, ' a a lava flows, and pahoehoe lava flows. Speleological resources, such as caves and lava tubes, occur within the project vicinity. Geologic hazards within the study corridor include low-lying areas with potential flooding hazard, steep slopes with &- , otential for instability and landslides, soft soils or wetlands, ground subsidence, and known faults that may traverse the proposed roadway segments. In addition, the entire island is considered a lava hazard zone. The eastern portion of the study corridor is at greater risk from lava than the western portion. Rainfall rates within the project corridor range from less than 500 millimeters (mm) in Sections I and II, to 5,000 mm or more per year in Sections III and IV. Fog is not uncommon in the morning and afternoon hours. Trade winds blow from the northeast. Water resources and drainage characteristics occurring along the length of the project are diverse because of variations in the amount of rainfall. Infiltration of surface waters into the substrate is high and serves to recharge the island's groundwater aquifers. There are no areas within the project vicinity designated as principal or sole source aquifers. Sheet flow of rainfall runoff is prevalent. No perennial rivers or streams occur in the project corridor, nor within the watersheds tributary to the Saddle Road culverts and bridges. The project area crosses several major intermittent drainages, may of which were formed by glacial activity and contain no waters of the U.S. No Wild and Scenic Rivers are located within the project corridor or its vicinity. The proposed project is located within an area regulated by the Hawai' i Coastal Zone Management (CZM) Program. The CZM program has established specific objectives and polices to protect and preserve recreational resources, historic resources, scenic and open space resources, coastal ecosystems, and economic uses, to minimize coastal hazards, and to manage development. The project area is not within a defined Special Management Area of the CZM program. While there are no State air quality monitoring sites on the Island of Hawai' i, data available from other sources indicate that ambient pollutant levels are well below the State and Federal standards. There are no designated non -attainment areas (places that do not meet the National Ambient Air Quality Standards) within the State of Hawaii. S-11 S.5.3 Biological Resources Vegetation types dominated by both native and nonnative plants occur within the project area. Plant communities dominated by introduced or alien species are referred to as nonnative vegetation types in this document. Plant communities dominated by plants which occur naturally in the Hawaiian Islands are referred to as native vegetation types. Examples of nonnative vegetation types include fountain grass/mixed shrubland, pasture land, and lowland wet grassland. Examples of native vegetation types include ' a ali' i shrubland, mamane/naio forest, pioneer vegetation on recent lava flows, and montane wet forest. The majority of Section I is pasture land dominated by kikuyu grass and other nonnative range grasses. It has been used for grazing for some time. Lower elevations of Section I support fountain grass/mixed shrubland. Areas covered by native plant communities are rare. The few remnant pockets of native mixed shrubland occur on cinder cones and larger stony ridges and outcrops, areas inaccessible to cattle and other grazing animals. The vegetation within Section II is primarily native. Because the PTA has not been grazed and military development is restricted to certain areas, the majority of the PTA remains in native natural plant communities with a large proportion of the installation containing rare plants. Hard - stemmed lovegrass grassland, ' aweoweo shrubland, and ' a ali' i shrubland are found on alluvial flats and the lower slopes of Mauna Kea on the western portion of this section. Mamane/naio forest occupies areas higher in elevation just north of the project area through the entire section and along the project corridor from the PTA cantonment area eastward past Mauna Kea State Park. At the eastern end of this section, nonnative pasture land vegetation is found on grazed lands. Section III is dominated by native vegetation types. It traverses a variety of micro -climatic zones and a number of vegetation types because past volcanic activity has created a mosaic of soils of different ages and character. Recent lava flows exhibit sparse pioneering vegetation. Kipuka, isolated pockets of late successional forest located on old lava flows, are interspersed through this section. Kipuka exhibit unique biological character, supporting the complex structure of the native Hawaiian rainforest, usually with an overstory canopy dominated by koa, a middle canopy layer dominated by ' ohi' a, and a lower canopy dominated by tree ferns. This habitat supports numerous species which are endemic (unique to the Hawaiian Archipelago) and is highly susceptible to invasion by alien species when disturbed. Section IV passes through highly modified habitat which is dominated by alien species. Fire poses a grave threat to Hawaiian ecosystems by converting native habitats into grasslands dominated by nonnative species. Because few native Hawaiian animals or plants are adapted to wildfires, mortality during fires is high. Native shrubs and trees may recover from fire to some degree, but native plant communities are usually overwhelmed by more aggressive alien species. S-12 Many nonnative species, such as fountain grass, have a tendency to carry fire, are fire adapted, and thrive in the aftermath of fire. The establishment of this grass increases the threat of fire. Sections I and II traverse extremely dry habitat and are highly susceptible to fire. Because most of Section I has been highly modified and is now characterized by alien -dominated vegetation types, the impact of wildfires on native plants in this section is minimal. Within Section II, native - dominated vegetation types are prevalent. These vegetation types are extremely vulnerable to destruction by wildfire. Fire threatens the survival of special status animal species which rely on native habitats like the mamane/naio forest. Sections III and IV are not highly susceptible to fire because they are characterized by heavy rainfall. Wetland occurrence within the project corridor is limited to the area east of MP 14, within Sections III and IV. Within this area, three major native vegetation types occur: 'ohi'a forest, ohi' a scrub, and koa-' ohi' a forest. Because of local conditions, the presence of hydrophytic vegetation was considered the determining factor in locating regulatory wetlands. Under this method, wetlands were present on all of the ' ohi' a forest, approximately 15 percent of the ' ohi' a scrub, and less than 2 percent of the koa-'ohi'a forest. The list of native birds likely to occur within the project area includes 18 species, 9 of which are endemic and 3 of which are migratory. There are also 28 nonnative resident species. While the bird fauna throughout the project area is dominated by introduced species, Sections II and III support a relatively high diversity of native birds within mamane/naio forest and kipuka habitats. Hawai' i has only one native terrestrial mammal, the Hawaiian hoary bat, which is distributed throughout the project area. All other terrestrial mammals in Hawai' i were introduced by man and are considered alien species. The project area harbors a diverse native and nonnative invertebrate fauna, including 13 snail and hundreds of insect and arthropod species. The invertebrate populations found within Sections I, III, and IV are dominated by introduced species. Section II supports a variety of endemic insects, as well as the most diverse assemblage of snails found in the project area. Within Section III, a variety of endemic insects were associated with kipuka and cave habitats. Special status species include those species afforded legal protection as either endangered or threatened by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Proposed endangered or threatened species are also addressed in this EIS. Table S.5, Special Status Species in the Vicinity of the Project Area, identifies special status species known or expected to occur within the project area. All special status species identified are endangered, with the exception of the Newell's Shearwater, which is threatened. Critical Habitat has been established for the endangered Palila within Section II and occupies nearly all mamane/naio forest habitat identified for the project. Palila are highly dependent on mamane trees as a food source and for nesting. Fire has been identified as the single greatest S-13 threat to the continued survival of the Palila and other sensitive species which rely on the mamane/naio forest habitat. The northern boundary of the Ainahou Nene Sanctuary is adjacent to the existing Saddle Road for a length of 7.6 km in Section III. TABLE S.5 Special Status Species in the Vicinity of the Project Area Section I Section II Section III Section IV Plants ortulaca sclerocarpa: Silene hawaiiensis: found in Plantago hawaiiensis, None identified. found in the vicinity of the the vicinity of all segments. Cvanea planphylla, existing alignment. Cletwiontia peleana: found outside of the EX -3 area of disturbance. Birds Dark-rumped Petrel: known Dark-rumped Petrel: known Dark-rumped Petrel, Dark-rompped Petrel, to travel over W-2 and W-3. to travel over all segments. Newell's Shearwater. known Newel]'s Sheanvater: known Nene: incidental use Nene: incidental use to travel over EX -3. to travel over EX -4A and E-3. probable along W-2 and probable along all segments. Nene: incidental use W-3. Palila: habitat adjacent to probable along EX -3. Hawaiian Hawk: habitat PTA -1 and PTA -3 Akiapola'au, Hawaii adjacent to EX -4A and E-3. Akiapolaau. habitat Creeper, Hawai' i 'Akepa, adjacent to all segments. O'a, Hawaiian Hawk: habitat adjacent to EX -3. Mammals Hawaiian hoary bat: Hawaiian hoary bat I fawaiian hoary bar. Hawaiian hoary bat. detected in low numbers detected in moderate detected in moderate detected in low numbers along W-2 and W-3. numbers along all segments, numbers along EX -3. along EX -4A and E-3. Invertebrates None identified. None identified. None identified. None identified. S.5.4 Cultural Resources Prehistoric use of the project area includes cross -island travel, access to interior resources, birdcatching, agriculture, basalt gathering, and harvest of koa logs. Historic use of the project area includes ranching, hunting, cross -island travel, lumber milling, growing sugar cane, tourism, military strategy during World War II, and military training. Sixteen archaeological sites within the survey corridor are recommended for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. These include Old Waimea -Kona Belt Road and a historic habitation/animal enclosure (Section I); Ka'ohe Wall, Humu'ula Sheep Station Perimeter Walls, S-14 Old Waimea-Humu ula Wagon Road, and a historic fence (Section II); Pu u ' O'o-Volcano Trail, Humu'ula Sheep Station Perimeter Walls, Hilo-Pu'u 'O'o Trail, Saddle Road, two historic linear wall sites, and a historic terrace (Section III); and a historic cairn, 'Ola a Flume, Hilo Country Club, and Senator Kimi's House (Section IV). Eight of these sites recommended for listing qualify under two or three of the following criteria: A, C or D. Sites eligible under Criterion A are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to broad patterns of our history. Sites eligible under Criterion C embody distinctive characteristics of a type. Sites eligible under Criterion D yield important information pertaining to prehistory or history. The eight remaining sites are eligible under Criterion D only. S.6 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Table S.6, Summary of Impacts, summarizes the environmental consequences of the proposed actions assessed in the Saddle Road Draft Environmental Impact Statement. The table outlines differences between each of the build and no action alternatives for major resource categories. S-15 TABLE S.6 Summary of Impacts Section I Section 11 Section III Section IV_ Land Use and Hunting W-2, W-3: Direct loss of X-2: No loss of ranching or X-3: Direct losTE a X -4A, E-3: Direct loss of approximately 60 ha of ranchland. No direct loss unting lands_ State land. No ds of State land and privately -owned of lands. Improved A_l: Direct loss of 13 ha of anchland. Direct loss 14 ha unting lands. I access to hunt ngarginal eshdential lands. Direct,unting loss of hunt ngland access to hunting areas. of of hunting ]ands. oAction: No ds of due to placement of road oAe[ion: No direct loss of existin land uses. No direct A-3: Direct loss of 17 ha of xis[in land useirect loss of unting limpacts alignment Improved access to unting areas.g [o hunting (ands. No untin lands g improvement of o Action: No direct loss of improvement of access to A-1, PTA -3: Incursion of unting areas_existing land uses. No direct hunting areas. ew road alignment into loss of hunting lands. No qualm}, L�nting arca in iuruu improvement of acts,. ula. Change in unting areas_ management of bird huntin lands on Ka' ohe Lease Lan5s. Gain of 1,990 ha of bird hunting land at Puu Mali. No Action: No direct loss of xisting land uses No impacts o hunting lands. No mprovement of access to 1unting unting areas. No gain in bird lands. Pedestrian / Bicycle Facilities W-2, W-3: No established X-2 PTA-], PTA -3: No X-3: No established bicycle X4A, E-3: No established bicycle or pedestrian trails. established bicycle or or pedestrian trails. Improved bicycle or pedestrian trails. Improved safety for bicyclists and with pedestrian trails. Improved for bicyclists or bicyclists and pedestrians Improved safety for bicyclists pedestrians safety and with construction of adequate and pedestrians with construction of adequate pedestrians with construction shoulders to function safely as construction of adequate shoulders to function as bike of adjacent paved 2.4-m fire- bike route. shoulders to function as bike route. Less traffic within Waiki' i. break that would function as a bike route No Action: No established outs. bicycle or pedestrian trails nor -3: Less traffic within oAction: No established Nc.:--tion: No established improved conditions for Kaumana. bicycle or pedestrian trails nor bicycle or pedestrian trails nor bicyclists and pedestrians. improved conditions for improved conditions for oAction: No established bicyclists and pedestrians. icyclists and pedestrians. icycle or pedestrian trails nor improved conditions for icyclists and pedestrians. Right -of -Way (ROW) / Relocation W-2, W-3: Direct take of X-1: Direct take of 47 ha of X-3: Direct take of 60 ha ofEX-4A: Direct take of 12 ha o oupJily 70 ha of land for land for ROW. land for ROW. land for ROW. Relocation O A-1, PTA -3: Direct take of No Action: No take for ROW needed for up to 1 1 homes. No Action: No take for ROW. 83 ha (PTA -1) and 85 ha -3: Direct take of 29 ha of VA-9) of land for ROW. land for ROW. ocation needed for 13 buildings on PTA. o Action: No take for ROW. oActirin: No take for ROW. Farmlands W -l: Direct conversion of X-2: Direct conversion of X-3: No direct loss of prime I EX -4A: No direct loss of 55.0 ha of other important 18.9 ha other important farmland or other important prime farmland or other agricultural lands. agricultural lands agricultural lands important agricultural lands. W-3: Direct conversion of PTA -1, PTA -3: Direct No Action: No direct loss of -3: Direct loss of 8.79 18.6 ha of other important conversion of 6.7 ha of other farmland. hectares (ha) of prime agricultural landsimportant agricultural lands. farmland. VAetion: No direct loss of' No Action: No direct loss of oAcdon: No direct loss of a%IZ farmland. farmland. 5-16 TABLE S.6 Summary of Impacts [Section I ISection 11 ISection III ISection IV I W-3: Improvement in flow and access to area. to ts to native I fawaiian al resources. Increase in traffic fes on Waikoloa Rd. c&n: No improvement essibility of recreational -ces. No mortionate impact to stton on (SR 19). W-3: Generation of t and indirect employment construction activities. ease in cross -island travel and associated increase in !tary savings. avements to safety and .iated savings on accident Iction: No generation of t or indirect employment construction. No ;ase in cross -island travel nor increase in monetary igs. No improvements to v and traffic flow. 3: No exceedence or I of Federal noise s (NAC) nor al increase at any receptors Reduction noise to Waikii. P Action: No exceedence or proach of NAC nor nstantial increase at any tsitive receptors. Increase ii ffie noise levels in Waiki' i traffic levels grow. C-2, PTA-], PTA -3: rovement in tragic flow access to area. No ,proportionate impact to ,advantaged groups. C-2: Increase in conflicts th PTA. Loss of about 10 h mamane forest (special lue to native Hawaiians) - A -2, PTA -3: SeVaration of A operation:, in.. motorists. ss of about 30 ha of mamarn (Action: No improvement access to arca. Gradual ;rease in conflicts with PTA. > disproportionate impact to Increasmcongestion on SR 19. No a�ditiuna] impacts to native Hawaiian cultural PTA -3: direct and )anent from ease in cross -island travel and associated increase in ;tary savings. ovements to safety and :iatcd savings on accident Action: No generation of ;et or indirect empployment n construction. No tease in cross -island travel e nor increase in monetary ings. No improvements to ;tv and traffic flow. If -2: No exceedence of NAC r substantial increase in ise at sensitive receptors. rA-1, PTA -3: Exceedence of proach of NAC at 3 .eptors. Substantial increase noise at 8 additional nsitive receptors. 9 Action: No exceedence or proach of NAC nor bstantial increase at anv_ nsilive receptors. S-17 f: Improvement in traffic and access to area. No oportionate impact to vantaged groups. ilial impact on kipuka .ial value to native iAction: No impp rovement access to area. No ,proportionate impact to ,advantaged groups. ;-easing congestion on SR f: Generation of direct anc :ct employment from ruction activities. ease in cross -island travel and associated increase in ctary savings. ovements to safety, and fated savings on accident c&n: No generation of I or indirect employment construction activities. crease in cross -island I time nor increase in Bary savings. No )vements to safety and flow. No Action: No noise ve land uses are located section. V --4A E-3: Improvement in tffic {low and access to area. a disproportionate impact to sadvantaged groups. IC -4A: Construction -related tpacts to Kaumana. Increase traffic volumes in Kaumana. 3: Reduction in traffic lumes within Kaumana. iAction: No improvement accessibility of recreational sources. No >Dr000rtionate impact to 9 on SR W, E-3: Generation of t and indirect employmcn construction activities. case in cross -island trave and associated increase it ;Lary savings. ovements to safety and :iated savings on accident Action: No generation of cct or indirect employment n construction activities decreasein cross -island ,el time nor increase in ietary savings. No ,rovements to safety and fic flow. Exceedence or :h of NAC at 29 ,e receptors', substantial e in noise at 18 ial ones. No exceedence or ,ach of NAC. Substantial ise in noise at 14 IN receptors. ction: Exceedence or each of NAC at 3 ive receptors. No antial increase in noise at TABLE S.6 Summary of Impacts Section I ISection 11 ISection III Isection IV Hazardous Materials W-2, W-3, No Action: No imnacts to hazardous waste : No impacts to waste sites. =2, W-3: Conservation of A Expenditure of resources build road. oAetion: No immediate an e in energy use patterns. -actual increase in fuel nenditure as traffic W-3: Decrease in visual y substantial change in I character. ction: No changes to I quality or visual t Geologic Hazards W-3: Construction- s increase in soil erosion, tial breaks into caves, ated hazard to uction workers, and ant changes in cave stem. Volcanic hazard to ion: No construction - impacts to soils. No al to break into caves. is hazard to existing !: Possible impact to nulated spills near PTA Storage Area or minor [zed soil contamination. -1, PTA -3: Possible ct to minor localized soil : No impacts to waste sites. -2, PTA -1, PTA -3: iservation of fuel. )enditure of resources to Id the road. Action: No immediate nein energy use pat ems. tdual increase to fuel �enditure as traffic Decrease in visual notable to severe :in visual character , PTA -3: Decrease in qualitysubstantial to change in visual No changes to .v or visual /0 into caves, to construe cave ecosystem. Volcanic sand to improved road. Action: No construction- ated impacts to soils. No tential to break into caves. )Icanic hazard to existing M No Action: No impacts udous waste sites ation of fuel. resources to Action: No immediate n e in energy use patterns. dual increase to fuel enditure as traffic Decrease in visual ; severe change in No changes to v or visual erosion. into caves, rd to rckers, and :s in cave Icanic hazard Action: No construction - ted impacts to soils. No ,nual to break into caves. camc hazard to existing E-3, No Action: No to hazardous waste of the road !on: No immediate in energy use patterns increase in fuel lure as traffic 1, E-3: Decrease in quality; substantial to visual character. tion: No changes to quality or visual E-3: Construction- ncrease in soil erosion. I breaks into caves, ed hazard to ,tion workers, and L changes in cave m. Volcanic hazard to ction: No construction - d impacts to soils_ No tial to break into caves. true hazard to existing TABLE S.6 Summary of Impacts Section I Section 11 Section III Section IV Floodplains / Water Resources W-1, W-3: Decreased X-2, PTA -1, PTA -3: X-3: No crossings of'EX-4A, E-3: Decreased likelihood of damage to road Decreased likelihood of waterways anticipated. likelihood of damage to road ase and surface from flood. damage to road base and Decreased likelihood of base and surface from flood. Decreased likelihood of flood surface from flood. Decreased damage to road base and Decreased likelihood of flood waters inundating the roadway. likelihood of flood waters surface from flood. Decreased waters inundating roadway. No change in floodplam inundating roadway. No likelihood of flood waters No change in floodplain elevations. Increased change in floodplain inundating roadway. No elevations. Increased likelihood of contaminated elevations. Increased change in floodplain likelihood of contaminated stormwater degrading surface likelihood of contaminated elevations. Increased stormwater degrading surface r grdwater quality. stormwater degrading surface likelihood of contaminated of ggrroundwater quaa,,. 0' Action: No impacts to or groundwater quality. stormwater degrading surface -3: Crosses 100 -year oodploins. Continued oAciion: No impacts to or groundwater quality. oodplain. likelihood of damageto road oodplains. o Action: No impacts to o Action: No impacts to ase and surface from oodplains. oodplains. flooding. Wild & Scenic Rivers W-1, W-3, No Action: NoX-1, PTA -1, PTA -3, No X-3, No Action: No impacts X -4A, E-3, No Action: No impacts to Wild and Scenic etion: No impacts to Wild c Wild and Scenic Rivers. impacts to Wild and Scenic Rivers. and Scenic Rivers. ivers. Coastal Zone Mgmt. (CZM) Program W-1, W-3, NoActlon: No X-2, PTA -1, PTA -3, No X-3, No Action: No X -4A, E-3, No Action: No inconsistencies with objectives etian: No inconsistencies inconsistencies with objectives inconsistencies with objectives of CZM Program. vith objectives of CZM of CZM Program. of CZM Program. rogram. it Quality W-2 W-3: Temporary, X-2, PTA -1, PIA -3: X-3: Temporary, localizedEX-4A, E-3: Temporary, localized impacts to air quality Temporary, localized impacts impacts to airqquality during localized impacts to air quality wring construction. No o air quality during construction. No exceedence during construction. No exceedence of air quality construction. No exceedence of air quality standards exceedence of air quality standards. of air quality standards No Action: No construction- standards. No Action: No construction- No Action: No construction- related impacts to air quality. No Action: No construction - elated impacts to air quality.elated No exceedence of air quality impacts to air quality. o exceedence of air quality o exceedence of air quality standards elated impacts to air quality. No exceedence of air quality standards. standards. standards. S-19 TABLE S.6 Summary of Impacts Section [ Section II Section III Section IV : Disturbance of 68.6 ha o1 tat. This includes 58.4 ha conative vegetation types 10.2 ha of native nation types. : Disturbance of 70 l ha o] tat. This Includes 59.9 ha )native vegetation types 10.2 ha of native Ration types. 4etion: No direct impacts dive vegetation or habitat s. Gradual increase in risk re and dispersal and .ihle introduction of alien Hazard W-3: increased risk of luring construction. itial increase in fire rd in fire -prone area with .ase in use of roadway. ease in fire risk to Palila al habitat by moving road i of the existing road ment. Ietion: Potential increase e hazard in fire -prune area growth in use of roadway. ers of the U.SJWetlands W-3, No Action: No rs of the U.S. No PTA -1, PTA -3: sed risk of tire and fiction of alien species to habitats Disturbance of 68.5 ha itat 0.9 ha of nonnative etation types. 4-1: Disturbance of 85.1 ht .abnat: 12.3 ha of nonnative 72.8 ha of native etation types. 4-3: Disturbance of 88.2 he Habitat. 3.3 ha of nonnative 84.9 ha of native etation types. Action: No direct impacts native vegetation or habitat. dual increase in risk of lire dispersal and possible oduction of alien species. S, PTA -1, PTA -3: used risk of fire during ruction. Potential ase in fire hazard in fire - e area with increase in use adway. Potential risk to e habitats from fire. Iction: Potential increase e hazard in fire -prone area increase in use of way. Potential risk to e habitats from fire. 1, PTA -3, No waters of the I_S. C-3: Disturbance of 965 ha habitat, all of which is native @@etation types. Increased k of introduction of alien ecies to native habitats. ipacts to ki uka. Action: No direct impacts native vegetation or habitat fes Gradual increase in risk dispersal and possible :roduction of alien species. S-20 No Action: No notable se in fire hazard. pact to ately 2.4 ha of in native habitat. n: No impact to Disturbance of 10.7 that. This includes cantly native to types, of which 9 4 :en highly invaded by cies. turbance of 22.4 ha of This includes 1 1.1 ha tion types, of has been highly ien species. In direct impacts ;cation or habitat al increase in risk ndpossible if alien species_ E-3, No Action: No increase In fire hazard. A: Impact to tximately 0 ha of rids in native habitat Impact to approximately a of wetlands in native at and 2.7 ha of wetlands No impact to TABLE S.6 Summary of Impacts Section I Section II Section 111 Section I V Birds W-1, W-3, No Action: No X-1: Loss of habitat for X-3: I emporaryEX-4A, E-3, No Action: No negative impacts to native native birds. Increased risk of displacement of individual negative impacts to native birds anticipated. fire and introduction of alien endemic birds during birds anticipated. ecies to native habitats. construction. Increased risk of Xs -1: Loss of habitat for loss of kipuka habitat with native birds. Increased risk of introduction of alien species. fire and introduction of alien NoAction: Minor, indirect ecies to native habitats. impacts to native birds with Xs -3: Loss of habitat for increasing risk of introduction native birds_ Increased risk of of alien species. fire and introduction of alien s ecies to native habitats. o Action: Indirectm iacts on native birds. Increasedptraf6e, risk of fire, and introduction of alien species, Fire breaks will of be constructed. Mammals W-1, W-3, No Action: No X-2, PTA -1, PTA -3, No X-3, No Action: No negative XJA, E-3, No Action: No negative impacts to Hawaiian Action: No negative impacts impacts to Hawaiian hoary bat egative impacts to Hawaiian hoary bat anticipated. to Hawaiian hoary bat anticipated. oary bat anticipated. anticipated. Invertebrates W-1, W-3: Loss of native snail X-1, PTA -1, PTA -3: Impacts X-3: Disturbance of 96.5 haX--IA, E-3: Increased populations in the eastern o endemic species as a result of habitat, all of which is native potential for impacting cave rtton of the segment. of loss of native habitat. for further vegetation types. Increased dispersal ecosystems. Increased for further dispersal ,o reased potential for farther Increased potential risk of and possible potential dispersal and possible dispersal and possible introduction of alien species in habitats. Impacts to and possible introduction of introduction of alien species. introduction of alien species native alien species. No Action: No increase in NoAction: No increase in kipuka. No Action: No increase in direct impacts to invertebrates. direct impacts to invertebrates. No Action: No increase in direct impacts to invertebrates. Gradual increase in risk of fire Gradual increase in risk of fire direct impacts to native and dispersal and possible and dispersal and possible vegetation or habitat types increase in introduction of alien species. introduction of alien species. Gradual risk of dispersal and possible introduction of alienspecies. S-21 TABLE S.6 Summary of Impacts Section I Section 11 Section III Section IV Threatened & Endangered Species W-1, W-3, No Action: No X-2: No direct impacts to X-3: No increase in directEX-4A, E-3 No Action: No increase in direct impacts to ahla Critical Habitat. impacts to threatened or increase in direct impacts to threatened or endangered Increased risk of wildfire and endangered species. Increased threatened or endangered species. dispersal and possible risk of dispersal and possible species. introduction of alien species introduction of alien species. A-1: Direct modification of oAction: Minor, indirect 41.5 Its of Palita Critical impacts to threatened and I Iabitat. Increased risk of endangered species with wildfire and dispersal and increasing risk of dispersal and possible introduction of alien possible introduction of alien ecies species. Ks -3: Direct modification of 46.1 ha of Pahla Critical Habitat. Increased risk of wildfire and dispersal and possible introduction of alien species. No Action: Minor, indirect impacts to threatened and endangered species with increasing risk of fire and introduction of alien species. Archaeological Resources W-2, W-3: A relatively small X-2: A relatively small X-3: Relatively smallEX-4A: Impacts to one segment of one eligible historic segment of one historic linear segments of four historic linear historic cairn. Site significant linear feature, Old Waimea- feature, Kaohe Wall, will be features, Pu' u ' O' o -Volcano for data recovery only No Kona Belt Road will be impacted. Adverse effect, but Trail, Homo ula Sheep Station adverse effect. impacted. Adverse effect, but can bemitigated enmeter Wall, Hilo-fu'u -3: A relatively small can be mitigated. X-2, PTA -3: A relatively ' O' o 'Frail, and Old Saddle segment of one historic linear W-3: Impacts to one historic small segment of one historic oad, will be impacted. feature,'Ola a Flume, will be habitation/animal enclosure, linear feature, Humu' ula Sheep Adverse effect, but can be impacted. Adverse effect, but signifreant for data recovery Station Perimeter Wall, will be mitigated. Impacts to two can be mitigated. Impacts to only. No adverse effect. impacted. Adverse effect, but historic linear walls and one silo Country Club and Senator oAction: No impacts to an be mitigated. ustoric terrace; no adverse imi's House; sites significant archaeological resources. A-1: A relatively small effect for data recovery only No segment of one historic linear o Action: No impacts to adverse effect. feature, Old Waimea- archaeological resources. NoAction: No impacts to lumu ula Wagon Road, will Adverse archaeological resources. e impacted. effect, but can be mitigated. Impacts 0 one historic fence, sign f cant for data recovery only. No adverse effect. o Action: No impacts to arc haeologicalresources. Traditional Cultural Properties W-2, W-3, No Action: No X-2, P7A-1, PTA -3, No X-3, No Action: No impactsr7X-4A, "f E-3 NoAction: No Traditional impacts to Traditional Cultural coon: No impacts to o raditional Cultural pactsto Cultural roperties. TratonaCultural Properties. roperties. roperiies. Section 4(f) W-2, W-3, No Action: No useX-2, PTA -1, PTA -3, No X-3, No Action: No use of [EX -4A, E-3, No Action: No of Section 4(f) Properties. etion: No use of Section 4(t) Section 4(f) Properties. se of Section 4(f) Properties. 'ro erties. S-22 S.7 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Cumulative impacts are the result of incremental impacts of an action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. Development within the Saddle Road area and on the island as a whole has resulted in the loss and degradation of resources unique to the island. The development within the Saddle Road corridor includes ranching operations, recreational facilities, public use areas, utility corridors, mining operations, military facilities, hunting units, scientific research, and residences. Current plans and potential projects under consideration in the project vicinity include the expansion of Mauna Kea Science Reserve, the extension of the runway at Bradshaw Army Airfield, the construction of an additional electric transmission line, the installation of a fiber optics transmission line, the extension of Puainako Street, and the development of an improved connection between Mamalahoa and Queen Ka ahumanu Highways. An improved roadway would increase the pressures of growth and development in areas served by Saddle Road. This would contribute to traffic along Saddle Road and use of the area by residents and tourists. Increased traffic and increased use of the area are expected to result in further introduction and spread of alien species, heightened risk of fire, and associated impacts on native species. Development and land use conversion across the island have created a trend toward the destruction of cultural resources, reduction in visual quality, soil erosion, water quality degradation, the destruction of caves, and the alteration of topographical features. All build alternatives, and to a lesser extend the No Action Alternative, would contribute to this trend. S.8 PROPOSED MITIGATION COMMITMENTS Mitigation measures have been developed in order to minimize both short-term and long-term impacts of the proposed project. Mitigation commitments for impacts to the human environment are to maintain free-flowing access to existing land uses, provide scenic pullouts and parking, facilitate emergency access, minimize traffic conflicts, and keep the public informed of anticipated delays. FHWA will develop relocation assistance and benefits for residents displaced by the project. Hazardous materials and unexploded ordnance will be handled to ensure proper treatment of these materials. Native Hawaiians will be employed to observe cultural ritual protocol at the construction site. Mitigation commitments for impacts to the physical environment are to implement dust and emission control measures. Prior to construction FHWA will coordinate with speleological experts to reduce the risk of impacting caves or lava tubes. Construction techniques that create natural -appearing surfaces and weathered steel guardrails and fences will be utilized to minimize the visual impact of the project at the location of cut and fill slopes. Remnant landforms will be removed at select locations. General mitigation commitments for impacts to biological resources are to limit surface disturbance to within the right-of-way, ensure proper environmental training to construction S-23 workers, revegetate appropriate locations, prohibit night-time construction lighting, and adopt construction practices that minimize dispersion of alien species. An alien plant species monitoring and control program will be implemented. During final design, the alignment will be shifted at ten locations to avoid kipuka. Sensitive habitats like kipuka will be fenced during construction. A fire mitigation plan will be developed in coordination with PTA fire fighting efforts. Paved fire breaks will be constructed in areas of critical fire concern, and emergency call boxes will be provided along the route. Mitigation for impacts to wetlands will be developed in coordination with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. A search for Hawaiian Hawk nests will be conducted prior to construction. Considerable resources will be devoted to the development of a Palila mitigation plan. Three areas outside the project corridor will be provided and managed to enable Palila habitat restoration and translocation for assistance in enabling the State's required Palila recovery program. Mitigation commitments for impacts to cultural resources are to undergo data recovery programs for 8 of the 19 NRNP -eligible sites. Where appropriate, the alignment will be shifted during final design and archaeological monitoring plans will be implemented to avoid or minimize impacts. Interpretive signs and pullouts will be developed to enhance the public awareness of some sites. S.9 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT HISTORY OF THE SADDLE ROAD PROJECT The following list summarizes the history of the Saddle Road EIS project and provides notable milestones to the coordination and public involvement process. Initially, improvements for Saddle Road had been considered only along the existing alignment within the boundaries of the PTA. The summary provided' egins with the decision to expand the project planning to include the roadway sections outside of the PTA boundary. 2/91 Interagency scoping meeting held in Honolulu to discuss various agency needs and concerns for improvements along existing alignment within PTA. PTA realignment recommendation presented by U.S. Army representatives. Full EIS anticipated for realignment. Consensus achieved between most agency representatives, with some reservations, that realignment would improve public safety. 4/91 Request made by MTMC that development efforts along the existing alignment be stopped and efforts be redirected to develop the realignment proposal. 5/91 New estimate and schedule submitted by FHWA for realignment construction between MP 30 and 43. Cost estimated at $11.3 million. New surveys, mapping, location studies, and environmental compliance expected to delay initial construction project. Because HDOT did not agree with realignment proposal, work stopped by FHWA until agreement between participating agencies could be reached. S-24 6/91 Support for realignment proposal forwarded by Senator Daniel Inouye and HDOT. 11/91 SEE Team reconvened to advance project development considering realignment proposal. Need determined for full EIS for entire Saddle Road from MP 5 to MP 53 to comply with logical termini requirement. 2/92 Estimate prepared by FHWA to complete project development, including environmental compliance from MP 5 to MP 53. Cost estimated at $2.3 million. Interagency meeting held in Honolulu and public scoping meetings held in Hilo, Waimea, and Captain Cook. FHWA work suspended pending MTMC consideration of additional project development requirements. 4/92 HDOT participation in additional project development funding requested by MTMC. 2/93 $2.34 million in DAR funds for project development authorized by MTMC. 3/93 Project development activities resumed. Aerial survey and mapping process for realignment studies initiated. 5/93 Citizens of the County of Hawai' i invited to form a task force by Senator Inouye to solicit and disseminate information about the project within the community and work with the project development team. 6/93 SEE Team reconvened for meeting in Honolulu. First citizens task force meeting held (SRTF). 8/93 Mission Statement adopted and goals identified by SRTF. 1/94 RUST Environment and Infrastructure selected by FHWA, under an umbrella contract to prosecute environmental compliance and preliminary route location design studies. Okahara & Associates (O & A) selected by RUST for all local project coordination efforts in Hawaii. Meeting held between FHWA, RUST, O & A, SRTF, and various agencies to establish communications and develop schedule for project development and scoping process. 3/94 Letter of Intent sent to all interested parties, agencies, and organizations and Notice of Intent published in Federal Register. 4/94 Notification of Public Scoping Meetings mailed to all interested parties, agencies, and organizations. 5/94 Public Scoping Meetings held in Hilo, Kona, and Waimea. Interagency Scoping Meeting held in Hilo. SRTF scoping meeting held in Waimea and SEE Team scoping meeting held S-25 in Hilo. Traffic Study completed by RUST. Traffic volumes on Saddle Road determined to be 900 ADT in 1994 and forecasted to be 14,000 ADT in 2014 with proposed improvements. 6/94 Several SRTF Meetings held to generate input on project purpose and need. 7/94 Saddle Road Project Information Centers opened in Hilo and Kona to make project information available to interested persons and to receive comments. Notices of information centers published in Hilo and Kona newspapers. 8/94 SRTF Meeting held to brief members on project development progress and review proposed alignments developed through scoping process. Field trip to view alternative alignments conducted. Recommended alternatives developed by SRTF to present to SEE Team for further consideration. 10/94 SEE Team meeting held in Hilo to brief team on scoping results, review project objectives and purpose, and select alternative alignments for further engineering and environmental study (102 miles of alternatives selected). 11/94 SRTF meeting held to review project alternatives advanced for further consideration and project issues and concerns identified. First Saddle Road Newsletter published and sent to mailing list (approximately 800 distributed). 2/95 Second project development contract initiated with RUST for surveying, mapping, preliminary route location design, and environmental field studies and reports on alternatives developed through scoping process. RUST project team selected, consisting of 12 subconsultants; 10 locally based in Hawai' i. 3/95 SRTF Meeting held to brief members on status of project development tasks recently initiated and receive input on progress, issues, and concerns. Meetings held with DLNR to coordinate rights -of -entry for surveying and environmental inventories, review procedures of environmental studies for consistency with Conservation District regulations. Through October of 1995, field work conducted by subconsultants, including biological, botanical, avian, and archaeological surveys and interviews of tourists, road users, truckers, and other citizens conducted. 4/95 Interagency meeting held to brief agencies on project status and schedule for environmental field inventories and engineering studies (geotech, hydraulics, traffic, etc.). New construction cost estimates prepared: PTA section $35 million, remainder of Saddle Road $68 million. 8/95 Coordination meeting held with DOA at PTA to discuss issues and concerns relative to alternative alignment studies to date. 5-26 10/95 Field review of potential alternative alignments and available mapping for west side held with RUST and O & A. Critical Interagency meetings held with DOA and USFWS, DLNR, and NBS to discuss findings of preliminary route location alternatives and potential environmental effects and to receive comments on resulting issues and concerns. Funds made available to begin work on environmental studies portion of RUST contract. Environmental Assessment and Notice of Preparation of EIS submitted to Office of Environmental Quality Control. 11/95 SRTF, SEE Team and Interagency meetings held to review preliminary alternatives i. _.e location and design and receive input. Line and grade field review of first half of staked preliminary alignments held with HDOT, RUST, FHWA, and other interested agencies. Comments incorporated in revisions. 12/95 SRTF meeting held to review project progress and future project development procedures and schedule. 2/96 Line and grade field review of second half of staked preliminary alignments held with RUST and O & A. Team planning concept initiated for project development. Environmental Project Manager and Local Coordination Manager appointed. 3/96 Discussions with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) held to perform remaining archaeological inventories and studies within the PTA. 4/96 SRTF and SEE Team meetings held. SRTF briefing on project status held at PTA with Senator Inouye and DOA representatives. SEE Team meeting held to review progress status and issues and concerns on various project alternatives. Decision made by SEE Team to eliminate alternatives W-4 and E-1 from further detailed consideration; concurrence obtained from SRTF. Several meetings held between FHWA staff and National Biological Service (NBS), USFWS, and USACE to discuss Palila critical habitat (field trip and mitigation discussions), invertebrate inventories, archaeological studies in PTA, and wetlands considerations. Informal consultation initiated with USFWS on critical habitat impact mitigation for Section 7 Consultation. 5/96 Preliminary route location design plans completed and exhibits submitted to environmental subconsultants for study reports. Preliminary Design Study Report completed. Sixteen invitations for Cooperating Agency status sent; three acceptances received. Meetings held between FHWA staff and U.S. Army Garrison -Hawaii (USARGH), USFWS, Division of Forestry and Wildlife (Hawai'i), HDOT, and National Biological Service (NBS) to discuss coordination of DOA's Ecosystem Management Plan with Palila mitigation effort and general elements of a Palila mitigation plan as proposed by NBS. First draft of a specific mitigation proposal with cost estimates presented by NBS. 5-27 6/96 Workshop given by FHWA, Hawaii Division, to subconsultant team on EIS Preparation. New construction cost estimates submitted based on preliminary design received from consultants: PTA, $34 million to $40 million; remainder of Saddle Road, $92 million to $106 million. Cost dependent on alternative selected. 7/96 Modification made to RUST contract to provide for biological survey and report on invertebrate species as required by USFWS, research to assess social effects of alternatives relative to Native Hawai' ian culture, and extend the authority of existing subconsultant to provide archaeological and historical properties investigations within PTA in lieu of USACE. State participaticn in funding of Saddle Road project development effort committed by HDOT. 8/96 Meetings held between FHWA staff and USARGH regarding coordination of their Ecosystem Management Plan efforts with Saddle Road mitigation proposals. Discussions held with new subconsultant to develop Public Information Program (newsletters followed). Additional cultural properties field inventories initiated within PTA. 9/96 Meeting held with subconsultant to initiate compilation of Biological Assessment as required for Section 7 consultation of Endangered Species Act. 10/96 SRTF, Interagency, and SEE Team project development meetings held in Hilo to review project alternatives and associated affected environments, impacts, and proposed mitigation, and solicit input relative to issues, and concerns. Proposed project schedule and interagency coordination discussed. Selection of possible preferred alternatives discussed by SEE Team. Alternatives EX -4 and EX -1 eliminated. 11/96 Interagency meeting held in Honolulu, hosted by Senator Inouye, to discuss specific project mitigation elements, processes, and coordination required including critical habitat replacement land transfers, management strategies, funding, and necessary agreements. Elements and procedure for Biological Assessment to be required by USFWS for this project confirmed. Fire prevention roadway cross-section confirmed. Discussions held on coordination of DOA's Ecosystem Management Plan with Palila Mitigation Plan. Discussions held with HDOT on project development issues impacting scope of possible initial construction project. Field trip conducted with FHWA, USFWS, and USACE to review wetland findings and discuss procedures for jurisdictional delineation and permitting requirements. Issue #2 of Saddle Road Newsletter distributed to approximately 1,170 groups and individuals. 12/96 SRTF meeting held to present results of discussions and interagency coordination to date and receive community -related input from members on all project issues and concerns as well as public information program progress and plans. FHWA solicitation opened for new contract for Hawai' i -based firm; first task order to include continued work on environmental studies and preliminary design. 5-28 1/97 Issue 93 of Saddle Road Newsletter mailed to approximately 1,170 groups and individuals. 3/97 Preliminary Draft EIS (PDEIS) distributed to all participating, cooperating, and coordinating agencies for review and comment. PDEIS distributed to internal staff for review. Biological Assessment submitted with request for early coordination under Section 7 to USFWS. Need determined for additional funding to complete further environmental compliance studies. Technical report on archaeological and historical properties received at FHWA. 4/97 Two Interagency meetings held to discuss issues, impacts, and mitigation proposed as presented in the PDEIS. Most agency written comments received by end of month as requested. Confirmation from USFWS received that all details of multi -agency management of Palila mitigation lands would need to be resolved before submittal of BA. Letter sent transmitting cultural properties report to SHPO and requesting concurrence with eligibility determinations. O & A selected for work in Hawai' i under Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity Contract. O & A's first task order provides for continuance of environmental and design work on project. Numerous meetings were held between January, 1994, and the present with interested individuals, agency representatives, and public and private organizations to provide project briefings and receive input on project issues and concerns. A list of organizations for which one or more formal project briefings were presented at various stages of the project is presented in Table S.7, Community Organizations, TABLE S.7 Community Organizations Kaumana Community Association Hawai' i Island Chamber of Commerce Upper Kaumana Community Council Big Island Business Council Kaumana City Association Kona Senior Citizens Waiki' i Ranch Community Association Waimea Community Association Waimea Rotary Club AARP -Hilo Chapter South Hilo Rotary Club Waimea Exchange Club Waimea Lions Club Hilo Woman's Club Big Island Retired Military Association Open community meetings were held in Hilo, Kona, and Waimea from April through October, 1995, to present project briefings and distribute social impact survey questionnaires. S-29 CHAPTER 1 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION CHAPTER I - PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION 1.1 INTRODUCTION The Federal Highway Administration, Central Federal Lands Highway Division (FHWA) in cooperation with the State of Hawai' i Department of Transportation (HDOT) are proposing to improve Saddle Road. The U.S. Department of the Army (DOA), Military Traffic Management Command (MTMC), serves with the FHWA as co -administrator of the Defense Access Road (DAR) Program. FHWA will serve as the lead agency for compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 as amended (NEPA). Compliance with Chapter 343 of Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) relating to environmental impact statements is also required because State lands and resources are involved in the project. This Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) has been prepared to evaluate the proposed action in accordance with NEPA and HRS 343. The proposed improvements would upgrade and modernize Saddle Road as a two-lane highway that would meet contemporary design standards for arterials and provide adequate capacity to handle anticipated traffic volumes through 2014 and beyond. The portion of Saddle Road to be improved by this project is approximately 78 kilometers (km) in length and extends from the Mamalahoa Highway (SR 190) to Milepost (MP) 6, near Hilo, Hawaii (Figure 2.2.1, Overview of Segments Under Consideration). The MTMC has authorized DAR funds to prepare an EIS for the entire Saddle Road, including such preliminary design work as may be necessary for completing the EIS. The MTMC has determined that the design and construction of that portion of the Saddle Road improvements within the approximate limits of the U c .Army Pohakuloa Training Area (PTA) are eligible for DAR funds because of the impact of the military operations at the PTA on Saddle Road. The Department of Defense (DOD), however, has not programmed any construction funds. Funds for constructing the DAR section of Saddle Road must be authorized and appropriated by Congress. The remaining portions of the Saddle Road improvement project will be funded by monies appropriated through future legislative actions. It is anticipated that HDOT will design and construct segments outside of PTA. It has been agreed that improved segments of Saddle Road constructed with DAR funds will be owned and maintained by HDOT. 1.2 DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING ROADWAY Saddle Road, State Route 200 (SR 200), is a two-lane road approximately 85 km in length extending westerly from Hilo to ajunction with State Route 190 (SR 190), the Mamalahoa Highway, approximately 10 km south of Waimea, on the Island ofHawai'i. Saddle Road is a shorter route than Highway 19 (SR 19) and Highway 1 1 (SR 11), the other two alternative east - west routes (Figure 2.2.1). In its current poor condition, Saddle Road does not provide a viable cross -island link. Cross -island traffic uses SRI predominantly. Saddle Road serves as an alternate route when flooding, landslides, or other emergencies or disasters cause road closures on SR 19 or SR 11. Information on the traffic conditions, traffic patterns, level of service, and accident history of Saddle Road is provided in 1.6, Purpose and Need. For this project, the logical termini were determined to be the Mamalahoa Highway and MP 6 near Hilo. The Mamalahoa Highway was determined to be the western project terminus because it represents a separate, established transportation route. MP 6 was determined to be the eastern project terminus because it represents the extent of previous road improvements to Saddle Road, and is the site of a future connection with the proposed Puainako Street Extension. 1.3 SADDLE ROAD USE PATTERNS Saddle Road is the only paved arterial serving the Mauna Kea Science Reserve International Astronomical Observatory Complex (University ofHawai'i Observatory), residential areas of Waiki' i Ranch and Kaumana, Mauna Kea State Recreation Area, and the Kilohana Girl Scout Camp. It serves as access to the state's major hunting areas on Mauna Kea, Kaohe, PTA, Mauna Loa, Kipuka ' Ainahou, Hilo Forest Reserve, and Upper Waiakea Forest Reserve. Saddle Road is also important for providing a cross -island transportation route to connect East and West Hawai' i for business travel, the transport of goods and services, tourism/recreation, shopping, and to some extent commuting. Saddle Road is the only paved arterial serving the PTA. No permanent training units are stationed at the PTA. The facility serves as the only light infantry, live -fire training facility in the Pacific for the U.S. Army Pacific Command (USARPAC) and other Pacific Command Units. The transportation of ammunition, training equipment, and troops from harbors on both the west and east side of the island creates long, slow-moving convoys on Saddle Road. Saddle Road is also used by PTA personnel to commute to and from work. Traffic distribution on Saddle Road is estimated at 50 percent in each direction. Trucks constitute approximately 10 percent of the total traffic on Saddle Road. 1.4 OTHER RELEVANT TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS Two other relevant transportation projects have been initiated by HDOT that would further enhance the role of Saddle Road as a vital transportation route within the region. These include the proposed extension of Saddle Road from Mamalahoa Highway to Queen Ka ahumanu Highway, and the Puainako Street Extension. The scoping process has begun for the proposed extension of Saddle Road from the Mamalahoa Highway to Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway. The 1-2 EIS for the Puainako Street Extension is in preparation. The proposed project addressed in this EIS has logical termini regardless of whether these two related projects are built (Cross Reference: 2.1 Design Parameters Common to All Action Alternatives). 1.5 BACKGROUND Saddle Road was constructed in 1942 by the DOA. In 1945, the road was released by the Federal Government and turned over to the Territory of Hawai' i. The Territory of Hawai' i maintained the road until 1957 when the lack of territorial funds necessitated transfer of road maintenance, ,o the County of Hawai' i. In 1965, the State of Hawai' i authorized the establishment of a State highway system. Saddle Road was included in this State system and an agreement was made in 1968 between the County and the State to exchange the road jurisdiction. This agreement was never implemented, however, because of a lack of State funding; thus, the County has continued to maintain Saddle Road up to the present. Saddle Road is a narrow, winding, two-lane road with steep grades, sharp curves, poor pavement, and substandard drainage (Rust 1996a). Between 1988 and 1992, the County ofHawai'i widened and repaved approximately 21 km of the road (MP 19 to 6), however, geometric deficiencies still exist. Beyond the 1988 to 1992 improvements, Saddle Road has received only minimal upgrades since it was originally built. Today, the alignment, grade, sight distances, drainage, and other features remain substandard for arterial highways. Photographs which document the pavement condition and other deficiencies of the road are located in the Visual Resource Assessment prepared for this project (Logan Simpson & Dye 1996, Technical Appendices, Volume VII). 1.6 PURPOSE AND NEED The purpose of this project is to provide a safe and efficient route for access to land uses along Saddle Road and for cross -island traffic between East and West Hawaii. The proposed improvements to Saddle Road would address five general types of needs: roadway deficiencies, conflicts and hazards with military operations, capacity, safety, and social demand and economic development. This project will be added in the federally required State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) prior to construction. Chapter 10 provides a chronological description of how the purpose and need were derived and alternatives were established. 1.6.1 Roadway Deficiencies Although Saddle Road is presently two -directional, however, in practicality deterioration of the pavement has reduced much of the road to one asphalt travel lane, 3.6 to 4.3 meters (m) in width, with shoulders 0.6 in in width (Figure 1.6.1, Typical Section, Existing Roadway). Pavement 1-3 deterioration has compromised the integrity of the shoulders, where pavement is more patchy than continuous. The narrow width and poor pavement condition encourage motorists to drive in the center of the road, increasing the potential for accidents, including head-on collisions. One stretch of Saddle Road, between the PTA and the Mamalahoa Highway, contains six one -lane bridges. With horizontal and vertical alignment deficiencies, Saddle Road is characterized by steep grades and sharp curves, which in many places prevent motorists from seeing ahead an adequate distance. The narrow travel lane, inadequate shoulders, steep grades, sharp curves, and associated substandard sight distances, make the passing of slow-moving vehicles very hazardous. In addition, pavement markings aci,: roadway signage are currently inadequate along Saddle Road. Drainage structures are undersized, resulting in periodic flooding of portions of the roadway. Saddle Road is often closed during major storm events due to flooding and hazardous road conditions. Additional detail on roadway conditions and deficiencies is provided in the Preliminary Design Report (Rust 1996a). 1.6.2 Conflicts/Hazards with Military Operations Saddle Road crosses through the northern area of the PTA. The road separates the PTA cantonment area and the Bradshaw Army Airfield from the majority of its training areas, firing points and impact zones. Extensive training along and across Saddle Road has created conflict between the traveling public and military training exercises and has reduced the quality of many of the training exercises undertaken. Some military operations require troops to fire over Saddle Road, while some require troops to break from a "tactical mode" to an "administrative mode" to move across the road to reach firing ranges on the opposite side. With little or no warning, motorists on the road may encounter soldiers or military equipment crossing the road. This creates a potentially life-threatening situation for both the traveling public and military personnel, particularly in places where sight distance is low. 1.6.3 Capacity Future growth in traffic volumes is projected for Saddle Road either with and without the proposed improvements. The 1994 average daily traffic (ADT) on Saddle Road was 900 vehicles. With the No Action Alternative, the Saddle Road ADT is projected to be 4,400 by 2014 (Rust 1994). Completion of proposed improvements to Saddle Road would be expected to further increase traffic volumes to 14,000 ADT by 2014, a sixteen -fold increase over existing levels and a three -fold increase over that of the No Action Alternative for 2014. This level of need far exceeds the road's existing traffic capacity. The projected increase is due to a variety of demands including increased usage associated with commuter traffic; residential development in the Kohala, Waikoloa, and Waiki' i Ranch areas; tourist related traffic; recreational travel; agricultural transportation; military operations; the Mauna Kea telescope complex; and increasing congestion along alternative cross -island routes. 1-4 4.9 - 5.5 m (Variable) 1-0.6 m± 0.6 m± TRAVELWAY TRAVELWAY 2.5-2.8 m (Variable) 2.5-2.8 m (Variable) I Patched Pavement Patched Pavement Note: Continuous patch of shoulder pavement extends trovelway width. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION CENTRAL FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION DENVER, COLORADO TYPICAL SECTION EXISTING ROADWAY FIGURE 1.6.1 The transportation of ammunition, training equipment, water trucks, and troops to and from the PTA creates long, slow-moving convoys on Saddle Road. With Saddle Road's severe limitations to passing, platoons of traffic are created as motorists are trapped behind slow-moving vehicles or convoys. Level of Service (LOS) is a qualitative measure of operational conditions within a traffic stream and motorists' perception of those conditions. It relates to the density of traffic relative to roadway capacity. It expresses conditions of speed, travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort, convenience and safety. The quality of traffic flow is described in six categories of service, A through F, with LOS A representing traffic in a free flow condition, and LOS F representing serious congestion and considerable delays (Table 1.6.1, Current and Tulare Traffic volumes and LOS). On a two-lane road LOS is primarily determined by the ability to pass, which is largely dependent on the percentage of steep grades, traffic volumes, and sight distance (Rust 1994). LOS A through F are described as follows. ■ LOS A represents uncongested, free-flow conditions. On a two-lane road, passing demand is well below passing capacity. Drivers would be delayed no more than 30 percent of the time by slow moving vehicles. For multi -lane highways, the ability to maneuver within the traffic stream is high. Minor traffic flow disruptions at this level are easily absorbed without causing significant delays or queuing. ■ LOS B is indicative of a stable flow where the presence of other vehicles begins to be noticeable. As passing demand approaches capacity on two-lane roadways, platooning is common. At this level, minor traffic disruptions are still easily absorbed, but local deterioration in LOS will be more obvious. ■ LOS C represents conditions at which noticeable delays occur and the freedom to maneuver between lanes becomes restricted. Slowing of traffic is particularly noticeable when vehicles turn left and passing capacity is reduced. ■ LOS D represents congestion and the limits of stable traffic flow. Traffic congestion severely restricts speeds and the ability to maneuver. Only the most minor of traffic disruptions can occur without extensive queues forming. On two-lane roads, passing demand is high while passing capacity approaches zero. ■ LOS E represents unstable traffic flow operations at or near capacity. Any disruption, no matter how minor, causes queues and deterioration of LOS. Passing becomes virtually impossible on two-lane roadways. ■ LOS F represents heavily congested flow with the traffic demand exceeding capacity. Operations within queues are very unstable, with traffic experiencing short spurts of movement followed by stoppages. 1-5 Using operational analysis procedures presented in the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), Third Edition, 1994, the LOS under current conditions was calculated. According to this theoretical approach, Saddle Road is operating at LOS B in some segments, and in LOS D in most areas. LOS B overstates the road's current level of service given the poor condition of the pavement, its narrow width, alignment deficiencies, and poor sight distances. The FHWA has concluded that the overall LOS for Saddle Road is D, due to these numerous deficiencies and steep grades. With projected traffic growth and no proposed improvements, Saddle Road is expected to deteriorate to LOS E by the year 2014. With LOS E, passing in most locations is unsafe and platooning occurs when slower vehicles or other interruptions are encountered. With the proposed improvements, Saddle Road LOS D would be improved to LOS B. LOS B describes only slight, occasional congestion. It is considered a more -than -adequate condition. Table 1.6. l summarizes the results of traffic modeling conducted for the EIS. TABLE 1.6.1 Current and Future Traffic Volumes and LOS Year Alternative ADT LOS 1994 Estimated Traffic Baseline Conditions 900 D 2014 Projected Traffic No Action Alternative 4,400 E 2014 Projected Traffic All Action Alternatives 14,000 B 1.6.4 Safety Roadway deficiencies, conflicts/hazards with military operations, and capacity limitations contribute to safety concerns of Saddle Road. Historical accident data for 1986 through 1994 for Saddle Road from HDOT indicate a total of 626 accidents. Five included fatalities, 315 resulted in injuries (excluding fatal accidents), and 306 involved property damage only. The average rate for rural two-lane highways throughout the State of Hawaii is about 3.0 accidents per million vehicle miles (ACC/MVM). The average 5.43 ACC/MVM for Saddle Road is notably higher (81 percent) than the State average (Cross Reference: 3.4.4 Safety) (Rust 1994). Emergency vehicles responding to fires, accidents, and other incidents along Saddle Road are also affected by the narrow, winding alignment of Saddle Road, its inadequate sight distances, deteriorating pavement, inadequate shoulders, and poor passing conditions, which hinder the quick response of fire trucks, ambulances, police cars, and other emergency vehicles. 1-6 1.6.5 Social Demand and Economic Development Saddle Road is needed for access to the PTA, Mauna Kea, Mauna Loa, Mauna Kea State Park, outdoor recreation areas along the road including areas used for hunting and gathering, ranch lands, and the communities of Waiki' i Ranch and Kaumana. It is also important for providing a cross -island transportation route to connect East and West Hawai' i for business travel, the transport of goods and services, tourism/recreation, shopping, and to some extent for commuting. East and West Hawai i are somewhat different in economic opportunities and development. Government functions and the Hilo Campus of the University of Hawai' i are located on the east side of the island in Hilo, where housing costs are generally lower, while much of the current economic growth and tourism -related growth and employment is occurring in West Hawai' i. Without a feasible, safe, cross -island route, business opportunities across the island are more limited, and the economies of East and West Hawai' i would be expected to continue to diverge (Cross Reference: 3.3 Social) (Terry 1996, Technical Appendices, Volume V). In addition, these conditions create a need for some people to commute cross -island. Decreased cross -island travel times would increase the mobility of the labor force. In addition to Saddle Road, two other routes can be used for travel to cross -island destinations: SR 19 and SR 11. SR 11, however, is from 50 to 150 km longer than the other two routes, and is generally not used by frequent travelers. For this reason, SR 19 along the Hamakua Coast is considered the only feasible alternative to Saddle Road for cross -island traffic. SR 19 is approximately 12 to 17 km longer than Saddle Road between Hilo and Kailua/Kona, and Hilo and Waikoloa. Between Hilo and Waimea, SR 19 is the shorter route. Because of the roadway deficiencies of Saddle Road, its pavement condition, and a lack of services and roadside amenities, SR 19 currently carries a larger percenta^P of the cross -island traffic, resulting in congestion on SR 19 during peak travel hours, increasing the time needed to complete the trip. Tourists currently do not have easy access to the interior of the island. Due to the condition of Saddle Road, automobile rental agencies restrict or prohibit use of their vehicles on the road, preventing many tourists from experiencing the attractions within the Saddle Road area. 1.7 CRITERIA FOR SELECTION OF ALTERNATIVES This EIS process identified and evaluated alternatives for improving Saddle Road to provide a safe and efficient link between East and West Hawaii. To fulfill the project's purpose and need, the following criteria were used in the selection of alternatives (Cross Reference: 1.6 Purpose and Need). ■ Eliminate substandard roadway design elements and geometric deficiencies. Each alternative would upgrade and modernize Saddle Road in accordance with A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 1994 by the American Association of State 1-7 Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), allowing its addition to the State highway system (Cross Reference: 2.1 Design Parameters Common to All Action Alternatives). The new roadway would be wider, would have gentler curves and grades, would have adequate shoulders, and would allow motorists adequate sight distance. ■ Minimize conflict between the traveling public and PTA military training operations. Two of the three alternatives considered within the PTA would notably minimize potential conflicts between the public and military training operations by physically separating them through the relocation of the roadway. The third alternative would not. ■ Improve the quality and safety of PTA training activities. The separation of military and civilian traffic would serve to minimize these potential conflicts and would also improve the quality of training operations (Cross Reference: 3.1.1.2 Environmental Consequences). With two of the three alternatives through the PTA, the road would be physically separated from training activities, eliminating the need for troops to break from a "tactical" to an "administrative" mode in order to cross the road, improving the quality of the training operations and enhancing the safety of training personnel. ■ Improve overall safety. The proposed action would provide two adequately -sized travel lanes and shoulders, which will eliminate the tendency of motorists to drive in the center of the roadway. The roadway's vertical and horizontal alignments would be corrected to eliminate sharp curves, steep grades, and inadequate sight distances, and would provide more opportunities for vehicles to safely pass. All one -lane bridges and other drainage structures would be replaced with structures adequate to accommodate the new roadway section and pass a minimum 50 -year storm. The new drainage structures would minimize hazardous flooding conditions along the road after storm events. In addition, improved pavement markings and roadway signage would be added. With two of the alternatives within the PTA, potential conflicts between the traveling public and military training operations would be minimized. With the third alternative, the roadway will not be realigned outside of the training areas and therefore, conflicts would likely increase in the future as traffic grows. ■ Enhance operational function and increase the quality of traffic flow. By the year 2014 with the proposed project, LOS would be B. For the same year, LOS E would be expected without implementation of the proposed improvements. The proposed project would provide a number of passing lanes, or pullouts, to enhance motorists' ability to safely pass slow-moving vehicles or convoys. ■ Minimize total environmental impact. Specific alternatives were eliminated because their environmental impacts were an order of magnitude greater than other alternatives which fulfilled the purpose and need (e.g. W-4, E-1). us Improve emergency vehicle and firefighting ani ccess. As previously noted, poor pavement conditions and roadway geometric deficiencies would be eliminated with implementation of the proposed project, allowing emergency vehicles to respond quickly and safely. Provide an improved alternate east/west access on the Island of Hawai' i. Improvements to Saddle Road would reduce cross -island travel time, maximizing employment, commerce, and recreational opportunities, and promoting island -wide economic growth and development. Tourism would increase in the area since rental car agencies would be expected to lift restrictions of Saddle Road. Reduction in cross -island travel time would provide economic benefit to the County and State of Hawai' i. Improvements to Saddle Road would provide an alternative cross -island route in the instance of road closures resulting from natural disasters (e.g. landslides, flooding, volcanic activity and tsunamis). ■ Accommodate present and future traffic levels. The proposed project would increase the capacity of Saddle Road to a level consistent with the projected traffic growth for the 20 -year planning period. ■ Improve pavement condition. With each action alternative, deteriorating pavement would be removed and replaced as the road is rebuilt or realigned. 1.8 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT STATUS AND IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE A formal public comment period begins with the issuance of the Saddle Road Draft EIS (DEIS). Public hearings will be held during this comment period to provide information and solicit formal comments on the project. The DEIS will be revised as appropriate and responses prepared to address public comments. Current schedules plan for completion of the Final EIS (FEIS) in early spring of 1998, and if approved, the issuance of the Record of Decision (ROD) in the spring of 1998. Assuming that one of the action alternatives is selected in the ROD, phased construction could begin as early as fall 1998 if funds become available. Table 1.8.1, Implementation Schedule, provides the projected time period for implementation of the proposed Saddle Road improvements. 1-9 TABLE 1.8.1 Implementation Schedule Phase Milepost Activity Projected Time Period A MP 42 to 28 (PTA -1, PTA -3 or EX -2) Environmental Planning & Public Involvement July 1997 -March 1998 Engineering March 1998 -December 1999 construction September 1998-Junc 2001 B MP 53.6 to 42 (W-2 or W-3) Environmental Planning & Public Involvement July 1997 -March 1998 Engineering January 2000 -December 2000 Construction January 2001 -June 2003 C MP 9 to 6 (EX -4A or E-3) Environmental Planning & Public Involvement July 1997 -March 1998 Engineering January 2001 -December 2001 Construction January 2002 -June 2004 D MP 19 to 9 (EX -3) Environmental Planning & Public Involvement July 1997 -March 1998 Engineering January 2002-Junc 2003 Construction January 2004 -June 2005 E MP 28 to 19 (EX -3) Environmental Planning & Public Involvement July 1997 -March 1998 Engineering January 2004 -December 2004 Construction January 2005 -June 2006 1.9 REQUIRED PERMITS AND APPROVALS A number of permits or other approvals may be necessary prior to implementation of any of the proposed action alternatives. The following list (Table 1.9.1, Permits and Approvals) represents those permits or approvals identified to date. Addition permits might be identified subsequently if project modifications, mitigation measures, or refinements in final design warrant. 1-10 TABLE 1.9.1 Permits and Approvals Permit / Approval Applicable Activities Applicable Areas Regulatory Agency Clean Water Act Discharge of dredged or till Navigable waters of the U. S., Corps of Engineers (CWA), Section 404 material into waters of the U.S. which include areas seaward of (USACE) Permit(s) the mean high water level; rivers, streams, and wetlands; inland waters subject to tidal influences or which are drained by rivers or streams running to the ocean C WA, Section 401 Discharge to waters of the Waters of the State. State of Hawaii Water Quality Statc. Department of Certification Health (DOH), Clean Water Branch Historic Sites Review Any construction in the vicinity Sites listed on national or State State of I lawai'i of a designated historic place registers of significant historic Department of Land or archaeological site. resources. and Natural Resources (DLNR) State Highways Permit Any work. Within State highway State of Hawaii right-of-way. Department of Transportation (HDOT) Conservation District Any use of conservation lands. Lands designated conservation DLNR Use Application by the State, including (CDUA) submerged lands. State Land Use (SLU) Any activity. State-owned lands throughout DLNR Approval the State, including submerged lands. Stream Channel Alter stream channels, or the Streams and rivers of the State DLNR Alteration Permit (low of water therein, by where specified by law. changing the shape of the channel, placing materials in or removing materials from a stream channel. Permit to Construct an Constructing or installing a Statewide DOH Air Pollution Source new air pollution source or modifying an existing source. National Pollutant Discharge any pollutant, Surface streams and coastal DOH Discharge Elimination altering the quality of any waters of the State. System (NPDES) discharge, increasing the quantity of any discharge. Subdivision Approval Dividing or consolidating Statewide County parcels of land Flood Hazard Controls Any development Flood hazard zones on Flood County Insurance Rate Maps prepared by the National Flood Insurance Program. TABLE 1.9.1 Permits and Approvals Permit I Approval Applicable Activities Applicable Areas Regulatory Agency Grading, Grubbing, Anv excavation or fill, the Statewide County Excavating and removal of vegetation from the Stockpiling Permits surface of the ground, or the purposeful accumulation and set-aside of loose soil. 1-12 CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES CHAPTER 2 - ALTERNATIVES Over a two-year period 1994 to 1996, alternatives for improvement of Saddle Road were developed and refined with input and involvement of the Social, Economic, and Environmental Study Team (SEE Team), the Saddle Road Community Task Force (SRTF), government agencies, local residents, landowners, and citizens at large through public meetings. The SEE Team is comprised of representatives from various participating agencies and is formed, in accordance with the FHWA Action Plan, in the initial phases of a project development to provide scoping input in the form of identification of project issues and concerns, purpose and need, and selection of alternatives to be studied. The SRTF is comprised of interested citizens and was formed to provide similar input to proiect development efforts. This input and evaluation process allowed for early consideration of engineering and environmental issues of concern and resulted in numerous changes to and refinements of the original alternatives. This chapter presents those alternatives under consideration for improvement of Saddle Road, the No Action Alternative, and those alternatives initially considered but eliminated. (Cross Reference: 9.2.1 Saddle Road Community Task Force and 9.2.2 Social, Economic, and Environmental Study Team). At this point, preferred alternatives have not been identified for the project. The final selection of an alternative will be made only upon the full consideration of impacts, receipt of public hearing comments, and approval of the final EIS by FHWA. A legally binding ROD will be prepared selecting a final alignment. 2.1 DESIGN PARAMETERS COMMON TO ALL ACTION ALTERNATIVES The proposed project would upgrade and -modernize Saddle Road as a two-lane highway that would meet contemporary design standards for arterials and provide enough capacity to safely handle both current and projected traffic volumes up to the year 2014. The logical terminus for the project on the west was determined to be the Mamalahoa Highway (SR 190), a point at which Saddle Road connects with another established transportation route. The logical terminus on the east end was determined to be MP 6 (near Hilo), the point at which Saddle Road has previously been improved and the future point of connection between Saddle Road and the proposed Puainako Street Extension. This EIS addresses improvements to Saddle Road between these logical termini. Design parameters for Saddle Road were agreed upon at the project outset during SEE Team meetings. The road is to be developed to arterial standards, incorporating design controls presented in Table 2.1.1, Design Features. Uphill passing lanes, truck escape ramps, scenic pullouts, and military vehicle crossings will be incorporated as needed into project designs to enhance safety and to improve the projected level of service. 2-1 TABLE 2.1.1 Design Features Design Speed 80 km per hour' Minimum Curve Radius 230 m Maximum Superelevation 8 percent Curves Simple curves with 67 percent of runoff on tangent Maximum Grade 8 percent' ' Design speed may be increased up to 100 km per hour to areas where teastbte. ' Very short lengths exceed 8% grade in areas along existing alignments where potential residential displacements or terrain dictate. Three typical sections were developed for the project as depicted on Figure 2.1.1, Typical Sections Proposed. Typical Section A represents the standard for the majority of the segment lengths, and incorporates two 3.6-m travel lanes, and two 2.4-m paved shoulders. In select locations a passing lane may be incorporated into Typical Section A. Typical Section A applies to the entire project length except for portions of the three alternative alignments proposed through the PTA: EX -2, PTA -1, and PTA -3. Typical Sections B and C were developed as mitigation to minimize fire hazards within vulnerable portions of the study corridor within the PTA (Cross Reference: 3.9 Fire Hazard). In addition to the features included in Typical Section A, Typical Section B would include an additional 2.4-m wide strip of pavement on the north side of the highway, which would serve as a fire break. Between the shoulder and the fire break, a four -strand smooth wire fence with metal posts would be constructed to a height of 1.2 m. At the north edge of the fire break, a 0.23-m extruded asphalt curb would be constructed. Typical Section B applies to an 11.0 -km length of PTA -1, an 11.0 -km length of PTA -3, and a 3.9 -km length of EX -2. In addition to the features included in Typical Section A, Typical Section C would include additional 2.4-m wide strips of pavement on both the north and south sides of the highway, which would serve as fire breaks. Between the shoulders and the fire breaks, four -strand smooth wire fences with metal posts would be constructed at a height of 1.2 m. At the edges of the fire break, 0.23-m extruded asphalt curbs would be constructed. Typical Section C would be applied to a 5.5 -km length of PTA -1, to a 7.6 -km length of PTA -3, and to a 3.5 -km length of EX -2. By 2014, with the proposed improvements, Saddle Road is projected for an ADT of 14,000 vehicles, and a LOS B. 2.2 ACTION ALTERNATIVES UNDER CONSIDERATION For ease of discussion, the project area has been divided into four sections (Figure 2.2.1, Overview of Segments Under Consideration). Section 1 begins at the junction with SR 190 and 2-2 DATETue Oct 7 13:49:01 1997 OGN =C:ODr C)eCTsp3z9u6wECOTTV.UUN a° 5 0 K. � n Co y S c � o N yA C, N in s x � 3 0 m o p _ y :0 a < � � s n �� rn a v9.v mwm 3 mwm z x c 3 <OV A OC� r m < �CT r m yC y L Mr mF omn mmm Omym mm j 2 n yma zma y<a y sp a <p am m s ap .ym z s ym a < W - < _ = w z r O1 Z r w CZS OI p p r 3 F 1I m r n nN z r A A N r Fl y 0 3 n 3 n 3 m X m N y ^ N w < m n > r<n m r 3 p 3 - 03 n F a F m K a K a n x v O ]1 n m x v o m a n n x v o m y; D y; 9 m m a m n cmi N m a < n s v n > n < m -a+ i 0 s m a -� m x 0 y m> a r„r y a N m m n y~ N Z n S y A a a a M IN H a 3 n v n N x O 3 r n n r<n u m 0 C r n a m s n z m n O A 3 a O S 9 mi C A m y C m m y F n N m N m m N m m m v� s a a < < m ac < i a m c m a m _ < z y y N y O N rn x I x C 3 IN r p m a a� rn C 'gyp nay LA C7 R m CT D O r PFg � N 0n -m 9 rN Ln C) MC) O Z to $ nGTFTue Oct 7 13:54:01 1997 DGN=C:0projects0329060ec0typ.dgn yao N �No � N oio '°i0 a r3 r3 0- a - AA aC WC F x dr Ma -m Z r�n0 C, x_mo n~ti xax r v_ T � My N ma a m' N 0, a M 3 MMM ma 3 a s N = I11II x vim T rm mo 3 vpep om 3 mm xA x OCO 0C, HC ~� r rl-0 9AmRi'V'a Omn Xti� M,m �n asa N Zr= oma -i as N i ymA <a tnWW am4LALACA a w ym a a y�H O = Mw LA >-4y Z Owi asa m >a m3 ++NL, I" K +++ �x 800 o0 �m o0 �a �1!Fl m 1 S a 0000 ao 3 Opo o' 3 XN-4� mm ti 17 x y N X M a 1 a H N a a tT N N8N < w m w m rn y m Q' LA- 0 3 y aye [FF as f _aa s N �r < N w/JN K + ++ a x +++ 8�� n o F 0 or 0 00 �o� m m O$$ m a m n a n a C m a y o� N m s xoa N 3 m~ ` u p 0 N m o0 3 m m m O 0 IX mo 3 x 7 m i A r 0 M C m a A N m d m s Ate^ m < m o m mo 3 m m F N f �O t^ m `N=O r 9x0 U1 r X =MO Cw y0 MM MCC x S m 0 � aau -n S ci -0 C -) O m N n'1 ON RR�� OT N NM rvi Ss e N. O� O Z Nig � N 0 I I I I °dada °°aaa aaaaa c°Qaa 0 ^ O c �oa l GJ x D I z x'11 aaa°a a C`'' a aQada O� :3 c ;�;'a a°a p a° a aaaada ayya°aa a' D add Oo OA '4ada °°°aa.D nD Aa°a a a badaaaa. 'baa\Dada oo� O A= °dada °°aaa aaaaa c°Qaa Seale: 1:476,000 c 0 a 0 °a°°°° N p A / Z 0 I aaaaaaaaaa°a. z4 f� 1 1 \ a s a%a ;/ r D 1 \ CDi m ] / U� W i ox K > l\ i�z r t� / xsl A .+ i /al o pa SS 'JONON /i/ '� / ( \a 'l iO tl3N tlNntlY1 W 1 iD f p D� :03 UY C l / N co ^ O c �oa l GJ x D I z �i2 ya O� :3 c O mo 0c Oo OA >z T. C to �� oo� O A= 0 E mma Z % o o O O I ` ` O_ 0 + \ 1 c � 4 \I \ l \\ 0 C o` 1 C \1 \ C lD \ 3 Seale: 1:476,000 c 0 a 0 °a°°°° N p A / Z 0 I aaaaaaaaaa°a. z4 f� 1 1 \ a s a%a ;/ r D 1 \ CDi m ] / U� W i ox K > l\ i�z r t� / xsl A .+ i /al o pa SS 'JONON /i/ '� / ( \a 'l iO tl3N tlNntlY1 W 1 iD f p D� :03 UY C l / N co ^ O c �oa l GJ x D I z �i2 ya O� :3 c O mo 0c Oo OA >z T. C r > �� oo� O A= 0 E mma Z % o o O O O_ 0 �:f M 3.555, c Z N N Z 0 f OI �r o �^ m rnl -�—A- Ju✓�n� m = c7 A p O� :3 c O _ 0c O o m O ct o Z _ O x O_ 0 _ C m C 0 extends east to Saddle Road MP 42. Section I1 extends from MP 42 to 28. Section III extends from MP 28 to 9, and Section IV extends from MP 9 to the eastern project terminus, MP 6 All four sections are independent with respect to highway design, and, in the context of this EIS, can be evaluated separately. Formulation of alternatives for Saddle Road in Sections 1, 11, and IV considered use of the existing road alignment as well as potential new alignments. Within Section I1I, improvement along the existing alignment was considered the only practicable alternative after much discussion and investigation of potential alternative routes. Alternative road alignments within each section are referred to as segments throughout this document. A total of 20 segments were initially considered and were assumed to be reasonable alternatives at the beginning of the initial study phase of the project. These include W-2, W-3, W-4, W-5, W-6, EX -1, PTA -1, PTA -113, PTA -2, PTA -3, PTA -3A, PTA -4, PTA -5A, PTA -513, EX -2, EX -3, E-1, E-3, EX -4, and EX -4A. "EX" in a segment designation indicates an alternative that generally follows the existing Saddle Road alignment. "W" indicates a new alignment alternative on the west end of the project corridor (Section I). "PTA" indicates a new alignment alternative traversing the PTA area (Section II). "E" indicates a new alignment alternative on the east end of the project corridor (Section IV). Of these, 10 were eliminated from further consideration during the initial study phase by consensus of the SEE Team. These include W-4, W-5, W-6, PTA -113, PTA -2, PTA -3A, PTA -4, PTA -5A, PTA -513, and E-1 (Cross Reference: 2.3 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated). These alternatives were eliminated because they failed to meet the criteria developed in the purpose and need (e.g., road deficiencies, capacity) or because the anticipated impacts of their construction were clearly greater than other alternatives. The other 10 alternatives were considered feasible, warranting more detailed analysis. Subsequently, the 10 segments considered feasible were evaluated in full detail by the project team. The team specialists included biologists, botanists, archeologists, sociologists, economists, land use specialists, water quality specialists, visual resource specialists, and engineers. Each specialist prepared a technical report which documented results of the analysis. Based on results of the technical reports, the SEE Team acted to eliminate two additional segments, referred to as Segments EX -1 and EX -4 (Cross Reference: 2.3.2.1 and 2.3.2.3, Segments Eliminated from Consideration, Sections I and IV, respectively). The remaining eight segments under consideration are W-2, W-3, PTA -1, PTA -3, EX -2, EX -3, E-3, and EX -4A. (Cross Reference: 2.2.1 - 2.2.4 Segments Under Consideration). In addition, the No Action Alternative is also considered (Cross Reference: 2.2.6 No Action Alternative). Section I: ■ W-2 ■ W-3 (Figure 2.2.2, Segments Under Consideration - Section 1) 2-3 Section II: ■ EX -2 ■ PTA -1 ■ PTA -3 (Figure 2.2.3, Segments Under Consideration -Section 11) Section III: ■ EX -3 (Figures 2.2.7, 2.2.8, and 2.2.9, Plan Sheet) Section IV: ■ EX -4A ■ E-3 (Figure 2.2.4, Segments Under Consideration - Section 16). Implementing the proposed project within any one section or any combination of sections of Saddle Road would improve travel conditions in those sections whether or not the proposed project is implemented in all sections. Since the segments identified within each section begin and end at a common point on Saddle Road, selection of a particular segment within any one section would not influence the selection within any of the other sections. Because improvement of each section is not dependent on improvement of the others, the improvements for each section are said to have independent utility. The project can be phased over a number of years as funding becomes available. The MTMC has determined that the design and construction of that portion of the Saddle Road improvements within the approximate limits of the PTA would be eligible for DAR funds, but the DOD has not programmed any construction funds. Funds for constructing the DAR section of highway must be authorized and appropriated by Congress. HDOT has agreed to improve the remaining portion of the road over time, as funds become available. Table 2.2.1, Comparison of Segments, provides a summary of the key characteristics of each segment. The estimated construction costs outlined in the table for EX -2, PTA -1, and PTA -3 include the cost of constructing Typical Sections B and C within these segments. Costs to provide lands for Palila mitigation are yet to be determined. The mitigation column includes very preliminary estimates of the cost of proposed mitigation measures introduced in Chapter 3 of this document, such as ungulate exclosures, archaeological data recovery, and palila translocation. Engineering stationing (e.g., 100+000) has been assigned for each segment and is used throughout the EIS to identify specific locations along a segment. Stationing is segment specific, therefore, the segment for which the station applies must be known. Table 2.2.1 provides the stationing associated with each segment. Figures 2.2.5 through 2.2.9 (Plan Sheets), depict the segments and note the stationing numbers referenced on Table 2.2.1. 2-4 sln 100.000 -� MAMALAHOA 1 HIGHWAY a e slo 100.000 1 d� Lj sro /00-0001 K,_3 MP 42 i A i slo 100.000 MAMALAHOA HIGHWAY SECTION I W-2 SECTION I W-3 } P g$ 3 MAUNA KEA STATE PARK -7 e/'e "' \ MP 42 a PTA- i�h SECTION I I T9, � EX-2 ' ° EX -2 � �; o A. �° e MP 28 PTA -3 — �h tiP/4R a ry/7 h, 3 �,e q1 W•h. p 3 Oft °D MAUNA KEA y� STATE PARK v r M MP 42 a prp-I g h SECTION I I EX -2 y y y`°°c° PTA- I EX, MP 28 PTA -3 —� h �P 4} a 0 o ° yy P M a� h. ,p 3 ° MAUNA KEA ° STATE PARK -7 M=42 PTA$ ��8 SECTION I I o h ' , PTA — 3 EX -2 ,�/y q,;y `f=2 MP 28 PTA-3-�� F.S DEPARTMENT OF TRANSFORrAnoN / FEDERPL HIGHw<r <DMMISTR>TION CERTR4L FEDER'L LENDS HIGHWAY DIVI`:0,4 DEOaEF, caLORADO aP,W SEGMENTS m/08 UNDER CONSIDERATION SECTION 11 �� FIGURE 2.2.3 c 0 i ti i � W o � v W MP 6 SECTION IV EX -4A �� EX -4A w ^� O p0�} ti� D h� O � P h k W o O zt cn W MP 6 A SECTION IV 7 E-3 E-3 EX -4A v w O n ^b O O u.i. REPARTMENr OF TRAN°.RORTAjIDN F EDEHPL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION CFNTROL FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION DE VER, fOL NIW SEGMENTS UNDER CONSIDERATION SECTION IV FIGURE 2.2.4 TABLE 2.2.1 Comparison of Segments Segments andAdd'] Max. Estimated Estimated Corresponding Length ROW Grade Construction Mitigation Station Numbers (Ian) Req'd (%) Cost (s) Cost (s)' Total Cost (S) (ha) Section I - MP 53.6 (Mamalahoa Highway) to MP 42 W-2 17.0 73 8.0 37,300,000 500.000 37,800,000 100+000-116+001 118+087-119+100 W-3: 15.5 70 8.0 39.100,000 500,000 39.600-000 100+000-111+078 112582 -116+001 (W-2) 118x087 - 119+100 (W-2) Section H - MP 42 to MP 28 EX -2: 21.6 47 5.2 38,000,000 5.000,000 43,000,000 119+100-140+700 PTA -1: 20.5 83 7.8 38,500,000 7.800.000 46,300,000 10+000-12+739 13+200-30+999 PTA -3: 22.1 85 7.8 40,500,000 8,000,000 48,500,000 10+000 - 12+739 (PTA -1) 13+200 - 26+900 (PTA- 1) 10+000 - 12+881 137+800 - 140+700 (EX -2) Section III - MP 28 to MP 9 EX -3: 30.9 60 8.0 60300,000 1,000,000 61,300.000 140+700-171+576 Section IV - MP 9 to MP 6 EX -4A: 4.0 12 10.9' 10,000,000 5.000.000' 15,000,000 171+576-172+837 20+000-21+970 175+005-175+750 E-3: 5.5 29 8.0 17,000,000 1,000,000 18,000,000 40+000-45+503 I Cost estimates include additional design features for fire prevention, critical habitat replacement lands, and construction mitigation requirements. Z Cost estimate also includes residential relocation expenses. 3 Very short lengths exceed 8% grade in areas along existing alignments where potential residential displacements or terrain dictate. Note: Additional mitigation costs for the management of Palila relocation efforts are to be provided by other funds through separate programs. These costs are not reflected in this table. The Biological Assessment prepared for this project summarizes these costs (RANA 1997, Technical Appendices, Volume III). 2-5 2.2.1 Segments under Consideration - Section I } Segment W-2 represents an alternate to the existing Saddle Road alignment through Section I. New construction would be required for most of this segment. The east end of W-2 represents the exception, where the existing Saddle Road alignment would be reconstructed with major grade and alignment improvements from Station 118+087 to 119+100. W-2 would extend from Mamalahoa Highway at the Waikoloa Junction to MP 42, covering a length of 17.0 km (Figure 2.2.5, Plan Sheet, and Figure 2.2.6, Plan Sheet). W-2 would connect Saddle Road directly to Waikoloa Road and reduce the travel distance between Hilo and Kona over that of the existing Saddle Road alignment. Segment W-2 would have a maximum grade of 8.0 percent, a base elevation of approximately 776 m, and a top elevation of approximately 1686 m. Construction of W-2 would require right-of-way acquisition of approximately 72 hectares (ha). The estimated construction cost for Segment W-2 is $37,300,000. �W-3. Segment W-3 represents an additional alternate alignment to the existing Saddle Road through Section I. As with Segment W-2, new construction would be required for most of this segment, while a reconstruction of the existing Saddle Road alignment would be required for a 1 -km portion of W-3 common to W-2 at the east end, Station 118+087 to 119+100 (W-2). W-3 would extend from the Mamalahoa Highway to MP 42, covering a length of 15.5 km (Figures 2.2.5 and 2.2.6). W-3 offers a shorter travel distance between Hilo and Kona than either the existing road or Segment W-2. Segment W-3 would have a maximum grade of 8.0 percent, a base elevation of approximately 773 m, and a top elevation of approximately 1686 m. Construction of W-3 would require right-of-way acquisition of approximately 72 ha. The estimated construction cost for Segment W-3 is $39,100,000. 2.2.2 Segments under Consideration - Section H E2L-2. Segment EX -2 includes the rebuild of Saddle Road through Section II, with major grade and alignment improvements to bring it up to AASHTO standard. This segment would follow the existing Saddle Road alignment from MP 42 to 28, covering a distance of 21.6 km (Figure 2.2.6, Plan Sheet, and Figure 2.2.7, Plan Sheet). Segment EX -2 would have a maximum grade of 5.2 percent, a base elevation of approximately 1686 m, and a top elevation of approximately 2010 m. Construction of EX -2 would require right-of-way acquisition of approximately 47 ha. The estimated construction cost for Segment EX -2 is $38,000,000. PTA -1. Segment PTA -1 realigns the existing Saddle Road through Section II. Nearly the entire length ofPTA- 1 would constitute new construction. PTA -1 would extend from NT 42 to MP SECTION I W-2 STA IUU+000 TO 116+000 W-3 STA 100+000 TO 111+073 PLAN SHEET FIGURE 2.2.5 I uAuBA KEA STATE PARK __> J Y L SECTION II SECTION III _ PROPOSED ALIGNMENT ALONG; y / EXISTING CENTERLINE EX -3 PTA HOMELAND ♦ n ' Y S n �,ix.��} 3L `;r''+,�'t,. ..♦ t i r �_Pz�I?h�Y "AG�y .�=�'`f"T < t -PTA •.. •+� p�„ ♦ ^ `ln �e�j4`�jV nYr '�i �5ay,i;_' }''z `+,. M1'p F�'� +r, •Ve• t 'i:� T i 1 ua ^ �'"'ti �� i ���! j «2p �� ro mf,i �A ��� t 1 '�f•.. ^ fr. �v,+ .� � �t � 1 �F�'•• ' fl'� w. � @ ,1. ° m r�..vry _i. Y•, d ♦r§.�. I a v 4 t 1 ''1. • p. #_ I#�7k b rtN'ns :V' i X n -4 /`1a x'' h 1 )".y, e iS I �Y( ♦ .f µ'ii ✓°i { � 1 YT �ti .5 '• .i � �� ♦���..'r �h<��,��S �' l4a `P1 �.�� a �\�T�a;3�`r: �. ' •:�• `� . yti•$I�.b,r,F �v �fl��•G\,��'��� }� t�W1 �fK < ' v .. I �.. A i N. `. 1J " ">.{ � wlEl � ..��,•� l: 'E1 ` t y' � .' a ! `S'n '�3 ' a -'� 1 �k� . ,d tje f ,' , k�.. '+"ff YM' � ^1v rig ♦ . •'{, 2(;' n w ^•,Pj S `� -'x176.000 131.000 ois Y 63 S tl+ , y r' .' 15!,•x; `t.♦ `• ♦ 1 PROPOSED AUGA/YENT ALONG 4 EXISTING CENTERUNE EX -2 4 SHEET CONTENTSu.S. K1,07a6M TA TAMSWTAI R N� O0 , ♦ , iECEW Np1UY AANIMA TION CERAL FEDERAL AOS A DIVISION O DEN0.DO �M EX -2 STA 132+000 TO 140+700 EX -3 STA 140+700 TO 149+000 v PTA -1 STA 22+000 TO 30+999 PLAN SHEET 0o PTA -3 STA 10+000 TO 12+881 FIGURE 2.2.7 n TJ � �U 3. w ' r— Z au 00 28, covering a length of 20.5 km (Figures 2.2.6 and 2.2.7). Segment PTA -I would relocate Section II of Saddle Road to the northern boundary of the PTA to avoid or minimize conflict between the traveling public and military maneuvers. Segment PTA -1 would have a maximum grade of 7.8 percent, a base elevation of approximately 1686 m, and a top elevation of approximately 2055 m. Construction of PTA -I would require right-of-way acquisition of approximately 83 ha. The estimated construction cost for Segment PTA -1 is $38,500,000. PTA -3. Segment PTA -3 realigns the existing Saddle Road through Section II. As with PTA -1, nearly the entire length of PTA -3 would constitute new construction. PTA -3 follows alignment common to PTA -1 for much of its length, from Station 10+000 to 26+900 (PTA -1). PTA -3 then deviates from PTA -1, turning southwest toward EX -2. It then shares an alignment common to EX -2 from Station 137+800 to 140+700 (EX -2). PTA -3 would extend from MP 42 to MP 28, covering a length of 22 km (Figures 2.2.6 and 2.2.7). PTA -3 would avoid placing a new roadway on Hawaiian Homelands. Segment PTA -3 would have a maximum grade of 7.8 percent, a base elevation of approximately 1686 m, and a top elevation of approximately 2055 m. Construction of PTA -3 would require right-of-way acquisition of approximately 85 ha. The estimated construction cost for Segment PTA -3 is $40,500,000. 2.2.3 Segments under Consideration - Section III Recent lava flows are located on both sides of the existing road through Section III. No feasible nor practicable alternatives to the existing road corridor were identified within Section III. EX -3. Segment EX -3 would require the rebuild of Saddle Road with major grade and alignment improvements to bring it up to AASHTO standards. This segment would follow the existing Saddle Road alignment through Section III, from MP 28 to MP 9, covering a distance of 30.9 km (Figure 2.2.7, Plan: Sheet, Figure 2.2.8, Plan Sheet, and Figure 2.2.9, Plan Sheet). Segment EX -3 would have a maximum grade of 8.0 percent, a base elevation of approximately 600 m, and a top elevation of approximately 2007 m. Construction of EX -3 would require right-of-way acquisition of approximately 60 ha. The estimated construction cost for Segment EX -3 is $60,300,000. 2.2.4 Segments under Consideration - Section IV EX -4A. Segment EX -4A represents an alternate alignment to the eliminated Segment EX -4 through Section IV. EX -4A would follow the existing road on the west and east ends of Section IV, but would split from the existing roadway for a 2 -km portion in the middle, following an existing transmission line corridor. This segment extends from MP 9 to 6 and would cover a total 2-7 length of 4.0 km (Figure 2.2.9). EX -4A was identified in an effort to relocate a portion of Section IV away from existing residential development. Segment EX -4A would have a maximum grade of 10.9 percent, a base elevation of approximately 474 m, and a top elevation of approximately 600 m. Construction of EX -4A would require right-of-way acquisition of approximately 12 ha. The estimated construction cost for Segment EX -4A is $10,000,000. EE=3. Segment E-3 represents an alternate alignment to EX -4 through Section IV. E-3 would extend from NW 9 to W 6, a length of 5.5 km (Figure 2.2.9). This segment was included in an attempt to locate Saddle Road farther from existing development, and away from congestion. Segment E-3 would have a maximum grade of 8.0 percent, a base elevation of approximately 390 m, and a top elevation of approximately 654 m. Construction of E-3 would require right-of-way acquisition of approximately 29 ha. The estimated construction cost for Segment E-3 is $17,000,000. 2.2.5 Alternative Routes The 8 segments identified above have been combined into 12 possible alternative routes, referred to in this document as Alternatives. These alternatives begin at the junction of Saddle Road with SR 190, and terminate at or near MP 6 (near Hilo). Alternatives are designated by the series of segments they include, such as Alternative W-2/EX-2/EX-3/E-3 or Alternative W-3 /PTA-3/EX-3/EX-4A. Implementation of any of the 12 action alternatives would result in a wider roadway with an 80 to 100 km design speed throughout its length, shoulders for increased safety for stopped vehicles, scenic pullouts, uphill passing lanes, and proper signage and striping. The response time of emergency vehicles would be greatly reduced with each alternative due to higher operating speeds. Saddle Road would meet a LOS B after project implementation. Table 2.2.2, Comparison of Action Alternatives, presents a summary of the 12 Alternatives, identifying differences among alternatives for the more notable engineering factors. IM c d c c SECTION III PwopoSED AIrAvmrNT ALomo EXISTING CENTERLINE EX -3 x SHEET CONTENTS EX -3 STA 149+000 TO 165+000 PLAN SHEET FIGURE 2.2.8 N M SECTION III SECTION IV EX -3 STA 165+000 TO 171+576 EX -4A STA 171+576 TO 175+750 E-3 STA 40+000 TO 45+503 DEMEK MORADO PLAN SHEET FIGURE 2.2.9 TABLE 2.2.2 Comparison of Action Alternatives 2-9 W-2/EX-2/EX-3/E-3 W-2/PTA-I/EX-3/E-3 W-2/PTA-3/EX-3/E-3 Total Length 75.0 lin 73.9 km 75.5 Ian Max. Grade 8.0% 8.0% 8.0% Grade > 6% 15.3 km 16.0 lan 16.0 Ian Traffic Maintenance of traffic Maintenance of traffic Maintenance of traffic required Maintenance required for 72% of required for 43% of for 43% of alignment, with & alignment, with restrictions or alignment, with restrictions or restrictions or road closures for Construct- road closures for limited road closures for limited limited periods. Minor detours ability periods. Minor detours periods. Minor detours required for EX -3. required for existing required for EX -3. segments. ROW Needed 208 ha 244 ha 246 ha Utility Conflicts 33 power or telephone poles. 45 power or telephone poles. 46 power or telephone poles. 50 in of buried water line to 50 in of buried water line to 50 in of buried water line to be be relocated. be relocated. relocated. Horizontal Follows existing road Follows existing road Follows existing road Alignment alignment through Sections II alignment through Section alignment through Section III. & III. Ties to SR 190 at III. Ties to SR 190 at Ties to SR 190 at Waikoloa Waikoloa Rd. Satisfies Waikoloa Rd. Satisfies Rd. Satisfies design design parameters. Does not design parameters. Separates parameters. Separates separate traveling public from traveling public from PTA traveling public from PTA PTA maneuvers. Minimizes maneuvers. Avoids maneuvers. Avoids developed impacts to Kaumana. developed areas from MP 9 to areas from MP 9 to MP 6. MP 6. Minimizes impacts to Avoids siting new road within Kaumana. Hawaiian Home Lands. Minimizes impacts to Kaumana. Construction $152,600,000 $153,100,000 $155,100,000 Cost Mitigation Cost $7,500,000 $10,300,000 $10,500,000 2-9 TABLE 2.2.2 (Continued) Comparison of Action Alternatives ' Very short lengths exceed 8% grade in areas along existing alignments where potential residential displacements or terrain dictate. 2-10 W-2/EX-2/EX-3/EX-4A W-2/PTA-1/EX-3/EX-4A W-2/PTA-3/EX-3/EX-4A Total Length 73.5 km 72.4 km 74.0 km Max. Grade 10.9 %' 10.9 %' 10.9 %' Grade > 6% 14.4 km 15.1 km 15.1 km Traffic Maintenance of traffic required Maintenance of traffic Maintenance of traffic Maintenance & for 76% of alignment, with required for 47% of required for 47% of Construct- restrictions or road closures alignment, with restrictions alignment, with restrictions or ability for limited periods. Minor or road closures for limited road closures for limited detours for existing segments. periods. Minor detours periods. Minor detours required for existing required for EX -3. segments. ROW Needed 191 ha 227 ha 229 ha Utility Conflicts 36 power or telephone poles. 42 power or telephone poles. 43 power or telephone poles. 75 in of buried water line to be 75 in of buried water line to 75 in of buried water line to be relocated. be relocated. relocated. Horizontal Follows existing alignment for Follows existing road Follows existing road Alignment Sections II & III. Ties to SR alignment through Sections I, alignment through Section III. 190 at Waikoloa Rd. Satisfies & III. Ties to SR 190 at Ties to SR 190 at Waikoloa design parameters. Does not Waikoloa Rd. Satisfies Rd. Satisfies design separate traveling public from design parameters. Separates parameters. Separates PTA maneuvers. Reduces traveling public from PTA traveling public from PTA impacts to Kaumana when maneuvers. Reduces impacts maneuvers. Avoids siting compared to eliminated EX -4. to Kaumana when compared new road within Hawaiian to eliminated Home Lands. Reduces EX -4. impacts to Kaumana when compared to eliminated EX -4. Construction $145,600,000 $146,100,000 $148,100,000 Cost Mitigation Cost $11,500,000 $14,300,000 $14,500,000 ' Very short lengths exceed 8% grade in areas along existing alignments where potential residential displacements or terrain dictate. 2-10 TABLE 2.2.2 (Continued) Comparison of Action Alternatives 2-11 W-3/EX-2/EX-3/E-3 W-3/PTA-1/EX-3/E-3 W-3/PTA-3/EX-3/E-3 Total Length 73.5 km 72.4 km 74.0 Ian Max. Grade 8.0% 8.0% 8.0% Grade > 6% 14.2 km 16.0 km 16.0 km Traffic Maintenance of traffic Maintenance of traffic Maintenance of traffic Maintenance required for 72% of alignment, required for 43% of required for 43% of & with restrictions or closures alignment, with restrictions alignment, with restrictions or Construct- for limited periods. Minor or closures for limited closures for limited periods. ability detours required for existing periods. Minor detours Minor detours required for segments. required for EX -3. EX -3. ROW Needed 208 ha 244 ha 246 ha Utility Conflicts 33 power or telephone poles. 45 power or telephone poles. 46 power or telephone poles. 50 in of buried water line to be 50 in of buried water line to 50 in of buried water line to relocated. be relocated. be relocated. Horizontal Follows existing road Follows existing road Follows existing road Alignment alignment through Sections II, alignment through Section alignment through Section III. and III. Ties to SR 190 4.8 I1I. Ties to SR 190 4.8 km Ties to SR 190 4.8 km south km south of Waikoloa Rd. south of Waikoloa Rd. of Waikoloa Rd. Satisfies Satisfies design parameters. Satisfies design parameters. design parameters. Separates Does not separate traveling Separates traveling public traveling public from PTA public from PTA maneuvers. from PTA maneuvers. maneuvers. Avoids Minimizes impacts to Avoids developed areas from developed areas from MP 9 to Kaumana. MP 9 to MP 6. Minimizes MP 6. Avoids siting new impacts to Kaumana. road within Hawaiian Home Lands. Minimizes impacts to Kaumana. Construction $154,400,000 $154,900,000 $156,900,000 Cost Mitigation Cost $7,500,000 $10,300,000 $10,500,000 2-11 TABLE 2.2.2 (Continued) Comparison of Action Alternatives Very short lengths exceed 8% grade in areas along existing alignments where potential residential displacements or terrain dictate. 2.2.6 No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative would maintain Saddle Road as it is today and would include the completion of short-term, or minor, maintenance and restoration activities. It would not enhance safety, improve level of service, improve operational function, accommodate future traffic levels, nor reduce or eliminate conflicts between the traveling public and PTA military training maneuvers. 2-12 W-3/EX-2/EX-3/EX-4A W-3/PTA-l/EX-3/EX4A W-3/PTA-3/EX-3/EX-4A Total Length 72.0 km 70.9 km 72.5 km Max. Grade 10.9 %' 10.9 %' 10.9 %' Grade > 6% 14.4 km 15.1 km 15.1 km Traffic Maintenance of traffic required Maintenance of traffic Maintenance of traffic Maintenance & for 76% of alignment, with required for 47% of required for 47% of Construct- restrictions or closures for alignment, with restrictions or alignment, with restrictions o ability limited periods. Minor detours closures for limited periods. closures for limited periods. for existing segments. Minor detours required for Minor detours required for existing segments. EX -3. ROW Needed 191 ha 227 ha 229 ha Utility Conflicts 36 Power or telephone poles. 42 power or telephone poles. 43 power or telephone poles. 75 in of buried water line to be 75 in of buried water line to 75 in of buried water line to relocated. be relocated. be relocated. Horizontal Follows existing alignment for Follows existing road Follows existing road Alignment Sections II & III. Ties to SR alignment through Sections I alignment through Section III. 190, south of Waikoloa Rd. & III. Ties to SR 190 4.8 km Ties to SR 190 4.8 km south Does not separate traveling south of Waikoloa Rd. of Waikoloa Rd. Satisfies public from PTA maneuvers. Satisfies design parameters. design parameters. Separates Satisfies design parameters. Separates traveling public traveling public from PTA Reduces impacts to Kaumana from PTA maneuvers. maneuvers. Avoids siting when compared to eliminated Reduces impacts to Kaumana new road within Hawaiian EX -4. when compared to eliminated Home Lands. Reduces EX -4. impacts to Kaumana when compared to eliminated EX -4. Construction $147,400,000 $147,900,000 $149,900,000 Cost Mitigation Cost $11,500,000 $14,300,000 $14,500,000 Very short lengths exceed 8% grade in areas along existing alignments where potential residential displacements or terrain dictate. 2.2.6 No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative would maintain Saddle Road as it is today and would include the completion of short-term, or minor, maintenance and restoration activities. It would not enhance safety, improve level of service, improve operational function, accommodate future traffic levels, nor reduce or eliminate conflicts between the traveling public and PTA military training maneuvers. 2-12 ■ While funds could continue to be expended for maintenance and restoration, funds for the realignment or major rebuild of Saddle Road would not be expended. There is no guarantee such funds will be available for continued maintenance. ■ The import of borrow or the waste of excavated materials would not be required. ■ Saddle Road would not be upgraded to the standards necessary to render a design speed of 80 to 100 km per hour. ■ Sharp curves, restricted sight distances, roadside hazards, and inadequate shoulders common to this roadway would not be corrected leading to a potential for higher accident rates as traffic volumes increase. ■ No uphill passing lanes, truck escape ramps, or scenic pullouts would be provided. ■ The sight distance needed to safely avoid obstacles on the road or to safely pass slow-moving vehicles would not be improved. ■ Steep grades, some in excess of 15 percent, would not be improved. ■ Poor roadway pavement, which currently encourages motorists to drive in the center of the road, would not be reconstructed and would continue to deteriorate. ■ Existing substandard drainage structures and six existing one -lane bridges would not be improved. ■ Existing signing and pavement markings would not be improved. ■ Conflicts between the traveling public and the PTA military maneuvers would not be reduced or minimized and would increase with projected increase in traffic volume. ■ The response time of emergency vehicles to accidents and emergencies would not be improved and would increase due to projected traffic volumes. ■ Traffic volumes would continue to grow with this alternative, but at a slower rate than with the action alternatives. The future traffic volume for Saddle Road with the No Action Alternative has been estimated at 4,400 ADT by the year 2014. With this growth in traffic and without proposed improvements to Saddle Road, the quality of traffic flow on Saddle Road would be expected to deteriorate, from LOS D to LOS E (Cross Reference: 1.6 Purpose and Need). As cross -island traffic increases, there will be increased congestion along SR 19. 2-13 An evaluation of the environmental consequences of the No Action Alternative is include in Chapter 3.0 of this EIS (Cross Reference: 3.0 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation Measures). 2.3 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED 2.3.1 Transportation System Management (TSM) Alternatives and Mass Transit Transportation System Management (TSM) and mass transit alternatives were not considered reasonable nor feasible to satisfy the purpose and need for the proposed action. Saddle Road is a rural highway. Current and projected traffic levels for this roadway do not justify the development of TSM alternatives, such as high -occupancy vehicle lanes, nor the construction of mass transit facilities. Without improvements to the roadway structure and geometrics, high occupancy vehicle lanes or mass transit facilities could not be developed along Saddle Road. As such, TSM alternatives were eliminated from further consideration. 2.3.2 Segments Eliminated from Consideration Following evaluation of the 20 alternative segments initially considered, the SEE Team completed a screening process which eliminated from consideration ten alternative segments during the initial study phase (W-4, W-5, W-6, PTA -1B, PTA -2, PTA -3A, PTA -4, PTA -5A, PTA -513, and E-1). These segments were eliminated because they either did not meet project criteria or because they were largely redundant with other alternative segments which initial data indicated would have an order of magnitude less impact. Subsequent to assessment of alternative segments by project team specialists, including biologists, botanists, archeologists, sociologists, economists, land use specialists, water quality specialists, visual resource specialists, and engineers, the SEE Team acted to eliminate two additional segments, EX -1 and EX -4. 2.3.2.1 Segments Eliminated from Consideration - Section 1 EX -1. Segment EX -1 was evaluated in detail by the technical specialists and the results were documented. EX -1 was eliminated from consideration by the SEE Team after considering the results of these technical studies. Segment EX -1 would follow along the existing Saddle Road alignment through Section I. It would require the reconstruction of Saddle Road with major grade and alignment improvements to bring it up to standards. Segment EX -1 would extend from the Mamalahoa Highway (10.2 kilometers south of Waimea) to MP 42, covering a length of 19.1 km. This segment would have a maximum grade of 9.1 percent, a base elevation of approximately 786 m, and a top elevation of approximately 1686 m (Figure 2.3.1, Alternate Segments Considered but Eliminated). 2-14 380 IZo l\ ala elf r �Honoko d r - � inta �r 7 19 ti Pa'auilo Kawaihae \ i'a Y Mauna Kea Beach Hotel f f XWAI M- r� KAMUEL AIRPORT `-�� � \� Hapuna Beach Pork* 199 Manan '`'� \\� _ Lau'pahoehoe 11 Puaka I �_ Mauna Loni Resort Waikglo� T I N I SECTIr� SECTION IV ON II --$, Hilton Woikoloo i/ / ' \ \ ole Park Wafko� 9 t -f ~1Keanakolu 1 Hakalau a. XTA.I. Bay PeP e ekeo `` \3 );Orf/ J �� GIRL SCOUT CAMP \ \ t 113,796 1. b 't ' r� Pu'uanahuR?yKg'amQku _4y'" \ TA -75A, \\ �`\ MAUNA K, A,/ � __--_- - _t TA— B BRADSHAW ARMK` t j r tU 1 ( ( �' PO OI kOU TrAIRFIELD�� ' PUOaICOIa� f p MAUNA NE -A' -STATE PARK -1 // i �i ' J / i �f 9tIHI HARBO K NA INTERN �C`J$ NAL/ --- J\-_- � vvvvavAIROO 71j__" '/J HI LO M 9 I HILOKAUMANPal vtal6� 11 P 0 H A K U L 0 A TRAINING AREA. ® ITY AIRPORT \ \ p PTA2 R NU LAI ____--==-°veveveveevc IMPACT v°vavvovev==_-____`{-=-=}g PTA— fX�ST 5 IE I) vvevv avvv _ o°°°°°°°_ __ _ PTA -2 l E-3 AREA AREi1 vvvvvvavv ___-____� I( ® HON KaHA \ \ \\ ( _-- -___wa v o vvo....vovv vv vvvev ----- - - - / vvv vavvvvv ave vvvavv __ _ _ __ HA OR \ ____-_-r_=_=�_____ vavvvvv°vvvvv vvv avvv--== PTA -3 ` \I vvoovvvvvavvvov vvv 1 \\ , \ \�✓ vavav vvoevvv vvvavv y-���}_ \ I �dwo _ vyovvvvv vvvavv v KAILUA ___ °vvvv°vvv°vvvvv OCT ( l \Kea au ° 1 \ , _'__ _ v o v avvv v v ev 2 ' \ .\ ) \ I 1-.__===-avvv vvv v vv �.r- -\ N 9 �\ , 1 ( ti Kurtistown _ vovvvvvvvevv \ - PT/�,55Ae L_ � I , Kahalu'u 1 1 _--- 2 PTA -56- \\ \ 1-_--_------'_---\w -_-__-// r .. AY ADMINISTRATION USDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERALHIGHW - ----_ - - CENTRAL FEDERAL `SHAY OMSI ON DENVER, COORADO Kulani ALTERNATIVE SEGMENTS L GEND' CONSIDERED BUT Segments under Consideration ELIMINATED ---------------------- ------------ INS� ------i-----_____- _ ---------- Eliminated Segments FIGURE FIIF HALF-A\%REF'. Construction of EX -1 would require right-of-way acquisition of approximately 62.0 ha. It would require the removal of the existing trees which line the road from Waiki' i Ranch to the Mamalahoa Highway, while W-2 and W-3 would not. It would require the excavation of 496,873 cubic meters (m') of material, and fill of 539,771 m'. It would generate 42,898 m' of borrow. Total estimated construction cost for this segment would be $53,466,000. With regard to constructability, Segment EX -1 is less desirable than W-2 or W-3, since it would require that Saddle Road traffic be accommodated within the construction zone. It would constitute a major rebuild of the existing road, requiring traffic control and restrictions or closures for limited periods during construction activities. Segment EX -1 would require a larger construction footprint to accommodate construction activities and would cost between $14.0 and $16.0 million more than W-2 or W-3. Segment EX -1 would directly impact the existing residential community of Waiki' i, while W-2 and W-3 would bypass this community. Community impacts would include increased traffic noise and increased traffic volumes. Higher traffic volumes and speeds, and a wider roadway footprint would create a more intrusive barrier to this community, making crossings of Saddle Road by automobile, bicycles and pedestrians more hazardous. Relocation of Saddle Road south of EX -1 would be expected to somewhat diminish fire hazard risk to the Critical Habitat of the endangered Palila. Use of Segments W-2 and W-3 would reduce the length and time of the cross -island commute for people traveling between Hilo and Kailua-Kona and South Kona. lW-4. Segment W-4 swings off of Parker Ranch lands and onto vacant State land, which has never been used for grazing or ranching. The alignment traverses important stands of dry -land forest and kipuka, areas of mature vegetation isolated by more recent lava flows (Cross Reference: 3.13 Vegetation). A federally listed plant species occurs in lava flows on W-4. Finally, the alignment might traverse habitats for sensitive species of invertebrates. It would be more costly than alternatives W-2 and W-3 with respect to environmental impact and construction, and provided no greater reduction in distance from Kona to MP 6 than that of W-3. For these reasons, W-4 was eliminated from further consideration by the SEE Team (Figure 2.3.1). W-5 and W-6. The W-5 alternate segment extends easterly from a point on SR 190 near Puuanahulu to approximately MP 42 on the existing Saddle Road. W-6 intersects SR 190 approximately 10.2 km north of Palani Junction and joins W-5 from the south. Major concerns identified with these two segments included potential impacts on hunting and cultural resource areas, open space, threatened and endangered plants and animals, and increased fire danger. Like Segment W-4, Segments W-5 and W-6 swing off of Parker Ranch lands and onto vacant State land, which has never been used for grazing or ranching. These alignments traverse important stands of dry -land forest and kipuka. A federally listed plant species occurs in lava flows on W-5 and W-6, and the alignments might traverse habitats for sensitive species of invertebrates. These segments would be more costly than W-2 and W-3, with respect to environmental impact and construction. Segments W-5 and W-6 support traffic movements toward Kailua-Kona but significantly increase distances to the South Kohala resort areas, WaiKoloa, and Waimea. As a 2-15 result, it is likely that the existing Saddle Road section between MP 42 and Mamalahoa Highway would have to be improved as well, further increasing project costs for these alternatives. For these reasons, these two segments were eliminated from further consideration by the SEE Team (Figure 2.3.1). 2.3.2.2 Segments Eliminated from Consideration - Section 11 PTA -1B. This alternate segment was part of the original PTA -1 that crossed through HHL. This section of the original PTA -I was dropped from consideration and replaced by an alignment located farther to the south, due to potential concerns of the DHHL of splitting pasture area (Figure 2.3.1). PTA -2 and PTA -4. These two alternate segments represented other variations through the eastern end of Section I1. PTA -2 was eliminated because of its impact on the PTA military maneuver area and HHL, and its proximity to PTA -3. PTA -4, located west of PTA -2, was eliminated from further consideration because it was expected to cause a substantial impact on PTA training maneuvers. For these reasons, these two segments were eliminated from further consideration by the SEE Team (Figure 2.3.1). PTA -3 A. This alternate segment is a variation of PTA -1, which altered its location from Station 23+800 to Station 26+600 by moving the alignment further south. The alignment was studied as a possible improvement to PTA -1 through designated Palila Critical Habitat. Detailed study by the biological and botany team and representatives from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the Biological Resources Division (BRD) of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) revealed that it had about the same impact as the original location of PTA -1. In addition, PTA representatives preferred the original PTA -1, since it would keep their artillery firing points south of the road and greatly improve their ability to conduct their training missions. For these reasons, PTA -3A was eliminated from further consideration by the SEE Team (Figure 2.3.1). PTA -5A and PTA -513. PTA -5A and PTA -513 were variations of PTA -1 that altered PTA -1 from Station 12+200 to Station 15+000 by moving south rather than north of Pu' u Ma au. These changes were not found to materially reduce impacts on the environment, and were not preferred by PTA representatives. Consequently, PTA -5A and PTA -513 were eliminated from further consideration by the SEE Team (Figure 2.3.1). 2.3.2.3 Segments Eliminated from Consideration - Section 1V E=1. This alternate segment begins at MP 9, Section IV, on the existing road, then swings north of the existing road to avoid all the subdivided and developed area along the existing road. The alignment traverses many kipuka and numerous wetlands for 2,750 m. Botanists for the environmental team have located sensitive plant species in the area of this segment. This segment would also impact some properties along the existing road at the east end where it ties back into 2-16 the existing roadway. For these reasons, the SEE Team eliminated this segment from further consideration (Figure 2.3.1). EX -4, Segment EX -4 would follow along the existing Saddle Road alignment through Section IV. It would extend from MP 9 to MP 6, covering a distance of 4.2 km. It would include the rebuild of Saddle Road with major grade and alignment improvements to bring it up to standard. This segment would have a maximum grade of 6.5 percent, a base elevation of 447 in, and a top elevation of approximately 660 in (Figure 2.3.1). Construction of EX -4 would require right-of-way acquisition of approximately 8.6 ha. It would require the excavation of 54,439 m' of material, and fill of 51,225 m'. It would generate 3,214 m' of waste material. The total estimated construction cost for this segment would be $9,437,270. Segment EX -4 was evaluated in detail by the project team technical specialists and the results documented in each of the technical reports prepared for this EIS. It would most directly impact the community of Kaumana. Higher traffic volumes and speeds, and a wider roadway footprint would create a more intrusive barrier to this community, making crossings of Saddle Road by automobile, bicycles and pedestrians more hazardous. Community impacts would include increased traffic volume and noise. With Segment EX -4, noise levels would approach or exceed the national Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC) at 18 receptors, or 40 residences. In comparison, EX -4A would result in noise levels that approach of exceed the NAC at 16 receptor sites, or 29 residences. With E-3, noise levels would not approach or exceed the NAC at any of the receptors. Segment EX -4 would require the same number of residential relocations as would EX -4A, but would impact a greater number of property owners with relatively small holdings. Of the segments identified, EX -4 would result in the greatest quantity of driveways with access directly onto the improved highway. For all of these reasons, the SEE Team eliminated this segment from further consideration. 2-17 CHAPTER 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES, AND MITIGATION MEASURES CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES, AND MITIGATION MEASURES For this EIS, field surveys were conducted of the project alternative segments by a team of resource scientists/specialists. A 60-m wide corridor was surveyed for most disciplines. In a few instances, as noted within this document, the survey area was expanded in width. For segments that would follow the existing Saddle Road alignment, field surveys extended either side of the existing paved surface. 3.1 LAND USE AND, RELATED GOVERNMENTAL PLANS AND POLICIES 3.1.1 LAND USE 3.1.1.1 Affected Environment Existing land uses along the Saddle Road corridor include a mix of residential, agricultural, grazing, open space, public lands, and military training activities (Figure 3.1.1, Existing Land Use). 3.1.1.1.1 Ranching Ranching activities within the project corridor range from small scale operations, such as the Waiki'i Ranch, which manages cattle over a number of lots within a gated residential/agricultural community, to Parker Ranch, the largest ranch in the State with more than 80,900 ha dedicated to grazing. Ranching makes up the primary land use within Section I, with Segments W-2 and W-3 traversing ranch land for nearly their entire length (generally west of MP 44). Ranching is also present on the east end of Section II and the west end of Section III, MP 30 through 22. Ranching activity in Section II is located on property under the jurisdiction of DHHL. Ranching within Segment III is located on the north side of Saddle Road. No ranching is present within the project corridor in Section IV. 3.1.1.1.2 Military Military land use within the project corridor and vicinity occurs within the PTA, a multi -service training complex operated by the U.S. Army Garrison, Hawaii (USARG-HI). The PTA consists of approximately 44,100 ha of land, situated in the plateau between Mauna Kea and Mauna Loa, Saddle Road extends through the northern portion of the PTA, for a length of approximately 21 km, MP 43 to MP 30. The existing road separates the PTA cantonment area and the Bradshaw Army Airfield from the majority of its training areas, firing points and impact zones. Segments EX -2, PTA -1, and PTA -3 are almost entirely within or adjacent to the PTA. The eastern end of PTA -i, Station 26+900 to 30+999, exits the PTA and traverses land owned by the DHHL. 3-1 PTA provides a safe, modernized, major training area for the U.S. Army Pacific Command (USARPAC) and other Pacific Command Units. All branches of the armed services located in the Pacific theater utilize PTA, including the DOA, Army Reserves, Marines, National Guard, and foreign allied forces. PTA provides space for field training exercise and annual service practice. It is the only Hawaii training area capable of supporting coordinated live firing of all assigned crew -served weapons of the infantry company and battalion and artillery in conjunction with live air support. The ranges and firing points at PTA accommodate employment of all the conventional weapons in the Pacific Region. PTA is the only training area in the Pacific that affords training units the opportunity to employ their weapon systems at their maximum standoff range. More than 15,000 military personnel receive training at PTA each year. A summary of notable PTA facilities follows including reference to associated future plans. ■ Live -Fire Ranges and Maneuver Areas. PTA contains 14 operational fixed live fire ranges, two rotary wing forward arming and/or refueling ranges, unlimited artillery firing points, twenty-four motor points, six drop zones, a helicopter and fighter/bomber gunnery range, strategic aircraft bombing range, and approximately 7,000 contiguous ha for maneuver training. ■ Bradshaw Army Airfield. PTA houses the Bradshaw Army Airfield (Figure 3.1.1). A project to lengthen the existing runway from its existing length of 1,127 to 2,439 in is currently under review by the DOA. The longer runway would allow fully -loaded C-130 aircraft to utilize the airfield. ■ Cantonment Area. PTA can support a training deployment of up to 2,400 personnel. The base camp includes 154 buildings, three fully equipped and eight partially equipped with dining facilities, two motor pools, 5.7 million liters (L) of water storage, rations warehouse, bulk fuel facility, chapel, theater, a recreation club including game courts, and a medical facility. Due to its proximity to the existing flight path of the airfield, relocation of the cantonment area has been proposed. The site selection process is currently ongoing as of the date of this document. The proposed cantonment area would function at a level similar to the existing facility, with a capacity to house up to 2,400 visiting troops. Additional camping areas would allow the facility to accommodate up to 4,000 troops at one time. ■ Infrastructure. PTA is in the process of upgrading its water system, including the construction of a water filtration system to purify water from Pohakuloa Spring. In addition, PTA is in the process of drilling a water well, which upon completion, will provide potable water for the facility. Presently, water is hauled to PTA by truck. 3-2 =w LEGEND. 4 ® Kohola ;HOnoka c7.- ®STATE/POHAKULOA TRAINING AREA ®RANCH/RES wCD - _`-, PO'aUilO a OPEN SPACE/VACANT FARMING/RES Kowaihae 1Nc?i'ak4._ --- --r ` _ "-` RANCHING GV Mauna Kea Beach Hotel�........... ��iLI�' Q Q Hapvno Beach Park ,t I I I I'I'I I L�VUAIEAPORT 'll\ P Q O IIII (I^I"�I Mana1 _. - Lou' bhoehoe III p,I I I I I I A Illfllll�lllllli i ,. Puakb �j IIIIIIIIh,11111111111111111111ILIIII ._.. I I i I I I I o ni Resort j W� I I I II I I IIyI II1I 1 II1 1 I1I1I1I1 � r" ''•+___� -MANA ROAD(4WD)• \ I I ,-. ,� ----- Mauna LaII I I OikOIOa -- ? r Hilton wolkoloa �1a� LI I I I I I I I I I O ----------S--S - T ;ION' I I r`._ SECT I O N I V o' T Iiilllllll -`Keonakolu t Hakalau _ I I L1I - _ r II I I I / -- �- l'• 11 ,S Kolekole Park Honomu AiAolo Bay Pepe'ekeo SCOUtRCAMP 137 Pu'uanahulu Ke'amuk I I'j I I I MAiJNA K 1 I'IIkIIII II I f 1 BRADSHAW ARM-' Alf Pdpai'kou MAUNA KEA _ STATE PARK r r f { y', KVHI HARBO µµ K NA INTERN Yp AIRPO POHAKU LOA TRAINING AREA 111111 KAUMN HILO It +8271 CITY AIRPORT AIRPORT HUA_ LALAIr�%�j�%j IPTA CIN ER PIT ® HON K=iHA MPACT/ \l , '� ���� AREA 1 1 1J KAILUA/i 1,/J/� r' ea au t _ _ � urtistown � Kahalu'u Keauhou Mouktoin View i --- Kuldni Hawoiidr�• Source: Okaharo & Associates Inc. EXISTING LAND USE FIGURE 3.1 .1 r ' FILE: 3-1-1 %REF: BASE-A,94009B1E Of the total PTA land area, 20,648 ha are used for the impact area and 13,204 ha for maneuvers. Approximately 9,920 ha are limited in their use due to extensive lava fields and environmental sensitivity. Approximately 2,024 ha of maneuver area within PTA are situated on the north side of Saddle Road and include Training Areas 1-4 (Figure 3.1.2, PTA Maneuver lMiningAreas). Saddle Road serves as a major barrier between these maneuver areas and firing points situated south of Saddle Road. Portions of Training Areas 1 and 4, and all of Training Area 3 are within the Palila Critical Habitat Area (Cross Reference: 3.18 Threatened and Endangered Species). The types of training activities undertaken in Training Areas 1 through 4 are limited to the following. ■ Live fire artillery ■ Deliberate attacks ■ Unit road march ■ Hasty attacks ■ Force on force blank fire maneuvering ■ Bivouac ■ Patrolling ■ Land navigation ■ Small unit tactics ■ Vehicle road marches ■ Occupy defensive positions ■ Unit command posts ■ Airmobile operations The following limitations are enforced on these training areas due to the sensitivity of surrounding areas. ■ No open fires. ■ No aerial pyrotechnics ■ No field mess operations ■ No ground smoke or CS smoke 3.1.1.1.3 Residential ■ No more than 500 men at any time ■ No more than five helicopters at one time No live ammunition, only artillery authorized Residential and small scale agricultural uses are concentrated on the Hilo, or eastern side, of the project corridor between MP 8 and 5. In addition, there is a mix of ranching and residential uses within Waiki'i Ranch on the western side between MP 49 and 46. The majority of the small residential lots 0.4 ha or less in size are concentrated along the existing Saddle Road corridor (Segment EX -4A). No other segment under consideration or the proposed Saddle Road includes any similar sized residential or small agricultural lots. 3.1.1.1.4 Public Lands Large areas of public lands, which serve as watershed, conservation areas, public hunting units, and recreation sites, are located along the Saddle Road corridor, beginning at MP 22 and 3-3 extending east to MP 10. Between MP 30 and 22, the Forest Reserve lands are limited to the south side of Saddle Road. A portion of this area is designated by the State of Hawai' i Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) as a sanctuary for the endangered Nene (Cross Reference: 3.18 Threatened and Endangered Species). 3.1.1.1.5 Astronomy Since 1968, the University of Hawai' i has operated an astronomical facility on Mauna Kea, a 4,206 -m -high volcano. Mauna Kea is considered to be one of the finest astronomical observatory sites in the world. A total of 10 facilities, including the Very Long Base Array Observatory, have already been constructed within the scientific reserve with an additional three facilities under construction or in the final stages _ � planning. In order to support and acclimatize the astronomers, technicians and support staff, a mid-level support facility has been constructed at Hale Pohaku at the 2,835-m elevation. This facility provides sleeping accommodations, offices, kitchen/dining areas, and lounges. The site also includes an interpretive center for disseminating information about Mauna Kea and the astronomical facilities. The Mauna Kea Science Reserve Complex Development Plan, which was completed in 1983, established the overall policies and criteria for the development of astronomical facilities within the Mauna Kea summit area. This plan would have to be revised prior to the development of additional, unapproved facilities at the site. Access to the observatory is from Saddle Road and the Mauna Kea Access Road. 3.1.1.1.6 Mining and Energy Development The only mining and or energy developments within the project vicinity are two quarries (Figure 3.1.1). One is a sand quarry, approximately 6 ha in size, which is now closed. It is located on the south side of Saddle Road in Section I, west of the Kilohana Girl Scout Camp. Appendix C provides a property map of this land parcel. The sand quarry is now closed. The second is a cinder pit, located on Pu u Nene, in Section 11. 3.1.1.1.7 Commercial and Industrial Use There are no commercial or industrial uses within the project area, except for a small convenience store at MP 5, just east of the project's eastern terminus. 3.1.1.1.8 Outdoor Recreation and Hunting The Saddle Road area provides a number of outdoor recreational resources and opportunities. Public input associated with this project noted that many people drive Saddle Road for recreation and for its scenic resources, and a number of residents hunt, hike, and gather resources in the upland areas. A full discussion of outdoor recreation and hunting is included in the social section of this chapter (Cross Reference: 3.3.4. Outdoor Recreation Resources and Hunting). 3-4 L E G E N D 12 TRAINING AREA BOUNDARY N O `O F 20 L 17 �1.i\12/ 11 N wE s SADDLE ROAD PROJECT A AD -61D HAWAII DEFENSE ACCESS ROAD 3 2 1 SADDLE ROAD DUD AREA PTA MANUEVER TRAINING AREAS FIGURE 3.1.2 Table 3.1.1, Land Use by Segnen/, summarizes the land use patterns and activities within the project corridor. TABLE 3. 1.1 Land Use by Segment Section Land Use % Land Use % Land Use '%, I Segment W-2 Segment W-3 Open Space 0 Open Space 0 Ag/Residential 0 Ag/Residential 0 Farming 0 Farming 0 State 0 State 0 Ranching 90 Ranching 90 PTA 10 PTA 10 Park Land 0 Park Land 0 II Segment EX -2 Segment PTA -1 Segment PTA -3 Open Space 0 Open Space 15 Open Space 0 Ag/Residential 0 Ag/Residential 0 Ag/Residential 0 Farming 0 Farming 0 Farming 0 State / DHHL 3 State / DHHL 4 State / DHHL 4 Ranching 0 Ranching 0 Ranching 0 PTA 97 PTA 81 PTA 96 Park Land 0 Park Land 0 Park Land 0 III Segment EX -3 Open Space 64 Ag/Residential 0 Farming 0 State 9 Ranching 27 PTA 0 Park Land 0 IV Segment EX -4A Segment E-3 Open Space 0 Open Space 0 Ag/Residential 0 Ag/Residential 0 Farming 80 Farming 72 State 20 State 28 Ranching 0 Ranching 0 PTA 0 PTA 0 Park Land 0 Park Land 0 3-5 3.1.1.2 Environmental Consequences. All Action Alternatives. Land use impacts which would result from implementation of the proposed project include temporary construction -related impacts, direct impacts associated with right-of-way acquisition, and indirect impacts resulting from changes in the character and use of the road. Construction activities would be expected to result in short-term impacts on land uses adjacent to Saddle Road. These impacts include traffic delays and congestion, construction noise and dust, and community disruption. With W-2, W-3, PTA -1, PTA -3, and E-3, these construction -related impacts would be notably less. Most of the construction work would be completed outside of the existing road corridor, allowing use of the existing road during most of the construction period. Selection of W-2 or W-3 would result in no notable construction -related impacts to the community of Waiki' i. Selection of E-3 over EX -4A would preclude much of the construction -related impacts to developed portions of Kaumana. Following the construction period, the proposed project would improve the safety and efficiency of Saddle Road, a transportation use. The resulting changes would improve access to land uses directly adjacent to the corridor, and would increase cross -island traffic between East and West Hawai' i. Improved access on Saddle Road and the resulting increase in traffic levels could result in the indirect increase in use of public areas adjacent to the project corridor. While improved access would be beneficial for many potential users, the associated increased use could potentially increase the degradation of sensitive environments. W-2 and W-3. Implementation of the proposed project would result in a direct and unavoidable land taking from the ranching operations within Section I of the project corridor. Total direct land impacts to Parker Ranch pasture lands would be 63 ha with selection of Segment W-2, and approximately 62 ha with selection of Segment W-3. These segments extend through the Ke'amuku pasture of Parker Ranch, which totals approximately 9,311 ha of land area. Approximately 3,500 head of cattle are kept in this area, rotated between three large paddocks. Construction of Segments W-2 or W-3 would require the installation of additional pasture fencing, and consequently modification of the layout of existing pastures. The Keamuku pasture area is of sufficient size to accommodate these modifications, and impacts on the overall ranching operation are expected to be limited. W-2 or W-3 would route Saddle Road cross -island traffic off of the existing Saddle Road within Section 1, notably reducing traffic levels through Waiki' i Ranch. The abandoned existing Saddle Road serving Waiki'i and other local access needs would be the responsibility of the County of Hawaii to maintain. HDOT is currently examining funding or cooperative mechanisms to provide assistance to local governments in the maintenance of local roads. 3-6 EX -2 PTA -1. and PTA -3. Direct impacts to ranching would occur with the implementation of PTA -1, which extends onto DHHL land. A total of approximately 13 ha of pasture lands may be directly impacted by land acquisition for construction of PTA -1. These lands are currently leased to Parker Ranch for cattle grazing. No direct impacts to ranching/grazing activities would be anticipated with EX -2 or PTA -3. Implementation of EX -2 would have little or no affect on hunting lands. Direct loss of existing hunting lands would occur as a result of the selection of PTA -1 (14 ha), or PTA -3 (17 ha). PTA -1 and PTA -3 would primarily impact hunting units A and E (Figure 3.3.1, Recreation Resources), where hunting for pigs, goats, sheep, and birds is permitted. With regard to the hunting of feral animals, PTA -I and PTA -3 would result in limited impacts, since the alignments would follow along the margin of feral animal hunting areas. On the other hand, PTA- I and PTA -3 would cause some fragmentation of existing bird hunting areas. Implementation of the project would provide for safer travel through PTA by minimizing conflicts between military and civilian traffic. The Army has stated that, the improvement of Saddle Road would be desirable from the standpoint of improving the quality of training operations. However, the quantity of training would not be affected by the proposed project. With PTA -1 or PTA -3 the quality of training activities would be enhanced within certain training areas. PTA -1 or PTA -3 would realign Saddle Road to the northern boundary of the PTA. This would improve the quality of training operations in adjacent training areas. It would remove the existing Saddle Road as a major barrier between the maneuver areas north of the existing alignment and the firing points situated to the south. Ownership of the existing Saddle Road would be transferred to the military for use as required In contrast, construction of EX -2 without the construction of grade separated crossings would degrade training activities as traffic growth occurs. EX -2 would leave Saddle Road as a barrier between maneuver areas and firing points, necessitating continued limitations in training activities and compromising the realism of training. Military personnel and associated ground vehicles would need to cross the road to reach the firing points on the boundary of the impact area. There would be greater restrictions in the conditions, if not the elimination, of artillery fire. EX -3. With EX -3 the improved roadway would use much of the existing roadway corridor, therefore, land use impacts would be minimized in this section of the project corridor. Right-of-way acquisition for EX -3 would result in a direct loss of roughly 45 ha of State land, primarily adjacent to Forest Reserve lands, in hunting units B and E, and within the South Hilo Forest Reserve. Impacts to hunting are not anticipated due to the presence of a hunting buffer along the existing road corridor. EX -4A. Selection of EX -4A would result in the direct conversion of State land and privately -owned residential lands. With the development of an improved Saddle Road on EX -4A, a substantial increase in future traffic volumes is anticipated. Residential property acquisition and 3-7 residential relocations required for construction of the project on this segment would be minimized because the alignment would be routed along the Hawai' i Electric Light Company, Inc. (HELCO) transmission line corridor, avoiding a relatively dense area of residences along the existing Saddle Road. Over the long term, the anticipated increase in traffic could increase pressures for the development of commercial services, such as service stations or convenience markets. EE=3. The E-3 corridor would convert vacant land, and lands designated for agriculture. The development of an improved Saddle Road along this alignment would open these lands up for development in accordance with existing zoning. No Action Alternative. With the No Action Alternative, no land would be converted from its existing use to the transportation corridor use. No land acquisition or relocations would be required. 3.1.1.3 Mitigation Measures ■ Access to public use and recreation areas, ranching operations, residences, and the PTA will be maintained at all times during construction. Discussion of relocation impacts and associated mitigation measures is included in a separate section of this chapter (Cross Reference: 3.5 Right -of -Way and Relocation). 3.1.2 Current Development Trends The County of Hawai' i has faced difficult economic times as a result of the end of the sugar production industry on the island, and lagging tourism. This in turn has caused a downturn in construction, real estate sales, and development. To a large extent, the economy of the County mirrors that of the State as a whole. The economies of East and West Hawai' i continue to be very different in character. East Hawai' i relies on the Hilo Campus of the University of Hawai' i, the astronomical base facilities, government, and a growing diversified agricultural industry. There is a plentiful supply of affordable housing, although many of the houses in the Puna region are in substandard subdivisions (many without municipal water and paved roads). West Hawai' is economy continues to rely primarily on the tourism industry. Technology industries, centered on the Natural Energy Laboratory -Hawaii and the astronomical base facilities in Waimea, and diversified agriculture continue to be important elements of the economy. Over the past five years, West Hawai' i has been slowly gaining population share from East Hawaii. HE With direct flights from Japan and the continental United States into Kona, tourism in West Hawai' i is starting to grow again. Hotels continue to be renovated and upgraded. The new Four Seasons Resort, which opened in September 1996, is the first new hotel in almost five years. Tourism in East Hawai' i continues to be dominated by the independent visitor looking for a unique experience. This has resulted in a growing bed and breakfast industry in East Hawai' i and the island as a whole. The Volcano National Park in Ka'u, continues to be the largest tourist draw on the island. With the closing of Ka'u Sugar Company in 1996, sugar cane is no longer cultivated on the island. Once the dominant crop with over 24,000 ha in production in 1990, the plantation closures (including Hamakua Sugar Company, Mauna Kea Sugar/Hilo Coast Processing Company and Ka'u Sugar Company) have created opportunities for diversified agriculture. Trends indicate that the future of the agricultural industry of this area is in small farms rather than plantation agriculture. Timber is also being considered to replace some of the sugar operations, especially in the Hamakua region on the former Hamakua Sugar Company lands. Ranching continues to be a major industry, with more than $20 million in sales in 1994. This is down significantly from the early 1990's, however, primarily because of the decline in beef prices. Table 3.1.2, Hawaii County Statistics, 1991 through 1995, presents a summary of key statistics on the Island's economy and development trends. TABLE 3.1.2 Hawaii County Statistics, 1991 through 1995 RWE Unit 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 Resident Population Number 126,127 130,018 133,039 135,255 137,531 Civilian Labor Force Number 63,800 65,350 65,300 65,956 64,300 Unemployment Rate Percent 4.5 8.1 7.5 10.8 10.2 Estimated West Bound Visitors Number 875,600 909,500 875,700 866,300 850,800 Estimated ]last Bound Visitors Number 213,000 232,900 244,400 213,3003 215,300 Hotel Inventory Rooms 9,383 9,170 9,140 9,595 9,558 Hotel Occupancy Percent 572 57.9 58.2 624 60.4 Real Estate Resales Single Family Res Number Ave Price 752 $204,231 764 $196,279 740 $217,911 844 $191,787 791 $196,952 RWE TABLE 3.1.2 Hawaii County Statistics, 1991 through 1995 Source: Economic Indicators, First Hawaiian Dank Research Department, September, October 1996 While the County's economy is presently very sluggish, the future is very optimistic. According to a recent profile of the Island's economy (First Hawaiian Bank 1996), "the Big Island's economy has suffered through several years of lackluster growth caused by sugar closures, lagging construction and slow tourism. However, there are signs in 1996 that higher growth is actually coming." The profile concluded that, "short term cyclical aspects shouldn't overshadow the Big Island's long term potential. And even cyclically, the worst is likely to be over." 3.1.3 Governmental Plans, Policies, and Land Use Regulations 3.1.3.1 Hawaii State Plan The Hawai' i State Plan (State Plan) was adopted in 1978 and revised in 1986 and again in 1991 as Chapter 226, Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS). The plan establishes a set of goals, objectives and polices that are meant to guide the State's long-term growth and development. Relevant sections of the State Plan, include the following from Section 226-17, HRS, relating to Transportation: Objective a.1: An integrated multi -modal transportation system that serves statewide needs and promotes the efficient, economical, safe and convenient movement of people and goods. Objective a.2: A statewide transportation system consistent with planned growth objectives throughout the State. Policy b.1: Design, program, and develop a multi -modal system in conformance with the desired growth and physical development as stated in this chapter. 3-10 Unit 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 Real Estate Resales Multi -Family Res Number Ave Price 296 $173,970 250 $193,359 285 $179,957 298 $180,313 274 $188,066 Sugar Production Cons 182,000 164,000 161,000 147,000 No Data Diversified Crop Production Dollars $105,409,000 $102,035,000 $101,610,000 $102,731,000 No Data Livestock Production I Dollars $oo_707,000 1 $28,171,000 $25,699,000 $20,708,000 No Data Source: Economic Indicators, First Hawaiian Dank Research Department, September, October 1996 While the County's economy is presently very sluggish, the future is very optimistic. According to a recent profile of the Island's economy (First Hawaiian Bank 1996), "the Big Island's economy has suffered through several years of lackluster growth caused by sugar closures, lagging construction and slow tourism. However, there are signs in 1996 that higher growth is actually coming." The profile concluded that, "short term cyclical aspects shouldn't overshadow the Big Island's long term potential. And even cyclically, the worst is likely to be over." 3.1.3 Governmental Plans, Policies, and Land Use Regulations 3.1.3.1 Hawaii State Plan The Hawai' i State Plan (State Plan) was adopted in 1978 and revised in 1986 and again in 1991 as Chapter 226, Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS). The plan establishes a set of goals, objectives and polices that are meant to guide the State's long-term growth and development. Relevant sections of the State Plan, include the following from Section 226-17, HRS, relating to Transportation: Objective a.1: An integrated multi -modal transportation system that serves statewide needs and promotes the efficient, economical, safe and convenient movement of people and goods. Objective a.2: A statewide transportation system consistent with planned growth objectives throughout the State. Policy b.1: Design, program, and develop a multi -modal system in conformance with the desired growth and physical development as stated in this chapter. 3-10 Policy b.6: Encourage transportation systems that serve to accommodate present and future development needs of communities. Policy 6.9: Encourage the development of transportation systems and programs which would assist statewide economic growth and diversification. Policy b. 10: Encourage the design and development of transportation systems sensitive to the needs of affected communities and the quality of Hawai' is natural environment. The proposed project is consistent with the transportation policies and objectives of the State Plan. The highway will accommodate both existing and future cross -island traffic in a safe and efficient manner. It will improve the link between existing residential, governmental and service centers in East Hawaii and major job centers and economic development opportunities of West Hawai' i. 3.1.3.2 Hawaii State Functional Plans The State Plan contains 12 separate Function Plans addressing specific areas of concern. The 1991 revision of the Functional Plan for Transportation has several objectives, policies and implementing actions which are relevant to this project including the following. Objective IA: Expansion of the Transportation System. Policy I.A.2: Improve regional mobility in areas of the State experiencing rapid urban growth and road congestion. Objective I.E: Planning and designing State highways to enhance inter -regional mobility. Policy I.E.1: Design highways with controlled accesses, grade separated crossings, and minimum four -lane divided standards where applicable. Encourage counties to develop local road networks for local travel and access. Objective II.A: Development of a transportation infrastructure that supports economic development initiatives. Policy II. A.1: Support State economic development initiatives. Policy II.A.2: Support tourism and economic development. The proposed project is consistent with the Objectives and Policies of the Transportation Function Plan. The highway will accommodate both existing and future cross -island traffic in a safe and efficient manner. It will link the existing residential, governmental and service centers in 3-11 East Hawaii with the major job centers and economic development opportunities in West Hawai' i. 3.1.3.3 Island of Hawai' i Long Range Highway Plan The Island of Hawai' i Long Range Highway Plan was developed in 1991 to facilitate the orderly transportation system development in the State and County of Hawai' i. The purpose of this plan is to identify major highway corridors that would require roadway improvements to accommodate traffic demands projected for the year 2010. The Long Range Highway Plan identifies Saddle Road project as Priority No. 31 on the Tier 1 Priority List for Island -wide projects, Hilo, Kailua-Kona, and Waimea projects. With respect to Saddle Road, the plan states the following. Realign or construct a new two-lane roadway that provides better horizontal and vertical alignment and slandard-width lanes and shoulders, and meets current roadway design standards. Provide truck climbing and passing lanes at various locations in alternating directions to improve the flow of traffic and increase capacity. Realign the Waimea end of Saddle Road to intersect Mamalahoa Highway at the existing Waikoloa Road intersection, forming a cross intersection. The proposed project and its alignment alternatives are consistent with the project development description for the Saddle Road project in the Long Range Highway Plan. This plan serves as a guide to roadway planning. 3.1.3.4 County of Hawaii General Plan The County of Hawaii General Plan is a policy document expressing the broad goals and polices for the long range development of the Island of Hawai' i. The plan was originally adopted by ordinance in 1967 and was most recently amended in 1989. The General Plan is organized into 13 elements, providing goals, policies, standards and recommended courses of action for each. The relevant sections of the General Plan to this project are listed as follows. Transportation Goals ■ Provide a transportation system whereby people and goods can move efficiently, safely, comfortably, and economically. ■ Make available a variety of modes of transportation which best meets the needs of the County. Provide a system of thoroughfares and streets for the safe, efficient and comfortable movement of people and goods between and within the various sections of the County. 3-12 ■ Provide an integrated State and County system so that new major routes would complement and encourage proposed land uses. Transportation Policies ■ A framework of transportation facilities which would promote and influence desired land use shall be established by concerned agencies. ■ The agencies concerned with transportation systems should provide for present traffic and future demands, including mass transit programs for high growth areas. ■ The improvement of transportation service shall be encouraged. ■ The County shall coordinate with appropriate Federal and State agencies for the funding of transportation projects for areas of anticipated growth. Specific Courses of Action ■ Implementation of the Puainako Extension and Widening Project (Cross Reference: 3.1.4 Related Projects) 3.1.3.5 General Plan Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide Map and Facilities Map While the Hawaf i County General Plan is a policy document, expressing broad goals and policies for the long range development of the island, it also includes a map component. The Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG) map indicates the general location of various land uses in relation to each other and is a graphic depiction of the General Plan's Goals, Polices, and recommended Courses of Action. The Facilities Map identifies existing and proposed roads as well as existing and proposed public, cultural, utility, safety, and transportation facilities. These maps establish the basic urban and non -urban form for areas as well as the primary transportation linkages. Land uses designated on the LUPAG map are organized into the following categories. I irhan and Rural Designations High Density: Commercial, multiple residential and related services. Medium Density: Village and neighborhood commercial and residential and related functions. 3-13 Low Density: Single family residential in character, ancillary community and public uses, and convenience type commercial uses. Resort Areas: These areas include uses such as hotels, condominium -hotels, and supporting services. Urban Expansion: Allows for a mix of high density, medium density, low density, industrial and/or open designations in areas where new settlements may be desirable, but where the specific settlement pattern and mix of uses have not yet been determined. Industrial Area: These areas include uses such as manufacturing and processing, wholesaling, large storage and transportation facilities, and light industrial uses. Aericultural Designations Intensive Ag: Sugar, orchard, diversified agriculture, and floriculture. Extensive Ag: Pasturage and range lands. Orchard: Those lands which though rocky in character and content support productive macadamia nuts, papaya, citrus, and other similar agricultural products. Other Designations University: University and support community services. Open: Parks and historic sites. Conservation: Forest and water reserves, natural and scientific preserves, open, lands within the State Land Use Conservation District. The Saddle Road project extends through areas that have been designed for a mix of Low Density Urban, Agricultural, and Conservation uses by the General Plan LUPAG map. The Low Density Uses are concentrated in the eastern end of the project corridor in the upper Kaumana area between MP 10 and 5. The Agricultural destinations extend along the north side of Saddle Road between MP 30 and 22 and along the entire western end, west of MP 44, and including Western Alternative segments W-2 and W-3. The balance of the project area is designated as Conservation, in accordance with the forest reserve uses and State Land Use (SLU) Conservation designation of the lands. 3-14 Table 3.1.3, General Plan LUPAG Categories by Alternative, provides the percent of each alternative within the various LUPAG land use categories. Figure 3.1.3, General Plan LUPAG Map Designation, graphically depicts the LUPAG land use classifications. The General Plan Facilities map shows existing Saddle Road as a Primary Arterial Roadway which needs to be improved. The General Plan also shows a proposed new road that intersects with Saddle Road at MP 44 and runs in a southerly direction to the Puuanahulu/Puuwaawaa area. This alternative alignment was considered during the scoping phase of the Saddle Road project and rejected because of environmental concerns. TABLE 3.1.3 General Plan LUPAG Categories by Alternative Section LUPAG Land Use LUPAG Land Use LUPAG Land Use I Segment W-2 Segment W-3 Urban Expansion 0% Urban Expansion 0% Extensive Ag 28% Extensive Ag 81% Intensive Ag 62% Intensive Ag 9% Conservation 10% Conservation 10% Open Area 0% Open Area 0% Orchards 0% Orchards 0% Low Density 0% Low Density 0% High Density 0% High Density 0% II Segment EX -2 Segment PTA -1 Segment PTA -3 Urban Expansion 0% Urban Expansion 0% Urban Expansion 0% Extensive Ag 10% Extensive Ag 10% Extensive Ag 0% Intensive Ag 0% Intensive Ag 0% Intensive Ag 0% Conservation 100% Conservation 90% Conservation 100% Open Area 0% Open Area 0% Open Area 0% Orchards 0% Orchards 0% Orchards 0% Low Density 0% Low Density 0% Low Density 0% High Density 0% 1 High Density 0% 1 High Density 0% 3-15 TABLE 3.1.3 General Plan LUPAG Categories by Alternative Section LUPAG Land Use LUPAG Land Use LUPAG Land Use HI Segment EX -3 Urban Expansion 0% Extensive Ag 27% Intensive Ag 0% Conservation 73% Open Area 0% Orchards 0% Low Density 0% High Density 0% IV Seement EX -4A Segment E-3 Urban Expansion 0% Urban Expansion 0% Extensive Ag 0% Extensive Ag 0% Intensive Ag 0% Intensive Ag 0% Conservation 29% Conservation 23% Open Area 0% Open Area 0% Orchards 71% Orchards 77% Low Density 0% Low Density 0% High Density 0% 1 High Density 0% 3.1.3.6 Hilo Community Development Plan The County has prepared community development plans to guide short to medium-term development for various communities including Hilo. The Hilo Community Development Plan (CDP) was adopted by Resolution in May 1975 to guide the planning and development of the City of Hilo. The following paragraph is a discussion of Saddle Road from the Hilo CDP Transportation Section. "The trans -island Saddle Road connecting Hilo to West Hawaii is not as well improved as the Belt Highway (Highway I9). In addition, the Saddle Road within Hilo follows an alignment which is congested, narrow and winding. Traffic from the Saddle Road must use Waianuenue Avenue through downtown before making a difficult connection with Bayfront Highway and then proceeding as the other traffic does. " Although not specifically discussed, Saddle Road, through the Hilo CDP study area (up to MP 10), is recommended for improvement according to the implementation plan. 3-16 r � G 7 4~ �\ Ka waihae 4�* Q 1r �Y Mauna Kea Beach Hotel Q' V Haluna Beach Parkl 4� O 101 KAI LU Puaka Mauna Loni Resort Hilton Waikoloo i KV.Lo Bav J r r ik�log 6TI O ^✓�0' O� 9 0 O° gO i r� u'uanahulu Ke'amukuu�00 A 1 -- 190 , ---� ;N NAL t (\K0100 H UAL I , I � Kaholu'u �, 1 Keouhou \1 LEGEND: ® URBAN EXPANSION INTENSIVE AGRICULTURE ® CONSERVATION HIGH DENSITY URBAN DEVELOPMENT AI ` _ AUEAIRPORT �� L W na, Ne/4", 11114141441100 0— ! • MO MA ::�,9 O 7 /I /I P 0 H A K U L 0 A T R A 1 f PTA IMPACT Source: The General Plan Hawaii County November, 1989 IFILE: 3 1 2\XREF. 94004B1E,BASE-A / f 'MP i l _` OPEN AREA ® ORCHARDS ® LOW DENSITY �o EXTENSIVE AGRICULTURE SAD (4WD) 'lo O T 16-\ I I ,Q �0 0� \\ Keonakolu.., vd�04 1 l°0°100 1 OIIOQ:°O O 1 0 fI f b 00 + 13,796) / s O ` O MAC)NA AI O� r O l0 P 5) iRMK f n 0(1 010 J , A I % f Pua kala)'0 O , RK 0 O� ) � 0cr 00 N i O Q b°O f o O �°� b) 0 °O°Q O°O °O�odiQ°O° so 007 B „SECTION IV 1 � Hakalau Kolekole Park Honomu 'ekeo pai'kou I'�rea ou urtis`town I` r GENERAL PLAN LUPAG MAP DESIGNATION FIGURE 3.1.3 3.1.3.7 Northeast Hawai'i Community Development Plan The Northeast Hawaii Community Development Plan provides a decision making tool for use by the Planning Department and Planning Commission in implementing the County of Hawaii General Plan over a 15 year period. The Plan was adopted by Planning Commission resolution in February 1979. The Northeast Hawai' i CDP planning area includes the portions of North Hilo and Hamakua in the saddle between Mauna Kea and Mauna Loa. Accordingly, while the focus of the plan was primarily along the coastal areas of the region, its study area includes portions of the existing Saddle Road alignment, including the section within the PTA. The composite Planning Map includes a recommendation that the existing Saddle Road be improved as a primary roadway within the County. 3.1.3.8 Land Use Regulations for State Land Use Districts All land within the State ofHawai'i is classified into one of four state land use districts (SLU); Urban, Rural, Agricultural, or Conservation. Chapter 205, HRS, establishes the criteria and objectives for the land use and assigns responsibility for the regulation of these districts. According to Chapter 205, HRS and Chapter 15-15, Hawaii Administrative Rules (HAR) provides for the classification and regulation of the districts as follows. Urban District. This district shall include land characterized by "city -like" concentrations of people, structures, streets, urban level of services, and other related land uses. Urban shall include activities or uses as provided by ordinances or regulations of the County within which the urban district is situated. Rural District. This district shall include areas of land composed primarily of small farms mixed with very low density residential lots, which may be shown by a minimum density of no more than one house per 0.2 ha and a minimum lot size. Rural districts shall include activities or uses as characterized by low density residential lots of not more than one dwelling house per 0.2 ha. Agricultural District. This district shall include areas of land with a high capacity for agriculture production. It may also include lands surrounded by or contiguous to agricultural lands which are not suited for agricultural production by reason of topography, soils and other related characteristics. Agricultural districts shall include activities or uses as characterized by the cultivation of crops, orchards, forage and forests, farming activities, open area recreational uses, and related activities. Conservation District. This district shall include areas necessary for protecting watersheds and water sources, preserving scenic and historic areas, providing park lands, wilderness, and beach reserves, conserving indigenous or endemic plants, fish, and wildlife, including 3-17 those which are threatened or endangered; preventing floods and soil erosion, forestry; open space areas whose existing openness, natural condition, or present state of use, if retained, would enhance the present or potential value of abutting or surrounding communities, or would maintain or enhance the conservation of natural or scenic resources, areas of value for recreation purposes; and other related activities. Activities within the Conservation district shall be established by the State of Hawai' i Board of Land and Natural Resources. The Saddle Road project extends through areas that are designated for Urban, Agriculture, and Conservation uses. There are no Rural designated lands within or adjacent to the project corridor. Urban uses are concentrated along the eastern end of the Saddle Road project, in the upper Kaumana area. These designations are limited to areas between MP 7 and 5. Agricultural Land Use designations are present along the entire western portion of the roadway and alternative alignments (west of MP 44), along the north side of Saddle Road between MP 30 and 22, and in the upper Kaumana area between MP 10 and 5. The balance of the land is designated as Conservation District, including the State-owned Forest Reserves between MP 42 and 9, through the PTA. Table 3.1.4, State Land Use Classifications by Alternative, provides the percent of each alternative within the various SLU classifications. Figure 3.1.4, State Land (Ise Districts, graphically depicts these classifications. TABLE 3.1.4 State Land Use Classifications by Alternative Section Land Use Classification Land Use Classification Land Use Classification I Seement W-2 Seement W-3 Agriculture 88% Agriculture 88% Urban 0% Urban 0% Conservation 12% Conservation 12% II Segment EX -2 Segment PTA -1 Segment PTA -3 Agriculture 0% Agriculture 12% Agriculture 0% Urban 0% Urban 0% Urban 0% Conservation 100% Conservation 88% Conservation 100% III Seement EX -3 Agriculture 0% Urban 0% Conservation 100% 3-18 E AGRICULTURE E] URBAN CONSERVATION 00 . 99940, 10 9 / /� • . . / .� m State La. Use Commision STATE LAND USE DISTRICTS 9400. , FIGURE 3.1.4 TABLE 3.1.4 State Land Use Classifications by Alternative Section Land Use Classification Land Use Classification Land Use Classification IV Seement EX -4A Segment E-3 Agriculture 57% Agriculture 66% Urban 25% Urban 0% Conservation 18% Conservation 34% Transportation systems are allowable uses in the SLU Urban, Rural, and Agricultural Districts. However, according to Chapter 13-5, HAR, related to the Conservation District, the following land use may be allowed within the Conservation District, provided a permit from the Board of Land and Natural Resources is first received, stated as follows. "Land uses undertaken by the State of Hawaii or the counties to futrill a mandated government function, activity or service for public benefit and in accordance with public policy and the purpose of the conservation district. Such land uses may include transportation systems, water systems, communications systems, and recreational facilities. " Accordingly, a permit must be approved by the Board of Land and Natural Resources prior to the commencement of construction of any portion of the Saddle Road project within the SLU Conservation District. A map depicting Conservation District subzones within the project vicinity is included (Figure 3.1.5, Conservation District Subzones). 3.1.3.9 Hawaii County Zoning Code The Hawai' i County Zoning Code as contained in Chapter 25 of the Hawai' i County Code, is the legal instrument that regulates the use of land within the SLU Urban, Agricultural and Rural Districts. The lands within the Saddle Road Project planning area include a mix of Single Family Residential, Agricultural, and Open zoning designations. According to the Zoning Code, roads are considered to be a permitted use in all zoned districts. Table 3.1.5, Zoning Designation Definitions, provides the use permitted and the minimum lot size for each zoning designation. 3-19 TABLE 3.1.5 Zoning Designation Definitions Zoning Designation Permitted Use Minimum Lot Size A -la Agriculture 0.4 ha A -3a Agriculture 1.2 ha A -5a Agriculture 2.0 ha A -10a Agriculture 4.1 ha A -20a Agriculture 8.l ha A -40a Agriculture 16.2 ha RS -7.5 Single Family Residential 698 m' RS -10 Single Family Residential 930 mZ RS -15 Single Family Residential 1395 m' Table 3.1.6, Zoning Designations by Alternative, lists the zoning categories for the project. Figure 3.1.6, Zoning, depicts the zoning within the study corridor and vicinity. TABLE 3.1.6 Zoning Designations by Alternative Section Zoning Zoning Zoning I Seent W-2 Seement W-3 Forest Reserve 0% Forest Reserve Oo/' A -40a 100% A -40a 100% A -20a 0% A -20a 0% A -10a 0% A -10a 0°/6 A -5a 0% A -5a 0% A -3a 0% A -3a 0% A -la 0% A -la 0% II Seement EX -2 Seement PTA -1 Semlent PTA -3 Forest Reserve 100% Forest Reserve 91% Forest Reserve 100'% A -40a 0% A -40a 9% A -40a 0% A -20a 0'% A -20a 0% A -20a Oo/" A -10a 0'% A -10a 0% A -10a 0'%, A -5a 0% A -5a 011/o A -5a 01% A -3a 0% A -3a 0% A -3a 0'%, A -la Oo/, A -la 0'% A -la 0% 3-20 G \ \� l+ 380 �O 0Ia Kawaihae \ v iMl9i'oltaLr� Mauna Kea Beach Hotel v Hapuna Beach Park Puoka Mauna Lani Resort o Hilton Woikoloo N I m -- Kahalu'u Keauhou AIM A LEGEND: ib HUNTING UNITS PROTECTIVE �Honoka 3 Lt D '� ' Pa'ouilo In RESOURCES AIRPORT Mand',�� ', I Lau pahoehoe / ``� moi-✓ MANA R_OAO (4_W_p��_ � �- � �� \"' � \ S E C Tl'O N 1`I �'._ T I O CI I I 777 i ---Keanakolu 1 tL� SCOUT CAMP l + 113,796� LL 5 AILtiL lLL LLL \, \, \ `� (� MAUNA' KtX' ; S L_LL `L LLLLL�L LLLLL LL \ , I ` �LLLLtLLtkLLL BRADSHAW ARMK I i LL LLL LL AIRFIELD, / /� i r LL LLL LLLLLLL L___ _ 1-- I / Puaakala 1 LL ` LL�M�AUNA KEA�`� L STATE PARK,_1 LLLZLIL LLL C- i 7 � moo, `\ \ Q 7 \ I K.at.0 . Source: Department If Land and Natural Resources 0 LIMITED ® GENERAL S E C T I O N IV Hakalau Kolekole Park \ Honomu l 1�Pepe'ekeo I 19 S j Papai'kou KUHI HARBO / 4 .LII PARK \Kea'ou Kurtisto wn 1 , w\ ? l` ( IC{R.f. Bay FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION / c CENTRAL FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DMSIC Kulmni DENVER, COLORADO i J CONSERVATION DISTRICT SUBZONES FIGURE 3.1.5 r Pu'uonohulu Ke'amuku K NA INTERN'VNAL/- --� AIRdp \ �\l PO H A K U IHUAI \ - ALAI ® HON KORA A OR KAI LUA Kahalu'u Keauhou AIM A LEGEND: ib HUNTING UNITS PROTECTIVE �Honoka 3 Lt D '� ' Pa'ouilo In RESOURCES AIRPORT Mand',�� ', I Lau pahoehoe / ``� moi-✓ MANA R_OAO (4_W_p��_ � �- � �� \"' � \ S E C Tl'O N 1`I �'._ T I O CI I I 777 i ---Keanakolu 1 tL� SCOUT CAMP l + 113,796� LL 5 AILtiL lLL LLL \, \, \ `� (� MAUNA' KtX' ; S L_LL `L LLLLL�L LLLLL LL \ , I ` �LLLLtLLtkLLL BRADSHAW ARMK I i LL LLL LL AIRFIELD, / /� i r LL LLL LLLLLLL L___ _ 1-- I / Puaakala 1 LL ` LL�M�AUNA KEA�`� L STATE PARK,_1 LLLZLIL LLL C- i 7 � moo, `\ \ Q 7 \ I K.at.0 . Source: Department If Land and Natural Resources 0 LIMITED ® GENERAL S E C T I O N IV Hakalau Kolekole Park \ Honomu l 1�Pepe'ekeo I 19 S j Papai'kou KUHI HARBO / 4 .LII PARK \Kea'ou Kurtisto wn 1 , l` ( U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION l CENTRAL FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DMSIC Kulmni DENVER, COLORADO i CONSERVATION DISTRICT SUBZONES FIGURE 3.1.5 IN I �G c� 4 q , Kawaihae 4 v rr 4�V `. Mauna Kea Beach Hotel Q' V Hopuno Beach Park 4 Puako Z— Mauna Lani Resort Hilton Waikotoo r ` \ 1+5380 t� `�/ J; "'�,��_ c LEGEND: IZo ala ��7�i �PaEj HOnOkO a 0 (OPEN) ® FOREST RESERVE C '�`.� �J/`^✓ �� t' ® VARIOUS ZONES L LLL WAN �\ Ir l Moto eav i 19 �� i EIA -40o «E U (UNPLAN) ® A -20o A-IDo =_KAMUEL AIRPORT -- �`--� Lou'pahoehoe _LLLLLLLL __ S--~_-'-__ `� \ _LLLLLLLL �- -- .LLLLLLLLL LLL _--_ ___-___- -'-�------- LLLLLLL _ __ ___ _ -- --�'----- LLLLLLL __ -- ,-"--1 .LLLLLLL -------------- --5-_�_ .LLLLLLL _-___ ___-_-- ___-- -L, Li _______ __ ----- F9;rMANA ROAD (4WD) _LLILLL - - - -�- \ L L-L---�---- KeanakoIu:- r� Pu'uanahulu Ke'amuku=-- "- f RN ONAL�-� \ `\ � � P O H A K L 8,271 � � f, �...r,�.. ,... \ �\ HUAALAI_ HON K9OR OR \ \ \\\ HA ( \ KAI LLIA 1 I \ 1 \ Kaholu'u 1 Keauhou \ 1 \ Source: County of Hawaii Zone Maps = G= '-GIRL COU AM 3, 6 k=== \ I�AGIJA-^7S���� F_=- BRADSHAW ARMK AIRFIELD Pu a akol_a!-k j STATE PARK _ _--_ IA�� T R A I N I N G A R E A --� - "---=�� IIMPA TIIIII - - J11111 - S E C T I O N I V Kolekole Park LHonomu ekeo apai'kou ea OU In View ZONING FIGURE 3.1.6 TABLE 3.1.6 Zoning Designations by Alternative Section Zoning Zoning Zoning III Sconent Er -3 Adopted/ Forest Reserve 91 IYO Agency Name of Plan Revised A -40a 9% Conformance with Plan or Policy State of Ilawai i State A -20a 0% Establishes broad goals, objectives Consistent with State goals on Hawai' i A -10a 0'% and policies to guide the overall economy/transportation A -5a 0% development of the State - A -3a 0% State of Hawai i State 1991 A -la 0% Consistent with Plan on regional Hawai' i IV Seement EX -4A �,�ement E-3 mobility, land use, economic Forest Reserve 59% Forest Reserve 360/4 with respect to'1'ransportation. development. A -40a 0% A -40a 01% A -20a 29% A -20a 41% A -10a 0% A -10a 9% A -5a 0% A -5a 0% A -3a 00 A -3a 01% A -la 0% A -la 14% RS -7.5 7°/, RS -15 14% RS -10 5% 3.1.3.10 Consistency of Alternatives with Existing Plans and Policies The proposed Saddle Road project complies with appropriate State and County land use policies, plans, goals, objectives and controls. It would facilitate implementation of the State Plan, the Transportation Function Plan, the Island of Hawai' i Long Range Highway Plan, the County of Hawaii General Plan, and the land use controls and regulations as established pursuant to the State Land Use Law and the Hawaii County ening Code. Table 3.1.7, C'o»/ormance wish Land Use Plans and Policies, summarizes the project's conformance with previously described land use plans and policies. TABLE 3.1.7 Conformance with Land Use Plans and Policies 3-21 Year Adopted/ Agency Name of Plan Revised Purpose or Description of Plan Conformance with Plan or Policy State of Ilawai i State 1991 Establishes broad goals, objectives Consistent with State goals on Hawai' i Plan and policies to guide the overall economy/transportation development of the State - State of Hawai i State 1991 Establishes guidelines for Consistent with Plan on regional Hawai' i Function Plan implementation of the State Plan mobility, land use, economic with respect to'1'ransportation. development. 3-21 TABLE 3.1.7 Conformance with Land Use Plans and Policies 3.1.4 Related Projects A number of land use and transportation projects are currently in the conceptual planning or development phases in the project corridor or vicinity. The following paragraphs summarize these projects. ■ Water Resource Development and Across Island Transmission Line. The Water Resource Development and Across Island Transmission Line project was conceived by the DLNR to address the potential long term water supply/demand imbalance between East and West Hawai' i. The project assesses the ability of East Hawaii aquifers to support water resource development of 76 million L of water per day; the engineering feasibility of developing an across island water transmission line to West Hawai' i through the saddle between Mauna Kea and Mauna Loa; and the site specific impacts of the development of a water transmission system of this magnitude on the environment. The study found that the project was feasible only if a viable end user of the water could be found. The water costs were estimated to range between $0.37 per thousand L to 3-22 Year Adopted/ Agency Name of Plan Revised Purpose or Description of Plan Conformance with Plan or Policy State of Coastal Zone 1977 Establishes objectives and policies Project conforms with objectives, Hawaii Management to protect coastal resources and policies in all seven CZM resource (CZM) areas. areas. Program State of Island of 1991 Identities and prioritizes major Consistent with recommendation for Hawaii Hawai' i Long highway system improvements realignment or reconstruction of the Range Master necessary- to accommodate future Saddle Road. plan traffic demands. County County of 1989 Long -Range Comprehensive Plan Consistent with Transportation of Hawai' i guiding the overall development of Goals of the General Plan IIawai'i General Plan the County. County General Plan 1989 Maps show general location of Project is consistent with Maps of LUPAG and land uses and roadway networks in which call for improvement of Hawai' i Facilities Map relationship to each other- Saddle Road. County Hilo 1975 Short to medium term guide to Saddle Road within the Hilo of Community implement the General Plan within planning area is recommended for I lawai i Development the Hilo area. improvement. Plan County N13 Hawaii 1979 Provides short to medium term Plan call for improvement of of Community development guide for the existing Saddle Road as a primary I tawai' i Development Hamakua region of the County roadwa} Plan 3.1.4 Related Projects A number of land use and transportation projects are currently in the conceptual planning or development phases in the project corridor or vicinity. The following paragraphs summarize these projects. ■ Water Resource Development and Across Island Transmission Line. The Water Resource Development and Across Island Transmission Line project was conceived by the DLNR to address the potential long term water supply/demand imbalance between East and West Hawai' i. The project assesses the ability of East Hawaii aquifers to support water resource development of 76 million L of water per day; the engineering feasibility of developing an across island water transmission line to West Hawai' i through the saddle between Mauna Kea and Mauna Loa; and the site specific impacts of the development of a water transmission system of this magnitude on the environment. The study found that the project was feasible only if a viable end user of the water could be found. The water costs were estimated to range between $0.37 per thousand L to 3-22 $2.35 per thousand L (in 1991 dollars), depending on the cost of power, and financing for the $250 to $312 million capital costs. Further implementation of the project has been deferred until a viable end user can be identified. Although the Water Resource Development and Across Island Transmission Line Project proposes to utilize the Saddle Road corridor for the water line transmission, its implementation is independent of the Saddle Road Project. ■ HELCO Transmission Lines. HELCO has two cross island power transmission lines through the "saddle" between Mauna Kea and Mauna Loa. These lines [69 kilovolts (kV) and 138 kV] provide service to the Mauna Kea science facilities, Pohakuloa Training Area, and beyond to West Hawaii. HELCO installed the 69 kV line in 1957 and the 138 kV line in 1987. The 69 kV poles are 18 to 20 m high, while the 138 kV poles are 24 to 26 m high. The HELCO utility easement varies from 45.7 to 61 m and provides a corridor for both existing lines and one additional planned cross island transmission line. This corridor is generally to the north of the existing Saddle Road and is accessed from established unimproved trails and HELCO maintenance roads. HELCO is currently in the planning process to expand its cross island transmission capacity through the construction of a third power line within the existing utility corridor. This line would have a capacity of 138 kV, and would be supported on either wood or metal poles. ■ GTE Fiber Optic Transmission Line. GTE Hawaiian Tel is installing a fiber optic telecommunications transmission network between Hilo, the astronomical facilities on Mauna Kea, and Waimea. This network will be connected with the existing inter -island fiber optic cable in Kawaihae and will provide additional telecommunications capacity to the island. The fiber optic network extends between Hilo and Waimea via Saddle Road, utilizing existing HELCO transmission lines. A Draft Environmental Assessment for GTE Hawaiian Tel Fiber Optic Telecommunication Cable was published in November 1995 with a proposed "Finding of No Significant Impact" for the project. Puainako Extension and Widening Project, The FHWA, HDOT, and the County of Hawaf i, are proposing to widen and extend Puainako Street in Hilo. The project is intended to improve arterial traffic flow of the State Highway system by providing a direct link between the existing Puainako Street and Saddle Road and to alleviate congested and unsafe traffic conditions on Puainako Street and Kaumana Drive. 3-23 The project would involve improving the existing Puainako Street to a four -lane highway between Kilauea Street and Komohana Street. Between Komohana Street and Country Club Road, Puainako Street would be extended a distance of approximately 7.3 km as a two-lane road. A State EIS was completed for this project in 1993. Completion of a Federal EIS in compliance with NEPA is now required for the project due to the implementation of several design changes (including intersection improvement and widening) and the inclusion of Federal involvement. The Federal EIS process is now underway. ■ Highway 190 to Queen Ka'alturnaita Project. HDOT is considering a project which would result in the development of a new or improved roadway connection between Mamalahoa Highway (SR 190) and Queen Ka ahumanu Highway in the vicinity of Waikoloa Road. This project is undergoing initial consideration, and HDOT has selected a consultant to initiate project scoping; the NEPA process is expected to take about two years. 3.1.5 Land Ownership 3.1.5.1 Affected Environment Land along the Saddle Road corridor is primarily owned by the State of Hawai' i, including lands within the Hilo and Hamakua Forest Reserves and lands leased to the DOA for the PTA military training activities. These lands are part of the Ceded lands which were transferred to the Territory of Hawai' i from the Hawaiian government at the time of annexation in 1892. In addition, a portion of the land that makes up the PTA was provided to the DOA through Executive Orders from the Governor. Other major land owners include the DHHL and Parker Ranch. Various landowners also control small holdings within or adjacent to a number of the alternative segments. These small land holdings are primarily concentrated within the Waiki'i Ranch along the existing Saddle Road, and on the eastern end of the corridor in Kaumana. Table 3.1.8, percent Land Ownership by Segment, summarizes the ownership patterns of the study corridor. Figure 3.1.7, Land Ownership, depicts the locations of the Alternatives in relation to land ownership. 3-24 TABLE 3.1.8 Percent Land Ownership by Segment Section Ownership % Ownership % Ownership % I Segment W-2 Segment W-3 State of Hawai' i 0 State of I lawaii 0 PTA (State Lease) 10 PTA (State Lease) 10 DI114L 0 Df If 0 Various 0 Various 0 Parker Ranch 90 Parker Ranch 90 II Seenent EX -2 Seenent PTA- I Segment P'rA-3 State of Hawai i 0 State of Hawaii 0 State of I lawai' i 0 PTA (State Lease) 100 PTA (State Lease) 88 PTA (State Lease) 100 DHHL 0 DHHL 12 DI H LL 0 Various 0 Various 0 Various 0 Parker Ranch 0 Parker Ranch 0 Parker Ranch 0 III Segment EX -3 State of Hawai' i 64 PTA (State Lease) 0 DHHL 27 Various 9 Parker Ranch 0 IV Setunent EX -4A Seu menl E-3 State of Hawai' i 17 State of Hawai i 10 PTA (State Lease) 0 P'rA (State Lease) 0 DHHL 0 DHHL 0 Various 83 Various 90 Parker Ranch 0 Parker Ranch 0 Source' Okahara & Associates, Inc. 3.1.5.2 Environmental Consequences Discussion of land acquisition and relocation impacts is included in a separate section of this chapter (Cross Reference. 3.5 Right -of -Way and Relocation). 3.1.5.3 Mitigation Measures Land acquisition and relocation -related mitigation measures are discussed in a separate section of this chapter (Cross Reference: 3.5 Right -of -Way and Relocation). 3-25 3.2 FARMLANDS 3.2.1 Affected Environment The U.S. Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), formerly known as the Soil Conservation Service, was consulted to determine the soil and agricultural resources present in the project corridor and vicinity. The consultation included formal assessment of the Farmland Conversion Impact Rating evaluation process (Form AD 1006, located in Appendix A). The agricultural capability of lands throughout the State of Hawai' i were assessed in the 1970s by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service and the State of Hawai' i Department of Agriculture. These lands were mapped as part of the Agricultural Lands of Importance to the State of Hawaii (ALISH) map series. Three categories of valuable agricultural land were identified through this effort: Prime Agricultural Lands, Unique Agricultural Lands, and Other Important Agricultural Lands. Prime Agricultural Land has the soil quality, growing season, and moisture supply needed to produce sustained high yields of crops economically when treated and managed according to modern farming methods. Unique Agricultural Land has a special combination of soil quality, location, growing season, and moisture supply, and is used to produce sustained high quality or high yields of a specific crop when treated and managed according to modern farming methods. Other Important Agricultural Lands are those lands of statewide or local importance for agricultural use, other than those classified as Prime or Unique. Prime Agricultural Lands comprise about 4 percent of the island, Unique Agricultural Lands comprise less than 1 percent, and Other Agricultural Lands comprise roughly 18 percent of land area within the County. Unclassif—d lands account for the remaining 78 percent of the total land area. 3.2.2 Environmental Consequences All Action Alternatives. No Unique Agricultural Lands are present within the project corridor or vicinity. Table 3.2.1, Direct Conversion of Agricultural Lands of Importance, indicates the estimated number of hectares of ALISH classified farmlands directly impacted by each segment. Figure 3.2.1, Agricultural Lands of Importance, depicts these classifications. W-2. W-3, EX -2 PTA -1. and PTA -3. Construction of the improved Saddle Road on Segments W-2, W-3, EX -2, PTA -1, and PTA -3 would directly convert Other Important Agricultural Lands (Table 3.2.1). EX -3, and EX -4A. Construction of the improved Saddle Road on Segments EX -3 and/or EX -4A, would not result in direct impacts to any ALISH classified farmlands (Table 3.2.1). 3-26 �+ 300 G \ IZa ala ` )Pork OKowtliv V Mouna Kea BeaHaluno BeacPuakor ) Mauna Loni Resort koloo Hilton Waikoloo S` Woi& s N J� i f A71wto eav J J i r Pu'uonohulu Ke't � 190 i —� � J K NA INTERN NAL -AIROO +8,271~\ HUAE LAI_ 1 \ ® HON Kt OR HA OR KAILUA Kahalu'u Keauhou fv !A'IR`PORT lona o a �� KoUrnono city EX -4A 4 _. E-3---� 1 0 f i i INSET A �\ /� `� J�✓MANA ROAD i4WD)�_� �� S E C,r I OAJ I,,_ -- - E �;T 0 1 1 J '----~1Keanakolu t I � ���✓ /� � roti , �,I 7 CAMP\ `\ � + 113,796 L' I if \ \\ 1i� MAONA 1<4 ` �-� BRADSHAW ARMK \ AIRFIELD,,_ \I J� / �' Puaakala; MAUNA KEA `� A 1 'STATE PARK--. -- � �N D ! �f� '1"., 9� ff POHAKULOA TRAINING AREA f PTA IMPACT r AREA PTA -3 1 Xdk/wah. Patat , I Source: Department of Agriculture, State of Hawaii, Agricultural Lands of Importance to the State of Hawaii Maps, 1976 LEGEND: ® OTHER IMPORTANT AGRICULTURAL LAND ® PRIME AGRICULTURAL LAND Ipahoehoe SECT ION IV \ \ HakI Iau KHonoekole Park H0nomu 1 Pepe'ekeo j J � S i 5 Papai'kou l KUHI HARHOR-t / 5/I / MI KAUMAN HILO , RO ® CITY AIRPORT t t Sr P I ( l \� SEE INSET A �Kea'au 1 1 Kurtistown Mou tain View jKulmni Howaiia-ft i Acres AGRICULTURAL LANDS OF IMPORTANCE FIGURE 3.2.1 EE=3. Construction of Saddle Road on Segment E-3 would directly convert 8.79 ha of Prime Agricultural Land (Table 3.2.1). The Prime Agricultural Lands within Section IV have deep soils and were formally used for sugar cultivation. Much of these lands are currently fallow, although there is increasing use of these lands for diversified agricultural crops, including foliage and taro. TABLE 3.2.1 Direct Conversion of Agricultural Lands of Importance Section and Segmel': Prime Agricultural Lands (ha) Other Important Agricultural Lands (ha) Section I W-2 00 550 W-3 0.0 18-6 No Action 0.0 00 Section II EX -2 00 189 PTA -1 0.0 6.7 PTA -3 0.0 6.7 No Action 0.0 0.0 Section III EX -3 0.0 0.0 No Action 0.0 00 Section W EX -4A 0.0 0.0 E-3 8.79 00 In coordination with the NRCS, a Farmland Conversion Impact Rating assessment was completed pursuant to FHWA regulations related to the Federal Farmland Protection Policy Act. The assessment evaluates potential impacts to farmland from implementation of project alternatives. The assessment takes into account the total area of farmland that would be directly converted, potential to indirectly convert agricultural land to non-agricultural uses, impacts to individual farms, and relative size and importance of farms affected. The Farmland Conversion Impact Rating process rates the potential impact using an ascending scale from 0 to 260 points. If the rating exceeds 160, consideration must be given to the use of non -farmland or the selection of an alternative less harmful to farming activities. 3-27 The farmland ratings for the Saddle Road alternatives ranged from 106 to 145 points. All of the action alternatives are below the threshold rating. Accordingly, impacts to agricultural lands of importance are not be expected to be significant with any of the alternatives under consideration. The Farmland Conversion Impact Rating forms are included in Appendix A. No Action Alternative. No ALISH classified farmlands would be impacted or converted as a result of the No Action Alternative. 3.2.3 Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are recommendc6 :or farmland resources. 3.3 SOCIAL 3.3.1 Population and Settlement Patterns 3.3.1.1 Affected Environment A Social Impact Assessment was completed for the Saddle Road EIS (Terry 1997, Technical Appendices, Volume V). This report includes an appendix discussing the potential impacts to hunting, and another addressing Indigenous Hawaiian Cultural Values. Table 3.3.1, Population Trends, 1960 to 1990, depicts recent population growth for Hawaii County and the South Hilo, North Kona, and South Kohala Districts. While South Hilo has experienced steady but modest population growth, the populations of North Kona and South Kohala grew rapidly after 1970 as a result of the expanding tourism. TABLE 3.3.1 Population Trends, 1960 to 1990, Hawaii County Sources: U.S. Bureau of the Census- "1990 Census of Population. General Population Characteristics," 1990 C13-1-13. Hawaii County Data Book. The average daily visitor count for North Kona and South Kona expanded from about 3,500 in 1970, to 8,000 in 1980, and to almost 20,000 by 1995, a increase of nearly six -fold in 25 years. In the 1960s and 1970s, accommodation units were divided somewhat equally between Hilo and 3-28 1960 1970 1980 1990 llawai'i County 61,332 63,468 92,053 120,317 South Hilo 31,553 33,915 42,278 44,639 North Kona 4,451 4,832 13,748 22,284 South Kohala 1,538 2,310 4,607 9,140 Sources: U.S. Bureau of the Census- "1990 Census of Population. General Population Characteristics," 1990 C13-1-13. Hawaii County Data Book. The average daily visitor count for North Kona and South Kona expanded from about 3,500 in 1970, to 8,000 in 1980, and to almost 20,000 by 1995, a increase of nearly six -fold in 25 years. In the 1960s and 1970s, accommodation units were divided somewhat equally between Hilo and 3-28 Kona (Table 3.3.2, Visitor Accommodation Units, 1960-1994). However, in more recent years, growth in hotel and condo rooms in Kona and Kohala greatly exceeds that of Hilo. TABLE 3.3.2 Visitor Accommodation Units, 1960-1994 Sources: Hawaii County Data Book, var. years. Hawaii State Data Book, var years. Tourism supplies jobs, a surplus of which induces in -migration and thus increases the resident population. In 1965 the Mauna Kea Beach Hotel opened creating 775 jobs, beginning the era of large-scale resorts. By 1982 there were over 1,000 jobs available at South Kohala resorts, a figure which grew to 4,000 by 1990 and to almost 5,000 by 1996 (Hawaii County Data Book, various years). Continued expansion of resorts during the next two decades is likely. The Hawaii County Data Book 1995 lists almost 3,600 new planned units. If past trends continue, over half will be built in the next five years, swelling the inventory of visitor accommodations by an additional 20 percent. A large and ever-increasing component of the de facto population (defined as the average number of people present on any given day) of Hawaii County is composed of visitors. In 1980, the de facto population was 98,700, approximately 5,500 (6 percent) greater than the resident population. By 1990, the de facto population had increased to 135,100, approximately 15,000 (12 percent) greater than the resident population (1993 Hawaii County Data Book: Tables 2 and 106). An increasing number of tourists rent cars on the island. Over time, greater absolute numbers and larger proportions of motorists are visitors. The Island of Hawaii is still dominantly rural, with large tracts of open space used for farming and ranching. For the most part, population in the area most directly served and affected by Saddle Road is clustered. Within South Hilo, population is concentrated in the city of Hilo and former plantation towns near the coast. Kaumana is one of the older suburbs of Hilo that evolved from a plantation town into a collection of subdivisions perched 8 to 10 km above Hilo. The eastern terminus of Saddle Road is located within Kaumana. Kailua is Kona's largest population center and the area that would be most directly affected by any increased traffic and economic opportunity associated with Saddle Road. In South Kohala, Waimea and Waikoloa are the largest population centers. Waiki i, which was formerly an isolated 3-29 1960 1970 1980 1990 1994 Hilo 249 1,204 1,957 1,411 1,246 Kona 270 1,842 3,760 4,096 4,331 Kohala 18 338 462 3,327 3,776 Sources: Hawaii County Data Book, var. years. Hawaii State Data Book, var years. Tourism supplies jobs, a surplus of which induces in -migration and thus increases the resident population. In 1965 the Mauna Kea Beach Hotel opened creating 775 jobs, beginning the era of large-scale resorts. By 1982 there were over 1,000 jobs available at South Kohala resorts, a figure which grew to 4,000 by 1990 and to almost 5,000 by 1996 (Hawaii County Data Book, various years). Continued expansion of resorts during the next two decades is likely. The Hawaii County Data Book 1995 lists almost 3,600 new planned units. If past trends continue, over half will be built in the next five years, swelling the inventory of visitor accommodations by an additional 20 percent. A large and ever-increasing component of the de facto population (defined as the average number of people present on any given day) of Hawaii County is composed of visitors. In 1980, the de facto population was 98,700, approximately 5,500 (6 percent) greater than the resident population. By 1990, the de facto population had increased to 135,100, approximately 15,000 (12 percent) greater than the resident population (1993 Hawaii County Data Book: Tables 2 and 106). An increasing number of tourists rent cars on the island. Over time, greater absolute numbers and larger proportions of motorists are visitors. The Island of Hawaii is still dominantly rural, with large tracts of open space used for farming and ranching. For the most part, population in the area most directly served and affected by Saddle Road is clustered. Within South Hilo, population is concentrated in the city of Hilo and former plantation towns near the coast. Kaumana is one of the older suburbs of Hilo that evolved from a plantation town into a collection of subdivisions perched 8 to 10 km above Hilo. The eastern terminus of Saddle Road is located within Kaumana. Kailua is Kona's largest population center and the area that would be most directly affected by any increased traffic and economic opportunity associated with Saddle Road. In South Kohala, Waimea and Waikoloa are the largest population centers. Waiki i, which was formerly an isolated 3-29 ranch, is located on the current Saddle Road and now contains a subdivision of approximately 130 luxury agricultural lots and homes. Table 3.3.3, Population of Major Towns in Study Area, provides the population for each of the centers listed above. TABLE 3.3.3 Population of Major Towns in Study Area Location 1990 Population Hilo 39,737 Kailua-Kona 9,126 Waimea 5,972 Waikoloa 2,248 Kaumana (Upper) 1,243 Waiki' i 50 Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census: "1990 Census of Population. General Population Characteristics"; Population of Upper Kaumana is approximate and is based on figures for Census Tract 202, Block Group 1; Waiki'i figure is approximate and based on discussion with Waiki' i Ranch residents. Nearly all population projections undertaken by the State and County agencies assume continued growth in West Hawaii resorts, which have been the driving force in the County's economic and population growth over the last three decades. The State and County have developed several population projections to help prepare and plan for expected population growth. One that is often cited and used is the M -K Series (Hawai' i State DBEDT 1988). Table 3.3.4, M -K Series Population Projections, summarizes the estimates. These State projections do not include figures on a district -by -district basis. Several district projections are available: the County of Hawaii General Plan (Hawaii County Planning Department 1989) and a recent draft report prepared as part of the Land Transportation Masterplan for the County of Hawai' i. 3-30 TABLE 3.3.4 M -K Series Population Projections Population Hawaii County State of Hawai i 1980 Resident 93,000 968,900 1980 de facto 99,500 1,055,800 1990 Resident 124,600 1,137,200 1990 de facto 134,400 1,269,100 2000 Resident 160,400 1,285,100 2000 De facto 183,000 1,468,600 2010 Resident 206,100 1 11435,500 2010 De facto 243,000 1 1,674,200 Note: Actual 1990 census resident numbers were 1,108,229 for the State and 120,317 for the County. The population projections to the year 2005 developed for the General Plan were derived from an econometric model designed to account for the relationship between employment and population. Three series were projected, A -C, based on ascending magnitude of economic optimism. Table 3.3.5, County of Hawai'i General Plan Population Projections, Year 2005, summarizes the projections from the General Plan. TABLE 3.3.5 County of Hawaii General Plan Population Projections, Year 2005 Area GP -SER. A GP -SER. B GP -SER. C South Hilo 44,115 55,335 65,790 South Kohala 19,203 24,087 28,638 North Kona 43,250 54,250 64,500 Hawaii County 173,000 217,000 258,000 Source: County of Hawaii General Plan, 1987. Note: Series A based on modest economic growth, Series C based on vigorous growth, Series B is midway. 3-31 The most recent district -by -district population projection effort was undertaken by the State of Hawaii Land Transportation Masterplan in 1994. This effort is based on linear regression analysis of population growth, adjusted by a detailed review of planned and approved projects on a district by district basis. The resultant estimates are in draft form and have not been adopted by HDOT. Nevertheless, their recent origin, unique methodology and the fact that they extend to the year 2020, render them relevant to this EIS (Table 3.3.6, Land Transportation Masterplan Population Projections, Year 2020). TABLE 3.3.6 Land Transportation Masterplan Population Projections, Year 2020 Area Population 2020 South Hilo 55,800 South Kohala 25,200 North Kona 44,600 Hawaii County 209,500 Source: Draft tables from HDOT. 3.3.1.2 Environmental Consequences Population change is often the basis of broader social impacts. Any substantial increase or decrease in population will engender a wide range of adverse and beneficial impacts to housing, social conditions and public services. All Action Alternatives. Construction activities associated with the proposed improvements to Saddle Road will create temporary jobs. During peak periods of construction, several hundred workers may be employed on the project. According to data from the State of Hawai i Department of Labor and Industrial Relations (HDLIR) Labor Force Data Book, a construction labor force of between approximately 2,000 and 4,000 is present in Hawaii County. Most reside within commuting distance of Saddle Road, in the districts of South Hilo and North Hilo, North Kona, South Kohala and Hamakua. A review of HDLIR statistics indicates that during the past 20 years, unemployment rates generally exceeded 8 percent in Hawaii County. Construction is one of the sectors most often affected by unemployment. While construction workers could conceivably migrate from other areas ofHawai'i or the U.S., the labor force necessary to fill jobs created by construction is available on the island. For this reason, population growth associated with this would likely be negligible. No population gain is expected as a direct result of improvement to Saddle Road. The indirect results of the Saddle Road improvements on population are more difficult to quantify. Many unrelated and in some cases offsetting factors interact. The relationship between 3-32 an improved Saddle Road and more visitors or longer average visitor stays (the two factors that could increase the size of the tourism industry) is not at all clear. Surveys of visitors were conducted at Kona and Hilo airport departure gates to assess current use and perception of Saddle Road (Cross Reference: Terry 1997, Technical Appendices, Volume V). When asked if they would have traveled on Saddle Road if it had been safer and more accessible (and presumably permitted under their rental contract), a large majority of visitors indicated that they would probably use it. With improvement of Saddle Road, use of the road by visitors in rental cars and on tour buses would potentially increase. Saddle Road attractions would enhance the overall attractiveness of the island to visitors of both East and West Hawai i, and road improvements would serve to enhance convenience for the visitor by providing an alternate cross -island route. Saddle Road improvements would be expected to increase cross -island movement of visitors. Whether this added attraction and convenience would actually draw more visitors or lengthen visitor stays on the Island of Hawai'i is not clear. If additional jobs are created as a result of the project, many of these jobs would likely be absorbed by residents of East Hawai' i, where unemployment is chronically high. In workshops and on surveys conducted for the project, East Hawaii residents often note that improving Saddle Road would create better access to jobs of West Hawai i. In addition to population increases related to tourism, several other sources of population increase were considered. One was the possible expansion of PTA (although there are no plans to do so), which could increase both resident population (through indirect economic impact, leading to more jobs) and de facto population (through more soldiers on the base at any given time). Improving Saddle Road and expanding the PTA are essentially unrelated (Cross Reference: 3.1.1.2 Military). Improvements to Saddle Road would be expected to result in an increase in business activity. Potential increases in population related to increases in business activity are expected to be negligible. Another possible source of population increase is improvement of the quality of life for island residents through provision of safer and better highways. While places with higher quality of life are relatively more favorable to attracting population, the magnitude of any such increase as a result of the Saddle Road improvements is minute in the overall matrix of quality of life factors on the island. In summary, there is no clear indication that improving Saddle Road would have a noticeable effect on population on the island. While a number of unrelated factors are expected to continue the current rate of population increase into the foreseeable future, improvements to Saddle Road would be expected to serve, rather than induce population growth. No difference in the induction of population increase would exist among action alternatives. 3-33 Only very subtle effects on settlement patterns would be expected to result from implementation of the project. The marginal increase in connectivity between East and West Hawaii may restrain the tendency of job -seekers to relocate. A larger percentage may opt to commute than would without proposed improvements. No discernable difference in settlement patterns would be anticipated between action alternatives. No Action Alternative. As with the action alternatives, the selection of the No Action Alternative would have little to no affect on population change. Population increases on the island are anticipated with or without improvement of Saddle Road. 3.3.1.3 Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are recommended for population or settlement patterns. 3.3.2 Socioeconomic 3.3.2.1 Affected Environment The economy of the Island of Hawaii is just emerging from a slump that began when tourism fell off dramatically and sugar plantations began closing. West Hawai is economy is beginning to recover with the rebound in visitor numbers, although investors wary of the hotel/condo glut of the last five years are only now planning further ventures. The Four Seasons Resort, which opened in 1996, is the first major new hotel to open in nearly five years. Direct flights from Japan to Kona began in 1996, and a strong potential exists for direct flights from Korea. Economic diversification in West Hawaii is evidenced by technology industries associated with the Natural Energy Laboratory - Hawaii and astronomical base facilities in Waimea, diversified agriculture, and services. East Hawai is economy is notably different. With the closure of sugar plantations, roughly 1,000 former workers were left with few economic options. Almost 25,000 ha were taken out of production. The closing of Ka' u Sugar in 1996 marked the end of the sugar plantation era on the island. Today, County and State government, the Hilo Campus of the University of Hawai i, several astronomy -based facilities, and diversified agriculture anchor the economy of East Hawai' i. Timber operations, particularly fiber trees, are planned for former sugar lands. Ranching continues to be a major industry. East Hawaii is noted for its lush tropical agriculture: anthurium, papaya, orchid, foliage, banana, and ginger, among others. While such farms may sometimes be lucrative, the constant battle against invading pests and unpredictable weather have consumed much of the profit from these ventures. While the economy's performance has been sluggish, current trends suggest an upturn. The First Hawaiian Bank's Economic Indicators (Sept./Oct. 1996) cites the potential of silviculture, the 3-34 Foreign Trade Zone, the University Park (a site for high tech industries), and the active West Hawaii tourism industry as reasons for optimism. Table 3.3.7, Selected Socioeconomic Characteristics by Districts, illustrates selected socioeconomic characteristics of the population in South Hilo, North Kona and South Kohala, those districts most affected by proposed improvements of Saddle Road. The socioeconomic distinction between the more traditional, agricultural economy of East Hawaii and the modern, tourism -based economy of West Hawaii is well illustrated by 1990 census statistics for South Hilo and North Kona. East Hawai'i exhibits lower incomes, a more ethnically diverse population, and larger proportions of disabled, elderly, poorly educated, non -working, and impoverished individuals. Household incomes, home prices, and rents are lower in East Hawai i. TABLE 3.3.7 Selected Socioeconomic Characteristics, by District, 1990 Census Characteristic Hawaii Island South Hilo North Kona South Kohala Total Population 120,317 39,737 22,284 9,140 Percent Caucasian 39.9 26.7 58.9 52.3 Percent Asian 37.8 59.4 21.9 21.0 Percent Hawaiian 19.2 12.6 16.4 24.2 Percent under 18 28.7 27.2 26.4 29.7 Median Age 34.3 35.2 34.7 32.0 Percent over 65 Years 12.6 13.5 10.1 7.4 Percent 10-64 with Mobility of Self Care Limitation/ Work Disability 13.0 19.9 9.5 8.3 Percent Who Do Not Speak English Well 7.7 12.9 12.1 4.9 Percent over 25 with High School Diploma 77.7 78.4 86.0 88.2 Percent over 16 in Labor Force 64.2 62.1 70.7 66.3 Median Family Income $33,186 $29,967 $35,364 $41,805 Percent in Poverty 14.2 14.3 9.4 10.3 Percent Lived in Hawaii in 1985 & 1990 35.1 91.4 73.1 59.2 Percent Owner Occupied Housing 61.1 62.6 55.1 52.5 Median Contract Rent Value $428 $371 $644 $786 Median Home Price $113,000 $110,700 $211,900 $200,800 Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census: "1990 Census of Population. General Population Characteristics," 1990 CP -1-13 and "1990 Census of Population. Housing, Summary Population and Housing Characteristics," 1990 CPH-1-13. Notes: Asian percentage includes non -Hawaiian Pacific Islanders. According to State of Hawaii Department of Health (DOH) 3-35 figures from State oJHawai'i Data Book, almost half of all marriages for Hawaii residents involve partners of different ethnic groups. Tallies of ethnic groups in Hawaii should thus be evaluated with caution. Note: The values presented for Hilo, North Kona, and South Kohala were based on a combination of applicable census districts and are not necessarily commensurate with those values presented in the Economics Section of this document (Table 3.4.2). The distinctions between West Hawaii and East Hawaii shown in Table 3.3.7, are also clear in Table 3.3.8, Selected Socioeconomic Characteristics, by City or Town, 1990 Census, which provides a socioeconomic comparison of the urban areas most directly impacted by Saddle Road. Notable differences for many social variables are illustrated by comparing Upper Kaumana with Waikoloa. Upper Kaumana is a very traditional village of long-time residents, with a higher percentage of elderly and Asian residents. A notably higher percentage of residents of Upper Kaumana do not speak English well. Despite more modest incomes in Kaumana, residents enjoy a high rate of home ownership and the neighborhood is perceived as solidly middle-class. Interestingly, the difference between poverty rates for Kaumana and Waikoloa is not large. Census figures for Waiki' i are not available, although it is generally perceived as a wealthy subdivision. TABLE 3.3.8 Selected Socioeconomic Characteristics, by City or Town, 1990 Census CHARACTERISTIC Hilo Upper Kaumana Waikoloa Waimea Total Population 39,737 1,243 2,248 5,972 Percent Caucasian 26.7 26.7 72.7 42.2 Percent Asian 50.4 59.4 13.1 24.6 Percent Hawaiian 19.7 12.6 9.9 31.1 Percent under 18 27.2 27.3 20.9 34.0 Median Age 35.2 37.3 32.8 31.3 Percent over 65 13.5 19.1 7.2 7.4 Percent 10-64With Mobility or Self -Care Limitation/ Work Disability 13.9 14.5 8.2 7.3 Percent Who Do Not Speak English Well 12.9 16.2 1.4 4.5 Percent over 25 With High School Diploma 78.4 62.6 94.7 84.9 Percent over 16 in Labor Force 62.1 50.0 77.3 72.8 Median Family Income $29,967 $26,328 $44,444 $37,069 Percent in Poverty 14.3 12.8 9.5 10.4 3-36 TABLE 3.3.8 Selected Socioeconomic Characteristics, by City or Town, 1990 Census CHARACTERISTIC Hilo Upper Kaumana Waikoloa Waimea Percent Lived in Hawai' i in 1985 & 1990 91.4 88.1 50.0 84.2 Percent Owner Occupied Housing 62.6 79.3 41.3 60.6 Median Contract Rent Value $428 $344 $882 $684 Median Home Price $113,000 $80,500 $255,100 $171,900 Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census: "1990 Census of Population. General Population Characteristics," 1990 CP -1-13 and "1990 Census of Population. Housing, Summary Population and Housing Characteristics," 1990 CPH-1-13. The visitor industry in West Hawaii has attracted workers and entrepreneurs from not only the State of Hawai i, but also the mainland U.S. and around the world. Sharing economic benefits of tourism jobs with East Hawaii is hindered by distance and poor road connections between the two sides of the island. Nevertheless, as many as 25 percent of West Hawai i hotel workers, commute from Hamakua, Hilo and even Puna. 3.3.2.2 Environmental Consequences All Action Alternatives. Direct and indirect socioeconomic impacts would be effectively the same for each action alternative. Construction of the project would create temporary construction jobs, a beneficial effect (Cross Reference: 3.4 Economics). Any impacts to the economy of the Hamakua Coast would be important because Hamakua has been devastated by the loss of its economic base, sugar plantations. For a limited number of general stores and restaurants on the Hamakua Coast, including two gas stations, three general stores, two convenience stores, and three snack shop/restaurants, drive-by traffic constitutes a substantial part of their total business. With improvements to Saddle Road, some commuters that currently use SR 19 would be expected to use Saddle Road instead. This concern was expressed at the public meetings for the project. In assessing the magnitude of such an impact, consideration must be given to the overall increase in traffic expected for SR 19. According to traffic projections, which are based on an assumption that Saddle Road will be improved, ADT on SR 19 at various locations in Hamakua will increase from 1992 levels of between 5,000 and 9,000 (depending on location) to between 14,000 and 20,000 by the year 2020 (HDOT in prep.). In the long run, the customer base for roadside businesses will grow substantially rather than decline. Most observers expect that the Plantation Heritage Corridor Cultural Trail, an outgrowth of the 1995 Hamakua Strategic Plan, will greatly expand the visitor industry in Hamakua and more than offset any loss in drive-by traffic. With the 3-37 projections in growth in traffic on SR 19, no decrease in drive-by business would be anticipated; with Saddle Road improvements a slower growth in business may result (Cross Reference: 3.4 Economics). With improvements to Saddle Road, more Hilo residents will compete with Hamakua residents for West Hawaii jobs. If the project stimulates tourism or intra -island trade, it is likely that some growth in permanent jobs could follow (addressed in greater detail in Section 3.4, Economic). No Action Alternative. With the No Action Alternative, no temporary construction jobs would be created, and no growth in permanent jobs would be anticipated. No immediately apparent change in drive-by traffic would be expected for the businesses of the Hamakua Coast. Over the next twenty years, ADT on SR19 would increase at a higher rate in the absence of a viable cross -island transportation corridor. 3.3.2.3 Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are proposed for socioeconomic impacts. 3.3.3 Community Identity and Cohesion 3.3.3.1 Affected Environment Vitally important to an accurate characterization of the social fabric of an area are the following concepts which portray social well-being and community cohesion. ■ Community decision-making processes and local power structures. ■ Relocation of locals away from the community. ■ Socioeconomic harmony or polarization. ■ Community and regional character or spirit. ■ Codes of conduct among and between various social and ethnic groups. ■ Relationship with visitors and tourist industry. The Island of Hawai' i has a rich, multi-ethnic history that has helped to create a strong sense of community identity evidenced in both the people and the landscape. Many native Hawaiian traditions, including cuisine, luau and pa'ina (ceremonial feasts), and music and dance have been enthusiastically embraced by later arrivals. Native Hawaiian culture is strong and growing in influence. In addition, many traditions of the Japanese, Chinese, Filipino, Portuguese and Korean immigrant plantation workers have also been perpetuated. Most long-time Hawaii (kama'aina) families trace their roots to such beginnings and share many deep and wide-ranging bonds. Newer residents, particularly those from the mainland, do not 3-38 share such links. Nevertheless, celebration of this heritage in such events as hula festivals, plantation days, and rodeos is enthusiastically supported by long-term residents and newcomers alike. At the same time, however, the sense of community is evolving as new residents (and their values) from outside the island are gradually incorporated. Kama'aina residents often express a longing for the old days and a fear of being disenfranchised. Many towns and villages (particularly Waimea and Kailua-Kona) have been transformed from charming local settlements into bustling visitor and residential communities with numerous wealthy, transplanted mainlanders whose influence in community affairs is not related to their family connection to the land. Many of those who participated in surveys, meetings and workshops expressed the idea that the Island of Hawaii makes up one large community, despite the divisive forces of distance, and unequal economies, and that better transportation would enhance mutual community support, and balanced economic growth. In the view of most, steady improvement of an island -wide highway system over the decades has solidified the community. Others expressed the sentiment that Hawaii County should be two counties instead of one; that the two sides of the island have very distinct destinies. Individual areas affected by the Saddle Road project have very distinct histories, social makeup and identities. Community workshops and surveys for this project were intended to allow residents to express what they valued about their community and what impacts they expected as result of improving Saddle Road. The following area characterizations were formed from opinions presented in these surveys. Waimea. Headquarters for Parker Ranch for over a century and a half, Waimea has a rich history and a dramatic setting in the misty uplands. A substantial area of HHL, supporting farms and ranches, is also present. The last twenty years have produced rapid growth. The charming cattle town is now also an enclave for wealthy transplanted mainlanders and a bedroom community for workers at South Kohala resorts. Waimea participants tended to emphasize the rural character and heritage of their region, pointing with pride to the "...unique ranching/farming community" but worrying that it is "twice daily assaulted by a long string of traffic." Waikoloa. Development of Waikoloa, a planned community, started in the 1960s. This windy and dry village has developed an identity of its own, and is distinctly different from the Waikoloa resort area on the coast. Today, working families are more abundant than retirees, and the community continues to expand and diversify. Non-residential land uses are limited but expanding. Waikoloa has the potential to grow as large or larger than Waimea. Waikoloa has a strong community association and a tradition of "self-help." 3-39 iki'i. Waiki'i's rich ranching tradition and dramatic scenery presented the opportunity for a unique subdivision in the 1980s. All 130 lots have grazing easements and share large common areas. Currently, homes have been built on approximately 20 lots, and several additional homes are present in the area but outside Waiki'i Ranch proper. The arrangement has allowed continuation of ranching activities under the supervision of the lot owner association. In addition to cattle, many residents raise horses and are involved in equestrian activity. Waiki' is polo field accommodates a regular schedule of polo matches attracting teams from throughout the state and players from around the world. The Waiki i Ranch Music Festival, an annual event for the past six years, features some of Hawai is top musical performers and is open to the public. Thousands of people attend this two-day music festival event. Proceeds benefit various charities. Among the valued traits of Waiki i most commonly mentioned by its residents are the spectacular scenery, cool weather, and seclusion. Hilo and Kaumana. Hilo's tradition as a major population center is unbroken from pre -Cook Hawaii to modern times. Hilo is often described as quaint and traditional. Formerly centered on the sugar cane industry, agriculture around Hilo become more diversified with the growth of macadamia, papaya, orchid and foliage industries. The economy is now more dependent on business and government functions headquartered in Hilo, including the Hilo Campus of the University of Hawai' i. It is the major commercial center on the Island of Hawaii and also supports several industrial and commercial districts. Hilo International Airport and a deep draft harbor anchor the island's major shipping center. Kaumana is a former sugar cane camp that has been annexed as a quiet suburb of Hilo. Upper Kaumana, which would be most directly affected by Saddle Road, contains a mixture of old camp housing and modern subdivisions. One school and a small general store are present. Kaumana residents feel a strong stake in Saddle Road and have been active participants in meetings, surveys and workshops. As one resident stated, the community is in a "state of transition" from an isolated relic of the plantation era to a growing suburb of Hilo. The integration with Hilo is convenient: a "location close to the mountains and [not too far from] the shoreline... cleanliness, relatively rural lifestyle... with access to modern day conveniences." Another noted "[We are] separate from downtown Hilo, yet close enough and affordable, especially to owner builders." Preserving Kaumana's "serenity, privacy, low traffic, good neighbors, natural backyard" and "active community associations" is seen as important. Kailua-Kona. Kona was an important and powerful district in Hawaii prior to Western contact, the seat of ruling chiefs and the site of productive upland agriculture and teeming shoreline and offshore fisheries. For most of the years since 1850, however, Kona was an isolated, sleepy rural district where scattered coffee farms and cattle ranches were the economic mainstay. The growth of tourism in West Hawai' i since the 1960s has steadily attracted new residents lured by the physical beauty of Kona and the growing employment and entrepreneurial opportunities. Following Hilo, Kailua is now the second largest population and business center on the island. In surveys and public meetings, North Kona residents noted the value of climate, scenery and history of this area. Most prominent, however, were statements about the vital economy of West Hawai i, powered by tourism. 3.3.3.2 Environmental Consequences All Action Alternatives. Temporary impacts to community identity and cohesion can result from the barriers created by road construction. These impacts would be most pronounced in Section IV, which runs through the community of Kaumana, because construction could interfere with the ability of neighbors to interact. Most of the project area traverses non-residential areas. In these areas, the proposed project would have little impact on community identity or cohesion. Long-term impacts to community cohesion and identity are associated with two potential aspects of the proposed project. One is derived directly from the realignment or expansion of Saddle Road from its current position within Kaumana. The other is an indirect, island -wide effect, which would be expected to result from the considerable improvement in traveling conditions and reduction in travel time that would occur from the project. With any of the action alternatives, the physical safety of the road would be substantially enhanced by widening travel lanes, providing passing lanes, pullouts, improving pavement, straightening horizontal curves, and leveling vertical alignment. Based on results of analysis of driving time with proposed improvements, motorists traveling between East Hawaii and West Hawaii would generally find the trip considerably safer and approximately 20 to 30 minutes shorter one way. The implications of this are far-ranging. With a safer and faster Saddle Road, social interchange would be expected to increase. Families separated by the distances between East and West Hawaii would find it substantially easier to travel across the island. Social events occurring either in East or West Hawaii would draw more participants from both sides of the islands. In addition, potential employees (particularly of the job -rich West Hawaii resorts) would find the commuting time across island more acceptable. University of Hawaii students also stand to benefit by a shorter commute between the Kona and Hilo campuses. All of these factors would tend to increase the community cohesion of the island as a whole. The value of improving Saddle Road to increase community cohesion of the island was expressed by a majority of survey participants. Some residents are concerned that improvements to Saddle Road would encourage or facilitate expansion of the observatories on Mauna Kea. Expansion of these facilities is not universally welcomed. Improvements to Saddle Road would benefit observatories by providing a safer faster 3-41 transportation route to and from the observatory complex. It is expected that expansion of these facilities will not be dependent on the improvement of Saddle Road. W-2 and W-3. Segments W-2 and W-3 would avoid the community of Waiki' i. Siting the improved Saddle Road on one of these two segments would not be expected to result in temporary or long term, adverse impacts to local community cohesion. EX -2. PTA -1 and PTA -3. Constructing the improved Saddle Road on any of the proposed segments within Section II would not be expected to result in temporary or long term, adverse impacts to local community cohesion. According to military officials, PTA -1 and PTA -3 promote the training purposes of the PTA and provide a sense of unity for the base. Conversely, improving Saddle Road on the EX -2 alignment would serve as more of a barrier between the cantonment area and training areas currently located across Saddle Road. EX -3. Improving Saddle Road on the Segment EX -3 alignment is not expected to result in temporary or long-term, adverse impacts to local community cohesion. EX -4A. and E-3. With regard to cohesion on the community level, segment EX -4A would pass through an established community, Kaumana. Temporary impacts to community cohesion would be anticipated during the construction period because Saddle Road would pass through much of Kaumana. For EX -4A, the proposed improvements would create a more significant barrier to community cohesion. While the number of travel lanes will not be increased as part of the proposed improvements, roadway width including roadway shoulders will be widened, and traffic speeds and traffic volumes will increase. These changing conditions would cause the roadway to be more difficult and potentially more hazardous for vehicles, pedestrians and bicycles to cross, resulting in increasing interference with social interaction within the community. Impacts related to residential relocations are discussed in the right-of-way and relocation section of this chapter (Cross Reference: 3.5.2.2 Relocations). For these reasons, impacts related to community cohesion would also be expected to be more likely with Segment EX -4 than with Segment E-3. Segment E-3 would avoid much of the existing development of Upper Kaumana by passing south of the upper end. When asked to compare routes, however, many Kaumana residents endorsed EX -4A and EX -4 (Cross Reference: 2.3.2.3 Segments Eliminated from Consideration - Section IV). No Action Alternative. The No Action Alternative would avoid all construction -related impacts. The No Action Alternative would avoid temporary and permanent adverse impacts to individual communities, but would fail to promote community cohesion on the island as a whole. 3-42 3.3.3.3 Mitigation Measures For all construction, and particularly the work that will occur within Kaumana, a traffic control plan will be developed to outline the steps needed to minimize congestion and maintain access to driveways at all times during construction. 3.3.4 Outdoor Recreation Resources and Hunting 3.3.4.1 Affected Environment Saddle Road provides a number of outdoor recreational resources and opportunities. Many of the attendees of the public meetings noted that they drive Saddle Road for recreation and scenery as much as for convenience. Many residents hunt, hike, and gather resources in the upland areas. Recreational resources include the following (Figure 3.3.1, Recreation Resources). ■ Mauna Kea State Park Associated Activities: Camping, hiking, birding, nearby hunting ■ Mauna Kea Associated Activities: Alpine Sports and Scenery, Hunting, Astronomy, Cultural Sites Mauna Loa Associated Activities: Hiking, Hunting Mauna Kea State Park, a state recreational facility of approximately 8 ha, is the only public park facility within the project vicinity. This facility, operated by the DLNR Division of State Parks, is situated at MP 35, adjacent to PTA. The park includes cabins and dormitory facilities for camping, picnicking, and other recreational activities. According to State Parks records, the 15 cabins at Mauna Kea, which are rented out for a nominal fee, accommodated more than 12,500 user -nights in fiscal year 1995-1996. Day use figures are unknown. Mauna Kea Support Services report that about 40,000 people per year make use of the Hale Pohaku Visitor Center, which features astronomical and natural history exhibits and stargazing. When Mauna Kea has snow, as many as 1,000 vehicles per day make the trip to the summit. Average traffic is about 100 vehicles per day, about half recreational (Terry 1996, Technical Appendices, Volume V). Hunting is a long-standing tradition in Hawai i. For two centuries, Hawai is forests and ranges have been hunted for sport and food. Pigs, sheep, goats, and a variety of gamebirds are hunted by rifle or archery in some three dozen units largely concentrated in the central portion of the island. The game resources currently hunted legally in Hawaii are unique in the United States in that all species were introduced and none are native to the state. In addition to mammals, gamebirds including turkey, pheasants, quails, chukars, and francolins are also present (Terry 1997, 3-43 Technical Appendices, Volume V, Appendix A: Impacts to Hunting). Some three dozen discrete units scattered around the island provide about 300,000 ha of hunting area (Hawaii County R&D 1994). For many of the 3,000 -plus licensed hunters on the Island of Hawai i, hunting is more than recreation - it is an integral part of their identity. Hunting connects people to the natural environment and provides an occasion to enjoy and learn from the forests. Hunting is also an important source of food for many families. A detailed source of information for the social context of hunting is the Hawai 'i Hunter Survey, 1985-1986 (Lura and Ohashi 1989). This project randomly sampled information and opinions from more than 5 percent of the state's licensed hunters. About 95 percent of sample respondents were males. The survey revealed that hunters on the average appeared to have higher incomes than the general population, although about 20 percent of hunters made less than $20,000 per year, and the large majority of hunters worked at blue collar jobs. Each of Hawai'is many ethnic groups were represented among hunters, with slightly greater proportional representation from the Japanese and Caucasian groups and slightly less representation from Filipino, Chinese and Koreans. Hunters of native Hawaiian ancestry were almost exactly in proportion with the general population. Most hunters pursued both gamebirds and mammals. According to the survey results, the most popular gamebirds to hunt on the Island of Hawai' i are pheasants and francolins; the most popular mammals are mouflon (a type of wild sheep), pig, and sheep. The most popular species were not necessarily those most frequently harvested because the more popular species are less numerous, accessible or easy to hunt. Table 3.3.9, Hunting Units in Central Hawaii, provides an overview of hunting areas within the central part of the island, which includes the volcanoes of Mauna Kea, Hualalai and Mauna Loa, and the saddles between them (Figure 3.3.1). TABLE 3.3.9 Hunting Units in Central Hawai i Unit Location/Remarks Resource/Arms Permitted A Mauna Kea Forest Reserve Elevations of over 2,135 m Pigs, Goats, Sheep', Birds; Archery & Firearms B Upper Waiakea Forest Reserve Pigs, Goats D Hilo Watershed Pigs, Goats, Birds E Pu'u Anahulu, Mauna Loa Forest Reserve, ' Ainahou; Humu ula, Menehune, Ahi, and Kapele in PTA Pigs, Goats, Sheep, Birds; Archery & Firearms 3-44 TABLE 3.3.9 Hunting Units in Central Hawai i Unit Location/Remarks Resource/Arms Permitted F Redleg and Bobcat Trail Sections of PTA Pigs, Goats, Sheep, Birds G Kaohe (SW corner of Mauna Kea) Pigs, Goats, Sheep'; Archery Only J Pu'u Wa'awa'a Cooperative Game Management Area Pigs, Goats, Sheep: Archery; Special Pre -Season Hunts. Source: Island of Hawai' i Recreation Map, State of Hawaii Division of Forestry and Wildlife (DOFAW). ' DLNR is under court order to eliminate sheep from this area. No bag limit, extended hunting periods. PTA Hunting Units. Much of the land at the PTA has been hunted for many decades. A number of discrete areas of distinctive hunting resources are present. Many areas have limited access because of sparse road networks or military limitations (e.g., impact areas, dud areas, or training). Hunters must call ahead to PTA in order to determine which areas are closed due to training. Closures occur on at least some part of the hunting area within PTA frequently during the bird hunting season. Despite the limitations, hunters consider the game harvests at PTA good. PTA provides excellent bird hunting in terms of total hunting area and absolute game numbers, although catch effort appears to be somewhat higher than adjacent public bird hunting areas. Goats are the most frequently harvested mammal. Sheep are also important. PTA has recently instituted programs to track changes in population and movements of goats, sheep and mouflon. PTA hired National Park Service (NPS) personnel to design and implement a sample census, which was conducted on August 8, 1996. Transects were laid out and surveyed from a low-flying helicopter to provide a baseline index to which the results of future aerial surveys could be compared, to assess gross population trends. The researchers counted 239 goats, 85 feral sheep and 9 mouflons, for a total of 333 animals (Katahira and Hoshide 1996). Another count is planned for 1997. Researchers under contract to the PTA also tagged a total of 10 animals (including male and female goats, feral sheep and mouflon) with radio transmitters in April of 1997. Although the program ends in September, a follow-up effort is expected to be funded. The biotelemetry studies will, over the long term, yield important information about animal movement, behavior and ecology. Although initial data suggest that animals do not engage in substantial movements, the early stage of the study precludes drawing conclusions. Hunting Units Adjacent to PTA. Hunting units adjacent to PTA include Kaohe, Pu'u Anahulu, Pu'u Wa'awa'a, Kipuka'Ainahou, Upper Waiakea Forest Reserve, the Hilo Watershed, and those portions of the Mauna Kea Forest Reserve that are not accessed via PTA. Mauna Kea provides 3-45 by far the most important bird hunting area, in terms of both total yield and catch per unit effort. Gamebird hunting zones and access points ring Mauna Kea at varying elevations. Pu'u Anahulu is the most important area for both sheep and goats; it is adjacent to and may form a functional unit with the most important sheep and goat hunting areas in PTA (Bobcat and Kapele). A number of censuses and ecological studies have been conducted for at least some of these regions, including work on the ecology and management of feral sheep (Giffin 1976) and mouflon (Giffin and Walker 198 1) on Mauna Kea stands out. These studies indicated that herd patterns are quite variable in size and age and sex structure, and exhibit frequent fluctuation in composition and numbers; a large variety of native and alien plants sustain the animals, which supply all their nutritional and water needs, illustrating the need for standing water; sheep adhere to a definite home range and move daily down the mountain to feed and up to sleep, a round trip distance of about four miles; hunting tends to disrupt the pattern of establishing and maintaining a home range of both species; population fluctuates greatly in response to environmental changes and especially hunting pressure; there is some evidence of interspecies competition, particularly for goats, but the difference in ranges on Mauna Kea made this conclusion somewhat indeterminate. Censuses of feral sheep on Mauna Kea by DLNR were also mandated by court order in 1979. The latest effort in May 1997 counted 319 sheep. Although census estimates show great fluctuation, because of both population variation and the difficulty of counting sheep in dense cover, the numbers indicate that the programs to eradicate feral sheep have produced a substantial decrease in population. In spring of 1997, DLNR initiated a program meant to accomplish as closely as possible the complete eradication of sheep on Mauna Kea. Additional Hunting Areas Potentially Affected by the Project: Three additional hunting areas, located outside of the original study corridor, are being considered in this document because they could potentially be affected by mitigation measures related to protection of the endangered Palila: Pu' u Mali, Kipuka ' Alala, and a portion of the Ka' ohe Lease Lands. Currently, Pu' u Mali is leased by the State of Hawaii to private ranchers and there is no public hunting. Very few feral (animals that have escaped domestication and become wild again) ungulates (hoofed mammals) are present, but DLNR believes that enough gamebirds are there to justify adding the area to the Mauna Kea Forest Reserve hunting area. There is no public hunting at Kipuka ' Alala, and there are no records indicating that hunting was sanctioned there previously. Recent censuses conducted for the Environmental Office at PTA (Katahira and Hoshide 1996) confirm that Kipuka ' Alala supports large herds of feral animals, particularly sheep. Because of the potentially excellent game resources there, DLNR and hunting groups have requested the Army to allow hunting. Concerns related to the abundance of endangered species and several valuable archaeological sites have made it difficult for the army to agree to such requests. c Ka'ohe Lease Lands are currently leased for grazing. This area is immediately adjacent to the core Palila population center. The Ka' ohe Lease Lands have been used for gamebird hunting and are of particular importance to DLNR's youth hunting programs. There are almost no feral ungulates on the property at this time. 3.3.4.2 Environmental Consequences All Action Alternatives. Temporary impacts to outdoor recreation associated with construction of the project would be anticipated. Construction activities often cause traffic congestion and delays, potentially making access to recreational areas and hunting units less convenient. In addition, construction activities could spook game from some areas. No appreciable difference exists among the alternatives with respect to the potential to temporarily disrupt recreational activities during construction, except that PTA -1 and PTA -3 would cause more game disturbance than EX -2. With regard to direct, long-term impacts, improvements to Saddle Road would displace native plant gathering, hunting, birdwatching, and hiking areas, but would provide better accessibility to recreational areas within the project vicinity. Greater accessibility of the overall project vicinity would benefit some businesses such as ecotourism ventures. Improvements to Saddle Road would potentially draw more traffic and recreational users into the saddle and onto the mountains. The proposed action would be expected to result in a greater potential for use of roadside areas for education, recreation, and gathering. Access to the hunting areas along Saddle Road would be safer and possibly require less travel time. Proposed road improvements would result in greater accessibility of Mauna Kea State Park, resulting in a potential increase in visitor use. Use of Mauna Kea State Park as a rest stop would be expected to increase. Any growth in use could be monitored over time by appropriate agencies to determine what if any additional facilities would be required to accommodate that growth. The purpose of 49 U.S.C. Section 103 (generally known as Section 4(f)) is to ensure that the U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) makes special efforts to protect public parks and recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and historic sites. The law states that the Secretary of Transportation shall approve a project which requires the use of publicly owned land from a public park, recreation area, wildlife or waterfowl refuge, or historic site of significance only if. (i) there is no prudent and feasible alternative; and (ii) the project includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the resource being affected by use. It is the responsibility of the FHWA to determine whether any potential 4(f) properties are present and will be used by a highway project. This determination is made through thorough examination of the resources and consultation with agencies that have jurisdiction over potential 4(f) properties. In the case of the Saddle Road project, one public park or recreation area, eighteen historic sites, and one wildlife refuge are present in the general area that will be affected. The FHWA has consulted with the appropriate jurisdictional entities in determining whether and how these 3-47 properties will be affected. The FHWA has concluded that no use of 4(f) properties will occur as a result of the project. Additional analysis supporting this conclusion is contained in the sections of the EIS that deal with wildlife and cultural resources (Cross Reference: 3.14.1.2 and 3.19.2.2 Environmental Consequences). Mauna Kea State Park is the only public park or recreation area in or near the area potentially affected by the project. In a 21 April, 1997 letter, Charles K. Supe, Hawaii District Park Superintendent for the DLNR, the agency with jurisdiction over the park, states that none of the action alternatives encroach upon the park's lands or will adversely affect its operations (Cross Reference: 9.4.4 Chronological Comments, Correspondence, and Notices). Therefore, no use of a public park as defined in Section 4(f) will occur. Increasing use of the area could degrade somewhat the quality of the wilderness experience, could begin to cause overcrowding, and could contribute to the usage of off-road vehicles and mountain bikes within the study corridor. Increased use would indirectly contribute to an increase in fire hazard, weed transmission, and soil erosion. A potential increase in unauthorized traffic to the Mauna Kea summit would be anticipated, increasing road damage, the potential for accidents, and in some cases, the need for rescue operations. While mitigation measures to control this traffic would be considered beyond the scope of this project, it may be desirable for the appropriate agency to monitor this unauthorized traffic over time to determine whether further measures should be taken to restrict access. Consideration must also be given to the cumulative net loss of hunting area since 1970. Public hunting area has been lost in the Laupahoehoe and Kahaualea Natural Area Reserves, the Hakalau Forest National Wildlife Refuge, the Ola a Tract of Hawaii Volcanoes National Park, the Kulani Buffer Zone, and the Pu u Maka' ala Natural Area Reserve. Hunting areas in the Bobcat and Redleg Trail sections of PTA have also been reduced or have been restricted in their access. The most substantial loss of mammal hunting area resulted from a lawsuit (Palila v. Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources 1979) filed by several environmental groups. The final decision, which followed several appeals by the state, dictated that the mamane forest of the Mauna Kea Forest Reserve must be managed for Palila, which depends upon this tree for its sustenance. Since sheep severely browse adult mamane and graze seedlings out of existence, the sheep were required to be removed. DLNR had previously expended considerable effort to introduce mouflons, study mouflon and feral sheep ecology, and manage the mountain for hunting. Although by 1997 not all sheep had been removed from the Mauna Kea Forest Preserve and the area is still open for mammal hunting, the eradication efforts to reduce the numbers of feral animals have deteriorated hunting conditions markedly. The escalating conflict between promoting hunting and managing land for endangered species and the habitats that sustain them bodes more loss of hunting areas. PTA is formulating an Ecosystem Management Plan which includes ungulate control in biologically significant areas. Although the WU plan is not final and the implementation timetable is not fixed, control efforts would involve a combination of hunting, fencing, and other methods that would degrade hunting conditions over substantial portions of PTA used for hunting. Additionally, the USFWS has reopened consultation under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act with the U.S. Army concerning all uses at PTA, and most observers predict that a separate set of potentially large areas that are currently hunted would be placed in management regimes that would include reduction of feral ungulates and thus preclude permanent mammal hunting. W-2 and W-3. No notable impacts to outdoor recreational resources or activities, including hunting, would be anticipated with the selection of Segments W-2 or W-3. EX -2, PTA -1 and PTA -3. Direct loss of existing hunting lands would occur as a result of the selection of EX -2, PTA -I and PTA -3. Within Section II, use of EX -2 would have the least impact on outdoor recreation and hunting because it follows the existing road corridor. Hunting area that would be impacted by the proposed project withiw Section II would be within the Mauna Kea and Humu'ula sub -areas within PTA. For the most part these losses involve areas that are already near roadways or military structures or for other reasons do not offer prime hunting. In Humu'ula, however, PTA -I would involve a loss of approximately 78 ha and PTA -3 would consume about 91 ha near Omaokoili cinder cone. The area would also be bisected by the road, although accessibility would increase. The superior hunting this area offers, along with its easy accessibility to families, the elderly, and those without four-wheel drives, makes it an area of special concern. The Humu'ula hunting area offers high yields of many gamebirds and also some sheep and pigs. Omaokoili, the area directly affected within Humu'ula, offers little mammal hunting but is considered by many to offer superior bird hunting. In addition to the impacts anticipated from the road construction and implementation, proposed mitigation measures related to the protection of the endangered Palila (Segments PTA -1 and PTA -3) would also affect hunting areas and resources. Indirect (secondary) impacts due to Palila mitigation involve impacts to bird hunting that are clearly beneficial and impacts to mammal hunting which, in the absence of firm facts about mammal behavior and population, may be evaluated as either neutral or slightly adverse. Opening up of approximately 1,864 ha of hunting land at Pu'u Mali, especially when coupled with a predator control program and improved road access from Maria Road, would be a substantial net benefit for bird hunters. The proposed change in the management regime at the Ka' ohe Lease Lands to exclude grazing and include mowing and predator control is regarded by most biologists as beneficial to both Palila and gamebirds. At Kipuka'Alala, which is proposed to be fenced to exclude feral animals, no existing public hunting areas are directly involved. The removal of feral ungulates at Kipuka'Alala produces indeterminate effects, however, there is no evidence that substantial adverse effects would occur. Despite the lack of the direct loss of hunting area, some hunters argue that removing Kipuka ' Alala's extensive population of feral animals (in particular, sheep) would affect hunting in other areas. Without a solid understanding of the ecology of the feral animals at PTA, it is difficult to ascertain to what extent the Kipuka ' Alala population is the same as, interacts ME with, or affects feral sheep in other areas. Definitive answers to this question await a solid understanding of the ecology of the feral animals at PTA founded on repeated censuses and biotelemetry information which will not be available for several years. On the whole, however, hunting impacts related to Palila Mitigation, where they can be assessed, appear to be largely neutral or beneficial. EX -3. Segment EX -3 would result in no notable loss of outdoor recreational resources and hunting areas, since it would use the existing road alignment with grade and alignment improvements. EX -4A and E-3. Loss of outdoor recreational resources or hunting areas would be effectively the same with either EX -4A or E-3. Selection of either Segment EX -4A or E-3 would marginally decrease available hunting area in the Hilo Watershed and Upper Waiakea Forest Reserve due to road widening and straightening in the areas above, or roughly west of, Kaumana. No Action Alternative. The No Action Alternative would result in no losses of outdoor recreation or hunting areas. No improvements to accessibility would result. 3.3.4.3 Mitigation Measures ■ To the extent feasible, construction work in the vicinity of the access roads to recreational areas including hunting units will be scheduled for periods of non -peak use. Special consideration will be given to minimizing disruption to hunting units and the access that serves these units for construction activities that occur during the bird hunting season (November through January). This will be detailed in the traffic control plan, part of the construction contract documents. ■ The traffic control plan will specify that during construction, access will be maintained at all times to roads that serve recreational areas including hunting units. ■ Hunters will be invited to provide input to the Oversight Committee concerning actions on lands to be managed for Palila mitigation in accordance with the concept of adaptive management (Cross Reference: 3.18.3 Mitigation Measures). ■ Vehicle pullouts, and interpretive signage will be incorporated where appropriate. ■ Scenic pullouts will be constructed and maintained by HDOT along the improved Saddle Road corridor. It is anticipated that two will be developed: one mauka of W-2 or W-3 and one along EX -3 in the eastern one-half of the study corridor. Emergency call boxes, which will be installed along the corridor within Section II as part of the fire prevention plan, will benefit road users in the case of road emergencies (Cross Reference: 3.9.3 Mitigation Measures). 3-50 3.3.5 Public Services, Community Centers and Local Business 3.3.5.1 Affected Environment 3.3.5.1.1 Fire, Police, and Emergency Services Fire and emergency service is provided by the Hawaz i County Fire Department. Full-time stations within 6 km of Saddle Road include one each in Waimea and Waikoloa, and three in Hilo. Backup stations include South Kohala and North Kona. Each station operates round-the-clock with a crew of firefighters and Mobile Intensive Care Technicians. About 80 percent of calls are related to emergency medical services, and 20 percent or less for building, brush, and vehicle fires (Terry 1997, Technical Appendices, Volume V). The Hawaii Police Department provides all police services for the island. Round-the-clock police stations that serve Saddle Road are located in Waimea and Hilo. Tentative plans are underway for a police substation in Waikoloa. Police do not regularly patrol any section of Saddle Road. Emergency telephones are located at Mauna Kea State Park and PTA. Plans for future expansion of the HDOT call box system do not include Saddle Road (Terry 1997, Technical Appendices, Volume V). The PTA maintains 24-hour emergency services with 19 firefighters (responding to about 10 Saddle Road incidents per month), 3 military medics and ambulances (5 incidents per month), and 17 police (3 incidents per month). PTA provides first response to 911 emergencies for all fires, traffic accidents and other emergencies in its vicinity, including at a minimum, the area from MP 46 to 27 (Terry 1997, Technical Appendices, Volume V). 3.3.5.1.2 Schools The closest school to the project corridor is Kaumana Elementary, located at Kaumana Drive at MP 4.5. This school is located outside of the project limits, beyond the site where Saddle Road would connect with the proposed Puainako Street extension (which is expected to siphon off the great majority of traffic from Saddle Road). 3.3.5.1.3 Churches and Community Centers No churches or community centers are located on Saddle Road within the project limits. 3.3.5.1.4 Local Businesses No active businesses were identified on Saddle Road within the project limits. Some businesses may be operated out of homes in Kaumana and Waiki'i. Several inactive or defunct nursery wholesale and retail operations are located on Saddle Road. Farming and ranching operations are present near Kaumana, in the saddle, and near Waiki i (Cross Reference: 3.1.1.1.1 Ranching). 3-51 Three small businesses, a general store, mechanic's garage, and a nursery, are located just outside of the project limits at MP 5 in Kaumana. 3.3.5.2 Environmental Consequences All Action Alternatives. Construction activities would be expected to result in traffic delays and traffic congestion, for those motorists using Saddle Road, including those associated with public services and local businesses. For emergency vehicles serving the Saddle Road corridor, traffic delays within construction zones could be significant without mitigation. Impacts on public services, community centers, and local businesses would be effectively the same with each of the action alternatives. Direct, long-term, adverse impacts to public services, community centers, and local businesses from the proposed action are not anticipated. With improvements to Saddle Road, long-term impacts are expected to be beneficial in nature. As a result of increased use of Saddle Road in the future, the demand for certain types of public services is expected to increase. The expected increase in traffic volumes would create a concomitant increase in the need for fire, emergency and police response in the project corridor. The incidence of stranded motorists, with increased traffic, would be expected to increase. The military, as the entity with the first opportunity to respond in many cases, will be burdened with increasing responsibility. With the large increase in drivers on Saddle Road, the demand for fuel and mechanical assistance will increase. It may be desirable for HDOT and the PTA to investigate opportunities for the provision of an emergency service center. The increase in traffic is also expected to greatly increase the potential for wildfires in the project corridor, especially in Section II (Cross Reference: 3.9 Fire Hazard). Beneficial impacts are also anticipated. Proposed improvements to Saddle Road would generally result in a decrease in response time for emergency vehicles responding to Saddle Road incidents. The project would also provide a superior alternate route or evacuation route in case accidents, floods or landslides block SR 19 along the Hamakua Coast. Likewise, if lava flow from Kilauea or the southwest or northeast rift of Mauna Loa cuts off SR I 1 in Puna, Ka' u or South Kona, an improved Saddle Road would be an invaluable alternate route. With the proposed project, Saddle Road would become a safer and faster route across the island. With the proposed improvements, and future growth in traffic volumes and use, the maintenance of an express bus between Hilo and Kona may prove feasible. No Action Alternative. The No Action Alternative would not result in construction -related impacts to motorists associated with public services, community centers, or local businesses. No beneficial impacts to public services and facilities would result with the No Action Alternative. 3-52 3.3.5.3 Mitigation Measures Emergency service providers, including the Hawaii County Fire Department, the Hawai i Police Department, and the PTA, will be kept informed on the location and schedule of construction along the length of the project. Traffic control plans prepared for construction of Saddle Road will include provisions for allowing emergency vehicles to pass through construction zones without delays. 3.3.6 Travel Patterns for Motorists, Pedestrians and Bicycles 3.3.6.1 Affected Environment Information for this section is derived from the Traffic Study, Saddle Road, Island of Hawaii (Rust 1994), as well as interviews and community surveys. 3.3.6.1.1 Inter -regional Traffic: Sources and Volumes Saddle Road serves a variety of purposes including access to PTA, Mauna Kea and Mauna Loa, and a connection between East and West Hawai i. The purposes of travel include recreation, shopping, business, and limited commuting. Astronomers, support staff, and suppliers with bases in Hilo or Waimea use the road as access to Mauna Kea. Ten observatories are currently present, and three more are under construction. Depending on the schedule of activity, between dozens and hundreds of trips per day are associated with astronomy. Hunters, hikers, and recreationalists also use Saddle Road. Many survey respondents stated that they chose to use Saddle Road because it saves time, and many stated a concern with the safety of this route. Over 12,000 military vehicles made trips to the PTA in 1993, primarily in convoys between PTA and the port at Kawaihae. Because they travel in large convoys at low speed, military vehicles tend to disrupt traffic flow. Military trips comprise approximately 2 to 4 percent of all Saddle Road traffic. Twenty-five percent of visitors surveyed reported having used Saddle Road, mostly in order to save time. Many who travel the road, however, also take advantage of its attractions. A large number reported visiting Mauna Kea, Mauna Loa, and Mauna Kea State Park. The main reason cited in the survey for not using Saddle Road was the car rental contract prohibition. Few cited safety as a restricting factor. When asked if they would have traveled on Saddle Road if it had been safer and more accessible (and presumably permitted under their rental contract), a large majority indicated that they would do so. 3-53 3.3.6.1.2 Function and Use of Saddle Road in Individual Communities For communities located along Saddle Road, it functions not only as a cross -island arterial but also as a neighborhood road, avenue for bicycling and walking, and link or barrier to community interaction. Kaumana. Saddle Road bisects Upper Kaumana. Until the Puainako Street extension is constructed, all Saddle Road traffic will be conducted directly through the community. Many residents have expressed concern at a widespread disregard of the speed limit by cross -island drivers and the danger this creates for elderly drivers and pedestrians. Nevertheless, some residents choose to walk along the lower section of Saddle Road. Many report daily, semi-weekly or weekly walking schedules in Kaumana proper or above MP 8, where the widened shoulders and scenic vegetation provide a pleasant walking environment. Bicycling is not common with the exception of children biking within Kaumana. Waiki i. Saddle Road provides the only access to Waiki'i Ranch. Residents report dissatisfaction with the current state of road maintenance, speed limit enforcement, vehicle mix and traffic volumes. Nearly all Waiki' i residents asked about walking or bicycling stated that the current road was too dangerous. Superior alternate pedestrian, bicycle and equestrian pathways exist within the ranch and allow for safe recreation. However, crossing Saddle Road remains a problem. PTA. The PTA incorporates a total of 472 km2. The base camp occupies 40 ha and contains approximately 200 temporary buildings. Bradshaw Army Airfield supports fixed -wing aircraft as large as C -130s. The remaining area is used for military training, with a mission of combat training for units up to brigade strength. Activities include simulated war games, live firing of both small and large caliber weapons, tactical bombing exercises and related activities. The base is used on a rotating basis for short-term training exercises involving between 1,800 and 3,000 DOA, U.S. Marine Corps, Hawai'i National Guard, Army Reserve, Air Force and foreign military personnel. Training activities are in operation approximately 260 days per year. Saddle Road passes between the base camp/airfield and the principal training areas. The DOA points out that there is a considerable conflict between civilian and military traffic, with the potential for serious accidents. In addition, the efficiency of training is considerably reduced by the current location of the road (Cross Reference: 3.1.1.1.2 Military). Other Areas. Although not located along Saddle Road, Waimea and Waikoloa Village are indirectly affected by it. The majority of cross -island traffic passes through Waimea instead of using Saddle Road, increasing traffic volumes, conflicts with pedestrians and bicycles, and , possibly accident rates. Waimea residents have expressed a keen interest in the potential of the project to reduce traffic in their area. Conversely, the current terminus of Saddle Road on SR 190 discourages its use as a corridor to South Kohala, via Waikoloa Road. Waikoloa residents are also watching the progress of the Saddle Road, and are especially interested in the potential for a 3-54 terminus at the junction of Waikoloa Road and SR 190, which would encourage an increase in coast -bound traffic. 3.3.6.2 Environmental Consequences All Action Alternatives. Construction activities cause speed limit reductions within the construction zone, inconvenience in accessing driveways and side streets, periodic closures of one or more travel lanes, and resultant delays to "pass-through" traffic. In addition, construction activities present obstacles to vehicles crossing the highway. Construction -related impacts would be short-term and temporary in nature. Construction would be completed in phases, affecting only a portion of the road at any one time. Construction of segments on the existing road alignment, EX -2, EX -3, or EX -4A, would most directly affect Saddle Road traffic. With the selection of Segments W-2, W-3, PTA -1, PTA -3, and E-3, which do not follow the existing Saddle Road alignment, impacts to motorists, pedestrians, and bicyclists would be less notable since much of the construction work will be physically separated from Saddle Road traffic. W-2 and W-3. With the selection of Segment W-2 or W-3, the segment of Saddle Road through Waiki' i would be avoided. Temporary, construction -related impacts to the community of Waiki' i would be expected to be minimal. Building Saddle Road on Segment W-2 or W-3 would reduce traffic volumes considerably within the community of Waiki' i. With the W-2 alignment, traffic levels on Waikoloa Road would be expected to increase. EX -2 PTA -1 and PTA -3. The selection ofPTA- I or PTA -3 would cause the least impact to cross -island traffic from construction activities. EX -3. Improving Saddle Road within Section III would result in construction -related inconveniences and delays to motorists passing through the area, however, since no communities are located within Segment EX -3, construction -related impacts are not expected to be significant. EX -4A and E-3. With the selection of Segment EX -4A, construction activities would occur within Kaumana, directly impacting the community with inconveniences and delays to local traffic, bicycles, and pedestrians. Impacts would also occur with the selection of Segment E-3, but to a lesser extent since E-3 diverges from the existing road alignment in the area of Kaumana. The selection of Segment E-3 would cause less impact than EX -4A to cross -island traffic from construction activities. Assuming the completion of the Puainako Street extension, E-3 would avoid much of the impacts to local traffic, pedestrians, and bicyclists throughout the length of Kaumana Drive. Increases in traffic volumes as projected for Saddle Road, would be expected to result in direct, and long-term impacts to Kaumana with selection of Segment EX -4A. With EX -4A, local traffic attempting to cross Saddle Road or turning left into traffic from one of dozens of streets and 3-55 driveways in Kaumana, would be affected by notably greater traffic volumes and associated delays. Increased traffic of the magnitude anticipated would serve to congest local traffic, and would be expected to create more hazardous conditions for crossings by pedestrians and bicyclists. No Action Alternative. No construction -related impacts would result from the No Action Alternative. With the No Action Alternative, increasing traffic volumes would result in a deterioration of LOS from D to E. 3.3.6.3 Mitigation Measures ■ Whenever feasible, construction activities will be scheduled to avoid construction -related delays on Saddle Road during those annual events known to generate significant cross -island traffic, including the Meme Monarch Festival, the Ironman Triathlon, the Mauna Kea Relay road race, and the Waiki'i Ranch Music Festival. ■ As feasible, construction -related delays will be minimized during the rush hours for commuters, business travelers, and observatory workers. ■ Construction information will be publicized on a regular, on-going basis through signage, radio and newspaper bulletins, and road signs at each end of Saddle Road. 3.3.7 Environmental Justice Consistent with Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and Executive Order 12898 on Environmental Justice, all program and project actions and decisions must ensure that minority and low-income populations are not disproportionately adversely affected by transportation programs or projects. Environmental justice is a term that refers to social inequity in bearing the burdens of adverse environmental impacts. Certain socioeconomic groups in the United States, including ethnic minorities, the elderly, rural residents and others, have historically experienced a disproportionate share of undesirable side-effects from locally undesirable land uses such as toxic waste dumps, landfills, and freeway projects (Terry 1997, Technical Appendices, Volume V). The policy of the FHWA with regard to environmental justice is to address whether any social group is disproportionately impacted by a proposed project and identify possible mitigation measures to avoid or minimize any adverse social impacts. This policy is in keeping with Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations. In terms of major categories recognized by the U.S. Census, the majority of residents in the State of Hawai' i are Asians/Pacific Islanders (61.8 percent), with the remainder mostly white (33.3 3-56 percent). African-Americans comprise 2.5 percent of the population. This breakdown, however, inadequately describes the ethnic makeup as perceived by Hawaii residents, who distinguish among Native Hawaiians, Samoans, Japanese, Chinese, Koreans and Filipinos. In addition, more than half of all births in Hawaii since 1970 involve parents of different or mixed ethnic backgrounds. The conventional definition of ethnic affiliation is problematic in Hawai i. Discussions of environmental justice in Hawaii generally involve the Native Hawaiian population, which is disadvantaged in terms of income, health, home ownership, and many other measures of socioeconomic well being. The only communities affected directly by the presence of Saddle Road are Kaumana and Waiki' i. Residents of the latter are mostly white with above average incomes. Kaumana is a microcosm of Hilo, with effectively the same proportion of Hawaiian people as the rest of Hilo, which is slightly less than for the island as a whole. Kaumana has somewhat more elderly than Hilo and the remainder of the island, but fewer disabled persons younger than 65 years. Although average household incomes are slightly lower in Kaumana, fewer households are in poverty. In summary, there are only slight demographic differences between the island as a whole and the areas potentially affected in any adverse manner by the proposed Saddle Road improvements. No disadvantaged groups are disproportionately represented in the area directly affected by construction -phase impacts, right-of-way taking, long-term noise and air quality effects, and similar direct impacts. 3.3.8 Native Hawaiian Culture and Values A study of Native Hawaiian Culture and Values was prepared for the project and is included in the Technical Appendices within the Social Impact Assessment (Terry 1997, Technical Appendices, Volume V). The methodology included interviews with Hawaiian Home Land (HHL) homesteaders, HHL homestead leaders, native Hawaiians (those eligible for HHL benefits) on the HHL waiting list and living in areas with designated home lands, and those ethnic Hawaiians who are not eligible for HHL benefits. 3.3.8.1 Affected Environment 3.3.8.1.1 Native Hawaiians Native Hawaiian culture began at least 2,000 years ago when people from other Polynesian lands arrived to Hawaii nei (the archipelago). Hawaiian culture developed independently from the rest of Polynesia, although there was intermittent input by later Polynesian visitors until at least the 1200s when the last of these transoceanic voyages took place. Stages of development of Hawaiian culture include the settlement era and the era of high culture. ■ Settlement Era. The settlement era is estimated to have started 25 BC (before the Common Era) to 125 AD and ended about 1100 to 1200. It encompasses settlement from southern Polynesian communities, development of stable water and food sources, and 3-57 acclimatization of these settlers and their culture to the new environment. These settlers adapted beliefs and practices of their southern islands culture to the Hawaiian islands. Their religious establishment, food culture, societal structure, and clan system were all altered to form a new Hawaiian culture. ■ Era of High Culture. The era of high culture includes the refinement of the Hawaiian society in all aspects from 1200 to the time period of around 1800. This era of high culture saw the coalescing of political power through powerful military chiefdoms that at times took over an entire island or multiple islands. The state religion was an integral part of the political structure. This system was the kapu system, which became the backbone of the Hawaiian ruling caste and legal system. The kapu system regulated behavior and dealt out punishment for infractions. Another parallel system, as powerful as the kapu, was the 'aumakua worship, a worship system that serviced clans and extended families. This family worship utilized deified ancestors as their gods and guardians who were seen as empathetic yet powerful clan and family spiritual agents. These'aumakua provided security and support of the family system's cultural beliefs and practices. In 1819, the kapu system was abolished by the ruling caste and the Hawaiian Kingdom evolved into a westernized constitutional monarchy. In 1893, the legal government of Queen Lili' uokalani was overthrown from power. A two generation decline in Hawaiian socioeconomic status took place during the 1900s and was not arrested until the Hawaiian Renaissance phenomena began in 1970. 3.3.8.1.2 Hawaiian Home Lands Program The Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1920 (HHCA) of the United States Congress created the Hawaiian Home Lands Program (HELP), which evolved into the current agency of the DHHL. This law created a land reserve of 80,000 ha to be used by native Hawaiian homesteaders to rehabilitate themselves and, by inference, their culture. Eligibility to receive land depended upon one's native Hawaiian blood quantum. Anyone with at least 50 percent of the blood of those people inhabiting the Hawaiian islands prior to 1778 was eligible to apply for HHLP leasehold land. This act split the Hawaiian race into two groups with differing legal statuses. Those with 50 percent or more Hawaiian blood were now labeled Native Hawaiian. Those with less than 50 percent Hawaiian blood were labeled Hawaiian. The DHHL's major focus is to facilitate the distribution of 99 -year homesteads to the native Hawaiian individual. Currently, the individual native Hawaiian must seek financing to construct improvements on these lands. Most homesteaders look to the DHHL for financial aid since the HHCA and DHHL regulations forbid the mortgaging of the lease as collateral to any lending institution. The DHHL receives its funding from the State of Hawaii government. Three categories of leasehold lands were allowed, which include residential homesteads, agricultural/farming homesteads, and pastoral/ranching homesteads. The project corridor is 3-58 adjacent to or within DHHL pastoral/ranching lands. A few homestead pastoral leases are located near the proposed alignments. Only one of the pastoral leases has a residence. At this time the DHHL has several pastoral general leases to non Hawaiians on the Mauna Kea slopes. The boundary of the homestead pastoral leases can be roughly described as the present Saddle Road, the Mauna Kea observatory access road, the Keanakolu road, the Pu' u ' O' o ranch area, and the lower rain forest area. The DHHL has not developed any planning document or other planning material within the last five years that designates the area of the proposed alignments as other than pastoral lands. Hawaiian Homes lands within the study area are depicted on Figure 3.3.3, Hawaiian Homes Commission Land. 3.3.8.1.3 Traditional and Spiritual Native Hawaiian Environment 3.3.8.1.3.1 Vertical Land and the Importance of Place Names The projected alignments of Saddle Road traverse the 'apana (political land sections or districts) of Hilo, Hamakua, and Kohala and the ahupua'a (political subsections of the ' apana) of Waimea, Waikoloa Uka, Pa'auhau Uka, Ka'ohe, Humu'ula, Pi'ihonua, Ka'umana, Punahoa, and Ponahawai. The most prominent, celebrated, and sacred of all areas traversed by the project is Mauna Kea, a natural land feature and sacred site. The road alignment involves minimal land space from within these land sections, but it travels through the upper region of this island, an area which is considered sacred by native Hawaiians. An initial investigation into place names reflects the relationship of this area of concern with the indigenous people, their philosophy of life, and their gods. The popular interpretation of Mauna Kea is "white mountain." Mauna Kea is known around the world, and is regarded by many as the highest island mountain, the highest mountain in the world from below sea level, and the best mountain from which to make astronomical observations. To the native Hawaiian, Mauna Kea is a Kupuna, a grandparent or ancestor, and an One hanau, birthplace or home. Lono-nui-akea was the original name for the Island of Hawai i. It is the sacred name of the god Lono. Lono is the god of stormy weather, dark clouds, and rain. Throughout Polynesia, two islands were honored as Ka inoa akua (the god name, or namesake). The Island of Hawai i was one of these two. Hamakua, according to Native Hawaiian oral history was a name given by Hawaiiloa (a legendary navigator who traveled the ocean for many generations) to his youngest son. The ' apana of Hamakua houses the very top of Mauna Kea and stretches to Mauna Loa. The ahupua' a of Ka' ohe is within Hamakua and like this ' apana envelopes the very top of Mauna Kea and stretches to Mauna Loa. The word "Ka' ohe" simply means "the bamboo." Bamboo was a vegetable manifestation of the primordial god Kane and was used as a water carrier. Water trapped in the upright green bamboo was given as offerings to the gods or used medicinally. 3-59 Ka' ohe was perhaps a description of the many river beds which time and water carved through that section of Hamakua through the process of erosion. These are the land sections on which the very top of Mauna Kea rests. The ahupua' a of Humu'ula parallels Ka ohe on the Hilo side of the mountain. Humu'ula was a kind of hard red, brown, yellow or green rock. The red and brown rock was probably more commonly found in the uplands, or Humu'ula ma uka area. Another landmark within the project vicinity is Ka Pu' u-a-Pele. The top of this cinder cone marks the joining of the ' apana of Kona, Kohala, and Hamakua. These large cinder cones distinguish land boundaries. 3.3.8.1.3.2 The Hiapo Wakea and Papa are the original parents of native Hawaiians. Mythologically they are the marriage of sky and earth: Wakes, Sky Father and Papa, Earth Mother. Between the two all things were born. Mauna Kea is the piko (center of a beginning or ending) of the island, another reason this area is considered sacred. This piko is the initial provider of the land mass of Hawai i mokupuni. Hawai' i was also the hiapo, or first island child, of Papa and Wakea. The responsibilities and resources ofHawai'i and Wakea are needed for the growth and well-being of the island and all living forms of this mokupuni. The kalo (taro, a staple food) was Wakes and Papa's first food child and regarded as an elder brother who fed all indigenous natives, or kanaka maoli from the beginning of time today. During the time of ali'i (chiefs, elite of the society) it was important for them to trace genealogy to the kalo and eventually to Wakea and Papa. When the genealogy could prove the connection they received the status of the senior line or hiapo line. Mauna Kea falls in the senior line genealogy. 3.3.8.1.3.3 The Importance of "Kane-i-ka-wai-ola," Water The Wakes and Papa beliefs and practices, including the tribute and respect for hiapo and kapuna, extend to contemporary times. Ancestral memory reminds the native Hawaiian that the mountain, like their parents, is the well -spring and provider of physical and spiritual nourishment. Strands of information from the past are found today in songs and people's actions. Besides land, water is a vital element of life and living. The high mountains attract clouds, then the clouds shed their water and the water soaks into the earth. The Pohakuloa area has Lilinoe as the female deity of misty rain and heavy fog, while Poliahu is the snow deity which adorns the top of Mauna Kea during the winter. These male and female water forms both belong to the Mauna Kea area. 3-60 MIM Hawaiian Homes Commission Land 1-23000 3.3.8.1.3.4 The Knowledge of Total Environment The ancestors of Native Hawaiians were island people and used the ocean to travel from island to island. Due to the vastness of the ocean and the limited land base, the measurement for survival was the ability to acquire food. Resources for the acquisition of food included the reef, fresh water, and fertile soil. The Hawaiian moon calendar was devised to assist Hawaiians in gathering and planting on fortuitous days. Using the moon calendar, the forefathers calculated the established cycles of all life forms. It was based on many generations of observation and practice, and it proved successful. Other forms of traditional literature condone the fact that the ancestors made an effort to understand the intricacy of relationships of diverse life forms. One of the reasons for this was to protect and help sustain the food sources. They recognized a hierarchical order as well as a system of harmony and interaction of all existing life forms known to them. They observed and made critical analyses of their sky, land, and ocean spaces. Rain, ocean, clouds, wind movement, coral species of the ocean, and seeded plants of the uplands are referred to within a common bond for generating regrowth or as a food source. Kane was responsible for regeneration, and the ocean currents, rain, wind, and clouds move together to make this possible. For food systems to regenerate themselves, the sky, land, and ocean spaces unite in a harmonic and natural rhythm to maintain the currents of water particles and clean air. This movement is known as lokahi. Lokahi is a system of working in unity and harmony. This knowledge was passed on through protocol, cultural practices, songs, and stories. 3.3.8.1.3.5 Horizontal and Vertical Land Divisions Lokahi is the antithesis of hierarchy. Lokahi is the system which bypasses the hiapo system and does not give precedence to first born or senior line. It is the system which states that everything is equal because everything, no matter how small or large, has a function which is necessary to maintain the overall well being of the whole entity. Native Hawaiian ancestors lived within these two systems and measured everything by this frame of reference. One example is the division of ocean, sky, and land. These spaces were divided horizontally and vertically. The land division would be of primary concern for the proposed project. The most familiar is the vertical divisions, or sections common to maps of today. The boundary lines run from mountains to the ocean. The vertical boundaries followed mountains, rivers, streams, and cinder cones. These were considered political boundaries because they separated the chiefdomship. Examples of vertical divisions are the districts of Hamakua, Kohala, and Hilo. Smaller divisions (known as ahupua a) are located within these larger districts. Examples include Waimea, Ka ohe, Humu'ula, and Pi ihonua. There are still smaller vertical land sections within the ahupua a such as Keaukaha and Ke' eke' e. 3-61 The natural vegetation growth was the measuring device for the horizontal pattern of the second land division. For this division, vegetation growth dictated land division name changes. The forest, like the coral bed, is the food source and therefore a vital system for the continuum of life and life cycles. The trees house food for birds, insects, animals, and man, and produce seeds for regeneration. The forest provides vegetation used for medicinal purposes, spiritual adornment, housing construction, and many other items. The development of sugar cane, and other economic crops, replaced much of the natural vegetation known by the ancestors. The following information identifies the horizontal space and the kinds of flora typical to each of these horizontal land areas. Kuahiwi. Kuahiwi means the mountain top, the backbone of the island, which is too high in elevation for heavy vegetation to grow. It is a very sacred area because of its height. Kualono. Kualono is the region near the mountain top. Little vegetation grows in this area. The mamane and naio are the only hardy trees to grow at this height. Both of these are hardwood trees. The flower of the mamane was a specialty for the ali i because of its shape and yellow color. When he wanted a special lei he would send his runners to fetch mamane flowers. 'A' ali' i can also be found at this height. Waoma'ukele. Waoma'ukele is the region named for the wet, soggy ground. This area was located in the rain belt of the island, especially on the ko' olau side of each island. The typical trees of this area are the very large koa, ' ohi'a, varieties of lobelia, and mamane. Waoakua. Waoakua is the forested region below the waoma'ukele. This area is said to be occupied by spirits of the forest. Man seldom ventured into this area during ancestral times except when a particular kind of tree was needed and could not be found elsewhere. The large trees acquired from the waoakua and the waoma'ukele deserved substantial offerings. This is the region where the forest had a greater variety of trees. Some of the trees found are kolea, ho' awa, kopiko, maile, maua, alani, koa, and ' ohi a. Waokanaka. Waokanaka is the forested region makai (toward the sea) of the waoakua. This area was frequented by native Hawaiians. They found wood and other materials for weapons, house construction, tools, surfboards, and canoe accessories. They harvested dye, collected medicine, collected bird feathers, gathered vegetation for leis, gathered vegetation for the kuahu, gathered material for making rope, and many other useful things for everyday living. The trees in the waoakua are also found in this area, but the trees of this area may be smaller. Other flora found in this area include pilo, hapu' u, holei, papala, hau kuahiwi, palapalai ' olapa, and mamaki. K lam. Kula referred to the upland grassy plains. The plants of the kula included ' ilima, ma' o, ama u, ' a ali i, ' uluhe, and pili. 3-62 Kahakai. Kahakai referred to the edge of the ocean. At the kahakai was found the niu, hala, kaunaoa, kamani, hau, milo, naupaka, lama, and alahe' e. All plants were recognized as useful to the Hawaiian. 3.3.8.1.3.6 Philosophy and Relationship to the Forest A summary of resources and concepts of sufficient importance to potentially affect the quality of life for native Hawaiians and their relationship to the environment, and especially, their relationship to the land are presented as follows. ■ Importance of vegetation and the identity of the land sections. ■ High cultural value of older or larger trees and kipuka which normally housed older trees ■ Priority to promote new growth through the non disturbance of seed producing forest areas within the waoma'ukele and waoakua. Hawaiians did not penetrate these areas if the trees they needed were available elsewhere. ■ Importance of food source and regenerative energy of the forest. ■ Philosophy of "a life for a life." When it was necessary to cut a large tree from the high forest, an offering of a human sacrifice was made. ■ Importance of Waoma'ukele as a good source of water, and for maintaining the richness of the rainforest. Native Hawaiians were creatures of the land and relied on the environment as a life line. They recognized and practiced respect for hierarchy or hiapo for man and land alike. The mountain is sacred because it is the sacred child of Wakea, and it is the source for the land. The mountains and land were genealogically connected to native Hawaiians through the original ancestor, Wakea and Papa. The mountains or land, water, and sky were a necessary part of the life cycle. The taro was regarded as an older brother of the land and provided sustenance. The coral was also an older brother (of the sea) and was the means through which other food could be acquired. The hierarchical system assigns rank to man, god, and the elements of the environment. Within the hierarchical food system another set of rules apply. The older or larger trees are primary and most sacred. The other animals that use these trees as their residence or food source are secondary. The lokahi system complements and maintains the well being of the whole entity. Everything is important because each has a function. Water was and is necessary for all life forms. Laws for water and the use of water were formulated so all had exposure to water. Water that did not touch ground was highly prized. 3-63 Such as the water in the lake on Mauna Kea and the water in the piko of the taro leaf. Water that moved underground or over land from the mountain to the sea was sometimes funneled into irrigation channels and fed the older brother kalo and was also treasured. The mountain and the waoma'ukele attracted the atmospheric water. 3.3.8.1.4 Native Hawaiian Cultural Features and Sites Based on native Hawaiian cultural background and philosophy, the following cultural features and sites were identified within the project corridor: mamane forest (Cross Reference: 3.13.1.2.4 Mamane/Naio Forest), kipuka (Cross Reference: 3.13.1.3 Discussion of Vegetation Types By Section), prehistoric trails (Cross Reference: 3.19.1.1 Prehistoric Background), and historic trails (Cross Reference: 3.19.1.2 Historic Background). The cultural value of mamane/naio forest and kipuka is associated with the age and size of the trees (Cross Reference: 3.3.8.1.3.6 Philosophy and Relationship to the Forest). Prehistoric trails were developed and used by Hawaiians long before Western contact of the 1800s. Historic trails were developed following Western contact, as ranching and tourism increased traffic to and through the Saddle. Two trails intersecting the project area were identified by the archaeological survey (Cross Reference: 3.19.2 Archaeological Sites). The Hilo -Pu' u ' O' o Trail is historic, but it probably follows the general route of an earlier prehistoric trail. The Pu'u ' O' o -Volcano Trail is prehistoric. 3.3.8.2 Environmental Consequences All Action Alternatives. The only native Hawaiian cultural features that would be negatively impacted by the proposed project are the mamane forest and kipuka. None of the other features or sites are seen to have a negative native Hawaiian cultural impact. No known heiau sites, burial sites, water sources, cinder cones, or mountains would be impacted by the proposed alternatives. Some native Hawaiian groups may have concerns that negative cultural impacts will result from project implementation due to the belief that within the Saddle area there exist detrimental or other such residual forces. Another belief is that intrusion in areas not previously despoiled or developed will result in the release of negative energy, without the proper protocol (ritual) of "release" or "sanctification." With any of the action alternatives, Saddle Road access will be improved and the number of vehicles using the road will increase dramatically in the future. It is anticipated that with these improvements in access and increased use of Saddle Road some unplanned or unregulated increase in public access to forest or natural areas will occur within the region, potentially resulting in increased degradation of the forest and its resources. 3-64 Section I W-2 and W-3. No known native Hawaiian cultural features or sites are present along Segments W-2 or W-3 and no native Hawaiian cultural impacts are anticipated. Section II All action alternatives within this section would directly impact mamane/naio forest vegetation. Loss of mamane/naio forest would be offset by implementation of mitigation proposed for the endangered Palila (Cross Reference: 3.18.3 Mitigation Measures). Proposed restoration of Palila habitat would include setting aside 3,908 ha for mamane/naio forest enhancement. Cattle and feral ungulates would be removed from the area. This would ultimately foster the development of mature mamane forest. No direct negative cultural impact on HHL is expected with implementation of any of the action alternatives. It is not anticipated that any of the action alternatives would diminish the ability of the DHHL to effectively administer its lands. EX -2. A small portion of the existing Saddle Road through Section II cuts through mamane/naio forest. With the selection of EX -2, the existing road footprint would be widened resulting in direct impacts to mamane/naio forest vegetation, a negative cultural impact. Using the width of the proposed right-of-way as the area of greatest potential impact from road construction, the improvements to EX -2 would result in the potential loss of up to 10.8 ha of mamane/naio forest vegetation. The total extent of impact to the forest would be reduced by minimizing clearing limits. PTA -1. A portion of Segment PTA -1 would cut through the mamane/naio forest. With the selection of PTA -1, a new alignment of Saddle Road would directly impact this mamane/naio forest vegetation, a negative cultural impact. Using the width of the proposed right-of-way as the area of greatest potential impact from road construction, the construction of PTA -1 would potentially result in the loss of up to 29.7 ha of mamane/naio forest vegetation. The total extent of impact to the forest would be reduced by minimizing clearing limits. PTA -1 would cross pastoral lands under the jurisdiction of the DHHL. It is not anticipated that implementation ofPTA- 1 would encourage DHHL to expand pastoral lands in the vicinity of existing mamane forest. At this time, DHHL documents, plans, and policies do not address further pastoral development. PTA -3. A portion of Segment PTA -3 would cut through the mamane/naio forest. With the selection of PTA -3, a new alignment of Saddle Road would directly impact this mamane/naio forest vegetation, a negative cultural impact. Using the width of the proposed right-of-way as the area of greatest potential impact from road construction, the construction of PTA -3 would 3-65 potentially result in the loss of up to 34.3 ha of mamane/naio forest vegetation. The total extent of impact to the forest would be reduced by minimizing clearing limits. Section III EX -3. Kipuka are located along the length of the existing Saddle Road through much of Section III. Improvements to Saddle Road through this section would result in adverse cultural impacts unless these kipuka can be avoided. To avoid direct impacts to kipuka from the construction of EX -3, during final design the plans will be adjusted to avoid or minimize impacts to kipuka that harbor native species along this segment. Section IV EX -4A and E-3. Kipuka are also located along EX -4A and E-3. During final design the plans will be adjusted to avoid or minimize impacts to kipuka along this segment that harbor native species. No Action Alternative. No impacts to native Hawaiian cultural values would result from the No Action Alternative. 3.3.8.3 Mitigation Measures ■ Proper cultural protocol will be completed by a native Hawaiian who follows the ways of the old culture to release and sanctify the construction project. ■ For Segments EX -2, PTA -1, PTA -3, EX -3, EX -4A, and E-3, impacts to native Hawaiian cultural values (associated with the mamane/naio forest and the kipuka) will be minimized in sensitive areas by limiting the area of impact and the width of right-of-way needed. ■ During final design the alignment for Segments EX -3, EX -4A, and E-3 will be adjusted to avoid or minimize impacts to kipuka that harbor native species. ■ BMPs will be used during construction to prevent runoff from damaging kipuka. The potential for increased runoff into kipuka or other sensitive areas will be mitigated as necessary by use of appropriate drainage structures (Cross Reference: 3.11.3 Mitigation Measures). For Segments PTA -1 and PTA -3, mitigation developed for the replacement of Palila Critical Habitat (Cross Reference: 3.18.3 Mitigation Measures) serves also to compensate for negative cultural impacts to mamane/naio forest. 3.4 ECONOMICS The economy of the Island of Hawaii is characterized by two distinctive regional economies, one located on the eastern side of the island and the other located on the west. The regional economy on the eastern side is centered around the City of Hilo which is the seat of island government and home to the Hilo Campus of the University of Hawai' i. Historically, the economy on the eastern side has been based on agriculture, with sugar as the main crop. Other agricultural activities include ranching, flora culture, tropical fruits, macadamia nuts, and coffee. A steady decline in the sugar industry over the past 20 years finally resulted in the closure of the last commercial operations in 1996. The regional economy on the western side of the island relies mainly on tourism generated from the resorts and ancillary facilities located primarily along the Kona Coast in the districts of South Kohala and North Kona. Overall, economic activities related to tourism have been rapidly expanding since 1980 and expectations are that the economy will continue to expand into the next century. A declining economy in East Hawaii has resulted in an increasing amount of individuals seeking employment in tourism -related activities in West Hawa� i. Currently, there are three routes for travel between Hilo and Waimea/Kailua-Kona. The northern route follows the coastal highway (SR 19) north from Hilo passing through Waimea and continuing on to Kailua-Kona. The length of the northern route is 87 km between Hilo and Waimea, and 152 km between Hilo and Kailua-Kona. The southern route follows SR 11 southwest from Hilo through Volcanoes National Park and later turns north to Kailua-Kona and Waimea. The distance between Hilo and Kailua-Kona on the southern route is 200 km, and 265 km between Hilo and Waimea. The third route is Saddle Road which extends west and north from Hilo to intersect SR 190 (the Mamalohoa Highway) connecting with Waimea to the north and Kailua-Kona to the south. The distance from Hilo to Waimea, via Saddle Road, is 97 km and 140 km between Hilo and Kailua-Kona. Saddle Road is the shortest route between East and West Hawai i, especially between Hilo and the Kona/Kohala Coast. Although Saddle Road is currently narrow, with steep grades and sharp curves, travel time between east and west is still as low or lower than for the other two routes. Potential impacts resulting from improvements to Saddle Road are discussed under the following headings: employment and income, tourism, time savings, and safety. 3.4.1 Employment and Income 3.4.1.1 Affected Environment Total employment on the Island of Hawaii has been expanding since 1980 as expressed in the number of jobs created (Table 3.4.1 Employment: 1980, 1990, and 1994). From 1980 to 1994, the number of jobs on the island increased from 38,150 to 57,400, an average annual increase of 3-67 3.0 percent. In 1980, according to census information, East Hawaii generated 26,597 jobs, or almost 70 percent of total island employment. The share of total employment generated on the east side decreased to 63 percent in 1990 and to 60 percent in 1994. The decrease in the total share of employment on the east side is contrasted by gains in West Hawai i. Total employment on the west side was 11,553 jobs (30 percent of total employment) in 1980, 20,081 jobs (37 percent of total employment on the island) in 1990 and 23,133 jobs (40 percent of total employment) in 1994. The average annual employment growth rate for the 14 -year period 1980 through 1994 was 5.1 percent on the west side compared to 1.8 percent on the east side. The overall annual growth rate for the County of Hawaii was 3.0 percent, and 2.1 percent for the State of Hawaii during the 14 -year period from 1980 through 1994. TABLE 3.4.1 Employment: 1980, 1990 and 1994 Geographic Area Number of Jobs 1980 1990 1994 County ofHawai'i 38,150 54,365 57,400 East Side 26,597 34,284 34,267 % of County 70% 63% 60% West Side 11,553 20,081 23,133 % of County 30% 37% 40% Source: 1990 Census of Population and Housing, Summary Social, Economic, and Housing Characteristics, Hawai' i; 1980 and 1990 Census Summary Tape File 3A. Workers in East Hawaii are faced with declining growth rates in job creation and in the regional economy. At the same time, the regional economy in West Hawai' i appears to be growing at an increasing rate, generating a larger share of island employment. More workers from the east side are responding to the disparity in regional economies by seeking employment in West Hawai i. As a consequence, cross -island traffic has been increasing and is expected to follow a trend of increasing growth for the next 10 to 20 years. Income trends for the east and west sides of the island parallel employment trends (Table 3.4.2, Income Characteristics: 1980 and 1990). In the South Hilo District on the east side, median income was $20,689 per family in 1980 and grew at an average annual rate of 5.5 percent to reach $35,506 per family in 1990. This compares to a 5.6 percent average annual growth rate for the County of Hawai i, which had a median family income of $19,132 in 1980 and $33,186 in 1990. In West Hawai i, the growth rate of median family income was greater than the east side, or the County as a whole. Median family income, between 1980 and 1990, increased from $21,100 to $39,329 in the North Kona District (6.4 percent annual growth rate), from $15,804 to $35,263 in "M the South Kona District (8.4 percent annual growth rate), and from $15,417 to $40,848 in the South Kohala District (10.2 percent annual growth rate). TABLE 3.4.2 Income Characteristics: 1980 and 1990 Source: 1990 Census of population and Housing, Summary Social, Economic, and Housing Characteristics, Hawai l; 1980 and 1990 Census Summary Tape File 3A. Note: The values presented for South Hilo, North Kona South Kona, and South Kohala were based on a combination of applicable census districts and are not necessarily commensurate with those values in the Socioeconomics Section of this document (Table 3.3.7). Increasing employment opportunities in West Hawaii have resulted in increased income levels in the region. The west side regional economy also provides employment to a portion of the work force residing on the east side of the island which translates into increased income. An estimate of the contribution to median income growth on the east side from employment on the west side is not available at this time. Census data clearly indicate that income growth in West Hawai i increased at a faster rate than East Hawai' i income growth. 3.4.1.2 Environmental Consequences All Action Attematives Construction activities for any of the action alternatives would generate direct and indirect employment. Activities directly involved in construction would generate direct employment. Expenditure of construction funds will generate related economic activities (e.g., purchase of materials and services for construction, expenditure of earned wages, etc.) which create indirect employment opportunities. An analysis of the construction industry estimated that 24.5 full-time equivalent jobs are generated from every $1.0 million of construction expenditures, and that the ratio of direct employment to total employment is 1.0 to 3.2 (DBEDT 1989). 3-69 1980 Median Family Income 1990 Median Family Income Annual Growth Rate (%) County of Hawaii $19,132 $33,186 5.6 East Hawai' i South Hilo $20,689 $35,506 5.5 West Hawai i North Kona $21,100 $39,329 6.4 South Kona $15,804 $35,263 8.4 South Kohala 1 $15,417 1 $40,848 10.2 Source: 1990 Census of population and Housing, Summary Social, Economic, and Housing Characteristics, Hawai l; 1980 and 1990 Census Summary Tape File 3A. Note: The values presented for South Hilo, North Kona South Kona, and South Kohala were based on a combination of applicable census districts and are not necessarily commensurate with those values in the Socioeconomics Section of this document (Table 3.3.7). Increasing employment opportunities in West Hawaii have resulted in increased income levels in the region. The west side regional economy also provides employment to a portion of the work force residing on the east side of the island which translates into increased income. An estimate of the contribution to median income growth on the east side from employment on the west side is not available at this time. Census data clearly indicate that income growth in West Hawai i increased at a faster rate than East Hawai' i income growth. 3.4.1.2 Environmental Consequences All Action Attematives Construction activities for any of the action alternatives would generate direct and indirect employment. Activities directly involved in construction would generate direct employment. Expenditure of construction funds will generate related economic activities (e.g., purchase of materials and services for construction, expenditure of earned wages, etc.) which create indirect employment opportunities. An analysis of the construction industry estimated that 24.5 full-time equivalent jobs are generated from every $1.0 million of construction expenditures, and that the ratio of direct employment to total employment is 1.0 to 3.2 (DBEDT 1989). 3-69 The construction period for Saddle Road is estimated to be nine years, beginning in 1998 and finishing in 2006. Annual construction expenditures have been estimated as percentages according to the preliminary schedule presented in Table 3.4.3, Estimated Annual Construction Erpenditures. TABLE 3.4.3 Estimated Annual Construction Expenditures Year Percent of Total Construction Costs 1998 3 percent 1999 10 percent 2000 10 percent 2001 14 percent 2002 14 percent 2003 9 percent 2004 17 percent 2005 15 percent 2006 8 percent Based on the preliminary construction schedule, the lowest cost action alternative (the alternative consisting of Segments W-2, EX -2, EX -3, and EX -4A, which would cost $157.1 million) would generate from 124 to 674 full-time jobs, depending upon the construction year, and average 428 jobs throughout the nine-year period. The highest cost action alternative (the alternative consisting of segments W-3, PTA -3, EX -3, and E-3, which would cost $167.4 million) would generate from 140 to 689 full-time jobs and average 456 jobs for the construction period. Direct employment would range from 39 to 215 jobs and indirect employment would range from 85 to 474 jobs. According to analyses of the construction industry (DBEDT 1989), 46.6 percent of the total jobs created by the project would be on the Island of Hawaii while most of the remaining 53.4 percent would be generated on other islands statewide. The 46.6 percent of total jobs generated on the Island of Hawaii (124 to 689) through implementation of the action alternatives would be about 1.0 percent or less of the total jobs in Hawai' i County of Hawai' i during 1994 (58,034), the latest year of employment information available (Census 1990). The percentage would be even less during the construction period because the total number of jobs in the County is expected to grow annually, therefore, the 1994 level is most likely already less than actual island employment. Project construction activities will have minimal impact on total island employment. 3-70 In addition to construction -related employment, reduced travel inconveniences would increase the attractiveness of employment and income generating opportunities in West Hawaii for workers residing in East Hawai' i. Increased permanent employment on both sides of the island would very likely be generated. Income impacts from the project are also estimated using data from the State of Hawai i Input -Output Model (DBEDT 1989). The input-output model estimates that $0.832 of income is generated for each dollar spent on construction. Construction costs for the action alternatives range between $157.1 and $167.4 million and would generate an average total income between $14 and $15 million per year, ranging from a low of $4 million in the first year of construction to a high of $23 million in the seventh year of construction. Approximately 60 percent of total income is estimated to be direct income while the remaining 40 percent is either indirect or induced income. Increased income from the project during the construction year of highest expenditures ($23 million) is approximately 1.0 percent of the 1993 total income for the County ($2.3 billion). Alternatives which use Segment W-2 would increase the distance from Hilo to Waimea over that of the existing Saddle Road by 5.6 km. Alternatives which include W-3 would cause an increase of 9.8 km. Commuters and other travelers, with origins and destinations in Hilo and Waimea, would find that any improvements in travel time on the new Saddle Road are offset with the relocation of this road to Segment W-2 or W-3. On the other hand, travel distances between Hilo and the resort areas in South Kohala and Kailua- Kona would be shorter than the existing Saddle Road by 9.7 km with alternatives using Segment W-2 and by 16.8 km with alternatives using Segment W-3. Estimated distance from Hilo to Kailua/Kona via an improved Saddle Road would range from 122.2 to 130.2 km, depending on the particular alternative selected. No Action Alternative. The No Action Alternative would leave conditions of Saddle Road primarily unchanged. Traffic and congestion would increase along all cross -island routes, potentially decreasing the attractiveness of employment and income opportunities in West Hawai i. Some workers may choose not to seek cross -island employment opportunities and remain on the east side increasing the number of underemployed and unemployed workers, and resulting in a lower growth rate of median family income. 3.4.1.3 Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures related to employment and income are merited. Impacts would be beneficial. 3-71 3.4.2 Tourism 3.4.2.1 Affected Environment The importance of tourism to the island economy is reflected in the services and retail sectors. Data from the 1990 Census show that the services sector accounted for 36 percent of all island employment followed by the retail sales sector with 19 percent, combining for a total of 55 percent. Total employment in the retail sales and service sectors is comparable between the east side, with 56 percent, and the west side, about 60 percent. Data for 1995 show that 1,075,870 total visitors came to the Island of Hawaii with approximately 33 percent visiting the east side and 67 percent visiting the west side. Tourism on the west side of the island began in earnest in the early 1970s with the development of resorts along the Kona Coast. As of 1994, there were approximately 6,000 hotel rooms on the west side compared to about 1,000 rooms on the east side. In addition, there were over 2,400 condominiums, most of which were located on the west side. According to the West Hawai i Regional Plan, the South Kohala district alone will have 475 additional resort hotel rooms and 12,000 single and multiple residential units built by 2010. As tourism continues to expand, the population of the west side is expected to increase rapidly, following the same trend of the past two decades. Presently, rental car contracts prohibit travel on Saddle Road. Tourists are obligated to take the northern or southern routes for cross -island travel which requires additional time. Some tourists do not include cross -island trips in their itineraries because of the extra time, while a small portion violate the rental agreement and use Saddle Road. 3.4.2.2 Environmental Consequences All Action Alternatives. All Action Alternatives would most likely allow rental car companies to remove driving restrictions on Saddle Road. Improvements would decrease the travel time for tourists traveling between the east and west sides of the island. An improved Saddle Road would most likely increase the number of tourists visiting the east side of the island since, at present, only about one-third include the Hilo area in their itineraries. Tourist expenditures would be expected to increase on the east side of the island with increased visitation. Improved travel conditions would also allow greater access to observatory facilities on Mauna Kea, which may adversely impact some scientific processes while exposing a larger public to celestial observation. No Action Alternative. Under the No Action Alternative, rental car companies would likely continue driving restrictions on Saddle Road. Tourists wishing to visit the east side of the island would have to choose a more circuitous route on SR 11 or SR 19. A low level of accessibility to Mauna Kea facilities would be continued. Fewer tourists would visit the east side of the island and tourism would most likely be less significant in the regional economy. 3-72 3.4.2.3 Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures related to tourism are merited. Impacts would be beneficial. 3.4.3 Time Savings 3.4.3.1 Affected Environment Important routes used by frequent cross -island travelers are Hilo -Waimea, Hilo-Waikoloa, and Hilo-Kailua/Kona. Three routes can be used for travel to cross -island destinations: SR 19, SR 11 and Saddle Road, however, SR 11 is from 50 km to 150 km longer than the other two routes, and is generally not used by frequent travelers (Table 3.4.4, Estimated Travel Time in Minutes). TABLE 3.4.4 Estimated Travel Time in Minutes Many travelers prefer SR 19 because higher average speeds can be attained and this route is comparable in distance to Saddle Road. Information from the traffic study (Rust 1994) indicates that average speeds of 80 to 85 km per hour are common on SR 19 compared to average speeds of about 70 km per hour on Saddle Road. The distance between Hilo and Waimea is 91.9 km using SR 19 and 95.8 km following the existing Saddle Road alignment. Taking into account the average speeds of 69.7 km per hour for Saddle Road and 83.5 km per hour for SR 19, and the distance for each route, estimated travel time on SR 19 would be 66 minutes compared to 82 minutes using Saddle Road. The distance between Hilo and Waikoloa is 112.9 km via Saddle Road and 129.7 km via SR 19. Estimated average speeds from the traffic study were 71.6 km per hour using the Saddle Road route and 84.5 km per hour using SR 19. Although the distance between Hilo and Waikoloa is almost 17 km longer using SR 19 the estimated travel time is 2.5 minutes less because road conditions facilitate higher average speeds. Estimated travel time using Saddle Road was 94.6 minutes compared to 92.1 minutes using SR 19. 3-73 Estimated Travel Time (Minutes) Route/Action Alternative Hilo - Kailua/Kona Hilo - Waimea Hilo - Waikoloa SR 19 111 66 92 Existing Saddle Road (No Action) 114 82 95 Action Alternatives 84-90 67-71 64-67 Many travelers prefer SR 19 because higher average speeds can be attained and this route is comparable in distance to Saddle Road. Information from the traffic study (Rust 1994) indicates that average speeds of 80 to 85 km per hour are common on SR 19 compared to average speeds of about 70 km per hour on Saddle Road. The distance between Hilo and Waimea is 91.9 km using SR 19 and 95.8 km following the existing Saddle Road alignment. Taking into account the average speeds of 69.7 km per hour for Saddle Road and 83.5 km per hour for SR 19, and the distance for each route, estimated travel time on SR 19 would be 66 minutes compared to 82 minutes using Saddle Road. The distance between Hilo and Waikoloa is 112.9 km via Saddle Road and 129.7 km via SR 19. Estimated average speeds from the traffic study were 71.6 km per hour using the Saddle Road route and 84.5 km per hour using SR 19. Although the distance between Hilo and Waikoloa is almost 17 km longer using SR 19 the estimated travel time is 2.5 minutes less because road conditions facilitate higher average speeds. Estimated travel time using Saddle Road was 94.6 minutes compared to 92.1 minutes using SR 19. 3-73 The distance between Hilo and Kailua/Kona is 139.0 km using Saddle Road compared to 155.8 km where SR 19 is used. The estimated average speed for the Saddle Road route was 73.4 km per hour for a travel time of 114 minutes. Average speed for the SR 19 route was 84.2 km per hour resulting in a travel time of 11 I minutes. As was the case with Hilo-Waikoloa, the distance between Hilo and Kailua/Kona is longer using SR 19, however, the travel time is slightly less because road conditions permit attainment of higher average speeds. Although distances are longer on SR 19 in most cases, consideration of the factors of average speed and travel time lead many cross -island travelers to use this highway as the preferred route. In addition, SR 19 offers more roadside amenities and improved driving conditions. Improvements to Saddle Road will affect travel time for cross -island commuters as discussed in the next section. 3.4.3.2 Environmental Consequences All Action Alternatives. All action alternatives will decrease travel time and, in some cases, distance for cross -island travelers. The distance between Hilo and Kailua/Kona, and between Hilo and Waikoloa would be shorter with any of the action alternatives over that of the existing Saddle Road. For example, the distance between Hilo and Kailua/Kona is 139.0 km using the existing Saddle Road alignment compared to distances ranging from 122.2 km to 130.2 km for the action alternatives. The distance between Hilo and Waikoloa is 112.9 km under existing conditions compared to distances ranging from 93.4 km to 98.4 km for the action alternatives. Decreased distances coupled with higher average speeds from improved road conditions would result in reduced travel time between these destinations. Travel time under existing conditions is estimated to be 114 minutes for Hilo to Kailua/Kona and 95 minutes for Hilo to Waikoloa. Under the action alternatives, travel times would decrease to 84 to 90 minutes for Hilo to Kailua/Kona, a savings of 24 to 30 minutes, and to 64 to 67 minutes for Hilo to Waikoloa, a savings of 28 to 31 minutes. Travel time from Hilo to Kailua/Kona and from Hilo to Waikoloa on Saddle Road under the action alternatives would also be less than SR 19. Travel time on an improved Saddle Road between Hilo and Kailua/Kona would be 21 to 27 minutes less than SR 19, and 25 to 28 minutes less between Hilo and Waikoloa. The travel distance between Hilo and Waimea would be longer under the action alternatives than for the existing Saddle Road alignment. The existing Saddle Road distance is 95.8 km compared to 99.8 to 104.8 km under the action alternatives. Although distances are slightly longer, travel time would be shorter for the action alternatives than under existing conditions because of higher average speeds. For example, travel time for the existing Saddle Road is estimated to be 82 minutes compared to 67 to 71 minutes for the action alternatives. Reduced travel times under the action alternatives are comparable to the travel time of 66 minutes for motorists using SR 19 between Hilo and Waimea. 3-74 Implementation of any of the action alternatives would significantly reduce one-way travel times between Hilo and Kailua/Kona (21 to 27 minutes) and Hilo and Waikoloa (25 to 28 minutes) when compared to SR 19, the lowest existing travel -time route. A potential savings of 40 to 60 minutes for each cross -island round-trip would benefit motorists using Saddle Road, especially frequent travelers. Hilo to Waimea travelers would have two routes with essentially equal travel times from which to choose. Time savings has an economic value for both business and non -business travelers. Less time spent driving may be used to increase productivity in the work place, increase leisure activities, etc. An exact value is difficult to determine because of the large number of possible activities and associated values. Nevertheless, an estimate has been made of the value of saving 20 to 30 minutes on a one-way trip for travelers using Saddle Road based on available information. Road users were grouped into business and non -business motorists. Based upon information obtained from the road users survey (Terry 1997, Technical Appendices, Volume V), business travelers were assumed to be 27 percent and non -business travelers were 73 percent of total travelers. Each hour saved by business travelers was assumed to be worth $60 while the time of non -business travelers was assumed to be worth $10.93 per hour, the average hourly wage rate in Hawaii County. The weighted average value or savings was calculated to be $24.18 per hour. Information from the Traffic Study (Rust 1994) projected that ADT would increase from 900 to 14,000 between 1994 and 2014 with improvements to Saddle Road. Since improvements to Saddle Road are scheduled for completion in 2007, the subsequent analysis of time savings covers the 20 -year period beginning in 2007 and ending in 2026. Traffic is projected to increase from 900 ADT in 1994 to 4,400 ADT in 2014 under existing conditions, without improvements to Saddle Road. Using the projected growth rate for traffic on Saddle Road without improvements, it is estimated that a level of 3,175 ADT will be reached by 2007. The Traffic Study projects a traffic level of 14,000 ADT at the end of the 20 -year period following improvements to Saddle Road. The value of time savings attributable to improvements has been estimated using traffic projections beginning with 3,175 ADT and growing to 14,000 ADT at the end of 20 years (2007 to 2026). The value of saved travel time for each year was estimated by calculating the total hours saved per year and applying the weighted value of $24.18 per hour. For example in 2007, a 20 -minute savings in travel time per ADT was multiplied by 3,175 ADT resulting in 1,058 hours per day or 386,170 hours per year. The annual value estimate of $9.3 million is obtained through applying $24.18 per hour to 386,170 hours per year. This procedure was repeated for a time savings of 30 minutes per ADT resulting in an annual value of $14.0 million. Annual values were computed for each year of the 20 -year period (2007 to 2026), and the present value in 1997 was estimated to be $75.0 million for 20 minutes savings and $112.5 million for 30 minutes savings (present value calculated using 8 percent discount rate). Although the preceding computations are limited because of data limitations, the results give an indication of the relative magnitude that could be expected in the value of decreased travel time. 3-75 Other cross -island routes would be affected during and after construction on Saddle Road. During the construction period (1998 to 2006), increased congestion may occur on SR 11 and SR 19 because delays on Saddle Road may cause travelers to seek alternative routes. After construction, traffic would grow at a lower rate on SR 11 and SR 19 because of the increased usage projected for Saddle Road. Traffic on the alternative routes would probably not be less than existing volumes, however, rates of increase are expected to be lower than if no improvements are made to Saddle Road. Increasing traffic volumes would result in corresponding increases in travel. Average travel speeds on Saddle Road will also decrease as traffic volume increases, however, information is insufficient to estimate the associated values. Additional employment and income would be generated to the extent that values generated through savings in travel time are reinvested in the island economy. The State of Hawai i Input/Output Model (DBEDT 1989) estimates that 27.9 jobs are generated for each $1.0 million of gross value product (GVP) generated from a cross-section of 60 industries. If the value of savings in travel time was reinvested in the island economy, direct employment would increase by approximately 834 to 1,251 jobs and total employment would increase from 2,093 to 3,139 jobs. Employment is calculated based on the present value of time savings for 20 and 30 minutes. The DBEDT model estimates the ratio of direct employment to total employment to be 1.0 to 2.51. It is estimated that $31 to $47 million would be generated in direct income and that total income would increase by $52 to $78 million based on the DBEDT model assumption that $694,000 of income is generated for every $1.0 million of GVP. Additional income is based on the present value of time savings. The DBEDT model estimates that the ratio of direct income to total income is 0.60 to 1.0. No Action Alternative. The No Action Alternative would not result in improvements to Saddle Road and cross -island travel time would remain much as it is today. The fact that less traffic would be attracted to Saddle Road may very likely result in increased congestion on existing routes (e.g., SR 19). Increased ADT would mean higher congestion on all routes which would increase travel time for all motorists, resulting in higher travel time costs. 3.4.3.3 Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures related to time savings are merited. Impacts would be beneficial. 3.4.4 Safety 3.4.4.1 Affected Environment The current LOS D reflects the numerous design deficiencies of Saddle Road (Cross Reference: 1.6 Purpose and Need). With these design deficiencies passing demand is very high, and safe passing opportunities are limited, leading to platooning of vehicles and unsafe passing maneuvers. 3-76 Although safety is difficult to quantify, one indicator used in the highway systems is the ACC/MVM of travel. Accident data for Saddle Road were provided by HDOT for the nine-year period 1986 through 1994. A total of 626 accidents were reported during the nine-year period. Of these, five had fatalities, 315 resulted in injuries (excluding fatalities), and 306 involved property damage only (Rust 1994). Saddle Road was divided into three separate reaches in order to estimate ACC/MVM values. Reach 3 extends from the Mamalahoa Highway to MP 36, a total of 17.7 miles; Reach 2 extends between MP 36 and 19, a total of 16.6 miles; and Reach 1 extends between MP 19 and 5, a total of 13.7 miles. Traffic counts for 1986 and 1994 were used to estimate the number of annual vehicle miles driven on each reach. For example, Reach 3 had a traffic count of 791 ADT in 1986 and 1,080 ADT in 1994 for a 4.0 percent annual growth rate. Traffic counts for intervening years between 1986 and 1994 were estimated using the average annual rate of increase for each reach. Reach 2 had a traffic count of 420 ADT in 1986 and 817 ADT in 1994 and an annual growth rate of 8.7 percent while Reach 1 had a traffic count of 488 ADT in 1986 and 877 ADT in 1994 for an average annual increase of 7.6 percent. Daily traffic count data were multiplied by 365 days per year and the length of each reach to estimate total annual vehicle miles. For example, the 1986 traffic count of 488 ADT for Reach 1 was multiplied by 365 days per year and by 13.7 miles to estimate a total of 2,440,244 miles traveled during the year. The number of accidents per million miles traveled is estimated by dividing 2,440,244 by 1,000,000 and dividing the result into 28, the number of accidents in Reach 1 during 1986. The result is 11.47 ACC/MVM. This exercise was repeated for each reach throughout the nine-year period and is summarized in Table 3.4.5, Accidents per Million Vehicle Miles, Saddle Road, 1986 to 1994. The average accident rate for rural two-lane highways throughout the State of Hawaii is about 3.0 ACC/MVM. The average 5.43 ACC/MVM for Saddle Road is 81 percent higher than the State average. Although accident data will vary on an annual basis, it appears that a downward trend has occurred in ACC/MVM on Saddle Road since 1990, which peaked at 8.41 ACC/MVM. The most significant decrease is observed in Reach 1 where ACC/MVM rates of 13.0 have been reduced to the 4.0 to 5.0 range in recent years. Indications are that recent road improvements undertaken in Reach 1 have contributed to the decrease in ACC/MVM rates, however, no data are available to analyze this assumption. TABLE 3.4.5 Accidents per Million Vehicle Miles, Saddle Road, 1986 to 1994 Year Reach 3 MP 53.7 to 36 Reach 2 MP 36 to 19 Reach 1 MP 19 to 5 Total Distance MP 53.7 to 5 1986 2.94 8.25 11.47 6.34 1987 2.06 7.38 11.93 5.89 3-77 TABLE 3.4.5 Accidents per Million Vehicle Miles, Saddle Road, 1986 to 1994 Year Reach 3 MP 53.7 to 36 Reach 2 MP 36 to 19 Reach 1 MP 19 to 5 Total Distance MP 53.7 to 5 1988 3.05 5.09 13.33 6.18 1989 4.65 6.09 9.78 6.36 1990 5.79 8.01 13.48 8.41 1991 3.82 2.72 5.74 4.01 1992 3.38 4.14 9.23 5.15 1993 1.63 3.87 4.59 3.09 1994 2.44 4.04 4.33 3.43 Average 3.31 5.51 9.32 5.43 The monetary value of accidents is quite variable because many factors are individualistic to the specific accident such as extent of injuries, fatalities, medical needs and litigation. Accident information for 1986 to 1994 indicates that 5 of the 626 total accidents, or about one percent, included a fatality. Injuries occurred in 315, 50 percent, of the total number of accidents and property damage occurred in 306, or 49 percent. Information contained in the Roadside Design Guide (AASHTO 1996) estimates that fatal accidents average approximately $1,000,000 (1996 dollars) per occurrence, injury accidents average $72,000 per occurrence, and property damage accidents average $1,875 per occurrence. The 1994 estimate of 900 ADT and the 1986 to 1994 average rate of 5.43 ACC/MVM can be used to estimate that 86 accidents would occur during the year. Combining the percentage distribution of the types of accidents with accident costs makes it possible to estimate costs associated with different accident rates or levels of safety. An accident rate of 5.43 ACC/MVM and 900 ADT for Saddle Road total cost of accidents would equal $4,035,000. Improvements to Saddle Road are expected to reduce the accident rate on Saddle Road to a level comparable with the State average rate of 3.00 ACC/MVM. A reduction in the accident rate from 5.43 ACC/MVM to 3.00 ACC/MVM would reduce the number of accidents for 900 ADT to 47 and the corresponding accident cost to $2,205,000. In monetary terms, proposed safety improvements to Saddle Road would reduce accidents costs by $1.8 million for a traffic volume of 900 ADT. The annual difference in accident costs can be computed for each year of the useful life of the improvements to provide an indication of the value of the proposed improvements. According to the Traffic Study (Rust 1994), traffic is estimated to increase over the 20 -year period (1994 to 2014) from 900 ADT to 4,400 ADT under existing conditions on Saddle Road. It is assumed that with no improvements to Saddle Road, the 9 -year average rate of 5.43 ACC/MVM will continue throughout the 20 -year period. With the proposed improvements to Saddle Road, it is assumed that the accident rate will average 3.00 ACC/MVM for the same 20 -year period. The difference in the annual cost of accidents between the two accident rates was estimated for each year of the 20 -year period. The present value of the difference for each year of the 20 -year period was computed to be $43.1 million (8 percent discount rate), which represents the monetary benefits attributable to improved safety. According to this brief analysis, road improvements that increase safety would have an important monetary benefit in addition to the other non -monetary benefits of reduced accident rates. 3.4.4.2 Environmental Consequences All Action Alternatives. Improvements to Saddle Road are planned to raise the LOS from E to B. An improved LOS will decrease delays and platooning of vehicles resulting in increased levels of safety. The ACC/MVM rate is expected to be reduced from an average 5.43 to near the State average of 3.0 ACC/MVM. The monetary value of reducing the accident rate from present levels to the State average is estimated to have a present value of $43.1 million over a 20 -year period. No Action Alternative. The No Action Alternative would result in a higher average number of accidents for Saddle Road than experienced statewide. Traffic platooning and delays would increase as the volume of traffic increases, subjecting motorists to lower levels of safety. Existing accident rates on Saddle Road are estimated to cost $43.1 million more than rates corresponding to the State average over a 20 -year period. 3.4.4.3 Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures related to safety are merited. Impacts would be beneficial. 3.5 RIGHT-OF-WAY AND RELOCATION 3.5.1 Affected Environment The existing right-of-way for Saddle Road varies along the corridor, but is typically 25 to 30 m in width. In a number of places, the existing right-of-way is not centered on the existing roadway. 3.5.2 Environmental Consequences 3.5.2.1 Right -of -Way Right-of-way acquisition or take for this project was estimated based on preliminary engineering. Table 3.5.1, Total Estimated Right -of -Way Take by Segment, summarizes the total ha of right-of-way that would need to be acquired in order to construct the improved Saddle Road. 3-79 TABLE 3.5.1 Total Estimated Right -of -Way Take by Segment Segment Approximate Take (ha) W-2 73 W-3 70 EX -2 47 PTA -1 83 PTA -3 85 EX -3 60 EX -4A 12 E-3 29 When land acquisition is necessary from properties of relatively small size, potential impacts to landowners are presumed to be greater because a higher percentage of the property holding is impacted. In some cases, land acquisition could limit the feasible uses on a property. In Section IV, selection of EX -4A or E-3 would result in the taking of property from landowners with smaller holdings. With selection of EX -4A, without adjustment or refinement of the preliminary alignment, right-of-way acquisition would impact 51 lots of 0.4 ha or less, 13 lots of more than 0.4 to 4.0 ha, and 41 lots of more than 4.0 ha. With selection of E-3, without adjustment or refinement of the preliminary alignment, right-of-way acquisition would impact no lots of 0.4 ha or less, 4 lots of more than 0.4 to 4.0 ha, and 43 lots of more than 4.0 ha. If these alternatives are selected, final design will minimize the number of small properties impacted. 3.5.2.2 Relocations 3.5.2.2.1 Residential Relocations Residential relocations potentially necessitated by the project would be limited to Segment EX -4A, Section IV, through Kaumana. Without making adjustments or refinements in the preliminary alignment, it is anticipated that 11 homes may need to be relocated. If the road alignment could be adjusted slightly to the south in this portion of the corridor, it is estimated that relocations could be cut to two. There is a supply of available housing, both for sale and for rent, in the Hilo area to replace potential displaced households. Table 3.5.2, Available Residential Units, Hilo, provides a summary of the number of homes currently available for sale and rent in the Hilo area. Hilo contains a sufficient supply of vacant housing within similar characteristics to absorb the households potentially displaced by the project. TABLE 3.5.2 Available Residential Units, Hilo ' Price estimates are for three-bedroom houses. Source: Sales figures from Multiple Listing Service, March 1996 data. Rental figures from April 14, 1996 Hawaii Tribune Herald classified ads. A full inventory of available relocation housing will be conducted prior to acquisition. The inventory will identify the most recent vacancy and market values of relocation housing. Detailed inspection of affected households and interviews of residents to be relocated will be conducted after the preferred alternative is selected and construction schedule is determined. Specific housing and community characteristics will be determined based upon the requirements of those households identified for actual relocation. Replacement housing will be determined on the basis of current market availability and costs for the relocation resource area. 3.5.2.2.2 Other Relocations Other potential relocations would occur with the selection of PTA -1 or PTA -3, in Section II. Segment PTA -1 and PTA -3 would extend through the PTA cantonment area. The proposed right-of-way would impact 13 existing structures in this area. These structures are primarily quonset huts, which were erected in the 1950s and are considered temporary structures. The affected buildings and their uses are identified in Table 3.5.3, Potential Relocations within PTA. TABLE 3.5.3 Potential Relocations within PTA PTA Building Number Homes for Sale Homes for Rent Number of Homes 258 86 Price Range $53,000 - $949,000 $550 -$900' Median Price $205,000 $750' ' Price estimates are for three-bedroom houses. Source: Sales figures from Multiple Listing Service, March 1996 data. Rental figures from April 14, 1996 Hawaii Tribune Herald classified ads. A full inventory of available relocation housing will be conducted prior to acquisition. The inventory will identify the most recent vacancy and market values of relocation housing. Detailed inspection of affected households and interviews of residents to be relocated will be conducted after the preferred alternative is selected and construction schedule is determined. Specific housing and community characteristics will be determined based upon the requirements of those households identified for actual relocation. Replacement housing will be determined on the basis of current market availability and costs for the relocation resource area. 3.5.2.2.2 Other Relocations Other potential relocations would occur with the selection of PTA -1 or PTA -3, in Section II. Segment PTA -1 and PTA -3 would extend through the PTA cantonment area. The proposed right-of-way would impact 13 existing structures in this area. These structures are primarily quonset huts, which were erected in the 1950s and are considered temporary structures. The affected buildings and their uses are identified in Table 3.5.3, Potential Relocations within PTA. TABLE 3.5.3 Potential Relocations within PTA PTA Building Number Current Use T-151 Dining Facility T -151A Dining Facility T-153 - 157 Billets T-160 Enlisted Club 3-81 TABLE 3.5.3 Potential Relocations within PTA PTA Building Number Current Use T-201 - 202 Billets T-203 Latrine/Shower T-205 Visiting Unit Commander's Quonset T-209 Cafeteria The DOA has indicated that buildings could possibly be relocated to an area on the west side of Pu'u Pohakuloa outside of the Bradshaw Army Airfield's safety zone. 3.5.3 Mitigation Measures ■ Any relocation necessitated by the project would be completed in accordance with Federal Uniform Relocation and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-646), as amended, and applicable State regulations. Since 1971, the acquisition of private land for government programs and projects has been subject to the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act (URARPAPA) of 1970 (amended and updated by Congress in 1987). The URARPAPA provides for fair and equitable treatment of persons whose property will be acquired, or persons who will be displaced because of Federally funded programs or projects. The URARPAPA has three parts or Titles. Title I contains general provisions and definitions. Title II has provisions for relocation assistance for persons displaced because of Federal and federally assisted programs. Title III, the Uniform Real Property Acquisition Policy, contains the provisions for consistent treatment of owners whose private property is acquired by the Government. In those cases were government agencies need to acquire private property for public programs or projects, they may do so under the "power of eminent domain" (the right of a government to take private property for public use). However, just compensation must be paid for private property acquired for federally funded programs or projects. All Federal, State and local public agencies, in addition to others receiving Federal financial assistance for public programs and projects requiring the acquisition of real property, must comply with the policies and provisions set forth in the URARPAPA and its amendments. 3-82 The acquisition of private property does not need to be directly federally funded for the rules of URARPAPA to apply. If Federal funds are used in any phase of the program or project, the URARPAPA must be complied with. Its rules encourage acquiring agencies to negotiate with property owners in a prompt and amicable manner so that litigation can be avoided. Examples of provisions of the act include the following. All displaced residential households will be provided with advisory assistance. This includes distribution of available rental listing specific to their needs and assistance in searching for and securing replacement dwelling units. All eligible households to be relocated will be provided with a moving assistance payment. This may be in the form of actual reasonable moving costs and related expenses, or under certain circumstances, a fixed payment. All eligible rental households to be relocated will be provided with Relocation Assistance housing payments to supplement any difference between the rent they currently pay and the calculated cost of their replacement unit. Rental households will be advised that they may convert any rental supplement payments to a down payment for the purpose of purchasing a replacement dwelling. Exercising this option is contingent on each household's ability to qualify for then needed financing on a replacement unit. All eligible homeowners will be provided with a housing payment supplement should the replacement cost exceed the acquisition cost of the displaced dwelling. 3.6 PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE FACILITIES AND USE 3.6.1 Affected Environment Saddle Road is not currently used regularly or extensively by bicyclists or pedestrians, or other non -motorized modes of transportation. Substantial change in elevation along the length of the road, foggy and rainy weather (especially on the eastern side), and the lack of adequate shoulders produce difficult conditions for bicyclists. There are no developed bike or pedestrian trails within the project corridor. From the project terminus on the western end to MP 19, there are unpaved shoulders. Between MP 19 and 11, there are 1.2-m paved shoulders which can accommodate bike and pedestrian traffic. There are paved shoulders of varying width on the existing Saddle Road between MP 8 and 6. During surveys of the road conducted on various occasions, including the Traffic Survey conducted in May of 1994, no bicyclists were observed. The use of the corridor by walkers and runners is limited to the eastern end in the Kaumana area, and within the PTA. Saddle Road currently provides access to two identified mountain bike trails. One trail is the access road to Ahumoa/Pu'u La'au which intersects existing Saddle at MP 43. The other trail is the Keanakolu Road which intersects with the Mauna Kea Access Road near its terminus at MP 28. Neither trail traverses the existing road or any proposed segment. According to local sources, Saddle Road is currently used by serious bicycle road racers for training purposes, including those training for the Ironman Triathalon. Usage of this type is on a non -regular basis, and is generally more concentrated in the months leading up to the Triathalon. The Mauna Kea Relay, a 100 -km road race held annually in April, traverses Saddle Road. This 100 -km relay and ultra -marathon begins in Hilo and terminates in Waimea. The event has attracted between a few dozen and a few hundred runners since its inception in the 1970s. Pedestrian use of the shoulders occurs during gathering of traditional plant material. This is especially frequent before hula festivals between approximately MP 22 and 8. In addition, DOA personnel occasionally jog or walk on the Saddle Road near the PTA (Section II). In the airport survey of visitors, about 3 percent of those who traveled on Saddle Road stated that they had biked at some point along the way, although respondents may have inadvertently counted bicycling experiences in other parts of the island. Bike Plan Hawaii, the State bicycling master plan, identifies Saddle Road as a "Future Proposed Bike Route." It is classified as Priority III, which is expected to be implemented beyond a 10 -year planning horizon. Saddle Road is also classified as a Class B facility, which denotes that significant work is required to upgrade the existing facility to appropriate standards. 3.6.1.1 Government Plans and Policies Related to Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities ■ Bike Plan Hawai' i HDOT's bicycle masterplan, Bike Plan Hawaii (HDOT 1994), identifies Saddle Road as a "Future Proposed Bike Route." This route is identified as a Priority III, which is expected to be implemented beyond a 10 -year planning horizon. It is identified as a Class B facility, which indicates that significant work would be required to upgrade the existing facility to appropriate standards. To satisfy appropriate standards, the bike path must be a minimum of 1.2 m in width, and must have appropriate drainage facilities. ■ County of Hawaii General Plan The County of Hawaii General Plan is a policy document expressing the broad goals and polices for the long range development of the Island of Hawai i. The plan was originally adopted by ordinance in 1967, and was most recently amended in 1989. The General Plan is organized into thirteen elements, with goals, policies, standards and recommended courses of action for each. The Transportation Element of the General Plan establishes the following policy with regard to pedestrian and bicycle facilities. "The County shall encourage the development of pedestrian and bicycle facilities within designated areas of the community." 3.6.2 Environmental Consequences All Action Alternatives. Construction activities often present obstacles to pedestrians and bicyclists crossing the highway, and can temporarily prevent use of the road for walking or biking in the immediate vicinity of construction work. With the exception of the Kaumana area, use of Saddle Road by bicyclists is limited. Construction -related impacts would be short-term and temporary in nature. The design parameters and controls that would be implemented with the proposed project would markedly improve safety characteristics of Saddle Road. Even though traffic volumes would increase in the future, widened, paved shoulders proposed for the project would minimize the hazards to pedestrians and bicyclists using Saddle Road, and would enhance safety. With the proposed construction of wider travelways and paved shoulders along the entire corridor with any of the action alternatives, use of Saddle Road by bicyclists and pedestrians would be expected to increase. While recreational ridership may increase, due to the steep grades and inclement weather, much of the increased ridership will likely be from expert riders training for races and competitions. The one area where significant usage would possibly occur is in commercial bike tours which transport bicyclists to upper segments of the road. Currently, one tour operator conducts tours from the Mauna Kea Observatories approximately once per month. Upon improvement of the road, it is possible that such usage could increase, including use of the Mauna Kea Access Road as well. Riders would then coast downhill to a pick-up point at either end of Saddle Road. This is already a significant recreation/visitor activity elsewhere in Hawai i. W-2 and W-3. The construction of Saddle Road on the W-2 or W-3 alignments would be expected to result in a long-term decrease in traffic volumes within Waiki' i, since through traffic will use the new alignment, enhancing the opportunity for rural bicycling on this stretch of Waiki' i Road. With the construction of W-2 or W-3, 2.4-m paved shoulders would be built on both sides of the roadway, providing an improved surface for bicyclists and pedestrians. FX -2 PTA -I and PTA -3. The selection ofPTA- 1 or PTA -3 would result in fewer construction -related impacts to cross -island traffic than would EX -2. Most of the construction work would be completed on the new PTA -1 or PTA -3 alignment, away from the existing road. 3-85 With the selection of any segment, a 2.4-m paved shoulder would be built on both sides of the roadway, providing an improved surface for bicyclists and pedestrians using Saddle Road. With portions of EX -2, PTA -1, and PTA -3, however, an additional paved strip adjacent to and outside of the new roadway shoulder would be constructed as part of the fire prevention plan (Cross Reference: 3.9 Fire Hazard). This additional paved strip would be available for use by bicyclists and pedestrians. With PTA -1, Station 10+000 to 21+500, a designated, 2.4-m paved strip or bikeway would be constructed outside of the paved shoulders on one side of the roadway. For PTA -1, Station 21+800 to 27+270, and for PTA -3, Station 10+000 to 12+500, designated, 2.4-m, paved strips or bikeways would be constructed outside of the paved shoulders on both sides of the road. With EX -2, Station 119+100 to 123+000, a designated, 2.4-m, paved strip or bikeway would be constructed outside of the paved shoulders on the north side of the road; from Station 129+000 to 132+500, a designated, 2.4-m paved strip or bikeway would be constructed outside of the paved shoulders on both sides of the road. EX -3. Improving Saddle Road within Section III would result in construction -related inconveniences and delays to motorists passing through the area, however, since no communities are located within Segment EX -3, construction -related impacts on pedestrians and bicyclists are not expected to be significant. With the construction of EX -3, 2.4-m paved shoulders would be built on both sides of the roadway, providing an improved surface for bicyclists and pedestrians using Saddle Road. EX -4A and E-3. With the selection of Segment EX -4A, construction activities would occur within the community of Kaumana, directly impacting the community with the inconveniences and delays to bicyclists and pedestrians. Impacts on the community would also occur with the selection of Segment E-3, but to a lesser extent since E-3 diverges from the existing road alignment in the area of Kaumana. If EX -4A is selected, the projected increase in traffic volumes on Saddle Road will produce direct, long term impacts to upper Kaumana. Increased traffic of the magnitude anticipated would serve to congest local traffic, and would be expected to create more hazardous conditions for crossings by pedestrians and bicyclists. With the construction of EX -4A and E-3, 2.4-m paved shoulders would be built on both sides of the roadway, providing an improved surface for bicyclists and pedestrians using Saddle Road. Assuming the completion of the Puainako Street extension, construction of E-3 would avoid much of the impacts to local traffic, pedestrians, and bicyclists. Without the Puainako Street extension, on the other hand, traffic volumes within upper Kaumana would increase substantially by the year 2014. Selection of E-3 would promote local pedestrian and bicycle traffic within Kaumana. No Action Alternative. No construction -related impacts would result from the No Action Alternative. With the No Action Alternative, increasing traffic volumes would result in a deterioration of LOS from D to E, and an increasing hazard for pedestrians and bicyclists using or crossing Saddle Road. With the No Action Alternative, bike paths would not be constructed along any portion of Saddle Road. 3.6.3 Mitigation Measures Within Segment EX -4A, create provisions for pedestrian and bicycle crossings of Saddle Road during construction periods. 3.7 AIR QUALITY 3.7.1 Affected Environment 3.7.1.1 Standards The Federal Clean Air Act of 1970 established National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for six pollutants. These pollutants, referred to as the "Criteria Pollutants," include carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, and lead. Carbon monoxide is a colorless, odorless gas which primarily affects the cardiovascular system; vehicular emissions are a major source. Nitrogen dioxide is a gas with a yellowish -orange to reddish -brown appearance, depending upon its concentration, which impairs the respiratory system; major sources are power plants and vehicular emissions. Ozone is created through a complex reaction of hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen with sunlight at the primary catalyst; ozone affects the respiratory system. Sources of the ozone precursors include vehicle emissions, power plants, and service stations. Particulate matter refers to small aerosols which are suspended in the atmosphere and may cause irritation and damage to the respiratory system; vehicular emissions and the resuspension of road dust by vehicular activity are sources. Sulfur dioxide is a colorless gas generated by the combustion of sulfur -containing fuels, primarily affecting the respiratory system; major sources are power plants. Lead and its compounds damage the cardiovascular, renal, and nervous systems; the primary source is vehicular emissions associated with the use of leaded gasoline. Two Federal Standards exist for most of the criteria pollutants. The primary standard defines levels deemed "... necessary, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public health." The secondary standard defines levels "... necessary to protect the public welfare..." These standards are set forth in Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 50 (40 CFR Part 50). The promulgation of these standards, however, does not prohibit any State from establishing air quality standards which are more stringent. The Federal Standards are also subject to periodic review and revision as deemed necessary by the Administrator of the Environment Protection Agency (EPA). 3-87 In 1987, the standard for particulate matter was revised by the EPA from total suspended particulate matter (TSP), aerosols with diameters up to approximately 45 micron, to those aerosols with aerodynamic diameters of 10 micron or less. This new standard was referred to as PM10. The NAAQS and the State of Hawaii Standards for this and the other criteria pollutants are presented in Table 3.7.1, Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards. The annual standards are not to be exceeded; the remaining standards are not to be exceeded more than once per year, with the exception of ozone and PMjo. Compliance with the Standards for these pollutants is determined by the number of days during any three consecutive years that the respective standard is exceeded and is not to exceed an average of 1.0 days for any three-year period. The State of Hawaz i Standards are similar to the NAAQS except for carbon monoxide and nitrogen dioxide, which are more stringent. TABLE 3.7.1 Federal and State Ambient Air Quality Standards ppm = parts per million * Mg/M3(PPM) ** No Standard Source: 40 CFR Part 50. DOH 1997. EPA -600/4-77-027a, May 1977. The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 authorized the EPA to designate those areas that had not met the NAAQS as "non -attainment" and to classify them according to their degree of severity. States that fail to attain the NAAQS for any of the criteria pollutants are required to submit State Implementation Plans (SIP's) which outline those actions which will be taken to attain compliance. There are no non -attainment areas in the State of Hawai' i. M Federal Standards State Standards Averaging Pollutant Time Primary Secondary pgW(ppm) ggW(ppm) /1g/m3(ppm) Carbon Monoxide* 1 -hr. 40 (35) ** 10(8.8) 8 -hr. 10 (9) ** 5(4.5) Nitrogen Dioxide Annual 100(0-05) 100 (0.5) 70 (0.037) Ozone 1 -hr. 235 (0.12) 235 (.12) 100 (0.05) PM10 24 -hr. 150 150 150 Annual 50 50 50 Sulfur Dioxide 3 -hr. ** 1300 (5) 1300 (0.5) 24 -hr. 365 (0.14) ** 365 (0.14) Annual 80(0.3) ** 80 (0.03) Lead Calendar 1.5 1.5 1.5 Quarter ppm = parts per million * Mg/M3(PPM) ** No Standard Source: 40 CFR Part 50. DOH 1997. EPA -600/4-77-027a, May 1977. The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 authorized the EPA to designate those areas that had not met the NAAQS as "non -attainment" and to classify them according to their degree of severity. States that fail to attain the NAAQS for any of the criteria pollutants are required to submit State Implementation Plans (SIP's) which outline those actions which will be taken to attain compliance. There are no non -attainment areas in the State of Hawai' i. M In late 1996, EPA proposed new standards for both particulate matter and ozone (Federal Register; December 13, 1996). EPA proposed to revise the PM1, standard, to add standards for particles with diameters of 2.5 micron or less (PM2.5), and to revise the method for the determination of exceedances. For ozone, it was proposed that the attainment of the standard would be based on 8 -hour averages rather than on 1 -hour averages. In addition, the level of the ozone standard would be lowered from the present 0.12 parts per million (ppm) to 0.08 ppm, and the method for the determination of exceedances would also be revised. The new standards have been approved (Federal Register; July 18, 1997). 3.7.1.2 Pollutant Levels Levels of the criteria pollutants are monitored by DOH, Clean Air Branch at twelve locations on the Islands of Oahu, Kauai, and Maui; no State monitoring sites currently exist on the Island of Hawai i. The most recent published data available from these locations is for the period 1991 through 1993. A review of these data indicated that at most locations neither the Federal nor the State Standards had been exceeded for most of the pollutants. There was one exceedance of the Federal 24 -Hour Standard for PMI,inKapolei, Oahu; two exceedances of the State 1 -Hour Standard for carbon monoxide at each of the DOH and West Beach, Oahu sites; and sixteen exceedances of the State 1 -Hour Standard for ozone on Sand Island, Oahu. Discussions with the Clean Air Branch indicated that HELCO has collected air quality data on the Island of Hawai i. Subsequent discussions with HELCO resulted in the acquisition of data summaries for the period 9/10/92 through 12/31/93. A summary of the concentrations obtained near Puna, Hawai' i during 1993 is presented in Table 3.7.2, Air Quality Summary 1993, Maximum Ambient Concentrations at Puna, Hawaii - /vg/m3(ppm). These values represent the maximum concentration obtained during the various time intervals defined by the NAAQS. None of the values exceed either the Federal or State Standards. Concentrations of these pollutants along the Saddle Road alignment may be considered to be no higher and probably lower than those listed in Table 3.7.2 due to the rural nature of the alignment area. TABLE 3.7.2 Air Quality Summary 1993, Maximum Ambient Concentrations at Puna, Hawai i - /cg/m3(ppm) Maximum Percent of Standards Pollutant Averaging Time Concentration µg/m3(ppm) Federal State Carbon 1 -hr 0.800 (0.7) 2% 8% Monoxide* 8 -hr 0.343 (0.3) 3% 7% Nitrogen Annual 2(0.001) 2% 3% Dioxide TABLE 3.7.2 Air Quality Summary 1993, Maximum Ambient Concentrations at Puna, Hawaii - yg/m3(ppm) * mg/m'(ppra) NA - Not Available Source: HELCO, July 1997. DOH 1997. EPA -600/4-77-027a, May 1977. 3.7.2.1 Impact Assessment The air quality analysis performed for assessing impacts from the proposed Saddle Road improvements focused on vehicle emissions of carbon monoxide (VSI 1997, Technical Appendices, Volume VI). Other pollutants, such as particulate matter (PM,o) and oxides of nitrogen are also components of vehicular emissions; however, the impacts of carbon monoxide are most easily assessed and provide a convenient measure of air quality impact. Ozone, nitrogen oxides, and hydrocarbons are pollutants that are regional in nature, and as such, meaningful evaluation at the project level is not possible. The EPA is currently developing procedures for analyzing microscale particulate pollution impacts, but since guidance is not available at this time, an analysis for PM,, was not performed. The analysis concentrated on the local impact of carbon monoxide emissions estimated for the existing conditions, and for the No Action and Action Alternatives in 2014. 3.7.2.1.1 Methodology and Assumptions The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) and NEPA require that air quality impacts be addressed in the preparation of environmental documents for any proposed project. The level of effort utilized to evaluate these impacts may vary from a simplified qualitative description to a detailed microscale analysis depending on factors such as the type of document to be prepared, the project location and size, meteorological conditions, air quality attainment status of the area, 3-90 Maximum Percent of Standards Pollutant Averaging Concentration Time /sg/ma(ppm) Federal State Ozone 1 -hr 92 (0.047) 40% 92% PMI0 24 -hr 32 21% 21% Annual 14 28% 28% Sulfur Dioxide 3 -hr 585 (0.22) 45% 45% 24 -hr 117 (0.045) 32% 32% Annual 5(0.002) 6% 6% Lead Calendar NA -- -- Quarter * mg/m'(ppra) NA - Not Available Source: HELCO, July 1997. DOH 1997. EPA -600/4-77-027a, May 1977. 3.7.2.1 Impact Assessment The air quality analysis performed for assessing impacts from the proposed Saddle Road improvements focused on vehicle emissions of carbon monoxide (VSI 1997, Technical Appendices, Volume VI). Other pollutants, such as particulate matter (PM,o) and oxides of nitrogen are also components of vehicular emissions; however, the impacts of carbon monoxide are most easily assessed and provide a convenient measure of air quality impact. Ozone, nitrogen oxides, and hydrocarbons are pollutants that are regional in nature, and as such, meaningful evaluation at the project level is not possible. The EPA is currently developing procedures for analyzing microscale particulate pollution impacts, but since guidance is not available at this time, an analysis for PM,, was not performed. The analysis concentrated on the local impact of carbon monoxide emissions estimated for the existing conditions, and for the No Action and Action Alternatives in 2014. 3.7.2.1.1 Methodology and Assumptions The 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) and NEPA require that air quality impacts be addressed in the preparation of environmental documents for any proposed project. The level of effort utilized to evaluate these impacts may vary from a simplified qualitative description to a detailed microscale analysis depending on factors such as the type of document to be prepared, the project location and size, meteorological conditions, air quality attainment status of the area, 3-90 and State Air Quality Standards. For an Environmental Impact Statement, "the air quality discussion ... should normally include at least the results of a simplified CO analysis (FHWA, August 1993)." A simplified analysis can utilize look -up tables to estimate emission factors and nomographs to estimate carbon monoxide concentrations. If 1 -hour concentrations obtained using this screening technique are less than 15 ppm, a more detailed analysis should not be needed. A simplified approach to evaluate the air quality impacts associated with the proposed action was selected due to the attainment status of the area, its rural nature, the relatively small traffic volumes, lack of major intersections, and estimated level of service. The emission factors were obtained using the EPA model MOBILE5a. To provide a conservative estimate of resulting concentrations, an attempt was made to utilize worst case inputs to the model. The roadway alignment and right-of-way widths were identified and used to determine average source height, roadway and right-of-way widths, and receptor locations for input into CAL3QHC (Rust 1994). For screening purposes, the alignment was assumed to be east -west; the minimum reported travel lane and right-of-way width for the current and design year conditions were utilized to provide a conservative estimate of resulting CO concentrations. Traffic volumes for the years 1996 and 2014 were based on the current and projected ADT, respectively, and were adjusted to provide a peak -hour volume (Rust 1994). An average vehicle speed of 80 km per hour was assumed for the current and the 2014 No Action Alternative, and 88 km per hour for the 2014 action alternatives. Receptors were located at the right-of-way and at increasing intervals of 10 meters out to 100 meters from the roadway centerline. The selection of each of the meteorological conditions was based on the need to estimate the maximum carbon monoxide concentrations obtainable under poor dispersion conditions. 3.7.2.1.2 Results Predicted maximum one-hour concentrations of carbon monoxide were calculated for receptors at various distances from the roadway centerline for the current traffic conditions and configuration; for the estimated traffic conditions in 2014 without the project; and for the estimated traffic conditions and proposed improvements in 2014. Before comparing the predicted concentrations with the one-hour standard, however, a background concentration must be added. It is anticipated that background levels of CO along Saddle Road are very low due to the rural nature of the area, the low maximum value obtained near Puna by HELCO, and the background concentration recommended by the DOH for a Draft EIS prepared for the Kealakehe Parkway in north Kona. For the air quality analysis prepared for that DEIS, a value of 0.3 ppm was recommended by the DOH as a background CO concentration; this value is also used to represent the background CO concentration along Saddle Road (FHWA 1995). Maximum 1 -hour concentrations predicted for the Saddle Road alignment are presented in Table 3.7.3, Maximum Predicted 1 -Hour Concentrations of CO, Saddle Road, no separate 8 -hour analysis was prepared due to the low 1 -hour values obtained (FHWA 1993). 3-91 TABLE 3.7.3 Maximum Predicted 1 -Hour Concentrations of CO (ppm)' Saddle Road Distance from Roadway Centerline (m) 1996 Configuration 2014 No Action 2014 Action 10 0.4 0.6 NA 20 0.4 0.5 0.9 30 0.4 0.4 0.8 40 0.4 0.4 0.7 50 0.3 0.4 0.6 60 0.3 0.4 0.6 70 0.3 0.4 0.6 80 0.3 0.4 0.5 90 0.3 0.4 0.5 100 0.3 0.4 0.5 ' includes 0.3 ppm as background ' within the right-of-way 3.7.2.1.3 Environmental Consequences All Action Alternatives. Predicted maximum 1 -hour concentrations for 2014 associated with the proposed improvements to Saddle Road may increase slightly over the No Action Alternative due to the increase in the predicted traffic volume; however, predicted concentrations are extremely low and do not exceed either the Federal or State Standards. Short-term impacts to CO may occur during construction due to the interruption of normal traffic flow. Efforts should be made to reduce queuing, especially during the peak hours of travel. Short-term impacts to PMI, may also occur during the construction phase, but these may be reduced through the use of watering or other dust -control measures. Temporary, localized impacts to air quality would be anticipated during construction, associated with the generation of fugitive dust and the emissions generated by construction equipment and vehicles. No Action Alternative. Under the No Action Alternative, maximum predicted 1 -hour concentrations of CO for 2014 may increase slightly over current conditions due to the increased 3-92 traffic volume predicted for 2014. The predicted 1 -hour concentrations, however, neither exceed nor approach the Federal and State Standards. With the No Action Alternative, no construction -related impacts to air quality would occur. 3.7.2.1.4 Conformity Since 1977 Federal agencies and Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO) have been required by Section 176c of the Clean Air Act to ensure that all transportation projects conform with the approved air quality State Implementation Plans. The Clean Air Act Amendments enacted in 1990 defined conformity to a SIP as meaning "conformity to a SIP's purpose of eliminating or reducing the severity and number of violations of the NAAQS" (Federal Register, November 30, 1993). The conformity determinations for Federal actions related to transportation projects must meet the requirements of 40 CFR Part 51, subpart T. There are no non -attainment areas in Hawaii and resulting SIP, however, the Saddle Road Project is included in the federally required State Transportation Improvement Program. 3.7.3 Mitigation Measures All Action Alternatives. Standard dust control and construction equipment emission control measures will be implemented as necessary to reduce temporary impacts to air quality during construction activities. Water or a dust palliative will be applied as necessary to minimize particulate pollution. Areas to receive such treatment will include unpaved access roads, staging sites, and construction areas where the movement and operation of construction equipment produces airborne dust. No water will be used from on-site sources such as stockponds, streams or sinks. Construction equipment will meet all applicable emission standards. 3.8 NOISE 3.8.1 Affected Environment Ambient noise levels along Saddle Road within the project corridor are generally low, reflecting the light traffic volumes on Saddle Road and the undeveloped and unpopulated nature of much of the landscape. Noise levels in the vicinity of PTA can be periodically high in association with military training activities (e.g., live firing of artillery) and low-flying aircraft, including helicopters and jet fighters. 3.8.1.1 Noise Fundamentals Noise from roadway vehicles is generated by the engine, exhaust, tire -roadway interaction, brakes, vehicle vibration, and air disturbance. Roadway traffic noise is influenced by vehicle 3-93 speed, vehicle volume, auto -truck mix, and roadway geometrics. The effects of traffic noise on surrounding areas depends on the noise levels generated, background noise levels, intervening terrain, and nature of land uses. Noise from a highway can be approximated with a model. The magnitude of noise reaching a particular structure is inversely related to the distance from the source. Noise levels are also reduced as sound waves are diffracted around or blocked by obstacles in their path. Sound waves travel over different paths, over different distances and arrive at a particular spot (receptor) at different times. This results in a constantly changing noise level at any receptor. To quantify a noise level, an average noise level over a specified interval of time can be used. This average over a 1 -hour period is referred to as the Leq(h). Noise levels are described by a logarithmic scale in units of decibels (dB). The human ear perceives noises of different frequency in different ways. The A -weighted decibel scale (dBA) approximates human perception of the overall noise spectrum and is therefore used in most noise studies. All noise levels in this report are in terms of peak hour dBA Leq. Small changes in noise levels (3 dBA or less) are not noticeable by the average person. Because the dB scale is logarithmic, a 10 dBA increase in noise level is generally perceived as a doubling of the sound. 3.8.1.2 Methodology The FHWA has adopted Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC) that establish acceptable hourly, A -weighted decibel levels (dBA) for various land use activity categories. These criteria are set forth in 23 CFR 772 and implemented in Hawaf is Noise Analysis and Abatement Policy (HDOT 1996). For the purposes of this study, noise levels were considered to have an impact when they approached or exceeded the NAC, or when the predicted noise levels substantially exceeded the existing noise levels. Table 3.8.1, Noise Abatement Criteria, Hourly A -Weighted Sound Level - Decibels (dBA), summarizes the FHWA NAC for various land use categories (Activity Categories). Noise abatement measures were considered for receptors with noise levels expected to approach or exceed the NAC or with expected substantial increases in noise. Noise levels within one decibel of the NAC were considered to "approach" the criteria. Within the project corridor, the most restrictive land use is Category B, with an NAC of 67 dBA Leq. For Category B, an approach of the NAC was considered to be a noise level of 66 dBA Lw. Category B land uses include residences, parks, churches, motels, and hotels. A substantial increase was defined as a predicted noise level at least 15 dBA Leq greater than the existing noise level. The commercial and industrial land uses within the project corridor fall within Category C, with an NAC of 72 dBA Leq. No Category A lands, for which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significance and serve an important public need, are located within the study area. Mam TABLE 3.8.1 Noise Abatement Criteria, Hourly A -Weighted Sound Level - Decibels (dBA) Activity Category Leq(h)r Description of Activity Category A 57 Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary (Exterior) significance and serve an important public need and where the preservation of those qualities is essential if the area is to continue to serve its intended purpose. B 67 Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sports areas, (Exterior) parks, residences, motels, hotels, schools, churches, libraries, and hospitals. C 72 Developed lands, properties or activities not included in (Exterior) Categories A or B above. D --- Undeveloped lands. E 52 Residences, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools, (Interior) churches, libraries, hospitals, and auditoriums. Source: 23 CFR 772. ' (L,(,)) = Average noise level over a one-hour period. FHWA has developed the Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model to estimate existing and future highway noise levels. The STAMINA/OPTIMA computer program, which is based on the FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model, was used for the analysis. Noise modeling was conducted using existing traffic data and projected traffic data for 20 years in the future. Modeling results establish the noise conditions for existing conditions, the year 2014 with the proposed project, and 2014 with No Action Alternative (Rust 1997, Technical Appendices, Volume VI). Noise levels were modeled at 45 locations, at sites of selected sensitive land uses near the existing or proposed highway in developed areas of Sections I, II and IV. The locations modeled are referred to as modeled receptor sites, and have been numbered within each of the three geographic areas for identification purposes. In some cases, a modeled receptor site provides noise data for more than one sensitive receptor. (Sensitive receptors are sites where land uses sensitive to noise could potentially be adversely impacted by noise increases from a project.) The number of sensitive receptors affected is noted within the results. 3.8.2 Environmental Consequences All Action Altematives. Implementation of any of the action alternatives will result in impacts from construction activities. These impacts would be considered short-term and localized. Construction -related noise impacts would be most notable in developed areas, particularly areas considered sensitive to noise (e.g., EX -4A). 3-95 Section I One modeled receptor site was located in Section I (Figure 3.8.1, Section I Modeled Receptor Sites). Modeled receptor site RI represents a residence at the Waiki'i Ranch, located about 48 m north and east of existing Saddle Road. The existing noise level at RI is 48 dBA. Table 3.8.2, Existing and Future Noise Levels (dBA) at Modeled Receptor Sites, Section I, summarizes the change in noise levels anticipated with the proposed alternative segments and with the No Action Alternative. W-2 and W-3. With the selection of Segments W-2 or W-3, Saddle Road traffic would be routed off of this portion of the existing road, and therefore, traffic noise associated with the implementation of W-2 or W-3 would not adversely affect future noise levels at this modeled receptor site (Table 3.8.2). No Action Alternative. With the No Action Alternative, Saddle Road traffic would continue to use this segment of Saddle Road. With growth in traffic volumes, noise levels at this residence would be expected to increase to 55 dBA Leq. This increase would not approach or exceed the NAC (Table 3.8.2), nor would it be considered a substantial increase over the existing noise level. TABLE 3.8.2 Existing and Future Noise Levels (dBA) at Modeled Receptor Sites, Section I Modeled Number of Existing Receptor Receptors Road W-2 W-3 No Action Site Represented 1994 2014 2014 2014 R1 1 48 No Effect No Effect 55 All values expressed as peak hour dBA L,, Section II Six modeled receptor sites were located within Section II (Figure 3.8.2, Section II Modeled Receptor Sites). RI represents a group of barracks located just north of existing Saddle Road on the south side of the PTA. The existing noise level for RI is 48 dBA Leq. PRI and PR2 are located at the north side of the PTA, close to Segment PTA -1. The existing noise level for each of these modeled receptor sites is 33 dBA Leq. R2 represents a residence located north of Saddle Road at Mauna Kea State Park. The existing noise level at R2 is 48 dBA Leq. R3 and R4 represent two groups of cabins at Mauna Kea State Park, a total of 11 sensitive receptors. The existing noise levels are 42 dBA Leq at R3 and 38 dBA Leq at R4. Table 3.8.3, Existing and Future Noise Levels (dBA) at Modeled Receptor Sites, Section II, summarizes the change in noise levels anticipated with the proposed alternative segments and with the No Action Alternative. EX -2. With the selection of EX -2, Saddle Road would be improved on its existing alignment through Section II. For 2014, noise levels at the six modeled receptor sites would increase, Existing Saddle Rood O "-/'�� n W Ranch -9 • Noise Modeling RI Location \ U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION CENTRAL FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION DENVER, COLORADO SECTION I D KERS 1030 MODELED RECEPTOR SITES SCPEE m1�0� 1.2W.000 FIGURE 3.8.1 C-) ©�I' — a I \ akUIM, aly ng Area EX -2 J' \ /L\\ �J A �A. 'S G4� � Noise Modeling R/ Location PTA -1 i \ J / \ \ S\, � I U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DNSPOR FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION fFNiRA1 FF METAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION SECTION II MODELED RECEPTOR SITES FIGURE 3.8.2 ranging from 47 to 61 dBA L,q (Table 3.8.3). Noise levels at these modeled receptor sites would not approach or exceed the NAC. A substantial increase would occur at RI and PRI. PTA -1 and PTA -3. With the selection of PTA -1 and PTA -3, Saddle Road traffic would be routed off the existing road. Noise levels would remain at approximately the same levels at Rl, and would increase at the other receptors (Table 3.8.3). For 2014, the NAC would be exceeded at PR2 and substantial increases would occur at PRI, PR2 and R4 with implementation of alternative Segments PTA -1 or PTA -3. Three barracks at the PTA would experience noise levels ranging from 65 dBA L�q (PRI) to 68 dBA Leq (PR2). One group of eight cabins at the Mauna Kea State Park (R4) would experience a substantial increase of 16 dBA L,q. No Action Altemative. With the No Action Alternative, Saddle Road traffic would continue to use this segment of Saddle Road. With growth in traffic volumes, the noise levels for the year 2014 would increase at all six modeled receptor sites, ranging from 40 to 55 dBA L,q, although none would approach or exceed the NAC (Table 3.8.3), nor experience substantial increases above the existing noise levels. TABLE 3.8.3 Existing and Future Noise Levels (dBA) at Modeled Receptor Sites, Section H Modeled Receptor Site Number of Receptors Represented Existing Road 1994 EX -2 2014 PTA -1 2014 PTA -3 2014 No Action 2014 R1 Group of Barracks 46 61 48 48 53 PRI Group of Barracks 33 48 65 65 40 PR2 3 33 47 68 68 40 R2 1 48 60 60 60 55 R3 3 42 56 56 56 49 R4 8 38 52 54 54 45 All values expressed as peak hour dBA L, Section III No noise sensitive land uses, or corresponding receptors, are located within Section III of the project corridor. 3-97 Section IV Thirty-seven modeled receptor sites were modeled within Section IV (Figure 3.8.3, Section IV Modeled Receptor Sites). R2, R4 and R9 represent three groups of second-tier residences (houses not located immediately adjacent to the roadway) located between 66 and 104 m from the proposed centerline of Segment EX -4A. Existing noise levels at these modeled receptor sites range from 44 to 47 dBA L.q. R1 l represents a location about 10 m from the right-of-way of Segment EX -4A at the State-owned Hilo Forest Reserve. The existing noise level at this modeled receptor site is 52 dBA L.q. Modeled receptor sites E3-1 through E3-5 represent 14 residences located near Segment E-3. Existing noise levels range from 29 to 36 dBA Leq. The remaining 28 modeled receptor sites represent a total of 52 residences located on properties that abut existing Saddle Road. The existing noise levels for these modeled receptor sites range from 44 to 60 dBA Lw [Table 3.8.4, Existing and Future Noise Levels (dBA) at Modeled Receptor Sites, Section IV]. X-4 . With the selection of EX -4A, Saddle Road would be improved on its existing alignment through most of Section IV, but would diverge from this alignment to follow an existing transmission line. For 2014, noise levels at all but three of the modeled receptor sites locations (R5e, R6a, and R7) would increase, ranging from 44 to 73 dBA Leq. Noise levels would approach or exceed the NAC at 17 modeled receptor sites (29 residences); of these 17 sites, 7 (13 residences) would experience substantially increased noise levels. Substantial increases in noise would occur at 18 additional residences where noise levels would not approach or exceed the NAC. EE=3. With the selection of E-3, Saddle Road traffic would be routed off of this segment of the existing road. Noise levels would decrease at 25 modeled receptor sites, would remain at the same level at 2 modeled receptor sites, and would increase at 10 modeled receptor sites. Selection of E-3 would produce substantial noise level increases of 22 to 34 dBA Leq, at modeled receptor sites E3-1 through E3-5, but noise levels would not approach or exceed the NAC at any of the modeled receptor sites (Table 3.8.4). No Action Alternative. With the No Action Alternative, Saddle Road traffic would continue to use this segment of Saddle Road. With growth in traffic volumes, the noise levels for the year 2014 would increase at all 37 modeled receptor sites. Two modeled receptor sites (Rlb, R5e) would approach or exceed the NAC (Table 3.8.4), but substantial increases over existing noise levels are not anticipated at any of the modeled receptor sites. Table 3.8.5, Summary of Noise Impacts on Noise -Sensitive Receptors, identifies the number of noise -sensitive receptors that would be expected to approach or exceed the NAC, or to experience substantial noise increases. Existing Saddle Road 0 METERS 1000 SCALE RAH. IS1000 wo IIVi � 17 R5e Rlc 6•l i R3b,,R/e1 • Noise Modeling RI Location L 1 FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION CENTRAL FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION DENVER, COLORADO SECTION IV MODELED RECEPTOR SITES FIGURE 3.8.3 iI I I I E-3 0 METERS 1000 SCALE RAH. IS1000 wo IIVi � 17 R5e Rlc 6•l i R3b,,R/e1 • Noise Modeling RI Location L 1 FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION CENTRAL FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION DENVER, COLORADO SECTION IV MODELED RECEPTOR SITES FIGURE 3.8.3 iI TABLE 3.8.4 Existing and Future Noise Levels (dBA) at Modeled Receptor Sites, Section N Modeled Number of Existing Receptor Receptors Road EX4A E-3 No Action Site Represented 1994 2014 2014 2014 R1 1 54 66 49 61 Rla 2 51 64 49 58 Rlb 2 59 73 48 66 Rlc 4 50 65 48 57 Rld 1 54 68 48 61 Rlc 4 55 68 47 62 R2 Group 44 60 48 51 R3 2 55 70 48 62 Ria 3 54 69 48 61 R3b 1 54 69 48 61 R4 Group 44 59 50 51 R4a 3 54 69 49 61 R5 1 53 67 51 60 Rya 2 52 66 50 60 R5b 1 55 69 50 62 R5c 3 54 68 50 61 R5d 3 54 61 48 61 R5e 1 60 57 47 67 R6 1 53 57 47 60 R6a 1 55 55 46 62 R7 2 57 53 46 65 R7a 1 49 52 46 56 R7b 1 47 54 47 54 R7c 2 51 52 46 58 R8 2 56 57 48 63 R9 Group 47 61 50 54 R9a 3 54 65 51 61 R10 1 55 70 53 62 R10a 1 56 68 52 63 R10b 1 54 69 52 61 R10c 1 2 52 67 52 59 RI1 0 52 66 65 59 E3-1 4 31 46 60 38 E3-2 1 30 45 64 37 E3-3 1 29 44 62 36 E3-4 5 36 52 58 43 E3-5 3 35 51 59 42 3-99 TABLE 3.8.4 Existing and Future Noise Levels (dBA) at Modeled Receptor Sites, Section IV Modeled Number of Existing Segment or Greater Substantial Noise Increases Receptor Receptors Road EX4A E-3 No Action Site Represented 1994 2014 2014 2014 Total 66 1 1 -- -- 2 groups of barracks All values expressed as peak hour dBA L.Q All modeled receptor sites represent residences except for RI 1. R 1 represents areas in a forest reserve. TABLE 3.8.5 Summary of Noise Impacts on Noise -Sensitive Receptors Section and No. of Receptors at 66 dBA No. of Additional Receptors with Segment or Greater Substantial Noise Increases Section I W-2 0 0 W-3 0 0 No Action 0 0 Section II EX -2 0 2 groups of barracks PTA -1 3 8 + 1 group of barracks PTA -3 3 8 + 1 group of barracks No Action 0 0 Section III EX -3 0 0 No Action 0 0 Section IV EX -4A 29 18 E-3 0 14 No Action 3 0 3.8.3 Mitigation Measures W-2 and W-3. No mitigation measures are recommended for W-2 or W-3 because noise levels would not approach or exceed the NAC, and no substantial increases in noise levels are anticipated. EX -2. Noise mitigation measures are not recommended for EX -2, because of additional noise generated by periodic military exercises at the PTA, the sporadic occupancy of the affected barracks, and plans to relocate the barracks. 3-100 PTA -1. and PTA -3. Consideration of noise mitigation measures, i.e. noise barriers, would be warranted ifPTA-1or PTA -3 is selected. The state Noise Analysis and Abatement Policy (Hawaii DOT, 1996) indicates, however, that noise abatement measures must be reasonable and feasible. The policy states that barriers must provide substantial noise reductions of at least 5 dBA. A barrier placed along the right-of-way edge at heights ranging from 3 to 7 m was considered. The noise reduction provided by this barrier ranged from 1 dBA for a 3 m barrier to 3 dBA for a 7 m barrier. Based upon these results, it was concluded that the barrier considered was not effective at reducing noise levels at the receptor. The modeled receptor site is elevated several meters above the proposed roadway, and it would not be feasible to construct a barrier high enough to provide 5 dBA noise abatement. Therefore, a noise abatement barrier for this location is not recommended. EX -3. Noise mitigation measures are not recommended for EX -3, because no sensitive receptors would be affected by traffic noise increases along this segment. EX -4A. Consideration of noise mitigation measures is warranted if EX -4A is selected. Among the options for mitigating highway noise, construction of a noise barrier is the only one with the potential to mitigate noise in this case. Unfortunately, construction of a solid, uninterrupted noise wall would not be possible because it would block a number of existing approach roads that provide access to residential properties along Saddle Road. Constructing a noise barrier with openings or gaps to accommodate intersecting roadways would have a limited effect on reducing traffic noise levels for homes in the vicinity of these intersecting roadways. Noise reduction benefits of a noise barrier would be further compromised in the area of Country Club Lane because of the higher elevation of homes in close proximity to the south side of the road. For these reasons, mitigation measures are not considered reasonable or feasible and are not recommended for EX -4A. EE=3. Consideration of noise mitigation measures for E-3 is warranted. The Noise Analysis and Abatement Policy (Hawaii DOT, 1996) indicates that noise abatement measures must be reasonable and feasible. The policy states that barriers must provide substantial noise reductions of at least 5 dBA and that abatement costing $35,000 per residence or less is a reasonable cost. Table 3.8.6, Barrier Analysis for Alternative E-3, gives the results of a barrier analysis conducted for Modeled receptor sites E3-5. Barriers at three locations placed along the right-of-way edge and having heights ranging from 3 to 7 m were considered. Costs for the barriers were estimated based on a unit cost of $323 per mZ. 3-101 TABLE 3.8.6 Barrier Analysis for Alternative E-3 Receptor Barrier Height Om 3m 4m 5m 6m 7m Noise Level (dBA) E3-1 60 60 60 60 60 60 E3-2 64 64 60 59' 58' 57' E3-3 62 62 62 62 62 62 E3-4 58 57 56 54 53' 52' E3-5 59 58 57 55 53' S2' 'Represents a noise reduction of at least 5 dBA. The barriers considered were not effective at reducing noise levels at Modeled receptor sites E3-1 and E3-3. At these locations, the road surface would be constructed on fill several meters high, effectively creating a somewhat elevated roadway where it would not be feasible to construct barriers high enough to provide 5 dBA noise abatement. Therefore, noise abatement barriers for these locations are not recommended. A 5 m barrier would be adequate to produce a 5 dBA noise level reduction at Modeled receptor site E3-2, while taller barriers would be necessary to produce similar reductions at Modeled receptor sites E3-4 and E3-5. Further analysis suggests that a barrier that would produce a noise reduction of at least 5 dBA at Modeled receptor site E3-2 would have to be approximately 444 m long and 5 m high. This barrier configuration would produce a 5 dBA reduction to 59 dBA, which would still represent a substantial increase over existing noise levels. It is estimated that such a barrier would cost approximately $698,000 to construct and would benefit a single receptor. This would not be cost effective, and a noise wall at this location is not recommended. Analysis of a barrier designed to provide 5 dBA noise abatement for Modeled receptor sites E3-4 and E3-5 suggests that such a barrier would have to be about 570 m long and could vary in height from 7 m at its east end to 5 m at the west end. This barrier configuration would produce a 5 to 6 dBA reduction to 58 or 59 dBA, which would still represent substantial increases over existing noise levels. It is estimated that such a barrier would cost approximately $1,095,000 to construct and would benefit eight receptors, or about $137,000 per receptor. This would not be cost effective, and a noise wall at this location is not recommended. 3-102 3.9 FIRE HAZARD 3.9.1 Affected Environment Fire poses a grave threat to Hawaiian ecosystems by converting native habitats into grasslands dominated by nonnative species. As in other tropical areas, fires in Hawaii are usually caused by human activity. Because few native Hawaiian animals or plants are adapted to wildfires, they generally perish when exposed to fire. Native shrubs and trees may recover from fire to some degree, but native plant communities are often overwhelmed by more aggressive alien species. Many nonnative species, such as fountain grass, are pyrophytic (fire adapted) and thrive in the aftermath of fires. Unlike native shrubs and trees, many alien grasses recover quickly, increasing in ground cover and biomass after a fire. Fires encourage nonnative fountain grass, by stimulating growth from the base of clumps and encouraging seed production. The establishment of pyrophytic grasses increases the threat of additional fires. Fire represents a major disturbance, which encourages conversion of native -dominated communities into alien -dominated plant communities. Sections I and II traverse extremely dry habitat. Most of the project area within Section I has already undergone transition into alien -dominated plant communities. Within Section II, native -dominated plant communities (' aweoweo shrubland, hard -stemmed lovegrass grassland, 'K ali i shrubland, and mamane/naio forest) are extremely vulnerable to destruction by wildfire. Fire has been identified as the single greatest threat to the continued survival of the endangered Palila (Cross Reference: 3.18.1 Affected Environment) and other sensitive species which rely on the mamane/naio forest habitat. Sections III and IV are not highly susceptible to fire hazard, as they are characterized by heavy rainfall. 3.9.2 Environmental Consequences The proposed project would increase the likelihood of wildfire caused by human activity. Improvement of the road would substantially increase the number of vehicles traversing the area. Fires have been ignited by cigarettes thrown from car windows and by the hot catalytic converters of vehicles pulling off of the pavement in grassy areas. During construction, the use of construction equipment would increase the risk of fire ignition. After completion of the construction phase of the project, there would be a permanently heightened risk of wildfire. Section I While implementation of either W-2 or W-3 would increase the fire hazard by increasing the number of vehicles traversing this fire -prone area, locating the road south of the existing alignment would move the fire hazard farther from Palila Critical Habitat. Since most of Section I has already undergone transition into alien -dominated plant communities, little change in vegetation type is anticipated. 3-103 Section II Implementation of EX -2, PTA -1, or PTA -3 in Section II would increase the risk of wildfire, especially in dry native habitats. The PTA -I alignment would create the greatest risk to particularly sensitive areas, as it is close to the slope of Mauna Kea. Fighting fires with conventional methods is difficult due to rugged topography and the lack of access roads. It is not anticipated that implementation of EX -3, EX -4A, or E-3 would substantially increase the risk of wildfire. No Action Alternative. No construction -related increase in the fire hazard would result from the No Action Alternative. With an increase in the number of vehicles using Saddle Road, the risk of wildfire would be expected to increase, although to a lesser extent than with the action alternatives. 3.9.3 Mitigation Measures The standard typical section proposed for this roadway (Typical Section A) consists of two 3.6-m travel lanes with 2.4-m paved shoulders. To minimize the increased risk of fire to Palila Critical Habitat, two additional typical sections were developed for vulnerable portions of the study corridor within the PTA (Typical Sections B and Q. In addition to the features included in Typical Section A, Typical Section B would include an additional 2.4-m wide strip of pavement on the north side of the highway, which would serve as a fire break. Between the shoulder and the fire break, a four -strand smooth wire fence with metal posts would be constructed at a height of 1.2 m. At the north edge of the fire break, a 0.23-m extruded asphalt curb would be constructed (Cross Reference: 2.1 Design Parameters Common All Action Alternatives). In addition to the features included in Typical Section A, Typical Section C would include additional 2.4-m wide strips of pavement on both the north and south sides of the highway, which would serve as fire breaks. Between the shoulders and the fire breaks, a 4 -strand smooth wire fences with metal posts would be constructed at a height of 1.20 m. At the edges of the fire breaks, 0.23-m extruded asphalt curbs would be constructed (Cross Reference: 2.1 Design Parameters Common All Action Alternatives). The rationale for the specific components of the modified sections proposed above are as follows: Typical Section B will provide 4.8 meters of non-flammable verge on the north side of the roadway to trap a burning cigarette or match thrown from a moving vehicle. The curbing at the edge of this paved fire break will stop small burning objects from coming into contact with flammable vegetation. The proposed 4 -strand smooth wire fence strung between 1.20-m high metal posts will prevent vehicles from unauthorized excursions into the fire -prone habitat found within this section further reducing the chance of an unplanned fire ignition. The emergency 3-104 telephone system will aid in rapid response to fires and rapid suppression of any such incident along the roadway. The addition of a second 2.4-m paved shoulder within Typical Section C will provide additional fire prevention for Palila Critical Habitat. The physical fire mitigation proposed will greatly reduce the risk of fire to two populations of Silene hawaiiensis (Cross reference: 3.18.1 Affected Environment) ■ With the selection of Segment PTA -1, Typical Section B will be incorporated from Station 10+000 to 21+500. Typical Section C will be incorporated from Station 21+500 to 27+270. With the selection of Segment PTA -3, Typical Section B will be incorporated into one portion of PTA -3 that is common to PTA -1, from Station 10+000 to 21+500 (PTA -1). Typical Section C will be incorporated into one portion of PTA -3 that is common to PTA -1, from Station 21+500 to 26+900 (PTA -1), and one portion of PTA -3 that is distinct to PTA -3, from Station 10+000 to 12+500. With the selection of Segment EX -2, Typical Section B will be incorporated from Station 119+100 to 123+000. Typical Section C will be incorporated from Station 129+000 to 132+500. ■ With the selection of Segment EX -2, PTA -1, or PTA -3, emergency call boxes will be installed on the north side of the road along the entire length of Section II. The emergency call box system will aid in rapid response to fires and rapid suppression of any such incident. Emergency call boxes will be spaced at approximately 2 km intervals. ■ The PTA Fire Department, with primary responsibility for responding to and fighting fire within the PTA, has upgraded their fire fighting capabilities. Key improvements include construction of six 302,800-L dip tanks, the purchase and deployment of 2 Humvee pumper trucks, and one new 7,570-L tank truck. In addition the USARG-HI in its PTA Fire Management Plan has agreed to stockpile and maintain the fire fighting equipment necessary to supply an 86 -man fire fighting detail (USARG-HI 1997). In an effort to develop effective fire management regimes for the three Palila mitigation sites, a fire ecologist will be hired on a temporary basis to create a fire model(s) consistent with current methodology for high altitude xeric plant communities. The fire ecologist will also develop a comprehensive fire management plan complete with risk assessment protocols and guidelines and consistent with Palila habitat recovery goals for use by the PTA and other fire -fighting entities (Cross Reference: Rana 1997, Technical Appendices, Volume III). ■ Following the fire modeling exercise a comprehensive fire management plan complete with risk assessment protocols and guidelines will be drafted to be consistent with Palila habitat recovery goals. The plan will be designed to offset the increased risk of wildfire and 3-105 associated threat to the existing viable Palila population on the west slope of Mauna Kea, as well as the three Palila mitigation sites. 3.10 WATER RESOURCES 3.10.1 Affected Environment Water resources and drainage characteristics occurring along the length of the project are diverse. One contributing factor to this variation from one end of the project to the other is the amount of rainfall received. Rainfall rates within the project corridor range from less than 500 mm in Sections I and II, to a high of more than 5,000 mm per year on the eastern end of the project (Cross Reference: 3.12.1.1 Climate). On the Island of Hawai i, infiltration of the substrate is high, especially in the areas of recent lava flows. Infiltration of surface water serves to recharge the island's basal groundwater aquifers. In general, streams develop slowly because of high permeability of the surface materials. Sheet flow is prevalent due to slow development of the soil mantle. No perennial rivers or streams occur in the project corridor, nor within the watersheds tributary to the Saddle Road culverts and bridges. Ephemeral stream courses occur on the windward and leeward slopes of Mauna Loa, Mauna Kea, and in the saddle between Mauna Loa and Mauna Kea. The alternative alignments cross several major ephemeral (intermittent) drainages. Locally, these drainages are often referred to as gulches. The western portion of the project area (Sections I and II) has several large ephemeral drainages including Waiki i, ' Auwaiakeakua, Popo' o, Pohakuloa, and Waikahalulu Gulches, along with several unnamed drainageways. The drainages on the west side of the study corridor originate on the steep slopes of Mauna Kea and cross the existing Saddle Road at a number of bridges, culverts, and dips in the road. In section III, east of the Mauna Kea access road, drainage generally flows unchannelized parallel to the roadway. There are no drainage crossings between the Mauna Kea access road and the Kaumana area. On the eastern end of the project (Section IV), one ephemeral drainage would be crossed by the road. Since there are no perennial stream channels within the Saddle Road study corridor, no baseline data on surface water quality are available. All of the drainages within the study corridor ultimately discharge to the ocean through surface flow or through groundwater infiltration. No intermediate lakes or ponds are present within the region. The only baseline water quality data available for the study corridor are the result of required water sampling of a number of deep wells which supply drinking water. In Sections I and II, groundwater is very deep. An existing supply well at the Waiki i Ranch subdivision is in excess of 840 m deep. The well is located within 60 m of the existing Saddle Road and meets all of the 3-106 Federal standards for safe drinking water. There is no recorded contamination associated with this well despite its vicinity to Saddle Road. According to the County, there are no areas within the project vicinity designated as principal or sole source aquifers under Section 1424(e) of the Safe Drinking Water Act. 3.10.2 Environmental Consequences All Action Alternatives. Construction of the proposed roadway improvements might have limited, short-term effects on surface water quality, particularly an increase in suspended sediments during and shortly after precipitation events during the construction phase. In much of Sections I, II, and IV, construction of cuts and fills would remove vegetation, disturb soils, and change overland flow characteristics, intensifying the effects of natural erosion, until soils stabilize. Implementation of the action alternatives would result in a long-term increase in the extent of impermeable road surface due to a widened road and paved shoulders. An enlarged area of impermeable surfaces would increase surface water runoff during precipitation events. In addition, due to the geometry of roadways, an improved road would be expected to collect and concentrate stormwater runoff, potentially changing overland flow to a series of point sources. Use of the existing alignment would result in less total impermeable surface area than the new alignments. Stormwater discharges to intermittent stream channels are regulated by the EPA through the Clean Water Act (CWA) and the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. Stormwater runoff from the roadway will be tributary to stream channels during construction of the road as well as after construction is complete. During construction of the roadway, there is potential for degradation of stormwater quality from sediment as well as from construction materials mixing with stormwater. Potential sources of pollution from the roadway after construction include solids, heavy metals, and organics from fuels and motor oils. With an increase in the number of vehicles using Saddle Road, automobile accidents and vehicle breakdowns are expected to increase. With an increase in vehicle incidents, the potential for chemicals and petroleum residues to be deposited on the roadway would be expected to increase. Stormwater flowing over impermeable surfaces may pick up petroleum residues, and, if not controlled, transport them off-site. Contaminated stormwater could degrade the quality of surface waters or filter through soils and degrade groundwater resources. To determine the likelihood that runoff from Saddle Road would impact groundwater quality, a review was made of other existing wells and shafts in the project corridor (Cross Reference: 3. 10.1 Affected Environment) and elsewhere on the island. Wells or well shafts located adjacent to major highways that have been in existence for more than 20 years have experienced no known detrimental effects from surface runoff contamination. For example, the Kahaluu well shafts 3-107 located adjacent to Kamehameha III Road and Kuakini Highway in Kona, with a depth to groundwater of between 180 and 250 m, has no record of groundwater quality contamination. Groundwater testing of all of the deep wells of the County of Hawai is Department of Water Supply has not indicated any signs of groundwater contamination. Because similar wells positioned near highways have shown no signs of groundwater contamination and because best management practices (BMPs) will be employed to control runoff (Cross Reference: 3.10.3 Mitigation Measures), impacts to groundwater quality from the proposed project are not expected to be significant. j�-2. W-2 would require construction of culverts across the ephemeral ' Auwaikeakua and Popo' o Gulches. This segment would also include construction of a two-lane bridge over the ephemeral Waiki'i Gulch. Six minor ephemeral drainages would be crossed using culvert pipes. lW-3. W-3 would cross one minor ephemeral drainage, necessitating the use of culvert pipes. EX -2. EX -2 would include construction of culverts across three ephemeral drainages. PTA -1. PTA -1 would include construction of arch culverts across five ephemeral drainages. This segment would also cross four minor ephemeral drainages using culvert pipes. PTA -3. PTA -3 would include construction of arch culverts across five ephemeral drainages. This segment would also cross four minor ephemeral drainages using culvert pipes. EX -3. EX -3 would not intersect any perennial rivers or streams or ephemeral drainages. EX -4A. EX -4A would intersect one ephemeral drainage, necessitating construction of an arch culvert or equivalent structure. $,-3. E-3 would intersect one ephemeral drainage, necessitating construction of an arch culvert or equivalent structure. No Action Alternative. With the No Action Alternative, road widening, and major grade and alignment improvements would not be undertaken. No construction -related impacts to water quality, including erosion and sedimentation, would result, and no modifications would be made to existing ephemeral drainages along the corridor. There would be no increase in impermeable surfaces. With an increase in the number of vehicles using Saddle Road, automobile accidents and vehicle breakdowns are expected to increase, although to a lesser extent than with the action alternatives. With an increase in vehicle incidents, the potential for chemicals and petroleum residues to be deposited on the roadway would be expected to increase. Stormwater flowing over impermeable surfaces may pick up petroleum residues, and, if not controlled, transport them off site. Contaminated stormwater could degrade the quality of surface waters or filter through soils and 3-108 potentially impact groundwater resources. Soil materials help to naturally filter and clean the runoff water as it filters down to the groundwater. Because the existing drainage structures under Saddle Road are inadequate, storm water will continue to overtop the road, resulting in erosion and increased risk to motorists during flooding events. 3.10.3 Mitigation Measures In order to comply with the CWA, measures must be provided both during and after construction to prevent pollutants, including sediment and hazardous chemicals, from degrading the quality of stormwater runoff. As required by EPA regulations on stormwater discharges, stormwater pollution prevention measures will be required for the Saddle Road project both during and after construction (Cross Reference: 1.9 Required Permits). The Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will include the following types ofBWs. ■ Practices that prevent erosion, including the stabilization of cut and fill slopes by vegetative as well as non -vegetative means. ■ Practices that trap pollutants before they can be discharged such as silt fences and sedimentation basins. ■ Practices that prevent the mixing of pollutants from construction materials and storm water, such as providing protected storage for chemicals, paints solvents, and other toxic materials. ■ During construction, erosion will be minimized by applying temporary measures that will reduce the velocity of the runoff and retain sediment on-site. Examples of these measures may include but are not limited to: silt fences, check dams, mulching, culvert outlet protection, and sedimentation basins. Construction materials will be stored in a protected area with measures in place to contain and clean-up spills. Permanent pollution control measures will be applied to minimize degradation of stormwater quality after construction of the road has been completed. These measures include but are not limited to the following examples: providing velocity reducers and/or settlement basins at culvert outlets, vegetating slopes, minimizing the steepness of slopes where possible, providing stream bank stabilization where required, and managing the use of chemicals for roadway maintenance. ■ For Segments W-2 and W-3, cut slopes will be revegetated to reduce highway runoff pollution. 3-109 ■ If a major hazardous spill were to occur within the Saddle Road corridor, clean up efforts would be coordinated through both the County of Hawaii Civil Defense agency and the State of Hawaii Department of Health (DOH). Permitting requirements are provided in the Permits section of Chapter 1 (Cross Reference: 1.9 Required Permits). 3.11 WATERS OF THE U.S.1WETLANDS A Wetlands Determination Report was prepared for this project (Gerrish 1997, Technical Appendices, Volume III). The study area for this wetlands study was a corridor 60 in wide, 30 in either side of the surveyed and staked center -line, east of MP 19, along those segments with the potential to contain wetlands (Segments EX -3, EX -4A, and E-3). 3.11.1 Affected Environment Two botanical resource surveys were conducted for this project: one for Sections I and II, and one for Sections III and IV. The survey of the dry, leeward side of the study corridor (Sections I and II) found no areas with hydrophytic vegetation, leading to the conclusion that no wetlands occur within this part of the project area (Char 1996, Technical Appendices, Volume 1). Consultations with the USACE, including two site visits, support the finding that no waters of the U.S. are within these two project sections (Gerrish 1997, Technical Appendices, Volume III). Waters of the United States (U.S.) is a regulatory term referring to surface waters that are under the jurisdiction of the USACE. Surface waters include streams, streambeds, rivers, lakes, reservoirs, arroyos, washes, and other ephemeral watercourses and wetlands. Any actions that result in effects on waters of the U.S. require compliance with the CWA Section 404. Wetlands, as defined by the USACE, are areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support vegetation adapted for life in water -saturated soils. Wetlands are classified as "Special Aquatic Sites" and are considered waters of the U.S. Regulatory or jurisdictional wetlands ("wetlands") are those areas that meet the wetland criteria of the 1987 Delineation Manual (USACE 1987). According to the manual, a wetland is identified by three essential parameters: "hydrophytic vegetation," "hydric soil," and "wetland hydrology." Determinations of hydric soils and wetland hydrology were made by personnel of the USACE during a site visit. The USACE advised that, because of the ubiquity of hydric soils and wetland hydrology, presence of hydrophytic vegetation could be used throughout the study area as the critical parameter to determine the presence of regulatory wetlands. In this report, all areas with hydrophytic vegetation are determined to be regulatory wetlands, and are referred to simply as wetlands. 3-110 Hydrophytic Vegetation is plant cover that is dominated by plant species known to tolerate hydric soils and other wetland conditions. The dominant plants are those species that are most common on the site and have the greatest biomass. The USFWS maintains a list of plant species known to occur in wetlands, the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI). Plant species that occur in wetlands less than 1 percent of the time are Upland (UP) plants and are not included in the NWI. All other plants are listed, with a wetlands indicator status (NWI status) given. Four NWI status categories, with sub -categories are used. ■ Obligate (OBL) species: found in wetlands more than 99 percent of the time. ■ Facultative Wetland (FW) species: found in wetlands 67 to 99 percent of the time. ■ Facultative (F) species: found in wetlands 34 to 66 percent of the time. Subcategory F- species: found in wetlands 33 to 50 percent of the time. Subcategory F+ species: found in wetlands 51 to 66 percent of the time. ■ Facultative Upland (FU) species: found in wetlands 1 to 33 percent of the time. A plant community with more than 50 percent of the dominant species in the categories OBL, FW, F+ or F has hydrophytic vegetation. Regarding special aquatic sites, there are no wetlands, mud flats, vegetated shallows, coral reefs, or riffle and pool complexes, within Sections I and II of the study corridor (Char 1996, Technical Appendices, Volume I). No other waters of the U.S. are located within Sections I or II of the study corridor (Gerrish 1997, Technical Appendices, Volume III). I The botanical survey of the eastern, windward part of the project area (Sections III and IV) indicated that hydrophytic vegetation does occur here (Palmer 1997, Technical Appendices, Volume I). Review of other environmental documents and biological research publications support the conclusion that wetlands would be likely found only in Sections III and IV (DLNR 1995, Gerrish 1991, Mueller-Dombois 1977). A Wetlands Determination Study was undertaken for the project within Section III and IV (Gerrish 1997, Technical Appendices, Volume III). The study area was further limited to the area east of MP 19 (below 1540 m elevation) based on visual reconnaissance, prior familiarity with the area and the documents cited above. Hydrophytic vegetation does not occur within the Saddle Road project area above this elevation. Within this area, three major native vegetation types occur: ' ohi' a forest,' ohi' a scrub, and koa-' ohi'a forest. Appendix B contains a table providing scientific nomenclature for plants used in this discussion. ' Ohi' a Scrub. This is a simple, early succession vegetation dominated by ' ohi a and uluhe. The ohi' a trees are usually less than 10 m tall. The uluhe forms dense, tangled mats 1 m or more high. Plant diversity is low. 'Ohi'a Scrub occurs throughout the study area on the 1881 and 1855 3-111 lava flows. This vegetation type corresponds with New Lowland Wet Forest, New Lowland Wet Shrubland, New Montane Wet Forest, and New Montane Wet Shrubland (Cross Reference: 3.13.1.2 Native Vegetation Types). Koa-' Ohi' a Forest. This is the forest type on older lava substrates (kipuka) between 370 and 900 m elevation. Koa grows up to 25 m tall, dominating the upper canopy. ' Ohi' a usually forms a slightly lower canopy. The understory includes hapu'u and various native small trees, shrubs and ferns. This vegetation type is described as Old Montane Wet Forest in Section 3.13.1.2.8; on soils mapped as Ke' ei Extremely Rocky Muck (rKGD). ' Ohi a Forest. ' Ohi' a Forest occupies the older lava substrates above 900 m elevation within the study area. Within the Saddle Road corridor, koa is found only below 900 m and above 1700 m. The ' ohi' a Forest in the study area has a variably closed canopy of ohi' a up to 20 m tall and a dense understory of hapu u and a diversity of other native plants. ' Ohi' a Forests of the study area are described as Old Montane Wet Forest and Old Montane Mesic Forest (Cross Reference: 3.13.1.2 Native Vegetation Types). At low elevation within Segment E-3, close to Hilo, the primary vegetation has been disturbed or removed by residential and agricultural uses. Two of these vegetation types altered by human activity are described below. Disturbed ' Ohi a. This designation is used for areas where the vegetation has been seriously degraded by grazing, logging or other uses. The landscape is still visually dominated by 'ohi' a trees, uluhe, and other native plants. But these native elements exist within an irregular mosaic of grassy clearings. Cattle were observed actively grazing in many areas and the vegetation and soil surface show their influence. This vegetation type occurs in areas with soil mapped as Ke' ei Extremely Rocky Muck and Kaiwiki series soils, and is classified as Old Lowland Wet Forest, described as originally containing koa (Cross Reference: 3.13.1.2.6 Lowland Wet Forest). Aericultural. These areas are, or until recently were, in intensive agricultural use. The primary native vegetation has been completely removed, except in ravines or on other rough land. The Agricultural type is found on deep ash soils mapped as Kaiwiki Series (KaC, KaD, KaE). Wetlands were present on all of the ' ohi' a forest, approximately 15 percent of the ' ohi' a scrub, and less than 2 percent of the koa-' ohi' a forest, within the study area. Extensive areas of wetlands were also present in the disturbed ' ohi' a vegetation. None of the wetlands within the study area are characterized by obligate species. In general, wetlands within the study area are barely distinguishable from the surrounding uplands. These wetlands exhibit only minor variations in the proportions of wetland plants present when compared with the surrounding upland areas. Standing water, where present, is generally limited to small pockets. 3-112 3.11.2 Environmental Consequences Sections I and II No wetlands or other waters of the U.S. are located within Sections I or II of the study corridor therefore, no impacts to waters of the U.S. will result from project implementation. ns III and I All Action Alternatives. Direct impacts to wetlands are anticipated with the grading and construction of the roadway. All such construction activity, when occurring in a wetland, would constitute filling and would require a permit under Section 404 of the CWA. Indirect impacts to wetland vegetative communities could result from introduction of alien species during construction. Adverse impacts to wetlands might also be caused by the increased use of Saddle Road. These indirect impacts could include increased pollutants entering wetlands and increased disturbance of wetland habitat due to improved access and increased use of Saddle Road. The implementation of the proposed action would increase runoff at the edge of the roadway due to increased area of pavement. On the young lava flows, this runoff is expected to rapidly infiltrate and have no noticeable impact. Within the kipuka, the added runoff might not immediately infiltrate and could cause limited soil erosion or increase local soil water -logging. Early in the process of alternative segment selection, botanists identified the forests on older kipuka substrates as biologically more diverse and sensitive than the ' ohi' a scrub vegetation of the young lava flows. Earlier alternatives E-1 and E-3 through extensive sections of kipuka were rejected by the SEE Team in favor of the current E-3 location (Cross Reference: 2.3.2.3 Segments Eliminated from Consideration - Section IV). Although young lava flows do contain wetlands, all evidence indicates that the kipuka are the more valuable and more sensitive biological resource. No distinct wetland biological functions are known for any of the wetlands within the study area. These wetlands do not provide necessary habitat for any native wetland plant species. All native species found within these wetland can be found in nearby uplands as well. The wetlands of the study area have no special function in maintaining the plant diversity of the study area. The wetland vegetation types detected in this study are widespread throughout the forest reserves of windward Hawai i, a vast area. There are no known relationships between wetlands of the study area and any native animals. There is little potential for adverse impact to native animals in the part of the study area that contains wetlands (Cross Reference: 3.14 Wildlife). Disturbance of kipuka has the potential for some adverse impact on endemic birds, invertebrates, and plants. 3-113 The wetland vegetation types detected in this study are widespread throughout the koa-'ohi' a forests of windward Hawai i, an area upwards of 300,000 ha. None of these wetlands contain any unique combination of plant species. The biological value of these wetland areas is not associated with their wetland qualities. These areas are valuable as part of a large expanse of native rain forest vegetation. This rain forest is biologically significant, in part,'because it is a large, ecologically intact native ecosystem. The biological function of the larger rain forest ecosystem is the resource that should be protected, rather than the negligible biological functions of the specific wetland areas. Hydrological function of the specific wetlands areas of the study area are not distinct from the surrounding upland areas. Hydrological considerations, such as flood control and groundwater recharge do not appear to be disproportionately dependent upon areas of wetland. Furthermore, the wetland areas to be filled are dispersed and of small local extent, and filling is not expected to have detectable impact. EX -3. Total estimated disturbance of wetlands within Segment EX -3 as a result of project implementation is 2.40 ha or 23,955 square meters (m'). Of this total, 0.27 ha (2,735 m2) are within kipuka, 2.12 ha (21,220 in') are within young lava flows (Figure 3.11.1, Wetland Key Map, and Figures 3.11.2 and 3.11.3, Wetland Types and Wetland Conditions - Segment EX -3). For Segment EX -3, all wetlands are within native habitats. Wetlands within the study area have no identified specific biological or hydrological functions. EX -4A. Total estimated disturbance of wetlands within Segment EX -4A as a result of project implementation is 0.40 ha or 4,012 in'. Of this total, 0.01 ha (144 mZ) is within kipuka, and 0.39 ha (3,868 m2) are within young lava flows (Figure 3.11.4, Wetland Types and Wetland Conditions - Segment EX --4A). For Segment EX -4A, all wetlands are within native vegetation, mostly 'ohi' a scrub. Wetlands within the study area have no identified specific biological or hydrological functions. EE=3. Total estimated disturbance of wetlands within Segment E-3 as a result of project implementation is 3.24 ha (32,400 M2). Of this total, 0.01 ha (144 m2) are within koa-' ohi' a forest, 0.5 ha (5,040 m2) are within ohi' a scrub, the remaining 2.72 ha (27,216 m2) are within agriculturally -disturbed vegetation (Figure 3.11.5, Wetland Types and Wetland Locations - Segment E-3). While Segment E-3 would impact a considerably larger area of wetland than EX -4A, the significance of these impacts is best evaluated in the context of the vegetation types affected. For Segment E-3, only 0.51 ha (5,040 in') are within native habitat, compared with 0.40 ha (4,012 in') with EX -4A. The additional 2.72 ha of disturbed vegetation impacted by E-3 offers little biological value because of the highly degraded nature of the vegetation and the continuing agricultural land use. Wetlands within the study area have no identified specific biological or hydrological functions. In an effort to avoid residential relocations associated with Segment 3-114 DP 14 N n E S 00 to Sta 167+000 X60+0 3 (F►9. 2A) 5�ment E� De \ti p e p,� StO tg�xp Op ro s�O 46 F 3 0A F9 2 E 7;oro0o 10 \� P St0 20+000 to ,\ Sto 2/+970 =p; egment Ex -4A >o (F19.` .3 �Op O to °f segment E- 3 (Fig. 4l REG STATE PROJECT 511EFT TOTAL N0. SHEETS 9 RI A -AD -611 SADDLE ROAD 0 80000 /60000 Graphic Scale in Meters WETLAND KEY MAP FIGURE 3.11.1 N L Proposed Right -of -Way DQ for EX -3 --- �S o x°°°g y isl+opo B k 6R� p �q SCR •,,,�- Existing Saddle Rood ?'s S G N i 0H/A Existing Saddle Rood Legend — — Proposed Right -of -Way ---- Existing Saddle Road 930 � Contour Interval l5 meters Wetland Location Legend ® 1007 Wetland Partial Weiland Upland Existing Saddle Road 0 H / A Proposed Right -of -Way for EX -3 5U- 0 H A nHIA FnRFST �ROg 5C FOREST P I Qr MP 15 I, /-T U B 165#000 WETLAND TYPES AND WETLAND CONDITION 0 75 150 SEGMENT EX -3 STA. 160+000 TO STA. 16T+000 SCALE IN METERS FIGURE 3.11.2 SHEET TOTAL REG STATE PROJECT N0. SHEETS 9 HI A -AO -60) SADDLE ROAD Qr MP 15 I, /-T U B 165#000 WETLAND TYPES AND WETLAND CONDITION 0 75 150 SEGMENT EX -3 STA. 160+000 TO STA. 16T+000 SCALE IN METERS FIGURE 3.11.2 Ex/sting Saddle Road 0111,4X RUB ; KOA - OHIA FOREST P Z""� KOA - OHIA FOREST 11 0 KOA - OHIA FOREST oy�q SCRUB =S. Proposed Right -of -Way for EX -3 HIA OSC,gUB X 'v X n 1600 KOA - OHIA FOREST UP 10 X n1 A, X,i,�00 KOA - OHIA FOREST Legend 9 — — Proposed Right -of -Way - - - - Existing Saddle Road 930 � Contour Interval 15 meters Wetland Location Lec.end \ Partial Welland Upland Ex/sting Saddle Rood REG STATE PROJECT D+lL+ +vul NO. SREETS 9 RI A-AD"6111 SADDLE ROAD Proposed Right -of -Way for EX -3 OHIA SC8418 KOA - OHIA FOREST 1 1X S z i CENTRAL VWXNAL LA +w....• vi..arv+ OEM R. COLORADO WETLAND TYPES AND WETLAND CONDITIONS 0 75 150 SEGMENT EX -3 SCALESCALE� STA. 167+000 TO STA. 171+576 FIGURE 3. 1 1.3 N KOA - OHIA FOREST Legend — — Proposed Right -of -Way - - - - Existing Saddle Road 930 � Contour Interval 15 meters Wetland Location Legend ;. Partial Welland Upland 0 OHIA SCRUB Existing Saddle Rood 0 HI A SCRUB Proposed Right -of -Way for Ex -4a KOA - OHIA 2/1,000 FOREST Existing Saddle A NO: 1 9 1 "1 I SADDLE ROAD I I N WETLAND TYPES AND WETLAND CONDITIONS o 75 ISO SEGMENT EX -40 SCALE I� STA. 20+000 TO STA. 21+970 FIGURE 3.11.4 Existing Saddle Rood OHI A SCRUB o x 1A S C R U B 41+000 �P KOA - OHIA Wetland Location Legend ® I= Wetland OHIA SCRUB r\ FOREST DISTURBED OHIA AND 42+000 Proposed Right -of -Way for E-3 REO STATE PROJECT -Np, SHEETS 9 NIA -AD -NU SADDLE ROAD AGRICULTURAL Existing Saddle - N O R P- \ G " - IX 9A P - — — i - Proposed Right -of -Wog 1 - for E-3 -_-- -- — -,v 0 Ts ISO 44+000 ®SCALEI Partial Welland Upland Road Legend — — Proposed Right -of -Way - - - - Existing Saddle Rood ,930, Contour Interval 15 meters WETLAND TYPES AND WETLAND CONDITIONS SEGMENT E-3 STA. 40+000 TO STA. 45+502 FIGURE 3.11.5 EX -4A, several alternatives that would by-pass Kaumana were identified. The E-3 location is considered the least environmentally damaging of the possible by-passes of upper Kaumana. From the standpoint of direct, construction -related impacts on wetland and native habitat resources, Segments EX -4A and E-3 could be considered roughly comparable. No Action Alternative. No impacts to wetlands or waters of the U.S. would result from the No Action Alternative. 3.11.3 Mitigation Measures In-kind replacement of the wetlands would not be feasible. These wetlands are created by successional processes on natural lava flows, and take their character from the underlying flows. There is no known way to create such a physical substrate containing the physical complexity of natural flows. Furthermore, displacement of upland native vegetation in or near the study area, to create replacement wetlands would be an unacceptable disturbance of native vegetation. Mitigation replacement, therefore, must be off-site and out -of -kind. ; ■ Discussions have been initiated with the USACE to determine the feasibility of off-site and out -of -kind mitigation. ■ A Section 404 Individual Permit will be obtained to address impacts to waters of the U.S. FHWA has submitted an application for a 404 Individual Permit to the USACE (Cross Reference: 9.4.4 Chronological Comments, Correspondence, and Notices; letter from Henry to Graves, September 17, 1997). ■ Contamination of surrounding wetlands and watershed due to drainage, run-off, and pollutants will be minimized through the implementation of BMPs. ■ The potential for increased runoff into kipuka or other sensitive areas will be mitigated as necessary by use of appropriate drainage structures. ■ Specific design criteria will be utilized during final design of the selected alternative in Sections III and IV to afford avoidance or minimization of impacts to kipuka and the wetlands within them. Mitigation measures developed for threatened and endangered species will fence off kipuka from the adjacent right-of-way to prevent damage during construction (Cross Reference: 3.18.3 Mitigation Measures). 3-115 3.12 CLIMATE, GEOLOGIC HAZARDS, AND SOILS 3.12.1 Affected Environment 3.12.1.1 Climate The climate of Hawaii is generally characterized by mild and fairly uniform seasonal temperatures; cloudy, humid conditions along the eastern coast; and a general dominance of trade -wind flow from the northeast. The rugged configuration of the island, however, produces large variations in climatic conditions. Precipitation amounts vary widely and both precipitation and temperature are affected by elevation, distance from the ocean and exposure to the trade winds. The Saddle Road alignment encompasses a large variation in elevation, ranging from 390 m, Segment E-3, to 2055 m, Segments PTA -1 and PTA -3. Likewise, climatological conditions are also varied along the alignment, with the eastern portion typically cloudy and humid and the western section clear and dry. The most pronounced variation occurs in the amount of precipitation received. Mean annual precipitation amounts range from approximately 5,000 mm per year in the east to 400 mm per year in the west. The cloudy, humid conditions and high rainfall of the east side of the study corridor result from its windward position and increasing elevation. The maximum rainfall along the corridor occurs at 675 m elevation. At elevations below 2000 m in Hawaii temperatures decline at a fairly even rate of approximately 2.5 degrees Celcius (C) per 500 m of increasing elevation. At Hilo, near the eastern terminus, the annual average temperature is near 23'C. At Kulani Camp, to the south of the alignment (1583 m), the mean January and August temperatures are 12 and 14°C, respectively (NOAA 1974) The wind patterns on the island are also complex due to the mountainous nature of the terrain. Although the trade winds are fairly constant, this flow is disrupted by the terrain and often replaced by winds from passing storms or local upslope/downslope wind conditions. The distribution of winds along the Saddle Road alignment are likely to be quite varied. Based on wind data from the Hilo Weather Service, surface winds on the eastern project terminus occur nearly fifty percent of the time from the south through the west, average wind speeds are in excess of 6 knots, and calms account for less than four percent of the observations. Extremely strong winds are rare; wind speeds of 7.4 to 11.1 km per hour are more common. 3.12.1.2 Geologic Formations The following information on geologic formations is based on site reconnaissance and literature research for a preliminary geotechnical evaluation conducted for the Saddle Road EIS (C.W. 1996) and information provided by the National Speleological Society (Halliday 1997). 3-116 Hawai i, the largest island of the Hawaiian Archipelago, covers an area of approximately 16,360 km'. The island was formed by the activity of five shield volcanoes: Kohala (long extinct); Mauna Kea (activity during recent geologic times); Hualalai (last erupted in 1801); and Mauna Loa and Kilauea (both still active). The proposed project is located along the southern flank of Mauna Kea, the second oldest of the five volcanoes. Mauna Kea is considered a dormant volcano, which has not erupted in historical time. Mauna Loa remains active to this date and is responsible for the fresh lava flows visible from the existing road. The Humu'ula Saddle, located between Mauna Kea and Mauna Loa volcanoes, was formed by lavas erupted from both volcanoes which coalesced and formed this broad upland apron. The majority of the surficial ash and cinder deposits located within the project area were erupted from cinder vents associated with the volcanism of Mauna Kea. The alignment of these cinder vents suggests possible buried rift zones. The majority of the surficial soil and rock of the project corridor is believed to be derived from three main volcanic events referred to as the lava flows of the Hamakua and Laupahoehoe Volcanic Series associated with the Mauna Kea Volcano, and the Kau Volcanic Series associated with the Mauna Loa Volcano. Recent historic eruptions from Mauna Loa have flowed north toward Mauna Kea, where they were diverted down slope to the east. They typically consist of pahoehoe lava. Pahoehoe is characterized by a smooth, rope -like or billowy surface and an internal structure of vesicular (porous) rock. Cavities are commonly encountered within pahoehoe lavas. Most cavities are formed when the lava remains in a molten state and may represent lava tubes (intra -flow cavities), blisters, and pockets (inter -flow cavities). The proposed roadway alignments are generally underlain by four types of geologic materials, including Volcanic Ash Deposits (VA), Cinder Sand Deposits (VC), ' A' a Lava Flows (ALF), and Pahoehoe Lava Flows (PLF). Volcanic ash deposits generally consist of near -surface brown to light brown silty fine sand and sandy silt soils intermixed with some ' a' a basalt rock. In general, volcanic ash deposits were observed as a dry and powdery soil cover, deposited in layers primarily as volcanic air -fall deposits generated from pyroclastic vents associated with Mauna Kea Volcano. Volcanic ash material is easily erodible. Cinder sand deposits generally consist of poorly -graded to well -graded coarse sand and gravels, pumice cobbles, and volcanic ash, underlain by basalt rock formation. The surface is typically barren and fairly level, rainfall is high and surface runoff is low as evidenced by a general lack of erosional drainage features in these materials. ' A' a lava flows generally consist of light gray to grayish brown basalt with clinker material and occasional dense basalt layers. The material forms a rough and broken ground surface with high relief consisting of mounds or piles of very spiny plates and blocks of rock piled in tumbled heaps. Lava tubes and void spaces may occur within the interior of a' a flows, although less prevalent 3-117 than those found in pahoehoe lava. ' A' a rock is generally easier to excavate except where the core of the flow is encountered. The core of the flow often requires greater effort to excavate, including blasting and intensive chipping and ripping. Pahoehoe flows generally consist of more fluid lavas of dense basalt interbedded with relatively small clinker seams. The rock varies from highly vesicular to massive with lava tubes, blisters, and other void spaces. Voids are commonly encountered in pahoehoe flows during excavation work. The pahoehoe rock is typically devoid of soil cover except in the forested areas of the eastern project area. Table 3.12.1, Geologic Material, Saddle Road Study Corridor, identifies the primary geologic material by segment. TABLE 3.12.1 Geologic Material, Saddle Road Study Corridor Segment Station Numbers Predominant Geologic Material W-2 Station 100+000 - 114+500 Volcanic Ash Station 114+500-116+002 Cinder withsome'A'a W-3 Station 100+000 - 101+600 A' a Station 101+600 - 103+600 Volcanic Ash Station 103+600 - 107+000 A' a Station 107+000 - 111+078 Volcanic Ash EX -2 Station 119+100 - 130+800 Cinder with some Volcanic Ash Station 130+800 - 139+200 'A'a Station 139+200 - 140+700 Pahoehoe PTA -1 Station 10+000 - 11+500 Cinder with some Volcanic Ash Station 11+500 - 14+000 Cinder and'A' a with some Volcanic Ash Station 14+000 - 27+790 Cinder with some Volcanic Ash Station 27+790 - 29+270 Volcanic Ash and Cinder Station 29+270 - 30+999 Pahoehoe PTA -3 Station 10+000 - 11+500 (PTA -1) Cinder with some Volcanic Ash Station 11 +500 - 14+000 (PTA- 1) Cinder and'A'a with some Volcanic Ash Station 14+000 - 26+900 (PTA -1) Cinder with some Volcanic Ash 3-118 TABLE 3.12.1 Geologic Material, Saddle Road Study Corridor Segment Station Numbers Station 137+800 - 139+200 (EX -2 ) Predominant Geologic Material 'A' a Station 139+200 - 140+700 (EX -2 ) Pahoehoe EX -3 Station 140+700 - 143+000 Pahoehoe Station 143+000 - 144+700 ' A' a Station 144+700 - 147+000 Pahoehoe Station 147+000 - 156+000 ' A' a Station 156+000 - 171+576 Pahoehoe EX4A Station 171+576 - 172+837 Pahoehoe Station 20+000 -21+970 Pahoehoe Station 175+005 - 175+750 Pahoehoe E-3 Station 40+000 - 45+311 Pahoehoe with thin soil cover Source: (C.W. 1996). 3.12.1.3 Geologic and Volcanic Hazards The Island of Hawaii is geologically the most active of the Hawaiian Archipelago. Many volcanic eruptions and earthquakes have been recorded on this island in historic times. Faults, rift zones, lava flows, lava tubes, and vents are present. Historical records of lava flows and seismic events provide some indication of the relative risk in various geographic areas of the island (USGS 1977). While the entire island is considered a geologic hazard area, degrees of risk have been established in zones across the island. The USGS has classified the island into Lava Hazard Zones 1 through 9, in order of decreasing risk (Figure 3.12.1, Lava Hazard Zones). The Lava Hazard Zone of highest volcanic risk, Zone 1, includes those areas where more than 25 percent of the land has been covered by lava since 1800. Zone 1 areas are immediately adjacent to the calderas and major rift zones of the active volcanoes Mauna Loa and Kilauea. Zone 2 areas represent lava flow inundations of 15 to 25 percent since 1800, and zone 3 represents inundations of 1 to 15 percent. Zone 2 and 3 generally characterize areas of increasing distance downslope of active volcanoes. Lava Hazard Zones within the project corridor range from Zone 2 through Zone 8. The portion of the project from the Mamalohoa Highway to PTA crosses geologically older slopes of the 3-119 Lava Hazard Zones within the project corridor range from Zone 2 through Zone 8. The portion of the project from the Mamalohoa Highway to PTA crosses geologically older slopes of the dormant volcano Mauna Kea, within the relatively low risk Lava Hazard Zones 7 and 8. These zones reflect no lava flow activity in the past 750 years. The portion of the project from PTA (Section II) to the eastern project terminus, traverses the Mauna Loa volcanic shield in the Humu ula Saddle between Mauna Loa and Mauna Kea. Mauna Loa is an active, basaltic volcano with at least 39 summit and flank eruptions recorded historically since 1832. The eastern portion of the study corridor, roughly from the PTA to the eastern project terminus, is more at risk from volcanic activity than the western portion due to the greater volcanic activity of Mauna Loa. Lava Hazard Zone 2 and to a lesser extent Zone 3 are located within this portion of the study corridor. 3.12.1.4 Soils The following general information on soils is based on a U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Soil Survey of the Island of Hawai' i (USDA 1973). Soil type abbreviations which begin with an "r" (such as rHLD) are classified based only on reconnaissance -level surveys. K&C - Kaiwiki Silty Clay Loam. 0 to 10 Percent Slopes The Kaiwiki series consists of well -drained soils formed in volcanic ash. The surface layer is dark brown silty clay loam about 0.4 m thick. The subsoil is dark brown and dark reddish brown silty clay loam about 1.2 m thick. This soil is strongly smeary and dehydrates irreversibly into fine gravel -size aggregates. These soils are found on uplands at elevations ranging from 244 to 458 m. These soils occur in areas which receive from 3,810 to 5,080 mm of rainfall annually, and have a mean annual temperature of 21 degrees C. This soil occurs on nearly level to moderately sloping uplands. It forms in a series of layers of volcanic ash. The soil is very strongly acid to moderately acid in the surface layer and moderately acid to strongly acid in the subsoil. Permeability is rapid, runoff is slow, and erosion hazard is slight. K D - Kaiwiki Silty Clay Loam 10 to 20 Percent Slopes The Kaiwiki series consists of well -drained soils formed in volcanic ash. The surface layer is dark brown silty clay loam about 0.4 m thick. The subsoil is dark brown and dark reddish brown silty clay loam about 1.2 m thick. This soil is strongly smeary and dehydrates irreversibly into fine gravel -size aggregates. They are on uplands at elevations ranging from 244 to 458 m. These soils occur in areas which receive from 3,810 to 5,080 mm of rainfall annually, and have a mean annual temperature of 21 degrees C. 3-120 I*vG 44, Aqt%� Kawaihae v A `- Mauna Kea Beach Hot Q Hapuno Beach Park 'Q O Pucka Mauna Loni Resort Hilton Waikoloo ARlwlo Bay +380 1; \ IZo ala � �_�� \ �loPnta> n �, t�t 0100 I SET Iiko. PU.Ua hulu Ke'annu ❑ K NA INTERN AIROO \ +8,271~" \ \ HUAI.PLAI 1 ® HON KORA HA OR ` \ KAILUA I � I s Koholu'u Keouhou K.Sktwaha PoM 1 ® LAVA F W HAZARD ZONES onoka d LAVA FI,O1I HAZARD ZONES �H t \ PO'OUilO (HIGH HAZARD) .`` -- ✓ _ rte_ `' � \ `� 1 9 ❑ AIRPORT \ `-� ��� ❑ Mand�� `�� - Lau 4 1 71 101 `\� ✓MANA ROAD_ (4Wp� �� ~� S E C.T I OO W1 1D (IDW HAZARD) anakolull 1 GIRL SCOUT CAMP 113,796) 1 1 SMP 1{ 2 \ �u, MAUNA KtX/ aA ARM6 �i S AIRFIELD- if Puaak I ) ------ P l ovvv vvvvv v v -- _------__ _- vavvvvvvvvvvv ova �____ __--- ------ ovvv,. NIP P 0 H A K U L 0 A T R A I N I ARS �covvvvv PTA>o coo°oov vvv vvvavvev ` IMPACT vvvvvvv vv vovv avvev =3=c-_ vv v5'6vv v��vvvvvv'o° ov� ={=3?=-=-==_rovo °°vav vovvvavvavvvv --____ -- vv ovvevvvvvvvvevvov� c===--�?}}} vevvvvvvvvvavvvavvv _�==3b=-=Li=-=� This soil occurs on moderately sloping to moderately steep uplands. It formed in a series of layers of volcanic ash and has a banded appearance. The soil is very strongly acid to moderately acid in the surface layer and moderately acid to strongly acid in the subsoil. Permeability is rapid, runoff is slow, and erosion hazard is slight. KKE - Kaiwiki Silty Clay Loam_ 20 to 35 Percent Slope The Kaiwiki series consists of well -drained soils formed in volcanic ash. The surface layer is dark brown silty clay loam about 0.4 m thick. The subsoil is dark brown and dark reddish brown silty clay loam about 1.2 m thick. This soil is strongly smeary and dehydrates irreversibly into fine gravel -size aggregates. They are on uplands at elevations ranging from 244 to 458 m. These soils occur in areas which receive from 3,810 to 5,080 mm of rainfall annually, and have a mean annual temperature of 21 degrees C. This soil occurs on steep uplands. It formed in a series of layers of volcanic ash and has a banded appearance. The soil is very strongly acid to moderately acid in the surface layer and moderately acid to strongly acid in the subsoil. Permeability is rapid, runoff is slow, and erosion hazard is slight. KTB -Ke eke' a Loamy Sand 0 to 6 Percent Slopes The Ke' eke' a series consists of somewhat excessively drained soil that developed in alluvium from volcanic ash and cinders. The surface layer is very dark gray and very dark grayish brown loamy sand, silt loam, and fine sand about 0.2 m thick. The subsoil is dark brown silty clay loam about 0.2 m thick. The substratum is stratified sand and loam. Elevations range from 1,678 to 2,440 m. These soils occur in areas which receive annual rainfall of 508 to 762 mm, and have a mean annual temperature of 11 degrees C. This soil occurs on nearly level to gently sloping uplands in the Humu ula Saddle between Mauna Kea and Mauna Loa. It formed in alluvium from volcanic ash and cinders. The surface layer is mildly alkaline and the substratum is strongly alkaline to very alkaline. Permeability is rapid, runoff is slow, and the hazard of soil blowing is moderate to severe. KZD - Kilohana Loamy Fine Sand 12 to 20 Percent Slopes The Kilohana series consists of somewhat excessively drained loamy fine sands that formed in volcanic ash, sand, and cinders. The surface layer is very dark brown loamy fine sand about 0.3 m thick. Below this is a very dark gray fine sand. It is underlain by volcanic ash, sand, and cinders at a depth of about 1.1 m. Elevations range from 1,525 to 1,983 m. These soils occur in areas which receive 508 to 1,016 mm of rainfall annually and have a mean annual temperature of about 11 degrees C. 3-121 This soil occurs on moderately steep uplands. It formed in volcanic ash, sand, and cinders. There are cemented layers of sand in the lower part of the profile in some places. The soil is alkaline throughout the profile. Permeability is rapid, runoff is slow, and erosion hazard is slight. PVD - Pu'u Pa Extremely StonyVery Fine Sandy Loam 6 to 20 Percent Slopes The Pu'u Pa series consists of well -drained soils formed from volcanic ash. The surface layer is very dark brown extremely stony very fine sandy loam about 0.2 m thick. The next layer is dark brown and dark yellowish brown very stony very fine sandy loam about 0.9 m thick. It is underlain by fragmental ' a' a lava. Elevations range from 305 to 763 m. These soils occur in areas which receive 508 to 889 mm of rainfall annually and have a mean annual temperature of 21 to 22 degrees C. This soil is moderately deep to deep to fragmental ' a a lava. The soil is deep to underlying bedrock. It formed in volcanic ash on moderately sloping to moderately steep uplands. The soil is moderately acid to slightly acid in the surface layer and neutral in the subsoil. The surface layer is silt loam in places. Permeability is moderately rapid, runoff is medium, and erosion hazard is moderate. rHLD - Huikau Extremely Stony Loamy Sand 12 to 20 Percent Slimes The stony phase of the Huikau series consists of somewhat excessively drained soils formed in volcanic ash, pumice, and cinders. Stones cover 3 to 15 percent of the surface. The surface layer is very dark brown extremely stony loamy sand about 0.1 m thick. Subsoils are stratified dark reddish brown sandy loam and loamy sand about 0.3 m thick. Subsoils are alternating layers of black volcanic ash, cinders, and pumice. Elevations range from 1,830 to 2,745 m. These soils occur in areas which receive mean annual rainfall of 381 to 635 mm and have a mean annual temperature of about 10 degrees C. This soil occurs on moderately steep uplands. It formed in volcanic ash, pumice, and cinders. The surface layer has been removed by erosion and the remaining layer consists of stratified sand and cinders. Stones cover 3 to 15 percent of the surface. Subsoils are alternating layers of black volcanic ash cinders and pumice to a depth of 1.5 m or more. Permeability is very rapid, and the runoff is slow. The hazard of blowing soils is severe. rKED - Kaimu Extremely Stony Peat, 7 to 25 Percent Slopes The Kaimu series consists of well -drained, thin organic soils over'a'a lava. The surface layer is very dark brown extremely stony peat about 0.1 m thick. It is underlain by fragmental ' a' a lava. Elevations range from 0 to 305 m. These soils occur in areas which receive 1,016 to 1,524 mm of rainfall annually and have a mean annual temperature of about 23 degrees C. 3-122 This soil that is shallow to fragmental ' a'a lava, but deep to underling bedrock. It occurs on moderately sloping to moderately steep uplands. The soil is neutral in reaction. Permeability is rapid, runoff is slow, and erosion hazard is slight. rKGD - Ke' ei Extremely Rocky Muck 6 to 20 Percent Slopes The Ke' ei series consists of well -drained, thin organic soils overlying pahoehoe lava bedrock. The surface layer is very dark brown muck about 0.3 m thick. It is underlain by pahoehoe lava bedrock. They are at elevations ranging from 305 to 1,068 m. These soils occur in areas which receive 2,286 to 3,810 mm of rainfall annually and have a mean annual temperature of between 17 and 18 degrees C. This soil overlying pahoehoe lava bedrock. It occurs on moderately sloping to moderately steep uplands. This soil is strongly acid. Although the organic soil is rapidly permeable, the underling pahoehoe lava is very slowly permeable, except where water moves rapidly through cracks. Runoff is medium and erosion hazard is slight. rLV - Lava Flows. 'A' a This unit consists of'a'a type lava flows. The lava flow is a mass of clinkery, sharp, jagged fragmental lava. There is practically no soil covering, and vegetation is bare except for mosses, lichens, and ferns, and few shrubs and small trees. This unit is found on rough undulating to steep topography. rL - Lava Flows, Pahoehoe This unit consists of pahoehoe type lava flows. The flows are relatively smooth and have a ropy glazed surface. The lava has a billow, glass surface that is relatively smooth. In some areas, however, the surface is rough and broken, and there are hummocks and pressure domes. The land is typically bare of vegetation, except for mosses and lichens. In higher rainfall areas, shrubs have gained a foothold in cracks and crevices. rS - Very Stony Land This unit consists of a' a lava that has a thin covering of volcanic ash that locally extends deep into cracks and depressions. From 50 to 90 percent of the surface area is covered with stones and boulders. ' A' a lava outcrops are common. The slope is between 10 and 15 percent. Between the lava outcrops and in the cracks of the lava, the soil material extends to a depth of 0.1 to 0.5 m. The soil is deep in localized areas. Erosion hazard is slight. 3-123 1�L .., . .. The Waikoloa series consists of well -drained soils formed in volcanic ash. The surface layer is dark reddish brown very fine sandy loam about 0.3 m thick. It is underlain by about 0.3 m of dark brown very fine sandy loam. The subsoil consists of dark brown and dark reddish brown very fine sandy loam, silty clay loam, and sandy loam. Elevations range from 458 to 1,373 m. These soils occur in areas which receive 508 to 762 mm of rainfall annually and have a mean annual temperature of between 16 and 18 degrees C. This soil occurs on moderately sloping uplands. The surface layer is neutral, and the subsoil is mildly alkaline. Permeability is moderate, runoff is medium, and erosion hazard is moderate. WMC - Waimea Very Fine Sandy Loam- 6 to 12 Percent Slopes The Waimea series consists of well -drained soils formed in volcanic ash. The surface layer is dark brown and very dark brown very fine sandy loam and loam about 0.4 m thick. The subsoil is dark brown silt loam about 0.6 m thick. It is underlain by weathering hard basalt bedrock at depths of about 1.1 m. Elevations range from 610 to 1,830 m. These soils occur in areas which receive 635 to 1,143 mm of rainfall annually, and have a mean annual temperature of between 15 and 17 degrees C. This soil occurs on moderately sloping uplands. Soil reaction is neutral in the surface layer and mildly alkaline in the subsoil. Included in mapping are small areas where the surface layer is extremely stony. Permeability is moderately rapid, runoff is slow, and erosion hazard is slight. Table 3.12.2, Generalized Soil Types, Saddle Road Study Corridor, identifies the more common soil types found in or near the project corridor and identifies the segments in which these soils are most likely to occur. TABLE 3.12.2 Generalized Soil Types, Saddle Road Study Corridor Segments Soil Types W-2 KZD, PVD, rKED, rVS,WLC, WMC W-3 KZD, PVD, rKED, rVS, WLC EX -2 KTB, rLV, rLW, rVS PTA -1 KTB, KZD, rHLD, rLV, rVS PTA -3 KTB, KZD, rHLD, rLV, rVS 3-124 TABLE 3.12.2 Generalized Soil Types, Saddle Road Study Corridor Segments Soil Types EX -3 rKGD, rLW EX -4A rKGD, rLW E-3 KaC, KaD, KaE, rKGD, rLW Source: USDA, 1970. 3.12.1.5 Speleological Resources Speleological resources, such as caves (including pseudokarsts), lava tube caves, and lava tubes, occur within the project vicinity. In Hawaii karsts or pseudokarsts are associated with all known caves. However, only small portions of karstic and pseudokarstic terrains are cavernous. Lava tubes are present, however, lava tube caves are relatively uncommon. Most tubes are too short, fragmented, or debris-filled to be considered caves (Halliday 1997). Lava tubes are characteristic of relatively young pahoehoe lava flows and are important landforms on young volcanoes such as Mauna Loa. Since Saddle Road stays mostly on Mauna Loa lavas, construction of the proposed project would be expected to encounter numerous lava tubes. While caves are more common under pahoehoe lava, some are buried beneath ' a' a and other substrates. Often, if a flow is known to contain a cave, there is a high probability that other caves also occur in the same flow. 3.12.2 Environmental Consequences All Action Alternatives. The proposed project would have no impact on climate along the corridor or within the region. Geologic hazards within the study corridor include low-lying areas with potential flooding hazard, steep slope with potential instability and landslides, soft soils or wetlands with potential fill ground subsidence, and known faults that may traverse the proposed roadway segments. Based on the site reconnaissance and literature research conducted for the project, no significant geologic hazards were observed or identified along the proposed segments, except along portions of the proposed Segment E-3. Due to the presence of volcanic and seismic hazards within the study corridor, the proposed improved Saddle Road could be directly damaged in the future by lava flows and earthquake activity, temporarily resulting in road closures to repair damage or rebuild affected sections. This risk exists with or without implementation of the proposed action, since Saddle Road is an existing transportation corridor through this region. In the case of volcanic or seismic damage to 3-125 the road, fiscal impacts with the action alternatives would be greater than the No Action Alternative, because of the additional dollars expended in road improvements. The volcanic ash soils, when wetted, have relatively low strength characteristics and are highly susceptible to erosion in a dry state. If in-situ moisture contents are high enough, these soils become fluid and lose strength temporarily when remolded or disturbed (thixotropic soils). PVD and WLC present a moderate erosion hazard, KTB presents a moderate to severe soil blowing hazard, while rHLD presents a severe hazard to soil blowing. During construction activities, grubbing and earth work will expose the soil to increased erosion potential. Soil erosion impacts would be localized, and short-term, and would be associated with precipitation events during the construction phase. With the action alternatives, the road surface and shoulders will be paved. No notable, long-term increase in soil erosion is anticipated with implementation of the action alternatives. Information available on the project area reflects the potential presence of caves and lava tubes throughout the project vicinity, in all sections. Because most lava tubes have no entrance or remain unknown, they cannot be surveyed before construction begins. Accidentally breaking through the roof of hidden caves would be hazardous to workers and detrimental to the cave and its resources. Breaks into caves would change the airflow patterns in the cave, usually making them less suitable for cave animals. Clearing vegetation for staging areas and other uses related to the road construction, would reduce the amount and quality of food entering the cave ecosystem. Many Hawaiian cave animals are dependent on native plant species on the surface above their cave habitats. Changing water flow patterns and infiltration rates may desiccate some caves or flood others. Chemical spills and runoff may enter caves and have devastating effects on the fauna. The road may seal caves making them no longer available for study or enjoyment. Other caves may be made more accessible to human visitors, which could be detrimental to cave resources that are highly vulnerable to human disturbance. Recent research has shown that many cave animals on the Island of Hawaii have differentiated within different caves, so that each cave may harbor a distinct and unique fauna found no where else. These cave systems are vulnerable to above -ground disturbance, as well as to direct and indirect disturbance within the caves. Portions of numerous additional caves may lie hidden beneath the proposed road alignments and some of these may be broken into or impacted during construction. Notable caves, known along Saddle Road that could be directly affected are portions of the 1881 Lava Flow (Kaumana Cave), Don's Cave, and Strawberry Cave. Known caves of the project vicinity are described as follows. (Not all caves have entrances, so precise locations of caves cannot be determined. Additional cave passages may exist beneath the proposed alignments. Not all lava tubes drain, and therefore, not all form caves.) 3-126 Bradshaw Field Cave. Bradshaw Field Cave is located within 50 m of the PTA -1 and PTA -3 alignment at Station 16+600. It is a surface tube in a small isolated Mauna Kea spatter cone (volcanic vent) near the western end of the Bradshaw Army Airfield. The PTA -I and PTA -3 alignment crosses the spatter cone, indicating a high likelihood of lava tubes or caves in the immediate vicinity. The cave is a dusty low crawlway about 15 m long between two entrances. The passage ranges from 0.3 to 0.6 m high and from 0.6 to 2.0 m wide. The air temperature ill the cave was 21.5 degrees C, indicating a strong climatic influence from the entrances. The cave probably continues both up- and down-slope on the cone, but no other entrances were found. 1935 Lava Flow Cave A. 1935 Lava Flow Cave A is located near the EX -2 alignment from Station 139+600 to 140+860. The identified cave entrances are located from 10 to 150 m from this alignment. Several small pit entrances occur in the 1935 flow near Pu'u Huluhulu. The more significant of these range in size from 1 to 3 m in diameter up to 2 m deep. They were all sealed and entered no true cave, but most contained small shelter caves where wind borne organic material has accumulated. 1935 Lava Flow Cave B. 1935 Lava Flow Cave B is located near the EX -3 alignment at Station 141+880. The cave entrances are located within 10 m of this alignment. An area similar to the 1935 Lava Flow Cave A was found on the 1935 lava flow about 1 km east of Pu'u Huluhulu, and several small entrances were investigated. A small cave about 10 m long and 0.6 to 1.2 m high was found connecting two entrances in a roofed over portion of a lava trench. The cave was entirely in twilight and dry. trawbe ave. The entrance to Strawberry Cave is about 30 m north of the existing alignment near Station 148+240 in a small vegetated kipuka. Smaller sinkholes in the kipuka are sealed, but indicate the existence of passages beneath. In the main entrance, a small crack leads through the breakdown to a small upslope passage which goes a short ways under the a' a flow on the surface. The main passage goes downslope for about 270 m. The passage is 2 to 5 m wide and 1 to 4 m high. Most of the floor is obscured by breakdown blocks, and the ceiling is unstable in places. A breakdown pile and row of ceiling drips possibly mark approximately where the cave goes under the existing Saddle Road about 75 m from the entrance. The deep cave is wet with numerous ceiling drips and moist walls characteristic of the deep zone environment. The winter effect (cold dry air sinking into the cave) from the large downward sloping entrance passage is relatively strong. The air temperature was relatively cool at 12 degrees C. Don's Cave. The entrance pit to Don's Cave is located 50 m north of the existing alignment on Segment EX -3 at Station 156+760. The pit is only a 1.5- by 0.6-m hole 2.4 m deep and is completely overhung, requiring a ladder or rope to enter. The downslope passage is sealed, but upslope the cave enters a small room 10 m in diameter and I to 2 m high. The room is festooned with ' ohi' a roots dangling from floor to ceiling. The air is still and humid and typical of a deep zone environment in spite of being close to the small entrance. The air temperature at the back of this room was 16.5 degrees C. A low ' a a crawl, 0.4 m tall and 4 m long leads upslope to at least two similar but larger rooms which are more humid and with numerous roots. 3-127 1881 Lava Flow (Kaumana Cave). Kaumana Cave is in the 1881 lava flow which parallels or lies under Saddle Road near the eastern end of the project area. The main entrance to Kaumana Cave proper is about 5 km east of the project area, but the cave is known to extend 3 km upslope towards the project boundary and may extend to any portion of the project area sited on the cavernous 1881 lava flow. Much of the surface of the 1881 flow in this area is built up as a subdivision, and cave passages, if they exist, may already be altered. If Segment E-3 is selected, the road will traverse the 1881 flow for a length of about 1 km. If Segment EX -4A is chosen, the new road will also traverse parts of the 1881 flow. Kaumana Cave is a large and biologically significant cave biologically. It is possible that road construction will discover or open new entrances to the system. No Action Alternative. No impacts to climate or geologic resources and no soil erosion are anticipated with the No Action Alternative. 3.12.3 Mitigation Measures Deflection berms or barriers are one way facilities can be protected from lava flows. Due to the road's length and linear nature, it would not be cost effective to construct such barriers. Also, the construction of barriers would result in a substantial increase in the disturbance or loss of sensitive biological resources along the corridor. ■ During the rainy season, following completion of construction, slopes and denuded areas within Section I (Segments W-2 and W-3) will be revegetated with a grass such as kikuyu to minimize soil erosion. Reseeding of disturbed areas within Sections II, III, and IV (Segments EX -2, PTA -1, PTA -3, EX -3, EX -4A, and E-3) is not recommended. Prior to construction, a field review with representatives of the BRD/USGS and the Hawaii Speleological Society will be conducted to determine the probability of caves or lava tubes in the construction corridor. Final design and/or construction techniques will be developed to avoid or minimize impacts. In the case that a cave or lava tube is encountered during construction, all construction activity will cease immediately at the location in question and the FHWA Project Engineer will be notified. Consultation will be conducted with appropriate resource or regulatory personnel to ensure that unique biological, cultural, or geological resources associated with these features are adequately protected, or investigated and documented. ■ During final design, significant caves will be identified in consultation with appropriate regulatory agencies, and where feasible, the overburden over significant caves will be reinforced; passages will not be crushed and filled. ■ When current access to exceptional caves would be blocked by the project, bypass conduits will be installed to allow continued access. 3-128 ■ Construction specifications would be incorporated to minimize potential hazards of caves to construction workers. 3.13 VEGETATION Two surveys of the botanical resources were conducted for the proposed project (Char 1996 and Palmer 1997, Technical Appendices, Volume I). The first survey covers the western portion bf the study area, from the Mamalahoa Highway to the Mauna Kea Access Road, and includes Sections I, II, and some of Section III. The second survey covers the eastern portion of the study area, from the Mauna Kea Access Road to the eastern project terminus, and includes the majority of Section III and Section IV (Figure 3.13.1, Biological Resources). Both the westside and eastside botany surveys included a search of pertinent botanical studies and the Nature Conservancy's Hawaii Natural Heritage Program data base (Heritage Database). Topographic maps and aerial photographs of the study area were examined to determine vegetation cover patterns, terrain characteristics, access, boundaries, and reference points. Soil survey maps were also studied. Field investigations consisted of a 100 -percent pedestrian survey of the study area by project botanists. For the westside botany survey, pu'u, rocky ridges, and steep -sided gulches near or adjacent to the project area where rare plants likely occur were also investigated. Surveys for the westside botany study were completed between March 1995 and April 1996. Surveys for the eastside botany study were completed between September 1995 and November 1996. A field review was made of the Segments EX -2, PTA -1, and PTA -3 with USFWS representatives and the PTA biologists in December 1995. 3.13.1 Affected Environment Nine vegetation types were identified within the westside study area. The vegetation types are divided into two categories, nonnative vegetation types and native vegetation types. Nonnative vegetation types are dominated by introduced or alien species. Native vegetation types are dominated by plants which occur naturally in the Hawaiian Islands. These may be endemic (native only to the Hawaiian Islands); or they may be indigenous (native to the Hawaiian Islands but also naturally occurring elsewhere). The four nonnative vegetation types include fountain grass/mixed shrubland, pasture land, eucalyptus/pine plantings, and ruderal community. The five native vegetation types include hard -stemmed lovegrass grassland, ' aweoweo shrubland, ' a' ali i shrubland, mamane/naio forest, and pioneer vegetation on lava flows. Twelve vegetation types were identified within the eastside study area. The two nonnative vegetation types include lowland wet herbland and lowland wet grassland. The ten native vegetation types include lowland wet forest, lowland wet shrubland, montane wet forest, montane wet shrubland, montane mesic forest, montane mesic shrubland, montane dry forest, montane dry shrubland, montane dry grassland, and subalpine dry shrubland. 3-129 3.13.1.1 Nonnative Vegetation Types 3.13.1.1.1 Fountain Grass/Mixed Shrubland This vegetation type occurs primarily on Pu'u Pa series soils (Cross Reference: 3.12.1.4 Soils). Fountain grass cover varies from 40 to 70 percent. Shrubs of'a'ali'i, 'akin, koa haole, and smaller forbs comprise the remaining plant cover. Fountain grass, native to northern Africa, forms wiry -stemmed, dense tufts 1 to 1.5 m tall, while the shrub cover varies in height from 1 to 2.5 m tall. Other species which may be locally common to occasional in this vegetation type include the introduced grasses such as natal redtop, buffel grass, Bermuda grass, kikuyu grass, and pitted beardgrass. The weedy forbs are more abundant during the rainy season and tend to be found in the small pockets of damp soil among the rocky outcrops. These include Spanish needle, weed verbena, field madder, Childing pink, allseed, hairy horseweed, galinsoga, and wahlenbergia. Fountain grass/mixed shrubland may be dissected by numerous stony ridges and knolls in places. In these areas, a few remnant pockets of native shrubland may be found. Besides the ' a' ali i and ' akia, which are common and widespread through this vegetation type, these stony ridges support a few plants of ulei, sandalwood, pua kala, naio, dubautia, ' ala' ala wai nui, mamane, and pukiawe. This vegetation type is used for grazing cattle and horses, so most of the native components have suffered grazing damage. 3.13.1.1.2 Pasture Land Pasture land vegetation is found on areas with deep Waimea series soils (Cross Reference: 3.12.1.4 Soils). Kikuyu grass, a native of tropical Africa, is the most abundant grass in this vegetation type. It is widely cultivated as a range grass in Hawai i. Other range grasses found here in lesser numbers include African dropseed, buffel grass, cocksfoot, rescue grass, Bermuda grass, and Dallis grass. Leguminous species include bur clover, Spanish clover, black medick, white sweet clover, and white clover. Most of the pasture grasses and legumes were deliberately introduced and planted to improve the pastures. Together, they form a low mat, 10 to 30 cm in depth. There is some variation in this vegetation type. On the Waiki i Ranch lands, there are large areas where African dropseed is dominant or at least codominant with the kikuyu. A somewhat wetter variant of the pasture land vegetation is found on the DHHL property on the east end of Section II. The pasture is a patchwork of various, mostly temperate, grass species. In some places, velvet grass may be codominant with kikuyu or sweet vernalgrass. On areas with thin, stony soils, hairy oatgrass is abundant. Perennial ryegrass is locally abundant in low lying areas. Rocky ridges and outcrops, and the gulches which cross the pastures throughout the study area, provide habitat for a few native plants such as mamane, 'a'ali i, naio, pilo, hard -stemmed lovegrass, 'ulei, and kolea. A number of weedy forbs also occur in these places. 3-130 Kowaihae , \ V Mauna Kea Beach Hotel Q7 CJ Hapuna Beach Park if '4 O 4 Puoka Mauna Lani Resort Hilton Waikoloo N deWAi M ' KAMUEL AIRPORT Mana\ LEGEND: 11I7no a P0,000AINAHOU NENE SANCTUARY �� ® PAULA CRITCAL HABITAT � 19 - Lau pahoehoe t koloa ( `�� : MANX ROAD (4WD) ~ \ O S E� T I A S E C, -T1 O J�l-,_I,-! _—---- -&.0-T 1 0 Rh AUoto Bay J r Pu'uonahulu Ke'amuku 199 / a K NA INTERN ON AL/~J ' qa} AIRgo 3 KalO 1 KAILUA Kahalu'u Keouhou K�ik4waAn Poo L Keano o u I GIRL SCOUT CAMP i I13,796i \� ` MAUNA K BRA SH ARMIt d AIRFIELD `1 J% PUOakala, STAT FIS A f J � STATE PARK ���• N i t; r \1 `\ \ P 0 H A K U LOA T R A I N I NG AR EA M� r \ `� 1\ � +8,271 \ f- 1 \ \\\ HU LAI 1 , I/ I I 1 I PTA J IMPACT r AREA i I v � ' 1 1 \ 1 � l S E C T I ON IV tKolekole Park Honomu � Pepe'ekeo I 1 ' S Papai'kou SKUH1 HARHO 1 J L M�&JMAN ' HILO 11 ` CITY AIRPORT Ke0'ou Kurtistown U,S. DEPARTMENT OF IRANSYORWIL)l FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION CENTRAL FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION DENVER. COLORADO BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES FIGURE 3.13.1 3.13.1.1.3 Eucalyptus/Pine Plantings Scattered throughout the western portion of the study area, primarily on the pasture lands, are plantings of various eucalyptus and pine species. Frequently, they are composed of blocks of a single species, either a eucalyptus or Monterey pine. Along the existing Saddle Road within Section I, there are large blocks of mixed plantings which include swamp mahogany, Sydney blue gum, silk oak, tsugi, black wattle, and Cook pine. Generally, these planted forests are very dense, and ground cover is sparse, usually consisting of the elements from the adjoining pasture land vegetation. In some places, the plantings are very heavily used by cattle for resting and there is almost no ground cover. These plantings of introduced tree species occupy only a small portion of the study area and are largely botanically uninteresting. 3.13.1.1.4 Ruderal Community A weedy mixture of introduced grasses and £orbs is found on more or less frequently disturbed areas such as alongside the existing Saddle Road, on cinder cones which have been mined, and on some areas with active use within the PTA. Many of the species found within this community are well -adapted to living under conditions which include periodic maintenance of roadsides, vehicular and pedestrian traffic, and bulldozing. A number of these weedy species are either confined to these sites or are much more abundant there. The existing Saddle Road shoulder is maintained by periodic mowing. Where it passes through pasture land, the roadside vegetation is usually kikuyu grass with pockets of Kentucky bluegrass, cocksfoot, and rescue grass at the higher elevations; and fountain grass, natal redtop, and buffel grass on the lower elevations. In the PTA, the roadside community is composed of a mixture of kikuyu grass and a large assortment of mostly weedy species, many of them annuals. Some of the more frequently observed plants include Bermuda grass, fountain grass, telegraph plant, woolly mullein, black mustard, natal redtop, golden crown -beard, and lepidium. The cinder quarry areas also support this community type. On the quarry at Pu'u Nene, the following species are abundant to common: evening primrose, woolly mullein, rabbit -foot clover, sweet vernalgrass, black mustard, and several species of brome. Because the quarry areas are less frequently disturbed than the roadside, they support a number of more woody components which include poha, castor bean, sourbush, koa haole, hairy abutilon, fuzzy rattlepod, and apple of Sodom. Fountain grass is usually common on these quarry areas. A few eucalyptus trees, most likely planted, are found on some of the quarries. Within those portions of the PTA that fall within the study area, the ruderal community is associated with maneuver areas, dirt roads, and trails. These areas may be open and dominated by introduced grasses such as fountain grass, natal redtop, and needlegrass; or they may be largely barren with scattered patches of weedy plants which include puncture vine, golden crown -beard, cheese weed, pin clover, needlegrass, and saltbush. 3-131 The ruderal community is the most diverse of the vegetation types within the study area, but it is composed primarily of weedy, introduced species, most of which are annuals. The ruderal community is highly transient due to the frequent disturbances, and species occurrence and composition are always in a state of flux. These disturbed sites are also very often sites of new weed introductions, some of which may have the potential to disrupt native ecosystems. 3.13.1.1.5 Lowland Wet Herbland Lowland wet herbland occurs in the eastern portion of the project area below Country Club Road in E-3. These lands were in cane sugar production until recently. Characteristic species include rattlepod, white ginger, yellow ginger, glorybush, hilahila, and sugarcane. 3.13.1.1.6 Lowland Wet Grassland Lowland wet grassland occurs below Ola'a Flume Road and Country Club Road on Segment E-3 and are now grazing lands. Characteristic species include California grass, nutgrass, marsh purslane, molasses grass, Dallis grass, and Glenwood grass. 3.13.1.2 Native Vegetation Types 3.13.1.2.1 Hard -stemmed Lovegrass Grassland Hard -stemmed lovegrass forms a low, dense, almost monodominant cover up to 0.7 m tall on the alluvial flats and cinder cones within the study area. Scattered native shrubs such as ' a' ali i, ko' oko' olau, dubautia, and ' ulei may be present, especially where the grassland merges with a' ali i shrubland along the lower Mauna Kea slopes. 'Aweoweo and other components of the aweoweo shrubland may be present where the grassland merges with this vegetation type on the alluvial flats. Low-statured mamane and naio trees are occasionally found scattered here and there within this grassland type. The dense grass cover generally tends to exclude most of the smaller forbs, but the grassland located between the PTA and the Kilohana Girl Scout Camp is somewhat more disturbed due to pig activity; pig trails and rooted up areas are frequently found. Plants of stinking everlasting and bedstraw are locally abundant on these open, disturbed sites. 3.13.1.2.2 'Aweoweo Shrubland 'Aweoweo shrubs form an open to closed scrub cover, 1 to 2.5 m tall, on the alluvial flats within the study area. This shrubland is found primarily on alluvial deposits belonging to the Ke' eke' e series soils (Cross Reference: 3.12.1.4 Soils). Occasionally, 'aweoweo shrubland may also be found on cindery soil at the base of cinder cones. This vegetation type is not very diverse, consisting almost exclusively of 'aweoweo shrubs with a variable assortment of mostly weedy, introduced forbs which include telegraph plant, lepidium, black mustard, needlegrass, pin clover, and bur clover. In many places though, barren soil predominates. The 'aweoweo shrubland forms a complex mosaic with the surrounding hard -stemmed lovegrass grassland, ' a' ali' i 3-132 shrubland, and mamane/naio forest. Widely scattered mamane and naio trees can be found in this shrubland where it adjoins this forest type. Within the study area, constituents from the aweoweo shrubland and the hard -stemmed lovegrass grassland often overlap. 3.13.1.2.3 'A'ati i Shrubland 'A' ali i shrubland is generally found on weathered pahoehoe flows with very shallow or little soil and also on cinder cones in the study area. It grades into open scrub mamane/naio forest and into hard -stemmed lovegrass grassland along the western portion of the PTA-1/PTA-3 alignment. The a' ali i shrubland on and adjacent to the alignment corridors tends to form a fairly dense cover from 1.5 to 2 m tall. Mamane and naio trees are found scattered throughout the shrubland. A few small stands of akoko can be found in rocky areas and in small gulches. Other shrubs which occur here include ko' oko' olau, dubautia, ' aweoweo, pukiawe, and 'ulei. Scattered patches of grasses such as the native hard -stemmed lovegrass and alien fountain grass are occasional, although the hard -stemmed lovegrass may become abundant in places. Several small gulches formed by runoff from the slopes of Mauna Kea cross this shrubland as well as the neighboring hard -stemmed lovegrass grassland on the study area. These gulches provide a damper, shadier microhabitat where a number of temperate, introduced species are found. These include petty spurge, small -flowered catchfly, shepard's purse, thyme -leaved speedwell, Venus's looking glass, common mouse -ear chickweed, and German ivy. Several diminutive native ferns such as the oali i, lau kahi, and 'iwa' iwa are quite common on the moist gulch walls. 3.13.1.2.4 Mamane/Naio Forest This forest is dominated by mamane and naio trees from 3 to 10 m tall, but typically around 5 m. The mamane/naio community may be an open parkland with the trees widely spaced or a closed canopy forest with the canopy of the trees interlocking or touching. Differences in tree spacing may be related to long term soil moisture conditions and to fog interception on the windward facing areas. The proportion of mamane to naio varies with a number of environmental factors. On ash or ash/cinder soils at level sites in areas of somewhat higher rainfall, mamane predominates. On pu'u, mamane is common near the base of the pu'u, while naio is more common on the upper slopes. While best developed on ash or ash/cinder loam soils, the forest is also found on older, weathered pahoehoe and ' a' a lava flows. Other tree species found occasionally in this forest type include pilo, sandalwood, and ' akoko. In some areas with blocky lava and shallow soils, ' akoko may form large stands and become codominant. Arborescent forms of'a'ali'i are occasional on cinder cones. Shrubs include 'aweoweo on ash soils, and'ulei, pukiawe, and kukaenene on lava substrates. A number of native and introduced grasses are more common in areas where the canopy is open. Native grasses include hard -stemmed lovegrass, eragrostis, deschampsia, and mountain pili. 3-133 Introduced grasses which tend to occur in larger numbers in these open areas include needlegrass, ripgut grass, cocksfoot, and perennial veldtgrass. Commonly encountered forbs include mostly introduced species such as telegraph plant, woolly mullein, lepidium, stinkweed, pin clover, and common yarrow. The native ' ena' ena is frequently observed in this vegetation type. 3.13.1.2.5 Pioneer Vegetation on Lava Flows Pioneer vegetation represents the earliest stages of plant succession on geologically young, generally unweathered lava flows. The rate of vegetation development depends on the age and type of lava substrate, moisture, and elevation. On the westside botany study area, pioneer vegetation is found on the Lava Flows of 1843 and 1935. Because of the drier conditions on the westside, these flows do not support a dense lichen and moss cover. Jumbled heaps of clinkery' a' a lava are found on the 1843 lava flow. The loose ' a a clinkers drain quickly and the flow is largely devoid of vegetation. A few small, very scattered pockets of vegetation are found in depressions where organic material, soil, and coarse gravel have accumulated. Native vegetation found on this flow in low numbers include ' ae, ' oali i, the fuzzy -leaved form of'ohi' a, tetramolopium, and 'ohelo. Where the flow borders the mamane/naio forest, a few components from this forest type appear along the edges of the flow (edge transition zone or ecotone). Pahoehoe lava is found on the 1935 flow, which originated from Mauna Loa. The dense, dark black pahoehoe lava is smooth and undulating with a ropy surface in many places. Fissures, cracks, and collapsed lava tubes provide a moist and protected microhabitat for plants of na ena'e, ka' ape' ape, and ' ae. The 1935 flow did not cover the entire site, but left a few small isolated kipuka. These pockets of older, weathered, reddish -brown colored lava are covered primarily by pukiawe shrubs and tussocks of deschampsia grasses. Other species found here include native plants such as ' ohelo, carex, pilo, ' ae, ' oali' i, luzula, kukaenene, and laukahi; and introduced species such as sheep sorrell, velvet grass, and willow herb. 3.13.1.2.6 Lowland Wet Forest New lowland wet forest occurs on the 1881 pahoehoe flow from MP 8 to MP 6. Invasive alien species like swordfern, glorybush, bamboo orchid, and broomsedge are present, but are not replacing the native vegetation. This community is dominated by uluhe, ' ohi'a, and pukiawe 'uki. Other characteristic species include wawae'iole and 'uki. Old lowland wet forest occurs in the eastern end of the project area, below ' Ola' a Flume Road. This community is heavily infested with strawberry guava and shows the effects of many years of cattle grazing, logging, and the presence of feral animals. In Segment E-3, these areas were formerly dominated by koa trees, which were logged many years ago. The present grazing and infestation with introduced alien species is inhibiting koa regeneration. 3-134 3.13.1.2.7 Lowland Wet Shrubland New lowland wet shrubland occurs on the 1881 pahoehoe flow in a few scattered localities from MP 8 to MP 6. This community occurs on lava tumuli which serve as biological islands in surrounding mesic forest. Vegetation on these perched habitats is distinct, because the tumuli are drier than adjacent areas. This community is dominated by uluhe and'uki. Other characteristic species include ' oleho ' ai and ' akia. 3.13.1.2.8 Montane Wet Forest New montane wet forest occurs on the 1855 pahoehoe flow from MP 16 to 9.4 and on the 1881 pahoehoe flow from MP 9 to 8. Invasive alien species such as bamboo orchid, broomsedge, swordfern, and firebush are present, but currently are not displacing the native vegetation. This community is dominated by uluhe and ' ohi' a. Characteristic species also include wawae' iole, 'uki, Iama'u, and'ohelo la'au. Old montane wet forest occurs in all the kipuka and old flow areas between MP 16 and MP 8, from 600 to 1,400 m in elevation. These stands of late successional stage forest are the Hawaiian native rainforest, usually with an overstory canopy dominated by koa, a middle canopy layer dominated by ' ohi' a, and a lower canopy dominated by tree ferns. 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) are present in the understory. In low lying spots, patches of bog vegetation are found. Characteristic species include koa, adenophorus, mehamehame, spleenwort, pa' iniu, paco fern, kanawao, carex, hapu' u 'i'i, ' oha kepau, ' olopa, kukae nene, ' aku, kikawaio, ha' iwale, uluhe, laukahi, dubautia, ekaha, ' ie' ie, manono, kawa' u, kamakahala, wawae' iole, ' uki, pala, ' ahu' awa, filmy fern, ' ohi a, kolea, oreobolis, Dallis grass, alani, 'ala'ala wai nui, ho'awa, 'ae, loulu palm, kopiko, 'akala, ama' u, stenogyne, pukiawe, and ' ohelo. 3.13.1.2.9 Montane Wet Shrubland New montane wet shrubland occurs on the 1855 pahoehoe flow from MP 16 to 9.4 and on the 1881 pahoehoe flow from MP 9 to 8. It is found on lava tumuli which serve as biological islands or microhabitats within surrounding wet forest. The vegetation on these perched habitats is distinct because the tumuli are drier than adjacent areas. There are few alien species found in this community. New montane wet shrubland is dominated by uluhe and ' uki. Characteristic species also include na' ena' a and ' ohelo ' ai, which are uncommon in surrounding wet forest. 3.13.1.2.10 Montane Mesic Forest New montane mesic forest occurs on the 1855 ' a' a flow from MP 19 to 16. Invasive alien species bamboo orchid, sword fern, and thimbleberry are present, but currently are not displacing the 3-135 native vegetation. This community is dominated by uluhe and ' ohi' a. Characteristic species also include manono, wawae'iole, 'uki, 'ama'u, pukiawe, and'ohelo. Occasionally found species include ' olopa, hapu' u, na' ena' e, wawae' iole, and ' ohelo ' ai. Old montane mesic forest occurs from NIP 23 to 17, between 1,400 and 1,900 m in elevation. Rainfall is less than at lower elevations. The forest has less canopy cover in most places than wet forest. Tree ferns are lacking and characteristic dry forest trees and shrubs are present. Characteristic species in old montane mesic forest include koa, athyrium, kukae nene, laukahi, manono, kawa'u, naio, kolea, kopiko, 'akala, 'ama'u, pukiawe, and'ohelo. 3.13.1.2.11 Montane Mesic Shrubland New montane mesic shrubland occurs on the 1855 'a'a flow from MP 22 to 19. There are few alien species found in this community. This community is dominated by kukae nene, ' ohi' a, ama'u, pukiawe, and'ohelo'ai. Characteristic species also include uluhe, laukahi, manono, 'ae, and ' ama' uma'u. Occasionally found species include pa' iniu and ' akala. 3.13.1.2.12 Montane Dry Forest Old montane dry forest occurs from MP 27.5 to 22, primarily above 1,800 m in elevation. On old pahoehoe this forest type often shows an understory dominated by pili 'uka. Characteristic species include koa, kolea, kukae nene, ' ulei, pili 'uka, ' iliahi, ' a' ali i, mamane, dubautia, pukiawe, naio, and ' ohelo. 3.13.1.2.13 Montane Dry Shrubland New montane dry shrubland occurs on the 1855 ' a a and pahoehoe flows from NIP 27 to 22. There are few alien species found in this community. New montane dry shrubland is dominated by kalamoho, ' ae, 'ama'u, pukiawe, and ' ohelo ' ai. Characteristic species also include spleenwort, kukae nene, na' ena' e, and ' ohi' a. Occasionally found species include ' a' ali' i, laukahi, and na ena' e. Old montane dry shrubland occurs from MP 28 to 24 in the kipuka of old pahoehoe surrounded by the 1935 flow. Extensive areas of this type occur south of the 1935 flow. Characteristic species include spleenwort, carex, kukae nene, ' a' ali i, dubautia, gahnia, ' ulei, kalamoho, ' ae, silene, pukiawe, and ' ohelo. 3.13.1.2.14 Montane Dry Grassland Old montane dry grassland occurs in a few patches outside the survey corridor between MP 25 and 23. These areas are mapped by the Hawaii Natural Heritage Program. They are characteristically dominated by hard -stemmed lovegrass. 3-136 3.13.1.2.15 Subalpine Dry Shrubland New subalpine dry shrubland occurs on the 1935 pahoehoe flow from MP 28 to MP 27. Vegetation is sparse and alien species are virtually absent from this community. This community is dominated by kukae nene, na'ena'e, and'ohelo'ai. Characteristic species also include spleenwort and ' ae. Old subalpine dry shrubland occurs in Pu'u Huluhulu Natural Area Reserve. Characteristic species include spleenwort, kukae nene, 'a'ali i, dubautia, cranesbill, cudweed, hairy cat's ear, ohi' a, kalamoho, and mamane. 3.13.1.3 Discussion of Vegetation Types By Section •] The vegetation on the majority of this section is primarily pasture land vegetation dominated by kikuyu grass and other nonnative range grasses on deep, well -drained soils. The stonier soils located along the lower portion of the alignments support fountain grass/mixed shrubland. Most of the lands in Section I have been used for grazing for a long time. Parker Ranch, through which most of the W-2 and W-3 alignments cross, was established in the mid -1800s. As a result, areas covered by native plant communities are rare. The few remnant pockets of native mixed shrubland occur on pu'u and larger stony ridges and outcrops, inaccessible to cattle and other grazing animals. In Section I at the western project terminus, about 800 m in elevation, the alignment corridors cross stony lands with thin soils covered by fountain grass/mixed shrubland. Average annual rainfall is about 500 mm. Continuing upslope, the corridors pass through pasture land vegetation dominated by kikuyu grass and smaller amounts of other range grasses. Soils are deep and fertile, and the terrain gently rolling. Average annual rainfall is about 500 mm along the lower limits of the pasture land at about 900 m in elevation, increasing to roughly 1,250 mm near the upper limits of the pasture land vegetation at about 1,700 m in elevation. Blocks of various pine and eucalyptus plantings are found in the pasture lands, most of them in the Waiki'i Ranch area. W-2. From its beginning at Mamalahoa Highway (Station 100+000) and continuing upslope to just before Station 102+000, the alignment passes through fountain grass/mixed shrubland on Waikoloa series soils (Cross Reference: 3.12.1.4 Soils). This variant of the fountain grass/mixed shrubland supports a greater number of weedy herbaceous species. Scattered low shrubs of koa haole, up to 0.5 m tall, are occasional with shrubs of'akia and 'a'ali i occurring in smaller numbers. From Station 102+000, near'Auwaiakeakua Gulch, to where it meets the W-3 alignment at Station 112+582, the corridor passes through pasture land vegetation. }�-3. For the greater part of its length, from Mamalahoa Highway to Station 107+000, the W-3 alternative alignment follows along over Pu u Pa series soils covered by fountain grass/mixed 3-137 shrubland. The terrain is dissected by numerous stony ridges with thin soils. Low lying swales with deeper soils and somewhat moister soil conditions occur between the ridges. The areas with thin soils support fountain grass/mixed shrubland, while the smaller swale areas support kikuyu grass and buffel grass as well as many weedy species. The swales tend to be heavily browsed by the cattle and there is a complex network of cattle paths crossing over the larger rocky areas and down into each grassy swale. Around Station 105+520, ' a' ali' i shrubs, 1 to 2 m tall, become very dense. Olive trees are found scattered throughout this vegetation type, especially in the area by Station 102+000 near Ke' amuku. The trees are spread by game birds which eat the fruit. At Station 106+000 the alignment crosses a fenceline with a small planting of eucalyptus. Kikuyu grass -dominated pasture land interfaces the fountain grass/mixed shrubland around Station 107+000. The W-3 alignment corridor continues upslope through kikuyu pasture land, crosses under the HELCO powerlines, and connects with the W-2 alignment. W-2 and W-3. Along the common alignment of W-2 and W-3 to the Parker Ranch/PTA fenceline, the corridor passes through pasture land vegetation. This long stretch of gently rolling pasture land is almost uniform in composition throughout its length. Kikuyu grass forms a low, dense, yellowish -green colored carpet which excludes most other species. As the corridor approaches PTA, the soils become stonier and there are scattered patches of 'a'ali i shrubs and a few mamane trees on the rocky knolls. A few small 'akoko plants, about 0.5 m tall, are found at Station 113+840, just at the edge of the corridor where it abuts a rocky knoll. The ' akoko plants as well as the ' a' ali' i shrubs all show signs of damage from the cattle. From the fenceline and onto the PTA property, the vegetation consists of hard -stemmed lovegrass grassland. A portion of this grassland around Station 114+820 was recently burned. Near Station 115+780, the vegetation changes to 'aweoweo shrubland. Section I The PTA, which occupies most of Section II, is dominated by native vegetation types. Average annual rainfall at the western PTA boundary is about 380 mm. Rainfall steadily increases eastward from about the Mauna Kea State Park, with the easternmost portions of the installation receiving about 1,000 mm per year. Because the PTA has not been grazed and military development is restricted to certain areas, the majority of the installation remains in native natural plant communities with a large proportion of the installation containing rare plants. Hard -stemmed lovegrass grassland and ' aweoweo shrubland are found on the alluvial flats, while a' ali' i shrubland occurs on the lower Mauna Kea slopes on the western portion of the installation. Mamane/naio forest occupies the area from the cantonment area of the PTA eastward past Mauna Kea State Park, and ends at the DHHL boundary. Pasture land vegetation composed primarily of kikuyu grass and velvet grass is found on the DHHL parcel. EX -2. On the alluvial flats, between the start of EX -2 at Station 119+100 to around MP 36 by the cantonment area of the PTA, the vegetation consists of a mosaic of'aweoweo shrubland and 3-138 hard -stemmed lovegrass grassland. The 'aweoweo shrubland is usually associated with areas of deeper soil (alluvial loess), while the grassland is associated with less developed cindery soils or somewhat stony soils. From the cantonment area of the PTA, past the Mauna Kea State Park, and up to Station 132+000, the EX -2 alignment crosses through mamane/naio forest. There is evidence of a past fire, i.e. burnt tree stumps, in portions of the forest around Station 129+000. The forest is much more open and grassy in this area. Across from the park, there are a few plantings of coffeeberry, sambucus, and other introduced plants tucked in among the mamane and naio trees. From Station 132+000 to 140+700, the alignment crosses the Lava Flows of 1843 and 1935, which support only a very sparse pioneer vegetation. PTA -1 and PTA -3. These segments start at Station 10+000 where they leave the existing Saddle Road and cross a short, level section covered by 'aweoweo shrubland with scattered ' a' ali i shrubs and mamane trees. The alignment continues up ash -covered slopes dominated by hard -stemmed lovegrass grassland. From around Station 11+000 to 14+000, the stony slopes behind the three cinder cones (unnamed cinder cone, Pu'u Koko, Pu'u Ma au) are covered by a' ali i shrubland; in places, the alignment crosses the transition zone where the ' a' ali i shrubland and hard -stemmed lovegrass grassland interface. Seven 'akoko trees are found in a large gully. A short distance from Station 14+000 the alignment drops onto the deep ash -covered flats and aweoweo shrubland. The 'aweoweo shrubland continues to Station 17+000. At Station 17+000 until just before 19+000, the vegetation consists of hard -stemmed lovegrass grassland. At Station 18+820, along the south edge of the alignment corridor, is a small patch of mamane/naio forest which harbors a stand of akoko trees. ' A' ali i shrubland and mamane/naio forest cover the alignment up to the cantonment area of the PTA. A small cluster of about 15 ' akoko plants, most of them less than 1 m tall, is found near an existing road cut at the base of Pu'u Pohakuloa near Station 19+660; the trees are within the PTA -I corridor. No inventory of plants was made for the cantonment area of the PTA, from Station 19+840 to 20+140, because it is landscaped. From the end of the cantonment area of the PTA at Station 20+140 to Mauna Kea State Park, the alignment passes through open mamane/naio forest with scattered 'aweoweo shrubs and an under story of grasses and herbs. A small planting of nonnative plants is found within the corridor by the park. From the park to Station 24+520, the alignment continues through open to closed canopy mamane/naio forest on nearly level to gently sloping, grayish -brown loamy soils. From Station 24+520 and continuing to 27+000, the substrate becomes very stony land, characterized by very shallow soil material and a high proportion of a' a lava outcrops and stony ridges. Within this area, there are several scattered stands of akoko trees among the mamane and naio. Other native species found associated with this stony area include ko' oko' olau, stenogyne, hesperocnide, sicyos, sandalwood, and mountain pili. 3-139 PT -1. From Station 27+000 to the fenceline between PTA and the DFUM, there is a small section of the alignment covered by a ruderal community composed of introduced grasses and herbs, primarily telegraph plant and mullein. On the DH II_, property, the vegetation consists of a mixed grass pasture land. After crossing over the pasture land, the alignment then proceeds onto the 1935 lava flow and terminates at Station 30+999. PTA -3. This segment follows along the PTA boundary adjacent to the DBBL property by Pu'u ' Oma' oko' ili and Pu' u Nene. Open canopied mamane/naio forest is found at the beginning of the alignment at Station 10+000, but soon changes to an open, grassy field which supports a ruderal community. This disturbed area is where a number of roads converge and is subject to vehicular disturbance and troop training activities. The PTA -1 alignment also crosses this disturbed area. A small planting of several species of eucalyptus and pine, and cork oak is found on the lower slopes of Pu u 'Oma ' oko' ili. From about Station 11+000 to 11+800, the alignment passes through mamane/naio forest with a small stand of'akoko trees. From Station 11+800 to its terminus at EX -2, the alignment crosses the 1843 lava flow with sparse pioneer vegetation. This segment starts at an altitude of 2,000 in at Station 140+700 and proceeds east, terminating at Station 171+576 at an altitude of 600 in. It passes through several micro -climatic zones as well as a number of vegetation types. The small portion of Section III covered by the westside study area consists of the Lava Flow of 1935, which is sparsely vegetated with pioneer vegetation. From the beginning of the eastside study area and heading east to approximately Station 154+000, the habitat is defined as subalpine shrubland with one pocket of montane dry forest found between Stations 150+750 and 151+000. From Station 154+000 to approximately 156+000, the segment passes through a mosaic of montane mesic shrubland and montane mesic forest. From Station 156+000 to 161+000, montane mesic forest predominates and at approximately Station 161+00 the vegetation blends into montane wet forest which continues to EX -3's terminus at Station 171+576. The proposed route generally follows the edge between the new lava flows and the surrounding old flow late successional forest. The most environmentally important areas along this segment are numerous kipuka (koa-' ohi' a forests on older lava substrates). Environmentally sensitive kipuka have been identified at Stations 145+500 to 146+500, 147+250 to 148+240, 155+450 to 157+500, 157+700 to 157+900, 159+500 to 160+000, 162+500 to 164+000, 165+500 to 166+240, 167+860, 168+460, and 170+500 to 171+000. A more detailed description of kipuka vegetation is provided within this report under the heading of Koa-' Ohi' a Forest, Section 3.11.1 Affected Environment, Sections III and IV). 3-140 Section IV EX -4A and E-3. Both Segments EX -4A and E-3 pass through lowland wet forest for the majority of their lengths. Some of this habitat has been highly modified. The westernmost 500 m of both segments traverses montane wet forest. 3.13.2 Environmental Consequences Section I 4W. Segment W-2 would disturb 68.6 ha of habitat. This includes 58.4 ha of nonnative vegetation types (7.6 ha of fountain grass/mixed shrubland and 50.8 ha of pasture land) and 10.2 ha of native vegetation types (6.1 ha of hard -stemmed lovegrass grassland and 4.1 ha of aweoweo shrubland). No eucalyptus/pine plantings, ruderal community, ' a ali i shrubland, mamane/naio forest, or pioneer vegetation on lava flows occurs within this segment. lW-3. Segment W-3 would disturb 70.1 ha of habitat. This includes 59.9 ha of nonnative vegetation types (33.3 ha of fountain grass/mixed shrubland and 26.6 ha of pasture land) and 10.2 ha of native vegetation types (6.1 ha of hard -stemmed lovegrass grassland and 4.1 ha of aweoweo shrubland). No eucalyptus/pine plantings, ruderal community, ' a' ali i shrubland, mamane/naio forest, or pioneer vegetation on lava flows occurs within this segment. EX -2. Not including prior disturbance of the existing Saddle Road surface, total habitat disturbance would be 68.5 ha. The 68.5 ha of habitat disturbance include 0.9 ha of nonnative vegetation types (all ruderal community) and 67.6 ha of native vegetation types (14.1 ha of hard -stemmed lovegrass grassland, 16.2 ha of aweoweo shrubland, 10.8 ha of mamane/naio forest, and 26.5 ha of pioneer vegetation on lava flows). No fountain grass/mixed shrubland, pasture land, eucalyptus/pine plantings, or'a'ali i shrubland occurs within this segment. Potential impacts to vegetation due to increased risk of fire within Section II would be reduced by the adoption of a fire mitigation plan. PTA -1. Segment PTA -1 would disturb 85.1 ha of habitat. This includes 12.3 ha of nonnative vegetation types (10.9 ha of pasture land and 1.4 ha of ruderal community) and 72.8 ha of native vegetation types (9.4 ha of hard -stemmed lovegrass grassland, 12.3 ha of aweoweo shrubland, 15.4 ha of'a'ali i shrubland, 29.7 ha of mamane/naio forest, and 6.0 ha of pioneer vegetation on lava flows). No fountain grass/mixed shrubland or eucalyptus/pine plantings occurs within this segment. Potential impacts to vegetation due to increased risk of fire within Section II would be reduced by the adoption of a fire mitigation plan. PTA -3. While the total right-of-way for Segment PTA -3 would total 90.3 ha, total habitat disturbance for would be 88.2 ha, due to prior disturbance of the existing Saddle Road surface. 3-141 The 88.2 ha of habitat disturbance include 3.3 ha of nonnative vegetation types (0.9 ha of eucalyptus/pine plantings and 2.4 ha of ruderal community) and 84.9 ha of native vegetation types (9.4 ha of hard -stemmed lovegrass grassland, 12.3 ha of aweoweo shrubland, 15.4 ha of a ali' i shrubland, 34.3 ha of mamane/naio forest, 13.5 ha of pioneer vegetation on lava flows). No fountain grass/mixed shrubland or pasture land occurs within this segment. Potential impacts to vegetation due to increased risk of fire within Section II would be reduced by the adoption of a fire mitigation plan. Section III EX -3. Not including the prior disturbance of the existing Saddle Road surface, total habitat disturbance with Segment EX -3 would be 96.5 ha of habitat, all of which are native vegetation types. This includes 0.4 ha of montane dry grassland, 33.1 ha of montane wet forest, 18.3 ha of montane mesic forest, 0.9 ha of montane dry forest, 6.9 ha of subalpine dry shrubland, 3.2 ha of montane mesic shrubland, and 33.7 ha of montane dry shrubland. No lowland wet forest, lowland wet herbland, lowland wet grassland, or lowland wet shrubland occurs within this segment. Some montane wet shrubland occurs within this segment, but impacts to this habitat type would be too small to measure. Section IV EX -4A. Segment EX -4A would disturb 10.7 ha of habitat, all of which are primarily native vegetation types, but which also have been exposed to varying degrees of modification by nonnative species. This includes 9.4 ha of lowland wet forest and 1.3 ha of montane wet forest. The flora of the 9.4 ha of lowland wet forest includes numerous nonnative species and lacks the integrity generally associated with native vegetation types. No montane dry grassland, lowland wet herbland, montane mesic forest, montane dry forest, subalpine dry shrubland, lowland wet grassland, montane mesic shrubland, or montane dry shrubland occurs within this segment. Some lowland wet shrubland and montane wet shrubland occurs within this segment, but impacts to these habitat types would be too small to measure. EE=3. Segment E-3 would disturb 22.4 ha of habitat. This includes 11.1 ha of nonnative vegetation types (4.6 ha of lowland wet herbland and 6.5 ha of lowland wet grassland) and 11.3 ha of primarily native vegetation types (9.3 ha of lowland wet forest and 2.0 ha of montane wet forest). The flora of the 9.3 ha of lowland wet forest includes numerous nonnative species and lacks the integrity generally associated with native vegetation types. No montane dry grassland, montane mesic forest, montane dry forest, subalpine dry shrubland, montane mesic shrubland, or montane dry shrubland occurs within this segment. Some lowland wet shrubland and montane wet shrubland occurs within this segment, but impacts to these habitat types would be too small to measure. No Action Alternative. With the No Action Alternative, there would be no construction -related impact to vegetation within the project area. With an increase in the number of vehicles using 3-142 Saddle Road and increased access to the project vicinity, the risk of wildfire and the likelihood of human disturbance would be expected to increase, although to a lesser extent than with the action alternatives. 3.13.3 Mitigation Measures Additional mitigation measures pertaining to the reduction of impacts to biological resources are detailed in the section of this chapter on threatened and endangered species (Cross Reference: 3.18.3 Mitigation Measures). All Sections ■ All equipment, material, and support structures will be stored and maintained within the right-of-way or in designated staging areas that have been approved as being areas where the storing, servicing, and staging of equipment and material will not adversely impact native species. These areas will be clearly demarcated and fenced prior to construction. ■ All construction activity will be restricted to the clearly delineated right-of-way. ■ A Project Engineer will be on site at all times during construction to ensure implementation and compliance with environmental mitigation requirements as stated in the contract documents. ■ Contractors will be required to participate in an environmental quality control program. Immediately after construction in this Section I is completed, the margins of the roadway will be replanted with kikuyu grass, the dominate ground cover along both segments in this section. Section II ■ Mitigation addressing the increased fire hazard is outlined elsewhere in this document (Cross Reference: 3.9.3 Mitigation Measures). ■ During construction in Section II, emergency spills treatment, storage, and disposal of all petroleums, oils, and lubricants, both within construction limits and at staging areas will be handled in strict accordance with the FHWA 1996 Sperifirationc for Construction of Roads and Bridges on Federal Highway Projects, as well as Federal Acquisition Regulations and appropriate EPA regulations. HDOT will provide similar measures in Sections 1, III, and IV. 3-143 ■ A comprehensive manual outlining and discussing the environmental issues, specific mitigation requirements, and procedures that will be required of the construction company(s) awarded the project will be prepared. This document will be prepared by the FHWA in accordance with their newly effected environmental team policy, which ensures that the environmental team closely follows the entire project to its completion. At the pre -construction meetings this document and the rationale behind specific requirements will be explained to project engineers and supervisors. Similar measures will be taken by HDOT during construction outside of the PTA. ■ All construction personnel will be required to attend a project orientation meeting where specific environmental considerations and prohibitions will be explained. Sections III and IV ■ The proposed alignment will be shifted during final design to avoid or minimize impacts to kipuka (Cross Reference: 3.11.3 Mitigation Measures and 3.18.3 Mitigation Measures). 3.14 WILDLIFE 3.14.1 Birds An ornithological survey was conducted for the proposed project between April 1995 and September 1996 along the various alternative segments (Rana 1997, Technical Appendices, Volume II). The primary purpose of this survey was to document what species occur (or are likely to occur given the type of habitat available), provide some baseline data on the relative abundance of the species found, determine the presence of any native or special status species, and identify and address potential conflicts between the proposed action and special status species. Figure 3.13.1 shows the location of Palila Critical Habitat and the Kipuka ' Ainahou Nene Sanctuary. 3.14.1.1 Affected Environment Both the isolation of the Hawaiian Islands from continental land masses and their volcanic origin fosters a high degree of adaptive radiation and endemism. The adaptation and specialization displayed by many of Hawai is endemic avian species has contributed to their vulnerability in a rapidly changing world. To date more than 60 percent of Hawai is endemic avifauna has gone extinct. Within historical times a total of 69 endemic avian species and sub -species have been described from Hawai i. Of these, 23 have gone extinct. Of the remaining 46 a total of 32 are currently listed as endangered or threatened by the USFWS. Thirteen of these are critically endangered or may in fact have already gone extinct. Of the 32 currently listed endangered avian species and sub -species found in Hawai' i, 13 are found on the Island of Hawai i. Nine of these can be expected to at least occasionally utilize parts of the proposed corridors. 3-144 Migratory waterbirds and shorebirds make up a large part of the winter avian population of Hawaii. These annual visitors are found throughout the Islands from August through May. Currently 82 separate migratory and extralimital waterbird and shorebird species have been documented from the Islands. Most of these species are generally associated with wetland habitat, however; three of them, Pacific Golden Plover, Ruddy Turnstone, and Sanderling are common winter migrants and are regularly found in open, grassy areas. During the last hundred years more than a 160 species of alien birds have been introduced to the Hawaiian Islands. Many of these species were game birds introduced by a combination of private landowners, the Territorial Board of Agriculture and Forestry, and following statehood, by the State of Hawaii DLNR Division of Forestry and Wildlife. These birds were introduced in the hope that they would become established and provide a recreational hunting resource which, in turn, would generate Federal funding through the Pittman Robinson Act for the maintenance of game bird hunting. Less than a quarter of these introductions have been successful. On the Island of Hawai' i more than 60 species of game birds have been introduced. Currently, 14 of these alien introductions have survived and are considered to be established on the Island. Little is known of the effect that these species have on Hawai' is native bird populations. Many of these alien birds out compete Hawai is native species for food, cover, and nesting resources. They have been implicated in the spread of alien plant species which have proven to have a negative effect on Hawai is native ecosystems. Some of these species are thought to impact Hawai is endemic avifauna by spreading disease. A combination of survey protocols were utilized during the course of the avian surveys. A total of 296 count stations were placed along the various proposed alternate routes. All stations were visited at least twice. Counts were concentrated during the early morning hours (between 6:00 am and 11:00 am), the peak bird activity time. The basic survey protocol used is based on the techniques utilized in Hawaii by the USFWS Hawaii Forest Bird Surveys (FIFBS) initiated in 1972. These counts are the basis for the relative abundance estimates in this report. Additional time was spent "prospecting" in pockets of vegetation away from the proposed centerlines in an attempt to locate any species not recorded during count periods. In Segments W-2 and W-3, count stations were placed 240 in apart. Count stations were placed at 200-m intervals along PTA -1 and PTA -3. Count stations were placed at 1.6 -km intervals along EX -2 and EX -3, using the MP markers as reference points. Along Segments E-3 and EX -4A count stations were placed at 200-m intervals. A total of 41 bird species representing 18 families were detected. Of these, 7 are endemic (native and unique to Hawai i) at the species level, one is endemic at the sub -species level, and 3 are considered native migratory species. The remaining 31 species detected are alien (introduced by man). One species, the Palila, is both endemic and listed as an endangered species by both the USFWS and by the State of Hawai i. An individual Palila was observed during the botanical surveys for this project. Previous surveys of the avifauna of Hawaii were reviewed for this 3-145 project. The findings of the studies were consistent with past studies undertaken in the same areas. The avifauna of the Humu ula Saddle is dominated by introduced species. Table 3.14.1, Birds Detected or Expected to Occur Within the Vicinity of the Project Area, lists birds detected during the course of this survey. In addition, federally listed endangered species which may occur occasionally within one or more of the proposed corridors but were not detected are also included. Migratory waterbirds and shorebirds make up a large part of the winter avian population of Hawai i. These annual visitors are found throughout the Islands from August through May. Currently 82 separate migratory and extralimital waterbird and shorebird species have been documented from the Islands. During the course of this survey the three most common migratory shorebird species found in Hawaii were recorded. These being Pacific Golden Plover, Ruddy Turnstone, and Sanderling. These species were encountered on all segments, their densities varied in direct correlation to the increase in canopy density as the study moved eastward. TABLE 3.14.1 Birds Detected or Expected to Occur Within the Vicinity of the Project Area Common Name Scientific Name Notes Dark-rumped Petrel, Ua' u Pterodroma phaeopygia sandwichensis Endangered Hawaiian Goose, Nene Branta sandvicensis Endangered Hawaiian Hawk, Jo Buteo solitarius Endangered Palila Loxoides batlleui Endangered 'Akiapola'au Hemignathusmunroi Endangered Hawaii Creeper, ' Alauahio Oreomystis mana Endangered Hawaii ' Akepa, ' Akakane Loxops coccineus coccineus Endangered Newell's Shearwater,'A'o Puffinusnewelli Threatened Short -eared Owl, Pueo Asio flammeus sandwichensis Native, Endemic Subspecies Hawaii 'Elepaio Chastempis sandwichensis ridgwayi Endemic ' Oma' o Myadestes obscures Endemic Hawai' i ' Amakihi Hemignathus virens virens Endemic 3-146 TABLE 3.14.1 Birds Detected or Expected to Occur Within the Vicinity of the Project Area Common Name Scientific Name Notes 'I'iM Vestiariacoccinea Endemic 'Apapane Himatione sanquinea sanquinea Endemic Pacific Golden Plover Pluvialis fulva Migratory Ruddy Turnstone Arenaria interpres Migratory Sanderling Caltdris alba Migratory Grey Francolin Francolinus podicerianus Introduced, game Black Francolin Francolinus francolinus Introduced, game Chukar Alectoris chukar Introduced, game Erckel's Francolin Francolinus erkelti Introduced, game Japanese Quail Coturnix japonica Introduced, game Kalij Pheasant Lophura (leucomelanos) leucomelana Introduced, game Ring-necked Pheasant Phasianus colchicus Introduced, game Wild Turkey Meleagrisgallopavo Introduced, game California Quail Callipepla californica Introduced, game Chestnut -bellied Sandgrouse Pterocles exustus Introduced, game Spotted Dove Streptopelia chinensis Introduced, game Zebra Dove Geopelta striata Introduced, game Rock Dove Columba Itvia Introduced Barn Owl Tyto Alba Introduced Northern Mockingbird Mimus polyglottos Introduced Common Myna Acridotheres tristis Introduced Japanese White -eye Zosteropsjaponica Introduced Melodious Laughing -thrush Garulax canorus Introduced Red -billed Leiothrix Leiothrix lutea Introduced Skylark Alauda arvents Introduced 3-147 TABLE 3.14.1 Birds Detected or Expected to Occur Within the Vicinity of the Project Area Common Name Scientific Name Notes House Sparrow Passser domesticus Introduced Red Avadavat Amadava amadava Introduced Warbling Silverbill or African Silverbill Lonchura cantans (malabarica) Introduced Nutmeg Mannikin or Scaly -breasted Munia Lonchura punctulata Introduced Yellow -Fronted Canary Serinus mozambicus Introduced House Finch Carpodacus mexicanus Introduced Saffron Finch Sicalisflaveola Introduced Northern Cardinal Cardinahs cardinahs Introduced The avifauna found within Section I is dominated by introduced species. This is not surprising given that almost all of this area has been heavily grazed for more than a hundred years. This has resulted in the almost total destruction of the formerly existing native forest that once covered this area. All of the birds detected along this section were alien species with the exception of 2 sightings of Pu' eo or Hawaiian Owl which is an endemic sub -species of the widely distributed Short -eared Owl and numbers of three species of indigenous migratory shorebirds. One endangered Nene was seen in the introduced fountain grass savannah south of the W-2 and W-3 alignments in this section. Section II Within Section II there are three major avian habitats. The open ' aweoweo shrubland and hard - stemmed lovegrass grasslands (Cross Reference: 3.13.1.2 Native Vegetation Types) is dominated by introduced avian species including numerous species of gamebirds and large numbers of House Finches, Common Myna, and Skylarks. Pioneer vegetation on lava flows does not support any resident birdlife. The mamane/naio forest is entirely within the federally designated Palila Critical Habitat Area (Cross Reference: 3.18.1 Affected Environment). The avifauna within the mamane/naio forest is dominated by alien species such as House Finch, Japanese White -eye, Skylark, and numerous gamebirds, but there are also large numbers of two endemic avian species present here as well. Large numbers of Hawaz i 'Amakihi and lesser numbers of'Apapane were recorded in this section. During the course of the botanical study of this area, an individual Palila 3-148 was observed. Although this sighting was not corroborated by an ornithologist, there have been several recently documented sightings of Palila from the general area. Section III Within Section III, the eastern portion which includes pioneering vegetation on recent lava flows and extends to around station 145+175 does not support any resident birdlife. It crosses open lava flows with scant widely separated stands of ' ohi' a. This habitat has little to offer birds, all but an extremely few pass over this area on their way elsewhere. From station 145+750 to station 155+500 the habitat is a mosaic of open and closed ' ohi' a/koa forest which is dominated by alien species such as House Finch, Japanese White -eye, Common Myna, and Red -billed Leiothrix, but also supports large numbers of endemic Hawaii Amakihi, and lesser numbers of'Apapane, ' Oma' o, and I' iwi. The bulk of the endemic birds are found in the various kipuka found along this section of the existing roadway. During the course of this survey three separate sightings of the endangered Hawaiian Hawk were recorded along Segment EX -3. The Kipuka ' Ainahou Nene Sanctuary is located south of the existing alignment between MP 27.5 to 22.0. RMSM/ Within Section IV, vegetation consists of lowland disturbed ' ohi a forest which becomes almost totally dominated by introduced plant species as the road gets closer to Hilo. During the course of this survey no endemic avian species were recorded in this area. 3.14.1.2 Environmental Consequences A project of this size and scope will potentially impact numerous avian habitats. W-2 and W-3 The almost total lack of native habitat or native avian species along Segments W-2 and W-3 implies that it is unlikely that any negative impacts on native avian species would result from the construction of the roadway along any one of these proposed corridors. EX -2. This segment passes through habitat that does not support any resident endemic avian species, with the exception of the section between station 128+750 and station 133+000 near Mauna Kea State Park. This area is vegetated in open mamane/naio parkland which supports a diversity of endemic avian species. There is also documented incidental usage of this immediate area by Palila. PTA -1 and PTA -3. With the selection of PTA -1 and PTA -3, there would be potential impacts to native avian species. The location of this alternative within and adjacent to Palila Critical Habitat represents a potential fire threat to the extremely dry introduced grasses and ' a' ali' i shrubland found on the western end of this section and the mamane/naio forest that characterizes the eastern 3-149 end of this section. The results of this survey, and those of the HFBS surveys and the past 17 years of DLNR Palila surveys indicate that there is very little current usage of this area by any of the 13 species of extant endangered avian species and subspecies currently found on the Island of Hawai i. More specifically; it is probable that there are no resident Palila or'Akiapola'au within the PTA -1 corridor; furthermore, any current usage of the areas by either species is best characterized as incidental. There is currently only minimal usage of this part of the Palila Critical Habitat by either Palila or ' Akiapola' au. However, construction of the roadway along either of these segments will have some impact on the habitat. The potential impacts could not be limited to the obvious removal of habitat, but would also involve a more complex combination of long term cumulative impacts. Constructing a roadway in the middle of an extremely dry mamane forest which has an understory dominated by grasses will certainly increase the threat of fire. Dry, slow growing forest such as this one takes an inordinate amount of time to regenerate in the event of a catastrophic fire. Increased access into this forest will also hasten further dispersion and possible introduction of alien plants, mammals, and insects into the area. This will, in turn, put ever increasing pressure on the remaining native habitat. EX -3. This segment is built almost totally on the 1855 lava flow. The habitat crossed from station 140+700, heading east to approximately station 145+000 is best described as open lava fields interspersed with kipuka of mixed ' ohi a/koa forest. There are no kipuka close to the proposed alignment in this section, and very little usage of this area by endemic avian species. It is unlikely that construction through this area will have any impacts on endemic avian species. From approximately station 145+750 through station 155+500 the vegetation consists of a mosaic of open and closed canopy ' ohi a forest interspersed with ' ohi' a/koa kipuka. Between station 155+500 and 410+000 the vegetation changes from mesic to wet ' ohi' a forest. Throughout this section of EX -3 there is considerable usage of the area by endemic birds. The most environmentally fragile areas along this section are the numerous kipuka that dot the area. The construction of roadway through this section would displace individual endemic birds during construction. Providing that no further damage is done to the remaining kipuka along this route the impacts to avian species should be of a temporary nature. The Kipuka ' Ainahou Nene Sanctuary is the only wildlife or waterfowl refuge located in or near the area potentially affected by the project. EX -3 would require encroachment along one border of the sanctuary near the existing Saddle Road. This would either pave or isolate a strip of the sanctuary with a total area of approximately 9.85 ha. The 16,000 -ha sanctuary was established in 1974 as part of recovery efforts for the endangered Nene (Branta sandvicensis). A total of 320 birds were released in the early 1970s, but none have been released in the past twenty years because of poor survival rates. It is estimated that there are 16 Nene present in the Saddle area and no more than 4 Nene in the vicinity of Kipuka ' Ainahou. 3-150 Michael Wilson, Chairperson of the Board of Land and Natural Resources of the DLNR, the agency with jurisdiction over the sanctuary, states in a 9 June 1997 letter, "No successful production has been recorded in the Sanctuary within at least the last seven years. Because of these conditions, the sanctuary plays only a minor role in the overall recovery objectives of the Nene.... because of the small reduction in the overall size of the Sanctuary (0.006%) and the avoidance of those areas that are used by the Nene, the proposed realignment of the Saddle Road is not expected to adversely affect the function or overall value of the Sanctuary" (Cross Reference: 9.4.4 Chronological Comments, Correspondence, and Notices). Information pertaining to 49 U.S.C. Section 103, known as Section 4(f) is included in the portion of this chapter addressing impacts to Outdoor Recreation Resources (Cross Reference: 3.3.4.2 Environmental Consequences). Because the Kipuka'Ainahou Nene Sanctuary is not a significant wildlife refuge, the FHWA does not consider it a Section 4(f) property. EX -4A and E-3. The westernmost portion of these segments is built on the 1855 lava flow. The remainder of these segments is built on the 1881 flow. During the course of this survey no endemic avian species were recorded in these segments. No impacts on endemic avian species are expected from construction of any of these portions of proposed roadway. No Action Alternative. No impacts to native or migratory birds or their habitat would result from the No Action Alternative. 3.14.1.3 Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures pertaining to the reduction of impacts to birds are detailed in the sections of this chapter on threatened and endangered species and fire hazard (Cross Reference: 3.18.3 Mitigation Measures and 3.9.3 Mitigation Measures). 3.14.2 Mammals A mammalian survey was conducted for the proposed project between April 1995 and September 1996 along the various alternate routes for the proposed project (Rana 1996). Because Hawai i has only one endemic terrestrial mammal, the endangered Hawaiian hoary bat, the primary purpose of this survey was to determine the extent to which the species inhabits the project area (Cross Reference: 3.18 Threatened and Endangered Species). 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 to determine their relative abundance. 3.14.2.1 Affected Environment During the course of this survey 15 mammalian species plus one hybrid were detected while on site. Hawai is only endemic terrestrial mammalian species, the Hawaiian hoary bat was detected in all sections of the project area (Cross Reference: 3.18.1 Affected Environment). The other 14 mammalian species detected were all introduced to Hawaii by man and are considered alien 3-151 species. Table 3.14.2, Mammal Species Recorded in the Project Area, shows the mammals known to occur within the vicinity of the project area. TABLE 3.14.2 Mammals Species Recorded in the Project Area Common Name Scientific Name Status Hawaiian hoary bat Lasiurus cmereus semotus endemic - Endangered pig Sus scrofa introduced Domestic dog Canis familiaris introduced Polynesian rat Rattus exulans introduced European rabbit Oryclolagus cuniculus introduced rat spp. Rattus rattus spp. introduced Norway rat Rattus norvegicus introduced European house mouse Mus domesticus introduced small Indian mongoose Herpestes auropunctatus auropunctatus introduced Domestic cat Felis catus introduced Domestic horse Equus caballus introduced Domestic cattle Bos taurar introduced goat Capra hircus introduced sheep Ovis aires introduced Mouflon sheep Ovis musimon introduced All the mammalian species besides the Hawaiian hoary bat were introduced to the Hawaiian Islands by man. This process started when the first aboriginal settlers landed in the Islands some 1,500 years ago. The aboriginal peoples brought numerous alien species such as pigs, dogs, and Polynesian rats, as well as non-native plants and insects of many kinds, with them. Many of Hawai' is endemic birds, especially the flightless and ground nesting ones, were easy prey for the introduced dogs and hungry humans. Both the aboriginal people and their pigs proceeded to markedly alter the endemic ecosystems. The humans cleared and burned the lowlands for agricultural purposes and the pigs moved into the wet forests where they found abundant food in the myriad of endemic understory plants. The European rediscovery of the Islands in the late 1700s heralded another wave of introductions that included European rabbits, roof rats, Norway rats, European house mice, small Indian mongooses, cats, horses, cattle, goats, pigs, and sheep, as well as countless insect and plants species. 3-152 3.14.2.2 Environmental Consequences All Action Alternatives. Given the current knowledge and understanding of the abundance, distribution, and biology of the Hawaiian hoary bat, it is unlikely that the construction of the roadway along any of the alternatives proposed will have an adverse impact on this endangered species. No adverse impacts to introduced mammals are anticipated. No Action Alternative. No impacts to mammals or their habitat would result from the No Action Alternative. 3.14.2.3 Mitigation Measures No mitigation is proposed for impacts to mammals. 3.14.3 Invertebrates Surveys for invertebrates were conducted in August, September, and October 1996 (Hawai i Biological Survey 1996). The surveys involved spot sampling of the fauna along the length of Saddle Road and along the alternative new alignments. A total of 80 sites were investigated, 57 for land snails and slugs and 73 for insects and other arthropods. These sites were located in all sections of the corridor and on all alternative segments. Over 3,000 specimens of snails, insects, and related arthropods were collected. In addition, previous work in the area was reviewed through literature and collections of Bishop Museum. 3.14.3.1 Affected Environment Land snails, including slugs, were found at 28 of 57 sites sampled. Land snails were collected by visual search of leaf litter and vegetation at each site in microhabitats identified as most likely to harbor snail populations. Observations of above -ground vegetation were made in order to search for tree snails. A total of 1,482 specimens were collected, representing at least 13 species. Section I harbored low diversity, except at its upper end. Section 11 supported the greatest diversity of land snails, especially in the area on Segment PTA -1, and in particular in the area just to the east of Mauna Kea State Park. This endemic fauna is characteristic of the dry area of the Humu'ula Saddle, the slopes towards Mauna Loa, and Hualalai. The snail fauna of Sections III and IV was dominated by a few introduced species. Arthropods were found at 55 of 73 sites sampled. Various field collecting methods were employed during the field work portion of the project in order to ensure as complete a survey of existing species of arthropods as possible given the time constraints. The major collecting methods employed were Malaise traps, water traps, beating sheets, sweep nets, and bait traps. The total number of specimens collected is estimated to be over 3,000. A total of 215 arthropod taxa have been identified, 67 (31 percent) of which are considered endemic species. 3-153 A survey of cave habitats was undertaken to investigate subsurface geological features that extend into the project area. Many rare and sensitive species are obligate cave species and restricted to deep zone habitats. Deep zone habitats are moist still -air passages beyond direct environmental effects of climatic events on the surface. Over 16 potential cave entrances at 6 sites were checked. Four separate cave locations were found and investigated. Baits were placed in suitable habitats in Strawberry Cave and checked on subsequent trips. Additional discussion regarding caves is contained in the geology and soils section of this chapter (Cross Reference: 3.12.1.5 Speleological Resources). 3.14.3.1.1 Snails A total of 1,482 land snail specimens, including 13 specimens of a slug tentatively identified as a species of Deroceras, were collected during the survey. This material included at least 13 species. The only common name available for many snail species refers to the genus to which that species belongs. In this discussion of snails, scientific nomenclature, rather than common terminology, is used to facilitate better differentiation between species. Table 3.14.3, Land Snail and Slug Species Recorded in the Project Area, shows the lands snail (and slug) species recorded within the project area. Of these, 3 species (Euglandina rosea, Oxychilus alliarius, and the slug) have been introduced to the Hawaiian Islands; 2 are of unclear status (the species referred below to Striatura sp. cf meniscus and ?Striatura sp.); the remainder occur naturally in the Hawaiian Islands. No tree snails were seen. TABLE 3.14.3 Land Snail and Slug Species Recorded in the Project Area Section Species Found Section I W-2 W-3 Succinea konaensis Succinea konaensis ?Striatura sp. ?Striatura sp. "tornatellinid" A "tornatellinid" A "tornatellinid" B "tornatellinid" B "tornatellinid" C "tornatellinid" C Leptachatina sp. A Leptachatina sp. A 3-154 TABLE 3.14.3 Land Snail and Slug Species Recorded in the Project Area Section Species Found Section H EX -2 PTA -1 PTA -3 Succinea konaensis Oxychilus alliarius Oxychilus alliarius Striatura sp. cf. meniscus Succinea konaensis Succinea konaensis ?Striatura sp. Striatura sp. cf. meniscus Striatura sp. cf. meniscus Lamellidea sp. ?Striatura sp. ?Striatura sp. Leptachatina lepida Vitrina tenella Vitrina tenella Nesopupa subcentralis Nesopupa subcentrahs Lamellidea sp. Lamellidea sp. "tornatellinid" A "tomatellinid" A "tornatellinid" B "tornatellinid" B "tornatellinid" C "tornatellinid" C Leptachatina lepida Leptachatina lepida Section III EX -3 Oxychilus alliarius Euconulus thaanumi "tornatellinid" D ?Deroceras sp. Deroceras sp. Section IV EX -4A E-3 Euglandina rosea None found ?Deroceras sp. Notable was the finding in Section II of Leptachatina lepida, a USFWS Species of Concern. USFWS Species of Concern were formerly known as Candidate 2 or 3 species and are not afforded protection under the Endangered Species Act. This is one of only two localities at which this species is known to be extant. Leptachatina lepida is an oviparous species and is a ground dweller. Almost nothing is known of the ecology of L. lepida specifically. The genus Leptachatina is endemic to the Hawaiian Islands and almost all of its species, including L. lepida, are single island endemics. The family Amastridae, to which Leptachatina lepida belongs, is endemic to the Hawaiian Islands. It was once extremely diverse with over 300 species and numerous infra -specific taxa. Most of these taxa are now considered extinct. The Heritage Database has post -1945 records of live snails for only 15 amastrids, with only 4 of those species being recorded live since 1971. 3-155 Section I W-2 and W-3. On these segments, a relatively diverse assemblage of snails was found around rocky outcrops. This assemblage of snail species included Leptachatina sp. A and "tomatellinid" B. At other sites, only the two most common snails found throughout the Kona side of the survey area were found. In general, the heavily grazed areas along this segment are extremely poor snail habitat. Section II EX -2. This segment is the least diverse in Section II in terms of numbers of snail species. Six sites were investigated for snails. One site was bare pahoehoe lava and supported no snails. Four sites harbored only the two most common species. The sixth site, which was located in the area just to the east of the Mauna Kea State Park, supported these two most common species plus Leptachatina lepida (including live individuals), Striatura sp. cf meniscus, and Lamellidea sp. These species were generally found in the area to the east of Mauna Kea State Park. Most frequently, L. lepida appeared to be associated with naio trees. PTA -1 and PTA -3. These segments harbor the most diverse assemblage of land snails encountered during the survey: 1 I species. Snails were recorded at 10 sites on the PTA -1 alignment and nine sites on PTA -3 alignment. Sites on virtually bare pahoehoe or 'd a lava east of the junction of PTA -1 and PTA -3 were investigated but harbored no snails. The greatest diversity was found in the area of mamane/naio forest to the east of the Mauna Kea State Park. This area was the only area in which live Leptachatina lepida were found. Section III EX -3. At three of the four sites investigated, only the introduced garlic snail Oxychilus alliarius and the introduced slug species (?Deroceras sp.) were found. At the fourth site, a single specimen of "tornatellinid" D, four specimens of Euconulus thaanumi, as well as these two introduced species, were collected. Section IV EX -4A. Only the introduced slug (?Deroceras sp.) and the introduced snail Euglandina rosea were found. FE -3. No snails or slugs were found at the one site investigated. The upper end of this segment was not investigated and probably supports some native habitat, possibly harboring native snails. 3-156 3.14.3.1.2 Insects and Related Arthropods Over 3,000 specimens of insects and related arthropods were collected during the survey. These comprise 215 species in 88 families and 14 orders. The only common name available for many insect and related arthropod species refers to the genus to which that species belongs. In this discussion of insects and related arthropods, scientific nomenclature, rather than common terminology, is used to facilitate better differentiation between species. Table 3.14.4, Insects and Related Arthropod Species of Concern Recorded in the Project Area, shows those species recorded within the project area. TABLE 3.14.4 Insect and Related Arthropod Species of Concern Recorded in the Project Area Section Species Found Section I W-2 W-3 Coleotichus blackburniae Coleotichus blackburniae Trupanea sp. Trupanea sp. Section II EX -2 PTA -1 PTA -3 Holocobius sp. Holcobius sp. Holcobius sp. Hylaeus (Nesoprosopis) sp. Plagithmysus looki Plagithmysus looki Neomachilis heteropus Plagithmysus blackburni Plagithmysus blackburni Linepithema humile Plagithmysus filipes sophorae Plagithmysus ftlipes sophorae Hylaeus (Nesoprosopis) sp. Hylaeus (Nesoprosopis) sp. Odynerus sp. Odynerus sp. Trupanea apicalis Trupanea apicalis Trupanea arboreae Trupanea arboreae Neomachilis heteropus Linepithema humile Section III EX -3 Proterhinus sp. Uophaena gracilipes Dyscrilomyia sp. Megalagrion amaurodytum peles Hylaeus (Nesoprosopis) sp. Schrankia sp. 1 Schrankia sp. 2 Erigone cf. stygius Nannolene sp. Linepithema humile Section IV EX4A E-3 No Species of Concern identified No Species of Concern identified Due to the large number of insects and related arthropods collected and identified, the discussion in this EIS is limited to USFWS Species of Concern. While Species of Concern are not afforded 3-157 legal protection under the Endangered Species Act, the list of Species of Concern reflects endemic arthropods of note. Section I W-2. The koa bug, Coleotichus blackburniae, was collected at one site, in association with a' ali i. An undetermined species of the flower -head breeding fly Trupanea was collected at another site. �W-3. The koa bug, Coleotichus blackburniae, was collected at one site, in association with a' ali i. An undetermined species of the flower -head breeding fly Trupanea was collected at another site. Section II EX -2. The anobiid Holcobius sp. was collected at one site. Two undetermined species of the native colletid bee Hylaeus (Nesoprosopis) were collected at another site. PTA -1 and PTA -3. A total of 29 sites were investigated along PTA -1. The anobiid Holcobius sp. was collected at one site. The endemic long -horned beetle, Plagithmysus looki, was collected at four sites, one solely within PTA -1. Plagithmysus blackburni and P. frlipes sophorae were collected at one site. The endemic colletid bees of the genus Hylaeus (Nesoprosopis) were collected at two sites, one solely within PTA -1. The endemic vespid wasp, Odynerus sp., was found at four sites, one solely within PTA -1. The flower -head breeding flies Trupanea apicalis and T. arboreae, were found in association with dubautia at one site. A total of 29 sites were investigated along PTA -3. The anobiid Holcobius sp. was collected at one site. The endemic long -horned beetle, Plagithmysus looki, was collected at three sites. Plagithmysus blackburni and P. filipes sophorae were collected at one site. The endemic colletid bees of the genus Hylaeus (Nesoprosopis) were collected at two sites, one solely within PTA -3. The endemic vespid wasp, Odynerus sp., was found at three sites. The flower -head breeding flies Trupanea apicalis and T. arboreae, were found in association with dubautia at one site. Within PTA -1 and PTA -3, in Bradshaw Field Cave, no living arthropods were found, but numerous fragments of spiders, moths, beetles, and other arthropods were identified. Thin dry roots, probably from native dodonaea bushes on the surface, were growing in the soil, especially near the wall. When these roots flush during rains, they may support many cave and soil arthropods. Within EX -2 and PTA -3, in the 1935 Lava Flow Cave A, the first live specimen of an endemic jumping bristletail (Neomachilis heteropus) found in many decades was collected. The Argentine ant (Linepithema humile) was abundant on the flow. 3-158 Section III EX -3. A total of 11 sites were investigated for insects along this segment. One site was found to harbor the beetles, Proterhinus sp., Liophaena gracilipes, and the endemic calliphorid fly, Dyscritomyia sp. Though no specimens were collected during this survey, immatures of the damselfly Megalagrion amaurodytum peles have been collected previously from this site. Adults of this damselfly were observed at another site. The colletid bee Hylaeus (Nesoprosopis) sp. was found at one site. One site harbored the following sensitive species: the noctuid Schrankia sp. 1, the spider Erigone cf stygius, and the millipede Nannolene sp. At Don's Cave, the noctuid Schrankia sp. 2 and the millipede Nannolene sp. were found. Within EX -3, in the 1935 Lava Flow Cave B, the Argentine ant was common. Within EX -3, in Strawberry Cave, brown organic oozes support various arthropods. Fifteen species of arthropods were found in the cave. Eleven of these are native, and seven are obligate cave species and known only from underground environments. The presence of the linyphiid spider, lithobiid centipede, and cambalid millipede indicates that the cave supports diverse endemic cave fauna. Within EX -3, in Don's Cave, eight species of arthropods, six of which are native and three of which are obligate cave species were found. Species such as Oliarus planthoppers and Caconemobius crickets would also be expected to occur. Within EX -3, in the 1881 Lava Flow, the large Kaumana Cave has a diverse range of endemic biological resources. Section IV X-4 . No arthropod Species of Concern were found along this segment. EE=3. Although no arthropod Species of Concern have been identified, there may some such species in the unprocessed material collected from this segment. This area is composed of wet forest known to normally yield high numbers of endemic and native insects and related arthropods. The upslope portions of Kaumana Cave, though not surveyed in this study, may cross under parts of E-3, along the 1881 lava flow (Cross Reference: 3.12.1.5 Speleological Resources). These cave portions could provide habitat for additional native and cave -adapted species of arthropods. 3.14.3.2 Environmental Consequences Direct impacts of construction, especially on sedentary species including snails and non-volant insects, are likely. Populations of individual species may be highly localized. Road construction will impact the habitat and the animals associated with it. Road construction on the new, alternative routes will generate a corridor along which introduced species, both plant and animal, will be able more readily to gain access to native habitat. Habitat types of particular value for invertebrates include caves, lava tubes, kipuka, and mamane/naio forest (Cross References: 3.12.1.5 Speleological Resources, 3.13.1.3 Discussion of 3-159 Vegetation Types By Section, and 3.13.1.2.4 Mamane/Naio Forest). Many cave animals on the Island of Hawaii have differentiated within each cave, so that each cave may harbor a distinct and unique fauna found nowhere else. Caves identified within the project area include Bradshaw Field Cave, 1935 Lava Flow Cave A, 1935 Lava Flow Cave B, Strawberry Cave, Don's Cave, and 1881 Lava Flow (Kaumana Cave). In one of the kipuka, flightless flies of the genus Campsicnemus were collected in the 1970s. They have not been collected since, despite repeated collecting efforts for almost 20 years. Feral ungulate damage as well as possible other perturbations that have led to the demise of the flightless flies and possibly other unique organisms found only in Hawaiian kipuka. Argentine ants have been found near kipuka by the stations EX -3 140+860 and EX -3 141+880. These ants are particularly dangerous to the continued welfare of native invertebrate faunas. The land snails recorded in the mamane/naio forest around the PTA are characteristic of the saddle area from the PTA to Mauna Loa and Hualalai, based on previous sampling in the PTA and elsewhere. This fauna is essentially endemic to the area. In particular, the present survey sites along Segments PTA -1 and PTA -3 in the area of mamane/naio forest east of Mauna Kea State Park represent one of only two localities at which Leptachatina lepida is known to survive. This area supported the greatest diversity of land snails encountered during the survey. For insects and related arthropods, the highest diversity in the dry area of the Humu' ula Saddle occurred in mamane/naio forest. Snails are sedentary. Populations of individual species may be highly localized. Road construction will involve destruction of snail habitat and hence snails. The survey prepared for the proposed project has been used to obtain a general assessment of the relative importance of the various alternative segments from the perspective of snail diversity. Insects are generally mobile and can occupy diverse habitats, ranges of altitudes, and ecosystems. However, the general faunal constituency of Saddle Road contains a large number of species of insects that are known to be habitat or host specific. The survey of the fauna of insects and related arthropods has shown that there are a few "sensitive" species that may be impacted by construction through a specific habitat. Numerous species of alien wasps and alien ants (including Argentine ants) exist along portions of the existing Saddle Road. Section I W-2 and W-3. Populations of two relatively common snail species, Succinea konaensis and ?Striatura sp. might be impacted by construction, but they are widely distributed, so these impacts would not be notable. In the portion of W-2 common to both W-2 and W-3 (within the PTA), a relatively diverse assemblage of native snail species was found, including Leptachatina sp. A. These species were found in highly localized rocky outcrops. There are a small number of these 3-160 outcrops in the area, and some others of them may also harbor these and perhaps other species. If road construction destroys these outcrops it will also destroy these snail populations. These segments generally do not harbor many sensitive insect species. The site where the koa bug Coleotichus blackburniae was collected is a few hundred meters from the centerline of the proposed alignment. It would not be directly impacted by construct of either alternative segment. Indirect impacts could include providing corridors for further infestation by alien species. Section II EX -2. This segment is the least diverse of the alternative routes in Section II in terms of numbers of snail species. Construction impacts on widespread species Succinea konaensis and ?Striatura sp. are not notable. Construction could impact populations of Leptachatina lepida in the area just to the east of the Mauna Kea State Park. Only the anobiid, Holcobius, the native colletid bees of the genus Hylaeus (Nesoprosopis), and the cave machilid (Neomachilis heteropus) were found long this segment. Construction through this segment would have a negligible impact on endemic arthropods, assuming implementation of mitigation measures regarding the avoidance of impacts to caves (Cross Reference: 3.12.1.5 Speleological Resources). PTA -1. This segment, especially the part to the east of Mauna Kea State Park, harbors the most diverse assemblage of land snails encountered during the survey, including living populations of Leptachatina lepida. Construction would impact a variety of snail populations. A number of arthropod species of concern were collected along this segment, most commonly associated with mamane/naio forest. Construction along this segment would impact individuals and populations of these species. This is especially true for species of the endemic colletid bee Hylaeus (Nesoprosopis) as well as the species of the long -homed beetle, Plagithmysus. Impacts to arthropods associated with cave habitats are possible in the vicinity of Bradshaw Field Cave and 1935 Lava Flow Cave A. PTA -3. This segment harbored the second most diverse assemblage encountered during the survey. In terms of the habitat, this segment is similar to the part of PTA -1 between Mauna Kea State Park and the junction of PTA -1 and PTA -3. Impacts on land snails, including Leptachatina lepida, would be similar to PTA -1. Construction along this segment may impact the endemic colletid bee, Hylaeus (Nesoprosopis). Impacts to arthropods associated with cave habitats are possible in the vicinity of Bradshaw Field Cave and 1935 Lava Flow Cave A. 3-161 Section III EX -3. Impacts to introduced snails (Oxychilus alliarius and the slug species, ?Deroceras sp.), are of no concern. Direct or indirect impacts to native habitats, especially kipuka, could also impact endemic snails by creating a corridor for the introduction of non-native species. The distribution on the Island of Hawaii of the two native species of snails recorded on this section ("tomatellinid" D and Euconulus thaanumi) is unknown. Construction impacting kipuka could impact the beetles Proterhinus and Liophaena and the damselfly Megalagrion amaurodytum pedes. Construction impacting caves could impact Nannolene sp., Schrankia spp., and Erigone cf. stygius. Section IV EX -4A and E-3. Only the slug (?Deroceras sp.) and the introduced carnivorous snail, Euglandina rosea were found in this section. Much of the habitat is disturbed. Even in relatively undisturbed habitat, no native snails were found. The impact of road construction would likely be minor along E-3 and is probably negligible along EX -4A. The Hilo rainforest side of the Humu' ula Saddle harbors a diverse fauna of native arthropods. Kipuka habitats are particularly sensitive to disturbance. New entrances to the system may be discovered to the Kaumana Cave during road construction. No Action Alternative. With the No Action Alternative, there would be no construction -related impact to endemic land snails, arthropods, or their habitat. With an increase in the number of vehicles using Saddle Road and increased access to the project vicinity, the likelihood of human disturbance of sensitive habitat would be expected to increase, although to a lesser extent than with the action alternatives. Alien insects will continue to disperse and increase in numbers along the corridor. 3.14.3.3 Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures pertaining to the reduction of impacts to biological resources, including kipuka, are detailed in the section of this chapter on threatened and endangered species (Cross Reference: 3.18.3 Mitigation Measures). Mitigation measures pertaining to the reduction of impacts to caves are detailed in the section of this chapter addressing geology and soils (Cross Reference: 3.12.3 Mitigation Measures). 3.15 FLOODPLAINS The following information on floodplains is based on a preliminary hydrology/hydraulics report completed for the Saddle Road EIS (Okahara 1996). The preliminary hydrology/hydraulics 3-162 report presents detailed results of the work completed. It documents a review and assessment of aerial photographs and mapping to determine floodplains, flow patterns, major drainages, and potential hydraulic concerns. The report performs preliminary hydrology and hydraulics computations (50 -year storm) for all major drainages (watersheds larger than 10 km2). It defines storm frequency, delineates and measures major drainage areas, calculates discharges, proposes tentative structure types/sizes, and identifies other notable drainage requirements. The County of Hawaii Department of Public Works Maintenance Department and the HDOT Highways Division were consulted as a part of this hydrology/hydraulics investigation. 3.15.1 Affected Environment The alternative segments for the proposed project are mostly located in uninhabited areas. The exceptions are the Waiki i Ranch subdivision (Section I), the PTA (Section II, Segments EX -2, PTA -1, and PTA -3), and the Kaumana settlements (Section IV, EX -4A and E-3). Because the study area is mostly rural or vacant, much of the study area has not been studied for floodplain determination by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the County, or the State. The only floodplains mapped by FEMA within the project corridor are located on the eastern end of the project in the Kaumana area (Segment E-3). These floodplains are designated Zone A. Zone A represents areas inundated by a 100 -year flood, where no base flood elevations have been determined. The Saddle Road alternatives cross several major ephemeral drainages (Figure 3.15.1, Major Drainages). The peak discharges for all major ephemeral drainages along the study corridor were calculated for the EIS using the regression equations for the 50- and 100 -year storms (FEMA n.d.). All of the proposed segments cross deep drainages along the western portion of the project corridor, from the Mamalahoa Highway to the Mauna Kea access road. Along with several unnamed drainages, the drainages crossed by the project segments in Section I or II are listed as follows. ■ ' Auwaiakeakua Gulch ■ Waiki i Gulch ■ Popo o Gulch ■ Pohakuloa Gulch ■ Waikahalulu Gulch The drainages on the west side of the alternative alignments originate on the steep slopes of Mauna Kea and cross the existing Saddle Road at a number of bridges, culverts, and dips in the road. Although they are normally dry, they fill up rapidly during periods of high rainfall which sometimes result in flash floods. The climate on the western portion of the study area is semi- arid. Consequently, there are areas where vegetation is sparse and flash floods cause moderate to 3-163 severe erosion within the watersheds. The cantonment area of the PTA has been subjected to flooding and sedimentation problems during heavy rainfalls. The existing roadway in the EX -2 segment is very flat and water currently flows over the road in several locations during heavy rainfall. A dip in the road has been constructed at one of the larger stream crossings. East of the Mauna Kea access road, drainage generally flows unchannelized parallel to the roadway. One drainageway is crossed by Saddle Road in the Kaumana area, at approximately MP 6.7. The existing drainage structures along Saddle Road are undersized and drainage currently overtops the road in several locations. The County ofHawaz i Department of Public Works Maintenance Department and personnel at the PTA, identified the following known locations where stormwater currently crosses the existing alignment during heavy precipitation events. ■ At ' Auwaikeakua Gulch where it crosses Saddle Road within the Waiki' i Ranch, at an existing culvert, MP 47.25. ■ Several locations, from MP 41.92 to 38.6. ■ At the concrete dip in the road located downstream of existing culverts beneath the Bradshaw Airfield access road, MP 37.4. ■ At the culverts on the west side of Mauna Kea State Park, near MP 35.3. ■ At the culverts on the east side of Mauna Kea State Park, near MP 34.7. ■ Near Mauna Kea Access Road, in the vicinity of MP 27. ■ Along Kaumana Drive, in the vicinity of newly paved areas, near MP 13, 12, and 11. Flooding of Saddle Road may occur in other locations. Saddle Road is often closed during major storm events due to flooding and the hazardous conditions of the road. 3.15.2 Environmental Consequences All Action Alternatives. 23 CFR 650 states that is the policy of FHWA to encourage a broad and unified effort to prevent uneconomic, hazardous, and incompatible use and development of the nation's floodplains by avoiding significant encroachments on floodplains where applicable. An encroachment is any action within the limits of the base floodplain. A "significant encroachment is defined as a highway encroachment and any direct support of likely base floodplain development that would involve one or more of the following construction or flood -related impacts. 3-164 -- r %_ r , o ULqH t ��PKU BRADSHAW PTA M :28 i PP'r WAIKII AIRFIELD-, ( \ ---- 1 �N-1 Q W-2 \ :,� M :42 �O Q ROgO q MAUNA KEA STATE PARK EX-2 0 �P Pp0 GV C- GIRL SCOUT t\ pTq i 3 CAMP ,------------ W - 60 pNOq HILO i i ti �� HILO AIRPORT l KAUMANA 2 z \ 200 \ CITY MP 6: 1 1 LEGEND 1 > MP 19 SADDLE �� ter- STREAM CHANNEL U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1 ' FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION CENTRAL FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DMSION Q �\ ( ( �1 (, DENVER, COLORADO MAJOR DRAINAGES FIGURE 3.15.1 s ' FILE: 3-15-LDWG ■ A significant potential for interruption or termination of a transportation facility which is needed for emergency vehicles or provides a community's only evacuation route. ■ A significant risk. ■ A significant adverse impact on natural or beneficial floodplain values. All of the alternatives considered cross numerous drainage channels. For the design of the improved Saddle Road, the 50 -year design storm will be used for culvert design, and the 100 -year design storm will be used for bridge design, in accordance with the HDOTs Design Criteria for Highway Drainage. Drainage structures will be provided at all stream crossings to prevent water from flowing over the roadway during major storm events. The structures will be designed to accommodate the drainage without increasing existing flood elevations or altering existing drainage patterns. No floodplain map revisions will be required. The design improvements proposed would serve to better protect the road base and surface from flood drainage and associated damage, and would decrease the likelihood that flood waters would inundate the roadway in the future. The crossing of any 100 -year floodplains will require coordination with FEMA through the County of Hawaii to ensure that there will be no increase in floodplain elevations. Wetlands are present and would be impacted by all alternatives to some degree (Cross Reference: 3.11 Waters of the U.S./Wetlands). These wetlands are described as being mosaic in nature with pockets of wetland soil interspersed with upland areas. The wetland areas are located on fairly steep grades (± 8 percent) and therefore do not serve to attenuate flooding. There are no existing homes or businesses in the vicinity of the proposed crossings. The installation of culverts and bridges could result in the temporary loss of riparian and terrestrial vegetation associated with drainageways within the project corridor. There are no perennial streams within the project corridor, therefore, aquatic wildlife are not sustained. No impacts to aquatic wildlife are anticipated as a result of the action alternatives. W-2 and W-3. Segments W-2 and W-3 each cross three major drainages. The peak flows for these channels range from 22 to 80 m3 per second. The construction of Saddle Road on W-2 or W-3 would potentially open up new lands for development. The development of incompatible land uses within the 100 -year floodplain is not anticipated as a result of the proposed project, since no encroachment of the 100 -year floodplain is permitted by the County of Hawai i and because lands within the vicinity of W-2 and W-3 are currently reserved for grazing. EX -2 PTA -1 and PTA -3. Each of the segments within Section II crosses several large drainageways. The design discharges for these channels range from 24 to 111 m' per second. PTA -1 and PTA -3 run parallel to and upstream of the EX -2 alignment and therefore their flows are somewhat smaller than those for the EX -2 crossings. With the rebuild of Saddle Road on 3-165 EX -2, the grade along portions of the existing alignment will need to be raised by approximately 2 to 3 in in some locations to provide clearance for larger culverts. EX -3. Existing drainage within Section III, runs parallel to Saddle Road. No crossings of waterways are anticipated. EX -4A and E-3. EX -4A and E-3 each cross one large intermittent drainage. The design storm peak discharges calculated for these crossings range from 42 to 50 m3 per second. With the construction of Saddle Road on EX -4A, the grade along portions of the existing alignment will need to be raised to provide clearance for larger culverts. According to available Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FEMA n.d.), Segment E-3 would cross two minor drainageways identified as Flood Zone A (Figure 3.15.2, FEMA Floodplain). No development exists upstream from these proposed floodplain crossings. The construction of Saddle Road on the new alignment of E-3 could potentially open up new lands for development by providing access. The development of land uses incompatible within the 100 -year floodplain will not occur within the floodplain as a result of the project because no encroachment of the 100 -year floodplain is permitted by the County of Hawai i. The installation of properly sized culverts will minimize potential risk of flooding. Because of the intermittent nature of the streams, and the absence of significant floodplain habitats, no significant adverse impact on natural or beneficial floodplain values is anticipated. No Action Alternative. The existing drainage structures along Saddle Road are undersized and drainage currently overtops the road in several locations. Without proposed improvements in grade, culvert, and bridge design, existing conditions related to drainage would continue within the project corridor. No loss of terrestrial or riparian vegetation or loss of other floodplain values would be anticipated with the No Action Alternative. 3.15.3 Mitigation Measures Saddle Road will be designed as an all-weather facility, with new drainage structures designed to handle the minimum 50 -year design storm in accordance with existing State requirements. No mitigation measures are recommended for floodplains (Cross Reference: 1.9 Required Permits). 3.16 WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS No Wild and Scenic Rivers are located within the project corridor or its vicinity. No impacts to Wild and Scenic Rivers are anticipated from implementation of any of the action alternatives or the No Action Alternative. Zone A — No base flood elevations determined Zone X — Areas outside 500 year floodplain Area of 100 Year Flood 3.17 COASTAL BARRIERS/COASTAL ZONES 3.17.1 Affected Environment The Hawaii Coastal Zone Management (CZM) Program was established in 1977 through the adoption of the Coastal Zone Management Act, incorporated in Chapter 205A HRS. Under the CZM program, Federal projects must conform with objectives and polices related to seven areas: recreation resources, historic resources, scenic and open space resources, coastal ecosystems, economic uses, coastal hazards, and managing development. The CZM objectives are outlined as follows. ■ Recreational Resources. Provide coastal recreational opportunities accessible to the public. ■ Historic Resources. Protect, preserve, and, where desirable, restore those natural, man-made historic, and pre -historic resources in the CZM area that are significant in Hawaiian and American history and culture. ■ Scenic and Open Space Resources. Protect, preserve, and, where desirable, restore or improve the quality of coastal scenic and open space resources. ■ Coastal Ecosystems. Protect valuable coastal ecosystems from disruption and minimize adverse impacts on all coastal ecosystems. ■ Economic Use. Provide public or private facilities and improvements important to the State's economy in suitable locations. ■ Coastal Hazards. Reduce hazard to life and property from tsunami, storm waves, stream flooding, erosion, and subsidence. ■ Managing Development. Improve the development review process, communication, and public participation in the management of coastal resources and hazards. Chapter 205A also established the Special Management Areas (SMAS) which are areas of particular concern that require a higher level of management to ensure the coastal resources are appropriately protected and managed. Accordingly, any development proposed with an SMA requires the approval of a minor or major use permit, dependent on the cost and impact of the proposed activity. No portion of the project area is within an SMA. 3.17.2 Environmental Consequences All Action Alternatives. All Federal projects require a determination to ensure that the proposed project is consistent with the objectives and polices of the CZM Program. With implementation 3-167 of the project mitigation measures, the project appears to be consistent with the objectives and polices of the CZM Program. The formal determination will be made by the CZM agency following publication of the draft EIS and submittal of the required CZM assessment form. Because the entire project area is outside of established SMAS, no review under the SMA Use Permit provisions is required for the project. Recreational Resources. The proposed improvements to Saddle Road would not directly impact existing or potential future coastal recreational opportunities accessible to the public, but would indirectly improve accessibility of these opportunities through a safer and more efficient cross -island route. Historic Resources. Existing historic features within the study corridor will be impacted by the proposed improvements to Saddle Road. An adverse effect would result from some sites, but effects can be mitigated (3.19.2.2 Environmental Consequences). Some mitigation will include the construction of vehicle pullouts and installation of interpretive signage for these features. Impacts to indigenous Hawaiian cultural values include the loss of some older trees/forests. Scenic and Open Space Resources. The proposed improvements will affect the visual character and visual quality of the road corridor, but would allow improved access to the center of the island. With the road improvements, people in rental cars would be allowed to travel Saddle Road and enjoy the open space and scenic quality of Mauna Kea and Mauna Loa, forested vegetation, open grasslands, varying terrain, and distant views of the ocean. Coastal Ecosystems. No direct impacts to coastal ecosystems would be anticipated with the proposed project. Economic Use. The proposed improvements to Saddle Road would result in a notable, positive economic benefit to the island in employment and income, tourism, time savings for cross -island travel, and safety (Cross Reference: 3.4 Economics). Coastal Hazards. During natural disasters (tsunami, storm waves, stream flooding, lava flows, erosion, and subsidence), other key roads on the island (e.g. SR 19 and SR 11) may be blocked or portions destroyed. The improvement of Saddle Road will provide a safe and efficient alternative route to these roadways. In addition, improvements to Saddle Road and its drainage structures would minimize the risk of flooding and flood damage to the road base and surface. No Action Alternative. No impacts to coastal barriers or coastal zones would result from the No Action Alternative. 3-168 3.17.3 Mitigation Measures The key mitigation measures related to the objectives and policies of the CZM program are listed in several sections of this EIS: Section 3.19.3 relating to archaeological, historic, and traditional cultural properties; Section 3.21.3 relating to visual resources, Section 3.10.3 relating to water quality, Section 23.3 relating to construction impacts, Section 3.15.3 relating to floodplains, and Section 3.18.3 relating to threatened and endangered species. 3.18 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES A biological assessment which addressed potential impacts to special status species was prepared for the proposed project (Rana 1997, Technical Appendices, Volume III). Special status species include those species afforded legal protection as either endangered or threatened by the USFWS. Proposed endangered or threatened species are also addressed. The biological assessment was based on the information provided by floral and faunal surveys prepared for this project (Char 1996, Hawaii Biological Survey 1996, Palmer 1997, and Rana 1997). The biological surveys inventoried special status species known or expected to occur in the project area and vicinity. Species inventories were conducted by means of 100 -percent pedestrian survey within the 60-m wide corridor. Disturbance resulting from the proposed project would be limited to the 45- to 50-m right-of-way corridor based on the actual roadway footprint and within the 60-m survey limits. 3.18.1 Affected Environment During the course of the technical studies for this project, one endangered mammalian species, ten endangered and one threatened avian species, and three endangered and one threatened plant species were identified as potentially being within the project area. No special status invertebrates were detected during the surveys conducted. Figure 3.13.1 shows the location of Palila Critical Habitat and the Kipuka ' Ainahou Nene Sanctuary. During the course of mammalian surveys, the endangered Hawaiian hoary bat was detected in all sections of the project area. A total of 10 bat count stations were established in the vicinity of the project area. The use of voice activated tape recorders and remote timing devices allowed the usage of multiple units simultaneously at separate locations. In addition visual scans were made for bats during twilight hours. Count stations were all sampled twice. The tapes were reviewed and the number of bat passes were counted. Multiple feeding buzzes associated with feeding activity were also recorded. Section I Hawaiian hoary bat was detected in low numbers during the course of the biological surveys along both Segments W-2 and W-3. 3-169 No special status avian species were detected along either Segments W-2 or W-3 during the course of the biological surveys. One Nene was seen south of W-3. It is likely that there is occasional, incidental usage of habitat along both W-2 and W-3 by this species. It is probable that the endangered Dark-rumped Petrel overflies both W-2 and W-3 during the breeding season on their way to and from nesting colonies on Mauna Loa. No special status species of land snails, insects, or other arthropods were detected during the course of the biological surveys on either W-2 or W-3. No special status species of plants were detected within the limits of W-2 or W-3 during the course of the biological surveys. One endangered plant species, Portulaca sclerocarpa (po a or 'ihi), was recorded on EX -1, in the vicinity of the existing alignment of Saddle Road. Four plants of po' a are found roughly 15 m west of the survey limits, well outside of the existing right-of-way. The plants are growing in a soil -filled depression on top of one of the larger boulders in a rock outcropping located in kikuyu grass pasture land. The outcropping may also attract pedestrian traffic, as it offers a panoramic view of the surroundings. Section Il Hawaiian hoary bat were detected in moderate numbers along PTA -1, PTA -3, and EX -2. Bats were concentrated in heavily vegetated areas, especially those with dense stands of trees; particularly mamane and naio. They were also found in numbers in close proximity to areas with external night lighting, such as the basketball court within the cantonment area of the PTA. PTA-] and PTA -3 traverse Palila Critical Habitat from Station 10+950 (PTA -1) just west ofPu'u Koko to Station 13+440 (PTA -1) just east of Pu'u Ma'au. This portion of Palila Critical Habitat is vegetated with a mix of aweoweo shrubland and ' a' ali i shrubland and does not currently support either mamane/naio vegetation or Palila. PTA -1 and PTA -3 again cross Palila Critical Habitat from Station 22+000 (PTA -1) just east of Mauna Kea State Park to just east of the point where PTA -3 diverges from PTA -1, Station 27+000. PTA -3, from the point it diverges from PTA -1 at Station 10+000 to approximately Station 11+800, is also within the Palila Critical Habitat. This portion of Palila Critical Habitat is vegetated with a mixed mamane/naio forest . The current usage of this habitat by Palila is best described as incidental. EX -2 is not within the Palila Critical Habitat. One Palila was observed by a botanist close to the eastern boundary of PTA -1 during the course of the biological studies for this project. There are a least three other documented sightings of Palila within the PTA -1 general area in the past five years. Past studies have identified obligate components in the Palila life cycle. Palila are highly dependent on mamane as both a food source and as nesting substrate. The larvae of mamane coddling moth (Cydia spp.) are a key source of protein for feeding young Palila. One of the principal limiting factors for Palila expansion is the fragmented nature of much of the remaining forest. Browsing of mamane seedlings by feral and 3-170 domestic ungulates has reduced tree density, which it turn require Palila to expend greater energy in the pursuit of food resources. Following the efforts to reduce feral ungulates, especially sheep, from the upper slopes of Mauna Kea in the 1980s, fire has replaced sheep as the single greatest threat to the continued survival of Palila. Not only is the habitat in which Palila persevere extremely dry and fire prone, but the bulk of the population is concentrated in an area around Pu' u Lau, approximately 1 km uphill of the project area, near the western boundary of the PTA. The concentration of the population within one area increases the likelihood of a single catastrophic event extirpating the species. There have been at least two documented records of Akiapola' au close to the eastern limit of PTA -1 over the past ten years. Although no Nene were encountered during the biological studies, they have occasionally been recorded from the flats along the eastern end of PTA -1. Itis probable that the endangered Dark-rumped Petrel overflies PTA -1, PTA -3, and EX -2 during the breeding season on their way to and from their nesting colonies on Mauna Loa. No special status species of native land snails, insects or other arthropods were detected during the course of the biological surveys for PTA -1, PTA -3, or EX -2. Two populations of Silene hawaiiensis, an endangered plant, were found within and close to the portion of the PTA -1 corridor common to PTA -1 and PTA -3. The first population of about 70 plants is located within the corridor on a rocky knoll within hard -stemmed lovegrass grassland. The majority of the plants occur on the north side of the center line. The second population is located outside of the survey limits. No special status plants were identified along the EX -2 corridor. Section III Hawaiian hoary bats were detected in moderate numbers along Segment EX -3. Bats were concentrated in heavily vegetated areas, especially those with dense stands of trees. Highest numbers were detected near the eastern terminus of the segment. Three separate sightings of the endangered Hawaiian Hawk were recorded between Stations 156+000 and 165+000 during the biological studies along this segment. The mosaic of montane mesic/dry forest found along the existing roadway between Hilo and approximately MP 21 is within the breeding range of this species. Hawaiian Hawks nest between May and October. It is probable that this species nests in low numbers in a few of the kipuka found along the proposed route within this section. It is probable that both the endangered Dark-rumped Petrel and the threatened Newell's Shearwater overfly parts of Segment EX -3 during the breeding season. Several Dark-rumped Petrel and numerous Newell's Shearwater have been observed or collected close to the existing roadway within this section. Although no Nene were encountered during the technical studies for 3-171 this section, they have occasionally been recorded close to the existing roadway from approximately Station 140+700 to about 150+000. The northern boundary of the Kipuka'Ainahou Nene Sanctuary is adjacent to the existing Saddle Road between Station 141+400 and 149+000. In addition, the area between Station 147+000 and 159+500 is habitat for three species of endangered Honeycreepers; ' Akiapola' au, Hawai i Creeper, and Hawaii ' Akepa. Hawaiian Duck are resident in some of the small ponds found in the pasture lands north of the existing highway in EX -3, but there is no habitat within or close to the proposed corridor that is suitable for this species. The ' O' u, an endangered honeycreeper, was known historically to occur in the area between Station 147+000 and 159+500. There has been no substantiated sighting of ' O' u on the Island of Hawaii since the 1980s. No special status species of native land snails, insects or other arthropods were detected during the course of the biological surveys for EX -3. Ten special status plant species were identified as potentially occurring within Section III, but none were detected within the 60-m study corridor during the course of the 100 -percent pedestrian botanical surveys. Three endangered plant species including Plantago hawaiiensis, Cyanea platyphylla, and Clermontia peleana were detected at various distances outside the survey limits. Section IV Hawaiian hoary bat were detected in low numbers along both Segments E-3 and EX -4A during the course of the technical surveys. As in other sections, bats were concentrated in areas with heavy vegetation. During the course of technical studies no special status avian species were detected on either E-3 or EX -4A. It is probable that both the endangered Dark-rumped Petrel and the threatened Newell's Shearwater overfly parts of both E-3 and EX -4A during the breeding season. Numerous Newell's Shearwater have been observed or collected close to the existing roadway within this section. At least one specimen was collected from Kaumana Drive in 1978. Hawaiian Hawk have also been seen along the existing Saddle Road within the vicinity of both E-3 and EX -4A. No special status species of native land snails, insects or other arthropods were detected during the course of the technical surveys on either E-3 or EX -4A. No special status plant species were detected on either Segment E-3 or EX -4A. There is one 1933 record of an endangered plant, Cyrtandra giffardii, in the Heritage Database from the general area of the west end of E-3. The area has since been disturbed and no individuals of this species were found during the course of the biological surveys. 3-172 3.18.2 Environmental Consequences All Action Alternatives. Given the current knowledge and understanding of the abundance, distribution, and biology of the Hawaiian hoary bat, it is unlikely that the proposed project would have an adverse impact on this endangered species. It is probable that Dark-rumped Petrel will overfly most portions of the project area, at least occasionally, between May and October each year during the breeding season. This seabird returns to its nesting colony after dark. A major threat to these birds, especially to fledging birds, is being disoriented by lights on their way to sea. When disoriented, they may collide with man-made structures and be killed or injured. Since no street lights are planned for the improved Saddle Road, potential impacts to this species will be negligible following the completion of construction efforts. The potential exists that Nene will occasionally forage within most of the project area, except Section IV. Any such usage is incidental in nature. It is unlikely that any of the action alternatives would have an adverse impact on this endangered species. Construction equipment and material pose several other potential impacts to sensitive biological resources. Indiscriminate parking of heavy equipment can destroy biologically sensitive areas, as can the storing of construction material, especially fill, petroleum, oil and other lubricants. Heavy equipment can also collapse or damage caves and lava tubes which often support site specific endemic fauna. The servicing and maintenance of heavy construction equipment will generate quantities of used oils and lubricants which if improperly disposed of on site, pose grave threats to endemic flora and fauna. Section I No special status species concerns unique to Section I were identified. Section II PTA -1 would directly modify 41.5 ha of Palila Critical Habitat, while PTA -3 would directly modify 46.1 ha of Palila Critical Habitat. This may have long-term implications on the recovery efforts for this species. EX -2 would not directly impact Palila Critical Habitat. No direct impacts to ' Akiapola' au are anticipated to result from any of the action alternatives in this section. Implementation of either PTA -1 or PTA -3 would directly impact one 70 -plant population of Silene hawaiiensis, however, the alignment will be adjusted to avoid this colony. Additionally, another population of silene in the vicinity of PTA -1 is in close proximity to an attractive vantage point currently used by the military. Implementation of PTA -1 may increase the potential for inadvertent destruction of this second population. Implementation of EX -2 would not directly impact either of two additional populations of Silene hawaiiensis located in its vicinity, but may 3-173 increase the likelihood of inadvertent destruction of these populations. Increased fire hazard associated with each of the action alternatives would increase the likelihood of indirect impacts to Silene hawaiiensis. Due to anticipated increases in traffic volumes, all action alternatives within this segment would increase the risk of fire, particularly within the west half of the PTA (Cross Reference: 3.9 Fire Hazard). Wildfire has the potential for impacting special status animal and plant species within this section. ' Aweoweo shrubland, hard -stemmed lovegrass grassland, ' a' ali i shrubland, and mamane/naio forest are all extremely dry habitats. During construction there would be an increased risk of fire ignition. After completion of the construction phase of this project, there would be a permanently heightened risk of the ignition of wildfires in the area. Fires would be especially destructive in the native plant communities found on PTA. Native plant species are poorly adapted to wildfires. Native woody plants may recover from fire to some degree, but alien species are more successful in disturbed area than native species. In species such as fountain grass, fire actually stimulates growth from the base of clumps and encourages seed production. Fires accelerate the conversion of native -dominated communities to alien -dominated communities. Of the action alternatives, PTA -1 would entail the greatest risk for wildfire impacts to special status plants. The PTA -1 alignment is particularly sensitive as it is close to or right at the slope of Mauna Kea. The rugged topography and lack of access roads increases the difficulty of fire suppression in this area. In the event of wildfire spreading up the slopes of Mauna Kea, several rare native plants species would likely be impacted. Section III It is probable that Newell's Shearwaters will overfly Section III, at least occasionally, between May and October each year during the breeding season. This seabird returns to its nesting colony after dark. A major threat to these birds, especially to fledging birds, is being disoriented by lights on their way to sea. When disoriented, they may collide with man-made structures and be killed or injured. Implementation of the proposed project would likely impact individuals of this species. Since no street lights are planned for the improved Saddle Road, potential impacts to this species will be negligible following the completion of construction efforts. Implementation of EX -3 would not impact Hawaiian Duck. These species are not expected to occur within the project area in Section III. No impacts to Hawaiian Hawk are anticipated, unless a nest is located within, or close to, the construction corridor during the construction phase of this project. In that case individuals of this species may be impacted. Implementation of EX -3 may displace individual'Akiapola'au, Hawaii Creeper, and Hawaii'Akepa during construction. Due to mitigation measures designed to minimize impacts to kipuka, any impacts to these species will be of a temporary nature. No direct impacts to Plantago hawailensis, Cyanea platyphylla, or Clermontia peleana are anticipated to result from EX -3. Potential impacts to special status plants would result from the 3-174 increased risk of incursion into kipuka. Kipuka have already suffered extensive damage from pigs and other alien species. Additional mechanical incursions into the remaining kipuka could further impact the integrity of these natural refugia. Bulldozing of vegetation and ground cover from lower elevations upslope towards the more undisturbed areas found in the native -dominated forest has the potential for serious impacts on these areas. Construction equipment has the potential for being the major vector for alien species dispersal and possible introduction during construction. Section IV It is probable that Newell's Shearwaters will overfly Section IV, at least occasionally, between May and October each year during the breeding season. This seabird returns to its nesting colony after dark. A major threat to these birds, especially to fledging birds, is being disoriented by lights on their way to sea. When disoriented, they may collide with man made structures and be killed or injured. Implementation of the proposed project may impact individuals of this species. No impacts to Hawaiian Hawk are anticipated for either E-3 or EX -4A, unless a nest is located within or close to the construction corridor during the construction phase of this project. In that case individuals of this species may be impacted. No impacts to special status plants are anticipated to result from implementation of either E-3 or EX -4A. No Action Alternative. With the No Action Alternative, there would be no construction -related impact to special status species or their habitats. With an increase in the number of vehicles using Saddle Road and increased access to the project vicinity, the likelihood of wildfire and human disturbance of sensitive habitat would be expected to increase, although to a lesser extent than with the action alternatives. 3.18.3 Mitigation Measures Additional mitigation measures pertaining to the reduction of impacts to biological resources are detailed in the section of this chapter addressing fire, waters of the U.S./wetlands, and speleological resources (Cross Reference: 3.9.3, 3.11.3, and 3.12.3 Mitigation Measures). All Action Alternatives To avoid the potential downing of Dark-rumped Petrels and Newell's Shearwaters by their interaction with external construction lighting, no construction or unshielded equipment maintenance lighting will be permitted after dark between the months of April and October. This prohibition will be one of the Special Contract Requirements which will be incorporated in the construction contract documents. 3-175 In an effort to avoid impacting any nesting Hawaiian Hawks in Sections III and IV, a nest search of the right-of-way and surrounding environs shall be conducted by a qualified ornithologist prior to the onset of construction for all portions of Section III and IV in which construction is to occur between May and October. If an active nest is detected during construction, construction activity shall be halted within 1 km of the nest until a consultation with the USFWS can take place, and appropriate mitigation measures implemented. During construction in Section II, emergency spills treatment, storage, and disposal of all petroleums, oils, and lubricants, both within construction limits and at staging areas will be handled in strict accordance with the FHWA 1996 Specifications for Construction of Roads and Bridges on Federal Highway Projects, as well as Federal Acquisition Regulations and the appropriate EPA regulations. HDOT will provide similar measures in Sections I,111, and IV. To mitigate the potential spread and introduction of noxious plants and other alien organisms into the Palila Critical Habitat and the other native species dominated areas, all construction equipment shall be thoroughly steamed cleaned and fumigated before being transported to the construction site. Once equipment has been moved away from the site, it shall be steam cleaned and fumigated before being allowed back onto the job site. ■ During the final design phase a concerted effort will be made to design Segments PTA -1, PTA -3, EX -2, EX -3, E-3, and EX -4A to balance earthwork quantities so that no borrow fill needs to be imported from outside the immediate area. Should the need arise for fill to be imported from off site, every attempt shall be made to sterilize the fill. Construction in Sections III and IV shall begin on the western end of the section and proceed east. ■ In a further effort to minimize the spread of alien plant species in Sections II, III, and IV, care shall be taken to avoid bulldozing from ruderal plant communities and pasture lands into more native -dominated ones. In Section II this primarily refers to the ruderal areas adjacent to PTA -1 from Station 27+000 to 30+998.930 and to ruderal areas adjacent to PTA -3 from Station 10+000 to 10+500. ■ To prevent the spread of fountain grass into disturbed areas along EX -2, PTA -1, PTA -3, and EX -3 the right-of-way shall be inspected every four months during the course of construction. Any emerging fountain grass shall be controlled by spraying with a suitable herbicide, such as Roundup ©. Following the completion of construction the roadway will fall under the maintenance jurisdiction of HDOT. HDOT will maintain the roadway and will use mowing, and, when necessary, herbicides to control roadside weed and grass growth. ■ A baseline survey, which gathered information on the distribution of land snails, insects and other arthropod species along the entire roadway corridor, has been conducted by 3-176 scientists from the Bishop Museum. The survey was funded by this project even though there were no threatened or endangered invertebrate species known to exist within the project area. The study cost $90,000. IN All equipment, material and support structures shall be stored and maintained either within the right-of-way or in designated staging areas that have been approved by a biologist as being areas where construction activities will not adversely impact native species. Staging areas currently identified within Section II are located at MP 33 on the south side of the existing roadway, and at PTA -3 Station 11+500 to 12+000 west of Pu' u Nene in a highly disturbed lava field. Staging areas currently identified within Section III are located adjacent to MP 17.5 on the south side of the existing roadway, MP 13.5 and MP 11.75. Staging areas have not yet been identified for Segments I and IV. Staging areas will be clearly demarcated and fenced with temporary construction fencing. IN A comprehensive manual outlining and discussing the environmental issues and specific mitigation requirements and procedures that will be required of the construction company(s) awarded the project will be prepared. This document will be prepared by the FHWA in accordance with their environmental team policy, which ensures that the environmental team closely follows the entire project to its completion. At the pre -construction meetings for Section II projects, this document and the rationale behind specific requirements will be explained to project engineers and supervisors. This document will be furnished to HDOT for their use in future contracts in Sections I, III, and IV. Prior to construction in Section II, all construction personnel will be required to attend a project orientation meeting where specific environmental considerations and prohibitions will be explained. During construction in Section II, a project engineer with FHWA's Central Federal Lands Highway Division (CFLHD) will be on site at all times to ensure implementation and compliance with the environmental mitigation requirements. The project engineer will have the authority to shut down construction should violations of Special Contract Requirements be detected; furthermore, the project engineer will be responsible for ensuring compliance with all environmental restrictions, and mitigation measures. Similar measures will be implemented by HDOT in Sections I, III, and IV. ■ Prior to and during construction in Section Il, the CFLHD's Construction Partnership Program which provides a process for ensuring delivery of Contractor and FHWA responsibilities will be implemented. This program provides for the involvement of all stakeholders, including regulatory agencies in the construction process. ■ Contractor expenses for mitigation detailed in the Special Contract Requirements (Contract Documents) are estimated at $250,000 for either Segments W-2 or W-3; $500,000 for Segments PTA -1, PTA -3, or EX -2; $500,000 for Segment EX -3; $150,000 for either Segment EX -4A or E-3. 3-177 Section I ■ As soon as feasible after construction the verges of the roadway will be replanted with kikuyu grass, the dominate ground cover along both segments in this section. Section II ■ A fire prevention cross-section will be constructed to prevent burning objects tossed from vehicles from easily leaving the road surface, to prohibit vehicles from driving off of the road surface, and to discourage parking for pedestrian excursions (Figure 2.1.1, Sheet 2, Typical Sections B and C). ■ Emergency call boxes will be installed at 2 -km intervals along one shoulder to afford immediate reporting and, consequently, early suppression of five events. ■ A portion of the PTA -1 construction corridor also common to PTA -3 has been moved south of a population of 70 Silene hawaiiensis. This mitigated alignment will avoid any taking of Silene hawaiiensis. To ensure protection from construction related activities, both this population and another one located well outside the survey corridor (a 60-m wide corridor centered on the proposed roadway centerline; right-of-way width will be considerably less) will be fenced off at the right-of-way line with temporary construction fencing. All features contained within fenced exclosures shall be declared off limits to construction personnel. To minimize collateral damage to areas outside of the right-of-way, the Special Contract Requirements will mandate that all construction activity shall be restricted to within the clearly delineated right-of-way and that entry and exit into the right-of-way by all construction personnel and equipment shall be at previously identified and marked non -sensitive areas. Increased fire suppression resources (six 302.800-L dip tanks, two Humvee pumper trucks, and one new 7,570-L tank truck) have been added to the PTA Fire Department and the PTA Fire Management Plan has agreed to stockpile and maintain sufficient fire fighting equipment for an 86 -man fire fighting detail. (Cross Reference: 3.9.3 Mitigation Measures). A fire ecologist will be hired on a temporary basis to create a fire model(s) consistent with current methodology for high altitude xeric plant communities. The fire ecologist will also develop a comprehensive fire management plan complete with risk assessment protocols and guidelines and consistent with Palila habitat recovery goals for use by the PTA and other fire -fighting entities. ■ During final design, the alignment for EX -2 will be modified to avoid any take of Palila critical habitat. 3-178 Due to the biological significance and sensitivity of much of the area through which both PTA -1 and PTA -3 cross, there is a significant amount of mitigation proposed to offset the actual and potential impacts that construction of either one of these alignments will have on the Palila critical habitat. The Palila mitigation plan is the major component in the proposed mitigation for these two alternatives and proposes specific actions to enhance Palila recovery as mitigation for the taking of critical habitat with the construction of either PTA -1 or PTA -3. With the exception of constructing the fire prevention roadway cross sections (Cross Reference: Figure 2. 1. 1, Sheet 2 of 2), installation of emergency call boxes for early fire detection and suppression, and fire ecoloSy modeling, specific Palila recovery mitigation is not proposed for Segment EX -2. During the course of informal consultation with the USFWS and the BRD/USGS, the following four key points were presented by these agencies as being essential components of an appropriate Palila mitigation plan: 1) Mamane forest within Palila Critical Habitat in the PTA are not made unsuitable for future Palila restoration efforts. 2) Threats of fire and alien organisms to Palila habitat are minimized within the PTA and elsewhere on the south and west slopes of Mauna Kea. 3) An area of former Palila habitat within the PTA is restored and managed for Palila reintroduction; habitat elsewhere on Mauna Kea is enhanced for Palila by securing land (lease, easement or fee purchase) and promoting habitat restoration. 4) Effective efforts are made to reintroduce or enhance backup Palila populations in at least two other locations on Mauna Kea and at PTA while enhancing the primary population on the west slope of Mauna Kea. Scientists from the Hawaii Field Station BRD/USGS who have been studying and working with Palila were consulted for their opinions on what appropriate actions should be undertaken to fulfill the conditions outlined by the USFWS as being necessary to offset the modification of 41.5 ha of Palila Critical Habitat by constructing PTA -I and the modification of 46.0 ha by constructing PTA -3. The USFWS letter responding to these Section 7 informal consultation efforts from Brooks Harper to Okahara & Associates, dated October 1996 (Biological Assessment, Rana 1997, Technical Appendices, Volume III, Appendix A) and specific recommendations in the biological assessment form the basis of the Palila Mitigation Plan as outlined below. ■ Strict adherence to training restrictions applicable to the PTA within the Palila Critical Habitat designed to protect sensitive habitats in the mamane/naio forests resulting from the USFWS, 1983 Section 7 consultation and detailed in the current USARG-HI PTA External Standing Operating Procedures document will continue to be implemented by the PTA command (USARG-HI, 1996). The implementation of the PTA Fire Management Plan by PTA command and the fire ecologist's modeling and resultant fire management plant will further ensure that the Palila Critical Habitat within the PTA is not rendered unsuitable for future potential Palila restoration efforts. In the Pu u Mali area on the north slope of Mauna Kea, approximately 1864 ha of State land below Mauna Kea Forest Reserve plus adjacent lands within the forest reserve, 3-179 immediately upslope were identified by BRD/USGS as having the requisite vegetation, food resources, rainfall gradient, and real potential for rapid restoration and translocation of Palila. These lands are currently in State pasture leases to three separate lessees; Botellho Hawaii Enterprises, K.K. Ranch, and S.C. Ranch. Acquisition and management of this area for Palila translocation will be implemented to allow a population of Palila to be reestablished over a range of recovering habitat situated along suitably broad elevation and moisture gradients. ■ In order to enhance the primary population and habitat located on the west slope of Mauna Kea, additional habitat needs to be secured and managed for Palila. The most important land to rehabilitate and make available for Palila on the west slope are those found in the Ka' ohe Lease Lands located immediately northwest of the core Palila population. This 704 -ha parcel of State land is located within the Palila Critical Habitat and is presently leased to Parker Ranch for cattle grazing. Acquisition and management of this area for Palila translocation will be implemented to allow the core population of Palila to expand. ■ For habitat restoration to succeed within the areas identified above, they will be fenced and both domestic and feral ungulates removed. To ensure that ungulate control is both effective and cost efficient, it is imperative that the removal of ungulates be initiated concurrently with the above fencing efforts. To ensure that all ungulates have been removed from the exclosures it will be necessary to monitor and continue control efforts for a period of three years. To ensure success of the introduced Palila on these lands, alien species, pests and predators will also have to be monitored and controlled for a period of ten years. These efforts will be initiated by the USFWS under the Palila Recovery Program (Rana 1997, Technical Appendices, Volume III). ■ In an effort to determine the impacts of ants, yellowjackets, parasitic wasps and flies on insect foods of Palila, it is proposed that work initiated by the US Army and conducted by BRD/USGS into limiting factors affecting Palila be continued. A study will be implemented that will identify what impacts alien insects and other arthropods have on the insect foods necessary for Palila survival. Control methods will be explored for species that are deemed a threat to these essential resources. The basic outline, objectives, and methods of such a study are presented in the Biological Assessment. ■ Within the PTA the only location outside of the Palila Critical Habitat with any potential for long term restoration and Palila translocation is in the Kipuka ' Alala area. Approximately 1214 ha of mixed naio/mamane shrubland has been identified as suitable for long term habitat restoration. This area will be fenced and ungulates removed to promote reforestation of mamane. The estimated cost for the above detailed Palila mitigation plan is currently incomplete. Discussions between DLNR and the four individual lease holders identified are currently 3-180 underway. It is probable that in arriving at a cost for removing these State lands from grazing leases and transferring them to the DOFAW, some or all of the following issues will need to be settled, reimbursement of capital improvement costs less deprecation, remaining lessee interest in lease, and reimbursement of lost revenues to the State and possibly the OHA. A major concern over the extensive and expensive Palila mitigation proposed, is how, and which agencies will manage 3,782 ha of habitat that is being proposed to be set aside for intensive Palila management. In an attempt to resolve conflicting management priorities and develop proposals for interagency working protocols to guide the eventual mitigation implementation, a series of meetings were hosted by FHWA to facilitate a resolution of priorities among the participating agencies that will be charged with the implementation of specific management plan elements when consummated in a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). ■ Specific management strategies will be crafted following the guidelines developed in these interagency meetings. These will be documented and agreed upon in an MOA among the participating agencies, and eventually implemented as a part of the Palila Recovery Program. A series of management principles and guidelines were proposed by the participating agencies for each of the three parcels in question. These have been included in the biological assessment prepared for this project. The salient points of all three plans are as follows. The primary goal of management actions on these lands should be the restoration of a viable mamane forest that will allow for the expansion and/or re -introduction of Palila. All management actions, access, and harvesting of natural resources should be consistent with the primary goal outlined above. Any potential usage of the sites should be evaluated and permitted only if the proposed action does not compromise the use of these lands for the restoration of a mamane forest suitable for the expansion and/or re -introduction of Palila. An Oversight Committee consisting of representatives from DOFAW, USFWS, BRD/USGS and, in the case of the lands in Kipuka'Alala, the US Army will be responsible for formulating management plans and reviewing management actions based on the data gathered on site and on the latest technical expertise available. Adaptive management policies will enable changes in management strategies, should new information or techniques become available. Section III Potential impacts to listed plant and animals will be minimized by avoiding further disturbance to kipuka found along the right-of-way. 3-181 ■ To ensure that construction of Segment EX -3 does not adversely impact a population of Plantago hawaiensis located north of the right-of-way in this section, the construction limits will be kept at least 3 in south of the Pahoehoe shelf on which this plant community is located. This population will be fenced off from construction related activities at the right-of-way line with temporary construction fencing and the area will be designated off-limits to construction personnel. The design will be modified to maintain the roadway's current distance from an ash kipuka near Station 168+500. This will maintain the existing buffer between the road and this important kipuka which contains an endangered plant, Cyanea platyphylla. ■ During the final design phase and after the Section 404 wetland consultation with the USACE and in keeping with FHWA policy of "laying the road lightly on the land" design plans will be modified as much as possible to avoid substantial impacts to all kipuka along this segment. When the construction limits are delineated, a concerted effort will be made to minimize disturbance within the right-of-way by optimizing the design parameters. ■ To minimize collateral damage to areas outside of the right-of-way, the Special Contract Requirements will mandate that all construction activity shall be restricted to within the clearly delineated right-of-way and that entry and exit into the right-of-way by all construction personnel and equipment shall be at previously identified and marked non - sensitive areas. Additionally, the following kipuka shall also be fenced off at the right-of-way with temporary construction fencing: 145+500 - 146+500, 147+250 - 148+240, 155+450 - 157+500, 157+700 - 157+900, 159+500 - 160+000, 162+500 - 164+000, 165+500 - 166+240, 167 + 860, 168 +460, and 170+500 - 171+000. All features outside of the right-of-way fencing shall be declared off limits to construction personnel. Section IV ■ During the final design phase the plans will be modified as much as possible to avoid substantial impacts to all the kipuka which still harbor native species along Section IV. When the construction limits are delineated, a concerted effort will be made to minimize disturbance within the right-of-way by optimizing the design parameters. To minimize collateral damage to areas outside of the right-of-way, the Special Contract Requirements will mandate that all construction activity shall be restricted to within the clearly delineated right-of-way and that entry and exit into the right-of-way by all construction personnel and equipment shall be at previously identified and marked non -sensitive areas. 3-182 3.19 ARCHAEOLOGICAL, HISTORIC, and TRADITIONAL CULTURAL RESOURCES An Archaeological Inventory Survey and Historic and Traditional Cultural Assessment was prepared for the proposed project and was designed to meet applicable State and Federal requirements. The inventory survey was conducted by means of a 100 -percent pedestrian survey of the existing roadway and alternative corridors in order to locate and evaluate all cultural resources for eligibility for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRNP), as outlined in 36 CFR 800.2(e). The field work was conducted by archaeologists between January and September 1996. Previous studies addressing the prehistoric use of the project area by native Hawaiians were reviewed. 3.19.1 Background 3.19.1.1 Prehistoric Background The project area was used by Hawaiians long before Western contact. Prehistoric trails crossed the general area of the project, running west to east and south to north. The trails enabled travel between districts and access to interior resources. The portion of the project area on the west side of the island has been thought too dry to have been exploited by Hawaiians for agriculture. The dry upland forest was mainly exploited by birdcatchers hunting birds valued for their feathers. The interior of the island was used by birdcatchers who sought the 'Ua'u (Dark-rumped Petrel), Nene (Hawaiian Goose) and Koloa (Hawaiian Duck) for meat, and various smaller birds for their feathers. This area also provided access to the adze quarry at the summit of Mauna Kea to the north. Adzes made from Mauna Kea basalt were distributed over the whole of the Island of Hawaii and beyond. Shelter caves in the area were evidently used both by birdcatchers and by workers traveling to the quarry and back. The forested portion of the project area on the east side of the island was used mainly by birdcatchers. At elevations up to 800 m (near MP 9), koa logs were obtained for use as canoes, and bananas were planted in forest clearings. Near the eastern end of the project area, yams were planted in forest clearings as well. The permanently cleared kuld (open land), which was heavily used by Hawaiians for agriculture, was located just east of the project area at elevations of about 330 m and lower near MP 5. 3.19.1.2 Historic Background During the nineteenth century, traditional Hawaiian use of interior resources gave way to Western -inspired exploitation. Herds of wild cattle, sheep, and goats flourished on grasslands of West Hawai' i and the interior of the island. White settlers and Hawaiians began to hunt these wild herds, and later they established ranches. The whole area eventually came under the control of Parker Ranch, centered at Waimea. By the late nineteenth century, a wagon trail connected 3-183 Waimea to Humu'ula. In the twentieth century automobiles used this trail to reach the interior of the island from Waimea, until it was replaced by Saddle Road during World War II. The forested East Side was less valuable to Westerners, although there was some lumber milling of koa and ' ohi a. The middle elevation forest (from around 450 to 1,800 m) was little used in the nineteenth century and was turned into a forest reserve in the twentieth. The trail which had passed through the forest and connected Hilo with Saddle fell into disuse. The upper elevation forest (generally above 1,650 m) was cleared for ranching, and became Pu'u'O'o Ranch, owned by the Shipman family ofKea'au. The lower elevation forest (generally below 500 m), including the lower parts of Kaumana and Ponahawai, was cleared for growing sugar cane, which was carried by a flume system to Hilo for milling. Ranching played a major role in shaping the historic landscape of West Hawaii and the interior (Parker Ranch) and the elevated areas of East Hawaii (Shipman's Pu' u ' O' o Ranch). Pasture lands were demarcated with barrier walls made of stone. The historic southern boundaries of the Humu'ula Sheep Station occur within the project corridor. New trails and existing trails facilitated the movement of cowboys and stock across the island, from pasture to market and between pastures. The old wagon road between Waimea and Humu'ula was created to carry wool from the Humu'ula Sheep Station to the harbor at Kawaihae west of Waimea. Once automobiles were brought to the island, the wagon road was used by tourists. Transportation across interior of the island has taken a variety of forms over the past. During prehistory, foot travel took place over unmodified pahoehoe, grassland, and on stepping stones over rough ' a' a flows. Trails were modified and/or built with basalt cobbles in thin, meandering pathways during historic times, to facilitate the movement of horses, mules, and cattle. Carts and wagons required different paths. The portion of the old wagon road to Humu'ula, investigated during this archaeological survey, is notably different in morphology than the prehistoric or historic stone trails. The deep and wide path in the soil at the base of Mauna Kea was likely created as the result of the passage of wagons, rather than created prior to their passage. Multiple parallel tracks are common, probably created as the result of expeditious maneuvering around temporary obstacles. Further development of roads in the area was stimulated by World War II. Since a Japanese attack could have hindered travel along the coast, there was a need to develop alternative routes through the interior. Roads capable of carrying cars, trucks, and tanks were created by bulldozing. The path chosen for the World War II -era Saddle Road included portions of the old wagon road to the west, some previously unmodified areas in the Saddle, and portions of the Hilo-Pu'u ' O' o trail on the east. Historic walls associated with earlier ranching activities were breached. Later on, maintenance and upgrades of Saddle Road resulted in some deviation from the original World War II route. Remains of the sugar industry are found at the eastern end of the project area. The 18 -km ' Ola' a Flume traverses the project area at about 600 m in elevation and continues south through forest land to ' Ola' a, Puna. In ' Ola' a, Puna, it fed the flume system that carried harvested cane down to Kea' au for milling. The flume systems were part of a large complex of sugar fields, mills, transportation routes, and camps that formed the dominant economic force in East Hawaii from the 1860s up to the 1970s. The primary World War II military headquarters on the island of Hawaii were located at Camp Tarawa in Waimea, beyond the project area. Tank training maneuvers and artillery practice took place at Camp Pohakuloa, located in the same area as the present cantonment area of the PTA. Structures associated with this war training include tents, a few Quonset huts, and the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) camp house located east of the PTA (at the site of the current Mauna Kea State Park). The current airfield and cantonment were built during the early and mid 1950s. Structures used in field training are located within and beyond the limits of the PTA. These include walls of various shapes (C-shaped, L-shaped, linear), low enclosures, refuse disposal, and filled excavations (foxholes). Field training structures occur most commonly to the east of Mauna Kea State Park. The greatest number occur on Parker Ranch lands at Humu'ula, to the east of PTA, as far as the intersection ofPTA-1 and the 1935 lava flow. Some training structures are also located west of Mauna Kea State Park, most of them occurring in Waikoloa, beyond the western boundary of PTA. 3.19.2 Archaeological Sites 3.19.2.1 Affected Environment The area of potential effect for the project was defined in consultation with the Hawaii State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). Consultation with the SHPO is included elsewhere in this document (Cross Reference: 9.4 Chronological Comments, Correspondence, and Notices). Because several different types of sites were encountered, it was decided to define the area of potential effect according to the type of site. The area of potential effect for archaeological sites was defined as the staked roadway corridor (60 in in width along the existing alignment and 100 in to 120 in in width along proposed new alignments). The actual area of disturbance of the proposed project will be limited to the proposed right-of-way, which averages approximately 45 in in width within the staked roadway corridor. Not all portions of a site within the defined area of potential effect will necessarily be impacted by the proposed project. The area of potential effect for burials was 60 in from the proposed centerline in order to provide for a buffer between the burials and the potential project impacts. The area of potential effect for ritual sites was extended to 150 in from the proposed centerline in forested areas and to 800 in from the proposed centerline in open terrain in order to provide for a buffer between the sites and any audiovisual impacts of the proposed project. A total of 16 historic archaeological sites were observed and recorded within the area of potential effect, of which 13 were newly identified and 3 had been previously identified. All sixteen sites 3-185 are likely to be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRNP). These include Old Waimea -Kona Belt Road (50-10-33-20855), a historic habitation / animal enclosure (50-10-21-20854), Ka'ohe Wall (50-10-31-5002), Humu'ula Sheep Station Perimeter Wall (50-10-32-7119), Old Waimea-Humu'ula Wagon Road (50-10-32-21150), a historic fence (50-10-32-20865), Pu'u'O'o-Volcano Trail (50-10-33-10309), Hilo-Pu'u'O'o Trail (50-10-33-20878), Saddle Road (50-10-34-20864), two historic linear walls (50-10-32-20862 and 50-10-32-20877), a historic terrace (50-10-33-20856), a historic cairn (50-10-34-20869), 'Ola'a Flume (50-10-34-20870), Hilo Country Club (50-10-34-20872), and Senator Kimi's House (50-10-34-20873), as shown in Figure 3.19.1, NRNP -Eligible Archaeological Sites. Eight of these sites likely to be eligible for listing qualify under two or three of the following criteria, A, C, or D. Sites eligible under Criterion A are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to broad patterns of our history. Sites eligible under Criterion C embody distinctive characteristics of a type. Sites eligible under Criterion D yield important information pertaining to prehistory or history. The eight remaining sites are eligible under Criterion D only. No sites which could be confirmed as prehistoric were found by the archaeological survey within the project area. Two historic resources and one burial site occur beyond, but near, the area of potential effect and are also likely to be eligible for listing on the NRNP: a prehistoric lava tube shelter cave (50-10-31-5003), a prehistoric surface lithic scatter (50-10-31-14638), and two historic stone enclosures with an associated burial (50-10-21-20852). The prehistoric lava tube shelter cave and the prehistoric surface lithic scatter have previously been recommended as eligible for listing on the NRHP. The location of the burial near the stone enclosures was identified during field inspection by the primary informant for Traditional Cultural Properties, Mr. Henry Auwae. Based on the procedures developed in consultation with the Hawaii SHPO office, the exact location of the burial was not divulged, and no archaeological tests were conducted in the area, because the burial was determined to be situated beyond the area of potential effect for burials. No military sites or structures dating to World War II -era activities, other than historic Saddle Road, were encountered within the area of potential effect. The buildings now found in the cantonment area of the PTA were erected in the early 1950s when the PTA was officially established. No specific activity areas, structures, or features dating to World War II activities were identified. This is a reflection of the expedient and temporary use of the areas within the vicinity of the proposed project; soldiers were housed in the main camp facilities at Tarawa, and mostly used tents during maneuvers in PTA. None of the military sites are likely to be eligible for listing on the NRNP. j�-2. There is one site likely to be eligible for listing on the NRHP within this segment, the Old Waimea -Kona Belt Road (50-10-33-20855). This site is eligible for listing on the NRHP under Criterion D because the old roadway provides information concerning road -building techniques used around 1920. The site is eligible for listing under Criterion C because a small section of the roadway outside the area of potential effect for this segment has a stone -built culvert and is a good example of the road design and construction associated with gulches in this terrain. Eight 3-186 G �~A� Kawaihae v rr '�V `- Mauna Kea Beach Hotel Q' V Hapuna Beach Park Puako $ Mauna Lan! Resort Ctn `= Hilton Waikoloa u e N A4Aa[o �+ ISO0 10 � r f i Waikoloa f I S E� T WOiko- i Belt Road a ' 10-33-20855) Animal Enclosure D-10-21-20854; r� ( Pu'uanahulu Ke'amuku j Prehistoric I onOKO a PO,OUila -WAI M KAMUEL AIRPORT Manan Lau'pahoehoe i�MANA ROAD _(4W0)� 1 \ Keanakolu ��`✓ �\ ` � s Old Waimea— ��� Historic Linear f Humu'ulo Wagon 1 1 Wall (50-10-32-21150) (50-10-32-20877 4 GIRL SCOUT CAMP +113,796 LL Z ��, I MAUNA K) , Historic Cairn /1 1MP 2 2 (50-10-34-20869) �-� 13RADSHAW ARM*_r r ( 5 ®� \` AIRFIELD`�� .1 / �' Puaakala ' 7V0 ` MAU�JA KEA- J f { Tube Shleter .? TA 1 � `STATE �PARK.g,(Road (50-10-31-5003) 50-10-34-20864) fr K NA INTERN 'VNAL J AIRfdO Prehistoric Lit 1 11�tolloa --- -- Scatter l ( ``�,^ (50-10-31-1 \ P 0 H A K \ ( \ 8 271~ \ KAILUA Kaholu'u Keauhou K�4HwaM Poo fuE: 3-13- �, \( HUAAALAI_ 1 �� Wall (50-10-31Koohe r III 1 I i LOA y PITA -3 a NING1AREA PTA � IMPACT AREA Historic Fence (50-10-32-208 F(5Humu'ula Sheep ation and erimeter Wall 0-10-32-711 H W (:i Histori x - `\, - (50-1 MP no Trail 10-33-1 S E C T 1 0 N I V Ola a Flume } (50-10-34-20870) 11( Hilo Country Club 50-10-34-208721 okolou �Kolekole Park HOnomu 'ekeo pai'kou House (50-10— Z��Kea'au Kurtistown \ au u o— 1 —r ,ic Linear lo Trail 0-1ro0-33-20878) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1 0-32-20862 r FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION /1 Kulmnl CENTRAL FEDERAL , COL HIGHWAY DIVISION 1` DENVER, COLORADO NRHP — ELIGIBLE ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES FIGURE 3.19.1 culverts similar in architecture and varying in size, and one bridge, were observed along the roadway within a 1.5 -km sample of the road in the vicinity of the project area. It is also eligible under Criterion A because the road is associated with major changes in the economic and social history of the region. In the vicinity of this segment, but beyond the area of potential effect, are the two historic stone enclosures with an associated burial (50-10-21-20852). Although the burial and archaeological features were not fully examined due to their location beyond the area of potential effect, the burial is recognized as a burial site under the State of Hawaii Rules of Practice and Procedure Relating to Burial Sites and Human Remains. The burial is located on private property. j�-3. There are two sites likely to be eligible for listing on the NRNP within this segment, the Old Waimea -Kona Belt Road (50-10-33-20855, as described previously for Segment W-2) and a historic habitation/animal enclosure (50-10-21-20854). The portion of the Old Waimea -Kona Belt Road located within the area of potential effect for this segment includes features that render the site eligible for the NRHP under Criterion C in addition to Criteria A and D, namely, a stone -built culvert that is a good example of the road design and construction associated with gulches in this terrain. The historic habitation/animal enclosure is described as the remains of two stone animal enclosures and historic debris located near the Old Waimea -Kona Belt Road. The site is eligible for listing on the NRNP under Criterion D because it has yielded information important in the history of the area. The location of the site near the historic road has provided information on the relationship of ranching activities to transportation routes in western Hawai i. EX -2. There are two sites likely to be eligible for listing on the NRNP within this segment, the Ka ohe Wall (50-10-31-5002) and the Humu'ula Sheep Station Perimeter Wall (50-10-32-7119). The Ka' ohe Wall is eligible under Criterion D because it contains information regarding local historical ranching activities and wall technology. Since the origin of the wall remains unknown, it may have been built to contain either sheep or cattle. It has been argued that since the wall is west of the Humu'ula Sheep Station boundary, it must have been built by Parker Ranch to contain cattle. It is also possible, however, that the wall was built around 1892, by the Humu'ula Sheep Station Company. The location of the wall, its north -south orientation, and its termination in the 1843 ' a' a flow all suggest that it would have been useful to contain sheep. The addition of posts and barbed wire at the top of the wall is similar to the construction of the Humu'ula Sheep Station Perimeter Wall. No historical documentation could be found regarding the building of the wall. The wall is also eligible under Criterion C because it is an excellent example of historic ranch walls. The Humu'ula Sheep Station was the locus of early Western exploitation of the interior of the island. Sheep raising was the most important and lucrative economic activity in the area from the 1860s, after the early bullock -hunting period and is therefore eligible under Criterion A. Because of the sheep raising, the early wagon road was created from Humu'ula to Waimea to transport the 3-187 wool, for export out of Kawaihae. Sheep raising continued nearly 100 years to the 1960s. Men from Waimea went to the station in the summer to shear. After Parker Ranch bought the station, Parker Ranch cowboys stayed there periodically as well. Many Waimea old-timers have memories or family stories of the sheep station. The perimeter walls show the area that was used for sheep raising and are eligible under Criterion D. Seven portions of the wall are located in the vicinity of the project. They are identified in the archaeological report prepared for this EIS as Sections 1 through 7. For purposes of clarity in this document, they are referred to as Parts I through 7. Part 1 of the perimeter wall is within Segment II. Part 1 of the wall is 1.9 km long, with a 75-m break for the existing Saddle Road between Station 138+340 and 138+415. A portion of the Part 1 of the wall, 40 percent (750 m), is situated beyond the area of potential effect. Because this section of the wall retains its integr}ty and is a prominent feature, it is eligible under Criterion C. In the vicinity of this segment, but beyond the area of potential effect, are two sites: a prehistoric lava tube shelter cave (50-10-31-5003) and a prehistoric surface lithic scatter (50-10-31-14638). The lava tube shelter contains intact, stratified deposits containing cultural debris, lithic artifacts, and subsistence remains dating to the late prehistoric and historic periods. The site is eligible for listing on the NRHP under Criterion D because the intact, undisturbed remains and contexts contain information on the changing exploitation and occupation strategies employed in the area from the late prehistoric to historic periods. The prehistoric surface lithic scatter includes three shallow lava tubes covering an area of approximately 0.07 ha. The site is eligible for listing on the NRHP under Criterion D because the distribution and types of materials present contain information on the resource exploitation, occupation, and tool manufacture and use strategies employed in the area during prehistory. PTA- 1. There are two sites likely to be eligible for listing on the NRHP within this segment, the old Waimea-Humu'ula Wagon Road (50-10-32-21150) and a historic fence (50-10-32-20865). Because the old wagon road is associated with a historic event, the development of the Humu'ula Sheep Station, it is eligible under Criterion A. The wagon road was used to transport wool down by wagon to Waimea and Kawaihae for export. The project area intersects a 3.0 -km portion of the site that still has physical integrity and may be the only wagon road on the Hawaiian Islands thus making it eligible under Criteria A and C. The historic fence is described as a fence made of wood and barbed wire. It may be contemporaneous with the rock walls associated with the Humu'ula Sheep Station. The site is eligible for listing on the NRNP under Criterion D because it has yielded information important in the history of the area. The location of the fence has provided information on the location of internal divisions within the Humu'ula Sheep Station. 3-188 PTA -3. There is one site likely to be eligible for listing on the NRNP within this segment, the Humu'ula Sheep Station Perimeter Wall (50-10-32-7119), as described previously for Segment EX -2). EX -3. There are seven sites likely to be eligible for listing on the NRHP within this segment, the Humu'ula Sheep Station Perimeter Wall (50-10-32-7119), the Pu'u'O'o-Volcano Trail (50-10-33-10309), the Hilo-Pu'u'O'o Trail (50-10-33-20878), abandoned segments of Saddle Road (50-10-34-20864), two historic linear walls (50-10-32-20862 and 50-10-32-20877), and a historic terrace (50-10-33-20856). Parts of the Humu'ula Sheep Station Perimeter Wall (as described previously for Segment EX -2) are within Segment EX -3. A 10-m portion of Part 4 of the wall is within the project area near Station 143+150, east of Pu'u Huluhulu. A short portion of Part 6 of the wall lies entirely within the project area near Station 148+000. Also near Station 148+000, Part 7 of the wall turns north. Its southern end extends into the corridor a short way. The Pu'u 'O' o -Volcano Trail is eligible under Criterion A because it was used by Shipman to drive cattle from Pu'u Ranch down to Volcano, from the early 1900s until after Saddle Road was built in 1943. The trail was also used by Parker Ranch to drive cattle between Humu'ula and Kahuku Ranch in Kau from perhaps 1915 to the 1940s. Parker Ranch bought Kahuku Ranch in 1912 and Humu'ula in 1914. Calves were brought back to Humu'ula/Waimea to be fattened for market. Before 1930 replacement heifers were also driven down to Kahuku for breeding, but in later years the heifers were trucked down from Waimea. The trail is associated with cattle drives in the early twentieth century, by Shipman and Parker Ranch. It contributed to development and travel on the island. The trail provided a vital economic link between Parker's Waimea and Ka'u ranches and between Shipman's Pu'u 'O' o Ranch and its Hilo market. The trail is eligible under Criterion C because it is an excellent example of a historic trail in eastern Hawai i. It is also eligible under Criterion D because it contains information on trail morphology and transportation routing during historic and, potentially, prehistoric periods. It is a strong probability that the trail is in large part prehistoric. If the prehistoric status of the trail were confirmed, it would establish an association with historic events further back in time, including use for the movement of Hawaiian armies. The part of the trail just south of Saddle Road, including the small portion of the trail that lies in the project corridor, was built more recently, after the 1935 flow. The documented portion of the Hilo -Pu' u ' O' o Trail is an outstanding example of a historic trail, with a variety of construction techniques employed and is therefore eligible under Criterion C. The lower part of the trail in this area passes over pahoehoe, appearing as a worn passage, built up in the low spots with rocks. The upper part of the trail in this area passes over ' a' a, appearing as a cleared and smoothed trough in the lava. The trail is still used by bikers, hunters, and gatherers. The part of the trail between MP 20 and 18 appears to be the part of the trail in the best condition today. This part of the trail is associated with the Hitchcock family's use of Puakala and with the Pu u ' O' o Ranch. The Hitchcock house at Puakala was a site used for nineteenth-century cattle hunting in upper Pi ihonua and a vacation spot for the white elite of 3-189 Hilo, who often ascended Mauna Kea from there. Pu' u ' O' o Ranch was the first ranching operation in mauka (towards the mountain) Pi ihonua above Hilo. It was established sometime between 1887 and 1896. It was established about the same time as Kuka'iau Ranch farther north, which was started in 1887. The trail is thus associated with the shift in exploitation of the eastern side of Mauna Kea in the nineteenth century, from bird catching by native Hawaiian to feral cattle hunting and cattle ranching, primarily by whites, and is eligible under Criterion A. The trail embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type of construction and is a good example of a historic trail and is eligible under Criterion D. It contains information on the location of pathways taken during historic times, and on trail construction techniques relative to changes in terrain. The Saddle Road site contains information regarding the local events associated with the United States involvement in World War II and is eligible under Criterion A. Saddle Road was built in 1943 in order to provide a pan -island access route in case of Japanese invasion. For most of its length, the original construction materials of the road have already been modified by modern repaving and maintenance activities. Two portions of the non -paved Old Saddle Road exist within this Segment EX -3 and are eligible under Criterion D as well. The first historic linear wall (50-10-32-20862) is described as a short segment of a rock wall, without protruding wood pieces along the top, that has been partially buried by lava flow. The site is eligible for listing on the NRHP under Criterion D because it has yielded information important in the history of the area. The location and morphology of the wall have provided information on the changing configuration of internal land divisions at the Humu'ula Sheep Station. The second historic linear wall (50-10-32-20877) is described as a short segment of a larger rock wall, without protruding wood pieces along the top, probably associated with the Humu'ula Sheep Station. It has been almost completely buried by the 1935 lava flow. The site is eligible for listing on the NRNP under Criterion D because it has yielded information important in the history of the area. The location and morphology of the wall have provided information on the changing configuration of internal land divisions at the sheep station. The historic terrace is described as a 1.4-m by 0.8-m paving of small 'a' a cobbles situated on the 1855 lava flow. No cultural material was observed, and the function of this feature is unknown. The site is eligible for listing on the NRHP under Criterion D because it has yielded information important in the history of the area. The location of the paving on 1855 lava has provided information on the location of historic modifications near the Hilo -Pu' u ' O' o Trail. EX -4A. There is one site likely to be eligible for listing on the NRHP within this segment, a historic cairn (50-10-34-20869). The site is described as a historic surveyor's marker built of pahoehoe lava rock. It is approximately 1.8 m in diameter and 2.1 in tall. The site is eligible for listing on the NRNP under Criterion D because it has yielded information important in the history of the area. The location and morphology of the marker has provided information on changing land boundaries near Hilo and on the history of surveying techniques used in Hawai'i. 3-190 EE=3. There are three sites likely to be eligible for listing on the NRNP within this segment, the 'Ola'a Flume (50-10-34-20870), the Hilo Country Club (50-10-34-20872), and Senator Kimi's House (50-10-34-20873). The'Ola'a Flume is eligible under Criterion A because it is associated with the development and expansion of the sugar industry, one of the most important factors affecting Hawai is history from historic times to World War II. The flumes were built before 1900 by the sugar plantations to transport cane to the mills. They were part of the technological development that made the industry profitable. Today the historical evidence of the sugar plantations is fast disappearing. Many of the flumes have been destroyed, because they went out of use in the 1950s. Subsequently, the plantations built roads through the cane fields, and the cane was trucked to the mill. The'Ola'a Flume is a notable example of the technology, because of its length and relative integrity and is eligible under Criterion D. The upper portion of the flume has survived physically due to its location on forest reserve lands, unlike flumes in sugar fields. The Hilo Country Club includes the remains of a golf course and a lodge. It is eligible for listing on the NRNP under Criterion D because it has yielded information important in the history of the area. The site has provided information on the physical remains and landscapes associated with recreational activities of the elite in eastern Hawaii during the early 20th century. Senator Kimi's House includes a cement slab, cement foundation pads, a water heater, and electrical conduits. Senator Kimi lived there at least as early as 1945, and the modern water heater indicates that the house was probably occupied into the 1970s. The site is eligible for listing on the NRNP under Criterion D because it has yielded information important in the history of the area. The site has provided information on the physical remains of the homestead of a political figure in Hawai i. 3.19.2.2 Environmental Consequences W-7. Segment W-2 would have an effect on the Old Waimea -Kona Belt Road (50-10-33-20855). Since this is an extensive linear feature, breaching it would constitute a minor impact such that no substantial impairment of the site would occur. The features of the site that qualify the property for inclusion in the NRHP would not be altered by construction of this segment. As a result, it has been determined that there is no need for preservation in place for the portion of the historic site to be impacted. It has been determined that effects on this site are adverse, but can be mitigated. The general location of the burial associated with two historic stone enclosures (50-10-21-20852) was determined to be over the 75 m beyond the area of potential effect designated for burials. Consequently, Segment W-2 will not affect the burial or the other features of the site. W-3. Segment W-3 would have an effect on the Old Waimea -Kona Belt Road (50-10-33-20855) and the historic enclosures (50-10-21-20854). Since the historic road is an extensive linear feature, breaching it would constitute a minor impact such that no substantial impairment of the 3-191 site would occur. The features of the site that qualify the property for inclusion in the NRNP would not be altered. As a result, it has been determined that there is no need for preservation in place for the portion of the historic site to be impacted. It has been determined that effects to this site are adverse, but can be mitigated. The information that has made the historic enclosures significant has been collected. Consequently, the effect to this site can be considered as not adverse pursuant to 36 CFR 800.9(c)(1). EX -2. Segment EX -2 would have an effect on the Ka'ohe Wall (50-10-31-5002) and Part 1 of the Humu'ula Sheep Station Perimeter Wall (50-10-32-7119). Since these two sites are extensive linear features and project -related impacts to the sites would occur where they have been previously disturbed, project activities would constitute a minor impact such that no substantial impairment of the sites would occur. The features of the sites that qualify the properties for inclusion in the NRHP would not be altered. As a result, it has been determined that there is no need for preservation in place for the portion of the historic sites to be impacted. It has been determined that effects to these sites are adverse, but can be mitigated. Segment EX -2 will have no effect on the prehistoric lava tube shelter cave (50-10-31-5003) and the prehistoric surface lithic scatter (50-10-31-14638). Both sites are beyond the area of potential effect. The data that makes the lava tube shelter significant is contained within the cave. Surface deposits have been disturbed by the construction and use of a dirt road near the cave entrance. In the case of the prehistoric surface lithic scatter, higher terrain separates the site remains from the project area. This creates a clear delineation between the site and the project area and provides a deterrent to access to those remains. These two sites will not be disturbed because they are outside of the APE; therefore, the project will have no effect on them. PTA -1. Segment PTA -1 would have an effect on the Old Waimea-Humu'ula Wagon Road (50-10-32-21150). Since this is an extensive linear feature, breaching it would constitute a minor impact such that no substantial impairment of the site would occur. The features of the site that qualify the property for inclusion in the NRHP would not be altered. As a result, it has been determined that there is no need for preservation in place for the portion of the historic site to be impacted. It has been determined that effects to this site are adverse, but can be mitigated. The information that has made the historic fence (50-10-32-20865) significant has been collected. Consequently, the effect to this site can be considered as not adverse pursuant to 36 CFR 800.9(c)(1). PTA -3. Segment PTA -3 would have an effect on Part 1 of the Humu ula Sheep Station Perimeter Wall (50-10-32-7119). This effect is determined to be adverse, but can be mitigated. The effect determination would be as described previously for Segment EX -2. 3-192 EX -3. Segment EX -3 would have an effect on Parts 4, 6, and 7 of the Humu' ula Sheep Station Perimeter Wall (50-10-32-7119), the Pu'u'O'o-Volcano Trail (50-10-33-10309), the Hilo-Pu'u 'O'o Trail (50-10-33-20878), and abandoned segments of Saddle Road (50-10-34-20864). Since these four sites are extensive linear features and project -related impacts to these sites would occur where they have been previously disturbed, project activities would constitute a minor impact such that no substantial impairment of the sites would occur. The features of the sites that qualify the properties for inclusion in the NRHP would not be altered. As a result, it has been determined that there is no need for preservation in place for the portion of the historic sites to be impacted. It has been determined that the effects to these sites are adverse but can be mitigated. Segment EX -3 would also have an effect on the two historic linear walls (50-10-32-20862 and 50-10-32-20877), and the historic terrace (50-10-33-20856). The information that has made these sites significant has been collected. Consequently, the effect to these sites can be considered as not adverse pursuant to 36 CFR 800.9(c)(1). EX -4 . The information that has made the historic cairn (50-10-34-20869) significant has been collected. Consequently, the effect to this site can be considered as not adverse pursuant to 36. CFR 800.9(c)(1). Because of previous disturbance and eradication of site features, there is no impact to the ' Ola' a Flume (50-10-34-20870) in the existing corridor of EX -4A, and therefore, the proposed construction would have no effect. EE=3. Segment E-3 would impact the ' Ola' a Flume (50-10-34-20870), the Hilo Country Club (50-10-34-20872), and Senator Kimi's House (50-10-34-20873). Since the ' Ola a Flume is an extensive linear feature, breaching it would constitute a minor impact such that no substantial impairment of the site would occur. The features of the site that qualify the property for inclusion in the NRNP would not be altered. As a result, it has been determined that there is no need for preservation in place for the portion of the historic site to be impacted. It has been determined that the effects to these sites are adverse, but can be mitigated. The information that has made the Hilo Country Club and Senator Kimi's House significant has been collected. Consequently, the effect to these sites can be considered as not adverse pursuant to 36 CFR 800.9(c)(1). Recommended treatments for the 19 sites likely to be eligible for listing on the NRHP vary. Table 3.19.1, Impacts and Recommended Mitigation for NRHP-eligible Archaeological Sites, summarizes recommended treatments. The burial (50-10-21-20852) will be avoided; there is no effect (site not listed in table). Preservation through avoidance is the preferred form of treatment for all of the historic properties located within the vicinity of the project area. Two sites are located outside of the area of potential effect and will be avoided. In the ten instances where properties are eligible for the NRHP only for the information they can provide (Criterion D), data has already been retrieved through appropriate data collection and documentation thus making any impacts an exception to the criteria of adverse effect. In the remaining eight instances, where properties are also eligible under Criteria A or C, the properties consist of linear features. In these 3-193 cases, mitigation has been developed and includes avoidance, minimization of impact, archaeological monitoring of impacted areas, data recovery, and the provision of roadside pullouts with interpretive sign displays. TABLE 3.19.1 Impacts and Recommended Mitigation for NRNP -eligible Archaeological Sites Section Site Criteria Effect and Analysis Mitigation W-2 Old Waimea -Kona A, C, & 19,000-m linear feature already interrupted in numerous Data recovery. Belt Road D places by newer Belt Highway. Portion affected by (50-10-33-20855) project not significant for preservation in place. No alteration of significance criteria features. Adverse effect, but can be mitigated. W-3 Old Waimea -Kona A, C, & 19,000-m linear feature already interrupted in numerous Data recovery; Belt Road D places by newer Belt Highway. Portion affected by potential realignment. (50-10-33-20855) project not significant for preservation in place. No alteration of significance criteria features. Adverse effect, but can be mitigated. historic habitation D Site significant for data recovery only. No adverse effect Data recovery / animal enclosure pursuant to 36 CFR 800.9 (c)(1). (completed). Potential (50-10-21-20854) avoidance. EX -2 Ka' ohe Wall C & D 660-m linear feature already interrupted in several Data recovery with (50-10-31-5002) locations by Saddle Road. Portion affected by project not monitoring. Potential significant for preservation in place. No alteration of avoidance. significance criteria features. Adverse effect, but can be mitigated. Humu'ula Sheep A, C & 11,100-m linear feature already interrupted in numerous Data recovery and Station Perimeter D locations by Saddle Road and 1935 Lava Flow. Portion monitoring, signage Wall affected by project not significant for preservation in with pullout, potential (50-10-32-7119) place. No alteration of significance criteria features. avoidance. Adverse effect, but can be mitigated. prehistoric lava D No effect to this site; located outside the area of potential Avoidance. tube shelter cave effect. (50-10-31-5003) prehistoric surface D No effect to this site; located outside the area of potential Avoidance. lithic scatter effect. (50-10-31-14638) P'rA-1 Old Waimea- A, C & 2,950-m linear feature already interrupted in numerous Data recovery and Humu' ula Wagon D locations by roads and natural deterioration. Portion signage with pullout. Road affected by project not significant for preservation in (50-10-32-21150) place. No alteration of significance criteria features. Adverse effect, but can be mitigated. historic fence D Site significant for data recovery only. No adverse effect Data recovery (50-10-32-20865) pursuant to 36 CFR 800.9 (c)(1). (completed). 3-194 TABLE 3.19.1 Impacts and Recommended Mitigation for NRNP -eligible Archaeological Sites Section Site Criteria Effect and Analysis Mitigation PTA -3 Humu' ula Sheep A, C & 11,100-m linear feature already interrupted in numerous Data recovery and Station Perimeter D locations by Saddle Road and 1935 Lava Flow. Portion monitoring, signage Wall affected by project not significant for preservation in with pullout, potential (50-10-32-7119) place. Adverse effect, but can be mitigated. avoidance. EX -3 Pu' u ' O' o- A, C & 35,000-m linear feature already interrupted in numerous Data recovery and Volcano Trail D locations by roads. Portion affected by project not signage with pullout. (50-10-33-10309) significant for preservation in place. No alteration of significance criteria features. Adverse effect, but can be mitigated. Humu' ula Sheep A, C & 11,100-m linear feature already interrupted in numerous Data recovery and Station Perimeter D locations by Saddle Road and 1935 Lava Flow. Portion signage with pullout. Wall affected by project not significant for preservation in (50-10-32-7119) place. No alteration of significance criteria features. Adverse effect, but can be mitigated. Hilo -Pu' u ' O' o A, C & 2,600-m linear feature already interrupted in numerous Data recovery and Trail D locations by roads. Portion affected by project not signage with pullout. (50-10-33-20878) significant for preservation in place. No alteration of significance criteria features. Adverse effect, but can be mitigated. Old Saddle Road A & D 3,000-m linear feature already interrupted in numerous Data recovery and (50-10-34-20864) locations by newer Saddle Road and 1935 Lava Flow. signage with pullout. Portion affected by project not significant for preservation in place. No alteration of significance criteria features. Adverse effect, but can be mitigated. historic linear wall D Site significant for data recovery only. No adverse effect Data recovery (50-10-32-20862) pursuant to 36 CFR 800.9 (e)(1). (completed). historic linear wall D Site significant for data recovery only. No adverse effect Data recovery (50-10-32-20877) pursuant to 36 CFR 800.9 (e)(1). (completed). historic terrace D Site significant for data recovery only. No adverse effect Data recovery (50-10-33-20856) pursuant to 36 CFR 800.9 (c)(1). (completed). EX -4A historic cairn D Site significant for data recovery only. No adverse effect Data recovery (50-10-34-20869) pursuant to 36 CFR 800.9 (c)(1). (completed). E-3 ' Ola' a Flume A & D 25,000-m linear feature already interrupted in numerous Data recovery, signage (50-10-34-20870) locations by roads and farm clearings. Portion affected by with pullout. project not significant for preservation in place. Adverse effect, but can be mitigated. Hilo Country Club D Site significant for data recovery only. No adverse effect Data recovery I (50-10-34-20872) pursuant to 36 CFR 800.9 (c)(1). (completed). 3-195 TABLE 3.19.1 Impacts and Recommended Mitigation for NRNP -eligible Archaeological Sites Section Site Criteria Effect and Analysis Mitigation Senator Kimi's D Site significant for data recovery only. No adverse effect Data recovery House pursuant to 36 CFR 800.9 (c)(1). (completed). (50-10-34-20873) Information pertaining to 49 U.S.C. Section 103, known as Section 4(f) is included in the portion of this chapter addressing impacts to Outdoor Recreation Resources (Cross Reference: 3.3.4.2 Environmental Consequences). None of the 18 archaeological sites qualify as 4(f) properties. Two of the sites are outside the study corridor (APE), and effects to them can be prevented by avoiding stockpiling or other ancillary construction activities as specified in the section of this document outlining mitigation for impacts to threatened and endangered species (Cross Reference: 3.18.3 Mitigation Measures). Because it is possible to avoid completely any effects to these two sites, they require no further 4(f) consideration. Eight sites are significant under Criterion D only (for the information they contain). Data recovery is the appropriate mitigation for effects to these sites. Under U.S. DOT policy, sites that are significant under Criterion D only are not considered 4(f) properties. The eight remaining sites are significant under multiple criteria. All of these sites are linear features such as roads, trails, and rock walls. All have been previously impacted by road construction, lava flows, and other activities in such a way that they currently consist of multiple interrupted fragments. Although at least some area of each site is important for preservation, Michael Wilson, State Historic Preservation Officer, indicated in his July 31, 1997 letter that none of the areas potentially impacted by the project are significant for preservation in place in that the "effects can be mitigated because they only impact a relatively small segment of the historic property" (Cross Reference: 9.4.4 Chronological Comments, Correspondence, and Notices). It has been concluded that although the effect may be adverse as defined in 36 CFR 800.9(b), it is not a Section 4(f) use because the portions of the sites impacted do not require preservation in place. No Action Alternative. With the No Action Alternative, there would be no impact anticipated to archaeological sites. 3.19.2.3 Mitigation Measures The draft report of the cultural resources survey entitled Archaeological Inventory Survey and Historic and Traditional Cultural Assessment for the Hawaii Defense Access Road A AD -6(I) and Saddle Road (SR 200) Project was delivered to the Hawai'i SHPO on April 8, 1997 and a subsequent letter requesting concurrence with the eligibility determinations therein transmitted on 3-196 April 10, 1997 (Cross Reference: 9.4.4 Chronological Comments, Correspondence, and Notices). Mr. Michael Wilson, SHPO, responded in a letter of July 31, 1997 to the request for concurrence and offered observations on effect determinations for the various sites. Subsequent to this correspondence, the FHWA transmitted, by letter of September 23, 1997 (Cross Reference: 9.4.4 Chronological Comments, Correspondence, and Notices), an initial evaluation of effect determinations and proposed mitigation efforts for the various sties in order to initiate discussion on the disposition of the sites and propose mitigation. The mitigation outlined below is that presented to the SHPO at this time. It is anticipated that further discussion directed at reaching agreement on mitigation measures will occur and resulting decisions and final treatments will be stipulated in a Memorandum of Agreement which will be included in the Final EIS. Further, interested individuals and interviewees who participated in the cultural resources survey will be given an opportunity to participate in the MOA formulation. The MOA will provide site-specific details on property treatments including; alignment or design measures to avoid and/or minimize impacts, data collection and construction monitoring plans, interpretative sign design and messages, and motorist access designs or non access policies or treatments. ■ W-2 and W-3 (Old Waimea -Kona Belt Road). Mitigation will consist of data recovery, in compliance with 36 CFR 800.9(c)(1). Data recovery will include detailed recording of the roadway and culvert structure within the W-3 corridor, and, if avoidance is not possible, excavation and/or disassembly of portions of the structure. A data recovery plan detailing procedures and methods to be used will be completed and reviewed/approved by SHPO before project implementation. ■ EX -2 and PTA -3 (Humu'ula Sheep Station Perimeter Wall). The proposed alignment will be modified to minimize impacts at the eastern end of this section of the wall (from 138+880 to 139+290). Mitigation will include data collection and documentation of existing information on the unpacked portion. Construction activities will be monitored to ensure that impacts to the walls are restricted to the absolute minimum under the provisions of a written Archaeological Monitoring Plan (Monitoring Plan) pursuant to SHPO draft regulations 13-146, 13-150, and 13-154 (DLNR 1994). The Monitoring Plan will be reviewed and approved by the SHPO prior to commencement of construction and the monitoring project. Treatment of the property will also include interpretative signage with a place for motorists to pull off Saddle Road. The content of the signage may include a description of the Humu ula Sheep Station, its role in the history of the area, and a discussion of the function and construction of the walls. Appropriate locations for two pullouts with signage are at the intersection at Saddle Road at MP 28, and at the east end of Part I of the wall. ■ EX -2 (Kihoe Wall). The proposed alignment will be modified to minimize affected segments. It is possible that complete avoidance can be attained. If not, mitigation will 3-197 include data collection and documentation of existing information on the impacted portion. Construction activities will be monitored in this vicinity to ensure that impacts to the walls are restricted to the absolute minimum. Construction monitoring will be conducted under the provisions of a written Archaeological Monitoring Plan (Monitoring Plan) pursuant to SHPO draft regulations 13-146, 13-150, and 13-154 (DLNR 1994). The Monitoring Plan will be reviewed and approved by the SHPO prior to construction and commencement of the monitoring project. ■ PTA -1 (Old Waimea-Humu'ula Wagon Road). Mitigation will consist of data recovery, in compliance with 36 CFR 800.9(c)(1). Data recovery will be conducted for the portion of the wagon road within the corridor prior to road construction. Data recovery will include thorough and complete measurements and photo documentation of the intact portion of the road within the area of potential effect. A data recovery plan detailing procedures and methods to be used will be completed and approved by SHPO and implemented prior to construction. Treatment of the property will also include interpretative signage and construction of a pullout where the trail meets the east side of the proposed corridor. The content of the signage may include a description of the road, dates of use, and how it was used for transportation of goods and people across the interior of the island. ■ EX -3 (Humu'ula Sheep Station and Perimeter Wall). Treatment of the property will be the same as described previously [Cross Reference: EX -2 and PTA -3 (Humu'ula Sheep Station Perimeter Wall]. ■ EX -3 (Pu u ' O' o -Volcano Trail). The proposed alignment will be modified to minimize the impacted segment. Mitigation will include data collection and documentation of existing information on the impacted portion. A data recovery plan detailing procedures and methods to be used will be completed and approved by SHPO and implemented prior to construction. Treatment of the property will also include interpretative signage and construction of a pullout. ■ EX -3 (Hilo -Pu' u ' O' o Trail). The proposed alignment will be modified to minimize the impacted segment. Mitigation will include data collection and documentation of existing information on the impacted portion. A data recovery plan detailing procedures and methods to be used will be completed and approved by SHPO and implemented prior to construction. Treatment of the property will also include interpretative signage and construction of a pullout. ■ EX -3 (Old Saddle Road). Data collection has been completed. Additional research may be provided to complement signage accuracy. Treatment will also include interpretative signage placed at one portion of Old Saddle Road. The signage may contain information on the location of the original road, and its historical use. Mitigation will also include the construction of a pullout for motorists. The pullout could be incorporated within a portion of Old Saddle Road to provide safe access to the sign and property. 3-198 E-3 C Ola' a Flume). Data collection has been completed. Additional research may be provided to complement signage accuracy. Treatment will include interpretative signage placed at the flume site. The signage may contain information on the location of the flume system and its historical use. Treatment may also include construction of a pullout for motorists adjacent to the flume to provide safe access to the sign. Reconstruction of a segment of the flume for interpretive purposes may accompany the pullout. 3.19.3 Traditional Hawaiian Cultural Sites Twenty-four individuals were contacted who provided information about the project area and its history. Information provided was used to determine the broad historical patterns of land ownership, settlement, and land use in the project area. This effort was designed to provide the historical context and to gain information about specific historic sites within the project area. The oral history research was started by initiating consultation with native Hawaiian organizations and by networking to find knowledgeable informants. Initial consultation with native Hawaiian organizations is mandated by the 1992 amendment to the National Historic Preservation Act, Sect. 301. The amendment requires that the project investigator notify native Hawaiian organizations at the start of the project and ask for their advice on finding expert informants. The Office of Hawaiian Affairs (OHA) and Hui Malama i Na Kupuna O Hawai' i Nei were notified by letter at the start. Hui Malama recommended that Mr. Henry Auwae be interviewed regarding the project. Other organizations including the Waimea Hawaiian Civic Club, Waimea Homesteaders Association, Kona -Hawaiian Civic Club, Hilo Hawaiian Civic Club, Prince David Kawananakoa Hawaiian Civic Club [of Hilo], and Ka Lahui Hawaii were consulted. None of these other organizations responded with the names of additional Hawaiian kupuna (elders) who had knowledge of traditional native Hawaiian sites in the project area. Consultation with native Hawaiian organizations is included elsewhere in this document (PHU 1997, Technical Appendices, Volume IV). 3.19.3.1 Affected Environment The cultural sites known to occur in the general vicinity of the project area include a native Hawaiian burial and native Hawaiian ritual sites of several kinds. Generally such sites are considered eligible for either the Hawaii or National Register of Historic Places. It was not possible to definitively locate the ritual sites, although efforts were made. All of the sites fall outside the area of potential effect of the proposed project. Mr. Henry Auwae was interviewed on five occasions for this project, and two helicopter trips were made to attempt to locate the sites. Mr. Auwae's knowledge of these sites may be unique. He was the only informant recommended through contact and coordination with native Hawaiian organizations. Mr. Auwae attained his knowledge about ritual sites and burials from his great-grandparents, who adopted him, and imparted their knowledge to him. 3-199 Early in this century when Mr. Auwae was a boy, he journeyed several times through the Saddle together with his great-grandparents. His great-grandmother was an expert healer (kahuna la'au lapa'au) and his great-grandfather a prophet (kula), who came from a line of prophets. In her role as a healer, his great-grandmother traveled to see people who were sick and to collect medicinal plants. His great-grandparents had specialist knowledge of ritual sites. When the three of them traveled together, they shared this knowledge. Mr. Auwae has not revisited the sites since that time. Today Mr. Auwae believes he is the only individual who still has knowledge of either the burials or the ritual sites. Attempts were made to locate additional informants with knowledge of native Hawaiian sites in the project area, without success. Older Hawaiians in Waimea and Hilo and native Hawaiian Organizations in both areas were asked if they knew of any individuals who might have such knowledge. Surviving relatives of Hawaiian cowboys who had worked at Parker Ranch or Pu'u 'O'o Ranch were contacted, but no knowledge of cultural sites had been passed down to them. 3.19.3.1.1 Burials and Homesteads For native Hawaiian burials, it was decided to define a wider area of potential effect than that used for archaeological sites. Native Hawaiian burial sites over 50 years old are protected under the Hawaii State historic preservation law, Chapter 6(E), Sect. 43. Under that law, decisions on the treatment of native an burials are made by an island -level burial council. Any burial located within the project area would have to be removed for reinterment, or the road be rerouted. Burials outside the project area might be left in place, but there still would be some potential for disturbance of any burial located adjacent to the road corridor. Because of that potential, a buffer is generally established between construction and known burials. For this project, the area of potential effect for burials was established as a 120-m corridor, extending 60 in on each side of the centerline. Mr. Auwae knew of two areas where people used to live and where there were Hawaiian burials, one on the west side and one in the Saddle. Mr. Auwae said there were Hawaiian graves in the area near the west side alternative routes W-2 and W-3. In the Saddle, Mr. Auwae said there once were "villages" north of the present Saddle Road on the lower slopes of Mauna Kea, at an elevation where several springs existed. He knows of Hawaiian burials in that area. He said there had also been many Hawaiian burials in the area of Bradshaw Army Airfield in the PTA, and to the southeast of Mauna Kea State Park in the PTA. Both areas were heavily bulldozed by the DOA after World War II and he thinks nothing is left of the graves. Attempts were made to determine the relationship of the proposed road corridors to any burial or ritual sites in the vicinity of the project area by means of two helicopter trips. The alternate corridors were flown to determine whether any of the burials known to Mr. Atiwae lay within or close to the corridors. One burial was identified as being in the vicinity of the 3-200 project area, near Segment W-2. The distance of the burial site from the corridor boundary was measured to be more than 100 in. Mr. Auwae was confident that there were no burials near the PTA -I corridor, although he said that he did know of burials farther up on the Mauna Kea slope. 3.19.3.1.2 Ritual Sites For native Hawaiian ritual sites, a variable area of potential effect was defined. Such ritual sites would generally be considered "traditional cultural properties," as described in National Register Bulletin 38 of the National Park Service. A ritual site used by native Hawaiians could be adversely affected by a nearby road even if it was outside the road corridor. Ritual activity could be compromised by the sight and sound of a nearby road, or by passing motorists. It was reasoned that such adverse effects would extend much farther in the area of open terrain of the West Side than in the forested terrain of the East Side. For these reasons, the area of potential effect for ritual sites was defined as a 300-m corridor (150 in on each side of the centerline) in forested terrain, and 1.6 -km corridor (800 in on each side of the centerline) in open terrain. None of the ritual sites could be definitely located because no stone remains of the sites were found. Mr. Auwae designated approximate locations for the sites. The designated locations are all well outside of the area of potential effect. Approximate locations for three of the sites were identified by sighting a line between two hills as landmarks. The first site was located about I km south of the Saddle Road corridor in Section III. The second site was located more than 1.5 km north of the Saddle Road corridor in Section III, but it was discovered that the site had been covered by the 1935 lava flow. The third site was located about 400 in southwest of the Saddle Road corridor in Section IV. The location of the fourth site was less well known, but was associated with a trail that ran south of Saddle Road. Since it was close to the trail, it is probably well south of Saddle Road. A fifth ritual site was not located, but is reportedly well north of the existing Saddle Road corridor in Section I. Four of the ritual sites identified are potentially eligible for the NRHP as traditional cultural properties; the other two are not. Of the two ineligible sites, one has been covered by lava. The other is too diffuse to be easily considered a traditional cultural property, and Mr. Auwae did not wish to claim that sort of status for it. Of the four potentially eligible sites, none are presently being used by Hawaiian religious practitioners. In general, however, Hawaiians believe that such ritual sites still have mana (religious power) because of their previous use. They are still sacred sites, because former ritual sites still have religious importance to native Hawaiians, even if they are not being actively used for religious rituals. Since none of the four sites in question has been definitely located and inspected to determine physical integrity, none of them can be evaluated as eligible for the register. All four sites lie outside the area of potential effect established for the proposed project for native Hawaiian ritual sites. 3-201 3.19.3.2 Environmental Consequences No impacts to identified Hawaiian Traditional Cultural Properties are anticipated as a result of any of the proposed action alternatives or the No Action Alternative. No such properties were identified within the area of potential effect for any of the action alternatives. The burial site in the vicinity of Segment W-2 lies outside the area of potential effect and will be avoided and preserved in place. 3.19.3.3 Mitigation Measures ■ In order to protect the burial site in the vicinity of W-2, it is thought best to avoid flagging of the burial site. Mitigation measures developed for the protection of biological resources will prohibit any construction activity outside of the staked right-of-way corridor or established staging areas (Cross Reference: 3.18.3 Mitigation Measures). ■ For all alternatives, upon discovery of native Hawaiian burials or ritual sites, construction activities will cease in the vicinity of the site until appropriate regulatory and resource personnel are contacted and a determination has been made. All requirements of Chapter 6E, HRS and the administrative rules relating to burials will be satisfied. ■ In order to ensure the protection of archaeological and paleontological remains during construction, Section 107.02, "Protection of Property and Landscape," Standard Specifications for Construction of Roads and Bridges on Federal Highway Projects, FPJ-96, 1996, FHWA will be followed. 3.20 HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES 3.20.1 Affected Environment A Phase I Site Assessment was performed for the project area to identify possible hazardous material sites, petroleum hydrocarbon sites, and underground storage tank (UST) locations (Rust 1996). The survey area included a 120-m corridor (60 m on either side of the roadway) along Saddle Road and each of the alternative segments. Site reconnaissance and interviews were conducted in March and April of 1996. Follow up phone interviews were conducted in April and May of 1996. The survey consisted of a records search, visual site reconnaissance, and interviews with Federal, State, and County officials, industry representatives, and DOA representatives. The conclusions contained in this report are based on conditions observed during the site reconnaissance at the time of the survey, available historical information, Hawai' i Department of Health records search, and personal and phone interviews with knowledgeable local personnel. This investigation did not evaluate the presence of any unexploded ordnance. 3-202 Current and past uses include limited private property use and minimal to no usage of public lands, with the exception of the PTA. The PTA has been used as a military training area since the 1940s. The current re -alignment has the north side of EX -2 running immediately adjacent to the Fuel Storage Yard fence. 3.20.1.1 Records Search Records and databases were reviewed directly by project personnel or through a computerized search of zip codes within the vicinity of the project corridor. Records reviewed at the Hawai i Department of Health, Environmental Management Division, include the Hawaii Spill Reports Database, the Hawaii Solid and Hazardous Waste Database, and the Underground Storage Tank Database. The Hawaii Spill Reports Database files list all reported spills, releases, and unauthorized dumpings between 1988 and 1996. Files indicate that only 1 spill, which occurred when 2,000 L of jet fuel was spilled on Saddle Road at the PTA in January 1991, was within the project corridor. The spill was cleaned up to the Department of Health's satisfaction. The Hawaii Solid and Hazardous Waste Database lists all solid and hazardous waste facilities in Hawai i. There were no such facilities listed along the project corridor, but the DOA applied for a Small Quantity Hazardous Waste Generator Permit with the EPA for the PTA in April 1996. The Underground Storage Tank Database lists all registered USTs in the State. The only USTs listed in the corridor were those present at the PTA. Six tanks are present at the Fuel Storage Yard, and two tanks are present at the gas station. There have been no reports of leaks or overfills from these tanks. A UST was removed in 1994 from a building outside of the project corridor. Federal American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) records reviewed include the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System, the Emergency Response and Notification System, and the National Priority List (NPL). No sites were recorded in the project corridor or immediate vicinity. The Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System (RCRIS) records were reviewed and no sites were listed in project corridor or vicinity. Since the PTA recently applied for small quantity generator status, it was yet not listed on the RCRIS database. Federal Non -ASTM records including Corrective Action Reports, Facility Index System, Hazardous Materials Information Reporting System, Material Licensing Tracking System, NPL Liens, PCB (polychlorinated biphenyl) Activity Database System, RCRA (Resource Conservation Recovery Act) Administrative Action Tracking System, Records of Decision, Toxic Chemical Release Inventory System, and Toxic Substances Control Act were reviewed. No sites were recorded in the project corridor or immediate vicinity. State of Hawaii ASTM records including Active Leaking Underground Storage Tank Log Listing, State Hazardous Waste Sites, Solid Waste Facilities/Landfill Sites, and Listing of Underground Storage Tanks were reviewed. Historical and other databases including Delisted 3-203 NPL Sites and No Further Remedial Action Planned were reviewed. No sites were recorded in the project corridor or immediate vicinity. The EPA (Honolulu), the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service (Honolulu), the State of Hawaii Department of Health, the County of Hawaii Land and Natural Resources Department, the County of Hawaii Public Works Administration, the County of Hawai' i Fire Department, Hawaiian Electric (Hilo and Kona) utility company, PTA, and the USARG-HI (Honolulu/Scofield) were contacted either personally or by phone and questioned regarding environmental problems or hazardous materials along Saddle Road. Hawaiian Electric runs two transmission lines over Saddle Road pass. According to Hawaiian Electric, there are three substations with transformers over the route. There are no PCBs associated with the transformers and there are no USTs operated by Hawaiian Electric located on or near Saddle Road. According to the PTA and the USARG-HI, all USTs in the PTA were recently inspected and passed tank tightness tests and inventory checks as of May 24, 1996. No hazardous waste issues were identified through contacts with these parties. 3.20.1.2 Site Reconnaissance Site reconnaissance was conducted by means of a visual survey. Some portions of the project area were inaccessible and were not physically surveyed. Visibility in some areas was obstructed by heavy vegetation. There was no evidence of dumping of any kind observed. A number of pullouts where dumping could likely occur were investigated. Two quarrying operations and one former quarry site were in the vicinity of the corridor but none are located in the right-of-way. Three Hawaiian Electric substations occur in the project vicinity. Two substations were located at MP 48 and MP 7.5. The third substation was located on the PTA. No environmental concerns were identified during the inspection of any of the substations. Transformers were evident at the substations, but none were observed to be leaking or showed evidence of prior leaking. According to Hawaiian Electric personnel, the transformers do not contain PCBs. Personnel at ranch buildings operated by Waiki' i Ranch, located at MP 47.25, confirmed that no USTs or environmental problems are associated with their lands adjacent to Saddle Road. Inspections of the Kilohana Girl Scout Camp, located at MP 44, and of Mauna Kea State Park, located just to the east of the PTA, showed no evidence of hazardous waste concerns. The only other facility or operation along the Saddle Road corridor is the PTA. Military bases commonly use large volumes of petroleum products and solvents. Because of the great depth of ground water in this region and the dependence on surface water, ground water investigations have not been conducted at this facility. Surface reconnaissance revealed no areas of stained soils, stressed vegetation or trash piles that would indicate dumping within the project corridor. Vacant storage areas, which essentially consist of 3.7 -m -high bermed soil in the shape of a rectangle, located north of the airfield were examined as potential landfill sites, but there was no visible evidence that this site had been a past landfill. A current landfill for the PTA is located south of Saddle Road, well beyond the project corridor. 3-204 The Fuel Storage Yard for the PTA and Bradshaw Army Airfield is located immediately adjacent to the existing Saddle Road. Because EX -2 would require major grade and alignment improvements, it would run closer to the Fuel Storage Yard than the existing roadway. The storage yard contains 8 USTs (6 40,000-L tanks and 2 20,000-L tanks). Personnel onsite did not recall the tanks having ever leaked, as is consistent with the UST records previously summarized (Cross Reference: 3.20.1.1 Records Search). Numerous 200-L drums were observed in the northern part of the Fuel Storage Yard. According to personnel these drums either were empty or contained hydraulic fluid or used oil. No other hazardous materials were observed onsite. Other USTs on the PTA are not within the project corridor. 3.20.2 Environmental Consequences There was no indication in the records search or during the site reconnaissance of hazardous waste. As there are very few homes or facilities located along Saddle Road, the only area of concern with regard to future impacts would be at the PTA. The PTA is the only known waste generator along the Saddle Road corridor. Since there is no active solvent or used oil recycling program on the PTA and many field training activities take place at the PTA, it is likely that chemicals and petroleum products have been dumped on the ground resulting in minor localized soil contamination throughout the PTA and Bradshaw Army Airfield. All Action Alternatives. Site reconnaissance did not reveal any specific areas of soil contamination along EX -2, PTA -1, or PTA -3. Table 3.20.1, Hazardous Material Issues, indicates hazardous material issues identified for each segment. Five current sites on the PTA, three of which are old landfills, are currently being investigated by DOA personnel for possible environmental impacts. According to DOA, preliminary results show no areas of concern. None of these sites are within the project corridor, but the Vehicle Staging Area is located adjacent to the project corridor. The area most prone to soil contamination would be the area around the Fuel Storage Yard and its gas station. Since these are the only USTs along the entire project corridor and these USTs are located very close to EX -2, this would be the area at greatest risk to soil contamination from leaks or spills. Spills are very common at all gas stations and tend to accumulate over time. The only spill recorded was cleaned up to the Hawai' i Department of Health's satisfaction. These USTs may provide environmental impacts in the future. They are 10 years old and are scheduled to be replaced in 1998. No Action Alternative. With the No Action Alternative, there would be no construction -related impact to hazardous waste. Existing USTs or other unidentified hazardous waste may result in future environmental impacts. 3-205 TABLE 3.20.1 Hazardous Material Issues Section and Segment Existing Hazardous Material Issues Potential Future Hazardous Material Issues Section I W-2 None identified None identified W-3 None identified None identified Section Il EX -2 Possible accumulation of spills in vicinity of PTA Fuel Storage Area; possible minor localized soil contamination. Potential future leaks or spills at PTA Fuel Storage Yard; possible minor localized soil contamination PTA -t Possible minor localized soil contamination Possible minor localized soil contamination PTA -3 Possible minor localized soil contamination Possible minor localized soil contamination Section III EX -3 None identified None identified Section IV EX -4A None identified None identified E-3 None identified None identified 3.20.3 Mitigation Measures If previously unidentified hazardous substances or petroleum products are found within the project corridor which indicate an existing release, a past release, or a material threat of a release of any hazardous substance or petroleum products into the project corridor, further investigation will be pursued, as warranted. If previously unidentified hazardous waste is discovered during project construction, work will cease at that location and appropriate regulatory or resource personnel will be contacted. ■ Final documents regarding the DOA investigations of five sites on the PTA for possible environmental impacts will be reviewed once investigations are complete. The DOA will 3-206 pursue additional investigation, if warranted, after review of the final documents and provide right-of-way clear of all hazardous waste. In areas where right-of-way is needed outside of that already surveyed, the project area will be further investigated prior to land acquisition or construction to confirm the absence of hazardous waste. Prior to construction, an unexploded ordnance survey will be conducted within the PTA and, if unexploded ordnance are found, the ordnance will be removed from the project area in accordance with DOA regulations by USARG-HI. 3.21 VISUAL A visual resource impact assessment was prepared for the project (LS&D 1996). The methodology used was based on the FHWA's Visual Impact Assessment for Highway Projects procedures. Because the U.S.D.A. Forest Service has developed a landscape modification evaluation process specifically to assess the visual impacts of roads, its National Forest Landscape Management -Roads was also used. 3.21.1 Affected Environment 3.21.1.1 Existing Visual Character Elevational differences ranging from 450 to 2,000 m and open vegetation provide panoramic views of distant vistas and interesting geologic features. Rolling hills, cone shaped pu'u, broad valleys, and mountains are examples of the diverse landforms found within the corridor. Notable landforms include Mauna Kea, Mauna Loa, Mount Hualalai, Kohala Mountains, Pu'u Nene, Pu'u Huluhulu, Pu'u Waawaa, Pu'u Nohonaohae, Pu'u Ke'eke'e, 'Auwaiakeakua Gulch, Waiki'i Gulch, Pohakuloa Gulch, and Waikahalulu Gulch. Rock outcrops of cooled basaltic lava are visible along a large portion of the existing roadway in the project area. Notable water features are Kawaihae Bay to the west and Hilo Bay to the east. Several biotic communities are found in the project area (Cross Reference: 3.13 Vegetation). Within the project area there are distinct cultural modifications of the natural landscapes. These include both commercial and residential development associated with the community of Hilo, the PTA, Mauna Kea State Park, Kilohana Girl Scout Camp, homes of Waiki i Ranch, and various ranch buildings and corrals associated with Parker Ranch. Visual resources are defined in terms of two primary elements, visual character and quality. The landscape components of landforms, water features, vegetation types, and cultural modifications, and the patterns they create provide the basis for defining the project area's visual character. The 3-207 quality of the visual resources in the project area varies because of changes in the landscape components and their patterns. The visual quality of an area is rated in terms of such criteria as the landscape's distinctiveness, its visual integrity, and the compatibility of its components. Visual quality is expressed as very high, high, moderately high, moderate, moderately low, low, and very low. The visual features viewed from the roadway vary depending on travel direction and existing weather conditions. Each of the project segments are portrayed below in terms of their existing visual character and visual quality. Unless otherwise noted, the visual character is described from west to east. Section I W-2. The landscape consists of a predominantly pastoral setting with few built features. The segment is characterized by a broad, open grassland used for grazing. Tufts of fountain grass are dispersed across the fields, contrasting with the smoother appearing texture of other pasture grasses. The corridor gradually gains elevation. The landforms are smooth and rounded in appearance. There are numerous features of ranching and grazing activities visible, such as fences with wooden posts, water troughs, ranch roads, and corrals. The visual pattern of this area of the project corridor is characterized by expansive views with Mount Hualalai, Kohala Mountains, and the coastline as the backdrop. Near Station 104+500, the terrain begins to display more relief, crossing numerous drainages. One of the largest drainages in the area is the deeply incised Waiki i Gulch (Station 109+150). Further east, the terrain transitions to a more undulating, hilly landform. Around Station 112+000, the corridor is notably more arid. There are scattered grasses and shrubs. Pu' u Ke' eke' e, Mauna Kea, and Mauna Loa are prominent. Near Station 114+00, the land is dotted with outcrops of black lava rocks. The combination of landscape elements in this area of the project corridor forms a moderately memorable pattern. The built elements are noticeable and attract some attention, but the natural setting remains dominant. An overhead transmission line and ranch roads contrast with the landscape, but do not spatially dominate the setting. The existing visual quality of Segment W-2 was identified as moderate for its entire length (Station 100+000 to 116+000, and Station 118+087 to 119+100). j�-3. The western portion of this segment can be characterized as a broad, open valley. The visual pattern of this area of the project corridor is characterized by the expansive views with Mount Hualalai, Kohala Mountains, and the coastline as the backdrop, and the grassy rolling hills dotted with mature trees. The landscape consists of a predominantly pastoral setting with few built features. Fencing visible in the area blends with the natural setting. 3-208 From approximately Station 106+000 to 108+200, the low -growing 'a ali'i shrub becomes as common as fountain grass. The transition from shrubland to grassland gives the landscape a darker color and more irregular texture The terrain remains distinctly hilly. Also, from Station 108+200 to 111+078, the character of the setting changes to a landscape with broad expansive views outward, gently rolling terrain, short green grasses, and a scattering of shrubs and rock outcrops. At Station 111+078, W-3 intersects W-2. As previously noted, the portion of W-2 common to W-2 and W-3, near Station 112+000 (W-2), is notably more arid. There are more bunch grasses (grasses that grow in bunches or clumps) and shrubs scattered throughout the landscape. To the north and east, Pu'u Ke eke e, Mauna Kea, and Mauna Loa are prominent features. Near Station 114+00, the land is dotted with outcrops of black lava rocks with individual boulders scattered across the corridor. The overhead transmission line and the dirt ranch roads notably contrast with the landscape in terms of line, texture, and form, but do not spatially dominate the setting. The existing visual quality of Segment W-3 was identified as moderate from Station 100+000 to 108+200, moderately low from Station 108+200 to 111+078, and moderate from Station 118+087 to 119+100 (W-2). Section EX -2. Segment EX -2 traverses the relatively flat valley between Mauna Kea and Mauna Loa. Much of the landscape is dotted with pu'u. The roadway crosses into the PTA. Pu'u Koko in the foreground area to the north of the roadway has been mined so that its form is not intact. At MP 39, Pu'u Ma'au is the prominent feature in the foreground to the north. The roadway is crossed in numerous locations by concrete slabs desie-=d to support heavy vehicular traffic crossing the highway. Dual strands of transmission lines parallel the roadway to the south. In this portion of EX -2, the vegetation community has changed notably to a native mosaic of hard -stemmed lovegrass grassland and ' aweoweo shrubland, creating a mottled texture in the landscape. Near MP 39.8, the facilities associated with the PTA become discernible. The airport facilities associated with Bradshaw Army Airfield are visible, with the control tower and tower lights creating strong vertical elements in the foreground. These facilities are painted white and contrast in terms of color and form with the surrounding landscape. The buildings at the cantonment area of the PTA consist primarily of small one story quonset huts painted light green or beige. The buildings are clustered together. The built elements of this area attract attention. Overhead transmission lines and military facilities contrast substantially with the natural setting in line, color, and form, and spatially dominate the setting. Native vegetation in this area provides landscape features unique to the Island of Hawai' i and in the State. Just east of the cantonment area of the PTA is Mauna Kea State Park. Many of the facilities of the park are nestled amongst non-native pines and eucalyptus trees and screened from the 3-209 roadway. The natural vegetation has transitioned to a mamane-naio forest. This forest is densely canopied, with very little understory. At MP 33.2, the 1843 lava flow is visible. The military is modifying the area by leveling the existing surface of the lava flow. Several water tanks associated with the PTA are visible at the base of the mountain. Lava flows through the central portion of the corridor are void of vegetation. Adjacent to the roadway, there are non-native grasses that create a linear strip of green. The edge of the flow to the north is marked by the dense green canopy of the mamane forest. Two types of lava flows are present in the project area: the irregular design and sharp edges of the ' a a lava, and the smooth, pancake batter -like appearance of the pahoehoe lava. The observatory structures on Mauna Loa are visible and easily noticed from the roadway. The lava flows, pu' u, grasslands, and rising form of Mauna Kea and Mauna Loa create vivid patterns. At MP 31.1, a single -lane road adjacent to Saddle Road has been etched on the lava rocks, creating a subtle change in the surface of the flow. The smooth regular pattern of the road follows the terrain and is intermittently visible from Saddle Road. On the horizon, the top of Kohala Mountains is visible. Near MP 30.0, Pu'u Nene is a prominent feature adjacent to and north of the roadway. It has been mined for cinder and has dark brown soils exposed along its west slope. Beginning near Pu'u Nene, lava rock walls are present and visible from the roadway. These walls are almost imperceptible linear features in the landscape because of their material and color. The eastern end of EX -2 is characterized by the striking presence of the lava flows against the vegetation of the forest at the base of Mauna Kea, and the rounded forms of pu' u, which create a distinct landscape. Unrestricted views to both Mauna Kea and Mauna Loa simultaneously are unique. Built elements in this area do not attract attention and the natural setting remains dominant. The landscape features in this area are unique to the Island of Hawai' i and in the State. The existing visual quality of Segment EX -2 was identified as moderate from Station 119+100 to 125+000, moderately low from Station 125+000 to 132+200, and moderately high from Station 132+200 to 140+700. PTA -1. This segment traverses the gently rolling terrain near the base of Mauna Kea. Mauna Loa to the south is a dominant feature. The vegetation community is primarily a mosaic of a ali' i shrubland and hard -stemmed lovegrass grassland. Evidence of dirt roads used for training exercises can be seen across the valley. From Station 11+000 to 13+500, the corridor runs between several pu'u including Pu'u Koko, Pu'u Ma'au, and the base of Mauna Kea, creating a sense of enclosure by the landforms. Past the pu' u, the segment crosses a single -pole overhead transmission line. 3-210 The facilities associated with Bradshaw Army Airfield become notably visible at approximately Station 16+900. The control tower and tower lights create strong vertical elements. These facilities are painted white and contrast with the surrounding landscape in color and form. PTA -1 provides a close view of the runway and associated buildings. The corridor traverses along the back of Pu'u Pohakuloa, skirting the edge of the military facilities at the Pohakuloa Camp. The light-colored quonset huts, arranged in a regimented pattern, contrast sharply in color, texture, and pattern with the natural surroundings. East of the Camp, the corridor curves toward Mauna Kea State Park, paralleling the previously referenced transmission line. In this area, the vegetation transitions to mamane-naio forest. For the next 7 km, views away from the corridor are screened by the trees. The forest creates a consistent vegetation pattern through this portion of the corridor. The corridor crosses rolling, somewhat rocky, terrain of the ridges at the base on Mauna Kea and gains 90 in elevation. Dirt roads cross the corridor intermittently. Openings in the dense tree stands provide opportunities for brief views to Mauna Kea and in the distance, Mauna Loa. In this area of the segment, built elements in the landscape do not attract attention and the natural setting remains dominant. The landscape features in this area are notable to the Island of Hawai' i and in the State. Near Station 27+000, the vegetation notably transitions from the mamane-naio forest to open grassland. It is in this area that the corridor cuts between Pu'u Omaokoili and an unnamed pu'u. At Station 28+000, the segment curves south around two other unnamed pu'u. The pu'u become the dominant feature in the landscape with their rounded, conical forms and mottled colors of browns, reds, and greens. Some of the pu'u are void of visible vegetation, others have scatterings of dark green shrubs across their slopes. Near Station 27+270, the corridor exits the PTA and crosses into grazing land. Just past Station 28+000, numerous dark patches of lava rock outcrops break the ground surface. These irregular forms create an interesting pattern in the grassland. Pasture land transitions to lava fields. From Station 29+700 to 30+999, the landscape consists of a combination of 'a' a and pahoehoe lava. The existing visual quality of PTA -I was determined to be moderately low from Station 10+000 to 21+640, and moderate from Station 17+200 to 30+999. PTA -3. For the majority of its length, starting on the west end, PTA -3 follows Segment PTA -1 (Cross Reference: 3.21.1.1 Existing Visual Character). PTA -3 diverges from PTA -1 at Station 10+000 (Station 26+900 on the PTA -1 segment). The portion of PTA -3 that is different from PTA -1 is described in the following paragraph. With PTA -3, the road would cross between Pu'u Omaokoili and an unnamed pu'u before intersecting Saddle Road. From Station 10+000 to Station H+800, the landscape is characterized by an open mamane-naio forest, where pu'u are dominant landforms. The corridor crosses gently rolling terrain that offers occasional views outward to Mauna Loa and Mauna Kea. Just past Station 1 1+800, the lava flows encroach upon the forest landscape and change the 3-211 character of the corridor substantially. The corridor swings around Pu' u Nene, providing a direct view of the mining operations that have taken place on it. The eastern end of PTA -3 follows EX -2 (Station 137+800 to 140+700), which in this area is characterized by the striking presence of the lava flows against the green vegetation of the forest at the base of Mauna Kea, and the rounded forms of pu' u, which create a distinct landscape. Unrestricted views to both Mauna Kea and Mauna Loa simultaneously are unique. Built elements in this area do not attract attention and the natural setting remains dominant. The landscape features in this area are unique to the Island of Hawai' i and in the State. The existing visual quality of Segment PTA -3 was identified as moderately low from Station 10+000 to 21+640 (PTA -1), moderate from Station 21+640 to 26+900 (PTA -1), moderate from Station 10+000 to 12+881 (PTA -3), and moderately high from Station 137+800 to 140+700 (EX -2). Section III EX -3. EX -3 begins near the Mauna Kea access road, where the forested Pu'u Huluhulu is located just to the south of the highway. From here, the corridor begins its gradual descent toward Hilo. Near MP 25.0, the lava flows are older and vegetation becomes more pronounced. 'Ohi'a and koa trees are intermittently visible. As the roadway descends, the vegetation becomes more dense. Stands of koa trees are distinguishable from the ' ohi' a trees by their greater height, oval form, light colored bark, and denser canopy. At MP 19.0, the roadway surface has recently been repaved and paved shoulders have been added, creating a more developed rural character. The vegetation is characterized by a mixture of ohi' a and koa trees as well as a dense understory of ferns and shrubs. The views are confined to the direction of travel by the narrow created by ' ohi' a trees, and views outward are intermittent. Overhead transmission lines cross back and forth over the highway. Near MP 16.0, the stark white tree forms of the ' ohi' a dieback are visible. The roadway weaves though the forest, following the terrain with only short segments of the road visible at any one time. Intermittent views to Hilo Bay are visible between MP 15.0 and MP 11.0. Near MP 10.4, there is a dense stand of both koa and ' ohi' a trees. Various ferns provide rich contrast to the overhead trees. At MP 9.0, the roadway is lined with koa trees whose canopies extend over the roadway, creating a park -like setting. The koa trees spatially enclose the views and shade the roadway, creating dark and light shadow patterns on the roadway. The dense vegetation, various hues of color, spatial enclosure, and rolling terrain create a memorable pattern in the landscape. Built elements do not notably contrast with the color, scale, line, or form of the setting. The EX -3 corridor ends near Saddle Road MP 9. The existing visual quality of Segment EX -3 was identified as moderately high from Station 140+700 to 145+500, moderate from Station 145+500 to 155+400, and moderately high from Station 155+400 to 171+576. 3-212 Section IV EX -4A. Single family residences are located along both sides of the roadway beginning at MP 8.0. The residences are one and two stories, varying in color and architectural style. The landscape associated with the homes consists primarily of introduced ornamental plant material with turfed lawn areas. Walls are made of lava. Numerous driveways access the road. The setting of the roadway has notably changed from a predominately natural landscape to a more urban area. The landscape features in this area do not form a distinct visual pattern, and residential development substantially lowers the level of naturalness. The structures, overhead transmission lines, and utility facilities spatially dominate the landscape and contrast notably with the natural setting in terms of color, form, texture, and line. EX -4A diverges from the existing Saddle Road at MP 7.9, to parallel an overhead transmission line and rejoins Saddle Road at NIP 6.5. The length of EX -4A that parallels the transmission line is dominated by a mixture of ohi' a and koa trees as well as a lush understory of ferns, shrubs, and ground covers. The views are restricted by vegetation. Near Station 21+400, two single-family homes are visible intermittently through the dense vegetation. In this section of EX -4A, the dense vegetation, various hues of color, spatial enclosure, and rolling terrain create a memorable pattern in the landscape. The forest setting remains dominant. The existing visual quality of Segment EX -4A was identified as moderately high from Station 171+576 to 172+837 and Station 20+000 to 21+970, and moderately low from Station 175+005 to 175+750. EE=3. The entire length of E-3 lies within mixed ' ohi' a and koa trees and a lush understory of ferns and shrubs. The views are restricted by the vegetation. Only the once -cleared area of the abandoned country club golf course near Station 43+800 provides an opportunity for uninterrupted views outward. The rolling terrain drops 270 m, which provides intermittent views of Hilo Bay. The dense vegetation, various hues of color, spatial enclosure, and rolling terrain create a memorable pattern in the landscape. The forest setting remains dominant. The few built features present blend with the natural setting. The existing visual quality of E-3 was identified as moderately high for its entire length, Station 40+000 to 45+503. 3.21.1.2 Characteristics of the Viewer Visual assessment also considers the level of sensitivity or attitude that the viewer will have in response to the change in appearance of the existing landscape. Identification of viewer groups, duration of viewer exposure, and type of viewer activity provide an indication of the level of viewer response. The majority of the viewers in the project study corridor are traveling the highway and viewing the landscape from the road. These highway users are traveling at speeds of 3-213 65 kph. Other viewers are those from residences located along the roadway corridor and from military facilities. These groups view the landscape (including the roadway) from different viewpoints, and have a stationary view rather than a changing one, such as that from a moving vehicle. 3.21.2 Environmental Consequences Impacts to visual quality from the proposed project range from moderate to severe. Changes in visual character range from subtle to severe. Cut and fill slopes associated with the new highway would create areas of primary visual concern, but treatment of these slope faces would minimize the change in visual quality and character. Table 3.21.1, Visual Quality, and Table 3.21.2, Visual Character, summarize the anticipated change in visual quality and character that would result from the proposed improvements. W-2. The addition of a two-lane highway on the W-2 alignment would severely lower the existing visual quality of the foreground area. Over its length, cut slopes would range from 3 to 7 m, and fill slopes would range from 3 to 9 m. In general, however, the expansive views outward to the pastoral setting and distant views to the prominent landforms would remain dominant. Construction of the proposed highway would result in a substantial change in visual character due to the introduction of a paved road to the existing pastoral setting. W-3. The addition of a two-lane highway would severely lower the existing visual quality of the foreground area. Over its length, fill slopes would range from 2 to 12 m, cut slopes would range from 2 to 1 I m. Construction of the proposed roadway would result in a substantial change in visual character due to the introduction of a paved road to the existing pastoral setting. EX -2. From Station 119+100 to 123+000, fire protection warrants the construction of Typical Section B (Cross Reference: 2.1 Design Parameters Common to All Action Alternatives, and Figure 2.2.1), which includes the construction of a wider roadway footprint, the installation of fencing, and the construction of an extruded curb. With the application of Typical Section B, a notable change in visual quality and character would occur, due to the increase in the level of contrast in terms of form, line, and color. From Station 129+000 to 132+500, fire protection warrants the construction of Typical Section C, which includes the construction of an even wider roadway footprint than Typical Section B. With the application of Typical Section C, a severe change in visual quality and character would result. This portion of the corridor is within the mamane/naio forest. In this forested area, the application of Typical Section C would result in an urban rather than rural character, and would appear to be oversized or out of scale with the surrounding setting. From Station 132+500 to 140+700, a substantial change in visual quality would occur with the construction of the proposed improvements, principally due to the marked difference that would be created between the graded edge of the roadway shoulder and adjacent undisturbed lava. One portion of this segment would have cut slopes on both sides of the highway at Station 132+500, ranging from 3.5 to 5.5 m. Along the EX -2 segment, the change in visual character would range from notable to severe. 3-214 PTA -1. The addition of a two-lane highway would severely lower the existing visual quality of the segment from Station 10+000 to 17+200. Along the alignment at the base of Pu'u Ma au, 7 to 12.5 m cut slopes would occur. Between Station 17+200 and 21+640, no perceived change in visual quality would be anticipated as a result of the project. Between Station 21+640 and 27+000, the addition of the highway would notably lower the existing visual quality of the foreground area. Cut slopes of 6 and 7 m would occur at several locations along the alignment. From Station 27+000 to the east end of Segment PTA -1, the addition of a two-lane highway would lower the existing visual quality of the foreground area because of the presence of the paved highway and associated landscape modifications. In general, the prominent landforms would remain dominant along the length of this segment. With the implementation of Typical Section B construction of the highway would result in a severe change in visual character from Station 10+000 to 17+200. With Typical Section C, a substantial change in visual character would result from Station 21+640 to 29+671. PTA -3. The addition of a two-lane highway would severely lower the existing visual quality of the segment from Station 10+000 to 17+200 (PTA -1). Along the alignment at the base of Pu'u Ma'au, 7 to 12.5 m cut slopes would occur. Between Station 17+200 and 21+640 (PTA -1), no perceived change in visual quality would be anticipated as a result of the project. Between Station 21+640 and 26+900, the addition of the highway would notably lower the existing visual quality of the foreground area. Cut slopes of 6 and 7 m would occur at several locations along the alignment. From Station 10+000 to 12+881, the proposed improvements would severely lower the existing visual quality of the foreground area. From Station 137+800 to 140+700 (EX -2), the proposed improvements would moderately lower visual quality. Along much of the alignment, the landscape modifications are greater than 3 m for either cut or fill slopes. Several areas of severe cut slope heights occur along the alignment as well. With the implementation of Typical Section B, a severe change in visual character would result from Station 10+000 to 12+500. With Typical Section C, a substantial change in visual character would result from Station 12+500 to 12+881. EX -3. The proposed improvements would substantially change the visual quality of Segment EX -3, from Station 132+200 to 145+500, principally due to the marked difference that will be created between the graded edge of the roadway shoulder and adjacent undisturbed lava. One area would result in cut slopes on both sides of the highway ranging from 3.5 to 5.5 m. From Station 145+500 to 155+400, modifications to the landscape would occur in areas of cut and fill slopes, reaching as much as 6 m fill and 7.5 m cut. The proposed improvements in this area would create changes in the landscape that would attract attention in the foreground. From Station 155+400 to 171+576, the highway would become a more dominant feature in the landscape because of the spatial enclosure created by the natural forest vegetation and the wider road footprint created by the new wider road section. In this area, landscape modifications would reach 9.5 m of fill and 7.5 m of cut. The overall visual quality of EX -3 from Station 145+500 to its eastern limit would not be substantially lower than that of existing conditions. The 3-215 straightening of vertical and horizontal alignments and removal of trees would result in a severe change in visual character. EX -4A. On its western end, Station 171+576 to 172+837, the highway would become a more dominant feature in the landscape because of the spatial enclosure created by the forest vegetation and the wider roadway footprint. From Station 20+000 to 21+970, where the alignment diverges from the existing Saddle Road and follows the transmission line corridor, the Adition of a new two-lane highway would substantially lower the existing visual quality of the foreground area because of the amount of landscape modification that would occur. Four and 5m cut slopes would occur on several locations along the alignment. From Station 175+005 to 175+750, minimal change to visual quality would be anticipated. In this area, however, local residences would have a direct view of some of the landscape modifications associated with the proposed construction. Construction of the highway would result in a substantial change in character. EE3. The addition of a two-lane highway on E-3 would substantially lower the existing visual quality of the foreground area because of the amount of landscape modification that would occur. Several locations along this alignment would have 7- and 8-m cut slopes. Construction of the highway would result in a substantial change in character. TABLE 3.21.1 Visual Quality 3-216 Existing Visual Visual Quality Segment Stations Quality with Project W-2 Station 100+000- 116+000 Moderately High Moderate Station 118+087- 119+100 Moderately High Moderate W-3 Station 100+000 - 106+000 High Moderate Station 106+000 - 108+200 Moderately High Moderate Station 108+200- 111+078 Moderately High Moderately Low Station 112+582- 116+002 (W-2) Moderately High Moderate Station 118+087- 119+100 (W-2) Moderately High Moderate EX -2 Station 119+100- 123+000 Moderate Moderately Low Station 123+000- 125+000 Moderate Moderate Station 125+000- 129+000 Moderately Low Moderately Low Station 129+000- 132+500 High Moderate Station 132+500- 140+700 High Moderately High PTA -I Station 10+000 - 17+200 Moderately High Moderately Low Station 17+200 - 21+640 Moderately Low Moderately Low Station 21+640 - 26+900 Moderately High Moderate Station 26+900 - 30+999 Moderate Moderate 3-216 TABLE 3.21.1 Visual Quality TABLE 3.21.2 Visu..: Character Existing Visual Visual Quality Segment Stations Quality with Project PTA -3 Station 10+000 - 17+200 (PTA-]) Moderately High Moderately Low EX -2 Station 17+200 - 21+640 (PTA -1) Moderately Low Moderately Low Station 123+000 - 129+000 Station 21+640 - 26+900 (PTA -1) Moderately High Moderate Severe Station 10+000 - 12+881 High Moderate PTA -1 Station 137+800 - 140+700 tEX-2) High Moderately High EX -3 Station 140+700 - 145+500 High Moderately High Station 145+500 - 155+400 Moderate Moderate Station 155+400 - 171+576 Moderately High Moderately High EX -4A Station 171+576 - 172+837 Moderately High Moderately High Station 20+000 - 21+970 High Moderately High Station 175+005 - 175+750 Moderately Low Moderately Low E-3 Station 40+000 - 45+503 High Moderately High TABLE 3.21.2 Visu..: Character 3-217 Change in Segment Stations Visual Character W-2 Entire Segment Substantial W-3 Entire Segment Substantial EX -2 Station 119+100 - 123+000 Notable Station 123+000 - 129+000 Substantial Station 129+000 - 132+500 Severe Station 132+000 - 140+700 Substantial PTA -1 Station 10+000 - 17+200 Severe Station 21+640 - 29+671 Substantial 3-217 TABLE 3.21.2 Visual Character No Action Alternative. With the No Action Alternative, the road would not be improved and, therefore, no changes to visual quality or visual character would result. No scenic pullouts would be developed along the Saddle Road corridor. 3.21.3 Mitigation Measures The degree of visual impact is generally lessened by minimization of the amount of cut and fill slopes, revegetation of disturbed areas, and by blending any proposed improvements into the surrounding landscape. The intent of visual impact mitigation measures is to reduce the contrast between the proposed improvements and the existing landscape. Mitigation measures applicable to all action alternatives are listed first, followed by measures applicable to one specific alternative segment. All Action Alternatives ■ Cut and Fill Slopes. Final cut and fill slope faces will be made to blend with the surrounding landscape. The natural appearance of the slopes will be improved by rounding the toe and top of slopes, warping, blending the ends of slopes, varying the slope ratios, utilizing staggered ledges, and roughening the face of cut slopes, either by ripping or blasting, where appropriate. (Warping results in a slope face that is not parallel to the roadway. Slope rounding refers to blending the slope into the natural terrain by excavating additional area at the top of the cut slope. Laying back the ends of slopes or blending provides a smooth transition to adjacent cut, fill, or drainage area by flattening the slope ratio at the ends of slopes. Varying slope ratios leaves an irregular, undulating or roughened appearance with staggered ledges rather than a uniform grade. Staggered ledges are benches with varying dimensions and heights on the cut face which do not cross 3-218 Change in Segment Stations Visual Character PTA -3 Station 10+000 - 17+200 (PTA -1) Severe Station 21+640 - 26+900 (PTA -1) Substantial Station 10+000 - 12+500 Severe Station 12+500 - 12+881 Substantial Station 137+800 - 140+700 (EX -2) Substantial EX -3 Entire Segment Severe EX -4A Entire Segment Substantial E-3 Entire Segment Substantial No Action Alternative. With the No Action Alternative, the road would not be improved and, therefore, no changes to visual quality or visual character would result. No scenic pullouts would be developed along the Saddle Road corridor. 3.21.3 Mitigation Measures The degree of visual impact is generally lessened by minimization of the amount of cut and fill slopes, revegetation of disturbed areas, and by blending any proposed improvements into the surrounding landscape. The intent of visual impact mitigation measures is to reduce the contrast between the proposed improvements and the existing landscape. Mitigation measures applicable to all action alternatives are listed first, followed by measures applicable to one specific alternative segment. All Action Alternatives ■ Cut and Fill Slopes. Final cut and fill slope faces will be made to blend with the surrounding landscape. The natural appearance of the slopes will be improved by rounding the toe and top of slopes, warping, blending the ends of slopes, varying the slope ratios, utilizing staggered ledges, and roughening the face of cut slopes, either by ripping or blasting, where appropriate. (Warping results in a slope face that is not parallel to the roadway. Slope rounding refers to blending the slope into the natural terrain by excavating additional area at the top of the cut slope. Laying back the ends of slopes or blending provides a smooth transition to adjacent cut, fill, or drainage area by flattening the slope ratio at the ends of slopes. Varying slope ratios leaves an irregular, undulating or roughened appearance with staggered ledges rather than a uniform grade. Staggered ledges are benches with varying dimensions and heights on the cut face which do not cross 3-218 the entire face.) The slope ratios will vary from the top to the bottom of the slope face as well as horizontally along the face, where possible. ■ Rock Slope Surface Treatment. Rock slope surface treatment will be applied to cut slopes in competent rock areas as identified in the geotechnical testing results. These treatments include roughening of the cut face to incorporate short, staggered ledges, minor warping, and other irregularities in the rock that take on a natural appearance. ■ Lava Rock Areas. In areas not recommended for revegetation, the top 1 m of lava material in disturoed areas will be stockpiled prior to construction. After construction, th. stockpiled material will be used as plating material. The plating material will be placed over slope faces to resemble the adjacent, undisturbed ground surface conditions or used as rip rap material along ledges and in ditches outside of roadside recovery zones. ■ Erosion Control. Intercepted drainages on cut slopes will be cut at the angle to existing joints, planes or rock features, and drainage patterns. These features will be incorporated into the NPDES SWPPP (Cross Reference: 3.10 Water Resources, and 1.9 Required Permits). ■Guardrail . Where guardrails are needed, natural -appearing metal guardrail material, such as naturally weathered steel or a material approved by HDOT, will be used to blend more effectively with the surrounding landscape. ■ F n in . To reduce contrast and blend more effectively with the surrounding landscape, fencing will be a naturally weathered metal or steel, or should be painted a dark color to be approved by HDOT. ■ Clearing. Clearing of trees and large shrubs along an irregular edge adjacent to the recovery zone will be done to create a gradual transition or feathered edge. • Abandoned Roadway Segments. Where the abandoned roadway is not to be used for local access and is not considered a historic resource, asphalt surfacing on the abandoned roadway segments will be removed from the site, and the road bed will be ripped and regraded to match surrounding terrain. The regraded area will be reclaimed as appropriate, consistent with recommendations contained in the section of this chapter addressing geology and soils (Cross Reference: 3.12.3 Mitigation Measures). Plant material such as trees will be planted or large rock material placed at the interface of the new highway with the old roadway to screen views of the abandoned section. For Segments W-2 and W-3, any small remnant pieces of landform left by cut slopes will be eliminated except between W-2 Station 112+420 to 114+500. In this area, boulders will be stockpiled to create rock outcrops on remnant fins of landform which match existing rock outcroppings. 3-219 ■ For Segment EX -2 (Station 109+150), the bridge over Waiki'i Gulch will be constructed of materials with color and texture qualities that blend with the existing landscape. ■ For Segment EX -2 (Station 130+875 Rt. to 130+950 Rt), all of remnant landform will be removed flush to the road. ■ For Segment PTA -1, Station 28+570 to 29+371, boulders will be stockpiled to create artificial rock outcrops on remant fins of landform. Cut slopes will not be rounded, but left angular and irregular in fm,.-, to match existing rock outcrop. ■ Reseeding of disturbed areas will be undertaken only in Section I (Segments W-2 and W-3), as is consistent with the section of this chapter addressing geology and soils (Cross Reference: 3.12.3 Mitigation Measures). ■ For Segment EX -4A, Station 172+550 to 172+750, aesthetic rock retaining walls will be constructed where feasible to reduce cut slope face adjacent to residences. 3.22 ENERGY There are two primary energy demands associated with the proposed project: energy will be consumed in the construction activities, and in the operation of vehicles using the facility after completion of construction. Since there are no data available on the current levels of fuel consumption in passenger vehicles or trucks on Saddle Road, estimates were made based on estimated ADT, average length of Saddle Road (73 km), and motor fuel consumption data for the County of Hawai' i as a whole. For the existing condition, or 900 ADT, the total vehicle kilometers driven per day on Saddle Road is approximately 65,700, resulting in the consumption of roughly 9,200 L of motor fuel per day. 3.22.1 Environmental Consequences All Action Alternatives. Construction of the proposed improvements will entail consumption of fuel for the operation of construction equipment. Engineering data from 1996 were used to estimate the total earthwork, aggregate base course, and pavement area for each segment. Based on the generalized working efficiency of various pieces of construction equipment (e.g., grader, roller, D-9 bulldozer, scraper), the estimated fuel consumption for construction of the proposed Saddle Road would be approximately 2.5 million to 3.0 million L of fuel. The proposed project would conserve fuel in individual vehicles by improving the LOS and travel time, reducing curves and grades, providing safe opportunities for passing, and for some destinations, reducing the length of the commute. Vehicles traveling at steady highway speeds use less fuel than those traveling at variable speeds due to excessive curves and steep grades. 3-220 With the increase in total vehicle kilometers forecasted for future traffic on Saddle Road with the proposed improvements, however, overall fuel consumption by vehicles using the road would increase dramatically. For year 2014 with the proposed project, or 14,000 ADT, total kilometers driven would be approximately 1 million, resulting in the consumption of roughly 143,000 L of motor fuel per day. No Action Alternative. With the No Action Alternative, no construction will take place and no construction -related energy would be consumed. Total fuel consumption by vehicles using Saddle Road will increase in the future as vehicle kilometers increase. This increase would be notably less than that of the action alternatives. For year 2014 with the No Action Alternative, or 4,400 ADT, total kilometers driven would be 321,200, resulting in consumption of roughly 45,000 L of motor fuel per day. Without improvements to Saddle Road, congestion on SR19 would be expected to result in fuel use increases. 3.22.2 Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures associated with use of construction equipment are presented in the Construction impact section of this chapter (Cross Reference: 3.23.2 Mitigation Measures). No other mitigation measures related to fuel consumption are recommended. 3.23 CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS 3.23.1 Environmental Consequences All Action Alternatives. Environmental impacts associated with the construction phase of a project are generally localized and temporary in nature. Construction impacts anticipated include noise from heavy construction equipment, fugitive dust from earthmoving activities, air pollutant emissions from internal combustion engines, and soil erosion and sedimentation. Construction activities would include mobilization, clearing and grubbing, excavating and filling of earth, foundation construction, drainage structure construction or installation, preparation of highway base, paving, and cleaning up. Due to the length of Saddle Road, it would not be feasible to construct the entire length at one time. Construction projects will be identified during the final design phase of the project. Each construction project would improve a 9- to 12 -km portion of the road. Plans call for the construction of the entire project to be completed over an nine-year period. With implementation of mitigation, construction -related impacts are not expected to be significant with any of the action alternatives. No Action Alternative. No construction -related impacts would occur with the No Action Alternative. 3-221 3.23.2 Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures have been identified to minimize potential impacts. These activities will be noted as mandatory in construction contracts and specifications. The total amount of land disturbance will be minimized. The construction contractor will be limited to the delineated construction work areas within the right-of-way or clearly marked staging areas. Construction traffic will be limited to approved routes to minimize interaction with vehicular traffic on the existing Saddle Road. Traffic control will assure a safe and timely flow of traffic along Saddle Road. Construction activities and traffic control will be coordinated with representatives of the Mauna Kea Science Reserve to avoid potential conflicts with their observatory construction projects. Plans for the transport of oversized loads for these projects from Kawaihae to the Mauna Kea summit are presented in a letter from the University of Hawaii at Manoa, Institute for Astronomy, to the FHWA, dated October 11, 1996 (Cross Reference: 9.4.3 Chronological Comments, Correspondence, and Notices). Environmental awareness materials will be provided to all persons, agency personnel, construction workers, subcontractors, inspectors, and others on the project. This training will address issues related to caves, sensitive species, cultural resources, spill management, delineation of authorized work area, and other relevant factors (Cross Reference: 3.18.3, Mitigation Measures). ■ Trucks will be covered when hauling loose material on public roads. ■ Unused materials and excess fill will be removed and disposed of at an authorized waste disposal site. ■ Dust control measures will be implemented. These will include, but are not limited to, the use of water trucks, the stabilization of the surfaces of stockpiled materials, and the treatment of unpaved routes with dust suppressants. ■ Clearing and grubbing of construction work areas will be conducted in such a manner as to minimize the amount of exposed soil at any one time. ■ Stationary equipment will be placed as far away from sensitive noise receptors as practical. ■ All exhaust systems will be maintained in good working order. Properly designed engine enclosures and intake silencers will be used. Equipment will be maintained on a regular schedule. 3-222 Mitigation measures related to construction impacts are also of this chapter (Cross Reference: 3.1.1.3 Mitigation Measure 3.3.4.3 Mitigation Measures, 3.6.3 Mitigation Measures, 3.7. Mitigation Measures, 3.13.3 Mitigation Measures, and 3.18. 3-223 provided in other mitigation sections s, 3.3.3.3 Mitigation Measures, 3 Mitigation Measures, 3.12.3 3 Mitigation Measures). CHAPTER 4 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF MAN'S ENVIRONMENT AND MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY CHAPTER 4 - RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF MAN'S ENVIRONMENT AND MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY A comparison of short-term use versus long-term productivity considers the commitments of resources that would directly or indirectly result from the project. For example, typical mining operations might significantly contribute to local short-term productivity of a land resource, but generally do not contribute to the maintenance and enhancement of its long-term productivity. For the purpose of this 4igcussion, short term refers to the construction phase and the first 5 to 10 years of the project. Long term refers to the estimated life cycle of the project, or 20 years. The proposed project would improve Saddle Road from the Mamalohoa Highway to MP 6. The work would include the rebuild of the existing road with major grade and alignment improvements and the realignment of portions of the road. Because it takes advantage of an existing road corridor for much of its length, the proposed project is considered an efficient means to achieve state and county transportation goals. The project would require the direct taking or conversion of existing land uses into this transportation corridor use and the commitment of resources for road construction and regular maintenance. It would be expected to increase the number of cross -island vehicle trips, resulting in substantial changes in roadway use and traffic levels. It would strengthen economic conditions and increase access to public lands within the area. The improvement of Saddle Road is not expected to foster new development along Saddle Road. Approval and implementation of the proposed project would begin the process of right-of-way acquisition and construction of the road in phases over a period of nine years. Over the life of the project, the construction phase would likely represent the period of most concentrated impact to the natural, biological, and social environment. Construction -related impacts such as soil erosion and sedimentation, the generation of air pollutants and dust, traffic congestion due to detours and delays, and noise from construction equipment, would be considered temporary and would not be expected to affect the area's long-term productivity. The conversion of existing land use, the direct loss or displacement of sensitive native plants and wildlife, the degradation of historic resources and native Hawaiian cultural resources, and the modification of the visual environment would occur immediately, these impacts would not be retrievable for the long-term productivity of the area. Any inadvertent introduction or spread of aggressive alien species would be expected to result in a long-term impact to the region's biological resources. Economic benefits associated with the construction efforts would occur immediately upon initiation of the project. Those economic benefits associated with increased cross -island traffic and time savings would begin following the construction period and w;,uld be expected to increase over time contributing to the long-term productivity of the area. 4-1 Mitigation measures committed for the project would be initiated and maintained over time as appropriate. The mitigation measures designed to contribute to the establishment of a second population of the endangered Palila and to provide a higher degree of fire protection to existing Palila habitat would contribute to the maintenance and enhancement of the region's long term productivity. No plant or wildlife species are expected to become extinct as a direct result of project activities. Proposed improvements would enhance safety, reduce travel time for many cross -island commuters. While taking advantage of an existing road facility, the short-term use of project resources represents an efficiec;L :weans to achieve a primary transportation goal. 4-2 CHAPTER 5 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES CHAPTER 5 - IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES Resources committed to the project would be material and nonmaterial, including financial. An irreversible commitment of resources refers to resources, once committed to the proposed project, that could not be restored to their pre -project condition. An irretrievable commitment of resources refers to resources used, consumed, destroyed, or degraded by implementation of the proposed project such that the resource cannot be retrieved or replaced in any form. As an example, while the crushing of stone to create an aggregate base is irreversible, the commitment of the resource is only irretrievable for the life of the project. Although the crushed stone cannot be un -crushed, it could be put to another use after the life of the project. The proposed Saddle Road project is planned for completion in roughly nine years. The life cycle of a completed roadway segment spans a period of 20 years. Irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources for the proposed project are summarized in Table 5. 1, Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources. TABLE 5.1 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources Resource Type of Commitment Irreversible Irretrievable Land Use exclusion of residential, commercial and institutional uses in corridor project life only project life only Farmland property acquisition and loss of use project life only project life only ROW/Relocation property acquisition and relocation yes project life only Air Quality degradation of air quality construction phase only construction phase only Noise noise level exceeding ambient Yes project life onlv Fire Hazard increase during life of project yes project life only Water Resources sedimentation ves construction phase onlv Wetlands, Waters of U.S. and Floodplain loss from construction yes ves Geology and Soils loss from construction yes ves Biological Resources modification of habitat, loss of flora and fauna ves yes 5-1 TABLE 5.1 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources Resource Type of Commitment Irreversible Irretrievable Cultural Resources disturbance or modification of ces yes sites Native Hawaiian modification or loss vcs v cs Resources Visual degradation of natural scenic project life only project life onh quality ante �ie" shed intrusion Construction Materials, use ol` aggregate ces no Fuels and Energy water yes vcs steel ces no concrete vcs no wood ces no Fossil fuels ccs ces 5-2 CHAPTER 6 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS CHAPTER 6 - CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Cumulative impacts are the result of incremental impacts of an action when added to other, past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor, but collectively significant, actions taking place over a period of time (40 CFR 1508.7). Construction and implementation of the proposed Saddle Road when considered in conjunction with other past, present, and future actions on the Island of Hawai' i, would likely contribute somewhat to existing trends that impact environmental resources. Past military, agricultural, scientific, and residential development within the saddle area and the island as a whole has resulted in the loss or degradation of resources unique to the island. These resources include native plants, endemic wildlife, wetlands, sensitive habitats such as kipuka and mamane/naio forest, caves and lava tubes, historic and archaeological resources, native Hawaiian cultural and traditional resources, and visual resources. The introduction and distribution of alien species to the Hawaiian Islands and the subsequent natural and human disturbance of native habitats has resulted in their conversion to alien - dominated communities. This conversion has contributed to the ongoing threat of extinction or extirpation for a number of endemic species and has substantially increased the risk of fire. Development and land use conversion across the island has also caused soil erosion and sedimentation, water quality degradation, the destruction of lava tubes and caves, and the alteration of topographical features. Within the vicinity of the project, existing development and ongoing use include ranching operations, recreational facilities and public use areas, mining operations, the PTA and Bradshaw Army Airfield, hunting units, the Mauna Kea Science Reserve, and residential development. Further impacts to physical, biological, and cultural resources in the project vicinity would result from current plans and potential projects under consideration independent of the Saddle Road project. These include the expansion of Mauna Kea Science Reserve, the extension of the runway at Bradshaw Army Airfield, the construction of an additional HELCO transmission line, the installation of a GTE fiber optic transmission line, the extension of Puainako Street, and the development of an improved connection between Mamalahoa and Queen Ka' ahumanu Highways (Cross Reference: 3.1.4 Related Projects). Current trends reflect increasing tourism, incidence of cross -island commuting, and the conversion of fallow sugar plantation lands to small-scale, specialized farming operations (Cross Reference: 3.1.2 Current Development Trends). These trends would be expected to contribute to the anticipated growth of traffic along Saddle Road, and to indirectly expand the use of the area by residents and tourists. 6-1 Because of efforts to preserve and protect threatened and endangered species and habitats of special value, notable losses of public hunting lands have occurred since 1970. Past trends are expected to continue. The development of Saddle Road would add to the cumulative impacts on the physical, biological, and cultural resources of the island. It would require acquisition of land, the conversion of native habitat and existing land uses, and it would result in the partial loss of some cultural resources. It would improve access, result in an increase in traffic volumes, and be expected to increase public use of the area. Mitigation measures recommended for this project attempt to minimize the project's role in these overall cumulative impacts. The Palila and fire mitigation plans are designed to assist in the protection and recovery of native biological resources, including the endangered Palila, and involves the rehabilitation of suitable habitat (Cross Reference: 3.18.3 Mitigation Measures). The project should also enhance public access to and appreciation of cultural resources along the route. 6-2 CHAPTER 7 PREPARERS CHAPTER 7 -PREPARERS EDUCATIONAL APPLICABLE EXPERIENCE PROJECT NAME BACKGROUND (Years of Experience) RESPONSIBILITY Federal Highway Administration (Lead Agency) Dave Gedeon, P.E. University of Colorado, Transportation design and project FUWA Project M.B.A., 1981 management (25 vrs) Manager - design, Ohio University, B funding and resource (Civil Engr.), 1970 scheduling Bert McCauley, RE Penn State University, Traffic & transportation planning, FFIWA MC E-, 1978 design and management, NEPA Environmental Texas Tech University, coordination (25 vrs) Project Manager B.S. (Civil Engr-), 1970 University, M.S. Glenn Yasui, P.E. University of Southern I lighway engineering and FI IWA local Project California, M.P.A., 1985 administration (33 yrs) Coordinator University of Hawaii, Pittsburgh Technical Institute, B.S_ (Civil Engr.), 1964 Rust Environment and Infrastructure (Project Management and Design; Traffw, Noise and A ir Analysis) James Anderson, P.E. Colorado State University, Road design, location and Rust Contract and L. S. B.S. (Civil Engr.), 1951 construction, NEPA Manager documentation, Section 7 consultations (46 yrs) Craig Chumbly University of Iowa, Ph.D. (Botany), 1989 University of Iowa, M.S. (Botany), 1984 University of Northern Iowa, B.A. (Bio1J, 1974 Don Griner, P.E. University of Colorado, B.S. (Civil Engr ), 1981 Southern Illinois University, A.T. (Architecture), 1968 Christian Sherry New Mexico State University, M.S. (Geology), 1990 Ohio Wesleyan University, B . (Geology), 1986 Sharon Wavering Pittsburgh Technical Institute, (Computer'fech), 1985 Stamina/Optima noise modeling, Noise Study field noise measurements (10 yrs) Specialist Bridge and roadway planning, Rust Project Manager design and project management - preliminary (27 vrs) engineering and environmental studies Environmental documentation, I-lazardous Materials hazardous materials studies (7 )'rs) Study Specialist CADD technician, road design (10 yrs) 7-1 Roadway Designer Randal Wcvraueh, North Dakota State Rural highway design, Project Engineer - P.E. University. B S (Civil coordination of NEPA design of preliminary Lngr.), 1986 documentation (1 I yrs) plans, coordination of environmental documents EcoPlan Associates, Inc. (EIS Preparation) Bruce Brown Utah State University, MS Resource economics, NJ: A Economics analysis (Agricultural Economics), documentation. natural resource and NEPA 1974 project development (23 yrs) documentation Utah StateUniversuv, B (Economics), 1973 William Davis Califon, State University, Water quality analysis, NEPA NEPA documentation M.S. (Water Pollution documentation (30 yrs) Biology), 1966 California State Unnersirv, B S (Fisheries), 1965 Leslie McGaughey Arizona State University, Environmental analysis, NEPA NEPA Graduate coursework documentation (17 )Ts) documentation, FIS (Geomorphology), 1980 preparation Arizona State University, 13.S (Physical Geography), 1979 Beth McMichael Arizona State UniversaN. Environmental analysis, NEPA NEPA Graduate coursework documentation (7 vrs) documentation, EIS (Botany), 1995 preparation University of Arizona, B.A. (Arts and Sciences), 1993 George Ruffner Ari. _ na State University, NEPA documentation, Section 7 EcoPlan Project Ph.D. (Botany), 1985 consultations, 404 permitting Manager - NEPA Texas A&M University, (25 yrs) documentation M.S_ (Wildlife), 1975 Northern Arizona University_ , B.S. (Zoology), 1972 Rana Productions, Ltd (Vertebrates) Reginald David University of Denver, Terrestrial vertebrate surveys, B.S., 1972 NEPA documentation. Section 7 consultations (15 yrs) 7-2 Biologist - terrestrial vertebrate surveys, biological assessment, Section 7 consultation Bishop Museum (Invertebrates) Robert Cowie University of Liverpool, Malacological research and Biologist - Ph D. (Zoology), 1982 contract surveys (22 vrs) malacologist University of Cambridge, M.A (Zoology), 1979 University of Cambridge, B A (Zoology), 1975 Neil Evenhuis University of I lawaii, Ph.D. Entomological research and Biologist - (Entomology), 1988 contract surveys (26 vrs) entomologist, California State Polytechnic invertebrate survey University, M.S. (Biology), 1977 California State Po�ytc,hnic University, B_S. (Zoology/ Entomology), 1974 Francis Howarth University of I lawaii, PhD. Entomological research and Biologist - (Medical Entomology and contract surveys (27 yrs) entomologist Systematics), 1974 Cornell University, M.S. (Medical Entomology and Systematics), 1966 University of Massachusetts, B.S. (Entomology and Chemistry), 1962 Gordon Nishida San Jose State University, Entomological research and Biologist - M.A. (Entomology), 1975 contract surveys (26 yrs) entomologist University of California, B.A. (Biology), 1968 Allan Samuelson Purdue University, Ph.u. Entomological research and Biologist - (Entomology), 1970 contract surveys (37 yrs) entomologist University of Arizona, M.S. (Entomology), 1961 San Jose State University, B.A. (Biology), 1959 Char and Associates (West -side Botany) Winona Char University of Hawaii, M.S. Botanical surveys & reports, Botanical (Botanical Sciences), 1983 natural resources management Assessment: University of Hawaii, B.A. plans, Section 7 consultations, West side (Botanical Sciences), 1970 NEPA documentation, wetland delineations (20 yrs) 7-3 Palmer and Associates Consulting (East -side Botany) Rexford Palmer University of California, Ph. D. Biological and botanical Botanical (Botany), 1982 assessments (25 Nrs) Assessment University of California, M.S. East side (Botany), 1976 California State University, B.A. (Botany), 1972 PHRI (Cultural Resources) Charles Langlas University of Hawaii, Ph.D. Ethnographv, oral history, cultural Ethnographer, (Anthropology), 1974 and social anthropology (20 vrs) etlmohistorical Iowa State University, B.S- research, Traditional (Chemist)7), 1964 Cultural Properties Thomas Wolforth University of Wisconsin CRM archaeology reports, SHPO Cultural Resources M.S. (Anthropology), 1989 archaeologist, Section 106 process Project Manager Indiana University, B.S. (15 yrs) (Anthropology), 1982 Okahara and Associates, Inc. (Land Use, Hydrology, Hydraulics, Recreation, Small Studies) Nancy Burns, P.E. University of Lowell, B.S. Civil Engineering, Permitting, Project Engineer and (Civil Engr.), 1984 project management (13 yrs) Civil Design William Moore York University (UK), Planning, project management and Project Planner Graduate Diploma development, NEPA (Economics), 1977 documentation (21 yrs) Beloit College, B.A (Business/Economics), 1974 Masahiro Nishida, P.E. California State Roadway design, NEPA Okahara Project Polyteehnical University, documentation (26 yrs) Manager B.S.C.E. (Civil Engr.), 1971 Donald Okahara, P.E. Oregon State University. Water development and Principal -In -Charge B.S.M.F. (Mechanical transmission, NEPA Fngr.), 1962 documentation, agriculture feasibility (38 yrs) Jay Uyeda, P.E. University of I lawan, B.A. Civil engineering (8 yrs) Project Engineer (Mathematics), 1990 7-4 Hahn and Associates (Socia[, Economics, Native Hawaiian Cu@ure) Youngkt Hahn University of California, Economic analysis (15 vrs) Assessment of Ph.D. (Economics), 1971 Economic Impacts Ohio State University, M.B.A. (Economics), 1963 Muskingum College. B.A. (Leonomtcs), 1961 Ed Kanahele Umversnv of Hawat i, M Native I lawaiian cultural Social Assessment: (1 lawaiian I hstoq). 1982 assessments, Hawaiian history Native Ilawanan University off awai i, B -S. (25 STs) Culture (I-lawaiian Studies), 1975 Pualani Kanahele University of I law at i, B.A Native I lawaiian cultural Social Assessment: (Ilaw aiian Studies), 1982 assessments, I-lawaiian history Native Hawaiian (15 yrs) Culture Ron I em Louisiana State University, Social analysis (5 yrs) Assessment of Social Ph.D (Geography), 1988 Impacts University of Hawaf i, B.A., (Geography) 1980 Logan, Simpson and Dye (Visual) Diane Simpson- University of Colorado, M.L.A. Visual resource impact analysis Visual Resource Colebank, R L.A. and (Landscape Architecture), and documentation, scenic corridor Specialist A L A. 1984 management plan preparation, University of Georgia, B.S. scenic resource evaluation (Biology), 1974 (23 vrs) Geolabs Hawaii (GeotechniealAnalysis) Robin Lim University of California, M.S. Geotechnical engineering analysts Geotechnical Project (Geotechnical Engr.), 1989 and feasibility studies, earthwork Manager University of California, B.S. monitoring, landslide and site soil (Mining Lug.), 1987 studies (10 yrs) Donaldson Enterprises, Inc. (Unexploded Ordnance) Byron Donaldson U.S. Marine Corps training and Explosive ordnance disposal certification (25 yrs) Norman Caron ILS Navy training and certification Explosive ordnance disposal (22 vrs) Ronald Boyd U.S. Navy training and Explosive ordnance disposal certification (15 yrs) 7-5 Ordnance Disposal Ordnance Disposal Ordnance Disposal R.M. Towill, Inc. (Aerial Survey and Mapping) Robert Lee University of Hawaii, B.S. (Civil Engr.), 1973 Island Survey, Inc. (Alignment Staking) Land sun eving, GPS systems (25 yrs) Photogrammetric Control and Mapping Project Manager Robert Shirai, PIS Hawaii Community Land surveying Principal Survevor College, 1974 (25 vrs) NEO CHAPTER 8 LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND PERSONS TO WHOM COPIES OF THE DRAFT EIS WERE SENT CHAPTER 8 - LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND PERSONS TO WHOM COPIES OF THE DRAFT EIS WERE SENT Mr. Kazu Hayashida, Director Hawai' i Department Of Transportation 869 Punchbowl Street Honolulu, HI 96813-5097 Honorable Daniel K. Inouye 7325 Federal Building Honolulu, HI 96850 Mr. William Y. Kikuchi Field Representative Office of U.S. Senator Daniel K. Inouye 101 Aupuni Street, Suite 205 Hilo, HI 96720 Lt. Col. Ralph H. Graves, Commander U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Building 230 Fort Shafter, HI 96858-5440 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Operations Branch Attn: Kathleen A. Dadey, Ph.D. Building 230 Fort Shafter, HI 96858-5440 Mr. Wayne Hamaguchi, Chief Planning Branch U.S. Army Pacific Command, Hawaii Attn: APEN-IF Building 104 Fort Shafter, HI 96858-5100 Mr. Robert P. Smith, Manager U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service P.O. Box 50088 Honolulu, HI 96850 W Hawai' i County Department of Public Works Donna Fay K. Kiyosaki, P. E. Chief Engineer 25 Aupuni Street, Room 202 Hilo, HI 96720-4252 Mr. Gary Gill, Director Hawai' i Office of Environmental Quality Control 220 South King Street, Fourth Floor Honolulu, HI 96813 Administrator State Office of Hawaiian Affairs 711 Kapiolani Blvd., Suite 500 Honolulu, HI 96813 Mr. Denis R. Lau, Branch Chief Clean Water Branch Environmental Management Division State Department of Health 919 Ala Moana Blvd., Room 301 Honolulu, HI 96814 Mr. Kali Watson, Chairman Hawaiian Homes Commission P.O. Box 1879 Honolulu, HI 96805 Ms. Virginia Goldstein, Director Hawai' i County Planning Department 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, HI 96720 Mr. Wayne Carvalho, Chief Hawaii County Police Department 349 Kapiolani Street Hilo, HI 96720 Mr. Harry Kim, Administrator Hawaii County Civil Defense Agency 920 Ululani Street Hilo, HI 96720 Mr. Aaron Ueno, District Sanitarian State of Hawaii Department of Health 1582 Kalanianole Avenue Hilo, HI 96720 Dr. William Steiner, Director USGS Biological Research Division Pacific Islands Ecosystem Research Center Hawaii Field Station P.O. Box 44 Hawaii National Park, HI 96718 Dr. Gregory G.Y. Pai, Phd., Director Office of State Planning Office of the Governor P.O. Box 3540 Honolulu, HI 96811-3540 Attention: Coastal Zone Management Col. Owen D. Ryan, Commander HQ, U.S. Army Garrison, Hawaii Attm APVG-GC Building 580, Room 100 Schofield Barracks, HI 96857-5000 LTC David Hergenroeder, Commander HQ, PTA, USARG-HI Bldg T-180 Milepost 36, H200 (Saddle Road) Hilo, HI 96720 Director DPTMSEC, U.S. Army Garrison Hawaii ATTN: APVG-GT Schofield Barracks, HI 96857-5000 M. Director DPW, U.S. Army Garrison Hawaii Building 300 Schofield Barracks, HI 96857-5000 Mr. Michael Wilson, Director Department Of Land c': Natural Resources P.O. Box 621 Honolulu, HI 96809 Mr. Dean Uchida, Administrator Department of Land and Natural Resources Division of Land Management 1 151 Punchbowl Street Honolulu, HI 96813 Mr. Michael Buck, Administrator Department of Land and Natural Resources Division of Forestry and Wildlife 1151 Punchbowl Street Honolulu, HI 96813 Mr. Ralson Nagata, Administrator Department of Land and Natural Resources Division of State Parks 1151 Punchbowl Street Honolulu, HI 96813 Mr. Don Hibbard, Administrator Department of Land and Natural Resources State Historic Preservation Division 33 South King Street, 6th Floor Honolulu, HI 96813 Robert A. McLaren Associate Director Institute for Astronomy University of Hawai' i at Manoa 2680 Woodlawn Drive Honolulu, HI 96822 Environmental Protection Agency Office of Federal Activities 401 M Street, S.W.; Room 2119 Washington, D.C. 20460 Mr, David Farrel, Chief Office of Federal Activities U. S. Environmental Protection Agency 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105-3901 Dr. Willie Taylor Department of the Interior Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance 1849 C Street, NW, Room 2024 Washington, D.C. 20240 Claudia Nissley, Director Western Office of Review Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 12136 West Bayaud, Suite 330 Lakewood, CO 80228 U.S. Department of Agriculture Office of the Secretary Administration Building, Room 240W 14th Street and Independence Ave., SW Washington, D.C. 20250 Vicki H. Tsuhako, Manager U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Pacific Islands Contact Office 300 Ala Moana Blvd., Room 1302 P.O. Box 50003 Honolulu, HI 96850 Nathaniel Conner, State Conservationist National Conservation Resource Service 300 Ala Moana Blvd., 4316 P.O. Box 50004 Honolulu, HI 96850 F:o U.S. Department of Energy Division of NEPA Affairs Forrestal Building, Room 3E-080 Attn: Carol Borgstrom 1000 Independence Ave., SW Washington, D.C. 20585 Bryan Harry, Director U.S. Department of Interior National Park Service, Pacific Area 300 Ala Moana Blvd. P.O. Box 50165 Honolulu, HI 96813 Dave Carlson U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX 75 Hawthorne Street Code CMD -2 San Francisco, CA 94105 William Meyer, District Chief U.S Geological Survey Water Resources Division 677 Ala Moana Blvd., Suite 415 Honolulu, HI 96813 Ms. Shirley Mattingly, Regional Director Federal Emergency Management Agency FEMA Region 9 Building 105 P.O. Box 29998 Presidio of San Francisco, CA 94129 Sam Callejo, State Comptroller Department of Accounting and General Services Kalanimoku Building l 151 Punchbowl Street Honolulu, HI 96813 Director Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism 220 South King St. Honolulu, HI 96813 Maj. General Edward V. Richardson Attention: LTC Richard Young Adjutant General and Director of Civil Defense Department of Defense 3949 Diamond Head Road Honolulu, HI 96816 Department of Human Services 1390 Miller Honolulu, HI 96813 Yukio Kitagawa, Chairperson Department of Agriculture 1428 South King St. Honolulu, HI 96814 Department of Budget and Finance State ofHawai'i 250 South Hotel Honolulu, HI 96813 Mrs. Patricia Bergin Hawaii District Superintendent Department of Education 75 Aupuni Street, Room 203 Hilo, HI 96720 State of Hawai' i Department of Health 1250 Punchbowl Street Honolulu, HI 96813 U.S. Dept. of Housing & Urban Development Regional Environmental Standards Officer California State Office 450 Golden Gate Avenue P.O. Box 36003 San Francisco, CA 94102-3448 Clayton Hee, Chairman Board of Trustees Office of Hawaiian Affairs 711 Kapiolani Blvd, Suite 500 Honolulu, HI 96813 Hannah Springer, Trustee Office of Hawaiian Affairs 711 Kapiolani Blvd., Suite 500 Honolulu, HI 96813 John Harrison, Env. Coordinator University of Hawai i at Manoa Environmental Center 2550 Campus Road, Crawford Rm 317 Honolulu, HI 96822 Kenneth Perrin, Chancellor University of Hawai' i at Hilo 200 West Kauwili Street Hilo, HI 96720-4091 University of Hawai' i at Manoa Water Resources Research Center 2540 Dole Street Honolulu, HI 96822 Dept. of Housing and Community Development 650 S. King Street Honolulu, HI 96813 Fire Chief Hawaii County 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, HI 96720 Hawai' i State Archives lolani Palace Grounds Honolulu, HI 96813 Department of Parks --d Recreation County of Hawaii 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, HI 96720 Department of Water Supply County of Hawaii 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, HI 96720 County Council County of Hawai' i 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, HI 96720 Marni Herkes, Executive Director Kona-Kahala Chamber of Commerce 75-5737 Kuakini Hwy. #207 Kailua-Kona, HI 96740 Hawaii Bicycle League 3442 Waialae Ave., Suite 1 Honolulu, HI 96816 Historic Hawaii Foundation 1050 Ala Moana Blvd., Bldg, D Honolulu, HI 96814 Linda Paul, President Hawai' i Audubon Society 850 Richards Street, 4505 Honolulu, HI 96813 8-5 Barbara Kocsow, President Kona Outdoor Circle 76-6280 Kuakini Hwy Kailua-Kona, HI 96740 Robert Williams HI Island Board of Realtors 14 Waianuenue Avenue Hilo, HI 96720 H. Peter L'Orange, President Hawai' i Leeward Planning Conference P.O. Box 635 Kailua-Kona, HI 96745 Majorie Ziegler Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund 223 South King St. #400 Honolulu, HI 96813 Jay Hanson Sierra Club West Hawai' i 78-662 Alii Drive Kailua-Kona, HI 96740 Nelson Ho Sierra Club/Moku Loa P.O. Box 1137 Hilo, HI 96721 U.S. Department of Commerce Office of Ecology and Conservation 14th St. & Constitution Ave., NW, HB-Rm 5805 Washington, D.C. 20230 Gordon Matsuoka State Public Works Engineer Department of General Services Division of Public Works P.O. Box 119 Honolulu, HI 96810 U.S. Department of Commerce Economic Development Administration 14th St. & Constitution Ave., NW, HB-rM 7800 Washington, D.C. 20230 Department of Commerce State of Hawai' i, Kamamalu Bldg. 1010 Richards Street Honolulu, HI 96813 Paula Helfrich, Executive Director Hawaii Island Economic Development Board 1999 Ainaola Drive Hilo, HI 96720 Hawaii Visitors' Bureau 2270 Kalakaua Ave., #801 Honolulu, HI 96815 Elizabeth Martin, President Native Hawaiian Advisory Council 1088 Bishop Street, Suite 1204 Honolulu, HI 96813 Carol Hendricks, President Waimea Outdoor Circle P.O. Box 6144 Kamuela, Hl 96743 Charles Nakoa, Executive Director Native Hawaiian Legal Corporation 1164 Bishop Street, Suite 1205 Honolulu, HI 96813 Mr. Seiji Naya, Director State of Hawai' i Dept. of Planning & Economic Development PO Box 2359 Honolulu, HI 96804 Curtis Tyler West Hawaii Committee P.O. Box N Kailua-Kona, HI 96745 Tony Hanley, President Big Island Business Council 75-5737 Kuakini Hwy, 4207 Kailua-Kona, HI 96740 Haunani Apoliona, Director Alu Like, Inc. 1024 Mapunapuna Street Honolulu, HI 96819 Kohala Community Assoc. P.O. Box 608 Kapaau, HI 96755 Kunani Nihipali, POO Hui Malama i Na Kupuna O Hawai' i Nei P.O. Box 190 Haleiwa, HI 96712 The Honorable Robert Herkes Hawai' i State House of Representatives 235 South Beretania St., Rm 1101 Honolulu, HI 96813 The Honorable Eric Hamakawa Hawaii State House of Representatives 235 South Beretania St., Rm. 1101 Honolulu, HI 96813 The Honorable David Tarnas Hawai' i State House of Representatives 235 South Beretania St., Rm. 1101 Honolulu, HI 96813 The Honorable Jerry Chang Hawai' i State House of Representatives 235 South Beretania St., Rm. 1 101 Honolulu, HI 96813 The Honorable Harvey Tajiri Hawai' i State Senate 235 South Beretania St., Rm. 505 Honolulu, HI 96813 The Honorable Dwight Takamine Hawaii State House of Representatives 235 South Beretania St., Rm 1101 Honolulu, HI 96813 The Honorable Daniel K. Akaka Prince Kuhio Federal Building, Rm 3104 Honolulu, HI 96850 The Honorable Patsy T. Mink Prince Kuhio Federal Building, Rm 5104 Honolulu, HI 96850 The Honorable Andrew Levin State Office Tower, Rm 505 235 South Beretania St. Honolulu, HI 96813 The Honorable Virginia Isbell State Office Tower, Rm l 101 235 South Beretania St. Honolulu, HI 96813 The Honorable Malama Solomon State Office Tower, Rm 505 235 South Beretania St. Honolulu, HI 96813 The Honorable Steve Yamashiro Mayor, County of Hawaii 25 Aupuni St., Rm 215 Hilo, HI 96720 The Honorable Benjamin Cayetano Governor, State of Hawai' i State Capitol Honolulu, HI 96813 Mr. Peter Cline MTMCTEA ATTM MTTE-SA 720 Thimble Shoals Blvd., Suite 130 Newport News, VA 23606 Reggie Okamura 60 Kapualani Street Hilo, HI 96720 Melvin Hewett P.O. Box 1238 Kamuela, HI 96743 Waiki'i Ranch Augustine Realty P.O. Box 2002 Kailua-Kona, HI 96745 Big Island Retired Military Assoc. P.O. Box 1445 Hilo, HI 96720 Girl Scout Council of the Pacific P.O. Box 934 Keaau, HI 96749 Hawaii Fire Fighters Assoc. 138 Laula Hilo, HI 96720 Hawaii Speleological Survey P.O. Box 1526 Hilo, HI 96721 Hawai' i Transportation Assoc. P.O. Box 30166 Honolulu, HI 96320 Hawaii Island Contractors Assoc. 494C Kalaniko Street Hilo, HI 96720 Hilo Women's Club 7 Lele Street Hilo, HI 96720 Steven Lichter Pig Hunters of Hawai i P.O. Box 503 Kurtistown, HI 96760 Ken Melrose Waikoloa Land Company 150 Waikoloa Beach Drive Kamuela, HI 96743 Waimea Lions Club P.O. Box 1784 Kamuela, HI 96743 Waimea Community Assoc. P.O. Box 1299 Kapaau, HI 96755 County Farm Bureau 580 Lama Street Hilo, HI 96720 County Farm Bureau -Kona P.O. Box 2341 Kealakekua, HI 96750 Dennis Miyashiro General Insurance Assoc. ofHawai'i 100 Pauahi Street Hilo, HI 96720 HELCO P.O. Box 1027 Hilo, HI 96721 Hawai' i Cattlemens Assoc. P.O. Box 977 Volcano, HI 96785 mo Hawai' i County Native Hawaiian C of C 80 Pauahi Street, Suite 209 Hilo, HI 96720 Hilo Rotary Club P.O. Box 861 Hilo, HI 96721 Kohala Coast Resort Assoc. HCO2 Box 5300 Kohala Coast, HI 96743 Kona Board of Realtors 76-6225 Kuakini Hwy C 106 Kailua-Kona, HI 96740 Kona Regional Senior Center Yano Memorial Hall Captain Cook, HI 96704 Bets Lawrence Waimea/South Kohala Traffic Safety P.O. Box 607 Kamuela, HI 96743 Kaimuki Regional Library 1041 Koko Head Avenue Honolulu, HI 96816 Pearl City Regional Library 1138 Waimano Home Road Pearl City, HI 96782 University of Hawai' i at Manoa Hamilton Library 2550 The Mall Honolulu, HI 96822 Kailua-Kona Public Library 75-140 Hualalai Road Kailua-Kona, HI 96740 Kaneohe Regional Library 45-829 Kamehameha Hwy Kaneohe, HI 96744 Legislative Reference Bureau State Capitol, Rm 004 Honolulu, HI 96813 University of Hawai' i Hilo Campus Library P.O. Box 1357 Hilo, HI 96720 University of Hawai' i at Manna Sinclair Library 2425 Campus Road Honolulu, HI 96822 Hilo Public Library P.O. Box 647 Hilo, HI 96721-0647 Hawaii State Library 478 South King Street Honolulu, HI 96813 Kahului Regional Library 90 School Street Kahului, HI 96732 Honolulu Star Bulletin City Desk P.O. Box 3080 Honolulu, HI 96802 E� Honolulu Advertisor City Desk P.O. Box 3110 Honolulu, HI 96802 Hawaii Tribune Herald 355 Kinoole Street Hilo, HI 96720 West Hawaii Today P.O. Box 789 Kailua-Kona, HI 96745 Scott E. Miller, Chairman Department of Natural Sciences Bishop Museum 1525 Bernice Street Honolulu, HI 96817-0916 Steve Hurt Big Island Bird Hunters Association 17-124 Palaai Street Keaau, HI 96749 Thelma Parker Memorial Library 67-1209 Mamalahoa Hwy. Kamuela, HI 96743-8429 The Honorable Wayne Metcalf Hawaii State Senate 235 Beretania St., Rm. 505 Honolulu, HI 96813 CHAPTER 9 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT HISTORY, CORRESPONDENCE, AND COMMENT 9.1 SADDLE ROAD PROJECT DEVELOPMENT HISTORY, 1987 TO 1997 The following list summarizes the history of the Saddle Road EIS project and provides notable milestones to the coordination and public involvement process. Initially, improvements for Saddle Road had been considered only along the existing alignment within the boundaries of the PTA. 7/87 DAR Needs Report completed by U.S. Army Western Command, and Saddle Road needs identi:., d. MTMC requests preparation prepare engineering evaluation. 10/87 DAR Needs Evaluation for improvement on existing alignment within the PTA, MilePost 30 to 43, completed by FHWA and submitted to MTMC. 12/87 Eligibility for DAR funds determined by MTMC for Saddle Road, MP 30 to MP 43. Improvements to other portions of Saddle Road determined ineligible. $5.35 million requested by MTMC from DOA for Fiscal year 1990 construction. 3/88 HDOT agrees to design and construct proposed improvements, as requested by MTMC. 12/88 Estimate for construction costs of PTA segment of Saddle Road completed and submitted to MTMC; estimated cost $7.5 million. 6/89 Saddle Road certified by MTMC as an access road important to national defense within the PTA along the existing alignment, with the understanding that maintenance of the improved road will be the responsibility of the owning agency, HDOT. HDOT indicated that workload will not allow them to design and construct the proposed project and indicated that FHWA should proceed with project development. A 42 -foot wide typical section (two 11 -foot travel lanes and a 4 -foot paved and 6 -foot unpaved shoulder each side) was approved by MTMC. 11/89 Project agreement signed by FHWA and HDOT defining agency responsibilities; FHWA to progress environmental compliance, design, and construct; HDOT to obtain Right -of -Way (ROW) and maintain roadway after construction. 1/90 Preparation of an Environmental Assessment initiated. Initial SEE Team comprised of participating agencies formed and meeting held in Hilo, HI. Decision made that a safe terminus on west end of project would require extending the project 1.5 miles to west, MTMC concurrence required to proceed with new terminus. 5/90 Field work initiated to obtain aerial photography for use in environmental compliance studies; preliminary route location design initiated with completion of mapping. 9-1 12/90 Line and grade field review held to discuss preliminary alignments and proposed improvements. Public scoping meetings held in Hilo and Waimea. Proposal made by PTA military personnel that the alignment considered for improvement be moved north (mauka) of the PTA training and cantonment areas to reduce civilian/military conflicts; higher command to support recommendation expected. 1/91 Concurrence received from MTMC for extension project one mile to the west along existing alignment. 2/91 Interagency scoping meeting held in Honolulu to discuss various agency needs and concerns for improvements along existing alignment within the PTA. PTA realignment recommendation presented by U.S. Army representatives. Full EIS anticipated for realignment. Consensus achieved between most agency representatives, with some reservations, that realignment would improve public safety. 4/91 Request made by MTMC that development efforts along the existing alignment be stopped and efforts be redirected to develop the realignment proposal. 5/91 New estimate and schedule submitted by FHWA for realignment construction between MP 30 and 43. Cost is estimated at $11.3 M. New surveys, mapping, location studies, and environmental compliance expected to delay initial construction project. Because HDOT did not in agreement with realignment proposal, work stopped by FHWA until agreement between participating agencies could be reached. 6/91 Support for realignment proposal forwarded by Senator Daniel Inouye and HDOT. 11/91 SEE Team reconvened to advance project development considering realignment proposal. Need determined for full EIS for entire Saddle Road from MP 5 to MP 53 to comply with logical termini requirement. 2/92 Estimate prepared by FHWA to complete project development, including environmental compliance from MP 5 to MP 53. Cost is estimated to be $2.3 Million. Interagency meeting held in Honolulu and public scoping meetings held in Hilo, Waimea, and Captain Cook. FHWA work suspended pending MTMC consideration of additional project development requirements. 4/92 HDOT participation in additional project development funding requested by MTMC. 2/93 52.34 million in DAR funds for project development authorized by MTMC. 3/93 Project development activities resumed. Aerial survey and mapping process for realignment studies initiated. 9-2 5/93 Citizens of the county of Hawaii invited to from a task force by Senator Inouye to solicit and disseminate information about the project within the community and work with the project development team. 6/93 SEE Team reconvened for meeting in Honolulu. First citizens task force meeting held (SRIF). 8/93 Mission Statement adopted and goals identified by SRTF. 1/94 RUST Environment and Infrastructure selected by FHWA, under an umbrella contract to prosecute environmental compliance and preliminary route location design studies. Okahara & Associates (O & A) selected by RUST for all local project coordination efforts in Hawaii. Meetings held between FHWA, RUST, O & A, SRTF, and various agencies in Hawaii to establish communications and develop schedule for project development and scoping process. 3/94 Letter of Intent sent to all interested parties, agencies, and organizations and Notice of Intent published in Federal Register. 4/94 Notification of Public Scoping Meetings mailed to all interested parties, agencies, and organizations. 5/94 Public Scoping Meetings held in Hilo, Kona, and Waimea. Interagency Scoping Meeting held in Hilo. SRTF scoping meeting held in Waimea and SEE Team scoping meeting held in Hilo. Traffic Study completed by RUST. Traffic volumes on Saddle Road determined to be 900 ADT in 1994 and forecasted to be 14,000 ADT, in 2014 with proposed improvements. 6/94 Several SRTF Meetings held to generate input on project purpose and need. 7/94 Saddle Road Project Information Centers opened in Hilo and Kona to make project information available to interested persons and to receive comments. Notices of information centers published in Hilo and Kona newspapers. 8/94 SRTF Meeting held to brief members on project development progress and review proposed alignments developed through scoping process. Field trip to view alternative alignments conducted. Recommended alternatives developed by SRTF to present to SEE Team for further consideration. 10/94 SEF: Team meeting held in Hilo to brief team on scoping results, review project objectives and purpose, and select alternative alignments for further engineering and environmental study (102 miles of alternatives selected). 9-3 11/94 SRTF meeting held to review project alternatives advanced for further consideration and project issues and concerns identified. First Saddle Road Newsletter published and sent to mailing list (approximately 800 distributed). 2/95 Second project development contract initiated with RUST for surveying, mapping, preliminary route location design, and environmental field studies and reports on alternatives developed through scoping process. RUST project team selected, consisting of 12 subconsultants; 10 locally based in Hawaii. 3/95 SRTF Meeting held to brief members on status of project development tasks recently initiated and receive input on progress, issues, and concerns. Meetings held with DI -NR to coordinate rights -of -entry for surveying and environmental inventories; review of environmental studies for consistency with Conservation District regulations. Through October of 1995, field work conducted by subconsultants, including biological, botanical, avian, and archaeological surveys and interviews of tourists, road users, truckers, and other citizens conducted. 4/95 Interagency meeting to brief agencies on project status and schedule for environmental field inventories and engineering studies (geotech, hydraulics, traffic, etc.). New construction cost estimates prepared; PTA section $35 million, remainder of Saddle Road $68 million. 8/95 Coordination meeting held with DOA at PTA to discuss issues and concerns relative to alternative alignment studies to date. 10/95 Field review of potential alternative alignments and available mapping for west side held with RUST and O & A. Critical Interagency meetings held with DOA and USFWS, DLNR, and NBS to discuss findings of preliminary route location alternatives and potential environmental effects and to receive comments on resulting issues and concerns. Funds made available to begin work on environmental studies portion of RUST contract. Environmental Assessment and Notice of Preparation of EIS submitted to Office of Environmental Quality Control. 11/95 SRTF, SEE Team and Interagency meetings held to review preliminary alternatives route location and design and receive input. Line and grade field review of first half of staked preliminary alignments held with HDOT, RUST, FHWA, and other interested agencies. Comments incorporated in revisions. 12/95 SRTF meeting held to review project progress and future project development procedures and schedule. 9-4 2/96 Line and grade field review of second half of staked preliminary alignments held with RUST and O & A. Team planning concept initiated for project development. Environmental Project Manager and Local Coordination Manager. 3/96 Discussions with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) held to perform remaining archaeological inventories and studies within the PTA. 4/96 SRTF and SEE Team meetings held. SRTF briefing on project status held at PTA with Senator Inouye and DOA representatives. SEE Team meeting held to review progress status and issues and concerns on various project alternatives. Decision made by SEE Team to eliminate alternatives W-4 and E -I from further detailed consideration; concurrence obtained from SRTF. Several meetings held between FHWA staff and National Biological Service (NBS), USFWS, and USACE to discuss Palila critical habitat (field trip and mitigation discussions), invertebrate inventories, archaeological studies in PTA, and wetlands considerations. Informal consultation with USFWS on critical habitat impact mitigation for Section 7 Consultation. 5/96 Preliminary route location design plans completed and exhibits submitted to environmental subconsultants for study reports. Preliminary Design Study Report completed. Sixteen invitations for Cooperating Agency status sent; three acceptances received. Meetings held between FHWA staff and U.S. Army Garrison -Hawaii (USARGH), USFWS, Division of Forestry and Wildlife (Hawai'i), HDOT, and National Biological Service (NBS) to discuss coordination of DOA's Ecosystem Management Plan with Palila mitigation effort and general elements of a Palila mitigation plan as proposed by NBS. First draft of a specific mitigation proposal with cost estimates presented by NBS. 6/96 Workshop given by FHWA, Hawaii Division, to subconsultant team on EIS Preparation. New construction cost estimates submitted based on preliminary design received from consultants: PTA, $34 million to $40 million; remainder of Saddle Road, $92 million to $106 million. Cost dependent on alternative selected. 7/96 Modification made to RUST contract to provide for biological survey and report on invertebrate species as required by USFWS, research to assess social effects of alternatives relative to Native Hawaiian culture, and extend the authority of existing subconsultant to provide archaeological and historical properties investigations within PTA in lieu of USACE. State participation in funding of Saddle Road project development effort committed by HDOT. 8/96 Meetings held between FHWA staff and USARGH regarding coordination of their Ecosystem Management Plan efforts with Saddle Road mitigation proposals. Discussions held with new subconsultant to develop Public Information Program 9-5 (newsletters followed). Additional cultural properties field inventories begin within PTA. 9/96 Meeting held with subconsultant to initiate compilation of Biological Assessment as required for Section 7 consultation of Endangered Species Act. 10/96 SRTF, Interagency, and SEE Team project development meetings held in Hilo to review project alternatives and associated affected environments, impacts, and proposed mitigation, and solicit input relative to issues, and concerns. Proposed project schedule and interagency coordination discussed. Selection of possible preferred alternatives discussed by SEE Team. Alternatives EX -4 and EX -1 eliminated. 11/96 Interagency meeting held in Honolulu, hosted by Senator Inouye, to discuss specific project mitigation elements, processes, and coordination required including critical habitat replacement land transfers, management strategies, funding, and necessary agreements. Elements and procedure for Biological Assessment to be required by USFWS for this project confirmed. Fire prevention roadway cross-section confirmed. Discussions held on coordination of DOA's Ecosystem Management Plan with Palila Mitigation Plan. Discussions held with HDOT on project development issues impacting scope of possible initial construction project. Field trip conducted with FHWA, USFWS, and USACE to review wetland findings and discuss procedures for jurisdictional delineation and permitting requirements. Issue 42 of Saddle Road Newsletter distributed to approximately 1,170 groups and individuals. 12/96 SRTF meeting held to present results of discussions and interagency coordination to date and receive community -related input from members on all project issues and concerns as well as public information program progress and plans. FHWA solicitation opened for new contract for Hawai' i -based firm; first task order to include continued work on environmental studies and preliminary design. 1/97 Issue #3 of Saddle Road Newsletter mailed to approximately 1,170 groups and individuals. 3/97 Preliminary Draft EIS (PDEIS) distributed to all participating, cooperating, and coordinating agencies for review and comment. PDEIS distributed to internal staff for review. Biological Assessment submitted with request for early coordination under Section 7 to USFWS. Need determined for additional funding to complete further environmental compliance studies. Technical report on archaeological and historical properties received at FHWA. 4/97 Two Interagency meetings held to discuss issues, impacts, and mitigation proposed as presented in the PDEIS. Most agency written comments received by end of month as requested. Confirmation from USFWS received that all details of multi -agency .m management of Palila mitigation lands would need to be resolved before submittal of BA. Letter sent transmitting cultural properties report to SHPO and requesting concurrence with eligibility determinations. O & A selected for work in Hawaii under Indefinite Delivery/Indeimite Quantity Contract. O & A's first task order provides for continuance of environmental and design work on project. 5/97 Procedt r?s and methodology for DOA 404 permitting and jurisdictional determinations requested from USACE. Verification of Nene Sanctuary status requested from DLNR. 6/97 Draft summary of Palila mitigation lands multi -agency management strategies tentatively agreed upon by coordinating agencies in a series of meetings in May and June sent to agencies for comment. Meeting of various individuals and hunting organizations held to identify issues related to potential impacts on hunting resources and activities. 7/97 Task order executed with O & A to proceed with additional environmental compliance work and location and design refinements for environmental mitigation under ID/IQ contract. Response from USACE on 404 permitting and delineation requirements received. Meetings held with various hunting organizations and individuals to identify issues related to potential impacts on hunting resources and activities. 8/97 Meeting of FHWA, O & A, and subconsultants held to determine new schedule and required coordination for remaining work through publication of DEIS, public hearings, and close of public comment period. Response letter received from SHPO regarding eligibility concurrence. Numerous one-on-one meetings were held between January, 1994 and the present with interested individuals, agency representatives, and public and private organizations, to provide project briefings and/or receive input on project issues and concerns. Specific meeting dates and subject matter are too voluminous to list. A list of organizations for which one or more formal project briefings were presented at various stages in project development is presented below. Community Organizations Kaumana Community Association Hawaii Island Chamber of Commerce Upper Kaumana Community Council Big Island Business Council Kaumana City Association Kona Senior Citizens Waiki'i Ranch Community Association Waimea Community Association Waimea Rotary Club AARP -Hilo Chapter South Hilo Rotary Club Waimea Exchange Club Waimea Lions Club Hilo Woman's Club 9-7 Open community meetings were held in Hilo, Kona, and Waimea from April to October, 1995, to present project briefings and distribute social impact survey questionnaires. ME 9.2 LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND PERSONS CONSULTED IN THE PREPARATION OF THIS DOCUMENT Mr. Kazu Hayashida, Director Hawaii Department of Transportation Mr. William Y. Kikuchi Field Representative Office of U.S. Senat.. Daniel K. Inouye Maj. Gen. Alexis T. Lum (Ret.) Executive Assistant Office of U.S. Senator Daniel K. Inouye Lt. Col. Ralph H. Graves, Commander U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Col. Owen D. Ryan, Commander HQ, U.S. Army Garrison, Hawaii Attn: APVG-GC Mr. Wayne Hamaguchi, Chief Planning Branch U.S. Army Pacific Command, Hawaii Attn: APEN-IF Mr. Robert P. Smith, Manager U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Mr. Michael Wilson, Director Department Of Land & Natural Resources Hawaii County Department of Public Works Donna Fay K. Kiyosaki, P.E. Chief Engineer Mr. Gary Gill, Director Hawaii Office of Environmental Quality Control Ms. Linda Colburn, Administrator State Office of Hawaiian Affairs Mr. Denis R. Lau, Branch Chief Clean Water Branch Environmental Management Division State Department of Health Mr. Kali Watson, Chairman Hawaiian Homes Commission Ms. Virginia Goldstein, Director Hawaii County Planning Department Mr. Wayne Carvalho, Chief Hawaii County Police Department Mr. Harry Kim, Administrator Hawaii County Civil Defense Agency Mr. Aaron Ueno, District Sanitarian State of Hawaii Department of Health Dr. William Steiner, Director National Biological Service-PISC University of Hawaii Dr. Gregory G.Y. Pai, Phd., Director Office of State Planning Office of the Governor LTC Lloyd E. Mues, Commander HQ, PTA, USAG-HI Bldg T-180 Col. Ronnie (Randy) Tucker, Director DPTMSEC, U.S. Army Garrison Hawaii ATTN: APVG-GT Col, Dennis Fontana, Director DPW, U.S. Army Garrison Hawaii Mr. Dean Uchida, Administrator Department of Land and Natural Resources Division of Land Management Mr. Michael Buck, Administrator Department of Land and Natural Resources Division of Forestry and Wildlife Mr. Ralson Nagata, Administrator Department of Land and Natural Resources Division of State Parks Hannah Springer, Trustee Office of Hawaiian Affairs 9.2.1 Saddle Road Task Force Co -Chairs Melvin Hewett Parker Ranch Kamuela, Hawaii Members Bob Bethea Bethea, Black, Konishi & Nishimura Hilo, Hawaii George Martin ILWU (Ret.) Hilo, Hawaii Marni Herkes Kona-Kohala Chamber of Commerce Kailua-Kona, Hawaii 9-10 Mr. Don Hibbard, Administrator Department of Land and Natural Resources State Historic Preservation Division LTC Richard Young Facilities Management Office Hawaii Army National Guard State Department of Defense Dr. Donald Hall, Director Institute for Astronomy Reggie Okamura U.S. Geological Survey (Ret.) Hilo, Hawaii Robert Kim Attorney at Law Captain Cook, Hawaii Walter Kunitake, Director University of Hawaii -West Hawaii Holualoa, Hawaii Charles Young Honaunau, Hawaii 9.2.2 SEE Team Representatives and Agencies Mr. Bruce McClure Hawaii District Engineer Hawaii Department of Transportation 50 Makaala Street Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Mr. Kenneth Y. K. Au Advance Planning Engineer Hawaii DOT - Highways Division 600 Kapiolani Boulevard, No. 301 Honolulu, HI 96813 Lt. Col. Ralph H. Graves, Commander U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Building 230 Fort Shafter. HI 96858-5440 Col. Owen D. Ryan, Commander HQ, U.S. Army Garrison -Hawaii Attn: APVG-GC Building 580, Room 100 Schofield Barracks, HI 96857-5000 Mr. Wayne Hamaguchi, Chief Planning Branch U.S. Army Pacific Command, Hawaii Attn: APEN-IF Fort Shafter, HI 96858-5100 9-11 Col. Dennis Fontana, Director Dept. of Public Works U.S. Army Garrison -Hawaii Building 300 Schofield Barracks, Hawaii 96857-5000 Mr. Abraham Y. Wong Division Administrator (HAD -HI) Federal Highway Administration Box 50206 Honolulu, HI 96850 Hawaii County Department of Public Works Donna Fay K. Kiyosaki, P.E. Chief Engineer 25 Aupuni Street, Room 202 Hilo, HI 96720-4252 LTC Lloyd E. Mues, Commander HQ, PTA, USAG-HI Bldg T-180 Milepost 36, H200 (Saddle Road) Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Col. Ronnie (Randy) Tucker, Director DPTMSEC, U.S. Army Garrison -Hawaii ATTN:APVG-GT Schofield Barracks, Hawaii 96857-5000 9.3 SADDLE ROAD PROJECT MAILING LIST THROUGH AUGUST 1997 Note: The following list was compiled from interested individuals and organizations during the project development process. Individuals on this list will not necessarily receive a copy of the DEIS, however, as in the past, all individuals listed herein will receive future project newsletters and informational mailings such as an Executive Summary Pamphlet condensed from the DEIS. Dept. Of Bus. & Econ. Dev. Dept. Of Accounting Hulihee Palace James Franco Legislative Reference Bureau Dept. Of Labor & Ind. Rel. Christopher & Leslie Agorastos Christopher Agorastos Derrick AhSing Eddie Akana Robert Alder Sherry Amundson Herbert Aoki Roberta Baker Liz Barton Bonnie Bater Bob Bethea Fumi Bonk Stewart K. Boyd Alan L. Brown Rob Burns Sam Burris Amy Yuen Yuen Media Services Lloyd E. Case Jerry Chang Bill & Heather Cole Warren Curtis Maile P. David Gilbert Davis Joe Kalpat Jack Delaney Joanna Drussel Gayland D. Enriques Kerrie Etheridge Warren Figusa Leonard A. Freed, Ph.D. Shirley Freeman Guido Giacometti David B. Gomes Bill Graham Wayne P. Hager Youngki Hahn Bill Hancock Pele Hanoa Roger Harris Monty Hart Ronald Tamashiro Glen Hoffmann Alice Hughes Roy P. Jardine William N. Jardine Edwin W. Jarrett Ahahui Kaahumanu Dina Kageler Gil Kahele Elizabeth Kala William P. Kalawaianui Sonny A. Kanitto Greg Kashiwa C. K. Kauhi 9-12 Bill Kawahara M. Kawazoe Bernard Kelikoa Nancy Kelly Ken & Lorraine Keniko Blaine Kerr James King Raymond Kobayashi Rich Kowhlwe Walter Kunitake Alan Kusunoki Susan Labrenz Lysheth Lam Tracey E. Lauder Diane Ley Thomas Lodge Dolly Loo Leon Luce Tod Lum George Martin Paul Masuda Ruby McDonald George S. McEldowney Robert McLaren Edward & Irene Minor William Moore Neil Morriss Dwayne Mukai Dennis Murphy Joseph Nakea Kyoji Nariai Alfred Nobriga S.H. Commanding Officer Thomas Orton Rodney Oshiro Beverly G. Papalimu William J. Paris, Jr. Margaret Phaio Dennis Reid Jan Roberts Henry A. Ross Liliuokalani Ross Brigitte Rutgers Bob Shepard Tom & Amy Shiroma Norman Sletteland Lani Stemmermann Raymond Sufuji Melvin Tamaye C. K. Taosaka Dan Taylor Milton Y. Terazono John Thatcher Alan Thompson K.T. Cannon Eger Cannon & Eger Mike Tomich Stephen & Amber Troute J. T. Tunison Commander HQ USARPAC APEN-C (Hamaguchi) Sally Wang Deborah Ward Frederick R. Warshauer Dick Wass Lemona Whitney Don & Rebecca Winters Curtis H. Yamamoto Lynn Yamanoha Stanley Yasuda Yukio Takeya Adv. Council On Historic Preservation Kelly Greenwell Abe Kagawa 9-13 Ahahui Kaahumanu-Kohala Josephine Andrade Kynette Cruz Ahualoa Community Assn. Ahupua'a Action Alliance William Miller George Yamamoto Isao Ashida Ainaloa Community Assn, AJA Veterans Council Akaka Falls Lions Club Earl Fukunaga Kaliko Kanaele Dr. Bernard Kratky Aloha `Rina Life & Education Aloha -xchange Club Center Carla Kurohawa American Retired Federal Margo Cromey Alu Like, Inc. Employees American Assn. Univ. Women Youline Kalima Mona Kanakamaikai Shunji Kato American Red Cross American Business Women's American Legion Post 33 Assn. Hamakua William Kay Barbara Kozuma Djon 1. Lim American Legion Post 48 American Cancer Society American Heart Assn. Mallie Moore Michael Oshita George Ota American Legion Post 20 American Legion Post 4 American Legion Post 7 Ka'u Kona Kohala Barrett Otani Eleanor Ruddle Francis Self American Lung Assn. American Heart Assn. American Legion Post 21 Joseph Sherrard Bob Slaughter Arthur Takahara American Legion Post 16 American Heart Association American Legion District III Hilo MTMCTEA Robert Kim B.D. Neal & Associates ATTN: MTTE-SA (Cline) Attorney At Law Ron Nitta Renee VonElsner Michael Tarring B.I. Assn. Nurserymen B.l. Assn. Of Life B.I. Banana Growers Assn. Underwriters Harry Barnes B.I. Dendrobium Growers Rick West B.I. Bonsai Assn. Assn. Bank Of Hawaii Paul Muranaka James Mimaki Roy Hinokawa Bay City Exchange Club BI Chapter HI Credit Union Bl Nat'l Guard Retirees Assn. League 9-14 Robert Petricci Ed Breatchel Mel Fong BI Rainforest Acticn Group Big Island Retired Military Big Island Gun Club Assn, Sharon W. Gerrish Martha Harden George Mitsuda Big Island Friends Big Island Dev. Disability Big Island Automotive Cte. Trades John Owens Herbert Perreira Peter Redman Big Island Branch 122 -Fleet Big Island Labor Alliance Big Island Protea Reserv. Henry Sandlin Aki; 1 Sato Peter Young Big Island Honda Big Island Automotive Big Island Business Council Trades Shirley Russell Evangeline J. Funk, Ph.D. Stanley Watanabe Bonsai Kenkyu Bulb Botanical Consultants Boy Scouts Of America Rhoda Smith BPOE #759 Michelle Lee Boys & Girls Club of Hilo Brantley Center Janet Fujioka Claude Berthoud John M. Davis Bunka No Izumi Canada -France HI Telescope Carpenter's Union, Local 745 Chiemi Motobu Jerry Davis Winona Char Central Hilo Lions Club Clark Realty Corp. Char & Associates Maurice Kahawaii Wayne Carvalho Chief, Fire Department Chevron U. S.A., Inc. Chief Of Police County of Hawaii Alf insus Loh Citizens For Protection -N. Citizens With Space Chinese Civic Assn. HI Kohala Concerns Citizens For Resp. Energy George Taketa Melvin Hewett Dev. Club 100, Hawaii Chapter Co -Chair SRTF Reggie Okamura Audrey Chan Frank Zuzak Co -Chair SRTF Comm. Of Kailua Pier Program D. Blake Barry Stokes County Council Office Conservation Council-W.HI Conservation Council-E.HI James Arakakil Aaron Chung Bobby Jean Leithead Todd County Council County Council County Council 9-15 John Ray Joe Reynolds John Santangelo County Council County Council County Council AI Smith Curtis Tyler Dominic Yagong County Council County Council County Council Roy Honda Yoshi Wantanabe Safety Coordinator County Farm Bureau -Kona County Farm Bureau County Of Hawaii Steve Todd Leonard Lover Hawaiian Rehab Services DEBED&T Dept. Am. Legion State Commander Dept. Of Defense Herman M. Aizawa, Ph.D. Horace Hara Headquarters Dept. Of Education Dept, Of Education General Lyman Field Rex Johnson Donna Kiyosaki Tom Pack Dept. Of Transportation Dept. Of Public Works Dept. Of Public Works Buddy Soares Virginia Goldstein Disabled American Veterans - Destination Hilo Director, Planning Hilo Department Hilo Chapter No. 6 Alfredo Tobias Gary Kam Disabled American Veterans Disabled American Veterans - District Conservationist Kona Joseph Pontanilla Manabu Tagomori Keith Ahue District 50 Lions International Div. Of Water & Land DLNR Development Glenn Taguchi Charles Wakida Charles K. Supe DLNR Div. Of Land DLNR Div. Of Forestry & DLNR State Parks Division Management Wildlife DLNR-Cons & Resource Roger C. Evans Cathy Tilton DLNR-Conservation & DLNR-Conservation & Envirn. Affairs Envirn. Affairs Michael Buck Ronald L. Walker Donald Hibbard DLNR-Forestry & Wildlife DLNR-Forestry & Wildlife DLNR-Historic Preservation Div. Tamura Stan Rick Scudder Sally Wehrsig DOT/Highways E Mau Na Ala Hele Easter Seal Society 9-16 George Ruffner Elks Club 4759 Patricia Tummons EcoPlan Associates Environment Hawaii Fred Boroff Family Crisis Center Michael A. Cok Exchange Clubs -HI Dist. Federal Highway Administration Abe Wong Tony Silveri Wm Bird Federal Highway Fern Acres Community Assn. FHWA Administration Dave Gedeon Pat Phung James Roller FHWA FHWA FHWA-CFLHD Commanding Officer John Ownwa Duane Kanuha Fleet Marine Force, Pacific Fleet Reserve Association -Br. Friends Of Makalawena Force Engineer Office 122 Dennis Miyashiro Alberta Dobbe Benjamin Cayetano General Insur. Assn. Of Girl Scout Council Of The Governor, State Of Hawaii Hawaii Pacific Jack C. Davis Greenpeace Anita Norris Greater Kona Com. Council H -BOR Maurice Kaneshiro Edward Miyahiro Reginald David Hamakua Lions Club Hawaii Army National Guard Hawaii Audubon Society Clyde Beaudet Harry Kim Hawaii Conference Hawaii Bowhunters Assn. Hawaii Civil Defense Agency Foundation Hugh Y. Ono Kenneth Y.K Au Tetsuo Harano Hawaii Dept. Of Hawaii DOT -Highways Hawaii DOT -Highways Transportation Division Division Hawaii Filipino Assn. Steve Querobin C. A. Baber Hawaii Fire Fighters Assn. Hawaii Herb Society Hawaii Hunting Tours Hawaii Island Palm Society Hawaii Macadamia Nut Assn. Hawaii Patient Enrichment, William R. Halliday Armed Services Commander Inc. Hawaii Speleological Survey Hawaii State Senate Librarian Gordon Pang Gareth Sakakida Hawaii State Main Library Hawaii Tribune Hearld, Inc. Hawaii Transportation Assn. Eugene Tao Kenneth L. Johnston James Martin Hawaii Tribune -Herald Hawaii Visitor's Bureau Hawaii Volcanos Nat'l Park 9-17 Fish & Wildlife Service Don Chapin Elaine Flores Hawaii Volcanos Nat'l Park Hawaiian Ocean View Estates Hawaiian Civic Club of Waimea Michael Foster Rose Fujimori Jean Hamilton Hawaiian Honey Products Hawaiian Civic Club Of Kona Hawaiian Rehab Services Margaret Hoshida Reynolds Kamakawiwoole David Love Hawaiian Civic Club Of Hawaiian Civic Club Of Hawaiian Acres Community Kohala Hamakua Assn. Alan Okinaka Helen Tayamen Walter K. Victor, Jr. Hawaiian Telephone Hawaiian Civic Club of Ka'u Hawaiian Civic Club Of Company Laupahoehoe Larry Ward Warren Lee Clyde Nagata Hawaiian Shores Comm. HELCO HELCO Assn. Bill Stormont Gary Yoshiyama Linda Huffman HELCO HGEA HI Ag Commodities Serv. Daniel Harta Grayson Inouye Peter Tadaki HI Anthurium Industry HI Anthurium PPC HI Assn. Of Public Accountants HI Avacado Growers Assn. Manuel Oliveira Carl Bredhoff HI Bldg. Trades/AFL-CIO HI Cattlemens Assn. Brian Ito Michelle Wong -Wilson Thomas L. Yeh HI County Dental Society HI County Native Hawaiian HI County Bar Assn. C Of C Malcolm Saxby HI Filipino Assn. Raymond Suefuji HI Export Nursery Assn. HI Florist's & Shipper's Assn. Warren Sako Charlene Goo HI Island Japenese Comm. HI Ginger Cmdty. Gp. HI Hotel Assn. Assn. HI Island Palm Society HI Island Japanese Cty. Assn. Dodge Baker HI Island Shrine Club Robert Bethea Byron Fujimoto Pat Gorman HI Island Economic Dev. HI Island Contractors Assn, HI Island Humane Society Board PSE" Paula Helfrich Waikii Ranch Paul Mann HI Island Economic Dev. Augustine Realty HI Island Restaurant Assn. Board Fred Nonaka Walt Southward Ken Stephenson HI Island Landscape Contr. HI Island Contractor's Assn. HI Island Retired Teachers Assn. Robert Williams Valisa Saunders Greg Braun HI Island Board Of Realtors HI Nurses Assn. HI Orchid Proration Council Melvin Miranda Tom Menezes HI Tropical Flower Cncl. HI Rodeo Assn. HI State Guava Assn. Linda Huffman Byron Fijimoto Robert Tully HI Tropical Fruit Growers HICA Assn. Lam Kahawai'i Nancy Williams Hilo 4-H Federation HICC HICC Debbie Dryman Richard Santos Pat Gorman Hilo Arthritis Club Hilo Assn. Of Retarded Hilo Bay Rotary Club Citizens Gwendolyn Nicholas Michael Moore Frank Lafita Hilo Chapter PSI Hilo Community Players Hilo Country Club Estates Patricia Helfrich Hilo Extension Homemakers Hilo Hospital Auxillary Hilo Day Activities Center Council George Yamamoto Tom Okuyama Wayne Takasaki Hilo Interpreters Club Hilo Japanese Community Hilo Jaycees Assn. Glenn Hirata Russell Kokubun Sheldon Takasaki Hilo Lions Club Hilo Orchid Society Librarian Buddy Gordon Harry Shigeura Hilo Public Library Hilo Rotary Club Hilo Shopping Ctr. Merchants Louis Ahuna III Hilo Womens Club Hilo Y's Mens Club HIPAL Peter L'Orange Julia Kaupu Ho'opuloa Hawaiian Civic Club 9-19 Donald Medeiros Honokaa Business Assn. Rod Thompson Honolulu Star Bulletin Shigeru Kansako HPD-HIPAL HTDC Honomu Cane Planters Assn. Reynold Miyashiro Haruko Yoshina Fred Galdones Hui Okinawa Ikenobo Ikebana Soc. ILWU, Hawaii Division, Local 142 Commander AI Gima Claudia Hatalyama IX Corps (Reinf) Japanese Chamber Of Junior Achievement Of Commerce Hawaii Maile Kjargaard Charles Young Linder Lyerly Ka to Productions Ka Lu Hui/MacFarms Ka Ohana O Ka Lae Randy Cabral Dr. Robert Abel Ron Kodani Ka'u Agribusiness Ka'u Lions Club Kaiko'o Mall/SureSave Lillian Maguire Jeff Citrus William K. Kaawaloa Kailua-Kona Lions Club Kainaliu Bus./Prof. Assn. Kalapana Community Assn. William A. Ferreira Jeffery Melrose Russell Onodera Kalopa Community Org. Kamehameha Schools/Bishop Kamuela Vacuum Cooling Estate Coop. Kamuela-Kohala 4-H Margaret Colburn Jcjo Tanimoto Federation Kanoelehua Industrial Area Kawaihea Hawn. Homes/Cty. Sig Zane Ray Kawamata Noelani Whittington Kawamata Farms KCRA James Correa John Nugent Vonnie Lyons Keaau Police Station Keauhou Kona Yacht Club Keauhou Visitors Assn. Herlen Kaslauli Wayne DeLuz Marvin Gaines Keaukaha-Panaewa Cty. KIAA Kilauea Lodge #330 -Masons Assn. Mel Kaneshiro Carl Simons Peter Young Kiwanis Club E. Hawaii K Michael Gomes William F. Mielcke Kohala Estates Comm. Assn. Kohala Community Assn. Kohala Coast Resort Assn. 9-20 James Jordan Santos Carvallho Kona 4-H Federation Kohala Lions Club Kohala Puerto Rican Social Club Modesto Daranciang Kona Board Of Realtors Kona Bonsai Club Kona Bayanihan Committee Peter Hoogs Arthur Loughren Kona Conservation Group Kona Charter Skippers Assn. Kona Coast Kokua Council Brad Houser Sotero Agoot Kaoru Uyeda Kona Energy Research Kona Farmes Coop. Kona Farmer's Cooperative Institute Severo Dinson John Ragan J. Kahea Beckley Kona Filipina Community Kona Filipino Community Kona Hawn. Civic Club Assn. Assn. Hank Swan Richard Tanaka Steven Swift Kona Hiking Club Kona Japanese Civic Assn. Kona Krafts Alfred Racoma Reginald Morimoto Ronlad Okamura Kona Lions Club Kona Mauka Rotary Club Kona Mauka Trollers Nancy Collins Nan Madson Teunisse Rabin Kona Outdoor Circle Kona Outdoor Circle Kona Potters Guild Sidney Kanno Richard Hill Kona Sailing Club Kona Reg. Senior Ctr. HT&H Company Yano Memorial Hall Robert Punihaole Albert Shiotsuka Marni Herkes Kona Soil & Water Kona Transportation, Inc. Kona-Kohala Chamber Of Conservation Commerce Barry K. Taniguchi Clayton Chong Susan Irvine KTA Super Stores Kulima Jaycees League Of Women Voters Catherine Tignac Cinda Hara Jim Curley League Of Women Voters Lehua Jaycees Leilani Community Assn. Burl Yarberry Charles Epperson Jim Gannon Leleiwi Community Assn. LESEA Broadcasting Lokahi Farms Allnc. Dick Armstrong Jim Albertini Michael Cochran M.K. Sugar, Inc. Malu'Aina Ctr. For Non- Mass Transit Agency Violent Educ. 9-21 Tony Hanley Mike Boughton Ron Reilly Matson Navigation Company Maui EDB Mayor's Advisory On Bicycles Stephen Yamashiro Beverly Grogan Enid Murty Mayor, County Of Hawaii Mental Health Association Merchants Assn. Dottie Thompson Joe Serrao Jim h jckridge Meme Monarch Festival Naalehu Community Assn. Nanawale Community Assn. Napoopoo Community Assn. Harold Bogue National Park Service NARFE-Big Island Chapter #1563 James Jacoby Carl C. Christenson Bob Diego National Biological Survey Native Hawaiian Legal Corp. Native Sons & Daughters HI Commander NOAA-Mauna Loa Ocean Rec. Cncl. (TORCH) Naval Base, Pearl Harbor Observatory Director Bruce Anderson, Ph.D. U.S. Dept. Of Energy Office Of Environ. Proj. Office Of Envirn. Quality Office Of Environ. Review Control Compliance Pat Englehart Jennifer Goto Sabas Bill Kikuchi Office of Housing & Comm. Office Of Sen. Inouye Office Of Senator Inouye Dev. Jamie Kawauchi Alexis Lum Lori Lush Office Of Hawaiian Affairs Office Of Sen. Inouye Office Of Sen. Solomon Harold Masumoto Marvin Sanemistu Wayne Tanaka Office Of State Planning Office Of Senator Solomon Office Of Senator Inouye Shigeko Monden Bill Moore Donald Okahara Ohara School Of Ikebana Okahara & Assoc. Okahara & Assoc. Hugh Hurley Lin Church Commander Operating Engineers, Local Orchid Land Community Pacific Air Forces #3 Assn. Robert Makuakane Beth P. Ehu Lee Pauloski Pahala Community Club Panaewa HHL Community Paradise Park Hui Hanalike Assn. Pieper Toyama Palikapu Dedman Sachi Fukuda Parker School Pele Defense Fund PEMAH 9-22 Lorena Imoto David P. Dewenter Steven Lichter PEMAH Phoenix Farms Pig Hunters Of Hawaii LTC Lloyd Miles Patrick Caires Ann Nathaniel Pohakuloa Training Area Portuguese COC Prince Kawananakoa HCC Commander Kimra Perkin, Puako Community Assn. Kent Hindes Prince Kuhio Plaza Puna Chamber Of Commerce Ginny Aste Peter Hauanio Morris Miyose Puna Community Council Puna Hui O Hana Puna Lions Club Puppets On The Path Diane Quitiquit Radio Station K -BIG R & D Director Radio Station KKON Radio Station KWXX Radio Station KUPA Radio Station KIPA Rainforest Action Group Peter Simmons RC & D Forestry Cte./Bishop Est. Recycle Hawaii Neil Abercrombrie Patsy T. Mink Representative in Congress Representative In Congress Richard Smart Trust Ray Mizuba Rotary Int'1 Dist. 5000 Larry Boot Don Griner Edward Rapoza Royal Hawn. Estates Assn. RUST Safari Club Bow Hunters Jaime Tomas John Saplan Richard Hill Sampaguita Club School Transportation Officer HT&T Sgt. Paul Silva Jay Hanson Nelson Ho SHOPO-HI Chapter Sierra Club West Hawaii Sierra Club/Moku Loa Majorie Ziegler Christopher Langan Dan Coates Sierra Club Legal Defense Ski Guides Hawaii Fund Arnie Rabin Myron Haynes Paul Tracey So. Kona Education Assn. South Kona Aloha Lions Special Forces Assn. Chapter Club 43 Adjutant General State Dept. Of Health Hoaliku L. Drake State Dept. Of Defense State Dept. OF Hawn. Homelands 9-23 Pat McCoy Abdul Thomas Dept. Of Budget & Finance State Historic Preservation State Of Hawaii Div. Dept, Of Business & Econ. Dept. Of Commerce Dept. Of Education Dev. State Of Hawaii, Kamamalu State Of Hawaii State Of Hawaii Bldg. Office Of Hawaiian Affairs Dept. Of Human Services Dept. Of Hawaiian State Of Hawaii State Of Hawaii Homelands State Of Hawaii Dept, Of Agriculture Board Of Agriculture Robert Herkes State Of Hawaii State Of Hawaii State Representative Dwight Takamine David Tamas Andy Levin State Representative State Representative State Senator Richard Matsura Malama Soloman Hedy Hager State Senator State Senator The Environmental Center The Honolulu Advertiser Pauline Pavao John Tolmie The Salvation Army Tolmie Properties Larry Nakamoto Mac Tavares Wayne Hamaguchi Tri -County Farm Bureau Twinkle Toes Twirlers U.S. Army Pacific Command - HI Lawrence Hirai Mark Mitsunaga Russ Takara U.S. Army Pacific Command- U.S. Army Pacific Command- U.S. Army Corps Of HI HI Engineers Noel Aoki U.S. Dept, Of Agriculture Geological Survey Hawaii Volcano Nat'l Park U.S. Dept. Of Interior U.S. Dept. Of Transportation Director NEPA Affairs U.S. Environ. Protection U. S. Dept. Of Health & Agency Human Serv. Director Brooks Harper Ernest Kosaka U.S. Environ. Protection U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Agency Commander In Chief Daniel K. Akaka Daniel K.Inouye U.S. Pacific Command U.S. Senator U.S. Senator 9-24 Aruther Robert Pacific Islands Coord. Allan Chin U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service U.S. Army Engineers Pacific Ocean Division College Of Arts & Sciences Institute For Astronomy Environmental Center University Of Hawaii At Hilo University Of Hawaii At University Of Hawaii At Manua Manoa Water Resources Research Hamilton Library Sonja Juvik Cen. University Of Hawaii At University Of Hawaii University Of Ha,.a, i At Manna Social Science Division Manoa Trina Nahm Mijo Jack Konno Kazuko Takemoto University Comm. Of Women UPW-HI Div. Ura Senke Hilo Shibu Michael Cowen Tom D. Dubczak Joe Sherrard Vet. Of Foreign Wars -Post Vet. Of Foreign Wars -Post Vet. Of Foreign Wars -Post 3874 3830 3875 Melvin Tiogangco Hannah Springer Ray Glory Veterans Of The Vietnam Volcano Art Center Volcano Community Assn. War Taishi Tomono George Walker David Reese -Thomas Volcano Lions Club Vulcan Boosters Club W. Hawaii Youth Soccer Org. Jackson Bryan Waiakea Lions Club Bob Masuda Waa Waa Community Assn. Waiakea Settlement YMCA Shane Veriato Ken Melrose Waimea Art Council Waikoloa Land Company Arthur Ahana Arthur Akau Mike Luce Waimea Civitan Club Waimea Civitan Club Waimea Comm. Assn. Planning Comr Jesse L. Fishback Waimea Main Street Nancy Walden Waimea Lions Club Waimea Outdoor Circle Rita Baker Bets Lawrence William Sewake Waimea/So. Kohala Traffic Water Supply Department Safety Dorothy Williams Reed Flickinger David Jennings Welcome Wagon West Hawaii Today West Hawaii Youth Council 9-25 Curt Tyler West Hawaii Committee Peggy Ratcliff West HI Orchid Grower's Assn. Steven Araujo Wildlife Consv. Assn. Wilma Matsumura Zonta Club Of Hilo Roseline Baptiste Col. John Broderick APVG-GT Col. Dennis J. Fontana Dept. Of Public Works Col. M. Bruce Elliot U.S. Army Corps Of Engineers Dr. Richard Lee -Ching HI County Medical Soc. Lt. Col. Javan Ridge HQ, PTA, USASCH Mr. & Mrs. Spike Werner Audiologist Sgt. Paul Silva SHOPO-Hawaii Chapter Kenneth Saito Mr. & Mrs. Keita Knell Neal Okuda Kats Yamada Steve Hunt Dominic Uyetake David Murasan Dexter Egdamin Joey Mello Bill Miller R.B. Rhodes Masa Takaki Hideo Gushiken Harold & Emma Bogue Wayne Hagar Gertrude Bolton Margaret Carmichael Donald & Elanie Carncross William & Dorothy Carse Louise Chevallier Hong Chow Chock Edwina Copeland William Dart Matsue Desaki Matilda Fontes Elizabeth Frendo Ben & Fusae Fujisue Hazel Gaines Rosaline Gajeton Alfred F. Gonsalves Isami Hashimoto Elizabeth Hauanio Ruth Ho'okano Yoneko Imamura Edward L.H. Kanahele Rose Kim Margaret Lau Betty -Lou Leslie Jesse & Annetta Malandra Sadie Manus Alice Martins Hazel Masaoka Rose Masutani Belmyra Medeiros Edward & Irene Minor Helen Namohala Masako Mishekawa Constance Riddle Daisy Smith Rosalene Victorine Marlin Spike Verner Chieko Will Mildred Winans Bill Cook Bill Cooper Eliahu Ely Pessah Charles Pettersen 9-26 Steve Bowles Joy Jemmott Jane Fishback Chuck Clarke Capt. John Vares Shirley Wilson Waimea Police Allen Woodell Dee Dickson Fred Chaffee WM Keck Observatory Mindy Dant Charlene Goo Margo Taketa Fair Wind, Inc. Keauhou Beach Hotel Keauhou Shopping Center Ted Harding Nathan Lam Cheryl Tsutsumi Kanaloa At Kona Kona Surf Resort John P. Thomas Ann Petersen PATH 9-27 9.4.1 CHRONOLOGICAL COMMENTS, CORRESPONDENCE, AND NOTICES - 1994 Federal H(ghway Administration Central Federal Lands 555 Zang Street Hignway Division PO. Box 25246 Cenver. Colorado 802250246 April 19, 1994 INTERESTED AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND CITIZENS: The Federal Highway Administration, Central Federal Lands Highway Division, and the US Army, along with the Hawaii Department of Transportation and the County of Hawaii will hold three public scoping meetings for the proposed improvements of Hawaii State Route 200, Saddle Road. The three public scoping meetings will be held in Hilo, Kailua-Kona, and Waimea on the island of Hawaii. The first meeting will be held on Tuesday, May 10, 1994 in Hilo. Open house will begin at 6 p.m. followed by the meeting at 7 p.m. in the Hawaii Council Room located at 25 Aupuni Street. The second meeting will be held on Wednesday, May 11, 1994 in Kailua- Kona. Open house will begin at 6 p.m. followed by the meeting at 7 p.m. at the Kona Beach Hotel, 75-5660 Palani Road. The third meeting will be held on Thursday, May 12, 1994 in Waimea. Open house will begin at 6 p.m. followed by the meeting at 7 p.m. in the Kahilu Town Hall located in the Parker Ranch Shopping Center. The purpose of public scoping meetings is to help identify issues and concerns of the public. These meetings are an opportunity for the public to voice their opinions, concerns, comments, and ideas regarding the proposed improvements. If you have questions or comments, but will be unable to attend one of the three public scoping meetings, you may send them to the address below or you may contact the Federal Highway Administration directly by calling Mr. Bill Bird at (303) 969-5909 or FAX (303) 969-6499. 877%511041994.184 FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION d/o Okahara & Associates, Attn: Mr. Bill Moore 200 Kohola Street, Hilo, HI 96720 9-28 ti `� ENVIRONMENT & INFRASTRUCTURE April 19, 1994 Keith Alme, Chairperson Department of Land and. Natural Resources P.O. Box 621 Honolulu, Hawaii 96809 Dear Mr. Ahue: `11 rt -111virvv f Nht bL Rust F,"mak At lafi cane 1� 5363 Nord 16,h Sues. Sun foo Pha AZ 95016 Td (60 2) -M)541 • FAX 02) 2MI33f ZJti' z s 1994 aKAHARA 3 ASSOC, ING HILO OFFICa The Federal Highway Administration has resumed its project development efforts on Hawaii Defense Access Road A -AD -6(1), Saddle Road. To expedite the project development process, FHWA has elected to utilize one of the architect & engineering firms it presently has under contract. RUST Environment & Infrastructure has been selected for this purpose. RUST's subconsultant on the island of Hawaii is Okahara & Associates with offices in Hilo and Kailua-Kona. Okahara & Associates is an established and well qualified Big Island firm and brings to the project development team considerable local knowledge and expertise on environmental, engineering, political and social issues and concerns. Since the last interagency scoping meeting, held on February 11, 1992, the Military Traffic Management. Command (MTMC) in Washington, D.C., has endorsed the recommendation of the US Army Support Command, Hawaii (USASCH) to relocate Saddle Road along the northern boundary of the Pohakuloa Training Area (PTA). The proposed new alignment would move the road to the north of the PTA administration area and the Bradshaw airfield, thus serving both the PTA and the public to a far better degree by routing traffic out of the primary military maneuver area. The proposed realignment adds considerable complexity to the design and construction efforts for the project. It has also been determined that a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will have to be prepared, covering almost the entire length of Saddle Road, to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act and the Council of Environmental Quality regulations. As a result, the scope of the project has increased significantly. Additional Defense Access Road (DAR) funds have now been programmed to prepare the EIS for the entire route and develop the construction plans for the work within the PTA. COPY 9.29 omrwINAL FUD Qun[iry drotrX4 reamwark'L ) Saddle Road Project April 19, 1994 Page Two, The FHWA, as lead agency, in cooperation with the State and County of Hawaii and the Department of the Army, is resuming project development work for the DAR funded portion of the improvement, which includes environmental clearance for the entire route and final design for the portion within the PTA. The environmental evaluation work begins at approximately Milepost 5 outside of Hilo (the junction of the proposed Puaivako Street Extension project with the Saddle Road) ana ends at the Saddle Road intersection with State Highway 190, MameI-hoa Highway. At present, the proposed construction would encompass only the work within the approximate limits of the PTA. In view of the expanded scope of this project, the Federal Highway Administration, Central Federal Lands Highway Division, will hold an interagency scoping meeting to discuss your agency's needs and concerns as well as the needs and concerns of other agencies. The meeting will be held on Tuesday. May 10, 1994, beginning at 2:30 p.m. in the conference room at the Hilo Yacht Club, 77 Laehala, in Hilo. We ask that you or your representative attend this meeting. The purpose of this meeting is twofold: 1) to give you information about the proposal —what has been done to date, what is being proposed, projected time frames and schedules; and 2) to receive from you information about procedures the project development team will need to follow to comply with your agency's requirements. A copy of the agenda is enclosed for your reference. Mr. William R. Bird, Environmental Planning Engineer, in FHWA's Central Federal Lands Highway Division will chair the meeting. We look forward to meeting with you on May 10. Should you have any questions, Mr. Bird can be contacted by telephone at (303) 969-5909 or you may call Mr. Bill Moore, Okahara & Associates, in Hilo at (808) 961-5527. Sincerely, R T Environment & Infrastructure es D. Anderson, P.E., R.L.S. Manager of Special Projects BLK/7DA:sjm Enclosures cc: I.L. Budwig, FHWA, CFLHD, Attn: Bill Bird (HPD -16) Denver, CO Bill Moore, Okahara & Associates, Hite, HI 8T75nD4I9%A. 184 9-30 Saddle Road Project April 19, 1994 Page Three V.0 I J I V IOL The same letter sett to the following agencies: Keith Ahue, Chairperson Department of Land and Natural Resources P.O. Box 621 Honolulu, Hawaii 96809 Charles Wakika, District Manager DLNR Division of Forestry and Wildlife P.O. Box 4849 Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Charles K. Supe, State Parks Superintendent DLNR State Parks Division Hawaii Parks Section State Office Building 75 Aupuni Street Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Rex Johnson. Director Department of Transportation 869 Punchbowl Street Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 Hugh Ono, District Engineer Department of Transportation Hawaii District -Highway Division 50 Makaala Street Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Victor Vierra, Chief Hawaii County Police Department 349 Kapiolani Street Hilo, Hawaii 96720 wun rLi-NYI INU 9-31 NAGE 04 Pat McCoy Hawaii Archaeological Section State Historic Preservation Division P.O. Box 621 Honolulu, Hawaii 96809 Glenn Taguchi, District Land Agent DLNR Division of Land Management Hawaii Land Management District Office State Office Building 75 Aupuni Street Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Hoaliku L. Drake, Chairman State Department of Hawaiian Home Lands Old Federal Building 335 Merchant Street Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 Kenneth Y.K. An, P.E. Advance Planning Engineer Planning Stanch, Highways Division State Department of Transportation 600 Kapiolani Blvd., Room 301 Honolulu. Hawaii 96813 Donna K. Kiyosal i, Chief Engineer County of Hawaii Department of Public Works 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Virginia Goldstein, Director Planting Department County of Hawaii 25 Apuni Street Hilo, Hawaii 96720 �������•�� wan rLANNLYh PAGE 05 Saddle Road Project April 19, 1994 Page Four Brooks Harper. Deputy Field Supervisor US Fish and Wildlife Service 3 Waterfront Placa 500 Ala Moana Blvd., Suite 580 Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 Alan Chin. Chief US Army Engineering Division Pacific Ocean ATTN: CEPOD-ED-E Alan Chin Fort Shafter, Hawaii 96858-5440 Col. Gerald F. King, Commander ATTN: APZV-CO United States Army Support Command, Hawaii Ft. Shafter, Hawaii 96858-5000 Jeffrey R. Brooks Office of Program Development Federal -Highway Administration 211 Main Street, Room 1100 San Francisco, CA 94105 9-32 James Jacoby, Station Manager National Biological Survey Hawaii Field Research Station P.O. Boz" Hawaii Volcanoes National Park, Hawaii 96718 Wayne Hamaguchi, Chief Planning Branch ATTN: APEN-CP US Army Pacific Command, Hawaii Ft. Shaffer. Hawaii 96858-5100 Michael A. Cook Division Administrator (HDA -HI) Federal Highway Administration P.O. Boz 50206 Honolulu, Hawaii 96850 Robert A. McLaren, Associate Director Institute for Astronomy 2680 Woodlawn Drive Honolulu, Hawaii 96822 by/iU/i JJb Ib:.:`J 60E9340162 WLM PLANNING Hawaii DAR A -AD -6(1), Saddle Road INTERAGENCY SCOPING MEETING May 10, 1994 AGENDA I. Introductions A. People present B. Federal Highway Administration/Consultanrs II. Background A. Description of project B. Original/expanded scope C. Roles and responsibilities for project development D. Summary of activities to date M. Purpose of this Meeting A. Update on recent developments B. Direction of future work C. Interagency coordination D. Agency concerns/requirements W. Discussion Topics A. Realignment through PTA B. Scope of pmjeet/project termini C. Other potential alternates D_ Issues to be addressed E_ Projected schedule F. Agency concerns G_ Other topics V. Close out PAGE 06 9-33 rr"Sigmay9.10. iii �, U.S. Deoorrrnenr of Tronscorranon Fodarml Highway Administrc lon Centrai Federal Lancs 555 Zang Street Mignway Division PO. Box 25246 Denver Coloraco 80225-0246 INTERESTED AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND CITIZENS: March 21, 1994 In Reply Refer To: HPD -16 The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), in cooperation with the State of Hawaii, the County of Hawaii, and the U.S. Department of the Army, will prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) for the proposed improvement of a portion of Hawaii State Highway (SH) 200, Saddle Road. The portion to be covered by the EIS begins in Hilo, Hawaii, at approximately milepost 5 at the intersection with the proposed Puainako Street extension and proceeds westward approximately 48 miles to the junction with Hawaii SH 190, Mamalahoa Highway. The proposed improvement will be a two-lane paved roadway with paved shoulders. The purpose of this proposal is to provide a safe, functional road by improving roadway geometrics and eliminating existing safety hazards, including conflicts between the traveling public and military training operations in the Pohakuloa Training Area (PTA). The Military Traffic Manage- ment Command has authorized Defense Access Road funds to prepare an EIS for the 48 miles of Saddle Road, described above, to include such preliminary design work as may be necessary to complete the EIS and for engineering design work for the 13 -mile section within the PTA. Alternatives under consideration include: (1) the "no build" alternative; (2) improve the existing facility to American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials design criteria; and (3) improve the existing road, as in (2) above, with a northward realignment around the PTA. Other alternatives, including additional realignments that are developed during the scoping process, will also be evaluated. This notice is being sent to appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies and to private organizations and citizens who have expressed interest in this proposal. Interagency meetings, public scoping meetings, and public hearings will be held in the project vicinity and at other appropriate places. Infor- mation on the time and place of public scoping meetings and public hearings will be provided in the local news media. The draft EIS will be made available for public and agency review and comment prior to the hearings. To ensure the full range of issues are addressed and all significant issues are identified, comments and suggestions are invited from all interested parties. Your comments and questions concerning the proposed action should be directed to the FHWA at the above address, Attention: HPD -16. Environment. Sincerely yours, 4'erry L. Budwig, P.E Division Engineer 9-34 UMUNONO POINT JPolU Po1NT Uwlu Arrppnh vr�NA(Nfll PCIN. IUENa POINT/� Ha ula<Keea. tell r.n Kewa Ba«n Pere Menu°an° = Ba«n Peh e [areUnaewar« PSre. _ Puu apaK.an. srere Xiexorrul Pan �'xral Ra O = 9 � � o 91 sarl M S, Beaty I sel � N6°AWM Anaaaewn ` Ktpala ad wa i MANp mIM/KiAnLu atua y cu. _ h -I _ ` Kohala Koheb�%' WerPlo Rare. Fpresxell /— Ki oma -s Reserve Flar Katal Hawaiian Oahu Islands 6 - Molokai kLxiheele - _Maui •llxwi HOS La qua auh.0 flal� ••,NeuY Kamuelal ipl�' n„�.• ay.e....e.e .P%'',kauu ° Kung. a rpr ”" ( o`er Ookals N .Free Reserve I �4 ea-onnau ~ IuPahwhw Mano.-weuiw 1 is paroape Forest aeeUr Vlrt roel e , „ wy �W.lalose '\ 'uNinai Vilb9a yi HILO -/ C Hot Mauna Kee r Hope wmeuepe �� ., a 1/1"Vie".. e° FORE AMAUNA KEA Mil Kee Pare3til.q n es I ( Nature. A'" Reaerve �� RESERVE Puw Kulconsort Kalao 01 KaupulMu ?cretin 'UAIA .froreat L.m..a:aL " Nan ohw XonuaM Rsurvs IPa JctI porn vee..aw.. 'm R.eerua sre rn..� a wor„n1 se” Kailua- a p , R ° wrr �- Holualoa K1111 IUU r Kaneluu �.� Kaauhaui Raserue Hostile O VENUE POINT: Z Kaptain ti � Captain KEAwEKANEM m.N pok o ie \ Napeopoo.(`1 Honwnau PAIEMANO PlI \6 Mons n Forest Puunonuao Howunal Kaok. Navoral H ea l P.. l D Rial . rlxrMy�P- Kuria auLU Fall Sol 1 Kana Jha u/ Forex Kil^N.r'>'wP) RitRituala IMI. Pref` ReaaN Mlldd sul PaNr 3 NANAMALO m/NIC KaWt Jha u/ 4 • Manua Trmnmg • as arae > surM ReaaN "No, Pal / Are. For et°a HIVs FOfe,t KOOKcol-s A allSeNa Panes KAUNA /OINT Pohakuloa Wo Military ,uUnuwNULUI s or. ]00 Vmil kT PUU KOU 9 1 Trmnmg • as _Upper Wel as > surM - Mauna Loa — AA °m.. F, Are. For et°a FOfe,t KOOKcol-s A allSeNa rl 2 QHC 1 1M1a w +> svMD.`• unreel PAUMA POINT o "`a gs.eoNe dM1 or' NORTHEAST '`POu uuuu Kdau.. . $i 'W. A _ POaaLEIA ,cONE_ HAWAII.._ - reYVµyHawaii, ce sl ro VBlonoea ,MAUNA LOA, ase•mNa[ionah Peh.aleap NvoKuAHosoll �.` . VOLCANOES •.a. ,U - -_ Kapapala µ Vo1oaT ^Or _ rarest Reserve ,s ULPYUV co NEy� d NATIONAL,A ',j_a •; _ -'cu �I rY'`G.64,e'•a Pt 3°' ie _PARK__ .. <_-"�-.�-nW odOn od 0 - x Vmil kT AL/KA ,CONE Neu .r�Ch Ary5,0 NEONEO — AA °m.. F, rl y Kau Forest unreel PAUMA POINT o n view Reaerve '�pr IPum Hal lPan M1\0 Wn,9rOn nrn0.«n Pary Kill Naalehu wnaae . Ra m PA PACIFIC III Hawail ,a lu as - IalaneatPeak _ - ephoLA men - OCEAN a: epealrae lnomaa Papaikou _ -- Hip Ray . LELFmf _ l �rruy POINT nee Klra«t tr\, c....uvm.n H.Im - �^ F. Henna .o 11, are laeu -NALou Pool Olul �. - MOKUOANI P( Lei, I' MINT �' � Ruane'• Wao Kele o Puna K Natural Area R9earl Pf :j.1a.� e "P OCEAN Hawaii I ne i5ig Island �I Ke lee Part's �I .r" s KA LAE [SOUTH PoNTI R.0 rohucea ny c esy pl GTE New 'eu GSE Uxraemri Hawaii State Highway ZOO , Saddle Road 9-35 14M t.ssoa.a rLe er t Yv. T, rvrr. 61 1 Wednesday, Match 30. 1494 1 NaLict3s Descrpuon aRelief Sought Disposition: To extend Exemption No. 5421 to continue to conduct extemai- load opersuons (i.a.. olfshom oil drilling operauonsi in the United States using a Canadian -registered Aerospatial AS - 332L Puma heiicootsr. GR{MT- Worch 22, ,994. Exem Peon .Vo. 5421A. IFR Doc 94-7449 Filed 3-29-94: 8.45 ami WLi G Coos .n(1i-csr Federal Highway Administration Environmental Impact Statement: Greene County, MO AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). DOT. ACTION: Notice of intent. SUMMARY: The FHWA is issuing this notice to advise the public that an environmental impact statement will be prepared for a proposed project m Greene County. Missouri. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: %ir. Donald Neumann. Federai Highway Administranon. P.O. Box 1787. fefferson Cay. MO 65102. Telephone Number ;:4-536-7104: or Mr. Bob Sfreddo. Design Engineer, Missouri Highway ane Transportation Deoanment. P.O. Box .70. Jeff urson City. MO 65102, Telephone Numoer 314-751-2876. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: the FHWA. in cooperation with the .`.lissoun Highwav ana Transportation Denanment IMHTD). will prepare an environmental imoact statement IEISI on a proposal to upgrade Missouri Route 160 to a auai-lane tacility from Route 60 to the fames River Fmewav to Greene County. Missouri. An MH -I'D reconnaissance report determined trat lite ungrade of Route 160 would accomoiish several goals: ll) Provide a system link between Route 60 and the James River Freeway. (2) improve saiety and capacity for througa-tratfrc, and (3) promote economic development and planned growth in the city of Sprinefield and Greene County. I. The proposed highway project runs approx=atety 2.2 miles between Route 60 and the lames River Freewav in Greene Countv. The proposed faelav would provide a four -lane. limited - access roadway with at -erode intersections or intertnanges at major arterial crossroads. '. Altemao.ves under consideration Include "build 'alternatives and a no build" aitemative. as weil as mass transit ana transportation system m'anaeement oiatons. . To date. oreitmruary information :`.as rnxn issued to local officials aria other interested parties. The scoping orocess will be initiated with Federal. State. and local agencies as the study progresses. Further public hearings will be held. To ensure that the full range of issues related to this proposed axion are addressed and all significant issues are identified. comments and suggestions are invited from all interested parties. Any comments or questions concerning this proposed acuon and the EIS should be directed to the FHWA or the Missouri Highway and Transportation DeDamne at at the addresses provided above. Issued on: Marian 8, 1994. Donald Neumann. Program hevww Engineer, Jefferson Gtv. IFR Doc 94-7412 Filed 3-29-94: 8:45 aml BILLING CODE N1a..ia..Y Environmental Impact Statement Hawaii County, W AGENCY: Federal Highwav Administration (FHWA). DOT. ACTION: Notice of intent. SUMMARY: The FHWA is issuing this notice to advise the public that an environmental immct statement (EISi .viii be prepared for a proposed highwav prosect in Hawaii Couniv. Hawaii. This notice rescmas and moiaces the FHWA notice of intent published on December Z. 1991. which addressea a 14.5 -mile portion of the currently proposed prosect. FOR FURTHER MFORMATION CONTACT: W.R. Bird. Environmental Planning Engineer. Federal Highway Administration. P.O. Box 25246. Denver. Colorado 80225-0246. telephone 303-964-5909. SUPPLEMENTARY MFORMATION: The FHWA. in c000erauon with the state of Hawaii. the county of Hawaii, and the U.S. Department of the Armv. will prepare an EIS for a portion of Hawaii State Highwav ISH) 200. Saddle Road. The portion of Saddle Road covered by ,his notice of intent begins in Hilo, Hawaii. at approximately milepost 5 (the intersection with the proposed Poainako Street extension) and proceeds approximately 48 miles westward to the iunction with Hawaii SH 190. the Mimalahoa Highway. The proposed improvement will be a two-lane paved roaawav with paved shouiaers. The purpose of this proposal is to provide a ,afe and functional road by eliminating existing safery hazards, including connicts between the traveling public ❑nd mt loary traming operations. The %filitary Traffic Management Command -as autnorized Defe a Access Road 9-36 funds to prepare an EIS for the enure length of Saddle Road (itlriuding such preaminary design work as may be necessary for completing the ELS) and for engmeeruig design work for the 14.5 - mile section within the Pohakuloa Training Area (PTA). Alternatives being evaluated include: (1) The "no build. - (2) the improvement of the existing facility to approved Hawaii State Department of Transportation design criteria, and (3) improvement of the existing road. as in (Z) above, with a northward realignment at the PTA. Other alternatives, including additional realignments that are developed during the scoping process, will also be evaluated. Notices describing the proposed anion and soliciting comments will be sent to appropriate Federal. State. and local agencies and to private organizations and citizens who have expressed interest in this proposal. Inieraeency meetings, public scoping meetings, and public hearings will be held in the project area and in other appropriate areas. Information on the time and place of public scoping meetings and public hearings will be proviaed in the local news media. The draft EIS will be available for public and aeencv review and comment prior to the hearings. To ensure that the full range of issues related to the or000sed action ate addressed and all significant issues are identified, comments and suggesnons are invited from all interested parties. Comments and questions concerning tlae proposed acuon should be directed to the address provided above. (Catalog, of Federal Domestic Assrstance Program Numoer 20.205. HiRnwav Research, Planning and Construction. The regulations Implementing Executive Order 12372 regaramg intergovernmental consultatian on Federal programs and activities apply to this program.) Issued on: !Match 21. 1994. lames W. Keeie . ,Acting Division Engineer, FHWA, Denver CO. IFR Dec. 94-7401 Filed 3-29-94; 8:45 ami 81LL G aaaE 401 Maritime Administration (Docket A-1841 Keystone Shipping Co- et al. v. United States of America, Civil Action No. 90- 2762 The Maritime Administration IMARADI is providing an opportunity I ot submission of comments by all nterested parties concerning the rrmand by the District Court for the District of COinmala on September 2, University of Hawaii at Manoa Institute for Astronomy 2680 Woodlawn Drive • Honolulu. Hawaii 96822 Teiex: 723-8459 • UHAST HR Office of the Director 11 N April 14, 1994 Federal Highway Administration Attn: HPD -16, Environment P. O. Box 25246 Denver, CO 80225-0246 Dear Sir or Madam: We have received your EIS Notice of Preparation for the subject project, dated March 21, 1994. The university of Hawaii Institute for Astronomy has management responsibility for the Mauna Kea Observatories (MKO) located at the summit of Mauna Kea. The MKO uses the Saddle Road extensively for access from both Hilo and Waimea, and therefore has a strong interest in this project. Accordingly, we request that you keep us on the mailing list for notices of scoping meetings and hearings. We would also like the opportunity to review and comment on the draft EIS when it is available. Please address all correspondence to: f:7_\STM Director J Institute for Astronomy 2680 Woodlawn Drive Honolulu, HI 96822 Yo sincerely, v Robert A. Mc wren Associate Director 9-37 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER JOHN WAIHEE GOVERNOR OFFICE OF ,HE SUFERINEENOENE STATE OF HAWAII / DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION✓✓ F 0. aOx 2160 HONOLULU. HAWAII $66pA Federal Highway Administration 555 Zang Street P.O. Box 25246 Denver, Colorado 80225-0246 Attn: HPD -16, Environment Dear Sir: HGM2IAN N. At UeA AC nq SNOen nt ena<n a,2,I April 20, 1994 SUBJECT: Proposed Improvement of a Portion of Hawaii State We respectfully request a proposed project map of the subject improvements in the Hilo area. The Department of Education (DOE) is concerned that the subject road improvements will impact on Kaumana Elementary School in Hilo. The DOE will require that mitigating measures be implemented by the developer to minimize disruptions caused by noise, dust, and traffic during the construction period. If noise and dust levels exceed Department of Health standards, we will require the developer to install air-conditioning for those classrooms being impacted by this project. Should there be any questions, please call the Facilities Branch at 737-4743. Sincerely, erman Ai awa, Ph.D. cting Superintendent `LNIA: h Y cc: A. Suga A. Garson MI AN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT & TOURISM Cennvi vaeme P za. 320 Sown "I Sneer arm Floor. H9II91Wu Hawau Mama Aaarw. PO. e x 2359. H Iwu nawan 9680A tesorw+e: 180151 515b2�6 April 21, 1994 Mr. Jerry L. Budwig Division Engineer Central Federal Lands Highway Division Federal Highway Administration U.S. Department of Transportation P.O. Bos 25246 Denver, Colorado 80225-0246 Dear Mr. Budwig: far. 115081 58o-2377 a,, I, iJOHN MUFI HAW The Department of Business, Economic Development & Tourism is pleased to submit the enclosed comments on the Preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Improvement of a Portion of Hawaii State Highway 200, Saddle Road. The comments were provided by the Land Use Commission. Questions regarding these comments may be directed to Esther Ueda, LUC Executive Office, at (808) 587-3826. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Enclosure 9-39 Sincerely, Mufi IL ann RICK IC VouN - JEANNE K. De TAKESHI VO! DBWh . I GO w, R u � U�A STATE OF HAWAII DEPAKI-ALN7 OF BUSINESS. ECONOMIC DEVEIAPMENT & TOURISM LAND USE COMMISSION Room 100. Old Federal Budding 735 Memha Str Honolulu. Ha aii 9"13 Telephones 587-3822 April 20, 1994 SUBJECT: Director's Referral No. 94-125-0 Preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Proposed Improvement of a Portion of Hawaii State Highway (SH) 200, Saddle Road We have reviewed the letter dated March 21, 1994, and have the following comments to offer: EU: km 1) Based on the map provided, portions of the subject project appear to be located within the State Land Use Urban, Agricultural and Conservation Districts. 2) We suggest that the Draft EIS include a map showing the project site in relation to the State Land Use Districts. 3) We also suggest that a listing of the Tax Map Keys affected by the project be included in the Draft EIS. 4) We would also like to note that portions of the project site are proposed to be reclassified as part of the Office of State Planning's 5 -Year Boundary Review. We have attached for your information, a map showing the proposed reclassification area as provided in the 1992 State Land Use District Boundary Review prepared by the Office of State Planning. We have no other comments to offer at this time. 9-40 JOFn WAIHEE :OVER W R Oc Raw ui Mr. Bill Moore Federal Highway Administration c/o Okahara and Associates 200 Kohola Street Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Dear Mr. Moore: D �gII� MAY 19 199 ri _OKAHARA & ASSOC, INC. HILO OFFIC2 This acknowledges receipt of the notice of April 19, 1994 concerning the public scoping meetings for the proposed improvements of Hawaii State Route 200, Saddle Road. We are responding also as a result of your letters (from RUST Environment and Infrastructure Inc.) to Mr. Keith W. Ahue, Chairperson of the Department of Land and Natural Resources and Mr. Charles Wakida, Hawaii Island manager for the Division of Forestry and Wildlife. We are pleased that a full environmental impact statement is to be prepared for this proposal because we have serious concerns over the potential for damage to the natural resources of the Mauna Kea and Pohakuloa areas. A relocation of the road along the northern boundary of the Pohakuloa Training Area could have serious impacts on the native mamani-naio forest, the critical habitat of the endangered Palila, and native plants and wildife in general. We are also concerned about the potential for wildfires along this alignment as it is immediately adjacent to the Mauna Kea Forest Reserve. Please add the undersigned to your mailing list for all future notices of scoping, informational, and public meetings and copies of draft environmental documents. We are very concerned 9-41 KEITH W AHUE, CHAIRPERSON �4 MARO OF 1NO M1 NANRAL gFSWw[ES I<( DFwTIES j z II j JOHN P KEPPELER, II "\�J..�✓ CONAL HANAIKE AQUACULTURE DEVELOPMENT PRCGRAM STATE OF HAWAII AQUATIC RESOURCES BOATING AND OCEAN DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES RECREATION CONSERVATION AND DIVISION OF FORESTRY AND WILDLIFE ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS 1151 PUNCHBOWL STREET CONSERVATION AND NONC4LUEU, HAWAII 96813 RESOURCES ENFORCEMENT CONVEYANCES FORESTRY AND WILDLIFE HISTORIC PRESERVATION May 3, 1993 PROGRAM LAND MANAGEMENT STATE PARKS WATER AND LAND DEVELOPMENT Mr. Bill Moore Federal Highway Administration c/o Okahara and Associates 200 Kohola Street Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Dear Mr. Moore: D �gII� MAY 19 199 ri _OKAHARA & ASSOC, INC. HILO OFFIC2 This acknowledges receipt of the notice of April 19, 1994 concerning the public scoping meetings for the proposed improvements of Hawaii State Route 200, Saddle Road. We are responding also as a result of your letters (from RUST Environment and Infrastructure Inc.) to Mr. Keith W. Ahue, Chairperson of the Department of Land and Natural Resources and Mr. Charles Wakida, Hawaii Island manager for the Division of Forestry and Wildlife. We are pleased that a full environmental impact statement is to be prepared for this proposal because we have serious concerns over the potential for damage to the natural resources of the Mauna Kea and Pohakuloa areas. A relocation of the road along the northern boundary of the Pohakuloa Training Area could have serious impacts on the native mamani-naio forest, the critical habitat of the endangered Palila, and native plants and wildife in general. We are also concerned about the potential for wildfires along this alignment as it is immediately adjacent to the Mauna Kea Forest Reserve. Please add the undersigned to your mailing list for all future notices of scoping, informational, and public meetings and copies of draft environmental documents. We are very concerned 9-41 Mr. Bill Moore Page 2 May 3, 1994 about this project and want to participate fully in the study and decision making process. cc: Charles Wakida Keith W. Ahue, Chairperson 9-42 Sincerel , MICHAEL G. BUCK Administrator rt..mr�utntnr. ER -94/0304 • c. Dear Mr. Bird United States Department of the Interior NATIONAL PARK SERVICE western Rcgian 600 Harrison S=r. Suite 600 Saa Francisco, California 94107-1372 This letter is in response to a Notice of Intent to Prepare an Eavironmental Impact Statement for SH -200, Saddle Road Improvements, Ballo to SH -190, Hawaii County, Hawaii. We have the following comments about the proposed project. GENERAL COADdENTS The notice identifies only one possible project route: the eusting road. The road passes through a dry high elevation environment. ♦ : Il9t - A 430611),1141 `l An adequate species inventory has not been prepared for the area -covered by the proposed project. Since dry elevations are rare in Hawaii, we recommend that one be prepared before further action is takrn on this project. CULTURAL RESOURCES Cultural resources may exist in the area of the proposed project. We know that ancient Hawaiians used upland areas. A 1990 survey by the National Park Service of Saddle Road from Nfilepost 29.5 to Nf lepost 44 identified resources from the Mauna Kea Adze Quarry, a National Historic Landmark. The 1990 survey raises the possibility that cultural resources also exisr on the part of the road, covered by the pL=ed projerL No archaeological survey has been made of the area. We recommend that a survey at the same level of co^:erge and intensity as the 1990 survey be pre^rared before further action is taken on the project. 9-43 /. 5 i l -I U 0 3 2 ADDMONAL CONE"I VTS A high speed road through the Pohaivloa Training Ara may not be feasible. Therefore, we recommend that the environmental impact statement identify all alternative corridors for realigning or relocating Saddle Road, including cutoffs and potential staging areas. For further information about natural resource issues please contact Dan Taylor, Hawaii Votranaes National Paric, (808) 967-8226. You may contact Holly Dunbar at the National Park Service Western Regional Office, (415) 744-3916, about cultural resource concerns. Your contact in this office is Chris Gentry. He can be reached at (415) 744-3968. Sincerely, Ge Margaret Pepin -Donal cc: Dan Taylor, HAVO Holly Dunbar, WRO DOI, Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance, 1849 C. Street NW, Wash DC 20240 WASO 774 Pat Port, Environmental Affairs 9-44 JOHN WAHWE GOVl.KNOII �l'A TE OF I IA W A H STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF HAWAIIAN HOME LANDS P U BOX IN79 HONOLULU. HAWAII %NIS May 6, 1994 HOALIKU 1, DRAKE CHAIRMAN IA HAWAIN HUA4J fuMM1l lti Gti♦ Mr. Bill Moore 1004 c/o Okahara & Associates C. 200 Kohola Street Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Dear Mr. Moore: Subject: Proposed Saddle Road Imorovements Thank you for inviting us to participate in the scoping meetings to help identify issues and concerns regarding the proposed improvements of Hawaii Defense Access Road A -AD -6(1), State Route 200, Saddle Road. We understand that although the proposed construction would encompass only the work within the appro::imate limits of the U.S. Army Pohakuloa Training Area (PTA), a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will have to be prepared covering almost the entire length of Saddle Road to address the impacts of cumulative future improvements. The Department of Hawaiian Home Lands (DHHL) is an interested party because approximately eight miles of the Saddle Road crosses our Hawaiian home lands (HHL) at Humuula. Past realignments and widenings of the Saddle Road have improperly taken portions of HHL. The DHHL is negotiating claims aga-nst the State to settle the matter. Should the proposed project encompass the use of additional Hawaiian home lands, prior approval will be required from the DHHL's executive board, the Hawaiian Homes Commission. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Darrell Yagodich of our Planning Office at (808) 586-3836. HLD:DY:JC:asy/3271L Warmest aloha, Ho li u Dr ake�, harman Ha oiian Hl-mes Commission 9-45 IN WBIMEE �Oq wuOa CA STATE OF HAWAII OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY CONTROL 220 SOUTH ICING STREET FOURTH FLOOR HONOLULU. HAWAII 96613 L(L[A�ON( I..I I.6_ -B5 1ACS.II1 IBO01 I.. ].SI May 9, 1994 BRUCE 5 4NOERSON ry I(au Oia(Cltla Federal Highway Administration !110 c/o Okahara & Assocsociates 200 Kohola Streett`Hilo, Hawaii 96720u f, 19 Attention: Mr. Bill Moore ,0XAHARA & ASSOC., INC. Dear Mr. Moore: HILO OFFICE Subject: Saddle Road Improvements Please be advised that in order to satisfy requirements of Hawaii Environmental Impact Laws, an Environmental Assessment and an Environmental Impact Statement Preparation Notice (EISPN) must be processed prior to submission of a draft EIS. The EISPN process allows for a 30 -day public comment period as part of the scoping process for an EIS. State and Federal EIS requirements differ in this regard, and the Federal Notice of Intent does not fulfill requirements of the state EIS Preparation Notice. If you have any questions, please call Ms Sincerely, BRUCE S. A DERSON, Ph.D. Interim Director BSA/BW:kk c: Mr. Rex D. Johnson Director of Transportation Betty Wood at 586-4185. Ms. Donna Fay Kiyosaki, Chief Engineer Public Works Department, County of Hawaii 9-46 COPY ORIGINAL FILED I. I , /I f r/. 41 Post-It" brand fax transmittal memo 1671 •.+P.a•" / jPIC t HWY-PA 2.2230 AZ - 3 1994 Mr. Michael A. Gook Division Administrator Fsddral Highway Administration 0,S. Department of Transportation Box 50206 Honolulu, Hawaii 96850 Dear Mr. Cook: \ Subject: Saddle Road Improvements We have reviewed the consultant's draft traffic study prepared for the Saddle Road Improvement project and find the forecast reasonable. Therefore, we concur in its use for project development. Thank you for the opportunity to review the report. we have enclosed a copy of our comments for your information. Sincerely, C 1.Rex D. Johnson v Director of Transportation Enclosure P g r J' r'�' S 7 Saddle Road Task Force Interagencv meeting - Summary of Issues and Concerns May 10, 1994 An inter -agency coordination meeting was held on May 10, 1994. Representatives of the following agencies attended the meeting: Federal State U. S. Department of the Army - PohakUoa Training Area U. S. Department of the Army - Hawaii Garrison U. S. Department of the Army - Department of Public Works U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Biological Survey Department of Land and Natural Resources - Land Management Division Department of Land and Natural Resources - Historic Sites Division Department of Land and Natural Resources - State Parks Division Department of Land and Natural Resources - Forestry and Wildlife Division Department of Hawaiian Home Lands Department of Transportation Hawaii County Department of Public Works Planning Department Police Department The following is a brief listing of the key issues and concerns identified by each agency: DLNR-Forestry and Wildlife o Opposed to relocation of alignment to north of PTA. Area is critical habitat for Palila, public hunting area, and important dryland forest. 0 Realignment would compromise fire -fighting ability 0 Concern with southern alignments to Mamalahoa Highway. Alignments go through undisturbed areas, public hunting areas, and native dryland forests. 9-48 O Potential alignments need to consider other factors including vandalism, remoteness of areas, impact on open space goals of the Conservation District. o Prefer not to disturb pristine areas. Consideration should be given to areas already disturbed. O PTA is part of the State's game management area. Mauna Kea used to be key hunting area. However, because of Palila, there is limited hunting. Area is primarily used for bird hunting. O Alignment north of PTA would go through public hunting areas. o Southern alignments to Mamalahoa Highway would go through a public hunting area. O The two northernmost alignments would not have any impact on public hunting as they go through private land. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service O Areas north of PTA are designated as "critical habitat" for the Palila. USF&WS must ensue that project does not adversely impact the habitat. O There is no "critical forest bird habitat" as yet. Area is considered "essential" but does not have same protection under the law. o There are 13 rare and 5 endangered plants with PTA, including 6 species with the general alignment corridors. O The southern alignments to Mamalahoa Highway have "massive potential for conflict". National Biological Survey o Can't focus only on road corridor. Need to look at potential impact on surrounding area as well. Roads act as vector to introduce new species. o Asked what were plans for lighting. May have impact on upland nesting sea- -kied, inrl iiimg the Dark R Pet -11 1114 the She�.,—rwater. _2_ 9-49 Army Corp of Engineers C Need to follow Federal process with respect to cultural resources, including working with OHA, State Historic Preservation Office and Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. o Northern most alignment to Mamalahoa Highway is favored from a potential impact on cultural resources. o Southern alignments to Mamalahoa Highway may have major concerns/impacts. o No information on eastern alignment (towards Hilo). o Historic Resources include anything over 50 years in age. Consequently, the project must considered VW U relics as potentially significant. o Cultural resources needs to be part of social impact assessment. "Sacred" areas need to be identified. State Department of Hawaiian Home Lands o Concerns with both widening existing alignments as well as potential alignments through DHHL lands. o There is no eminent domain, consequently, all land acquisition must be through negotiation. DHHL is open to negotiation but must protect "Trust" responsibilities. Land replacement is necessary. o The quarry on the western end of the property must be protected. This is still used by DHHL. o DHHL will identify concerns in more detail as requested. Institute for Astronomy o If any street lighting is proposed, requesting that modelling be conducted to test impact on the observatories. o Observatory operations may be impacted by road construction activities. 3- 9-50 C $500 million of construction on the observatories in planned. Need to accommodate hauling of mirrors and other large pieces up to 30' wide. c All lighting should conform to County Lighting Code and be fL.11y shielded. o Astronomy traffic is currently evenly balanced between Hilo and Waimea. However, as future base facilities are built in Hilo, the traffic impacts will shift to the eastern side by a 2:1 ratio. C Concern with improvements opening up the road to tourists. They may try to get up to summit in rentals. o Concern with fog W -id visibility problems with road and increased speeds. State DepariT.ent of Transportation o State current is requesting between $50 and $60 million to improve the Saddle Road. This project provides Federal Funds to accomplish this. C Project provides opportunities to assist economy during downturn in sugar. c If first phase is done through PTA, chances are the rest of the project will be completed. If this project isn't started, the chances of success are diminished. Police Department o Since improvements to Saddle Road began, traffic has increased. Additional improvements will result in further increases in traffic. o Improvements to the road will increase traffic speeds. o There has been an decrease in accidents since the improvements to Saddle Road began. The primary reason is that the wider shoulders allow recovery time. State Department of Land and Natural Resources - Land Management Division n A." State lands in area afe "Cedes Lands". M 9-51 State Department of Land and Natural Resources - State Parks Division o Alignments north of Mauna Kea State Park would restrict pedestrian access from the campground to the mountain. There may be a conflict with hiking trails o Existing water treatment plant may need to be relocated. It is located next to powerline road and adjacent to the old nene pens. It was recently upgraded at a cc �t of $200,000. o Existing waterline from Pohakuloa Springs is partially buried and partially on the surface. There is a 2MG storage tank. -5- 9-52 MINUTES Saddle Road Scoping Meeting 1 Tuesday, May 10, 1994 - 7:00 PM County Council Room, HILO 1. Introduction Mr. William R. Bird, Central Federal Lands Highway Division Brief statement of purpose of scoping meeting - early information gathering to hear community ideas, concerns on what we should do, where we should go on improving Saddle Road. Soliciting direction from general public for project scope which has changed from widening/ improving existing road, as determined from an earlier Scoping, to realignment of State Highway Route 200. Mr. Bird then introduced and turned the meeting over to Mr. William Moore of Okahara and Assc., local consultant and moderator. Mr. Moore reiterated purpose of public meeting; in addition, requested informality and the use of two rules, an opportunity for all to speak and respect for all opinions given. 2. Background •Organizational chart of roles and responsibilities for project development (attached) and introduction of members present. •Scope of the project administered by the Department of Defense through Defense Access Road (DAR) Program and the Federal Highways Administration. •Scoping meetings to be held through August of '94 to (1) garner community concerns, and (2) identify realighment. 3. Purpose Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) found necessary, rather than Environmental Assessment, due to new and broader scope of project. Accident rate now close to 1986 projection, 6.14 per million vehicle miles (MVM), compared to statewide average, 2.72 MVM, the reason being variations in vehicle type and speeds used, as well as weather conditions. Also, the scoping process is required by the national Environmental Protection Agency. Moore requested assistance in asking the right questions. 4. Discussion topics ELS completion date expected in 1997. Construction Design phase expected to begin in 1998. Federal funds for realignment through Pohakuloa Training Area (PTA) only - as PTA manuevers are on the south of the highway while supplies/support centers are on the north, there is much military traffic on that particular portion mingling with civilian traffic. Design phase for the portion expected to last two years. 9-53 Explanation of possible realignment routes/maps - Beginning at the 5 Mile Marker on the Hilo side of Rt. 200, there are three possible termini on the Kona side: (1) Kiholo, (2) Waikoloa, and (3) Puuanahulu. Explanation of criteria for sensitive areas/maps - Endangered speicies/Habitat areas, Urban/ Ag areas, Hunting areas, Volcanic Hazard zones. 5. Q/A session Q. Abandon Saddle Road to the military and hunters. New construction is cheaper. Saddle Road is mainly for moving the military. This is the 21st Century. A high speed monorail from Hilo to Kona is the answer, with eventual feeder inserts to ^--th and south. Possible source of funding - Federal Aviation. Q. Do both. Saddle Road still needs to be fixed. Use the DOD funds while they are available. Q. Is it true that the military is increasing its permanency? A. Not true. Q. I am a Conservation officer with DINR but am here representing myself as an individual. Use the existing road, widen it. There are palila/dryland forests and endangered plants in the area. The real cause of danger on Saddle Road is ourselves. Drive slow, 25 mph. The problem is there are no police patrols so everyone drives fast. Q. What type of improvement will be done to the curves? A. Vertical and horizontal. Q. Is funding available? A. 2.3 M for the EIS. Additional funds will be sought for preliminary design and construction once commitment obtained. Q. Where will this road connect, Waikoloa, Kona or the County General Plan? A. What makes sense, the terminus. Mholo is the midpoint, County General Plan is a state park. Q. It is common sense to improve whats there, save money. Do it, not talk. Q. What other infrastructure (affected), i.e. telephone, fibreoptics, observatory, power also? A. There are corridors there for power, etc. It will be a coordinated plan with all agencies and interests. Q. What other developments would follow, secondary impacts? A. Apart of scoping. 9-54 Q. What would the elevation (of the road be), behind PTA? A. Unknown yet. Evolving. Q. There is a deep gulch there. It floods from the steep incline. A. Noted. Q. Are Rest Stops in your standards? A. Yes, part of the project. Q. What about the Puainako extension? A. Not a part of this project. Q. You will need to coordinate with the State Dept. of Transportation, County Public Works - funding mandates? A. Ongoing, will continue. Q. Biologically it makes no sense to use the existing road. What is the real intent? The most efficient use of federal funding would be to improve the Hamakua road vs. driving 1.5 miles up in the air. But follow as dose as possible, existing road, avoid biological impact. Q. What will benefit is the real money maker, Astronomy. Q. Will the existing 2 -lane roadway be kept? A. Not through PTA. Q. Design criteria by vehicle weight? Mauna Loa, Mauna Kea, military. A. Pavement will be designed accordingly, width as well as height, i.e. accommodate 30' mirrors. Q. Waikii Ranch letter... safety problem ... substandard pavement, unmarked curves - formula for death. Originally designed for slow passage ... 8 houses, 4/5 persons in each.. A. Include in scoping. Q. East West highway (sensible in light of) meteorological conditions? A. Noted. Q. Existing road require EIS? State and County were talking about this back in 1972. A. Yes. Q. Due to the fog conditions, will there be a partition (median strip), trees? A. No, two lane. 9-55 Q. What will the speed limit be? A. To be determined (from scoping/project development process). Q. Because there is fog on the road in the evenings, how about putting a sign at each terminus giving weather conditions. A. Noted. Q. What would the (proper?) design speed be? A. Conceptually, 50 mph. Maximum gradient 8 percent to fit topography. Q. If the Design phase begins in 1997/98, when will it be finished? A. In two years, through PTA only. Q. Do we have to work with the military? A. Has to be part of it. Q. What would be the costs of current road improvement? A. Not a part of this project. Q. Regarding fibreoptics/telephone, cellular, etc., I hope communications will be addressed in the EIS. A. Yes. Met specifically with astronomers, utilities, etc.. Q. Recommendation: contact Hawaiians for knowledge of historic places. A. Archeology, culture, sacred places all part of EIS study. 6. Adjourn There being no farther questions the meeting closed at 8:20 PM. Secretariat 9-56 MINUTES Saddle Road Scoping Meeting 2 Wednesday, May 11, 1994 - 7:00 PM Kona Beach Hotel, KAILUA-KONA 1. Introduction Mr. William R. Bird, Central Federal Lands Highway Division Introduced national consultants James Anderson and Bernie King of RUST Environmental and Infrastructure Inc., and local consultant Bill Moore of Okahara and Associates. Described scoping meeting a few years ago at which time the intent of the project was just to fix the existing road. Subsequently the decision was made to address the entire route, which changed the project to a major one. Brief statement of purpose of present scoping meeting - information gathering to hear community ideas, concerns which would be of benefit to the road or to the community itself, though no commitments given to date. Scoping process expected to last until late summer at which point the project is expected to take a direction and evaluations and in-depth studies can begin. Mr. Bird then introduced and turned the meeting over to Mr. Moore. Mr. Moore introduced Project Manager Dave Gedeon of the Federal Highways Administration, reiterated purpose of scoping meeting - garner community concerns and issues, consideration of community role as potential opportunity - and requested the use of two rules, an opportunity for all to speak and respect for all opinions given. 2. Background Presentation of organizational chart of project development (attached), introduction of resources present, and elaboration on critical nature of public role as "eyes" for the project, consensus process. Scope of the project/potential alignments - termini: From Wilder Road on the East side, (5 Mile Marker), to four potential termini on the West at Mannalahoa Hwy. Funding initially provided by the federal government through Defense Access Road (DAR) Program, when no other funds are available as is the case. Accident rate study done in 1986 shows 6 plus accidents per million vehicle miles (MVM). The rate now slightly less but projected increase in traffic verified, 1000 per day. By the year 2000 expected rate of traffic is 4000 per day. Problems compounded by civilian vehicles traveling at 60 mph while military traffic proceeds at 35 mph, further compounded by the fact that military traffic must cross the road from jeep trails which is the only existing East West route. 9-57 3. Purpose Environmental study is a legal requirement by the National Environmental Protection Agency (NEPA). A three part process, Scoping definitions to be completed by, hopefully, Aug. '94. The second phase consists of studies in conceptual engineering, archeology, botany, etc. and is expected to last one year, completion expected mid-1995. The Environmental Impact Statement itself should be completed in 1997. The Design phase, which has already received federal funding commitment for the Pohakuloa section, begins subsequently and is expected to last approximately one year. Other portions of the road will need other funding authorization. Presently, the project is soliciting the public's assistance in identifying questions and issues to address, or, identify the scope of the project, as well as providing public awareness and input for the project. 4. Discussion topics Explanation of possible realignment routes/maps - Beginning at the 5 Mile Marker on the Hilo side, the intersection of Wilder Rd., there are possible alighments to alleviate the weaving of the road. A subsequent possible alignment, moving westward, is what is known as a "throwaway alignment" - which avoids Volcanic Hazard Zone 2. Further westward, at PTA, there are possible alignments which run behind Mauna Kea Access Rd. These alignments run into Hawaiian Homelands lands. Possible termini on the West side include the existing one which ascends and descends a section of the road known as "the seven steps." In order to avoid this altitudinal shift, a 2nd possible terminus extends the road to Waikoloa, using an existing power line corridor. Discussion of unformulated nature of scope - what is the purpose of the road, need for public input in order to reach decision of purpose. A third possible terminus, already adopted by the County General Plan, extends further south to Puuanahulu. A fourth possible terminus, suggested by the Saddle Road Task Force, extends slightly further south of number 3 above, gives the straightest possible alighnment for the entire road. Resource areas/maps: (1) Volcanic Hazard Zones (2) Critical/ Essential Habitat Zones (3) Land Use Zones - Urban, Ag, Conservation (4) Hunting Zones - Puuanahulu area 5. Q/A session Q. Request #1 priority be a designated safety bike/pedestrian lane, either on the shoulders of the road or a separate lane entirely. Q. Can the military (installations) be moved to one side of the highway? With regard to military port -to -port movement, can soldiers be airlifted instead? Saddle Road is costly in terms of funding as well as aesthetically. Can the upgrade be done for safety instead of as a straight shot, for visitor/ resident experience of the road. Also longevity of Pohakuloa questionable in the face of 9-58 opposition to live ordnance. Why not run Saddle Road to the back side of Hualalai? Q. Personal history of residence in Hawaii. Belief in the economic expansion of Hawaii Island, long range view/planning. 1950's road which ran behind PTA by Umi's Heiau was stopped by Mauna Loa lava flow. In the old days the Hawaiians planned a road from South Point to the mountains to Waipio and back around to Hilo. History on 1958 discussions of Kawaihae Kona Coast Road, Rockefellor and Gov. Burns. A. Moderator refocuses on task at hand. Q. Do not like Waikoloa terminus one bit. Recommends another possible alignment be five miles south of vJaikoloa, on Mamalahoa. Has hiked the area extensively and knows it to be the best gradient, also has one property owner - the State. Someday Waikoloa can build a lateral to it. This alignment would service more people, also a part of Bill Pain Highway Study done before PTA. Understands PTA necessity ... building behind Hualalai out of the question as long as PTA is there. A. Kulanui - Kohala boundary does have good gradient, presently used for military movement. Q. The cost would be 2/3M per mile. Why spend 100B on a back road. Better left untouched. A. No cost estimates as of yet. Bigger question than we're charged to look at. NEPA policy - no bills requirement. Q. What are the requirement for DAR funding? Is it harbor or airport (termini)? A. Mamalahoa termini. Re. funding: 2.3M authorized funding for environmental study and preliminary design for full portion (of the road), and design within PTA area. Military is committed to area within PTA only but efforts to gain full funds necessary ongoing. Re. DAR requirement: Sudden and unusual impact of military traffic upon civilian traffic. Considerable portion of the road not military traffic, therefore ineligible. Q. So where will the funding come from? I'm in the hotel business. Rent -a -cars cannot drive that road. A. If people want it done... Request will be passed to Hawaii DAR Q. Clarify - funding from DAR for PTA studies only? A. For (studies for) entire corridor. Q. Is it safe to say if we want to push for it or stop it.. If there is no funding, fine, but will it be jammed down our throats? A. EIS is a requirement of the project. It won't happen unless the study is done. 9-59 Q. Like H4, an interstate highway qualifies for Federal Highway funds? A. On a state highway system, qualifies for some federal funding. New Intermodal Transportation Act did away with it. H3 is the last one to recieve those funds. Q. Is it possible to control the building of the road with regard to aesthetics, ie. additional highway systems such as National Park Service or Hawaiian Trails? A. Federal H� ghways Lands Divisions are road developers, not policy makers though appreciate the sentiment. The division is sensitive to environmental areas. Q. Observatory has rules and guidelines regarding lights. There will be no lights on that road. Q. Waikii Ranch letter - 1 1/2 -lane road.. smooth areas attracts speeders ..suggest closing the road until it is safe, or repair it now - straighten, widen, use reflectors, diagonal black & white lines, signs for culverts. Need a long-term real road, not a country road. ..two times more dangerous than the national average. Q. (Relating to secondary impact on infracture, specifically) water? A. This is not a water project. Q. Regarding criteria for DAR funding, wouldn't it be the same to allow funds for all sections (of the road)? A. Its up to the military; mission focus on PTA. Q. Tie in port to port, not criteria, access? A. To my knowledge this is not port -to -port (project). Q. A concern: what is the cheapest way to do this? If we do more we pay more taxes. Q. A common line in all that's been said tonight is why build the road. If a reason is given, then build accordingly, aesthetically. A. That's part of the criteria we are trying to identify here, part of the process. Q. We need to find out why the road should be redone. If the reason is good and funding is available, it should be done. If the reason is not good, then it shouldn't be done. Funds would probably come from a special tax, i.e. gas. Five or six years ago, commerce was the reason. Now DOD has a certain interest. We'll just go round and round if we try to find funding. Funding will be available if the project is necessary. Q. Another reason to make this a state route - there are 114,000 acres of state land open (not in use), with water/amenities available. 9-60 Q. I am disappointed with local architecture. Why are land use and transportation departments separate? For this purpose land use and planning departments should be together. Q. This was a mayor's issue several terms ago. Why didn't anything happen then. What about the Judd Trail in 1859? Q. Is this project all driven by military impact? A. The military tries to use parallel roads as much as possible but have 5 -ton truck and trailers which need the crossing being met by drivers going 60/65 mph. Don't like to be a nuisance but ... safety index drops with need to get around the trucks. Q. Is it an alternative to move the camp over (to the south side of the road)? A. Yes, it is an alternative. Q. What would be the difference be in cost? A. The airfield is 3200' long - needs a long flat area. As the area of the endangered plant species is already closed on the south side, that would leave even less room than there is. It's an option but moving costs alone is $150/200M for an airfield that is not used that often and has dangerous wind drafts. Q. I don't like to follow the military (points - from Kawaihae to Saddle Rd.). A. We can't go through a populated area with ammunition. A. (State has already requested $45M to improve maintenance standard for Saddle Road, commitment, letter signed for DAR; PTA funding 25 percent. Recapitulation. Regular reports will be sent to those who signed up for the Saddle Road newsletter. 6. Adjourn There being no further questions the meeting closed at 8:30 PM. HIEDB Secretariat 9-61 MINUTES Saddle Road Scoping Meeting 3 Thursday, May 12,1994 - 7:00 PM Kahilu Town Hall, WAIMEA 1. Introduction 2. Background 3. Purpose 4. Discussion top— Similar to the two previous scopings. 5. Q/A session - focus: Do we need this project? Q. Are we assuming that Pohakuloa is here to stay? If it is not, what chance is there of road improvement? A. The source of funds will probably not be available. The State DOT has agreed to make a commitment to take over for the county. No change anticipated in Pohakuloa mission. Q. Waimea Community Association concern - Waimea Bypass discussions with Hawaiian Homelands on hold. How will Saddle Road improvements impact the Waimea Bypass which is a state project? Will it be either/or? A. These are two separate projects. This is DOD funded. It is not a question of this or that. This project will not affect nor compete with state funding. Q. Federal funding is for a 15 mile section near Pohakuloa? A. Allocation of $2.3M for environmental studies for the whole section plus pre - design, with commitment towards construction by DAR for the 15 mile section of PTA. Other funding mechanisms being studied. Q. If the state commits to the project and the military pulls out, then that big chunk is not available? A. Yes. Q. What is the comparable distance (on the different alternate routes) from Hilo to Kona on Saddle Rd. compared with going around through Waimea? A. On the existing route, to Kona on Mamalahoa, 86 miles, at alternate 2, the Waikoloa terminus, 79 miles, on alternate 3, Puuanahulu, 74 miles and the last alternate (SRTF), 72 miles. These figures do not take elevation into account. Q. And the distance on the Hamakua road? A. 93 miles - 9 -62 Q. H is tc Kor at 1 C:', V%': _ 71':hat Z il',:... tr,J.S C-i:.j tiiC !-'l�;''�c LOOK V: _ :!a glaze be 1Vn:pVn 6 a , Oerceni' A. We arNAp,lie C ..,c `:::..,. :_.l._4 -' of R r,rr,.- 1. in'F -1—': to C',.. �- ^ r i - 4i: - oe 1Lmy", co t =c 1T7ZC� Oi t\'Ou C. 1. _ - 1::,,. proext . � � _ at �l':- -?n^_. Q. Currc:,t g-ades c -eat-_r tl'. E percent' A. 10/12, sometir«, more than that. Q. Is it is keiy that tracks wi:l be using the road? A. Yes, passible, Vt need ceucn :n terms of the question. The direction 5 delle Road I,.iil take will have to be st.:died first. Q. Clarify routes - labe'ing on A. Exirti,n, z roa; .s outhn e'.J in,, red. The ot:,.e7s in black; not a-11 num':: cd, only alterrites 1 ?. Q. Senna jr: c' i:z^ -to re, S,^dlc Road is f-om here to PTA. °.; percent of _ _. pr-; af;i , rot H to PTA. V, c�ko'-oa jimction - wi• . l: a 'e s..te land tc o the r a; 2 s.._ - : cr RZ ci.: A. It is :lo: drul-.n in but it dogs Q. Tha! a -^ov-a- line? A. An existing eic: _.icL line ccrr.do:. Q. You don't l,-G^.t to go th oug;l private proaert:. ' :cn't t1tr-k Parl rr Ranch would like'_hLt. A. That is a concern, n.. ted. Q. (Frcn a ccnseryat;onist s`a- --oint - recomr-end -) Pe -do extG = rc maybe an e,`.:... Ian; for mil v -a:f;._. Get On roar' -`rail, t. I'u'.:"P-'''"'L is thy' Only garnE ma nagLrmc,nt are;, load tLcre wol:-ld _._re?�' fire i.i�.ar. , ivi of fires there cl'ppor: rot ot.`' p airy rcaC Y". an e`: a Nn - rood fc' coilstruc`i Jr, :1".d LI, .'.c f'+r a5 €. t}'irCt vl' t"^ C::ck O' L,e st:,:e perk (Ant. 47) would m -,pact oP, the endo, ngcrf>} _-,1120eS ac:, pa'. i (res -ye). Q. Wa'�1: C^nCern On SP f0::nat:Cna. di,�`u-rcL; r'..'nt Of plli.�iiC CrJ.^.C£'71s d'u^n scoping. A. We z to1• nG PO' -e5. Q mit-` :c r^,: r 4 am! " �,: _11 `L ey be Wit, ;b D pu _? Son �� �, o look z, it y::�e-. . �...) �L a -r- t._ a�_ ��� . A. WilEIT six mc-'zw. Any (iaciujinp, boric-e..onorr.lc, cLt-I4. and problems cE cFEot aghrnts �:have te drwncd Q. The E_ st.ou!d ccn 'der ECl•"l,"',rmcs. : o:- the fatt:re of C':: �•erSaiet'_ cccnC::-.','. ti[ Pohaku' _. (_.:. S .die :aJ ::' c9! -bait i. bele. Heavy V p ani. improve existing road to overcome native species problems; also, more economical. A. Noted. Q. Is therea no -build option? A. Yes. Q. The road is not safe. We pay federal taxes. Where is it spent on this island? We pay $100/200 per year into fuel taxes. A. It will have to be a consensus process. Q. Concerned about the north coast. Many people there are dependent on the sugar industry for their living. One of the last threads of hope is a cross island corridor for economic stimulation. Will the EIS address the impact (of the road) on this community? A. It will be addressed as an overall secondary impact. Q. Category of impact on Waimea secondary also? A. From a traffic standpoint, yes. Economics will be addressed in terms of secondary impact. Q. Terminus in Hilo still in Kaumana area? A. South of Wilder Rd. There are several alternates at that section because of the weaving of the road. Need suggestions. Q. Regarding the Kawaihae road and Bypass mud lane, from Waimea to Kawaihae, 90 percent military traffic does come from Kawaihae? A. Correct. Q. Tank road behind Waimea in pasture - any need for anything else over there? A. Currently use Kawaihae to the south - preferred route. During out years, development will increase on Waikoloa Rd. increasing safety hazard due to projected population growth in 50 years. Q. Waikoloa Land Co. - regarding concept of 90 percent primary purpose service to PTA, your study oriented to the wrong side. You need to study Kawaihae to Pohakuloa as primary purpose. Assess different routes to PTA. Need analysis of Kawaihae Bypass with/without impacts on Waikoloa Rd. as the only private road. It is not 50 years before development takes place on both sides. Include in you- study Kawaihae to PTA. A. Noted. Q. The purpose of the funding is mitigating the public impact on the military? A. For mitigating the impact of military traffic on the public. 9-64 Q. Recommend EIS consider impact on existing road. Lot more improvement made than building alternates. Question of spending public money on alignments through habitat areas. A. Noted. Q. 5 MM is how far from Hilo Harbor? A. Less than 7 miles. Q. Kawaihae to western terminus? A. Depends on final selection; will be noted in all considerations of alternates. Q. Do not understand Eastern weighting. Would like to see impacts of improvement on West side. Saddle Road improvement inextricably linked to Kawaihae Mud Lane, not Hilo. May turn out to be an either/or situation. Why southern weighting for western terminus? Look at all scenarios and use that criteria for final report. A. The military does use the road from Kaiwaihae to PTA. However project/ DAR funds is for PTA itself. In order to do that the EIS has to look at both termini, from Hilo to Mamalahoa Hwy. Q. 300 percent increase of use of Saddle Road, projected 1,000 percent increase in the next 10 years, are there similar figures for Waimea? A. 1986 study, no update since. Q. Will they be included in EIS? A. Yes. Q. If traffic is west of Pohakuloa, why fund Hilo to PTA? A. Data shows most accidents occur 10/20 miles out of Hilo; "whole road" concept. Q. Public record shows many accident at the 49 MM, below Waikii. Check police reports. A. Studies of accident reports to be done. Q. The problem with the existing road is that it is a one -lane road on which people travel 40/50 mph. A. Traffic and speed studies will be done. Q. I don't go from Kawaihae to Pohakuloa. I go from Kona to Hilo and back again, use both sides. The road needs improvement on the west and east sides. A. Noted. Q. Why are improvements done only on the east side? 9-65 Q. We need to improve Saddle Road. A. Noted. Q. Runaway ramps should be included. A. Noted. Q. Gradient at Waikii, over 12 percent? A. Analysis not done yet. Grades will be studied for all alternates. Q. If funding linked to military impacts, EIS better document military, not east vs. west, so as not to jeopardize funding. A. Noted. Q. Western impact greater than eastern. If EIS addresses that it give a strong foundation for sure. (Further discusion east vs. west.) Q. Why is military traffic from Kawaihae rather than Hilo? A. Kawaihae has good set-up, topography - LSA - large ship harbor with ramp. Decided on a long time ago because it was less populated at the time. Q. Your objectives include breakdown on rate of increase in traffic? A. We have classification count; will show those. Q. Ideas here, though not homeruns, may be spark for better ideas. (Waikii concern on information disbursment.) A. We are starting a long process. If we go fast, nothing gets done. Government's bottom line is consensus. Due to logistics on amount of information it is necessary to get to conclusions with a smaller group. Eliminate some alignments because of unfeasibility due to terrain. Other alignments more difficult to decide. How? By people involved, including the task force, an important point of contact. In the meantime Okahara offices are open, one of the best way to get questions answered, concerns addressed. Also, results of scopings will be in newsletters; sign up sheet at registration desk; urge your continuing interest. Q. Will there be other community opportunities in hearing ideas and results? A. This is the last scoping but other public hearings will be held. Q. How many? A. Not yet scheduled. The next phase involves study, not much activity for approximately one year. Q. What is your anticipation? A. Definitely one more series, maybe two. Twice per year would be good. Q. What year doe=-,)nstruction begin? A. 1998. Q. Since the project begins in 1998, is there possibility of making the road temporarily safe by federal funds? A. Not sure about federal funding, maybe county. Q. County involved possibly before 1998? A. County ,is involved, part of the team of this project. In terms of what can be done now, that can be answered by the county. Q. Toll booth at each end to pav for it? A. Noted. Q. (Homestead owner) Support new highway. However one alternate, which depend on the owner, the makai road, (Waikoloa Road). We don't have to climb hills with loads of cattle. We don't want to see accidents or kill our animals. Save money in many ways. If military moves out, what is the state going to do with the land? Q. Several years ago there was a Citizens Advisory Committee which met with state and county taking a look at all kinds of considerations. Do you have that? A. Yes, Comprehensive Transportation Plan. Q. Clarify the extended military involvment - funding the 15 mile section for PTA. Yet discussions are on impact on public. PTA goes to Kawaihae. Is it your understanding 20 percent of this project funded by federal government, 80 percent state and county? A. Federal laws govern DAR funding. There are a number of criteria which have to be addressed regarding PTA - justification - sudden or unusual defense generated impact such as doubling of traffic. It was determined that doubling did not occur on other segments. State expected to make fair share of improvements. Q. State no longer develops resort roads, expect similar with federal government. In terms of doubling, is it just for extended training exercise and not national emergencies? A. Yes. Determination made in original study. Ongoing commitment by state to take over improvement of Saddle Road. Q. Roads through Hawaiian Homelands makai/mauka and PTA and behind camp, outside HHL area, lower east side, destruction of a lot of trees. A. We recognize there are critical habitat areas. Mamane on the north side of park; no palila there but mamane tree is pilila habitat. Mauka - dry, fire hazard. 9-67 Q. Straightening increases hazard of road. #3/#4 alternate long-drawn-out process/expensive. Defeats its own purpose - still goes through PTA. Strongly advocate existing route. (Hawaiian standpoint.) A. Noted. Q. Can you check the amounts of traffic, civilian vs. military. Impact of large trucks. County fixes and breaks again. Impact - double civilian traffic. A. Required in EIS. Q. Recommend Big Island truckers/buses be on task force. A. Noted. 6. Adjourn. There being no further business the meeting adjourned at 9:00PM. HIEDB Secretariat Saddle Road Task Force Summarrr of Written Comments as of ,lune 10, 1993 Date Name Organization 6/2 William R. Halliday Hawaii Speleological Society 5/17 Lysheth Lam 5/17 Mike Luce Waikii Ranch Resident Waimea Com Assoc. -Planning Kev Issues and Concerns o No caves or lava tubes should be altered in area with out study. o Existing road is extremely hazardous. Cannot limit improvements to within PTA. o Improve existing alignment now. Make major improvement at a later date; short term solution to safety is needed. o Western terminus of project should be Kawaihae. 5/17 Ken Melrose Waikoloa o Scope is inadequate is purpose is to accommodate military traffic. Need to consider traffic from Kawaihae harbor. O Waikoloa Road was not built with convoy traffic in mind. Need for passing lanes, paved shoulders. 5113 Lloyd E. C: e Wildlife Conser. Assoc of Hi o Improvement present alignment with separate lane for ind ary. 5/13 Leslie Agorastos Waikii Ranch Resident o Improve present alignment; it is cheaper than building a new road. Okay to realign around PTA. o Watkii Ranch rep. should be on Task Force. 5/12 Chris Agorastos Waikii Ranch Resident o Supports improvement of existing alignment; second choice is to follow Parker Ranch/State boundary. 5/12 Roku Kanekuni Safari Club Int -Hi Bow Hunters o Improve existing alignment. New route will be more expensive. O Protect wilderness areas at Puuanahulu 5/12 Bill Kawahara Self o Support project to improve Saddle Road. o Route should extend from Puainako Street to Kiholo. 5/11 Jack Davies Hawaii Green Party 1) PTA will close soon. Nice to have road, but raoonulc of nidaarr use is nonsense. 5/11 .Scott .Sharpe People] .Advocacy for Trall5 Hi / 4ake Saddle R,,ad at, to lbarCd u,ti "uh hikel_ o Turn unused suction., into bike route. M, Saddle Road Task Furs SUmma(V of W ntten Comments Pace No. 2 5/lo William P. Kulawatanui - Claims tank )wn, portion of poiewml alt_mucnt 5/10 Kyoji Nanai Improve dangerous curves in eastern portion. 5/9 Marcia A. Miller Self 0 Need for a more direct alignment to Kona 5/7 David L. Bigelow Waikii Ranch owner 0 Improve as major highway. 5/6 Hoaliku L. Drake Department of Hwn Home Lands o If portion of road alignment goes through DHHL lands, prior approval of HHC is required. 5/5 Margaret Donat National Park Service o Need for ?dequate species inventory. 0 Need for archeological inventory of alignments. o High speed road through PTA may not be acceptable. EIS should consider alternative corridors for realignment. 5/5 Irene/Ed Minor Self 0 Supports new highway. 5/3 Michael G. Buck DLNR-Forestry and Wildlife Div 0 Relocation of road north of PTA will have severe impact on mamani-naso forest (Pahla habitat.) 4/25 Rod Burns Waikii Ranch Resident 0 Most dangerous portions of Saddle Road are from Waikii Ranch to Mamalahoa Highway. 0 Until improvements are made, Saddle Road should be for local traffic only. o Should include both short term and long tens improvements. o Realign existing road with terriunus at Waikoloa Road intersection. 4/21 Ken Melrose Waikoloa Land Company o EIS should analyze transport access to PTA from Kawaihae. 0 Realignment should consider routes to PTA which minimize encroachments of private land. 0 Residents of Waikoloa should be consulted. 4/20 Herman Aizawa State Department of Education 0 Concern with impact on Kaumana School. 4, 220 Jo)o TamMO[O Kawaihae HHL Com Assoc 0 Route should encouracc traffic to by -puss W ai nica. 4/20 Esther Uvedu State Land Use Commission o Ah_nmmnta will gu thnw_h Conservation lands. Draft EIS should show land use district and tax m:ip kevs. 9-70 Saddle Road Task Force Summary of Written LOImllents Pace No. 3 4/19 P. David Dewenter Self 4/14 Robert A. McLaren Institute for Astronomy 4/14 Henry A. Ross Self 4/10 Stewart K. Boyd Self 4/9 Bruce S. Anderson OEQC 9-71 Portions of protect area are proposed to be reclassified from A¢ to Conservation by State. o Request to be on mailing list. o Request to be consulted party. o Request to be consulted party during EIS process o Widen and straighten existing alignment. Okay to realign around PTA. o Scoping must comply with Chapter 343, including EIS Notice of Preparation in OEQC Bulletin. 9.4.2 CHRONOLOGICAL COMMENTS, CORRESPONDENCE, AND NOTICES - 1995 Mr. Masahiro Nishida, P.E. Okahara & Associates, Inc. 200 Kohola Street Hilo, HI 96720 Dear Mr. Nishida: Lo,rr-7' ° K/Nlo 1=/44e: OCW Wp ? 07 R/D 1=146 ?.6 AOUACOLTUAE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM AQUATIC RESOURCES CONSERVATION AND E NVIPONMENTAL AFFAIRS CONSERVATION ANO RESOURCES ENFORCEMENT CONVEYANCES FORESTRY AND WILDLIFE UNO MANAGEMENT STATE PARKS WATER ANO "NO DEVELOPMENT Subject: Request for Right -of -Entry to Various Government lands on the Island of Hawai'i by Okahara & Associates, Inc., Engineering Subconsultants, on Behalf of RUST Environment and Infrastructure, Consultant, and the Federal Highways Administration [Hawai'i Defense Access Road - Saddle Road Project A -AD -6(1)] At its meeting of March 24, 1995, the Board of Land and Natural Resources under Agenda Item F-3, as amended, granted the Federal Highways Administration (FHWA), RUST Environment and Infrastructure (RUST) - primary consultant/contractor, its subconsultants, and/or its subcontractors, a right -of -entry for the purpose of conducting the necessary field work for the preparation of a conservation district use application and the preparation of a draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Hawai'i Defense Access Road, Saddle Road Project, subject to the terms and conditions as set forth in the enclosed copy of the Land Board submittal, along with the following amendment: "Governor's concurrence required for all Executive Order properties." Should the FWHA concur with the terms and conditions of the Land Board submittal, please have them acknowledge and return a copy of this letter to this office. Any changes or amendments to the Board's terms and conditions shall require a resubmittal to the Board for its approval. 9-72 BENJAMIN J. OAYETANO It0`,117 ROP O PG IIt � STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF LAND MANAGEMENT P.O. BOX 936 HILO. HAWAII %731-0936 April 27, 1995 Mr. Masahiro Nishida, P.E. Okahara & Associates, Inc. 200 Kohola Street Hilo, HI 96720 Dear Mr. Nishida: Lo,rr-7' ° K/Nlo 1=/44e: OCW Wp ? 07 R/D 1=146 ?.6 AOUACOLTUAE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM AQUATIC RESOURCES CONSERVATION AND E NVIPONMENTAL AFFAIRS CONSERVATION ANO RESOURCES ENFORCEMENT CONVEYANCES FORESTRY AND WILDLIFE UNO MANAGEMENT STATE PARKS WATER ANO "NO DEVELOPMENT Subject: Request for Right -of -Entry to Various Government lands on the Island of Hawai'i by Okahara & Associates, Inc., Engineering Subconsultants, on Behalf of RUST Environment and Infrastructure, Consultant, and the Federal Highways Administration [Hawai'i Defense Access Road - Saddle Road Project A -AD -6(1)] At its meeting of March 24, 1995, the Board of Land and Natural Resources under Agenda Item F-3, as amended, granted the Federal Highways Administration (FHWA), RUST Environment and Infrastructure (RUST) - primary consultant/contractor, its subconsultants, and/or its subcontractors, a right -of -entry for the purpose of conducting the necessary field work for the preparation of a conservation district use application and the preparation of a draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Hawai'i Defense Access Road, Saddle Road Project, subject to the terms and conditions as set forth in the enclosed copy of the Land Board submittal, along with the following amendment: "Governor's concurrence required for all Executive Order properties." Should the FWHA concur with the terms and conditions of the Land Board submittal, please have them acknowledge and return a copy of this letter to this office. Any changes or amendments to the Board's terms and conditions shall require a resubmittal to the Board for its approval. 9-72 Mr. Masahiro Nishida, P.E. Okahara & Associates, Inc. Request for Right -of -Entry Hawai'i Defense Access Road Saddle Road Project [(A -AD -6(1)] April 27, 1995 Page 2 Should you have any questions, please call me at 933-4245. Very truly yours, Gle Y.JahiHawai'i istricd Agent GYT: src Encls. c: Hawai'i Land Board Member Land Management Administrator William L. Moore Planning We concur with the terms and conditions of Land Board Agenda Item F-3, as amended, approved at its meeting of March 24, 1995. We do not cop -11r. FEDERAL HIGHWAYS ADMINISTRATION By I 9-73 5Zahf Date RESULTS OF LAND BOARD MEETING March 24, 1995 APR 3 1 19 FM '95 All Land Management Division items approved as submit0��3�„��yeept: LAUD m►yA, EMEMf Item F -1-d......... Approved as amended. Amendmenti44L}.&p«ignees shall post within 60 days of the effective date of the assignment a liability insurance policy, coverage of $300,000 per occurrence of incident and $500,000 aggregate, and naming the State of Hawaii as co-insured. Item F -1-f......... Added item; approved as submitted. Item F-3........... Approved, as amended. Amendment: Governor's conci=-ence required for all execucive order properties. Item F-4........... Approved, as amended. Amendments: 1. Date of submittal changed from 3/10/95 to 3/24/95. 2. Condition B.1 revised: If there are 3 or less qualified bidders, a bidder shall be permitted to bid for 2 land licenses; however, if there are 4 or more qualified bidders, then no more than 1 license per bidder. Item F-6........... Approved, as amended. Amendment: Delete Condition D.9. Item F-9........... Approved, as amended. Amendment: Add under Paragraph B of Recommendation: "Authorize the Chairperson to donate the houses to any State agency". 9-74 State of Hawai'i DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES Division of Land Management Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 March 24, 1995 Board of Land and Natural Resources State of Hawai'i Honolulu, Hawaii HAWAII Subject: Okahara and Associates, Inc., Engineering Sub -Consultants on Behalf of RUST Environment and Infrastructure, Consultant and Federal Highways Administration Request for Right -of -Entry to Government Lands on Island of Hawai'i - Hawaii Defense Access Road, Saddle Road Project fA-AD-6(1)1 By letters dated February 8, 1995 and February 16, 1995, Okahara and Associates, Inc., Engineering Sub -Consultants, on behalf of RUST Environment and Infrastructure, Consultants (RUST), and the Federal Highways Administration (FHWA) has requested a right -of -entry to various government lands in conjunction with the Hawai'i Defense Access Road, Saddle Road Project (A -AD -6(1)]. The consultants have provided the department with the following information: Scope of Work to be Conducted Under the Right -of -Entry: To perform horizontal and vertical control surveys and to conduct a topographic survey which determines the positions of the natural and artificial features within and adjacent to the proposed project. The information obtained from these surveys is needed for the design phase of the project development process. 2. To place centerlines and right-of-way stakes for the proposed project together with all reference ties, or to place bench marks and tenTorary aeriai target panels which may lit beyond the corridor limits. To conduct an environmental survey which includes a cultural resource survey, Hazardous Waste Survey (unexploded ordinance), Threatened/Endangered Species, Wildlife, Botany, Entomology, Malacology and Wetlands Survey. ITEM P-3 9-75 Board of Land and Natural Resources Request for Right -of -Entry April 24. 1995 Page 2 Parcels affected and anv encumbrance Tax Map Key Lessee/Description Is Zn Sec Plt Par 3 2 4 06 34 Unencumbered 3 2 4 08 01 DOFAW - Forest Reserve 3 2 4 08 04 Donn W. Carlsmith , GL 5-4484 3 2 4 08 08 DOFAW - Forest Reserve 3 2 4 08 17 Unencumbered 3 2 4 08 36 Kona Queen Co. RP 5-6703 3 2 5 01 02 DOFAW - Forest Reserve 3 2 5 01 06 DOFAW - Forest Reserve 3 2 5 01 08 B.A. Klingshirn/HELCO 3 2 5 02 01 Unencumbered 3 2 5 02 12 Unencumbered 3 2 5 02 14 Unencumbered 3 2 5 03 20 Unencumbered 3 2 5 03 21 Island Tropicals GL 5-4556 3 2 5 03 44 DWS GEO 1398 3 2 5 03 80 Unencumbered 3 2 5 03 94 Island Tropicals GL 5-4556 3 2 5 06 03 Unencumbered 3 2 6 18 01 Alfred J. Nobriga GL 5-4476 3 2 6 18 04 DOFAW - Forest Reserve 3 2 6 18 10 DOFAW - Forest Reserve 3 2 6 18 12 DOFAW - Forest Reserve 3 3 8 01 01 DOFAW - Forest Reserve 3 3 8 01 13 Pohakuloa Training Area GL 5-3849 3 4 4 15 02 Richard Smart -Parker Ranch GL 5-4471 3 4 4 15 04 DOFAW - Hunting Grounds GEO 1398 3 4 4 16 08 Pohakuloa Training Area GL 5-3849 3 4 4 16 01 Pohakuloa Training Area GEO 1288 3 4 4 16 03 DOFAW Proc 0041 3 4 4 16 05 Pohakuloa Training Area GL 5-3849 3 4 4 16 06 Pohakuloa Training Area EO 1719 3 4 4 16 07 Pohakuloa Training Area EO 1719 3 4 4 16 10 Pohakuloa Training Area/HELCO GL 5-3927 3 7 1 03 01 DOFAW - GMA 3 7 1 04 01 F.Newell Bohnett(Puuwaawaa Ranch) GL S-3589 3 7 1 04 08 Powers Apiaries RP 5-6202 9-76 Board of Land and Natural Resources Request for Right -of -Entry April 24, 1995 Page 3 RECOMMENDATION: That the Board grant to the Federal Highways Administration (FHWA), RUST Environment and Infrastructure (RUST) - primary consultant/contractor, its sub -consultants and/or subcontractors. a right -of -entry to the above listed government lands to conduct the necessary environmental studies, environmental surveys, preliminary engineering work, topographic survey, centerline and right-of-way staking, the placement of temporary aerial target panels, etc. for the preparation of a Conservation District Use Application and the preparation of a Draft Envjronmental Impact Statement for the hawai'i Dtfense Access Read, Saddle Road Project, subject to the following terms and conditions: 1. The FHWA, RUST, its sub -consultants and/or sub -contractors shall obtain and submit to the Hawaii District Land Office written concurrence to the right -of -entry from all of the above -listed lessees, permittees, holders of Executive Orders/Proclamations, etc. prior to entry onto the subject property. 2. The State of Hawai'i shall not be responsible for any loss, liability, claim or demand for property damage, personal injury, including but not limited to death, arising out of any act or omission of the FHWA in connection with the FHWA's use of the State of Hawai'i land granted by this right -of -entry. 3. RUST, its sub -consultants and/or sub -contractors, shall defend, indemnify and hold the State of Hawai'i, Department of Land and Natural Resources and all lessees, permittee holders of executive orders/proclamations, etc. of the above -listed parcels, harmless from and against any loss, liability, claim or demand for property damage, personal injury and death arising out of any act or ornission of RUST, its sub -consultants and/or sub- contractors, and/or its employees, and/or its agents under this approval, relating to or connected with the granting of this approval. 4. RUST, its sub -consultants ard/or !ub-contractors shall procure at its own cost and expense, and maintain during the entire period of this right -of -entry, from au insurance company or companies licensed to do business in the State of Hawaii, a policy or policies of comprehensive public liability insurance, in an amount acceptable to the Chairperson, insuring the State of Hawaii, and all lessees, permittees, holders of executive orders/proclamations, etc. of the above -listed parcels, against all claims for personal injury, death, and property damage; that said policy shall cover the entire right - of -entry area, including all improvements and grounds and all roadways or sidewalks on or adjacent to the said right -of -entry areas in the control or use of RUST. RUST shall furnish a like certificate upon each renewal of such policy, each such certificate to contain or be accompanied by an assurance of the insurer to notify the State of Hawaii of any intention to cancel any such policy sixty (60) days prior to actual cancellation; 9-77 Board of Land and Natural Resources Request for Right -of -Entry April 24, 1995 Page 4 FHWA, RUST, its sub -consultants, and/or sub -contractors shall comply with all applicable statutes, ordinances, rules and regulations of the Federal, State and County of Hawaii governments. 6. Prior to the clearing of any vegetation, the cutting of any trees and/or the disturbance of the ground in conjunction with the placement of temporary aerial target panels, the sites shall be physically reviewed by a professional archaeologist and a professional botanist to insure the absence of historical sites and/or threatened or endangered species. With the exception of site clearing for aerial photography, FHWA, RUST, its sub - consultants, and/or sub -contractors shall refrain from cutting any trees while conducting their studies on the State land. 8. Any and all heavy equipment such as bulldozers, backhoes, drilling rigs, etc., shall be prohibited from entering onto the State land covered by this right -of -entry; 9. FHWA, RUST, its sub -consultants, and/or sub -contractors shall give the Hawaii District Land Office and the Acting Hawaii District Forestry and Wildlife Manager 48 -hours' notice prior to the commencement of any work activity. Notification shall include the number of personnel entering the site, type of equipment, and the dates and times the personnel shall be on the site. Any additional entry would require re -notification. 10. FHWA, RUST, its sub -consultants and/or sub -contractors shall give the Camp Commander of the Pohakuloa Training Area, lessees and/or permittees of the above -listed parcels a minimum 48 -hours notice prior to the commencement of any work activity. Notification shall include the number of personnel entering the site, type of equipment, and the dates and times the personnel shall be on the site. Any additional entry would require re -notification. 11. if any unanticipated sites cr remains of historic or prebistoric interest such as shell, bone, charcoal deposits, human burials, rock or coral alignments, pavings, or wails are encountered while conducting any activity, FHWA, RUST, its sub -consultants, and/or sub -contractors shall stop work immediately and contact the State Historic Preservation Division in Honolulu at (808) 587-0047. 12. This right -of -entry is effective till June 30, 1996 or upon the completion of the studies, whichever occurs first. 13. Should any of the studies/surveys permitted under this right -of -entry discover the presence of any threatened/endangered species or habitat, any archaeological sites, burials, hazardous waste and/or any significant discovery on any of the above -listed parcels, the FHWA, RUST, its sub -consultant and/or sub -contractor shall provide to the M Board of Land and Natural Resources Request for Right -of -Entry April 24, 1995 Page 5 lessee, permittee, holder of the executive order or proclamation, or to the Land Management Administrator in the case of unencumbered lands, the pertinent portion of the studies/surveys which shall at the minimum identify the discovery, provide the location and remedial/preventative actions taken. A copy of all such studies/surveys shall be provided to the Chairperson. 14. That the issuance of this right -of -entry does not in any way express support for FHWA's proposed Saddle Road Project, nor does it imply that any other approvals and/or disposition of land is forthcoming. 15. Should FHWA, RUST, its sub -consultants and/or sub -contractors fail to comply with any of the terms and conditions of this right -of -entry, this right -of -entry shall be immediately cancelled. 16. The Department of Land and Natural Resources reserves the right to impose additional terms and conditions at any time if it deems it necessary. 17. Such other terms and conditions as may be prescribed by the Chairperson which are in the best interest of the State of Hawaii. Respectfully submitted, W Y JAI W. MASON Land Management APPROVED FOR SUBMITTAL: LTA^* /S• C&PBw.- MICHAEL D. WILSON rson 9-79 BENJAMIN !. CAYEIANO' FtyV Govcmor of Hawaii 4 r 1 v1 �4. STATE OF HAWAII REF • OCEA : TES DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES P. O. Box 621 Honolulu, Hawaii 96809 FILE NO.: 95-433 Ch.0 rpc non 2.(1 MICHAEL D WILSON Board of Lund and Natural Resources Mr. Donald Okahara, P.E., President Okahara & Associates, Inc. JUN z I^oj 200 Kohola Street Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Dear Mr. Okahara: Depuly D,rccor GILBERT COLOAIA AGARAN Aquaculture Development Aquatic Resources Boating and Occan Reaeation Burcau of Conveyances Conservation and Envvo cnuJ Affairs Conservation and Remowce Enforoeanent For.uy and Wildlife Historic Preservation Land Management State Parka Weer and Land Dcvelopmeiu SUBJECT: Permission to Conduct Various Environmental Studies and Survey Mapping for the Saddle Road Improvement Project, Island of Hawaii, TMK: various We have reviewed the information for the proposed survey/mapping work transmitted by your letter dated March 20, 1995, and confirm that this work is considered basic data collection requiring only a Site Plan approval pursuant to Section 13-5-22 (b) (1) (B) , Hawaii Administrative Rules. As such, we have no objections to the proposed activities provided that the following conditions are observed in addition to those previously imposed by the Board of Land and Natural Resources under Agenda Item F-3, on March 24, 1995: 1. Because the occurrence of fires in the survey area is highly likely, all necessary precautions shall be taken by all smokers on the survey team(s). Cigarettes/Cigars shall be "field stripped" and matches be properly disposed; 2. All trash generated by the survey team(s) shall be removed from the survey site immediately after the survey is completed. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact Steve Tagawa of our Office of Conservation and Environmental Affairs ac 587-0377. Aloha, AIDS -01 /,a MICHAEL D ST:tes WILSON (J Environmental Assessment & Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Imoact Statement ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL EMPACT STATEMENT HAWAII STATE HIGHWAY 200 SADDLE ROAD PROJECT HILO TO MAMALAHOA HIGHWAY Project No. HI DAR A -AD -6(1) PROPOSING AGENCIES U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Central Federal Lands Highway Division C. Sm' , P.E., Division Engineer l0 I9L,; Date Department of Transportation State of Hawaii ' s�4✓ Kazu Hayashida, Director Date ACCEPTING AUTHORITY Office of the Governor State of Hawaii Contact: William Bird (HPD -16) Federal Highway Administration 555 Zang Street Lakewood, Colorado 80228 Telephone: (303) 969-5909 Contact: Kenneth Y.K. Au, P.E. Advanced Planning Engineer State of Hawaii Dept. of Transportation Planning Branch, Highway Division 600 Kapiolani Blvd., Room 301 Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 Telephone: (808) 587-1843 ORIGINAL CLASS OF ACTION Use of State or County Lands or funds Use of Lands Classified as Conservation District by the State Land Use Commission CONSULTANT CONTACT James Anderson, Contract Manager RUST Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. 5343 North 16th Street, Suite 400 Phoenix, Arizona 85016 Phone: (602) 279-3541 9-81 William L. Moore, Senior Planner Okahara & Associates, Inc. 200 Kohola Street Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Phone: (808) 961-5527 armiras¢ss, __ July, 1995 Environmental Assessment & Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement CHAPTER 1 AGENCIES CONSULTED The following agencies were consulted during the preparation of the Environmental Assessment and Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement. 1.1 Federal Agencies U.S. Army Pacific Command U.S. Army Support Command U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service U.S. National Biological Survey 1.2 State Agencies Department of Hawaiian Home Lands Institute of Astronomy Department of Land and Natural Resources -State Parks Division DLNR-Division of Forestry and Wildlife DLNR-State Historic Preservation Division DLNR-Division of Land Management 1.3 County Agencies Department of Public Works Planning Department Police Department SrrJJhE1SSESJI 9-82 July, 1995 O pPtMENT Op United States Department of the Interior 9 N 0 � a FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 9 M'9pCH ]den PACIFIC ISLANDS ECOREGION 300 ALA MOANA BOULEVARD, ROOM 3108 BOX 50088 HONOLULU, HAWAII 96850 PHONE: (808) 541-3441 FAX: (808) 541-3470 In Reply Refer To: MSS Mr. Robert Nestel Federal Highway Administration Denver, Colorado Dear Mr. Nestel: OCT 1 9 1995 F : : D Enclosed are copies of that portion of 50 CFR 402 and our section 7 handbook that address early consultation. If you request this process, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is eager to undertake early consultation for the Saddle Road Realignment on the Island of Hawaii. We are forming a consultation team consisting of biologists from the Service, National Biological Service, and State of Hawaii. Our point of contact is Brooks Harper, Field Supervisor. Please feel free to contact him at 808/541-3441 or myself if you have any questions. Sincerely, Robert P. Smith Ecoregion Manager Pacific Islands enclosures RM Rust Environment & Infrastructure Inc. A Rust International Company Phone 602.279.3541 5343 North 16th Street, Suite 400 Fax 602 279 1334 PhoemB, AZ 05015 October 24, 1995 ADDRESSEES Re: HI A -AD -6(1), Saddle Road Rust E&I Project No. 87775 This is in reference to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement being prepared for the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Hawaii Defense Access Road Project A -AD -6(1), Saddle Road, on the Big Island of Hawaii. A Social, Economic, and Environmental (SEE) Team meeting will be held on Friday, November 3, 1995, at 1 p.m. in Senator Daniel K. Inouye's office located in the Prince Kuhio Federal Building, Room 7325, 300 Ala Moana Boulevard, Honolulu, Hawaii. The Senator has graciously offered the use of his facilities for the SEE Team meeting which will follow the interagency meeting on Saddle Road being hosted by the Senator's office that morning. Mr. William R. Bird, Environmental Planning Engineer, and Mr. Dave Gedeon, Design Project Manager, both in the Central Federal Lands Highway Division of the FHWA in Denver, Colorado serve as co-chairs of the SEE Study Team. Mr. Bird will chair the upcoming meeting. A copy of the meeting agenda is enclosed. We appreciate your continued interest and cooperation on this project. Should you have questions or need additional information, Mr. Bird can be contacted by telephone at (303) 969-5909 or you may call Mr. Bill Moore, Okahara & Associates, in Hilo, Hawaii at (808) 961-5527. Sincerely, aures D. Anderson, P.E. Contract Manager Encl: As noted cc: Larry Smith, FHWA, CFLHD, Attn: Bill Bird (HPD -16), Denver, Colorado Jennifer Goto, Office of Senator Inouye, Honolulu, Hawaii Bill Moore, Okahara & Associates, Hilo, Hawaii SABT n!SEE EAM MTG 9-84 0 Quality through teamwork Saddle Road Project SEE Team Meeting - Honolulu Page Two Addressees: Stanley Tamura, Acting Hawaii District Engineer Highways Division Hawaii Department of Transportation 50 Makaala Street Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Lt. Col. Ralph H. Graves, Commander U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Building 230 Ft. Shafter, HI 96858-5440 Donna Fay K. Kiyosaki, P.E. Chief Engineer Department of Public Works County of Hawaii 25 Aupuni Street, Room 202 Hilo, Hawaii 96720-4252 Mr. Wayne Hamaguchi Chief, Planning Branch Attn: APEN-IF U.S. Army Pacific Command, Hawaii Building 104 Ft. Shafter, HI 96858-5100 Col. Dennis J. Fontana Director, Dept. of Public Works U.S. Army Garrison, Hawaii Building 300 Wheeler Army Air Field, HI 96854 Mr. Jeffrey R. Brooks Office of Program Development Federal Highway Administration 211 Main Street, Room 1100 San Francisco, CA 94105 Kenneth Y. K. Au Advance Planning Engineer Hawaii DOT - Highways Division 600 Kapiolani Boulevard, No. 301 Honolulu, HI 96813 Col. Ronald Tucker, Director Plans, Training & Mobilization Attn: APVG-GT Building 580, Rm. 105 U.S. Army Garrison, Hawaii Schofield Barracks, HI 96857 Lt. Col. Lloyd E. Mues, Commander HQ, PTA, USAG-HI Bldg. T-180 Milepost 36, H200 (Saddle Road) Hilo, HI 96720 Abe Wong Division Administrator (HDA -HI) Federal Highway Administration P. O. Box 50206 Honolulu, Hawaii 96850 Col. Owen D. Ryan, Commander HQ, U.S. Army Garrison, Hawaii Attn: APVG-GC Bldg. 580, Rm, 100 Schofield Barracks, HI 96857-5000 SAS5\"EET M Ml Hawaii DAR A -AD -6(1), Saddle Road SEE TEAM MEETING November 3, 1995 AGENDA I. Introductions A. SEE Team Members B. Consultants C. Guests and Observers II. Background A. Prior SEE Team Minutes B. Project Status and Activities C. Environmental Studies Kickoff - November 6 at Hilo III. Purpose of this Meeting A. Presentation of Saddle Road Alternative Alignments B. Confirmation of Alignments for Further Review C. Segments and Decisions for Manageable Comparison Routes D. Coordination with Ecosystem Management Program E. Coordination Requirements with Environmental Review F. Project Development Schedule IV. Discussion Topics As appropriate V. Adjourn 5:187775%GNOV3.51 � i � IM Rust Environment & Infrastructure Inc. A Rust International Company Phone 602 279 3541 5343 North 161h Street. Suite 400 Fax 602 279 1334 Phoenix, AI 85016 October 24, 1995 ADDRESSEES Re: HI A -AD -6(1), Saddle Road Rust E&I Project No. 87775 This is in reference to the development of the draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) presently underway by the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) Central Federal Lands Highway Division (CFLHD) covering proposed improvements to Hawaii SR 200, Saddle Road, on the Big Island of Hawaii. This effort is in cooperation with the Department of the Army, the Hawaii Department of Transportation (HDOT), and the County of Hawaii. The DEIS covers that portion of the Saddle Road extending from Milepost 6 in Hilo, westerly to SR 190, the Mamalahoa Highway. Rust E&I is the lead consultant directing the work for the FHWA. An interagency meeting has been scheduled to provide an overview of the ongoing work, discuss potential resource issues, and explore opportunities for interfacing the various environmental studies with the Ecosystem Management Program being developed by the U.S. Army Garrison, Hawaii as it relates to the Big Island. U.S. Senator Daniel Inouye's office has graciously offered to host this meeting. The meeting will be held on Friday, November 3, 1995, beginning at 10 a.m. in the Senator's offices located in the Prince Kuhio Federal Building, Room 7325, 300 Ala Moana Boulevard, Honolulu, Hawaii. You are cordially invited to attend and participate in this meeting. A copy of the meeting agenda is enclosed. We look forward to meeting with you on November 3, 1995. If you have questions or need additional information, you may call Mr. Bill Moore, Okahara & Associates, in Hilo, Hawaii at (808)961-5527. Sincerely, ames D. Anderson, P.E. Contract Manager Encl: As noted cc: Larry Smith, FHWA, CFLHD, Attn: Bill Bird (HPD -16), Denver, Colorado Jennifer Goto, Office of Senator Inouye, Honolulu, Hawaii Bill Moore, Okahara & Associates, Hilo, Hawaii 5:\87775\LAGENCY.MTG io Quality through teamwork 9-87 FMRust Environment & Infrastructure Inc. A Pusi International Company Phone 6022793541 5343 North 16th Street, Suite 400 Fax 602 279 1334 Phoenix, AZ 85016 October 24, 1995 ADDRESSEES Re: HI A -AD -6(1), Saddle Road Rust E&I Project NO. 87775 This is in reference to the development of the draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) presently underway by the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) Central Federal Lands Highway Division (CFLHD) covering proposed improvements to Hawaii SR 200, Saddle Road, on the Big Island of Hawaii. This effort is in cooperation with the Department of the Army, the Hawaii Department of Transportation (HDOT), and the County of Hawaii. The DEIS covers that portion of the Saddle Road extending from Milepost 6 in Hilo, westerly to SR 190, the Mamalahoa Highway. Rust E&I is the lead consultant directing the work for the FHWA. An interagency meeting will be held on Monday, November 6, 1995 at 11 a.m. in the Mala Ikena Room at the Hilo Hawaiian Hotel, 71 Banyon Drive, Hilo, Hawaii. The purpose of this meeting is to provide the local agencies with an update on project development activities, the alternative alignments to be studied, and a time line of projected progress. A copy of the meeting agenda is enclosed. We look forward to meeting with you on November 6, 1995. If you have questions or need additional information, you may call Mr. Bill Moore, Okahara & Associates, in Hilo at (808) 961-5527. Sincerely, ames D. Anderson, P.E. Contract Manager Encl: As noted cc: Larry Smith, FHWA, CFLHD, Attn: Bill Bird (HPD -16), Denver, Colorado Bill Moore, Okahara & Associates, Hilo, Hawaii S.\87775\LADD.51 9-88 0 Ouahry through teamwork Saddle Road Project Agency Meeting - Hilo Page Two Addressees: Howard Horiuchi, Acting District Manager DLNR Division of Forestry and Wildlife State Office Building 75 Aupuni Street Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Stanley Tamura, Acting District Engineer Highways Division Hawaii Department of Transportation 50 Makaala Street Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Donna Fay K. Kiyosaki, P.E. Chief Engineer Department of Public Works County of Hawaii 25 Aupuni Street, Room 202 Hilo, Hawaii 96720-4252 James Jacobi, Station Manager National Biological Survey Hawaii Field Research Station P. O. Box 44 Hawaii Volcanoes National Park, Hawaii 96718 Abe Wong Division Administrator (HDA -HI) Federal Highway Administration P. O. Box 50206 Honolulu, Hawaii 96850 Aaron Ueno Chief Sanitarian State Department of Health Hawaii District Office 1582 Kamehameha Avenue Hila, HI 96720 ME Sam Lee, Acting District Land Agent DLNR Division of Land Management Hawaii Land Managemem District Office State Office Building 75 Aupuni Street Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Charles K. Supe, State Parks Superintendent DLNR State Parks Division Hawaii Parks Section State Office Building 75 Aupuni Street Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Virginia Goldstein, Director Planning Department County of Hawaii 25 Apuni Street Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Lt. Col. Lloyd E. Mues, Commander HQ, PTA, USAG-HI APO, AP 96556-0008 Marc Smith Hawaii Island Archeologist DLNR State Historic Preservation Division P. O. Box 936 Hilo, HI 96721 James DuPont Waimea District Office Department of Hawaiian Home Lands P. O. Box 125 Kamuela, HI 96743 Saddle Road Project Agency Meeting - Hilo Page Three Addressess (continued): Lt. Ernest Correia Traffic Services Section Hawaii County Police Department 349 Kapiolani Street Hilo. HI 96720 Dr. Donald Hall, Director Institute of Astronomy University of Hawaii at Manoa 2680 Woodlawn Drive Honolulu, HI 96822 =E Harry Kim, Administrator Hawaii County Civil Defense 920 Ululani Street Hilo, HI 96720 Ron Koehler, General Manager Mauna Kea Observatories Support Services 177 Makaala Street Hilo, HI 96720 DEFENSE ACCESS ROAD A -AD -6(1) Saddle Road (H 200) Environmental Kickoff Meeting Mala Ikena Room - Hilo Hawaiian Hotel November 6, 1995 9:00 a.m. I. Introductions A. FHWA Personnel B. Rust Team - Organization Chart C. Subconsultants IL Project Overview A. History of Project B. Limits of Project C. Activities to Date D. Alternatives Being Studied - Filtering Process E. Corridor Widths and Delineation III. Contractual Matters A. Cost Plus Contract under FARs B. Rust - Prime Contractor with FHWA C. Subcontracts Executed D. Notice to Proceed - November 4, 1995 E. Reporting Requirements - Forms F. Invoicing Requirements - Forms - Payment G. Scope Changes IV. Special Requirements A. Unexploded Ordnance (UXO) Protection B. DLNR Lands C. Access I. Pohakuloa Training Area (PTA) 2. State Land 3. Private Property D. Cooperation with EcoSystem Management Project Team V. Schedule A. Mapping & Engineering - Completed by 1/31/96 B. Alignment & Corridor Staking - Completed by 12/31/95 C. Individual Studies - Subconsultants Provide Schedule ASAP D. Target Date for Completion of ALL Studies - 10/31/96 E. Draft EIS to FHWA - 12/20/96 V1. Future Meetings A. Monthly Progress Meetings - First Week of Month B. Public and/or Agency Meetings as Scheduled 9-91 RUSTEN'VIRO iNFR,s' RUCTURE NOV 2 2 1995 RECEIVED Mr. Robert P. Smith Ecoregion Manager, Pacific Islands Fish and Wildlife Service 300 Ala Moana Boulevard, Room 3108 P.O. Box 50088 Honolulu, HI 96850 Dear Mr. Smith: ReLed 33032 .Q/D i•1 November 17, 1995 In Reply Refer To: HPD -16 As you are aware, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), in cooperation with the State of Hawaii, the County of Hawaii, and the U.S. Department of the Army, is preparing an environmental impact statement (EIS) for the proposed improvement of a portion of Hawaii State Highway (SH) 200, Saddle Road. The portion to be covered by the EIS begins in Hilo at approximately milepost 5 at the intersection with the proposed Puainako Street extension and proceeds westward approximately 48 miles to the junction with Hawaii SH 19D, Mamalahoa Highway. The proposed improvement will be a two-lane paved roadway with paved shoulders. The purpose of this proposal is to provide a safe, functional road by improving roadway geometrics and eliminating existing safety hazards, including conflicts between the traveling public and military training operations in the Pohakuloa Training Area (PTA). Alternatives under consideration are shown on the enclosed maps. In the vicinity of the PTA, the alternative preferred by the military is shown in yellow on the Key Mao and designated as PTA #1 and PTA #IA. Four alignment alternatives are being considered at the west end of the proposal (see the Saddle Road Project Map), but a preferred alternative in this area has not yet been selected. Prior to the decision to prepare an EIS for this route, it was planned to prepare an environmental assessment for only that portion of the route passing through the PTA. Surveys for plants, birds, and mammals were performed, and a biological assessment was submitted to your office. Your response on March 8, 1991, stated that formal consultation would be required because the proposed action might affect the Palila. 9-92 In response to our notice of intent to prepare an EIS for the route, your office provided a new list on January 9, 1992, including the following species: Pal ila (Loxiodes bailleui) Hawaiian goose (Nesochen sandvicensis) Hawaiian hawk (Buten solitarius) Akiapolaaau (Hemionathus monroi) Hawaiian hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus semotus) Stenoavne anoustifolia var. anoustifolia Haolostachvs haolostachva var. anoustifolia New surveys are currently being conducted for the entire proposal and a biological assessment will be prepared based on the findings. As shown on the Pali la habitat map, the PTA #1 alignment passes through designated Pali la critical habitat. In accordance with 50 CFR 402.11, we are requesting initiation of early consultation at this time. We realize that additional data will be needed during this process but hope that by starting now we can address some of the more sensitive issues in a more timely manner. The point of contact for the FHWA is Mr. Robert Nestel, Environmental Biologist. He can be reached at 303-969-5911 or by writing to the above address, Attention: NPD -16, Environment. Sincerely yours, LARRY D HEWY olv Larry C. Smith, P.E. Division Engineer Enclosures cc w/enclosures: Mr. George A. Ruffner, Ph.D., EcoPlan Associates, Inc., 1845 S. Dobson Road, Suite 214, Mesa, AZ 85202 cc w/o enclosures: Mr. Bill Bird, Environmental Planning Engineer, CFLHD Mr. Steve Hallisy, Environmental Protection Specialist, CFLHD Mr. Dave Gedeon, Design Project Manager, CFLHD bcc w/o enclosures: A;: Nestel,in/ reading file yc: file - HI FH 006 RNestel:rn:rc:11/17/95:fws1con 9-93 United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Pacific Islands Office P.O. Box 50167 Honolulu, Hawaii 96850 William R. Bird Environmental Planning Engineer Federal Highway Administration P.O. Box 25246 Denver, Colorado 80225 Dear Mr. Bird: TAKE� 8: MDE N J3nuarY -�, 1992 n This responds to the December 2, 1991 Federal Register publication of your notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement .EIS) for the proposed alteration of a portion of Hawaii State Highway 200, Saddle Road. The highway is located in the vicinity of Pohakuloa on the Island of Hawaii. William Kramer of this office attended your briefing on the project last February in Honolulu. Two reports, Biological Assessment of Birds and Mammals in Relation to a Proposed Improvement of Saddle Road by Dr. Leonard Freed and Pohakuloa Training Area Road Widening Project Botanical_Surve�_Report b., Dr. Evangeline Funk, were distributed at that time for our review. Both documents reference endangered species that either were observed during surveys conducted during the preparation of the reports or endangered species that can occasionally be found in that area of the Island. These endangered species are: Palila (Loxioides bailleui) Hawaiian goose (Nesochen sandvicensis) Hawaiian hawk (Buteo solitarius) Akiapolaau (Hemignathus mo_nroi) Hawaiian hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus senotus) Stenogyne angustifolia var. angustifolia Haplostachys haplostachya var. angustifolia It is very possible that the project may affect some or all of these species. As such, consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service as directed by section 7 of the Endangered Species Act will be required. Such consultation can be initiated with this office directly, and we look forward to working with you to eliminate or minimize any adverse impacts on listed species that may be generated by the construction or use of the roadway. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed EIS. Sincerely, ) Robert P. Smith Field Supervisor cc: BFA, lPeterson), FWS, W'ashtngt?,i4 9tr C DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PACIFIC OCEAN DIVISION, CORPS OF ENGINEERS FORTSHAFTER, HAWAII 96858-SUO REPLY TO November 29, 1995 ATTENTION OF 7 QST Environmental Division Directorate of Engineering DE( 4 1995 RE,�_:A TED James D. Anderson, P.E. c/o RUST 5343 North 16th Street, Suite 400 Phoenix, Arizona 85016 Dear Mr. Anderson: colo/ To: 0r y OMS Q� BLK �,Qu..d Thank you for your interest and comments on the Army's Ecosystem Management Program. The Draft of the Ecosystem Management Plan is currently being prepared by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers consultant, R.M. Towill Corporation. Submission of this document is expected in February 1996. The Army has scheduled several surveys/ inventories at Pohakuloa Training Area on the Island of Hawaii and is in the process of data collection. We would be pleased to work cooperatively with your office. Please contact Ms. Beth Miura or Mr. Dean Nakasone at 438-1776 for further details/ information regarding these projects. Sincerely, C1 -H. J o,15.E. Direct gineering and Tec ical Services 9-95 ENJAAIIN J. CAYETANO RUST FRAS RUCTURE ur-,j 1 1 1995 RECEIVED FJcE FNy9 33c3z o w4 .elo ?.8 1. r c,.R � COPY 7v: L^coP/qr� 19 OKAHAL'A 1 i DKK au pRfC iOR STATE OF HAWAII OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY CONTROL 220 SOUTH RING STREET FOURTH FLOOR HONOLULU. HAWAII 96813 ruf.(•/-�µ,�� /� tFiFn I SRe+I" V I." I 6K2462 I /� December 7, 1995 Mr. Kazu Hayashida, Director Hawaii Department of Transportation 869 Punchbowl Street Honolulu, Hawaii 96813-5097 Dear Mr. Hayashida, Subject: Environmental Impact Statement Preparation Notice for the Hawaii State Highway 200 -Saddle Road Project, Hilo to Mamalahoa Highway Thank you for the opportunity to review the subject document. We have the following comments. 1. The Draft EIS must show the location of ceded lands on a map. 2. The Draft EIS must describe the impacts on access to the forest for gathering of plants for cultural purposes. 3. The increase in traffic will elevate noise levels. Are there any noise sensitive areas (eg., nesting or breeding areasl near the highway corridor? If so, what are the impacts on the noise sensitive areas? 4. The proposed highway project would increase the use of lands next to the roadway. The Draft EIS must analyze the extent of development with and without this project. Please also determine the significance of these impacts in relationship to current development trends and state/county land use plans. 5. Is this project expected to divert significant traffic from other routes? Would this diversion affect any local community from an economic standpoint? If so, what are the impacts? 9-96 Mr. Hayashida December 7, 1995 Page 2 If you have any questions, please call Jeyan Thirugnanam at 586-4185. Mahalo. SGSinelyil Director C: William Bird, US DOT James Anderson, RJZ= 9-97 9.4.3 CHRONOLOGICAL COMMENTS, CORRESPONDENCE, AND NOTICES - 1996 a U.S. Department of Transportation Fediii Highway Admintstrvtion Central Fe -rras�NP& - Highway DivisijhCTUEE Mr. William Y. Kikuchi Field Representative Office of U.S. Senator Daniel K. Inouye 101 Aupuni Street - Suite 205 Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Dear Mr. Kikuchi: , \! 2 6 1996 ...CEIVED XILCF, Awkv-y 3�3Z 555 Zang Street PO. Box 25246 Denver, Colorado 80225-0246 JAN 2 41996 In Reply Refer To: HPD -16 Mr. William Moore of Okahara & Associates, Inc., recently informed of us your inquiry regarding the projected begin construction date shown in our project schedule for the Defense Access Road project, Hawaii A AD -6(1), Saddle Road. More specifically, whether the proposed start date could be accelerated ahead of the January 1, 1999, date shown in the most recent (November) schedule. An examination of this schedule reveals that the right-of-way activity, which includes any needed appraisal and acquisition work, is delaying the project advertisement until October 1998 and hence the start of construction. However, we have proposed that the 14 -mile Defense Access Road segment be divided into a series of two or three projects, rather than one large and costly undertaking. By doing so, the total cost of construction for each project would be held to a more reasonable limit, thus reducing the possibility that some or many Hawaii -based firms may be placed at a competitive disadvantage versus large scale mainland contractors. Under this scenario, we believe that a project with no or few right-of-way requirements could be put together and advertised as early as August 1998 with construction starting in October of that year. A critical milestone will be the signing of the Record of Decision (ROD) by the Federal Highway Administration's regional office, a requirement before final design can commence. At this time, we anticipate the ROD will be signed in March 1998. Although this is an aggressive schedule for the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement and final design for a major route with many potential environmental issues, we believe it can be achieved, providing these concerns can be resolved reasonably, the numerous agency reviews and approvals completed in a timely manner and that remaining funding needed to complete the project development process is in place when required. We would like to thank you for your continued interest in and support for this important project for the State and County of Hawaii. The Federal Highway Administration and the many consultants working on this project are striving to assure these scheduled dates are achieved and are continuously looking for ways to accelerate this schedule. If you have any other questions or if we can provide any additional information regarding the project schedule or other project matters, please do not hesitate to contact us. /V 0'Q cc: Ms. Jennifer Goto Sabas, Office of Mr. Kazu Hayashida, HDOT Mr. Hugh Ono, HDOT Mr. Kenneth Au, HOOT Ms. Donna Fay K. Kiyosaki, County Mr. Wayne Hamaguchi, USARPAC Sincerely yours, JAMES D. ROLLER Larry C. Smith, P.E. Division Engineer S. Senator Daniel K. Inouye of Hawaii bcc: Mr. Jim Anderson, RUST Environment & Infrastructure Mr. Don Okahara, Okahara & Associates, Inc. Mr. Charley Miley, FHWA Mr. Abe Wong, FHWA Mr. Larry Smith, FHWA Mr. Jim Roller, FHWA Mr. Larry Henry, FHWA Mr. Dave Gedeon, FHWA Mr. Bill Bird, FHWA reading file yc: file - HI A AD -6 Q OGedeon:dg:rc:1/24/96(kikuchi.wpd) 9-99 02/16/96 12.55 DANIEL K. INOUYE HAWAII AMACPR1AT10NE Suaea ... an 0M.. L 4ACE. SCIENCE AND TIIAIV6PORTATION Mhaaawmait en 9.1100 T am""Nion IIRa M~.At Mn'm COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS DEMOCRATIC STEERING CCMMITfEE DMMITTEE ON RULES AND ADMINISTRATION JOINT COMMITTEE ON PAINTING '6`3039696499 FHWA-CFLHD-16 Z001/001 ><:4 ' Nr -,4-A42- GCjI 197/46:.WHw9 3 3o3Z R/.o /. / `United states senate SUITE 72L HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON, DC 20510-1102 (202) 2243934 FAX 12021 22487x7 January 30, 1996 Mr. Larry C. Smith, Y.E. Division Engineer Central Federal Lands Highway Div. Federal Highway Administration U.S. Dept. Of Transportation P.O. Box 25246 Denver, Colorado 80225-0246 Dear Mr. Smith: PRINCE KUNIO FEDERAL 5UILOING ROOM 732S. Eoa ALA MOANA ECULEVAAO HONOLULU, M 94060-075 IloN 1141-aiu FAX 19051 691440 101 AUPUNI STREET, NO. 201 HILO. NI 9077o 1000 826044 PAR ISOq SEt-5182 I would like to acknowledge receipt of your letter dated January 24, 1996 in reply to my inquiry on the construction schedule for the Saddle Road Project on the Island of Hawaii. Thank you for providing me this information. If Senator Inouye can be of assistance to you, please do not hesitate to contact me. WK:aem Al�o)ha, WILLIAM KIKUCHI Field Representative Post -it* Fax Note 7671 URIC TO �4y ,r7N Prom ��Cbt eiiJ CoJDepL U S T— Co. Phan.P PRom P Faf o2 279-/?3�/ - 9-100 Meeting Record By: Bill Moore, Senior Planner Okahara & Associates, Inc. Meeting with: See Attached List Date: March 1, 1996 Robert Smith of the USF&WS called the meeting to present the preliminary findings of the Early Consultation requested by FHWA regarding the potential impact of the PTA alternative alignments on the palila critical habitat. This early consultation was initiated on November 21, 1995. The process involves the development of a preliminary biological resource assessment of the palila and its habitat. While there may be other issues related to plants and invertebrates, the significant concern is the critical habitat and there this effort iccused solely on this issue. The biologists conducted a field trip of the area in early December and on December 14, 1995 held a meeting of all the scientists including representatives of USF&WS, NBS, USAGH and Reggie David. Paul Banko of the National Biological Survey provided an overview of the issues concerning the palila and the potential mitigation plan. In summary: 0 80% of the palila population is concentrated in a 34 square mile area on the western slopes of Mauna Kea. 0 The PTA Flats area is a potential habitat area, although there are no nesting palila in the area. The areas above the PTA Flats, however, holds the second largest concentration of nesting palila. 0 Palila rely on mamane trees for foo•j and shelter. Because the trees flower and seed at the highest elevations and continue to the lower elevations, a significant elevation change is required to ensure that food sources are available for the young birds - 0 Because of the concentration of palila, the entire population is threatened by fire. The major concerns with respect to the Saddle Road Alternatives through PTA include - 0 The realignment increases the risk of fire, both in the PTA Flats (eastern side) and along the western side of PTA. The current population concentration is directly mauka of this realignment. 9-101 o The realignment through the eastern side of PTA increases the fire risk to the second largest population of palila in the mauka area. o The realignment potentially impacts f the best relocation sites. This area is important because of the significant'mamane forest and the large elevationq differences with the area. o The Saddle Road improvements will increase traffic. This may introduce predators (cats, etc.) alien plants that compete with mamane, and increase the risk of fire. While these concerns are significant, Paul indicated that the biologists felt that there were reasonable mitigation measures to address the concerns. There are four major areas of mitigation: That the mamane forests within palila critical habitat in PTA no be made unsuitable for future restoration efforts. 2. That the threats of fire and alien organisms to palila habitat be minimized. Areas for palila restoration be increased through habitat restoration and land acquisitions (lease, easement, or fee purchase). 4. That successful efforts are made to restore palila populations in at least two locations other than the existing population concentration. Jacobi and Banko indicated they left these mitigation measures intentionally vague. They were indented to provide a discussion point to determine if this was feasible. If so, then the details and costs would have to be worked out. However, both indicated that if the mitigation measures are implemented, they felt that the palila would be better off. They would be confident in standing up to any legal challenge under the Endangered Species Act. In discussing where do we go from here, Robert Smith indicated it is appropriate for USAGH and FHWA to prepare a list of questions related to the implementation and potential costs. At that point, the parties should sit down and discuss the viability of the mitigation plan and what can actually be accomplished. He indicated that any mitigation plan must be prudent and feasible according to the proposing agency. 9-102 SADDLE ROAD REALIGNMENT MITIGATION FOR PAULA Despite the anticipated risks to the palila of realigning and improving the Saddle Road, it may be possible for military training to continue and the road to pass through Critical Habitat if four major conditions are met: 1) mamane forests within palila Critical Habitat in PTA are not made unsuitable for future palila restoration efforts, 2) threats of fire and alien organisms to palila habitat are minimized within PTA or elsewhere on the south and west slopes of Mauna Kea, 3) an area of former palila habitat at PTA is restored and managed for palila reintroduction; habitat elsewhere on Mauna Kea is enhanced for palila by securing land (lease, easement, or fee purchase) and promoting habitat restoration, 4) successful efforts are made to restore palila populations in at least two other locations on Mauna Kea and at PTA while enhancing the primary population on the west slope of Mauna Kea. 9-103 0 A HUNOLUL )FFILE OF U.S. SENATOR L.NNIEL K. INOUYE SIGN -IN SHEET SUBJECT Date 3 1, I,jL VZ1,6/ S Sheet I of 1- 64<45udT. NAME POSITION AGENCY -ADDRESS PHONE (1 W l L 1 N l �,;,- t.�0ou� Jtiei.r,Wwi US Sl�o r7 f'G�M OAK S e n% GGA r �, Hoff" �eLi aC�w�oa 7izar i v��/� ,9rc� f i 3- /5-,; . - ni �< 0?YSi�Pr r�e.n{s"� Ii�,r��0�io� .ico-� Service ��-3910 C61 V4MA) 0,FO 5 s�i �yyJ 1 0t_B.�n GVL •� 1f�SY V�_ X76 {- Z� LO'hc, Y1W DLN(L SS%'D(6b bWe 7- � `, �%Sl� ZOIdIA?l P, 3109 Po &r 5G� /� 9��, 5411-2?V % anlAt� VVR�Kf� ()"S.RSU hiv0 WitDc1FE SEAvicF �l7Rl'IL ��1/l�, Fi s ( g.d 4J i (d%riP S•P/' ui l iEl„Ilr7U •DtCUlr2 SIUOU �S �'. �L�. -- II�uL S`i'! z�v HONOLU OFFICE OF U.S. SENATOFi oANIEL K. INOUYE 0 SIGN -IN SHEET Date _,511 /aL Sheet Z of L - NAME POSITION AGENCY -ADDRESS PHONE /M J A -co 13 ,' Yv x 3 9 I � ``1 C� I � 101 AlnPul�l sT • � Z�'� �z>C' O$44 h 1�Z �KEj`11b1'� 6 0 VA w /+wA -aru �Lfll �Ca1rf `LqG -7,3, �7. L'CLCI Cc6Stc�iz A -1 N Cis o �lvwai A4 ,,5 a wd t b 8G� �u amu t�wL . LtAv . 16 B t 3 5� - 222�s c E Ll Ick C.4QNE l�D� Cw uI /✓5 �i2T SNAFTE.� 1 38 /D6 a� ✓� c- �.�a 7-4c Plus T�rr� r c �B Gs's 73 �P1/v L/,s cvms--H/ <S C/u �e..�� G1✓Ync.�z 65_� -125'% ON 3 RMtc� 1¢t �eQieti �f Engintt•' A- c�Arj �utsr. } t.)A �stJ►��FEQi�c1t0 U . S�� tp,lp F F t�l,�Cg &41-026q O, US.Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Mr. Charles Streck Senior Archeologist U.S. Army Engineering Division Pacific Ocean Division CEPOD-ET-ES; Building T-1 Fort Shafter, HI 96858-5440 Dear Mr. Streck: Central Federal Lands Highway Division 555 Zang Street P.O. Box 25246 Denver, Colorado 80225-0246 March 19, 1996 In Reply Refer To: HPD -16 This to confirm your conversation on this date with Mr. Bert McCauley, Staff Environmental Engineer, regarding your interest in performing the Historical & Cultural Resource Study for the alternate alignments under consideration through the Pohakuloa Training Area (PTA) on the Saddle Road Project. Enclosed is a copy of the Historic and Archeological Survey section of our contract with the prime contractor on this project. This section outlines the work needed on the PTA alternate routes so that we are consistent with the level of detail provided on the remainder of the corridors. As you are probably aware, we are attempting to accelerate the schedule for this project. Currently, we believe we can meet a May 1997 date for distribution of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for review and comment. In order to do this, we would need to submit a final report to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) no later than January 1, 1997. Also enclosed is mapping that"depicts the alternate alignments through the PTA for your use in conjunction with the work task outline and scheduling information in preparing a cost estimate. Mr. McCauley, Mr. Dave Gedeon, Design Project Manager, and Mr. Jim Roller, Division Planning and Coordination Engineer will be in Hawaii during the first 2 weeks of April to pursue coordination of the project. They will be available to meet with you at your convenience to review your estimate of the study's cost, our schedule of work, and any necessary contractual arrangements. If you have questions or need additional information, you may contact Mr. McCauley directly at (303) 969-5614. Thank you for your interest in helping to advance this project. Sincerely yours, JAMES D. ROLLER Larry C. Smith, P.E. 0" Division Engineer Enclosures bcc: ironment ; Planning & Coordination yc: File - HI 6 401 4 Design 4 reading file BMcCauley:bm:bp:3/19/96 9-106(L:\Environm\WP\Hi006\Streck.Itr) C1 U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration See Addressee List Centrai Federal Lands 555 Zang Street Highway Division P.O. Box 25246 Denver, Colorado 80225-0246 14AY 2 919.95 In Reply Refer To: Environment, HPD -16 The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), through the Central Federal Lands Highway Division (CFLHD), and the Hawaii Department of Transportation (HOOT), in cooperation with the U.S. Department.of Defense (DOD) are proposing to improve Hawaii State Route (SR) 200, Sadd-.e Road, on and adjacent to the Pohakuloa Training Area (PTA). The proposed improvement begins in Hilo, at approximately milepost 6 (the intersection with the proposed Puainako street extension) and extends approximately 48 miles (77 kilometers) westward to a junction with the Mamalahoa Highway, Hawaii SR 190. Funds allocated by the Military Traffic Management Command (MTMC) of the DOD are being used for planning of the segment of the proposed improvements within the PTA. These funds, as well as State funds, are also being used to conduct preliminary engineering studies and prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the route within the above limits in Hawaii County. Improvements outside of the PTA will be carried forward by the HDOT when the environmental planning effort is complete, and as State funds become available. Various alternative routes to the existing alignment are being considered at Kaumana, the PTA, and the western terminus of the roadway between the PTA and the Mamalahoa Highway. The purpose of this proposal is to provide a safe, functional road by improving roadway alignment and eliminating existing safety hazards, especially conflicts between the traveling public and military training operations in the PTA. The CFLHD is preparing the EIS for the proposed highway improvements following the Council on Environmental Quality's (CEQ) "Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)" of November 29, 1978, 40 CFR, Parts 1500-1508. In accordance with 40 CFR 1501.6, CFLHD is requesting that your agency become a Cooperating Agency in the development of this project because of your jurisdiction by law or special expertise as noted on the attached Request List of Cooperating Agencies. The Cooperating Agency concept is a team concept. By formally requesting that your agency become a Cooperating Agency for this project, CFLHD is requesting that your involvement be that of a review agency committed to helping us identify, early in the process, your concerns regarding the project's impact on your special area of expertise or jurisdiction by law. In view of the very real budget constraints and personnel reductions with which we are all faced, CFLHD is requesting your participation as a Cooperating Agency at a minimal level of review and input. We are not requesting personnel or other resource allocations for conducting environmental analyses or the preparation of EIS documents. 9-107 The views of Cooperating Agencies will be sought throughout all stages of the development of the EIS. This coordination and your input is intended to minimize your subsequent review efforts, and also assist CFLHD in identifying least impact alternative routes and designs and/or measures to minimize any adverse impacts which could possibly result from this highway improvement. Cooperating Agencies are asked to designate a single point of contact for their agency or departments under their direction. We are currently conducting environmental analyses for the preparation of the EIS, based on previous inputs from a large number of agencies, and expect to have a good idea of most impacts, adverse or otherwise, by late September. We would like to meet with you at that time and informally discuss any findings, with our consultants present, to get your input regarding concerns and/or avoidance or mitigation measures. This will help us in assembling a responsive preliminary Draft EIS for your review in December 1996. After you have had a chance to review the preliminary draft, we would like to meet with you again in mid- to late -January 1997 to discuss any specific concerns that you might have about how we addressed your previous input in the document or the verbage used. This approach is intended to provide a Draft EIS for public circulation and comment in May 1997 in which all agencies have had a hand and can support. Of course, we would appreciate having any general concerns you might have now transmitted to us as soon as possible so that we might have time to assess them prior to our meeting in September. We hope you will accept our invitation to participate in this process. We look forward to your response, in any event, prior to June 21st. If you have any questions or need additional information, you may call Mr. Bert McCauley, Staff Environmental Engineer, at 303-969-5614 or address inquiries to the above address (Attention: Environmental Section, HPD -16). Sincerely yours, LARRY D. HENRY arry C. Smith, P.E. k Division Engineer Enclosures: Project Location Map 40 CFR 1501.6 and 1508.5 Request List of Cooperating Agencies cc (w/attachments): Mr. William Y. Kikuchi Field Representative Office of U.S. Senator Daniel K. Inouye 101 Aupuni Street, Suite 205 Hilo, HI 96720 Mr. Kazu Hayashida Director, Hawaii Department of Transportation $69 Punchbowl Street Honolulu, HI 96813 Mr. Abraham Y. Wong Division Administrator (HAD -HI) Federal Highway Administration Box 50206 Honolulu, HI 96850 Mr. Jim Anderson RUST Environment & Infrastructure 5343 North 16th Street, Suite 400 Phoenix, AZ 85016 Okahara and Associates, Inc. Engineering Consultants 73-5574 Maiau Street, Bay 6B Kailua-Kona, HI 96740 Ms. Julie A. Cirillo Regional Administrator (HRA -09) Federal Highway Administration 201 Mission Street, Suite 2100 San Francisco, CA 94105 bcc: BMcCauley JRoller DGedeon Reading file yc: file - HI 6 BMcCauley:bm:bp:5/29/96(copagenc.ltr) 9-109 REQUEST LIST OF COOPERATING AGENCIES PROJECT A -AD -6(1), Saddle Road AGENCY Lt. Col. Ralph H. Graves, Commander U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Building 230 Fort Shafter, HI 9685-5440 Col. Owen D. Ryan, Commander HQ, U.S. Army Garrison, Hawaii Attn: APVG-GC Building 580, Room 100 Schofield Barracks, HI 96857-5000 Mr. Wayne Hamaguchi, Chief Planning Branch U.S. Army Pacific Command, Hawaii Attn: APEN-IF Building 104 Fort Shafter, HI 96858-5100 Mr. Robert P. Smith, Manager U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service P.O. Box 50088 Honolulu, HI 96850 Ms. Claudia Nissley, Director Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Western Office of Project Review 730 Simms Street Golden, CO 80401 Mr. Michael Wilson, Director Department Of Land & Natural Resources P.O. Box 621 Honolulu, HI 96809 Mr. Kazu Hayashida, Director Hawaii Department Of Transportation 869 Punchbowl Street Hpnolulu, Hawaii 96813-5097 9-110 RELATIONSHIP 404/Wetlands Landowner Landowner T&E Species / FWCA Historical / Archaeology Landowner/C.D. Permit Co -lead Hawaii County Department of Public Works Donna Fay K. Kiyosaki, P.E. Chief Engineer 25 Aupuni Street, Room 202 Hilo, HI 96720-4252 Mr. Gary Gill, Director Hawaii Office of Environmental Quality Control 220 South King Street, Fourth Floor Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 Ms. Shirley Mattingly, Regional Director Federal Emergency Management Agency FEMA Region 9 Building 105 P.O. Box 29998 Presidio of San Francisco, CA 94129 Mr. David Farrel, Chief Office of Federal Activity (E-3) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105 Ms. Linda Colburn, Administrator State Office of Hawaiian Affairs 711 Kapiolani Blvd., Suite 500 Honolulu, HI 96813 Mr. Denis R. Lau, Branch Chief Clean Water Branch Environmental Management Div-ision State Department of Health 919 Ala Moana Blvd., Room 301 Honolulu, HI 96814 Mr. Kali Watson, Chairman Hawaiian Homes Commission P.O. Box 1879 Honolulu, HI 96805 Dr. William Steiner, Director National Biological Service-PISC University of Hawaii Kilmore Hall, Room 406 3050 Maile Way Honolulu, HI 96822 Dr. Gregory G.Y. Pai, Phd., Director Office of State Planning Office of the Governor State Capitol P.O. Box 3540 Honolulu, HI 96811-3540 Attention: Coastal Zone Management 9-111 Public Services State Approvals Floodplains / NFIP 404/Hazmat/Air Quality Traditional Cultural Clean Water / 401 Cert. Landowner T & E Species CZM Plan DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY HEADQUARTERS, UNITED STATES ARMY GARRISON, HAWAII SCHOFIELD BARRACKS, HAWAII 96857-5000 June 28, 1996 REPLY TO ATTENTION OF Office of the Commander Mr. Larry C. Smith, P.E. Division Engineer Federal Highway Administration U.S. Department of Transportation 555 Zang Street P.O. Bos 25246 Denver, CO 80225-0246 Dear Mr. Smith: This letter is in response to your letter dated May 29, 1996 regarding the proposed project to improve Hawaii State Route (SR) 200, Saddle Road, on and adjacent to the Pohakuloa Training Area. I accept your offer that the U.S. Army Garrison, Hawaii be a cooperating agency in the development of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for this project. My prime point of contact for this project is LTC Lloyd Mues, Pohakuloa Training Area (PTA) Community Commander, (808) 538-3501; vith Dr. Raimo A. Liias, Chief; Environmental Department, Directorate of Public Works, (808) 656-5501 as alternate. Sincerely, de Colon , .S. Arty Commanding Officer Copies Furnished: Directorate of Plans, Training, Mobilization and Security Staff Judge Advocate Commander, 25th Infantry Division (Light) and U.S. Army, Hawaii 9-'12 DAWN J. CAYUANO JVERNOR OF HAWAII STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH P O. BOX 3378 HONOLULU, HAWAII 98801-3378 June 20, 1996 Mr. Larry C. Smith, P.F. Division Engineer 555 Zang Street P.O. Box 25246 Denver, Colorado 80225-0246 Attention: Environmental Section, HPD -16 Dear Mr. Smith: LAWRENCE MIKE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH In reply, please refer to EMD/CWS FZ�Zf�fi�l Thank you for inviting the Clean Water Branch as a Cooperating Agency for the project Hawaii State Route (SR) 200, Saddle Road, on and adjacent to the Pohakuloa Training Area (PTA). We would like to inform you that we accept your invitation to become a review agency in the development of this project. Should you have any further questions on this matter, please contact Mr. Alec Wong,'Engineering Section of the Clean Water Branch, at (808) 586-4309 or write us at 919 Ala Moana Boulevard, Room 301 Honolulu, HI 96814. Sincerely, n X. �Ll DENIS R. LAU, P.E., CHIEF Clean Water Branch AW:auc 9-113 BENJAMIN J. CAYETANO GOVERNOR STATE OF HAWAII STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF HAWAIIAN HOME LANDS PD. BOX 1919 HONOLULU. HAWAII 96805 June 14, 1996 Mr. Larry C. Smith, P.E. Division Engineer U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration P. O. Box 25246 Denver, Colorado 80225-0246 Attention: Environment Section HPD -16 Dear Mr. Smith: KALI WATSON CHAIRMAN HAWAIIAN HOMES COMMISSION JOBIE M. IG M. YAMAGUCHI DEPUTY TO THE CHAIRMAN SUBJECT: Improvement of Hawaii State Route 200, Saddle Road, Hawaii Thank you for the request to participate in the environmental process for the proposed Saddle Road improvements. We believe it is essential for the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands to be involved and we welcome any opportunity to do so. Ms. Linda Chinn is the Land Agent for the island of Hawaii. She is familiar with our land holdings along the proposed project and is also familiar with the department's prospective developments on that side of the island. As such I have asked her to represent the department on your project. Please feel free to call Linda directly at (808) 586-3891 in Honolulu. KW:lc saddle.doc. Warmest aloha, Kali Watson, Chairman Hawaiian Homes Commission 9-114 DANIEL K. INOUYE HAWAII APPROPRIATIONS Subcommittee on Defense IERCE, SCIENCE AND TRANSPORTATION Subcommittee on Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS DEMOCRATIC STEERING COMMITTEE COMMITTEE ON RULES AND ADMINISTRATION JOINT COMMITTEE ON PRINTING United Mates senate SUITE 722, HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON, OC 20510-1102 (202) 224-3934 FAX (202) 224-6747 June 6, 1996 Mr. Larry C. Smith, P.E. Division Engineer Central Federal Lands Highway Division Federal Highway Administration P.O. Box 25246 Denver, Colorado 80225-0246 Dear Mr. Smith: PRINCE KUHIO FEDERAL BUILDING ROOM 7325, 300 ALA MOANA BOULEVARD HONOLULU, HI 96850-4975 IBM) 541-2542 FAX 18081 541-2549 101 AUPUNI STREET, NO. 205 HILO, HI 98720 (808) 935-0844 FAX (008) 96111193 I would like to acknowledge receipt of your May 29, 1996 letter and enclosures inviting cooperating agencies to participate in the Saddle Road Project. Thank you for keeping me informed on your progress. WK:aem Aloha, WILLIAM KIKUCHI Field Representative 9-115 PHR Paul H. Rosendahl, Ph.D., Inc_ Archcealoflcal • Historical • Cultural Resource Management audlea 6 .erwCes IO4 wuaewme^•9nae • H, Io. Haw%II 94720 • 41001941-1741 FAX (00a)941.4914 P.G.aax I330S • G.M.f.. Guam 94921 • (471)472.3117 . rAX(670472.3131 95-1522.1 5 August 19% Dr. Don Hibbard, Administrator Scats Historic Preservation DNlsaon 33 South King Sveec 6th Floor Honolulu. HI 96813 Sob1eciePHR1 project 1522.1 Arcbaeoiercoi Inventory Survey Saddle Road Dear Dr. Hibbard: PHRI a currently assessing z,,em corridors for the proposed Saddle Road expansion props (Attachment 1). ; nit study condor m 100 feat (30 m) from both sides of the centerline (for a real width of 60 m). A typical corridor purl trap is enclosed (Attachment 2). In this letter, we provide a desc:�otion of the Area of Potential E%c (APE), and request concurrence with tie proposed APE from your office. We are also requesting information concerning a previous archaeological study within the currert projee area. Based on our field inspection of a bale portion of the project area with Dr. McCoy and Mr. Smith on I April 1996, and a subsequent phone conversation including Dr. Rosendahl. Dr. Langlas Dr. Cordy and "of we are proceeding with the under:tanding that the APE for archaeological sites is the 200 foot (60 m) wide road corridor, but that assessment of potential effec on known burials (as traditional cuwral properties) will extend up to 20C feat from the camtriine (400 feet [120 m] total width), because of the need for a buffer between the burials and the potential project impacs. In addition to burials. several ritual sites are described by informant Henry Auwae in the general area. Those sites aro not n use at present. but they are soil considered important by Native Hawaiians, and ritual use could conceivably be ravivad. As discussed in a phone conversation between Ms. McEklowra y and Dr. Laigles (29 July 19%), wit propose a wider APE for these ntuai saes Ritual acvices at the sites could be disturbed by the audiovisual impact of road traffic Potentiai impae would extend farther in the open terrain that exists in the Saddle area and along the corridors to the west of the Pohakuloa Training Area (PTA), and less far in the forested terrain along the corridors to the east of PTA. Consequently, we propose that assessment for rital sitas extend to 500 feet from the centerline in forested terrain (1000 feet [300 m] total width), and to 112 mile from the centerline in open terrain (I mild [1.6 km] total width). One of the project corridors has been previously —greyed and assessed (Welch 1993). What is the status of the regulatory review of the Welch (1993) reportf What are the ram6iovona of the sato of the Welch (1993) review on the current corridor assessment? Our work within the previously -surveyed corridor will be limited to relocating the sites to assess their current integrity. Any additional work within the previously -evaluated corridor wig be based on the resoiuvon of the following issues Welch (19931 did not record or map the numerous miliary sites within the corridor. Do the 20th century miliary features within the area previously =mad by Welch (1993) need to be recorded? We are not tartan as this time. but Sire 14638 may be within the proposed study corridor for our upcoming fieldwork. Welch (1993) recommended that further work was needed as Site 14638 in order to be able to make an evaluation of the significance of that sits. Does OLNR concur with that recommendation? If so. Is the proposed additional testing strategy (Welch 1993: 96) approprato and sdequate? Thank you for your attention to these matters We look forward to your reply. eta cc ). Anderson. RUST E61 wfout enc - 9 -116 Sincerely, // Thomas R oU PHRI Projects Mw%er - Hawaii September 11, 1996 Letter No. 45366 Reference No. 96021 Office of State Planning Office of the Governor P. O. Box 3540 Honolulu, Hawaii 96811-3540 Okahara & Associates, Inc. ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS Attention: John Nakagawa, Hawaii CzM Manager Dear Mr. Nakagawa: SUBJECT: HAWAII STATE HIGHWAY 200 -SADDLE ROAD PROJECT HILO TO MAMALAHOA HIGHWAY This is to confirm our conversation of September 9, 1996 regarding the Coastal Zone Management (CZM) Program requirements for the proposed improvements to Hawaii State Highway 200 -Saddle Road, Hilo to Mamalahoa Highway, Hawaii Island. As the project will utilize federal funds, it is considered a federal activity and therefore requires coordination with respect to the State of Hawaii CZM program. Based on this conversation it is our understanding that a CZM Program Assessment Form must be completed for the project and submitted to your office for review and determination of consistency with the Hawaii CZM Program. The information required for the assessment would be provided by the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) which is in the process of being prepared. Accordingly, we will submit the Assessment Form to you once the DEIS has been completed. In the meantime, we will keep you appraised of any potential issues and concerns that may arise during the preparation of the DEIS as it may affect your review as to the consistency of the project with the State's CZM Program. 9-117 Donald K. Okahora. P.E. • Masahiro Nisluaa, P.E. • Terrance Nago. P.E. • Glenn Suzuki, P.E. • Nancy E. Burns, P.E. 200 KOHOIA ST. • HILO. HI 96720 • 18081 961-5527 • FAX (8081 961 5529 470 NORTH NIMITZ HN , STE, 212 • HONOLULU. HI 96817 • (8081524-1224 • FAX (8081 521-3151 73-5574 IAAIAU STREET. BAY 6B • KAILUA-KONA. HI 96740 • (808) 3 29-1 221 • FAX (8081329-1006 E-MAIL • HILO okaha2@aloha. net • OAHU oaoabu@aloha. net • KAILUA-KONA oakona@aloha net September 11, 1996 Letter No. 45366 Reference No. 96021 Thank you for your cooperation and assistence on this matter. Please call me if you have any questions or if the above is not consistent with our conversation. Sincerely, W444�' L 4L� E Willliam L. Moore Senior Planner WLM:mq cc: RUST Environmental and Infrastructure Federal Highways Administration --Central Lands Division Federal Highways Administration --Hawaii Division 9-118 I a US. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration See Addressee List Central Federal Lands 555 Zang Street Highway Division P.O. Box 25246 Denver, Colorado 60225-0246 SEP 1 2 1996 In Reply Refer To: HPD -16, Environment The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), through the Central Federal Lands Highway Division (CFLHD) and the Hawaii Department of Transportation (HDOT), in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Defense are proposing to improve Hawaii State Route (SR) 200, Saddle Road, on and adjacent to the Pohakuloa Training Area (PTA). The proposed improvement begins in Hilo, at approximately milepost 6 (the intersection with the proposed Puainako street extension) and extends approximately 48 miles (77 kilometers) westward to a junction with the Mamalahoa Highway, Hawaii State Route (SR) 190. Funds allocated by the Military Traffic Management Command (MTMC) of the DOD are being used for planning of the segment of the proposed improvements within the PTA. These funds, as well as State funds, are also being used to conduct preliminary engineering studies and prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the route within the above limits in Hawaii County. The CFLHD is preparing the (EIS) for the proposed highway improvements following the Council on Environmental Quality's (CEQ) "Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)" of November 29, 1978, 40 CFR, Parts 1500-1508. The CFLHD has contracted with RUST Environment & Infrastructure to prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the proposed Saddle Road Project. The Social, economic, and environmental inventories and studies are very close to completion. Upon completion, they will be incorporated into the DEIS; this document will then be distributed for public comment. Because of the scope and complexity of the project, the CFLHD will hold an interagency project review and coordination meeting to present project planning and design overviews and discuss the findings and results of inventories and studies to date. The meeting will be held on Thursday, October 10, 1996, beginning at 9 a.m., at the Hilo Hawaiian Hotel in Hilo. We ask that you, or a representative, attend this meeting. The purpose of this meeting is three -fold: 1) to present information to you about the proposed project's development and schedule, and to discuss social, economic, and environmental study findings and how these findings will be presented in the DEIS, 2) to afford you the opportunity to comment on these ,findings and their manner of presentation in the DEIS, and 3) to provide an opportunity for all regulatory or affected agencies to coordinate with each 9-119 other and the project development staff on any further issues or regulatory requirements that need to be addressed. A copy of the agenda is enclosed for your reference. Mr. Bert McCauley, Staff Environmental Engineer, CFLHD, will chair the meeting. We urge you to attend this meeting, as it is an opportunity for a preliminary review of the DEIS content prior to public distribution. We look forward to meeting with you on October 10. Should you have any questions or need additional information, Mr. McCauley can be contacted by telephone at (303) 969- 5924, or you may contact Mr. Bill Moore, Okahara & Associates, in Hilo at (808) 961-5527. Enclosures bcc: Dave Gedeon Bill Bird Larry Henry Jim Roller Reading file yc: file -HI �BhlcCauley:bm Sincerely yours, LARRY D. HENRY Larry C. Smith, P.E. Division Engineer SR 200, Saddle Road bp:9/11/96:1\environm\sadroad\intragnc.ltr 9-120 Mr. Kazu Hayashida, Director Hawaii Department Of Transportation 869 Punchbowl Street Honolulu, Hawaii 96813-5097 Maj. Gen. Alexis T. Lum (Ret.) Executive Assistant Office of U.S. Senator Daniel K. Inouye 7325 Federal Building Honolulu, HI 96850 Mr. William Y. Kikuchi Field Representative Office of U.S. Senator Daniel K. Inouye 101 Aupuni Street, Suite 205 Hilo, HI 96720 Lt. Col. Ralph H. Graves, Commander U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Building 230 Fort Shafter, HI 96858-5440 Col. Owen D. Ryan, Commander HQ, U.S. Army Garrison, Hawaii Attn: APVG-GC Building 580, Room 100 Schofield Barracks, HI 96857-5000 Mr. Wayne Hamaguchi, Chief Planning Branch U.S. Army Pacific Command, Hawaii Attn: APEN-IF Building 104 Fort Shafter, HI 96858-5100 Mr. Robert P. Smith, Manager U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service P.O. Box 50088 Honolulu, HI 96850 Mr. Michael Wilson, Director Department Of Land & Natural Resources P.O. Box 621 Honolulu, HI 96809 Hawaii County Department of Public Works Donna Fay K. Kiyosaki, P.E. Chief Engineer 25 Aupuni Street, Room 202 Hilo, HI 96720-4252 9-121 Mr. Gary Gill, Director Hawaii Office of Environmental Quality Control 220 South King Street, Fourth Floor Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 Ms. Linda Colburn, Administrator State Office of Hawaiian Affairs 711 Kapiolani Blvd., Suite 500 Honolulu, HI 96813 Mr. Denis R. Lau, Branch Chief Clean Water Branch Environmental Management Division State Department of Health 919 Ala Moana Blvd., Room 301 Honolulu, HI 96814 Mr. Kali Watson, Chairman Hawaiian Homes Commission P.O. Box 1879 Honolulu, HI 96805 Ms. Virginia Goldstein, Director Hawaii County Planning Department 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Mr. Wayne Carvalho, Chief Hawaii County Police Department 349 Kapiolani Street Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Mr. Harry Kim, Administrator Hawaii County Civil Defense Agency 920 Ululani Street Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Mr. Aaron Ueno, District Sanitarian State of Hawaii Department of Health 1582 Kalanianole Avenue Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Dr. William Steiner, Director National Biological Service-PISC University of Hawaii Kilmore Hall, Room 406 3050 Maile Way Honolulu, HI 96822 9-122 Dr. Gregory G.Y. Pai, Phd., Director Office of State Planning Office of the Governor P.O. Box 3540 Honolulu, HI 96811-3540 Attention: Coastal Zone Management LTC Lloyd E. Mues, Commander HQ, PTA, USAG-HI Bldg T-180 Milepost 36, H2O0 (Saddle Road) Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Col. Ronnie (Randy) Tucker, Director DPTMSEC, U.S. Army Garrison Hawaii ATTN: APVG-GT Schofield Barracks, Hawaii 96857-5000 Col. Dennis Fontana, Director DPW, U.S. Army Garrison Hawaii Building 300 Schofield Barracks, Hawaii 96857-5000 Mr. Dean Uchida, Administrator Department of Land and Natural Resources Division of Land Management 1151 Punchbowl Street Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 Mr. Michael Buck, Administrator Department of Land and Natal Resources Division of Forestry and Wildlife 1151 Punchbowl Street Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 Mr. Ralson Nagata, Administrator Department of Land and Natural Resources Division of State Parks 1151 Punchbowl Street Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 Mr. Don Hibbard, Administrator Department of Land and Natural Resources State Historic Preservation Division 33 South King Street, 6th Floor Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 LTC Richard Young Facilities Management Office Hawaii Army National Guard State Department of Defense 3949 Diamond Head Road Honolulu, Hawaii 96816 9-123 Ms. Julie A. Cirillo Regional Administrator (HRA -09) Federal Highway Administrator 201 Mission Street, Suite 2100 San Francisco, CA 94105 Mr. Abraham Y. Wong Division Administrator (HAD -HI) Federal Highway Administration Box 50206 Honolulu, HI 96850 Mr. Don Griner Project Manager RUST Environment & Infrastructure 5343 North 16th Street, Suite 400 Phoenix, AZ 85016 Mr. Donald Okahara, Principal Okahara and Associates, Inc. 200 Kohola St. Hilo, HI 96720 Dr. Donald Hall, Director Institute for Astronomy 1175 Manono St. Hilo, HI 96720 L`environm\sadmad\intragnc.1st 9-124 a U5. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Addressees Central Federal Lands 555 Zang Street Highway Division P.O. Box 25246 Denver, Colorado 802254246 SEP 1 31996 In Reply Refer To: HPD -16, Environment As you know, the Central Federal Lands Highway Division (CFLHD) has contracted with RUST Environment & Infrastructure to prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the proposed Saddle Road Project. Social, economic, and environmental inventories and studies are very close to completion at this time. We are in the process of writing and assembling a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) which will be made available for public comment in the near future. A project development schedule is enclosed for your reference. At this point in the development of the project, it is important that we convene the Social, Economic, & Environmental (SEE) Team to discuss significant project development issues and seek your guidance on the selection of one or more preferred alternative route(s) from the various alternate routes studied. Accordingly, we have scheduled a SEE Team meeting for Wednesday, October 9, 1996, beginning at 1 p.m., at the Hilo Hawaiian Hotel in Hilo. Mr. Bert McCauley, Staff Environmental Engineer, CFLHD, will chair the meeting. The primary purpose of the meeting will be to discuss the social, economic, and environmental inventory and study findings for each of the various alternative routes and examine the -merits of each as a "preferred alternative" for presentation as such in the DEIS. Any recommendations or suggestions that you develop will be presented for discussion at the Interagency Review and Coordination Meeting and the Saddle Road Task Force Meeting on October 10th. We appreciate your continued interest and cooperation on this project. If you have any questions or need additional information, you may contact Mr. Bert McCauley, Staff Environmental Engineer, at (303) 969-5924. Sincerely yours, LARRY 0. HENY Larry C. Smith, P.E. Division Engineer Enclosures 9-125 bcc: Bill Bird Reading file Dave Gedeon BMcCauley:bm:bp:9/12/96:1:\environm\sadroad\seemtg.ltr Jim Roller Mr. Bruce McClure, Hawaii District Engineer Highways Division Hawaii Department of Transportation 50 Makaala Street Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Mr. Jeffrey R. Brooks Office of Program Development Federal Highway Administration 201 Mission Street, Room 2100 San Francisco, CA 94105 Mr. Kenneth Y. K. Au Advance Planning Engineer Hawaii DOT - Highways Division 600 Kapiolani Boulevard, No. 301 Honolulu, HI 96813 Lt. Col. Ralph H. Graves, Commander U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Building 230 Fort Shafter, HI 96858-5440 Col. Owen D. Ryan, Commander HQ, U.S. Army Garrison, Hawaii Attn: APVG-GC Building 580, Room 100 Schofield Barracks, HI 96857-5000 Mr. Wayne Hamaguchi, Chief Planning Branch U.S. Army Pacific Command, Hawaii Attn: APEN-IF Building 104 Fort Shafter, HI 96858-5100 LTC Lloyd E. Mues, Commander HQ, PTA, USAG-HI Bldg T-180 Milepost 36, H2O0 (Saddle Road) Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Col. Ronnie (Randy) Tucker, Director DPTMSEC, U.S. Army Garrison Hawaii ATTN: APVG-GT Schofield Barracks, Hawaii 96857-5000 Col. Dennis Fontana, Director DPW, U.S. Army Garrison Hawaii Building 300 Schofield Barracks, Hawaii 96857-5000 9-126 Mr. Abraham Y. Wong Division Administrator (HAD -HI) Federal Highway Administration Box 50206 Honolulu, HI 96850 Hawaii County Department of Public Works Donna Fay K. Kiyosaki, P.E. Chief Engineer 25 Aupuni Street, Room 202 Hilo, HI 96720-4252 L:\environm\sadroad\seemail.lst 9-127 CC) U.S Department Central Federal Lands of Transportation Highway Division Federal Highway Administration Mr. Dean Uchida Administrator Division of Land Management Department of Land and Natural Resources 1151 Punchbowl Street Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 Dear Mr. Uchida: 555 Zang Street P.O. Box 25246 Denver, Colorado 80225-0246 SEP 1 71996 In Reply Refer To: HPD -16, Environment This is to confirm your meeting of August 7, 1996, with Mr. Bert McCauley of our staff and Mr. Bill Moore of Okahara & Associates, and to initiate formal discussion of land requirement issues as related to the mitigation planning efforts for Palila. As you are aware, the mitigation for this specie is an integral part of the Saddle Road Project for the segment through the Pohakaloa Training Area (PTA). Enclosed is a copy of the Environmental Assessment for this project as submitted to the Office of Environmental Quality Control for your reference. Currently, we are anticipating having a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) available for public distribution and comment in April 1997. As a result of the realignment through the PTA impacting critical habitat for the Palila, the mitigation plan for Palila will be an integral part of the DEIS. Under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, we hope to have a draft mitigation plan submitted to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service in December of this year and a preliminary Biological Opinion issued by them for inclusion in the DEIS. The mitigation plan, as envisioned presently by the National Biological Service (NBS) includes, among other items, provisions for translocating Palila to lands on the north side of Mauna Kea near Pu'u Mali. According to the NBS, this is necessary in order to establish another viable population, in addition to the main population on the west side of Mauna Kea which will be at greater risk from human caused fires due to the increase in vehicles along an improved Saddle Road. Further, the translocation lands would need to be managed to continue to support this new Palila population. Presumably, this management would be provided by a State agency with funds provided through the U.S. Army's Ecosystem Management Plan for the PTA, while the lands would be made available through arrangements developed by the Division of Land Management. The nature of these arrangements, the processes required, and the timing and funding necessary to make the land available for this purpose are issues that require detailed coordination among all affected parties. Enclosed is a copy of the Saddle Road Realignment Mitigation Plan for Palila as prepared by Mr. Paul Banko of NBS. We have requested Mr. Banko provide us with further descriptions of the mitigation plan requirements such as: 1)Palila 9-128 translocation and pest, alien species, and fire control requirements and attendant assumptions and cost estimates; 2)scientific criteria used to justify the selection of the Pu'u Mali area as the most favorable translocation site; and 3) habitat criteria and standards for forest management without specifying land ownership or control methods. Also enclosed is a map depicting critical habitat of endangered birds, a USGS 7.5 -minute topographic quadrangle map showing the proposed translocation lands on the north side of Mauna Kea, and tax maps indicating the lands that have been identified by the NBS. Once we have received the additional information requested of Mr. Banko, we would like to continue discussions with you, or your staff, as to the processes required in attempting to provide the NBS land requirements for the Palila Mitigation. We are anticipating a meeting during the week of November 18, 1996, at Senator Inouye's office to initiate coordination of the entire mitigation effort with all involved parties. Further information on this meeting will be forthcoming from the Senator's office. We look forward to meeting you at that time. If you require any further information, or have any questions after reviewing the enclosed material, you may contact Mr. Bert McCauley, Staff Environmental Engineer, at (303) 969-5924, or Mr. Bill Moore in Hilo, at (808) 961-5527. Sincerely yours, LARRY D. IFM Larry C. Smith, P.E. Division Engineer Enclosures cc: Mr. Mike Buck, Administrator, Division of Forestry & Wildlife Department of Land & Natural Resources, 1151 Punchbowl Street Honolulu, HI 96813 Mr. Brooks Harper, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, P.O. Box 50088 Honolulu, HI 96850 Mr. Bill Moore, Okahara and Associates, Inc., 200 Kohola Street Hilo, HI 96720 Maj. Gen. Alexis Lum (Ret.), Executive Assistant, Offices of U.S. Senator Daniel K. Inouye, 7325 Federal Building, Honolulu, HI 96850 bcc: Abraham Y. Wong, Division Administrator (HAD -HI) Jim Roller, FHWA Larry Henry, FHWA Dave Gedeon, FHWA Bert McCauley, FHWA Reading file yc: file - HI SR 200 (Saddle Road) OMcCauley:bm: bp: 9/17/96:L:\environm\sadroad\uchida. 1tr 9-129 United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE PACIFIC ISLANDS ECOREGION 300 ALA MOANA BOULEVARD, ROOM 3108 BOX 50088 HONOLULU, HAWAII 96850 PHONE: (808) 541-3441 FAX: (808) 541-3470 ' William, Moore, Senior Planner DCT. '-1.J 1996 Okahara & Associates, Inc. 73-5574 Maiau Street, Bay 613 Kailua-Kona, HI 96740 13111 Dear oore: Based on our meeting of September 5, 1996, concerning the Saddle Road realignment mitigation for palila, you requested more detailed documentation and justification for securing and managing additional palila habitat in the Puu Mali and Puu Laau areas of Mauna Kea, Hawaii. Additionally, you asked for written cost estimates for conducting palila restoration activities associated with the mitigation proposal. This letter is intended to address these questions and not reiterate the four major conditions that the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) believes could offset Saddle Road realignment impacts to palila critical habitat and to the existing viable palila population on the west slope of Mauna Kea as outlined in a April 4, 1996, National Biological Service's report "Saddle Road Realignment Mitigation Plan for Palila". Essential to the long-term survival of the species, additional populations of palila are necessary to offset the increased fire and alien species risks associated with the proposed road realignment. Additional palila populations also would insure against storms and other catastrophes depleting the highly concentrated primary population on Mauna Kea's west slope. In order for palila populations to thrive, birds must move within forest areas that are adequately large and distributed along a wide range of elevation to enable them to utilize seasonally available food resources. Except on the west and south slopes, there are no protected habitats suitable for palila along the lower edge of Mauna Kea Forest Reserve (MKFR), particularly to or below 6500 ft. elevation. Palila have been disappearing from formerly occupied areas on Mauna Kea where the forest belt has become diminished and degraded. South slope birds also have become depleted, most likely due to predation and military activity rather than large-scale reduction of forest. Immediate opportunities for rehabilitating palila populations anywhere within their historical range are limited because of severe, long-term habitat degradation. On the west slope of Mauna Loa, for example, some areas of mamane forest may have considerable potential for palila reintroduction, but cooperative agreements with private landowners are needed before habitat evaluation and management and palila restoration can proceed. The same is true of portions of former palila habitat on Hualalai. On Mauna Kea's east slope, rescue efforts to prevent the extinction of the dwindling palila population at Kanakaleonui should start soon as part of a comprehensive recovery effort. 9-130 However, cooperative agreements with DHHL and many years of forest recovery and expansion are needed before palila restoration efforts can have meaningful effect there. When considering all possible areas within the former range of palila for reintroduction and habitat management, only two sites seem suitable: 1) Kipuka Alala in western Pohakuloa Training Area (PTA), and 2) Puu Mali on the north slope of Mauna Kea. The initial area to be used for translocation activities, however, should have habitat suitable for reintroducing palila within the nest 12 months. The criteria for selecting this area are: 1) size and elevational range of mamane forest sufficient to allow palila to find food throughout the year; 2) density of mamane trees sufficient t- provide adequate foraging, sheltering, and nesting sites; 3) age structure of mamane forest distributed to enable long-term forest perpetuation; the forest currently must include a large cohort of seedlings and saplings complementing a large cohort of medium to large trees; alternatively, ungulates and other factors limiting mamane regeneration must be quickly removed so that regeneration can proceed; 4) relatively consistent, large annual production of mamane seeds and flowers to ensure adequate breeding effort and survival within the palila population; 5) availability of suitable insect foods, particularly caterpillars, 6) predator populations that are currently low or that can be quickly and effectively reduced; 7) low incidence of avian diseases and vectors; 8) low incidence or potential for infestation by unmanageable alien weeds and pests; 9) low risk of wildfire, and 10) low risk of human disturbance. Biological Resources Division (BRD) (formerly National Biological Service) is currently assessing conditions at Kipuka Alala (and Pohakuloa Flats within the Critical Habitat of PTA) and Puu Mali to determine which area is best suited for reintroduction of palila. Although final results will be reported in December 1996, it is not premature to suggest that Puu Mali will be determined to be the site where palila reintroduction first should proceed. First among the factors leading to the selection of Puu Mali is that the size of the forest (both existing and potential) is larger than at Kipuka Alala. Presently, the mamane forest extends substantially below MKFR on a rough Va flow immediately 9-131 northeast of Puu Mali. The forest is regenerating naturally because cattle have not intruded onto the lava flow in recent years due to dilapidation of the water system. In addition, the condition and extent of the forest above Puu Mali should continue to improve rapidly now that browsing ungulates are being eliminated within MKFR. If forests between Puu Mali and Puu Laau continue to recover from ungulate damage, there eventually may be a corridor of habitat within MKFR linking a new population on the north slope with the existing main population on the west slope. The Puu Mali area also receives substantially more rainfall than Kipuka Alala, consequently it is more suitable for rapid forest rehabilitation. In addition, the north slope of Mauna Kea has greater potential to provide the broad elevational band of forest and a moisture gradient necessary to provide palila with year-round food availability. Puu Mali also ranks ahead of Kipuka Alala on the basis of the other criteria for selecting the first palila reintroduction site. In this regard, the density of medium to large mamane trees in palila Critical Habitat above Puu Mali is similar to portions of the Puu Laau area where palila exist and nest in relatively high numbers. Mamane sapling re, ruitment above Puu Mali also is similar to Puu Laau, whereas there is little mamane regeneration at Kipuka Alala because of severe ungulate browsing damage and more and conditions. Greater rainfall at Puu Mali lowers the risk of fire, even during dry periods. From previous research by BRD, we know that annual production of mamane flower and seed crops is likely to be consistently higher at Puu Mali than at Kipuka Alala. Greater mamane seed production suggests that important caterpillar foods, particularly Cydia sp., also will be more available. Finally, rat populations are expected to be smaller and more easily controlled at Puu Mali because naio is not abundant there, whereas rats are likely to be more abundant at Kipuka Alala because naio is very abundant there. At this time, there seems to be no obvious differences between Puu Mali and Kipuka Alala in terms of threats from avian diseases, alien weeds and pests, ungulate presence, and human disturbance. Essential steps in reestablishing a second population of palila near Puu Mali are 1) securing and managing lands that are dedicated for palila recovery, and 2) removing factors, especially ungulates, that degrade palila habitat. The proposed palila restoration area in the Puu Mali area is all State land within and below MKFR, and it contains a combination of recovering mamane forest and native shrubland already within palila Critical Habitat in MKFR in addition to about 5000 acres below MKFR leased for grazing that includes a core of partially degraded mamane-akoko forest on a lightly grazed Va flow and adjoining heavily grazed and degraded pasture. Habitat management in this combination of areas should allow a population of palila to be reestablished over a range of recovering habitat situated along suitably broad elevation and moisture gradients. A reintroduced population of birds in this site, while initially small, should expand with recovering habitat. No other site on Mauna Kea or elsewhere is better suited than Puu Mali for immediate reintroduction of palila. Not knowing in advance how many palila can, in fact, be reestablished in this rehabilitating north slope forest, it is essential to provide at least as much habitat there as is currently occupied on the west slope, or an area of about I I sq. miles. Less than half this area already exists within palila Critical Habitat above Puu Mali. To provide the remaining portion of necessary habitat, the minimum boundaries of the proposed north slope palila restoration site below MKFR, including the leased grazing lands to be secured and managed, are approximately: from near Puu Ulaula north 2 miles to 5600 ft. elevation, then west to Apakuie, then southwest to the lower base (6400 ft. elevation) of 9-132 Kaluamakani. These leased grazing areas together with lands within MKFR provides about I l sq. miles of recovering and potential forest along an elevation gradient extending from about 9000 to 5600 ft. (3400 ft.) and forming a belt of forest about 3.3 miles wide when the lower portion is eventually reforested. Palila habitat on the west slope of Mauna Kea, in comparison, extends from 9400 to 6200 ft. (3200 ft.), forming a belt of forest about 4 miles wide. Appropriate management of presently -grazed lands is of great importance if palila are to be reestablished on Mauna Kea's north slope. Grazing and browsing ungulates must be removed to allow forest recovery to begin in pasture areas or to continue within MKFR. Similarly, ungulates in Kipuka Alala need to be removed and the area fenced before any habitat recovery can be expected to begin. Predator removal and alien weed and pest monitoring and control also are essential throughout the north slope recovery site. At the same time that a second viable population of palila is initiated on Mauna Kea's north slope, essential mitigation of the proposed highway realignment includes additional protection and enhancement of the primary population and habitat on the west slope. The most important west slope area to rehabilitate and make available to palila is "Lau Ranch" (TMK 4-4-15:2), immediately northwest of the core population of palila. This 1739 acre parcel is within Critical Habitat and is presently leased to Parker Ranch for cattle grazing. Pastures are variable with respect to mamane tree density and restoration needs. Similar former pasture areas adjacent to "Lau Ranch" have recovered following removal of cattle, and they now support breeding palila. Securing this area will expand the low elevation mamane forest necessary for palila population expansion and would help reduce any limited loss of low elevation forest due to fires originating from the new or existing highway. Nevertheless, it is important that fires be prevented from occurring in or near the west slope habitat. Written cost estimates for conducting palila restoration activities related to the mitigation proposal are as follows: $450,000 per year for first 5 years, then $100,000 per year for additional 5 years for translocation and breeding enhancement at Puu Laau and Puu Mali. (Total cost - $2,750,000 for 10 years), $150,000 per year for first 5 years, then $75,000 per year for additional 5 years for predator control and monitoring at Puu Laau and Puu Mali. (Total cost - $1,125,000 for 10 years). This concludes our response to your request. Technical questions or cost estimates can be addressed to Paul Banko on the Big Island at 967-7396. Regulatory and policy questions can be directed to me on Oahu at 541-3441. Sincerely, p Brooks Harper Field Supervisor 9-133 1. CAVV.0 STATE OF HAWAII OEPARTMefr OF LAND AND NA TURAL RESOURCES STATE HISTOFUC PRESERVATION ONMION REF:HP-AMK 33 SOUTH XING STREET. STH FLOOR HONOWLU. KAWAS 96913 XT -9 Am Mr. Tnomaa R Walforth Projects Manager - Hawaii Paul H. Rosendahl, Ph.D., Inc. 204 Waianuenue Avenue Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Dear �& Wolforth, �Anma bcww� pmom� AOUAM A980ANWAA to -Opp M -W - - ONNAMUCKTAC AFFAM COINOWATM ANO FAMMIS ft�vdw cown"Am POPWSM AMD VALPLU" OMAM LAM =- �off FrATI WATER MR LAND OC�� LOG NO; 17944 ' DOC NO: 9609HM04 Subject: Archaeological Inventory Survey of Saddle Road - National Historic Preservation Act (Section 106) South Hilo, North Hilo, Harnaltua, South Kohalst and North Kona TMIK: Various Parcels Thank you fbr your letter of August 5, 1996 concerning the archaeological inventory survey being conducted for the proposed Saddle Road improvements (Hawaii State Highway 200). You raised several issues in your letter regarding the "Area of Potential Effect" (APE) and the previous Saddle Road improvement survey conducted by David Welch in 1993. In regard to the "APE," you ask that we concur with your proposed "APE" fbr this project. Fu3t, we note that such concurrence is not the role of the SHPO in the Sec;tion 106 process. That responsibility remains with the agency. Technically, the SHPO only becomes involved in the process during the site identification and evaluation phase when the agency should consult with the SEPO for information on known or probable properties within the already defined "APE.* We can, however, express our opinion on the matter. If we unders=d cottec ly, defining the "APE" is just a preliminary tool intended to set the geographic parameters for the site identification phase and to give direction to survey or literature search efforts. As emphasized in the Section 106 Course Handbook, the "APE" should be defined without regard to the presence or absence of historic properties in a project area. This is stressed to prevent agencies from specifically defining an "APE" to avoid dealing with significant historic properties which actually should be considered during the process. If however, properties are found beyond the working boundaries of the "APE" during the site identification phase, we see nothing in the regulations or the Handbook that says those properties should be ignored or that 9-134 the "APE" should be amended to accommodate these identified properties. When defining an "APE" you are dealing with "potential" effects but once the identification and evaluation phase is over, you are dealing with "actual" or known effects. We suggest that you not worry about amending or redefining the "APE" and that you simply justify, on a case by case basis, appropriate mitigation measures for any identified property that may be affected by the project. The situation you discuss, that of historic properties being identified outside the "APE," will probably increase in frequency when traditional cultural properties are involved. The identification and evaluation of traditional cultural properties and some burial sites rely on interviews with knowledgeable individuals and these sites cannot be identified or assessed without this cultural knowledge. During the interview process, individuals rarely confine their comments and concerns to a narrowly defined project area The nature of these properties, particularly ritual sites, can also require considering effects that are some distance from a given project area As you state in your letter, assessing these effects will vary with the nature and significance of the property and the particulars of the terrain. These decisions will have to be made and justified for each property. With regard to your question about the regulatory review status of the Welch report, the report was accepted by the National Park Service in 1993. Our office reviewed and commented on the first draft of that report. The SHPO's role in that project was advisory, so it was not our function to accept or reject the report. In terms of survey coverage of the road corridor, we believe that the Welch survey was adequate. With regard to Site 14638, we concur with Welch's recommendation for further work at this site and his proposed testing strategy. Finally, as already indicated in phone conversations with both yourself and Tim Head we think that 20th century military features should not be recorded as historic sites unless you cart document that they are 50 years or older. We have told you that we believe it is important to document the locations and primary characteristics of modern military sites, but that such information can be presented in an appendix using your temporary field numbers to identify each site. If you have any questions, please call Pat McCoy (587-0006),or Holly McFldowney at (587- 0008). Aloha, �t CD�wvirp And iMICHAEL D. WILSON, Chairp and State Historic Preservation Officer HM:wnk 9-135 University of Hawaii at Manoa Institute for Astronomy 2680 Woodlawn Drive • Honolulu, Hawaii 96822 Telex: 723-8459 • UHAST HR Office of the Director Mr. Bert J. McCauley Federal Highway Administration 555 Zang Street Lakewood CO 80228 Dear Mr. McCauley: Subject: EIS for Saddle Road Project October 11, 1996 This is a written follow-up to the remarks I made at the interagency meeting in Hilo on October 10, 1996. Two telescope projects at the Mauna Kea Observatories, Subaru and Gemini, are scheduled to transport oversize loads (30+ feet wide) from Kawaihae to the Mauna Kea summit beginning in late 1996 and continuing through the fust half of 1998. If schedules slip, there may be large shipments in the second half of 1998 as well. Should construction begin in the Pohakuloa area in 1998, it could impact these shipments, and planning and coordination would be needed. Thank you for including these considerations in the EIS planning process. Please feel free to call me at (808) 956-8768 if there are any questions. RAM:sd File: Saddle Road Yours sincerely, Robert A. McLaren Associate Director Mauna Kea Division AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 9-136 Q U.S. Deporimerit of Tionsportotlon Federal Highway Administration Mr. Dean Uchida Administrator Division of Land Management of Natural Resources 1151 Punchbowl Street Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 Dear Mr. Uchida: Central Federal Lands Highway Division Department 555 Zang Street P.O. Box 25246 Denver, Colorado 80225-0246 OCT 2 5 1996 In Reply Refer To: HPD -16 In our letter of September 17, 1996, transmitting Palila mitigation requirements for the Saddle Road project through the Pohakuloa Training Area, we indicated, through Mr. Bill Moore, that we had requested Mr. Paul Banko of the National Biological Service to furnish a written summation of the scientific basis for selection of the lands near Pu'u Mali for translocation efforts as part of the mitigation program. Accordingly, we are enclosing a copy of a letter to Mr. Moore from Mr. Brooks Harper, USFWS Field Supervisor, that provides this information. The enclosed letter addresses requirements for long-term survival of the species, as well as specific criteria utilized to select locations for population restoration activities and the costs associated with these activities. Please note that this particular requirement of the mitigation package would apply only if the realignment alternative through critical habitat within the PTA was selected. We are planning a meeting for November 21, 1996, to discuss the total mitigation package with all affected parties. Notification of this meeting will be forthcoming from Senator Inouye's office. We look forward to meeting you and discussing the issues in detail. In the interim, if you have any questions regarding the applicability of the enclosed information to the Saddle Road project, you may call Mr. Bert McCauley, Staff Environmental Engineer, FHWA, at 303-969-5924 or Mr. Bill Moore, Okahara & Associates, at 808-961-5527. Enclosure Sincerely yours, /-/ Larry C. Smith, P.E. Division Engineer 9-137 cc: Mr. Mike Wilson, Director, Department of Land and Natural Resources, P.O. Box 621, Honolulu, HI 96809 Mr. Mike Buck, Administrator, Department of Forestry and Wildlife, 1151 Punchbowl Street, Honolulu, HI 96813 LTC Lloyd E. Mues, Commander, HQ, PTA, USAG-HI, Bldg. T-180, Milepost 36, H2O0 (Saddle Road), Hilo, HI 96720 Major General Alexis T. Lum (Ret.), Executive Assistant, Office of U.S. Senator Daniel K. Inouye, 7325 Federal Building, Honolulu, HI 96850 bcc: Dr. Raimo Liias, Director, DPW, U.S. Army Garrison Hawaii, Building 300, Schofield Barracks, HI 96857-5000 Mr. Bill Moore, Okahara and Associates, Inc., 200 Kohola St., Hilo, HI 96720 Mr. Dave Gedeon, Project Manager, CFLHD, Denver, CO Mr. Jim Roller, Planning and Acquisition Engineer, CFLHD, Denver, CO Mr. Bert McCauley, Staff Environmental Engineer, CFLHD, Denver, CO Reading file yc: file - HI 200 BMcCauley:bp:10/25/96:1:\common\design\ad4\wpdocs\hi\uchida2.ltr 9 -:?8 DANIEL K. INOUYE HAWAII APPROPRIATIONS Subcomminae on Deteme COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION Subcomminee on Surface Tranaponation and Merchant Marine COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS DEMOCRATIC STEERING COMMITTEE COMMITTEE ON RULES AND ADMINISTRATION JOINT COMMITTEE ON PRINTING FIELD(name) FIELD(title) FIELD(company) FIELD(addl) FIELD(add2) FIELD(c/s/z) Dear FIELD(who): 'United Mates senate SUITE 722, HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON, DC 20510-1102 (202) 224-3934 FAX (202) 224-6747 November 18, 1996 PRINCE KUHIO FEDERAL BUILDING ROOM 7325,3M ALA MOANA BOULEVARD HONOLULU, HI 91 (0051541-2542 FAX (8081541-2549 101 AUPUNI STREET NO. 205 HILO, HI 95720 (809)935-09x4 FAX (8051 9811/153 I am pleased to report that in the FY 1997 Department of Defense Appropriations Bill, the Congress provided $1.5 million to continue the planning and design process for the Saddle Road improvement project on the Island of Hawaii. Additionally, Saddle Road environmental mitigation efforts were expressly referenced as an allowable use of a portion of the $3 million Department of Defense Conservation program allotment for Hawaii. At present, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is proceeding with the development of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to advance the Saddle Road Project. One of the main components of the EIS will be a mitigation plan designed to offset impacts to the Palila species as a result of the Saddle Road reconstruction within the Pohakuloa Training Area. I understand that there have been ongoing informal discussions regarding Palila mitigation requirements between my staff, the U.S. Army, the FHWA and the State of Hawaii. These discussions have resulted in the formation of a conceptual agreement on the general elements of a Palila mitigation plan. However, in order to move the EIS and ultimate construction of the road forward in a timely manner, a Palila mitigation plan needs to be set forth in more specific terms. This would include a division of responsibilities, as well as a component, if necessary, to come to an agreement that is fiscally and environmentally sound and which maintains the integrity of the military training mission. 9-139 To this end, I am requesting your attendance, and that of your staff as you deem appropriate, to a meeting of key decision -makers of federal and state agencies to work toward the resolution of the issues required for a sound, workable mitigation plan. The meeting has been scheduled for Thursday, November 21st at 9:00 a.m. in my office in the federal building and will focus on agency contributions and commitments, schedules and timing for implementation, as well as funding elements and sources. There will be a follow-up meeting of staff at 1:30 p.m. to resolve any outstanding technical issues, and to carry out the agreed upon work plan. I will be represented by Alexis Lum and Jennifer Goto Sabas of my Honolulu office. As always, I hope I can count on your continued support and participation in the development of the Saddle Road project. Thank you for your.attention to this matter. Aloha, DANIEL K. INOUYE United States Senator DKI:jsd 9-140 Mr. Kazu Hayashida Director Department of Transportation 869 Punchbowl Street Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 Dear Kazu: Phone: 587-2150 -- Francis Fax: 587-2167 Staff: Lieutenant Colonel Ralph Graves U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Building 230 Fort Shatter, Hawaii 96858-5440 Dear Colonel Graves: Phone: 438-1069 Fax: 438-8351 Staff: Colonel Owen Ryan Commander HQ, U.S. Army Garrison, Hawaii Attn: APVG-GC Building 580, Room 100 Schofield Barracks, Hawaii 96857-5000 Dear Colonel Ryan: Phone: 655-1558 Fax: 655-1559 Staff: Col. Ronnie Tucker & Col. Dennis Fontana Mr. Robert Smith Manager U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service P.O. Box 50088 Honolulu, Hawaii 96850 Dear Mr. Smith: Phone: x2749 Fax: x 2756 Staff: Brooks Harper Mr. Michael Wilson Director Department of Land and Natural Resources P.O. Box 621 Honolulu, Hawaii 96809 Dear Mike: Phone: 587-0400 Fax: 587-0390 Staff: Dean Uchida & Mike Buck 9-i41 Lieutenant Colonel Lloyd Mues Commander HQ, PTA, USAG-HI Bldg. T-180 Milepost 36, H200 (Saddle Road) Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Dear Colonel Mues: Phone: 1-969-2400 Fax: Oahu 538-3501 Staff: Mr. Abe Wong Division Administrator Federal Highways Administration 300 Ala Moana Blvd. Suite 3202 Honolulu, Hawaii 96850 Dear Mr. Wong: Phone: x 2700 Fax: x Staff: Mr. Larry Smith Federal Highways Administration 300 Ala Moana Blvd. Suite 3203 Honolulu, Hawaii 96850 Dear Mr. Smith: Phone: x 2700 Fax: x Staff: Mr. Peter Kline Military Traffic Management Command Go Federal Highways Administration 300 Ala Moana Blvd Honolulu, Hawaii 96850 Dear Mr. Kline: Phone: x 2700 Fax: x Staff: 9-142 Saddle Road Palila Mitigation November 21, 1996 Office of Senator Daniel R. Inouye Introduction and Welcome Jennifer Goto Sabas, Chief of Staff - Hawaii DAR Program and Project Overview Larry Smith, Division Engineer, FHWA, Central Federal Lands Highways Project Development History Bill Moore, Senior Planner, Okahara & Associates Project Coordination Requirements Bert McCauley, Environmental Project Manager, CFLHD Paula Mitigation Plan Reggie David, Principal, RANA Biological Services Agency Discussions Discussion of specific mitigation elements, processes, and coordination. Action items necessary for mitigation plan development and finalization. 9-143 9.4.4 CHRONOLOGICAL COMMENTS, CORRESPONDENCE, AND NOTICES - 1997 DANIEL K. INOUYE HAWAII Ji �: APPROPRIATIONS SubcammiRee on Delenae United Mates �Qnate PRINCE KU FEDERAL MOANBBOULEG ROOM 7325. 300 AlA MOANA BOULEVARD HONOLULU, / 1 S5 975 IMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION SUITE 722, HAFT SENATE OFFICE BUILDING (808) Sal-2�a2 .uCcommiRae on Surfe TUnepoIut,0n WASHINGTON, DC 20510-1102 s^, FAX 18091 5411-2549 end Me chant Menne (202)224-3934 11 - COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS FAX (202) 224-6747 101 AUPUM RI9672, NO. 205 HILO, 98720 DEMOCRATIC STEERING COMMITTEEi; �_ 18U919354)W _ FAX 18081981-5183 COMMITTEE ON RULES AND ADMINISTRATION - January 17, 1997=.. JOINT COMMITTEE ON PRINTING ,. The Honorable Rodney E. Slater Administrator Federal Highway Administration 400 Seventh Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20590 Dear Administrator Slater: I am writing with regard to the Saddle Road project on the Island of Hawaii. The Federal Highway Administration (FHA) has done an excellent job of working with the community and in developing and adhering to a rigorous time schedule. As you know, the Saddle Road project is most important to me. Its purpose is to provide direct and safe access for our nation's military to transport its troops and supplies for training at the Pohakuloa Training Area (PTA), while aiding the residents and visitors who commute between the east and west parts of the island. Rust Environment and Infrastructure, as the prime contractor, has performed various engineering and supervisory services, including the preparation of the ongoing environmental impact study, under a contract awarded by the FHA's Central Federal Lands Highway Division based in Denver. I have been advised that the quality of Rust's services has been excellent. A project of this magnitude will also bring an economic benefit to the island's ailing economy. In this regard, I am pleased that the FHA has endeavored to hire a multitude of local subcontractors to provide important information and services to move this project forward. However, I have been further advised that Rust may not be allowed to complete the project in its entirety because the company may be eliminated from consideration for the new design services contracts to be awarded in the near future by the FHA. If the above is correct, would you please advise me as to why Rust has been eliminated from any consideration for the new design services contract? The planning and environmental component of the project is nearing completion, and as I understand it, the next phase will begin within the next year. I am committed to securing the necessary funding for the construction portion of the road improvements. I am confident that the FHA will solicit and award the upcoming contracts to those firms that have demonstrated their professional ability to do the job, as well as have the 9-144 The Honorable Rodney E. Slater January 17, 1997 Page 2 support of my constituents and are working with the impacted communities in a fair and diligent manner. I look forward to working with you on this important project. Please extend my appreciation to the men and women of the FHA for the good work that they do for the people of Hawaii. DKI:jrg D,�IISJEL K. IN YE United State Anator 9-145 �1 U.S. Depantrent of Transportation Federal Highway Administration The Honorable Daniel K. Inouye United States Senate Washington, DC 20510-1102 Dear Senator Inouye: N fii- -/v Office of the Aommistrator 400 Seventh SL. S W Washington. D.C. 20590 February 10, 1997 Refer to: HPD -1 Thank you for your January 17 letter regarding the Saddle Road project in Hawaii. On behalf of the staff of our Federal Lands Highway Office, I appreciate your complimentary comments about their work in the development of the project. The Saddle Road project has offered some unique opportunities for our organization to work with the Hawaiian people and the military. We believe the environmental clearances and Record of Decision will be completed in time to advance the first project to construction in 1998. This would not be possible without the excellent support from your Honolulu staff and the Saddle Road Task Force you developed to ensure that the local needs were continually addressed. You asked about Rust Environment and Infrastructure (Rust). Rust is the prime consultant working on the draft environmental impact statement under contract to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). This work is scheduled to be completed in the next couple of months. Rust's indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity contract with the FHWA expires in May. At this time, we have made no final decisions on Rust's further involvement in the Saddle Road project. As you pointed out, we solicited for a new contract to provide future work in Hawaii on December 3, 1996. It will be an indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity contract procured in accordance with part 36.6 of the Federal Acquisition Regulations and the Brooks Act for work specifically in Hawaii. The solicitation does not prohibit any qualified firm from responding, including Rust. Because of the need for local experience and support. to work in the unique environment and culture of the Hawaiian Islands, we are using specific selection criteria that give credit to firms located in the State. The most credit is for those firms located on the Island of Hawaii where we anticipate the majority of our needs to be over the next few years. These focused selection criteria will make it 9-146 more difficult for firms that do not have active offices in Hawaii to compete but in no way prohibits them from doing so. The solicitation closed on January 15 and Rust chose not to submit a proposal. We anticipate making final selection under this solicitation within the next month to ensure that the development of the Saddle Road work can stay on schedule. I hope this addresses your concerns. If you need additional information please let us know. Sincerely yours, l Rodney ElSlater Administrator FHWA:HPD-1:RW eingroff:rw:6-4856:02/03/97 REV ISED:TEdick:rw:02/05/97 FHWA Control No. 970127-007 cc: 1, HOAMW, HOAES, HOASS, HOAES HCC -1 9-147 File Name: C/HI/SADDLE.RD2 Mr. Edick HFL-1 Files HPD-WU Reader HFL-1 HFL-16 U.S.Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Mr. Robert P. Smith, MP -ager Pacific EcoRegion U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service P.O. Box 50088 Honolulu, HI 96850 Dear Mr. Smith: Central Federal Lands 555 Zang Street Highway Division P.O. Box 25246 Denver, Colorado 80225-0246 MAR 111997 In Reply Refer To: HPD -16E Enclosed are five copies of the Preliminary Draft Environmental Impact Statement (PDEIS) for Saddle Road and five copies of the Draft Biological Assessment for the preferred alternative, which is being submitted to you under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). As you know, the PDEIS addresses alternatives as developed by the Social, Economic, and Environmental Team with respect to National Environmental Policy Act issues and concerns within the limits of Saddle Road from Mile Post 6 near Hilo to the Mamalahoa Highway. Bath the PDEIS and the Biological Assessment are preliminary in nature and are being distributed at this time only to agencies who have some participation in the development of the project. As the lead agency, in cooperation with the Hawaii Department of Transportation, the Federal Highway Administration is interested in receiving your comments and views on the documents by April 18. This will facilitate publication of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement scheduled for the first week of May, 1997. Specifically, we are submitting the Draft Biological Assessment and requesting the initiation of early consultation under Section 7 of the ESA. We are also requesting that you use the contents of the Draft Biological Assessment to formulate a Preliminary Biological Opinion that may be referenced in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. We realize that this document may require some modification and it is our intent to work with you and your staff to address any concerns you may have prior to the issuance of a preliminary opinion. Submission of the PDEIS is an attempt to resolve any other environmental issues or concerns that your agency may have prior to publication of the document. In this regard, we would like to meet with you or other representatives of the Fish and Wildlife Service the week of April 7, to discuss any concerns you may have so we can make appropriate corrections to both documents. We will contact you at a later date for meeting arrangements. om If you have any questions about documents or project development schedules, please contact Mr. Bert McCauley, Staff Environmental Engineer, at (303)969-5924. Thank you for your participation in the advancement of this project. Sincerely yours, Larry C. Smith, P.E. Division Engineer Enclosures cc (w/o enclosures): Ms. Julie Cirillo, Regional Administrator, Region 9, San Francisco, CA Mr. Abe Wong, Division Administrator, FHWA, Honolulu, HI Mr. Donald Okahara, Okahara & Assoc., Inc., Hilo, HI Mr. Don Griner, RUST E&I, Phoenix, AZ bcc (w/o enclosures): J. Roller, HFL-16 L. Henry, HPD -16 D. Gedeon, HPD -16, Area 4 J. Rippley, HRC -08 B. McCauley, HPD -16, Environment yc: reading file Central file: HI Saddle Road BMcCAULEY:jm:3/I1/97:L:\environm\sadroad\fws_deis.ltr 9-149 EcoPlan Associates, Inc. EnmmnmenW Scwnn & Ram=Emnomirs April 8, 1997 Mr. Edward C.P. Chen Environmental Engineer Clean Water Branch Hawaii Department of Health 919 Ala Moana Boulevard Room 301 Honolulu, Hawaii 96814 RE: Saddle Road Preliminary Draft Environmental Impact Statement Dear Mr. Chen: / At the request of Mr. Bert McCauley, Federal Avdfion Administration, enclosed for your review is one copy of the Saddle Road Preliminary Draft Environmental Impact Statement. We regret that you were not provided a copy previously. If you have any questions or need any additional information, please give us a call. Sincerely, Leslie S. McGaughey Senior Environmental Planner Enclosure C: Bert McCauley (Without Enclosure) 1845 South Dobson Road, Suite 111 • Mesa, Arizona 85202 • (602) 881-8780 • FAX (602) 831-8861 9-150 a US.Department Central Federal Lands 555 Zang Street of Transportation Highway Division P.O. Box 25246 Federal Highway Denver, Colorado 60225-0246 Administration MAR 1 9 1997 In Reply Refer To: HPD -16E Ms. Julie A. Cirillo Regional Administrator (HRA -09) Federal Highway Administration 201 Mission Street, Suite 2100 San Francisco, CA 94105 Dear Ms. Cirillo: Enclosed is a copy of the Preliminary Draft Environmental Impact Statement (PDEIS) for Saddle Road and one copy of all technical reports. The Draft Biological Assessment is being submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act in a request for early consultation and a Preliminary Biological Opinion. As you know, the PDEIS addresses alternatives as developed by the Social, Economic, and Environmental Team with respect to National Environmental Policy Act issues and concerns within the limits of Saddle Road from Mile Post 6 near Hilo, to the Mamalahoa Highway. Both the PDEIS and the Biological Assessment are preliminary in nature and are being distributed at this time only to agencies who have some participation in the development of the project. As the lead agency, in cooperation with the Hawaii Department of Transportation, the Federal Highway Administration, Central Federal Lands Highway Division is interested in receiving your comments and views on the document by April 18. This will facilitate publication of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement scheduled for the first week of May 1997. Specifically, we are interested in your comments and views with respect to commitments to mitigation of archaeological, biological, or other impacts that will be required, as well as the overall completeness and coherency of the document. At this time, legal review is being provided by Region 8 Counsel. In this regard, we are planning a meeting of all PDEIS recipients the week of April 7 at Senator Inouye's office in Honolulu to discuss all issues and concerns so that we can make appropriate modifications to the document. It would be helpful if a representative of Region 9 could attend this meeting. If you have any questions about documents or project development schedules, please contact Mr. Bert McCauley, Staff Environmental Engineer, at (303)969- 5924. Thank you for your participation in the advancement of this project. Enclosures Sincerely yours, /sl Larry C. Smith, P.E. Division Engineer 9-151 U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration LTC Ralph H. Graves, Commander U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Building 230 Fort Shafter, HI 96858-5440 Attention: Kathleen Dadey, Ph.D. Environmental Engineer Dear Ms. Dadey: Central Federal Lands 555 Zang Street Highway Division P.O. Box 25246 Denver, Colorado 80225-0246 MAR 1 1 1997 In Reply Refer To: HPD -16E Enclosed are two copies of the Preliminary Draft Environmental Impact State- ment (PDEIS) for Saddle Road and two copies of the pertinent biological reports for the subject project. As you know, the PDEIS addresses alterna- tives as developed by the Social, Economic, and Environmental Team with respect to National Environmental Policy Act issues and concerns within the limits of Saddle Road from Mile Post 6 near Hilo to the Mamalahoa Highway. The PDEIS is preliminary in nature and is being distributed at this time only to agencies who have some participation in the development of the project. As the lead agency in cooperation with the Hawaii Department of Transportation, the Federal Highway Administration is interested in receiving your comments anc views on this document by April 18. This will facilitate publication of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement scheduled for the first week of May, 1997. Specifically, we are interested in your comments and views with respect to any project features associated with impacts to waters of the United States. In this regard, we would like to meet with you and any other Corps of Engineers' personnel the week of April 7, to discuss any concerns you may have so that we can make appropriate modifications to this document. We will contact you at a later date for meeting arrangements. If you have any questions about documents or project development schedules, please contact Mr. Bert McCauley, Staff Environmental Engineer, at (303)969-5924. Thank you for your participation in the advancement of this project. Sincerely yours, Larry C. Smith, P.E. Division Engineer Enclosures cc (w/o enclosures): Ms. Julie Cirillo, Regional Administrator, Region 9, San Francisco, CA Mr. Abe Wong, Division Administrator, FHWA, Honolulu, HI Mr. Donald Okahara, Okahara & Assoc., Inc., Hilo, HI Mr. Don Griner, RUST E&I, Phoenix, AZ 9-152 US.Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Mr. Peter Cline MTMCTEA, ATTN: MTTE-SA 720 Thimble Shoals Boulevard Suite 130 Newport News, VA 23606 Dear Mr Cline: Central Federal Lands 555 Zang Street Highway Division P.O. Box 25246 Denver. Colorado 80225-0246 MAR 111997 In Reply Refer To: HPD -16E Enclosed is a copy of the Preliminary Draft Environmental Impact Statement (PDEIS) for Saddle Road and a copy of the Draft Biological Assessment which will be submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. As you know, the PDEIS addresses alternatives as developed by the Social, Economic, and Environmental Team with respect to National Environmental Policy Act issues and concerns within the limits of Saddle Road from Mile Post 6 near Hilo to the Mamalahoa Highway. Both the PDEIS and the Biological Assessment are preliminary in nature and are being distributed at this time only to agencies who have some participation it the development of the project. As the lead agency, in cooperation with the Hawaii Department of Transportation, the Federal Highway Administration is interested in receiving your comments and views on both documents by April 18. This will facilitate publication of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement scheduled for the first wee!: of May, 1997. Specifically, we are interested in your comments and views with respect to any commitments to mitigation of biological or other impacts that the U.S. Army will be required to honor initially or in later phases of the project. In this regard, we would like to meet with you the week of April 7 at Senator Inouye's office to discuss any concerns you may have so that we can make appropriate modifications to both documents. We will contact you at a later date for meeting arrangements. If you have any questions about documents or project development schedules, please contact Mr. Bert McCauley, Staff Environmental Engineer, at (303)969-5924. Thank you for your participation in the advancement of this project. Enclosures Sincerely yours, Larry C. Smith, P.E. Division Engineer 9-153 U.S. Department of Tronsportaticn Federal Highway Administration Mr. Michael Wilson, Department of Land P.O. Box 621 Honolulu, HI 96809 Dear Mr. Wilson: Central Federal Lands Highway Division Director and Natural Resources 555 Zang Street P.O. Box 25246 Denver, Colorado 80225-0246 MAR 11 1997 In Reply Refer To: HPD -16E Enclosed are three copies of the Preliminary Draft Environmental Impact Statement (PDEIS) for Saddle Road and three copies of the Draft Biological Assessment which will be submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. As you know, the PDEIS addresses alternatives as developed by the Social, Economic, and Environmental Team with respect to National Environmental Policy Act issues and concerns within the limits of Saddle Road from Mile Post 6 near Hilo to the Mamalahoa Highway. Both the PDEIS and the Biological Assessment are preliminary in nature and are being distributed at this time only to agencies who have some participation in the development of the project. As the lead agency, in cooperation with the Hawaii Department of Transportation, the Federal Highway Administration is interested in receiving your comments and views on both documents by April 18. This will facilitate publication of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement scheduled for the first week of May, 1997. Specifically, we are interested in your comments and views with respect to any commitments to mitigation of biological or other impacts that the Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) will be required to honor initially or in later phases of the project. In this regard, we would like to meet with you and other DLNR representatives the week of April 7 to discuss any concerns you may have so that we can make appropriate modifications to both documents. We will contact you at a later date for meeting arrangements. If you have any questions about documents or project development schedules, please contact Mr. Bert McCauley, Staff Environmental Engineer, at (303)969-5924. Thank you for your participation in the advancement of this project. Enclosures Sincerely yours, /S! Larry C. Smith, P.E. Division Engineer 9-154 a U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Colonel Ronnie W. (Randy) Tucker Director, DPTMSEC U.S. Army Garrison -Hawaii ATTN: APVG-GT Schofield Barracks, HI 96857-5000 Dear Colonel Tucker: Central Federal Lands 555 Zang Street Highway Division P.O. Box 25246 Denver, Colorado 80225-0246 MAR 111997 In Reply Refer To: HPD -16E Enclosed are three copies of the Preliminary Draft Environmental Impact Statement (PDEIS) for Saddle Road and three copies of the Draft Biological Assessment which will be submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. As you know, the PDEIS addresses alternatives as developed by the Social, Economic, and Environmental Team with respect to National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) issues and concerns within the limits of Saddle Road from Mile Post 6 near Hilo to the Mamalahoa Highway. Both the PDEIS and the Biological Assessment are preliminary in nature and are being distributed at this time only to agencies who have some participation it the development of the project. As the lead agency, in cooperation with the Hawaii Department of Transportation, the Federal Highway Administration is interested in receiving your comments and views on both documents by April 18. This will facilitate publication of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement scheduled for the first week of May, 1997. Specifically, we are interested in your comments and views with respect to any commitments to mitigation of biological or other NEPA impacts that the U.S. Army will be required to honor initially or in later phases of the project. In this regard, we would like to meet with you and other USAG-HI representatives the week of April 7 to discuss any concerns you may have so that we can make appropriate modifications to both documents. We will contact you at a later date for meeting arrangements. If you have any questions about documents or project development schedules, please contact Mr. Bert McCauley, Staff Environmental Engineer, at (303)969-5924. Thank you for your participation in the advancement of this project. Enclosures Sincerely yours, S/ Larry C. Smith, P.E. Division Engineer 9-155 U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration LTC Lloyd E. Mues, HQ, PTA, USAG-HI Building T-180 Milepost 36, H200 Hilo, HI 96720 Dear Colonel Mues: Commander (Saddle Road) Central Federal Lands 555 Zang Street Highway Division P.O. Box 25246 Denver, Colorado 80225-0246 MAR 111997 In Reply Refer To: HPD -16E Enclosed are two copies of the Preliminary Draft Environmental Impact Statement (PDEIS) for Saddle Road and two copies of the Draft Biological Assessment which will be submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. As you know, the PDEIS addresses alternatives as developed by the Social, Economic, and Environmental Team with respect to National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) issues and concerns within the limits of Saddle Road from Mile Post 6 near Hilo to the Mamalahoa Highway. Both the PDEIS and the Biological Assessment are preliminary in nature and are being distributed at this time only to agencies who have some participation it the development of the project. As the lead agency, in cooperation with the Hawaii Department of Transportation, the Federal Highway Administration is interested in receiving your comments and views on both documents by April 18. This will facilitate publication of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement scheduled for the first week of May, 1997. Specifically, we are interested in your comments and views with respect to any commitments to mitigation of biological or other impacts that the U.S. Army will be required to honor initially or in later phases of the project. In this regard, we would like to meet with you and other USAG-HI representatives the week of April 7 to discuss any concerns you may have so that we can make appropriate modifications to both documents. We will contact you at a later date for meeting arrangements. If you have any questions about documents or project development schedules, please contact Mr. Bert McCauley, Staff Environmental Engineer, at (303)969-5924. Thank you for your participation in the advancement of this project. Enclosures Sincerely yours, Larry C. Smith, P.E. Division Engineer 9-156 U.S.Department Central Federal Lands 555 Zang Street of Transportonon Highway Division P.O. Box 25246 Federal Highway Denver, Colorado 80225-0246 Administration MAR 111997 In Reply Refer To: HPD -16E Honorable Daniel K. Inouye United States Senator, Hawaii 7325 Federal Building Honolulu, HI 96850 Attention: Major General Alexis T. Lum (Ret.) Executive Assistant Dear General Lum: Enclosed are three copies of the Preliminary Draft Environmental Impact Statement (PDEIS) for Saddle Road and three copies of the Draft Biological Assessment which will be submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. As you know, the PDEIS addresses alternatives as developed by the Social, Economic, and Environmental Team with respect to National Environmental Policy Act issues and concerns within the limits of Saddle Road from Mile Post 6 near Hilo to the Mamalahoa Highway. Both the PDEIS and the Biological Assessment are preliminary in nature and are being distributed at this time only to agencies who have some participation in the development of the project. As the lead agency, in cooperation with the Hawaii Department of Transportation, the Federal Highway Administration is interested in receiving your comments and views on the documents by April 18. This will facilitate publication of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement scheduled for the first week of May, 1997. Specifically, we are interested in your comments and views with respect to any commitments to mitigation of biological or other impacts that the State of Hawaii will be required to honor initially or in later phases of the project. In this regard, we would like to meet with you the week of April 7 to discuss any concerns you may have so that we can make appropriate modifications to both documents. We would like to utilize the same interagency meeting format as the November, 1996 meetings in the Senator's office. If you have any questions about documents or project please contact Mr. Bert McCauley, Staff Environmental Thank you for your participation in the advancement a Enclosures Sincerely yours, S development schedules, Engineer, at (303)969-5924. f this project. Larry C. Smith, P.E. Division Engineer 9-157 f U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Mr. Kazu Hayashida, Director Hawaii Department of Transportation 869 Punchbowl Street Honolulu, HI 96813-5097 Dear Mr. Hayashida: Central Federal Lands 555 Zang Street Highway Division P.O. Box 25246 Denver, Colorado 80225-0246 MAR 1 1 1997 In Reply Refer To: HPD -16E Enclosed are three copies of the Preliminary Draft Environmental Impact Statement (PDEIS) for Saddle Road and three copies of the Draft Biological Assessment which will be submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. As you know, the PDEIS addresses alternatives as developed by the Social, Economic, and Environmental Team with respect to National Environmental Policy Act issues and concerns within the limits of Saddle Road from Mile Post 6 near Hilo to the Mamalahoa Highway. Both the PDEIS and the Biological Assessment are preliminary in nature and are being distributed at this time only to agencies who have some participation in the development of the project. As the lead agency in cooperation with the Hawaii Department of Transportation, the Federal Highway Administration is interested in receiving your comments and views on the documents by April 18. This will facilitate publication of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement scheduled for the first week of May, 1997. Specifically, we are interested in your comments and views with respect to the alternative route locations, the typical section proposed for the project, and commitments to mitigation of archaeological, biological, or other impacts that the Hawaii Department of Transportation will be required to implement in later phases of the project. In this regard, we would like to meet with you or other representatives of the Department the week of April 7 to discuss any concerns you may have so that we may make appropriate modifications to both documents. We will contact you at a later date for meeting arrangements. If you have any questions about documents or project development schedules, please contact Mr. Bert McCauley, Staff Environmental Engineer, at (303)969-5924. Thank you for your participation in the advancement of this project. Enclosures Sincerely yours, Larry C. Smith, P.E. Division Engineer 9-158 C1 U.S.Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Central Federal Lands 555 Zang Street Highway Division P.O. Box 25246 Denver, Colorado 80225-0246 Donna Fay K. Kiyosaki, P.E. Chief Engineer Hawaii County Department of Public Works 25 Aupuni Street, Room 202 Hilo, HI 96720-4252 Dear Ms. Kiyosaki: MAR 111997 In Reply Refer To: HPD -16E Enclosed are two copies of the Preliminary Draft Environmental Impact Statement (PDEIS) for Saddle Road and two copies of the Draft Biological Assessment which will be submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. As you know, the PDEIS addresses alternatives as developed by the Social, Economic, and Environmental Team with respect to National Environmental Policy Act issues and concerns within the limits of Saddle Road from Mile Post 6 near Hilo to the Mamalahoa Highway. Both the PDEIS and the Biological Assessment are preliminary in nature and are being distributed at this time only to agencies who have some participation in the development of the project. As the lead agency, in cooperation with the Hawaii Department of Transportation, the Federal Highway Administration is interested in receiving your comments and views on the documents by April 18. This will facilitate publication of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement scheduled for the first week of May, 1997. Specifically, we are interested in your comments and views with respect to the alternative route locations, the proposed status of the abandoned roadway, commitments to mitigation, and any other aspects of the project that may affect Hawaii County or your resources. In this regard, we would like to meet with you and other representatives of the County the week of April 7 to discuss any concerns you may have so that we can make appropriate modifications to both documents. We will contact you at a later date for meeting arrangements. If you have any questions about documents or project development schedules, please contact Mr. Bert McCauley, Staff Environmental Engineer, at (303)969-5924. Thank you for your participation in the advancement of this project. Sincerely yours, Larry C. Smith, P.E. Division Engineer Enclosures 9-159 U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Mr. Kazu Hayashida, Director Hawaii Department Of Transportation 869 Punchbowl Street Honolulu, Hawaii 96813-5097 Dear Mr. Hayashida: Central Federal Lands 555 Zang Street Highway Division P.O. Box 25246 Denver, Colorado 80225-0246 APR 0 2 1997 In Reply Refer To: HPD -16E As you are aware, distribution of the Preliminary Draft Environmental Impact Statement (PDEIS) and pertinent associated documents has been made to those agencies who have a participatory interest in the Saddle Road Project. As the lead agency in cooperation with the Hawaii Department of Transportation, the Federal Highway Administration is interested in obtaining your agency's views on the adequacy of the document, with respect to your interests and/or regulatory concerns. In our letter of March 11, which transmitted the above referenced documents, we indicated we would like to meet with you and/or your staff the week of April 7 to review and discuss your concerns. Accordingly, we have scheduled a meeting of all reviewing agencies for Wednesday, April 9, at 9:00 a.m., in the Office of Senator Inouye located in the Federal Building, Room 7325. The purpose of the meeting will be to review the issues as presented in the preliminary draft document from your agency's standpoint to ensure that all concerns are addressed adequately prior to publication of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement in May. It is hoped that this meeting will help finalize all written comments on or before April 18. The meeting will also focus on identification of key coordination and/or decision milestones that will need to be met to keep the project on schedule. A preliminary agenda is enclosed for your review. Should you have any questions, please call Messrs. Glenn Yasui, Project Coordination Engineer at (808)541-2700, or Bert McCauley, Environmental Project Manager at (303)969-5924. Enclosure Sincerely yours, Larry C. Smith, P.E. Division Engineer 9-160 cc (with enclosure): Ms. Julie A. Cirillo, Regional Administrator (HRA -09), Federal Highway Administration, 201 Mission Street, Suite 2100, San Francisco, CA 94105 Mr. Abraham Y. Wong, Division Administrator (HAD -HI), Federal Highway Administration., Box 50206, Honolulu, 1-1196850 General Alexis T. Lum, Executive Assistant, Office of Senator Daniel K. Inouye, 300 Ala Moana Blvd., Suite 7325, Honolulu, 11196850 Mr. Donald Okahara, Okahara & Associates, Inc., 200 Koltola Street, Hilo, HI 96720 Mr. Don Griner, Project Manager, RUST Environment & Infrastructure, 5343 North 16th Street, Suite 400, Phoenix, AZ 85016 be (with enclosure): J. Roller L. Henry D. Gedeon B. McCauley yc: reading file Central file - HI A -AD 6(1), Saddle Road BMCCAULEY: jm:4/2/97\L:\environm\wp\sadroad\senator.ltr 9-161 Identical Letter To: Maj. Gen. Alexis T. Lum (Ret.) Executive Assistant Office of U.S. Senator Daniel K. Inouye 7325 Federal Building Honolulu, HI 96850 Lt. Col. Ralph H. Graves, Commander U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Building 230 Fort Shafter, HI 96858-5440 Col. Owen D. Ryan, Commander HQ, U.S. Army Garrison, Hawaii Attn: APVG-GC Building 580, Room 100 Schofield Barracks, HI 96857-5000 Mr. Wayne Hamaguchi, Chief Planning Branch U.S. Army Pacific Command, Hawaii Attn: APEN-IF Building 104 Fort Shafter, HI 96858-5100 Mr. Robert P. Smith, Manager U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service P.O. Box 50088 Honolulu, HI 96850 Mr. Michael Wilson, Director Department Of Land & Natural Resources P.O. Box 621 Honolulu, HI 96809 Hawaii County Department of Public Works Donna Fay K. Kiyosaki, P.E. Chief Engineer 25 Aupuni Street, Room 202 Hilo, HI 96720-4252 LTC Lloyd E. Mues, Commander HQ, PTA, USAG-HI Bldg T-180 Milepost 36, H200 (Saddle Road) Hilo, Hawaii 96720 LTC Al Lewis, Director DPTMSEC, U.S. Army Garrison Hawaii ATTN: APVG-GT Schofield Barracks, Hawaii 96857-5000 Mr. Peter Cline MTMCTEA, ATTN: MTTE-SA 720 Thimble Shoals Boulevard Suite 130 Newport News, VA 23606 9-162 Saddle Road Draft Environmental Impact Statement Agency Review April 9, 1997 Office of Senator Daniel K Inouye Morning Session • Introduction and Welcome Jennifer Goto Sabas, Chief of Staff - Hawaii • Project Overview and Meeting Purpose Bert McCauley, Environmental Project Manager, FHWA • Project Coordination Requirements Bill Moore, Senior Planner, Okahara & Associates • Biological and Regulatory Issues Reggie David, Principal, RANA Productions, Ltd. • Agency Discussions Afternoon Session Discussion of specific DEIS text, elements, data, and/or analyses. Action items required for finalization of the Draft EIS for publication. Action items required for completion of mitigation and regulatory requirements. L: \environm\%vp\sadro ad\a gnda_pd cis 9-163 -11 n7107 MANAGEMENT DIV. ID:808-587-0455 RPR 03'97 • `Vjd. mEIUAYM J. CAYETAMO STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES PA. sox nl HONOLULU. MWAO WM 1�'AF Nn -016 P.01 15:47 No.016 P.02 mwxslL W wkspm CNO..vmGr wwm a wa aro Mauna I�m%xsA a OMTY MLSENT 0. COIOMAGM MW101 Wwwlww" Hfo 1 OMNw Ira asw licgrwrnr awalwm.,rn IQ A141110E9 E1YON0iMFM GaMA�ML41 FOIFFTR/{la Vl Tm WG rgGixrNl,r1 l asDfVRl01 •T/.ii wlnw m7r'4IILO%NCLWM WW Ref; DLM-GYT97-10167 MEMORANDIIM To: Glenn M. Yaeui Federal Highway Administration From: Gilbert S. Coloma-Agaran yp&QJ�*r- Deputy to the Chairperson v Subject: Replacement Lands for Lease Lands Affected by the Proposed Palila Mitigation Plan As a follow-up to our meeting of February 4, 1997, held at the SC Ranch office with the ranchers impacted by the Palila Mitigation Plan, a review of our land inventory was conducted to determine whether replacement lands in the districts of North IIilo, Hamakua and North Kohala were available. With the recent signing of the Letter of intent with Oji Paper Co., Ltd. and Marubeni Corporation for the purpose of establishing a pulpwood forestry plantation, the former sugar lands in Hamakua/North Hilo arc no longer available. The remaining available parcels in the districts under review are limited in both size and utility, i.e.-gulehcs, streams, etc. Consequently, with the exception of the former sugar lands in Ka`u which were deemed to be undesirable because of the great distance from the ranchers existing operations, there does not appear to be sufficient acreage of state-owned lands available to implement a replacement program. Should you have any questions, please feel free to call on me at. 587-0403 or Glenn Y. Taguchi at 587-0439. c; Hawaii Land Board Member Hawaii District Land office William L. Moore 9-164 In Reply Refer To: United States Department of the Interior Saddle Road (m b) Dr. Reginald David Rana Productions P.O. Box 1371 Kailua-Kona, Hawaii 96745 FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE PACIFIC ISLANDS ECOREGION 300 ALA MOANA BOULEVARD, ROOM 3108 BOX 50088 HONOLULU, HAWAII 96850 PHONE: (808) 541-3441 FAX: (808) 541-3470 APR - q 1997 RE: Preliminary Draft Biological Assessment of the Preferred Alignments for the Saddle Road (State of Hawaii Route 200), Island of Hawaii, Hawaii Dear Reggie; This is in reference to the letter dated March 11, 1997, from the Federal Highways Administration, which requested comments on the Preliminary Draft Biological Assessment (BA) of the Preferred Alignments for the Saddle Road (State of Hawaii Route 200), Island of Hawaii, Hawaii and the Preliminary Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) to improve Hawaii State Route 200, Mamalahoa Highway to Milepost 6, Saddle Road. The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) offers the following preliminary comments for your consideration on the Preliminary Draft BA. The Service will provide in writing our comments on the Preliminary Draft BA and the Preliminary DEIS to your office by May 2, 1997. General Comments (for entire BA) The draft BA deals with the "preferred alignments" for the Saddle Road realignment. However, the preferred alignment is not specified for any of the four sections dealt with in the BA. For Sections I, II, and IV there are two routes identified and no preference given. For Section III, only one route is identified (EX -3); however, the Federal Highways Administration (FHWA) intends to modify this proposed route (see first paragraph on page 45). Some of the Figures are difficult to read. We recommend that the same base map be used for all Figures, with the specific areas to be depicted in each Figure enlarged and used. This would enable the reader to follow the same landmarks from map to map. o More discussion about the effects of the action on critical habitat should be included. 9-165 While the "Overview of Potential Biological Impacts" section on page 10 correctly states that there will be an increased likelihood of access and colonization of biologically important areas by alien ungulates and mammalian predators among other organisms, the remainder of the BA does not address the increased threats from ungulates and mammalian predators and offers no mitigation for these potential threats. In all four sections, the impacts from possible increase in mammalian predators and their effects on listed species should be addressed (e.g., nene, dark-rumped petrel, palila, Newell's shearwater, and other forest birds). o If the improvement of Saddle Road will likely result in an increased speed limit or increased speeds, the effects of this on the nene should be analyzed in all four sections. o None of the plant or invertebrate species of concern (SOCs) are discussed in the preliminary draft BA. While it is not mandatory in section 7 consultations to include SOCs, the Service recommends that they be included in the discussion. Because of the length of time involved in completing this project, it is likely that some of the SOCs will become candidates, if not proposed or listed species, by the time construction is completed. Therefore, it behooves the FHWA to include SOCs in the discussion at this time, to reduce the need for re-initiation in the future. o It would be very helpful for the Service to have copies of the reports from the consultants for the botanical and invertebrate surveys, to review the more detailed information on exactly which species were found and at what locations along or near the corridors. Page by Page Specifics Page 5, 2nd paragraph: The 2nd paragraph states that the proposed improvements would provide a two-lane highway to accommodate increased traffic. The BA does not specify how taking an existing two-lane highway and realigning it to create another two- lane highway will handle increased traffic. If there are improvements to be made, such as straightening and widening of the highway, this should be specified Also, if these improvements will result in increased speed limits, this should be specified Page 5, Last paragraph: This states that the section 7 consultation is "focused on Section II" and that section 7 will be re-initiated in the future when funding is secured for the remainder of the Saddle Road realignment. It is our understanding that section 7 consultation is being sought for the entire project, not just Section H. Page 8, paragraph 1: The text mentions three endangered and one threatened plant within the project area, but only lists the threatened plant in the accompanying table on 9-166 page 9 (Table 2), while 11 species are mentioned in Table 10 on page 41. All threatened and endangered species should be mentioned in the table and discussed in the appropriate section of the BA. o Page 21, 4th paragraph, last line: A reference is needed for the statement that the Argentine, big headed, and Cardiocondyla venestula ants are not believed to directly effect Cydia caterpillars (Paul Banko's report to the Army?). o Page 22, last paragraph: The discussion of Silene hawaiiensis and other threatened and endangered species should be discussed under Discussion of the Potential Impacts to Listed Species, rather than as Other Biological Impacts Identified, since it is a listed species. The initial discussion of impacts to the species should include a discussion of both populations, not just the one at Pu'u Ma'au. Besides alien plant and invertebrate introductions, fire is another serious threat to Silene hawaiiensis at both populations. Construction workers could start fires with cigarettes or idling equipment. Steps to prevent fire, as are discussed under the comments on the fire mitigation plan, should be included for the protection of Silene hawaiiensis. o Page 25, second paragraph, 4th line: The BA should clarify that the modification of 30 hectares of Palila Critical Habitat applies to the PTA -I option, while the modification of 34 hectares applies to the PTA -3 option. o Page 25, 4th paragraph, 7th line: The BA should specify the particular "training restrictions" referred to in the referenced section 7 consultation and USACH PTA External Standing Operating Procedures document so that we may more thoroughly review these restrictions and determine if they are still applicable and suitable to avoid undue adverse effects to endangered and threatened species. Also, because the largest population of Silene hawatiensis in PTA (approximately 5,000 individuals) is adjacent to the existing alignment, training use of the area may have an impact on this population in addition to the two populations along the corridors (see discussion on Page 35, last paragraph). o Page 35, 2nd paragraph, 8th line: Reference is made to the Army's PTA Fire Management Plan. We have still not received a copy of the Fire Management Plan and continue to believe that it is critical that we, and other parties associated with the Saddle Road realignment project, be offered the opportunity to review this plan in conjunction with the draft EIS and BA for this project. Fire mitigation should include both sides of the road throughout PTA, since the vegetation types found there (mamane/naio, Eragrostis grassland, and ' aweoweo shrubland) are known only from this area or best developed in this area. It is likely that Silene hawaiiensis is present in additional areas within the latter two vegetation types, and fire is a threat to the species. Also, a large fire could carry into t 9-167 adjacent vegetation types, including the area of western PTA that is so dense with endangered plants and is about 5 miles away. The Kipuka Kalawamauna fire carried at least 5 miles. A copy of the actual fire management plan should be included in the BA as an Appendix- 0 ppendix o Page 35, last paragraph: Since the preferred routes (both of the options PTA -1 and PTA -3) will result in the destruction of population of the endangered plant, Silene hawaiiensis, we would like to have a plan in place, with appropriate partners, funding, and time -frames identified, to somehow "mitigate" for this destruction. The management plan to carry out the general mitigation measures outlined in this section of the BA should be prepared and should be included as an integral part of this BA, similar to that which was done for the palila. The plan should include the following parts: Collection of seeds (no other propagation method works for this species) prior to the beginning of construction. It would be prudent to agree on the mitigation for this species as quickly as possible, so that the seeds can be collected when available, probably in the next few months. With only 70 plants, it should be possible to collect seeds from all individuals that flower between now and the time construction starts in that area. Propagation of plants for reintroduction purposes. The viability of these seeds in storage is unknown, so they cannot be collected and held for any length of time. The Army is in the process of getting a collection and propagation permit from the Service, which should include this species. Since the viability of these seeds in storage is unknown, seeds should be sent to National Tropical Botanical Garden to test standard storage methods and to National Seed Storage Laboratory in Fort Collins to test cryopreservation methods, in addition to those seeds collected for immediate propagation. - Reintroduction. Suitable habitat (rocky outcrops, cinder, or pahoehoe cracks), should be located in an area where threats will be or have been minimized. Since ungulates are a major threat to this species, the outplanting will need to occur within a fenced area. While the Army is (hopefully) going to fence three areas within PTA, only one site is potentially suitable for this species. The fenced areas planned at the Multi -Purpose Range Complex and Puu Ka Pele are not suitable, because they do not have many rocky outcrops and because a closely related species, Silene lanceolata, occurs naturally in both of these sites. There is chance of hybridization occurring if these two listed species are grown side by side. The area to be fenced within Kipuka Kalawamauna (13 00 acres) may be suitable, but will have to be surveyed to determine if there are likely sites for reintroduction. Participants in this survey should include botanists from PTA, the consultants, the Service, and Colorado State University, if they are on the island. Kipuka Kalawamauna has the most similar habitat to the plants found within the road corridor. If no suitable area is found within the Kipuka Kalawamauna fence, other potential sites within or near PTA will need to be surveyed. In addition to fencing 4 9-168 for ungulate control, there will also need to be a detailed management plan which includes weed control, a fire management plan, and monitoring. At a minimum, the site for reintroduction should be chosen before the mitigation costs are finalized, since the costs will increase if additional fencing is needed. The population of Silene hawaiiensis at the eastern side of P7 z" which is currently nearly goat -free because of Saddle Road traffic, will probably have an increase in goat browsing if the road is realigned to go behind the airfield. This population should be monitored to ensure that the goat browsing does not increase after this portion of Saddle Road is no longer used by the public, and that increased Army activity does not impact the plants. If monitoring does reveal increased impact (which should be determined by the Service, the Army, and perhaps BRD), the area will need to be fenced to protect this population, which is currently the largest population within PTA. The costs of this propagation and reintroduction and responsible parties should be included in the mitigation costs of the project. o Page 36, 2nd paragraph, lines 12-13: Reference is made to a comprehensive weed and alien insect monitoring and control program, to be developed by the Army. What about mammalian predators? When will this plan be available for review? Monitoring should occur at least twice a year, to ensure that a species does not get established and widespread in between monitoring periods. While monitoring of alien invertebrates is a great idea, it is a very unattainable goal for $20,000. It would cost more than that to identify invertebrates collected at one time, and that would leave no funding for the control and there is very':ttle information available on control of invertebrates in native communities. Also, the construction of the road is only the initial avenue for allowing alien species into the area. There will be a constant threat of alien invasion from species being carried up the road on traffic once the road is built. There is no discussion of whether this control is aimed at specific species, plant or invertebrate, or at all alien species. A more beneficial use for the money would be chemical control of fountain grass (the most detrimental alien species in PTA) in the area(s) where Silene hawaiiensis will be reintroduced. The cost for this would be approximately $125,000 per year, and should continue for at least 5 years, until the fountain grass is at a very low level and can be controlled manually by the Army's environmental office using staff time only. Also, the weed monitoring should include all of the kipukas in Section III of the project. This plan should be done in conjunction with the BRD-USGS (seepage 46 and comment given below). It should be reviewed and incorporated as an Appendix to this BA, since this is the document that will identify those measures to be taken by the Army and others to control the invasions of alien insects and weeds (and, hopefully, mammalian predators). o Page 36, last paragraph: The draft BA mentions two populations of Silene hawaiiensis, one within the corridor in PTA, and a second outside the development corridor on the R 9-169 summit and south flank ofPu'i! Ma'au. However, the endangered plant map (Figure 4) shows only the location of the population within PTA. The text also does not give any information on the numbers of individuals for the Pu'u Ma'au population. This BA should include at a minimum monitoring of the population during construction, since there is concern that construction may have an adverse impact on the population. In addition, the Service recommends including collection of seeds and propagation, so that if this population is damaged during construction, propagated material can be used to replace the lost plants. o Page 37, 1st line: Particulars about the fencing proposed to protect the Silene hawatiensis population from construction -related activites need to be given, such as the type and size of fence; the size of the enclosure; the length of time the fencing will remain, and, measures to manage the population within the fence if applicable (e.g., weeding, removal of ungulates; etc.). o Page 37, paragraph 4: The comprehensive construction manual outlining and discussing the environmental issues should be reviewed by the Service prior to any construction. o Page 41, table 10 and pages 44-45: While 1 I threatened and endangered species are mentioned in EX -2 as occurring in or near the corridor, only three species are addressed, and only one (Plantago hawaiiensis) has planned fencing. There is no clear statement as to why the other species are not being treated the same way. This should be clarified or the same precautions should be taken for all species. o Page 44, last paragraph, last 2 lines: The same comment made above with respect to the Silene fencing applies to this section regarding Plantago hawaiiensis. o Page 45, paragraph 2: "... all kipuka which still harbor native species" means all kipuka along the route. This should be made clear, as the current phrasing makes it sound as if some kipuka are not native and do not need to be avoided. Also, there should be more detailed information on how the affects on the kipuka will be "minimized". Will all kipuka be avoided, or only some? For those that are not avoided, what efforts are being taken to minimize the effects? o Page 46, 1st paragraph, 3rd line: The same comments that apply to Silene and Plantago fences (above) apply to this section regarding the kipuka identified in Table 11. o Page 46, 3rd paragraph, 7th line: Reference is made to a plan that will be developed by BRD-USGS on weed and alien insect monitoring and control. What about mammalian predators? How does this differ from the plan to be prepared by the Army (see page 36)? When will this plan be available? This document should be done in conjunction with on 9-170 the Army, so that only ONE plan jor alien species control measures and monitoring is prepared for this Saddle Road project It should be reviewed and incorporated as an Appendix to this BA, since this is the document that will identify those measures to be taken by the Army and others to control the invasions of alien ins. -Cis and weeds (and, hopefully, mammalian predators). Page 48, 1st paragraph, 2nd line, and Figure 2: This paragraph states that only two options are being considered for Section 4 (E-3 and EX -4A); however, Figure 2 shows a third option, E-4. This needs to be clarified. We greatly appreciate this opportunity to provide preliminary comments on the proposed action at this early stage. As mentioned in our meeting with you this morning, the Service will provide complete comments on the Preliminary Draft BA and the Preliminary DEIS to the Federal Highways Administration by May 2, 1997. If you have questions regarding these comments, please contact me or Assistant Field Supervisor/Endangered Species Karen Rosa at 808- 541-3441. Sincerely, Brooks Harper Field Supervisor Ecological Services 7 9-171 ", U.S.Department Central Federal Lands 555 Zang Street of Transportation Highway Division P.O. Box 25246 Denver, Colorado 60225-0246 Federal Highway Administration APR 10 1997 In Reply Refer To: HPD -16E Mr. Don Hibbard, Administrator State Historic Preservation Division 33 South King Street, 6th Floor Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 Attention: Mr. Patrick C. McCoy Dear Mr. McCoy: The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), through the Central Federal Lands Highway Division (CFLHD) and the Hawaii Department of Transportation ([MOT), in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Defense are proposing to improve Hawaii State Route (SR) 200, Saddle Road, on and adjacent to the Pohakuloa Training Area (PTA). The proposed improvement begins near Hilo at milepost 6 (the intersection with the proposed Puainako Street extension) and extends approximately 48 miles (77 kilometers) west to a junction with the Mamalahoa Highway, Hawaii (SR) 190. The CFLHD is preparing the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed highway improvements following the Council on Environmental Quality's (CEQ) "Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)" of November 29, 1978, 40 CFR, Parts 1500-1508. Under contract with the FHWA, Paul H. Rosendahl, Inc. (PHRI), Hilo, Hawaii, has conducted a cultural resources survey for the proposed highway corridor. The PHRI survey located a total of 16 historic properties and 35 modern military sites within the archaeological area of potential effect (APE). Please refer to the final report entitled Archaeological Inventory Survey and Historic and Traditional Cultural Assessment for the Hawaii Defense Access Road A -AD -6(1) and Saddle Road (SR 100) Project. (Previously furnished.) On the basis of the PHRI recommendations, we have determined that sites 50-10-34-20864, 50- 10-31-5002, 50-10-33-10309, 50-10-33-20855,50-10-32-21150, 50-10-32-7119,50-10-33- 20878, and 50-10-34-20870 appear to be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). We have also determined that eight additional historic properties and 35 modern military sites do not appear to meet any of the criteria of eligibility for inclusion in the NRNP. The additional historic properties are numbered 50-10-21-20854, 50-10-32-20862, 50 -10 -32- 20865,50 -10 -32 -20877,50 -10-33-20856,50-10-34-20869,50-10-34-20872,50-10-34-20873. Refer to Appendix E of the inventory report for temporary site numbers assigned to modern military sites. 9-172 Pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and 36 CFR 800.4(c)(2), the FHWA asks that you review the inventory report and provide us with your opinion on eligibility. We also ask your concurrence for a consensus determination of eligibility for the subject historic properties. Furthermore, would you please comment on the validity of the effect determination for each of the eligible sites as a result of the mitigation proposed for each site in the report. If you have any questions, please contact Messrs. Bert McCauley, Environmental Project Manager at (303) 969-5924 or Stephen Hallisy, Environmental Protection Specialist at (303) 969-5912. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Sincerely yours, ,44� LarryC. Smith, P.E. 4al Division Engineer cc: Mr. Abe Wong, Division Administrator (HAD -HI), Federal Highway Administration, Box 50206, Honolulu, HI 96850 Ms. Julie A. Cirillo,.Regional Administrator (HRA -09), Federal Highway Administration, 201 Mission Street, Suite 2100, San Francisco, CA 94105 Mr. Donald Okahara, Okahara and Associates, Inc., 200 Kohola Street, Hilo, HI 96720 be: J. Roller D. Gedeon B. McCauley yc: reading file Central file: HI A -AD -6(I), Saddle Road oKBMcCAULEY:jm:4/9/97: L:\environm\wp\sadroad\shpo_elg.ltr 9-173 3f" $AMIN J. CAYETANO GOVERNOR OF HAwul STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF STATE PARKS P. 0. BOX 936 HILO, HAWAII 96721 April 21, 1997 Mr. William L. Moore Senior Planner Okahara & Associates. Inc. 200 Kohola Street Hilo, HI 96720 Dear Mr. Moore: 0�t)u'�) MICHAEL 0. MLSON CHAIRPERSON BOARD OF LANG AND RA 'URAL RESOURCES DEPUTY OIRECTOR GILBERT S. COLOMA-AGARAN AQUACULTURE OEVELOPVENT PRO GRAN AQUATIC RESOURCES BOATING AND OCEAN RECREATION CONSERVATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS CONSERVATION AND RESOURCESENFCRCEMENT CONVEYANCES FORESTRY AND WILDLIFE HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROGRAM LAND MANAGEMENT STATE PARRS WATER AND NO QEVELCPMEN' This letter is confirming our discussion regarding the proposed Saddle Road realignment in relationship to the Mauna Kea State Park's boundaries. The focus of our conversation was the southwest corner of the park. After reviewing the submitted map, the planned realignment does not penetrate the park premises nor will it affect its operations. Should there be any other concerns you may have, please feel free to call me at 974-6200. Sincerely Charles K. Supe Hawaii Dist. Park Superintendent cc: R. Nagata-St.Prk Admin. C. Hosokawa-Prk Prgm Mngr file 9-174 L dPR 2.< 1997 OKAHARA & ASSOC., Ih,_ HILO OFFICE 1 11 r 'f f 1 ob` PKC ` .. � •Y . / O O ,v ,� 4G P 1 ��pP�GEV 1 A� % 11 41.40) i11 MAUNA KEA STATE BARK pOHAKULOA ARRA PARCWJ9 A AND 8 Kaohe, Hamakua, Island of HawP , HQwmii Scale: I inch • e0e feet Joe H•46(be) 9-175 �� 965- 4C�90 G. OK 1 pooh C✓ a U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration U.S. DOT 1 FHWA / CFLHD /HPD -16E 555 Zang Street Lakewood, CO 80228 (303) 969-5924 Fax: (303) 969-5903 Email: bertm@road.cflhd.gov FAX TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET Date: 4 • Z 4. 9 7 To: '5,� BEG a w Fax: AS G/3rEp Re:.5/lop�E Rood vE/S ,2evuws /ew A4�/c�Es,' MEB�JKI`s Sender. Bert McCauley — - No. Pages: / MR, le-Agru AY H/D -2 7'9/S /5 To REMiA/n A<,c. L rC RALPH AVE S I - Z 438- /G/ PAT/AjENC/ES of DOGtcrEVT � /35 VE Co 0 665- /683 vlEw A4eErzA16 ZS APA log. wAymr 11 ROBE SMtr N SW- 3 - 6 9 31470 9: 00 A. M. IA/ 1-'5E.nl.4To. DAnr/Et_. I oU ' Otc/C, 2. MiC4AEL ' 587-0390 TNAAtK You F u.�e. DONNA iuy / 80 '?61-8630 S/ 7-AA/C L rC. AL LE Ln -5 7 cC LTC. LLOYD M ES: AO S3 -3501 M,9. ASE WorvU ; 54/-Z7 MR. DONALD OKauAvPA, ((?og) 96/-5529 9-177 1 04/29/97 16:99 Z'308 961 5529 ORAHARA & ASSOC. MITIGATION PACKAGE FOR THE HUNTING COMMUNITY 1'o: 4/24/97 William Moore, Senior Planner Okahara and Associates Inc. 200 Kohola St. Hilo. Hawaii 96720 1 From: Steve Hurt 17-124 Palaai St Keaau, Hawaii 96749 SADDLE ROAD REALIGNMENT ;APR 2 41997 OKAHARA & ASSOC., INC, HILO OFFICE MITIGATION PACKAGE FOR THE HUNTING COMMUNITY The hunting community understands the need for the Realignment of the Saddle Road. The approximately 52 acres utilized for the new portion of the road on the back side of Pohakuloa Training Area passes thru areas that have been traditionally excellent hunting and nesting areas for game birds and huntable mammals. This is a progressive move made by the Army to enhance training and safety for our Nation's safekeepers. If there were no other mitigations or impacts to hunting areas our package would not be submitted, however the Palila Mitigation Package tied to the Saddle Road Realignment directly impacts the finest bow hunting, bird hunting and sustainable habitat for game animals. Our proposed Saddle Road Realignment Mitigation Package for the Hunting Community is to compensate the hunting community for their losses which are tied to the Realignment of the Saddle Road and the consequent Palila Mitigation Package. 9-178 nA „ 04/29/37 16:40 IAT808 961 5529 ORr.RARA & ASSOC. MITIGATION PACKAGE FOR THE HUNTING COMMUNITY 2 Kipuka Alala is an area affected by the Palila Mitigation Package, Kipuka Alala acts as a feeding and nesting area that is on occasion hunted providing a balance that allows for this area's hunting activities to continue indefinitely. Under the Palila Mitigation Package all mammals in Kipuka Alala will be eliminated. Lau Ranch (TMK 4-4.15:0) , currently being leased to Parker Ranch for grazing, has provided excellent game bird habitat and is also affected. The lease is one of the only areas on the Big Island that features a special youth hunt for game birds and due to its terrain and elevation offers an area for our older citizens to enjoy. After youth hunt is over elderly hunters are not forced to "give up" hunting for a lack of lower elevation hunting. Pu'u Mali areas being suggested in the Palila Mitigation Package are currently under lease agreements with the State of Hawaii. Their current uses helps keep game birds populations and mammal populations at their present acceptable levels. The proposed ungulate control in Pu'u Lau and affected Pu'u Mali areas will take them to numbers that may make them extremely difficult to repopulate. In addition to the fact of the loss of the areas, loss of grazing game mammals will cause alien weeds and grasses to have a long term negative effect on game birds. This game mammal loss will deprive birds of their normal insect feed from animal droppings, erases feeding corridors and creates wet and cold conditions. These wet and cold conditions affect chicks and during a n "off spring" will greatly reduce game bird populations. To offset these negative impacts of the Saddle Road Realignment and Palila Mitigation Package and to create the opportunity for the hunting community to commence creating suitable mammal and bird habitat, one that may idso may be enjoyed by all Hawaii citizens, the following is deemed 9-179 1x004 04/29/97 16:40 '$8J8 961 V29 OKAHARA & ASSOC. BOOS MITIGATION PACKAGE FOR THE HUNTING COMMUNITY 3 necessary. The U.S. Army or Federal Highway Funds are to purchase approximately five thousand acres (5000 ares) from Parker Ranch which is adjacent to Pu'u Anahulu. Contact at Parker Ranch Mr. Mel Hewlett phone 808.885.9040 has agreed to sell this portion and negotiate the price when the actual letter of intent to purchase is signed. All future expenses, surveying, mapping, fencing and legal documentation would be borne by the purchasing party funded by the Saddle Road Realignment Mitigation Package for the Hunting Community. The purchased parcel is to be deeded to the State of Hawaii in the classification of "Public Hunting Area." The Saddle Road Realignment Mitigation Package for the Hunting Community is allocate the state Division of Forestry and Wildlife to assess and relocate any listed endangered, threatened or candidate plants to Kipuka Alala. Kipuka Alala's environment is identical to the proposed Parker Ranch areas and biologically feasible according to several biologists. This will allow the area to remain in its intended purpose forever. A D-9 Caterpillar bulldozer is to be purchased. Funding is to be allocated for a qualified wildlife biologist and qualified D-9 operator. Other expenses include a pick-up 44, nursery reservoir, piping and a predation and poaching control program. The intent of the manpower and equipment requests are to allow the purchased Parker Ranch area, Pu'u Anahulu and Pu'u Waawaa to be biologically adjusted to create a beginning native ecosystem capable of maintaining a sustainable hunting number of animals and birds. See attached sheet "A Review of Monies Required to Fund Mitigation" Attached Sheet titled "Survivor Needs Analysis Calculations" shows the dollar amounts over the required amount of time required for this fifteen year program. It is further required that the Palila Recovery Package ungulate control 9-180 04/29/)7 18:41 %T808 M 5E29 ORAFARA & ASSOC. 20J6 MITIGATION PACKAGE FOR THE HUNTING COMMUNITY 4 a program include no less than ninety percent (90%) removal for relocation versus cztermination by snaring, poisoning or staff hunting. This is to be closely monitored by and in consultation with the hunting community and State of Hawaii Biologists, To undertake the task of reforesting the Parker Ranch parcel, Pu'u Anahulu, and the bottom portion of Pu'u WaaWaa is indeed a huge endeavor but is necessary to maintain the quality of areas removed from citizens and hunters alike. If paragraph 1 on page 40 (See statement ff3) of the E.I.S. prepared for Helco 138 KV Transmission Line is understood and taken in the same opinion as as what allowed the transmission line to proceed and the Pallia Mitigation Package linked to the Saddle Road Realignment Is deemed truly unnecessary, please contact me immediately and a formal letter will be sent rescinding our package. Best, Steve Hurt Hunter Representative cc' Senator Daniel Inouye Senator Daniel Akaka Col. Mues, Commander of PTA Micheal Wilson, Head o DLNR Mayor Stephen Yamashiro James Arakaki, Hawaii County Council 9-181 BENJAMIN J. CAYETANO GOVERNOR OF HAWAII Ref: DLM-GYT97-10182 Mr. Larry C. Smith, P.E. Division Engineer U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Central Federal Lands Highway Division Post Office Box 25246 Denver, Colorado 80225-0246 Dear Mr. Smith: Subject: Saddle Road Realignment Project Thank you for the opportunity to review the Biological Assessment of the Preferred Alignments and the Preliminary Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the subject project. Enclosed please find the following: 1. Comments from Tom Eisen, Planner from the Planning Branch, Land Division; 2. Comments dated April 14, 1997 from Michael G. Buck, Administrator, Division of Forestry and Wildlife; and 3. Comments dated April 23, 1997 from Glenn Y. Taguchi of the Land Division. We will provide additional comments during the various permit process review periods or as new information becomes available to the Department. Should you have any questions on this matter, please feel free to call on Glenn Y. Taguchi of our Land Division at (808) 587-0439. HAWAII: Earth's best! Aloha, ts . C&6 w MICHAEL D. WILSO 9-182 MICHAEL G. WILSON CHAIRPERSON iii \5 i BOARD of LArvO AND NATURAL RESOURCE'. IN DEPUTY GILBERT S. COLOMA-AGARAN STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES AQUACULTURE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM P O BOX 621 40UATIC RESOURCES HONOLULU, HAWAII 96809 BOATING AND OCEAN RECREATION CONSERVATION AND RESOURCES ENFORCEMENT 2 4 1997 CONVEYANCES FORESTRY ANO WILDLIFE HISTORIC PRESERVATION DIVISION STAT STATE PARKS WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT Ref: DLM-GYT97-10182 Mr. Larry C. Smith, P.E. Division Engineer U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Central Federal Lands Highway Division Post Office Box 25246 Denver, Colorado 80225-0246 Dear Mr. Smith: Subject: Saddle Road Realignment Project Thank you for the opportunity to review the Biological Assessment of the Preferred Alignments and the Preliminary Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the subject project. Enclosed please find the following: 1. Comments from Tom Eisen, Planner from the Planning Branch, Land Division; 2. Comments dated April 14, 1997 from Michael G. Buck, Administrator, Division of Forestry and Wildlife; and 3. Comments dated April 23, 1997 from Glenn Y. Taguchi of the Land Division. We will provide additional comments during the various permit process review periods or as new information becomes available to the Department. Should you have any questions on this matter, please feel free to call on Glenn Y. Taguchi of our Land Division at (808) 587-0439. HAWAII: Earth's best! Aloha, ts . C&6 w MICHAEL D. WILSO 9-182 Ref: DLM-GYT97-10170 MEMORANDUM To: Glenn Y. Taguchi From: Tom Eisen, Planning Branch Subject: Saddle Road Realignment Project We have reviewed the subject Preliminary Draft Environmental Impact Statement for concerns relating to the Conservation District, and have the following comments. Section 3.1.3.8 of the document notes that substantial portions of the project will involve Conservation District lands. It also correctly indicates that a permit must be obtained from the Board of Land and Natural Resources prior to the commencement of construction of any portion of the Saddle Road project within the Conservation District. A public hearing may be required for this permit. Additionally, the document should include a map showing which Conservation District subzones are involved, since this information will be required to process the permit. 9-183 BENJAMIN J. CAYETANO GOVERNOR OF NANAII MEMORANDUM STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES OIVISION OF FORESTRY AND WILDLIFE 1151 PUNCHBOWL STREET HONOLULU, HAWAII 96813 April 14, 1997 TO: Dean Y. Uchida, Administrator Land Division MICHAEL D. WILSON CNAIFPERSON BOARD OF UNO ANO NATURAL RESOURCES CEFVTY GILBERT S. COLOMA-AGARAN AOUeCLLrURE DEVELOPNEN. PROGRAr. A,JArIC RESOURCES BOATING AND OCEAN RECREATION :,4SEFI ANo ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS CoNSERVATION ANo RESOIRCES ENFCRCEUENT CONI FORESTRI AND NILJLIFE +ISTCRIC RRESER'FAT ON .AND NANAGENENT STATE PANrcS 'NATER AND LAND DEOEIOPVENr NATER RESOURCE`/.ANAGEINENT FROM: Michael G. Buck, Administrator y Division of Forestry and Wildlife SUBJECT: Comments on Draft Biological Assessment for Saddle Road Realignment Pro}ect G Division of Forestry and Wildlife Staff have reviewed the subject document and provide the y following comments: L. I. General Comments The Division agrees with the proposed mitigation actions and the need to protect and restore additional habitat on the north side of Mauna Kea and elsewhere to ensure the long term survival of Palila. However, we disagree with the proposal on how best to implement these actions, particularly on State owned parcels. We recommend taking a different approach for some of these actions that would achieve the same end goals but do so in many instances at less cost and with less disruption of existing landowner and hunting community relations. The Division offers the following general comments on the mitigation plan. The mitigation plan proposes that four parcels of state land (Botellho Hawaii Enterprises TMK 4-3-10:2, KK Ranch T vM 44-14:3, SC Ranch TMK 4-3-10:8, and Lau Ranch TMK 4-4-15:2) comprising 1,918 ha be taken out of cattle lease, fenced and domestic and feral ungulates removed and control efforts be monitored and continued for 3 years. The mitigation package should not look at the acquisition of these parcels in a vacuum but should consider what is happening on adjacent DLNR lands and habitats. For instance, the adjacent lands DLNR lands are being managed for PaWa habitat, forest protection, and game management -typically bird hunting. The Division proposes that a more sustainable long term management approach would be to retain cattle leases on these areas, work with the lessees and manage cattle at an appropriate level and method to allow regeneration of mamane/naio forest while controlling noxious exotic vegetation. The mitigation plan should incorporate grazing as a fuel mitigation measure. This approach will provide noxious vegetation control, fire control, retain hunting opportunities and reduce costs. 9-184 2. The mitigation plan proposes that feral ungulates be removed from managed parcels by agency or contract hunters. The mitigation plan should incorporate public hunting as the first option for all animal control efforts. To achieve the desired goal of ungulate control, the Division proposes adopting a more sustainable long term management approach of using public hunting to control ungulates at low, acceptable levels. This will provide recreational hunting and reduce costs. 3. The mitigation plan proposes that considerable fencing be done to cc'ntrci domestic cattle and feral animal grazing to enable mamane/naio forest regeneration. Rather than fencing complete boundaries of all areas to achieve this goal, we recommend a general approach of strategic fencing taking advantage of natural barriers, existing DOFAW sheep fences, and existing cattle fences where appropriate and only fence those areas where sheep are a serious problem. We do not believe that sheep are that severe a problem in the Puu Mali or Lau Lease area. The Division proposes a more sustainable long term management approach that would: 1) rely on existing cattle fences and better cattle management where appropriate, 2) control sheep in appropriate areas by public hunting, and 3) use strategic placement of sheep proof fences to protect quality forest areas. This will reduce the amount of new fencing needed, reduce costs and provide additional recreational hunting. 4. The mitigation plan does not propose reforestation as a management action to speed mamane/naio restoration. Cattle rather than sheep appear to be the main limiting factor for mamane/naio regeneration in the lease areas. To speed-up the reforestation process, the Division proposes implementing an active mamane planting program in association with the cattle management strategy to restore appropriate areas of the State lease lands. Reforestation would target areas with natural barriers to cattle such as gullies or kipukas and could also be combined with some strategic fencing to produce corridors and islands of mamane/naio forests. 5. The mitigation plan proposes that the management of the (2,833 ha?) 2,568 ha of state lease land be undertaken jointly by the FWS and DLNR. DLNR as the land owner is the appropriate agency for management and would contract out specific work items to BRD or other parties as needed to implement the plan. The agreements would be between DLNR and funding agency to accomplish the mitigation actions. This may result in a considerable savings to the funding agency in that DLNR would not add a 25% overhead for managing the project but would contract out jobs and require overhead on a limited items such as positions added to the Division personnel counts. Substantial savings could be achieved if DOFAW carried out some of the proposed mitigation actions instead of the FWS. Estimated savings on lease relocations costs, fencing, ungulate control, predator control, weed monitoring and USFWS overhead expenses could amount to over 1 million dollars over the next five years (see attached table 8). II. Specific Comments 1. Page 26. Para 1. The mitigation plan states that acquisition and management of 1,864 ha of state grazing leases in Puu Mali areas is necessary. The goal is to restore forests in this area. Acquisition is not necessary to do this. A more sustainable approach to achieve the goal of forest restoration in this area is to retain a cattle lease option on the land and manage cattle at an appropriate level and method to allow regeneration of mamane/naio `IIF:f.7 forest while controlling noxious exotic vegetation. 2. Page 26. Para 2. The mitigation plan states that habitat restoration for palila cannot succeed unless domestic and feral animals are removed. We disagree. Domestic livestock can be used as an important management tool as discussed above. Grazing animals can be used effectively to control noxious exotic vegetation in native ecosystems that have been previously altered by detrimental land use practices. Properly managed livestock herds are also beneficial to game bird populations. Grazing at the proper time of the year (when grass is green and growing) and for short durations (a few weeks or months each year) will not significantly impact the overall recovery of damaged mamane/naio forests and will help control weeds and fire fuels. The trade off is a small loss of trees to cattle that will be compensated for by weed and fire control. The plan does not mention the increased risk of fire as a result of total ungulate removal. The Division plan discussed above mitigates this threat by using periodic cattle grazing. 3. Page 26. Para 2. The mitigation plan advocates extensive fencing and agency or contract hunters to control ungulates for forest regeneration. Not all areas should require new perimeter fencing. Adequate domestic and feral ungulate control may be achieved using existing cattle fences for cattle management and public hunting to reduce sheep levels to a low enough level for forest regeneration. Ungulate control can be done using public hunting and DOFAW staff control where necessary rather than contracting NPS or other agency staff for this function. 4. Page 26. Para 2. See comments on fencing and reforestation above (items 3-4). 5. Page 30. Para 1 & 2. The management approach proposed by the Division in Section I above would result in some savings for the costs of lease withdrawals, metes and bounds surveys, fencing, ungulate control and predator control. See comments and information provided in Section I. 6. Page 30. Para 3. The mitigation plh should consider the increased fire risk from ungulate removal and incorporate a management approach as suggested by DOFAW to reduce this threat. 7. Page 36. Para 1. The mitigation to move the Silene hawaiiensis will also require coordination with DOFAW and a state permit. 8. Page 46. Para 1. The mitigation plan proposes fencing 10 kipukas identified in Table 11. No fencing specifications, size or cost estimates are provided. The Division would like to review proposed fencing to integrate with state management of those lands. Please give Mr. Paul Conry a call at 587-0166 if you require additional information on these comments. cc: Hawaii District Paul Conry :. Saddle Road Mitigation Plan: DLNR/DOFAW General Concepts for Management 1. Not look at mitigation parcels in a vacuum but in context of management of adjacent lands and habitat by DLNR or other land management entity. 2. Utilize public hunting as a first option for all animal control efforts. Utilize grazing as a fuel mitigation strategy. 4. Utilize strategic fencing and natural barriers rather than complete enclosure fencing to control feral ungulates. 9-187 MEMORANDUM TO: Dean Y. Uchida, Administrator Land Division FROM: Michael G. Buck, Administrator A Division of Forestry and Wildlife SUBJECT: Comments on the Draft EIS for the Saddle Road Realignment Project. The Division of Forestry and Wildlife Staff has reviewed the subject document and provide the following comments: Some of the proposed highway alignments will remove acreage from existing game management areas; subsequently reducing their value for hunting. Additionally, certain alignments will trigger palila mitigation measures which will exclude game mammals from potential hunting areas. There should be some compensation for the loss of public hunting areas. This compensation should include funds for improvements of existing game management areas or the opening of adjacent lands currently not available for public hunting. Attachment 1. is a draft of the Mauna Kea Fire Plan that addresses DLNR's concerns on fire. PTA is currently or will soon drill for water in the area. DOFAW would like to see PTA incorporate stand -pipes in areas with high flamable fuels, i.e. PTA's boundary with Mauna Kea Forest Reserve and Kaohe Game Management Area. This would allow fire fighters the ease of accessing water and also allow PTA to sustain their 80,000 gallon water tanks at capacity level without the need of hauling water to the tanks. ZED • �lAll BENJAMIN J. CAYETANO 1 MICHAEL O. WILSON F1 GOVERNOR OF HAWAII 2�5{ `- CHAIRPERSON ROAROOF LANDAND NATURAL RESOURCES / DEPUTY GILBERT S. COLOMA-AGARAN STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES AODACULTURE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM DIVISION OF FORESTRY AND WILDLIFE AGUATO RESOURCES t 151 PUNCHBOWL STREET BOATING AND OCEAN RECREATION CONSERVATION AND HONOLULU, HAWAII 96813 ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS CONSERVATION AND RESOURCES ENFORCEMENT CONVEYANCES (] April 18, 1997 FORESTRY AND 'R" ^' .E HISTORIC PRESERVATION LAND MANAGEMENT STATE PARKS WATER AND LAND DEVELOPMENT WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Dean Y. Uchida, Administrator Land Division FROM: Michael G. Buck, Administrator A Division of Forestry and Wildlife SUBJECT: Comments on the Draft EIS for the Saddle Road Realignment Project. The Division of Forestry and Wildlife Staff has reviewed the subject document and provide the following comments: Some of the proposed highway alignments will remove acreage from existing game management areas; subsequently reducing their value for hunting. Additionally, certain alignments will trigger palila mitigation measures which will exclude game mammals from potential hunting areas. There should be some compensation for the loss of public hunting areas. This compensation should include funds for improvements of existing game management areas or the opening of adjacent lands currently not available for public hunting. Attachment 1. is a draft of the Mauna Kea Fire Plan that addresses DLNR's concerns on fire. PTA is currently or will soon drill for water in the area. DOFAW would like to see PTA incorporate stand -pipes in areas with high flamable fuels, i.e. PTA's boundary with Mauna Kea Forest Reserve and Kaohe Game Management Area. This would allow fire fighters the ease of accessing water and also allow PTA to sustain their 80,000 gallon water tanks at capacity level without the need of hauling water to the tanks. ZED Dean Uchida April 18, 1997 Page 2 The Saddle Road also serves access to the state's major hunting areas on Mauna Kea, Kaohe, PTA lease, Mauna Loa, Kipuka Ainahou, Hilo Forest Reserve, and Upper Waiakea Forest Reserve. A discussion on developing off -ramps for hunting access could be made in this section. An upgrade of EX -1 could be discussed as an alternative to cutting new routes through keamuku. Should mention that by using existing routes, this alternative minimizes disturbance to hunting areas. PTA -1 causes the biggest disruption to an important public hunting area adjacent to the state park. Many of the limitations listed here are lease stipulations that will continue in effect for training areas until year 2029. Hunting for game birds and mammals should be added to all three "Land Use" segments described in section II of this table. Maneuvers in state lease lands will still have lease covenants regarding training. (Reference: S-3849, 22, 971.00 acres, expires 8/16/2029). Dean Uchida April 18, 1997 Page 3 Access to hunting areas should be maintained during and after construction phases. Reference to State Lease 3849 should be made as a Land Use Regulation as it prescribes military activities on PTA leases. The EX -2 alignment in areas 1-4 is preferred by certain hunters and bird watchers. A discussion on the Army's development of the eastern Redleg Road area to accommodate expanded training should be presented. Routes PTA -1 and PTA -3 in areas 1-4 would not only cause game disruption but actual significant acreage loss to hunting areas. Routes W-2 and W-3 could interfere with hunting area mitigation options in Keamuku that has been discussed in public meeting with hunters. DLNR supports restoration of mamane forests and palila habitat on these lands but is interested in taking the lead management role on any state lease lands involved in mitigation. The management of these lands should be integrated with adjacent state forest reserves, involve public hunting for any ungulate control activities, and maintain the option of using controlled grazing as a management tool to reduce wildland fire risks. C: Hawaii District Paul Conry Attachment '11 Mauna Kea Plan Page 7 ATTACH= 1. 2. Ranh .ands Except for the southwest section adjoining PTA, Mauna Kea is bounded by ranch lands. Cattle grazing has prevented the build up of tire, grassy fuel, and the overall chances of Intense, rapidly spreading fires occurring under the current use are low. Three of the 4 fires documented within the ranch lands burned 7 acres or less, and one burned 200 acres in an area 4 'A miles down slope that supported moderate growth of bunch grass. Nonetheless, fires within these surrounding areas should be considered potential threats. DOFAW, as a cooperator to HCFD, responds to all tires in this area. DOFAW needs to be cognizant of the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands plan to subdivide their current pasture leases between Humuula and Keanakolu into homestead lots. Changes in the type or nature of uses could have an affect on the adjacent Mauna Kea lands. LINNERM ,,i .,,, The County of Hawaii owned,Saddle Road runs close to, and through a portion of the southwest section. It is only minimally maintained, with heavy grass growth literally encroaching upon the pavement in places. it presents a ready source of ignition from car tires (one recorded), catalytic convertors, exhaust sparks, and carelessly discarded burning material. Four of the recorded tares, including the two largest that burned a total of 4,199 acres, were caused by traffic on the road. Planning is in progress for the realignment of the Saddle Road. Of major concern from the fire management standpoint is that section of proposed alignment within PTA approximately from Puu Nene to Puu Keekee, which would put the new roadway right up to, and/or on the slope of the mountain. The natural barrier currently provided by the barren lava flow on the eastern end and the firefighting advantage offered by the fiat lands separating the existing roadway from the slope between Pohakuloa and Pau Keekee will be lost. Based on available information, the Army Is adamantly pursuing the project, and there is strong political support for it at all levels. It is apparently considered a "gotta fly" project. DOFAW and all others concerned with the protection of the area must hold firm in demanding adequate safeguards against fres starting from the new road. Generally, without Imowing the specific alignment to be followed, mitigating measures would include wide fuel free shoulders with barriers preventing vehicular access onto grassy areas, paved turn-out/parking areas for at least 4 vehicles no more than % mile apart to accommodate roadside parking for hunter and other forest users, and the establishment and maintenance of a 9-191 Mauna Kea Plan Page 8 fuel free corridor on the upslope or north side of the roadway that will effectively prevent traffic caused fire Ignition. ',I, , ,.6 lawn, 1►'1 The facility Is located at approximately 9,200 feet elevation on 19 acres at the site of the former Halepohaku Ranger Station and Mauna Kea State Park. Currently, wUdflre would not pose a significartt threat to the facility. Their fire station would have ffmited capability for wildland fire suppression, that may be applicable to controlling fires starting in the vicinity. e .. • , . as The powerline extends approximately along the Hamakua and North Hilo District boundary from Dear the Army's "Infantry Road" up to Halepohaku. The poweriine, approved coaaary to DOFAW's concern and recommendation, poses a potential, If not serious, risk of Ignition if there should be a powerline failure. Fires starting alone this isolated and rugged alignment could become a potential disaster, with the rapidly increasing grass cover and accumulatiou of fire fuel In the nalo-mamane fuel type area. 1 -1411ff 3W.24ri—V- r ►n r I C810-1 A. Geography Rough and irregular terrain with average slopes of up to 30 percent cent and morelseverely restricts fireline construction with bulldozers over a significant portion of the am. The altitude, starting at S,SOO feet on the low end, extends up to 9,500 feet and more in some potential fire areas, significantly reducing the efficiency of helicopters performing water/retardant drops. The geographically Influenced air currents are often unpredictable, and adds to the difficulty and hazards of air operations. The rugged terrain combined with high altitude creates a situation that is taxing on firefighters' physical capacity. 21MOVAYT. =1 1. PreciRitation Rainfall data for 5 locations around Mauna Kea (identified on map) that most closely represems precipitation within the area is provided in Table , and graphically illustrated in Figure . Although it includes data through 1966 only, it Is the only comprehensive compilation of rainfall data available for the area. As It covers a minimum 26 year period at Halepohaku up to 51 years at Pun Klbe, it should adequately represent the long-term trend. 9-192 STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL Land Division April 23, 1997 Ref: DLM-GYT97-10181 To: Dean Y. Uchida Administrator From: Glenn Y. uchi Subject: Saddle Road R al I have reviewed the Biolo Alignments and the Prelimi Statement for the subject Biological Assessment t Project RESOURCES Assessment of the Preferred Draft Environmental Impact ect and these are my comments. Page 26. After discussion of the Kipuka Alala area, the rest of that paragraph (beginning with "For habitat restoration to succeed within the areas identified above...") should form a new paragraph to indicate that the comments regarding fencing and ungulate control apply to both the Kipuka Alala and Pu'u Mali areas. The discussion on ungulate control should include the following: Domestic ungulate control should be done in coordination with the respective rancher. Feral ungulate control should be done through a controlled hunting program. Page 30. It is recommended that the management of the Pu'u Mali and the "Lau Ranch" site be solely under the jurisdiction of the Division of Forestry and Wildlife. Appropriate funding from FHWA, DOD, etc. for that portion of the mitigation plan to be implemented by DOFAW should go directly to DOFAW. Should there be a need to withdraw the Pu'u Mali area from the existing general leases, subdivision cost i.e.-survey cost, subdivision fees, etc., should be considered. Should control and management of the Pu'u Mali area be to other than DOFAW, a separate parcel of record would be required. Subdivision requirements, their cost and time implications should be factored into the time matrix. Again, any discussion on ungulate control should include the following: Domestic ungulate control should be done in 9-193 Saddle Road Realignment Project Page 2 coordination with the respective rancher. Feral ungulate control should be done through a controlled hunting program. Funding sources should be identified for any cost attributed to the taking or withdrawal of lands currently under lease to the respective ranchers. Funding sources and the method of payment (i.e.-lump sum, yearly, etc.) for the lost revenue to the State of Hawaii and to the lost entitlement to the office of Hawaiian Affairs should be identified and addressed. Regarding Palila translocation, what happens if after numerous attempts the Palila fail to settle in the Pu'u Mali area? Should translocation fail, the land should revert back to ranching purposes or other such purposes as may be deemed appropriate by the BLNR. Note: Copies of the general lease documents which contain language allowing for the withdrawal of portions of the encumbered lands and the compensation for improvements taken, if any, were provided to the consultants. Page 36. The second paragraph states that "to avoid the potential downing of Dark-rumped Petrels and Newell's Shearwaters by their int_raction with external construction lighting, no construction or equipment maintenance will be permitted after dark between the months of April and October." Could a space i.e.-empty hangar, warehouse, etc., within PTA's built up area be made available for the contractor's emergency repair work? Page 37. Concerning the spacing of staging areas, a construction company should be consulted to determine the proper spacing of the staging areas along the route of the entire Saddle Road Realignment Project. A consideration should also be given to creating an environmental, etc. checklist of required studies to be completed and approved prior to allowing additional staging areas along the route. Preliminary Draft Environmental Impact Statement Par. 3.1.1.1.4, page 3-3. Any withdrawal of lands from Forest Reserve status requires action by the BLNR, consent of the Governor of Hawaii, a public hearing for the purpose of withdrawal, the issuance of an executive order which provides for rights of disapproval by the legislature. 9-194 Saddle Road Realignment Project Page 3 Par. 3.1.1.1.8, page 3-4. Regarding outdoor recreation areas, should any portion of the Mauna Kea State Recreation Area be required for the subject project, said area must be withdrawn from the executive order which is under the control and management of the Division of State Parks. Par. 3.1.1.3, page 3-8. Regarding the use of Saddle Road, would the transport of telescope lenses to any of the observatories on Mauna Kea be restricted during construction. If there is uncertainty, the University of Hawaii, Institute of Astronomy should be consulted on this matter. Par. 3.18.3, page 3-143. Regarding the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between USFWS, DOFAW and FWHA, will there be an end date to the MOA? Will there be a funding guarantee until the expiration of the MOA? At the expiration of the MOA, can the use of the property revert to ranching or other uses as deemed appropriate by the BLNR? What agency will be responsible for the long term monitoring of the Silene hawaiiensis? Should there be any questions on this matter, please see me. 9-195 REPLY TO ATTENTION OF DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY HEADQUARTERS, UNITED STATES ARMY GARRISON, HAWAII SCHOFIELD BARRACKS, HAWAII 96857-5000 April 24, 1997 Directorate of Public Works Mr. Bert McCauley Environmental Planning Engineer Federal Highway Administration 555 Zang Street, P.O. Box 25246 Denver, Colorado 80225 Dear Mr. McCauley Please find enclosed preliminary comments by members of the staff of the U.S. Army Garrison, Hawaii and also, our Major Command (U.S. Army Pacific, Deputy Chief of Staff for Engineering). These comments are provided for both the preliminary Draft Environmental Impact Statement (PDEIS) and the Draft Biological Assessment (BA) for the proposed realignment of Saddle Road (Hawaii State Route 200) on the Island of Hawaii. These comments are presented to meet the needs expressed during a preliminary meeting held on April 9, 1997, at the Federal Building in Honolulu. The Army's comments are primarily restricted to those sections of the road that pass through the Pohakuloa Training Area. These comments reflect a multiple review by various offices without the benefit for an in-depth analysis of some issues. A more rigorous and thorough review is underway. These additional comments will be forwarded shortly. We feel that with the exception of the omission or exclusion of Army participation in the development of agreements to "manage lands" that may be fenced as part of proposed mitigation (PDEIS pages 3-144). The plan, as written, offers no substantive impediments to implementation. The proposed cost for the mitigation (BA page 32) is very high and the Army would like the opportunity to explore some consideration of activities which it has already undertaken to minimize the tabulated mitigation costs. The Army looks forward to participation in subsequent review meetings on the above documents. The point of contact for these comments is Dr. Raimo Liias, of my staff. He can be reached at 656-2878, extension 1042. Sincerely, v6v�,Al_ J1,1,_6W Dennis J. Fontana Q' Colonel, U.S. Army Director of Public Works Enclosures Copy Furnished: 9-196 Commander. U.S. Armv Pacific, ATTN: APEN-F.. Fort Shafter, Hawaii 96858-5100 Comments from Dr. Raimo Liias, Chief, Environmental Division, Directorate of Public Works I. Page 2-2, Figure 2.11: Typical Section B is mislabeled. Termination of segments where Section B and Section C would be used are not indicated on Fig 2.23. Where this information is located would be a useful cross reference. 2. Pages 2-5 to 2-6: Do all costs represented include the typical sections as presented in Fig. 2.11? 3. Page 2-8: Alternatives B-4, B-8, C-4 and C-8 are preferred routes of the Army. The central issue is the utilization of route PTA -1 through PTA proper. The Army expresses no preference for the segments running through Section 1, III and IV. 4. Page 3-2: The Army is not now drilling a water well. The Army is pursuing options, including the possibility of drilling a well, to provide for potable water at PTA to alleviate the current necessity to haul in potable water via truck. 5. Page 3-2: Recommend changing next to last paragraph sentence to "limited in their use pending resolution of environmental considerations and because of extremely rough terrain." 6. Page 3-2: Last paragraph - profile reference to Training Area 1-4, specifically to a map! 7. Page 3-80: Section 3.9.3, second bullet, add ... One new 2,000 gallon tanker truck. 8. Page 3-116: Section II - The fire mitigation plan as cross referenced is understood to be no more than increased fire break built as part of the road and the Standard Operating Procedure of the U.S. Army's PTA Fire Department. 9. Page 3-121: Section II - Was the "incidental observations" made by one individual or several? Observation by a trained specialist or botanist? 10. Page 3-319: Paragraph 3 - Reference is that a "Palila was recorded... during the course of the biological studies". Reference to page 3-121 where it is stated "incidental observations during the biological study". Are these separate studies? Separate sightings by biologists or by botanists'? 11. Page 3-139: Are all recent sightings within the last five years - by the same person, group? Where is this information available? 9-197 12. Page 3-144: Third bullet - replace, paragraph with "The Army is conducting a baseline weed and insect survey for PTA as part of its Ecosystem Management Plan at PTA and other Army controlled lands in Hawaii. The U.S. Army Garrison, Hawaii, will support control and monitoring efforts by the owners of State Route 200 (Hawaii DOT?). The Army cannot provide long term control on the state route right-of-way. 13. Page 3-149: Section 11 - Replace with "a fire management plan has been developed by the U. S. Army Garrison, Hawaii, which includes response procedures and suppression resources in place for Ecosystem Management in the PTA area. Fire mitigation is primarily accomplished through the construction of an increased road width as shown in typical cross section C? as shown in Fig 2.1.1, which is to be provided through project funds. 14. Page 3-144: First bullet - The Army insists that any measures to fence or manage restoration efforts on the acreage within the current boundaries of PTA be its own responsibility. Agreements that do not include the Army will have no binding effect on the Army. The Army has already undertaken numerous efforts to address biological, botanical and other natural and cultural resources located on Army - controlled lands. M Comments from Mr. Larry Hirai, Environmental Division, Deputy Chief of Staff for Engineering U.S. Army Pacific 1. Per our discussion on Thursday, March 27 1997, the following comments are provided on the document: a. This is a difficult and complex action to evaluate due to its trans -island route through many different habitats with different landowners/lease holders using the land for different purposes. Concur with evaluating impacts by dividing the project route into the western, PTA, and eastern sectors. b. The preliminary DEIS indicates discussions, actions, and mitigative measures have been worked out. The relevant correspondences should be incorporated into the DEIS in an appendix section, especially for actions related to endangered species and historic sites. c. The DEIS should also include in an appendix section the minutes of the scoping meetings and letters received/responses provided on this project. Minutes of task force and other related meetings should also be incorporated to reflect the openness of this process and involvement of agencies and the public in determining and evaluating impacts. d. Actions, and especially mitigative measures, discussed for PTA seem to imply Army concurrence/approval. This may or may not be correct. For example, Palila restoration research is on- going. Palila introduction at PTA still requires MACOM and HQDA reviews and approvals. e. The preliminary DEIS, and when available the DEIS, should also be reviewed by our SJA and USARHAW. 2. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the document. I look forward to reviewing the DEIS when it is available. Per the meeting at Senator Inouye's office on Wednesday, April 9 1997, the following comments are provided on the environmental documents for the Saddle Road project. 9-199 Preliminary DEIS. Comments were provided earlier and are listed below. Biological Assessment (BA) of the Preferred Alignments for Saddle Road. I. Conflict of Interest. There is the appearance, if not in fact, a conflict of interest when it is Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) dictating what has to be done for the Saddle Road project to proceed and then receiving funds to do the "mitigation work." A regulatory agency is profiting from the required consultation. The BA should be crafted such that the required mitigation measures will be done, and done by qualified staff and contractors, not necessarily FWS or sister agencies. 2. Page 5, 2nd paragraph. It is stated that phased construction of this project could commence as early as Fall 1998. Before this can occur there are many important mitigations that need to be done for a no - jeopardy biological opinion (BO) from FWS. Parties responsible for funding and actually accomplishments need to be clearly known. Commitments need to be secured. It should also be clarified with FWS if the project may proceed even if certain mitigations are not completely done, such as acquisition of Lau Ranch for Palila restoration work. 3. Location Maps. For reference purposes, there should be an overall map showing the different discussed locations - Puu Maau, Puu Mali, Kipuka Alala, Lau Ranch. Location maps can then be referred to during specific discussions. 4. Mitigation Costs Tables. Tables for biological mitigation costs are only provided for the alternative routes in Section II (PTA). For comparison purposes, tables should also be developed for Sections 1, III, and IV. Tables should also reflect agencies or offices with primary responsibilities to fund and/or fulfill the various measures. 5. Other Tables. For ease of comparison, the Section I, 11, 111, and IV tables for area/vegetation types disturbed by the different route altematives should be placed in one section or appendix. This would also apply for the biological mitigation costs tables for Sections 1, IL 111, and IV. 6. Page 21, 4th paragraph, last sentence. Seems contradiction in stating that alien insect species do not directly effect Cydia caterpillars but most certainly reduce caterpillar availability for Palila use. 9-200 7. Page 35, Other Mitigation Section. There is a need to collect and store Silene hawaiiensis plant propagules- The BA indicates this will be done by the PTA Environmental Office. It is unclear if this will mean the Army will need to establish a greenhouse or nursery. USARPAC has already nonconcurred with this endangered species conservation approach. Instead, USARPAC recommended and still recommends that the installation work with other agencies and develop 3operative agreements in this area. 8. Sections III and IV Proposed Mitigation. Construction will begin on the western end of the segment and proceed east to minimize the spread of noxious and alien species. This will result in greater construction cost and time required to complete the project. The contractor should be given a greater degree of flexibility, especially since the construction equipment and material will be "sterilized' free of alien species before being allowed entrance to thejob site. At least the contractor should be allowed to conduct construction activities in a similar type of habitat within Sections III or IV (and not just from west to east). 9-201 Comments from LTC Mues, Pohakuloa Training Area, Community Commander, U.S. Army Garrison, Hawaii 1. The Silene hawaiiensis population does seem a bit open-ended. A clarification ofjust what our obligation is and µJI be is needed. Who will fence and monitor the population during construction? How many seed lings/propagules will be needed and where will they be planted? Will there be a required "success rate" for outplanting? 2. No funding is included for maintenance of fences or construction of firebreaks around fences with regard to the Palila mitigation plan (pages 31 & 32). Again, possibly those costs could be included in the MOA or MOU. 3. Discussion of possibly allocating $625K for "ungulate control" and this, no matter what we do, will be unpopular with the hunters. We need to pull that force in to the equation and have them help in drives, hunting, etc. We should not rely on "staff control" of animals until absolutely necessary. 4. All and all, 1 believe the mitigation package that we (the Army) will be forced to accept is both workable and the potential ultimate pay-off with range ten in the out years make acceptance of the road plan a necessity. If we can't continue to develop range ten, a case could be made in about ten years that there might not be a mission essential need for PTA. We must be looking ten to fifteen years out and with the advancement that force XXi is bringing at us, we must continue to develop the northeastern portion of PTA. 5. I have talked with Scott and told him that EOM May is the "drop dead" date for our turning over to USF & WS the three packages they wanted: Fire Plan (you were handling), Saline H. plant protection, propagation, and the weed and insect plan. Scott knows to coordinate directly with Alvin, Karen from USF & WS, Reggie David, Ken Owl at DOT, Paul Banko & DLNR. I also covered it very clearly that other than the fire plan, both the plant and the weed/bug plan, after coordination must be turned in to Mr. David and Okahara and Associates. If we don't make EOM May at the latest, I could see the project falling off of critical path. 9-202 NT Of lF.ym United States Department of the Interior 9 N O � a FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE M'goN a `0�9 Pacific Islands Ecoregion 300 Ala Moana Blvd, Room 3108 P.O, Box 50088 Honolulu, HI 96850 phone: 808-541-3441; fax: 808-541-3470 In Reply Refer To: Saddle Road Draft EIS (MMB) Larry C. Smith, P.E. Division Engineer U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highways Administration Central Federal Lands Highway Division 555 Zang Street P.O. Box 25246 Denver, Colorado 80225-0246 MAY 0 2 1997 RE: Draft Biological Assessment of the Preferred Alignments for the Saddle Road (State of Hawaii Route 200), Island of Hawaii, Hawaii, and Preliminary Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Hawaii State Route 200, Mamalahoa Highway to Milepost 6, Saddle Road Dear Mr. Smith: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed your letter dated March 11, 1997, in which you requested our comments on two reports, the Draft Biological Assessment of the Preferred Alignments for the Saddle Road (State of Hawaii Route 200), Island of Hawaii, Hawaii and the Preliminary Draft Environmental Impact Statement Hawaii State Route 200, Mamalahoa Highway to Milepost 6, .Saddle Road. The Federal Highways Administration, Federal Lands Highway Division (FHWA), in cooperation with the State of Hawaii Department of Transportation and coadministrating with the U.S. Department of Army, Military Traffic Management Command, is proposing to upgrade Saddle Road to acceptable American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials standards, allowing its addition to the State highway system. The portion of the road proposed for improvement has been divided into four sections: Section I from the junction with H190 East to Saddle Road Milepost 42, Section II from Milepost 42 to Milepost 28, Section III from Milepost 28 to Milepost 10, and Section IV from Milepost 10 to Milepost 6. The Service offers the following comments to your agency in developing the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and Final Biological Assessment (BA) for the project. These comments are provided as technical assistance to your agency in identifying (1) accurate information on fish and wildlife resources in the project area, (2) potential impacts to fish and wildlife resources from the proposed project, (3) and mitigation measures that the Service deems necessary to avoid and minimize these impacts. Provision of these comments does not fulfill the Service's responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 [ 16 U.S.C. 1531 et .seq.; 87 Stat. 884], as amended, and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1934 [16 U.S.C. 661 et seq. 48 Stat. 401], as amended, or the Department of the Interio 's (DOI) responsibilities under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 [42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.; 83 Stat. 852], as amended (NEPA). GENERAL COMMENTS The original reports by the botanical and invertebrate consultants are not included in the Draft BA or the Preliminary DEIS, and the Service has not been otherwise provided with these reports. in order for us to assess the adequacy of the information provided on these plant and invertebrate resources, the Service requests that we be provided with a copy of the original reports. We also recommend that the FHWA consider making the reports available to the public by including them as appendices to the DEIS. Potential adverse impacts to nene, dark-rumped petrels, palila, 'Akiapola'aus, Hawaii creepers, Hawaii akepas, and Newell's shearwaters as a result of an anticipated increase in mammalian predators (e.g., mongoose, cats, rats) and potential adverse impacts to federally listed plants from possible increased rat predation should be addressed in the BA. The DEIS should include a discussion of these same effects on federally listed species as well as other native fauna (e.g., other forest birds) and flora [e.g., Species of Concern (SOC)]. None of the plant or invertebrate SOCs are discussed in the Draft BA, and some are only briefly mentioned in the Preliminary DEIS. Because of the scope of the project, it is anticipated that the planning and construction phases will span several years. It is likely, therefore, that some of the SOCs will become candidate, proposed, or listed species by the time the project is completed. While it is not mandatory during section 7 consultations to include SOCs, the Service recommends that they be included in the BA and addressed as a part of this consultation in order to reduce the possible need for re-initiation of the section 7 consultation process in the future. Adverse impacts to SOCs and other native wildlife should be given full consideration as part of the NEPA process. Therefore, the DEIS should include a discussion of impacts to these resources and identify mitigation measures to avoid and minimize these impacts. The Draft BA and the Preliminary DEIS do not indicate where staging areas will be located along the proposed routes in any of the four sections of the Saddle Road improvement project. Any areas that will be used for staging or equipment/material storage should be identified on maps and evaluated to determined if use of these areas will result in adverse impacts to native fish and wildlife or habitats. Mitigation to minimize any identified impacts should include an alien species monitoring and control plan and implementation of the same measures recommended as mitigation to minimize impacts to kipuka. The Service believes that more discussion should be given to the impact of the road through Palila critical habitat. Information should be disclosed regarding the details of this legal definition and 9-204 analysis should be made addressing potential impacts of the road on the primary constituent elements of the critical habitat. The Service would like to see a discussion of the potential impact that dissection of critical habitat might have on the Palila. Several of the maps in the Draft BA and the Preliminary DEIS are difficult to read. Some figures in the Preliminary DEIS are missing legends, making interpretation impossible. The same base map should be used for all figures, with the specific areas to be depicted in each figure enlarged. This would enable the reader to follow the same landmarks from map to map. SPECIFIC COMMENTS a. Draft Biological Assessment. Introduction. Page 5. The Draft BA states that the proposed improvements would provide a two-lane highway to accommodate the projected traffic volume through the year 2014. It is unclear, however, what methods will be used to improve the existing two-lane highway to handle the projected traffic, and it is not stated that the projected traffic volume is anticipated to increase from the existing conditions. The improvements to be made, such as straightening and widening of the highway, should be specified in the BA or referenced to the appropriate section of the DEIS. Since these improvements will result in increased traffic volume and speed limits, these changes and the effects of the changes on listed plant and animal species should be addressed in the BA and the DEIS. In particular, for the nene, the BA should include information on the present nene collision mortality rates along the Saddle Road and the anticipated collision mortality rates with the improvements that are proposed along all four sections of the road. The BA and DEIS should identify mitigation measures to avoid or minimize any impacts identified. b. Draft Biological Assessment. Section II: Discussion of the Potential Impacts To Listed Species. RqfiLa. Page 21. A reference is needed for the statement that the Argentine, big headed, and Cardiocondyla venestula ants are not believed to directly affect Cydia caterpillars, a primary food source for Palila. c. Biological Assessment. Section II: Proposed Mitigation. Palila Mitigation Plan. Page 25. The BA should clarify that the modification of 30 hectares of palila critical habitat applies to the PTA -1 option, while the modification of 34 hectares applies to the PTA -3 option, as is stated in the Preliminary DEIS on page 3-141. 9-205 Preliminary DEIS. Chapter 3 - Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation Measures. d. Section 3.5.2.2.2 - Other Relocations. Page 3-64. The DEIS states that several buildings within the PTA cantonment will need to be moved if either PTA -1 or PTA -3 is identified as a selected segment in the preferred alternative. It is difficult to identify the relocation areas from the description in the Preliminary DEIS (on the west side of Pu' u Pohakuloa outside of the Army Airfield's safety zone), and there is no map referenced. This section of the DEIS should clearly identify proposed relocation areas and any important biological resources that may be impacted by the relocations. If information on endangered and threatened species and other sensitive resources is currently lacking for these areas, surveys should be conducted to determine if the proposed relocations could adversely affect these resources. The Service is particularly concerned that the threatened plant Silene hawaiiensis may exist within the relocation area. Measures to avoid or reduce impacts to any important biological resources identified should be included in the DEIS. If individuals of S. hawaiiensis or other listed, proposed, candidate, or SOC species are identified, this information should be provided to the Service so that potential impacts to these species can be addressed during the section 7 consultation for this project. e. Section 3.11.3. Waters of the U.S./Wetlands. Page 3-88. The information provided on waters of the U.S., including wetlands, in the Preliminary DEIS is inadequate to the point that no meaningful assessment of impacts can be conducted. We recommend that information on the types and acres of wetlands potentially impacted by each alternative be included in the DEIS and that specific measures to avoid and minimize impacts to these resources be identified. As you are aware, early coordination among natural resource agencies is recommended and important in complying with the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA), which seeks to streamline the NEPA and the Clean Water Act Section 404 permit processes. f Section 3.12.5. Speleological Resources. Page 3-97 - 3-101. The discussion of caves in this section of the Preliminary DEIS does not include information on the SOC invertebrate species that were documented in the caves during the invertebrate surveys conducted for the project. While this information is included in the Preliminary DEIS (Chapter 3 - Section 3.14.3 - Invertebrates), we recommend that a summary of this information also be included in the description of the Speleological ResourLes or a cross-reference statement be included to direct the reader to the more specific information on cave fauna in the DEIS. More importantly, we recommend that the DEIS address potential impacts to cave fauna from the road project and identify mitigation measures to reduce impacts to caves supporting native fauna. Significant caves identified along the corridor should be avoided and measures to protect the native vegetation above the cave should be identified as mitigation to avoid impacting cave fauna. Also, 4 9-206 mitigation to minimize impacts to cave resources should include the same measures recommended for protection of kipuka and implementation of the alien species monitoring and control plans within the project area. g. Section 3.13 - Vegetation; Section 3.14 - Wildlife; and Section 3.18 - Threatened and Endangered Species. (Cross-reference Draft Biological Assessment Page 10). Page 3-105 - 3-137. The BA and the Preliminary DEIS acknowledge that there will bean increased likelihood of access and colonization of biologically important areas by alien plants, invertebrates, ungulates and other mammalian predators among other organisms. Potential impacts to these resources from alien plant and invertebrate introductions are discussed and measures to reduce these impacts are identified. However, the increased threats from ungulates and mammalian predators on biological resources, including endangered and threatened species, are not addressed, and no mitigation is identified to reduce the impacts of these threats. These sections of the BA and the DEIS should be revised to include a discussion on the potential effects of ungulates and mammalian predators on native species, including endangered and threatened species, and identify mitigation measures to minimize these impacts. h. Section 3.13.3. Mitigation Measures. [Cross-reference Draft Biological Assessment Page 371. Page 3-115 - 3-116. We request that the comprehensive manual outlining and discussing the environmental issues and specific mitigation requirements and procedures and the section of the Specifications for Construction of Roads and Bridges on Federal Highways (FHWA 1996) that addresses the cleanup of emergency spills, storage, and disposal of all petroleum products be provided to the Service for review prior to the issuance of the Final EIS. i. Section 3.14.1.2. Environmental Consequences. Page 3-122. On page 3-7 (Section 3.14.1.2. Environmental Consequences) of the DEIS, it is stated that the development of an improved Saddle Road on EX4-A would substantially increase traffic volumes and increase pressure for the development of commercial services such as service stations or convenience markets. The Preliminary DEIS, however, does not address the potential indirect impacts of this increased development on native vegetation and wildlife. The Service is particularly concerned that increased development along this section of the road will increase the spread of alien species in the area and provide additional pathways for the spread of alien species to other more environmentally sensitive sections of the road. This issue should be addressed in this section of the DEIS. More importantly, mitigation measures should be developed and identified in the DEIS to minimize these impacts. j. Section 3.14.3.1.2. Insects and Related Arthropods. Page 3-128. The introduction to the section on insects and related arthropods states that the discussion of insects and arthropods is limited to SOCs and that "the list of Species of Concern 9-207 reflects endemic arthropods of note." The referenced list, however, is not included in the Preliminary DEIS. This information should be included in the DEIS. In addition, we recommend that the DEIS include a statement that invertebrates collected during the surveys but not yet identified to species may also be SOCs. If possible, we recommend that identification of the collected specimens be completed so that this information can be included in the DEIS along with measures to mitigate impacts to endemic species of significance. k. Section 3.14.3.2. Environmental Consequences. Page 3-130. One species of snail, Leptachatina lepida, found along the corridor in Section II is a SOC. The segments PTA -1 and PTA -3 of Section 11 represent one of only two localities where L. lepida is found. These areas also have the highest land snail diversity encountered on the survey. Within Section II (EX -2, PTA -1, PTA -3) construction could impact one of the populations of L. lepida and populations of other native snail populations. However, no mitigation is offered to avoid or minimize impacts to land snails. Mitigation should include a fire management plan to protect the area below Pu' u Ahumoa, where the other population of L. lepida is found. Other mitigation efforts should include implementation of the recommended alien species monitoring and control measures in areas supporting native land snails, particularly monitoring and control of ants and other alien ground -dwelling arthropods. Several SOC arthropods were also found on the surveys, mostly in sections II and III. As with L. lepida, no mitigation is identified to avoid or minimize impacts to SOC arthropods. In areas supporting SOC insects, we recommend that mitigation include the measures recommended for kipuka protection, ground -dwelling arthropod control, and fire control in accordance with the proposed fire mitigation plan. 1. Section 3.18 - Threatened and Endangered Species. (Cross-reference Draft Biological Assessment page 8). Page 3-137. Information in the BA identifying significant species (endangered, threatened, proposed, and candidate) `occurring" in the project area and significant species "detected or known" in individual segments (Sections I-IV) is confusing. The information in the text of the BA should be clarified such that the reader is able to discern that 11 endangered and threatened plant species occur in the project area (adjacent or near the road corridor) but only a few of these will be directly impacted by the road project (located in road corridor or right-of-way). It would be beneficial in the DEIS to include tables of threatened, endangered, proposed, candidate, and SOC species known to occur in the project area within or adjacent to individual sections of the road and to include similar information on the Biological Resources map (Figure 3.13.1). 3 in. Section 3.18 - Threatened and Endangered Species and Section 3.18.3 - Mitigation Measures. (Cross-reference Draft Biological Assessment Page 13). Page 3-138 and Page 3-144. There is no mention ofPortulaca sclerocarpa in the BA, either in the discussion of listed plants in Section I of the corridor or in the proposed mitigation section. Section 3.18.1 of the DEIS states that a population of the endangered species Pori ulaca sclerocarpa was found within 15 meters of the corridor, at a location that may attract travelers for scenic viewing. However, there is no mention of mitigation efforts to protect this population during and after construction in the mitigation measures section (3.18.3). The DEIS and the BA should include mitigation measures for this spec; s, as described for the population of Silene hawaiiensis at Pu'., Ma'au. n. Sections 3.18.1 - Threatened and Endangered Species; 3.18.2 - Environmental Consequences; and 3.18.3 - Mitigation Measures. (Cross- reference Biological Assessment Page 22). Page 3-138 -3-145. The BA and the Preliminary Draft EIS do not clearly or adequately address potential impacts of the Saddle Road project on all populations of Silene hawaiiensis in the project area. In the BA, the discussion on impacts to S. hawaiiensis should be included in the section entitled "Discussion of the Potential Impacts to Listed Species," rather than in the section entitled "Other Biological Impacts Identified," since S. hawaiiensis is a listed species. Both the BA and the Preliminary DEIS acknowledge the population of S. hawaiiensis located on the summit and south slope of Pu'u Ma'au and the population located within and close to the PTA -1 corridor, however, the third and largest population of S. hawaiiensis in the project area is not acknowledged in either the BA or the Preliminary DEIS. This third population includes approximately 5,000 individuals and is located just southeast of EX -2, the existing route of Saddle Road. This population represents the largest and healthiest population of S. hawaiiensis within PTA. The information on this third population of S. hawaiiensis should be included in the Final BA and the Draft EIS. Also, the endangered plant map in the BA should be corrected to reflect all three populations of S. hawaiienis, and the BA and Draft EIS should include information on the number of individual plants in the Pu'u Ma'au population. In addition on page 3-142 of the Preliminary Draft EIS, Section 3.18.2 - Environmental Consequences, clarification is needed on potential impacts of the proposed improvements along Section I1 of the road on all three populations of Silene hawaiiensis. Specifically, the DEIS should clarify that 1) implementation of PTA -1 or PTA -3 will directly impact the 70 -plant population of S. hawaiiensis located within and close to the PTA -1 corridor and implementation of PTA -I may also indirectly increase impacts to the Pu'u Ma'au population; 2) implementation of EX2 would not result in direct destruction of plants, but may indirectly increase the destruction of both of the smaller populations of S. hawaiiensis, and 3) in addition to alien plant and invertebrate introductions, fire is another serious threat to all populations of S. hawaiiensis (e.g., construction workers could start fires with cigarettes or idling equipment). 7 9-209 Since two identified routes in Section II (PTA -1 and PTA -3) will result in the destruction of S. hawaiiensis individuals, we recommend that a plan to offset the loss of these individuals be developed, with appropriate partners, funding, and time -frames for implementation specified. A commitment to implement a plan (beyond what is generally outlined and described in the Draft BA) should be included in the Draft EIS and the actual plan included as an integral part of the Final BA and as an Appendix to the Draft EIS. The plan should include the following: Collection of seeds (no other propagation method works for this species) prior to the beginning of construction. It would be prudent to agree on the mitigation for this species as quickly as possible, so that the seeds can be collected when available, probably in the next few months. With only 70 plants, it should be possible to collect seeds from all individuals that flower between now and the time construction starts in that area; Propagation of plants for reintroduction purposes. The viability of these seeds in storage is unknown, so they cannot be collected and held for any length of time. The Army is applying for a collection and propagation permit from the Service, which includes this species. Propagation of collected seeds should be initiated in preparation for reintroduction. Since the viability of these seeds in storage is unknown, any extra seeds (in addition to those seeds collected for immediate propagation) should be sent to National Tropical Botanical Garden to test standard storage methods and to National Seed Storage Laboratory in Fort Collins to test cryopreservation methods; and Suitable habitat (rocky outcrops, cinder, or pahoehoe cracks) for potential reintroduction of plants should be located in an area where threats will be or have been minimized. Since ungulates are a major threat to this species, the outplanting will need to occur within a fenced area. The fencing will require annual monitoring and maintenance. While the Army has plans to fence three areas within PTA to protect and restore native plants, only one of the three sites is potentially suitable for outplanting of S. hawaiiensis. The fenced areas planned at the Multi -Purpose Range Complex and Pu'u Ka Pele are not suitable because they do not have many rocky outcrops and because a closely related species, Silene lanceolata, occurs naturally in both of these sites (There is chance of hybridization occurring if these two listed species are grown side by side). The area to be fenced within Kipuka Kalawamauna (1300 acres) may be suitable but will have to be surveyed to determine if there are likely sites for reintroduction. Participants in this survey should include botanists from PTA, the consultants, the Service, and Colorado State University, if they are available and on Hawaii Island at the time of the surveys. Kipuka Kalawamauna has the most similar habitat to the plants found within the road corridor. If no suitable area is found within the Kipuka Kalawamauna fence, other potential sites within or near PTA will need to be surveyed. In addition to fencing for ungulate control, there will also need to be a detailed management plan which includes weed control. a fire 9-210 management plan, and monitoring. At a minimum, the site for reintroduction should be chosen before the mitigation costs are finalized, since the costs will increase if additional fencing is needed. The costs of this propagation and reintroduction and responsible parties should be specified and included in the mitigation cysts of the project. Under the existing conditions, there is frequent traffic along the Saddle Road in the area at PTA supporting the largest population of S. hawaiiensis, and thus, goats are relatively infrequent in the area. Military training is also relatively infrequent, since vehicle traffic along Saddle Road hinders training exercises, and there are no secondary roads in the area to allow troop movement to proceed around Saddle Road. If PTA -1 or PTA -3 is selected as a segment of the preferred route, the goat activity within the area of this large population of S. hawaiiensis may increase due to decreased traffic. Also, any change in the frequency of training activities in this area may have an impact on this population of S. hawaiiensis. We recommend that this large population be monitored to determine if goat browsing increases after this portion of Saddle Road is no longer used by the public or if changes in the frequency of the Army's training activities in the area impact this population of plants. If monitoring does reveal increased impacts (which should be determined by the Service, the Army, and perhaps BRD), conservation measures would need to be identified and implemented to protect the population. Mitigation identified in this section of the Preliminary DEIS does not include the measures generally described in the BA to minimize impacts to the Pu'u Ma'au population of S. hawaiiensis. The BA and Draft EIS should include measures to minimize impacts to this population since there is concern that construction and traveler use of the site for scenic viewing may indirectly impact this population. Specific information on the proposed fencing [such as the type and size of fence, the size of the enclosure, maintenance of the fence, and management actions within the fence, if applicable (e.g., weeding, removal of ungulates)] should be included in the Final BA and the DEIS. In addition, we recommend including collection of seeds and propagation, so that if this population is damaged during construction, propagated material can be used to replace the lost plants. Finally, measures to prevent fires should be included in the Final BA and Draft EIS and implemented as part of the project to minimize impacts to all populations of S. hawaiiensis potentially impacted by the road. o. Section 3.18.3 - Threatened and Endangered Species. [Cross-reference Draft Biological Assessment Page 351. Page 3-144. Reference is made to the Army's PTA Fire Management Plan. The Service recently received a copy of the Fire Management Plan, but we have not completed our review of the plan. Additional comments on the adequacy of the plan to minimize the threat and impact of fire on native wildlife and habitats will be provided separately. In general, however, a Fire Management Plan for the Saddle Road project should include the entire project area including sections of the road through 9-211 PTA. The plan should include both sides of the road through PTA, since the vegetation types found in this area (mamane/naio, Erogrostis grassland, and ' aweoweo shrubland) are known only from this area or are best represented in this area. It is likely that Silene hawaiiensis is present in areas within the latter two vegetation types :n areas that have not been thoroughly surveyed, and fire is a threat to this species. The Fire Management Plan should address the area of the road below Pu' u Ahumoa, since the only known populations of the snail Leptachatina lepida, an SOC, are found at PTA and the adjacent area near Pu'u Ahumoa. A large fire could spread into adjacent vegetation types, including the area of western PTA that is dense with endangered plants and only approximately 5 miles away (In Iy094, the Kiupa Kalawamauna fire carried at least 5 miles.). The Fire Management Plan should be implemented during and beyond the construction phases of the project since an increased risk of fire may result from the anticipated increase in traffic. The Fire Management Plan should be included as an Appendix to the Final BA and the DEIS. p. Section 3.18.3 - Mitigation Measures. All Action Alternatives. [Cross-reference Draft Biological Assessment Page 36. Section II: Proposed Mitigation. Other Mitigation.[ Page 3-144. Reference is made to a comprehensive weed and alien insect monitoring and control program to be developed by the Army. Control of mammalian predators should also be included in this program. Monitoring should occur at least twice a year, to ensure that a species does not get established and widespread between monitoring periods. While we concur with the intent to monitor alien plants and invertebrates, the cost ($20,000 per year to span construction of the road) to implement such a plan is underestimated and should be revised based on the following information. It is costly to identify invertebrates due to the limited number of experts available in Hawaii to accomplish this task. Thus, it is likely that $20,000 or more would be needed just to identify the invertebrate specimens collected during any one monitoring session. Additional funding for control of any alien species identified would still be required. Potential alien species introductions into the area will not be limited to the time frame necessary for road construction. Road construction will provide the initial pathway for potential alien species introductions into the area; subsequently, a constant, increased threat of alien invasion from species being transported along the road can be anticipated as a result of increased traffic. Potential control of this problem will be exacerbated by the fact that there is very little information available on control of alien invertebrates in native communities. There is no discussion of whether the proposed control of invasive species is aimed at specific species, plant or invertebrate, or at all alien species. We recommend that invertebrate monitoring be focused on ants and other ground -dwelling arthropods. Monitoring methods should include using pit -fall traps: spot control should be implemented whenever a new invasion is found. 10 9-212 We recommend that chemical control of fountain grass, which is the most detrimental alien species in PTA, be considered for inclusion in the plan. Chemical control of fountain grass should continue for at least five years or until the fountain grass reaches a very low level that can be controlled manually by the Army's environmental office using staff time only. The alien species monitoring and control plan should be implemented in all of the kipuka found in Section III of the project area. Within Section III, alien plant control should not include herbicide use along the margins of wet forest, since repeated past herbicide application has favored invasive grasses, which have now been documented in these wet forests. Mowing would be a preferred alternative. Finally, as discussed at our April 9, 1997, meeting, we are willing to assist the Army in preparing this plan along with close coordination and input from the Hawaii Division of Forestry and Wildlife, the USGS Biological Resources Division (BRD), and the Hawaii DOT. The plan should be included as an Appendix to the BA and the DEIS so that the specific measures to be implemented by the Army (for sections of the road through PTA) and by others (along the remaining sections of the road) to control invasions of alien invertebrates and plants and mammalian predators are fully disclosed to the public. q. Section 3.18.3 - Mitigation Measures. All Action Alternatives. Page 3-144. The DEIS states that, if any sensitive plant, faunal, avian, or invertebrate areas or species are found during construction, the Project Engineer will halt work and consult with appropriate resource and regulatory personnel. While we understand the value of this measure as a contingency plan in the event that all sensitive resources are not located prior to project initiation, we question whether it is reasonable to give this responsibility to the Project Engineer. We suggest that it may be more appropriate to hire a Project Biologist to ensure compliance with the environmental standards and mitigation measures identified. r. Section 3.18.3 - Mitigation Measures. Section H [Cross-reference Draft Biological Assessment Page 24. Section II: Proposed Mitigation. Palila Mitigation Plan]. Page 3-145. The palila mitigation plan developed by BRD, the State Division of Forestry and Wildlife, and the Service, which is referred to in the Draft BA and preliminary Draft EIS, should be included as an Appendix in both of these documents. s. Section 3.18.3 - Mitigation Measures. Section III. [Cross-reference Draft Biological Assessment Page 44. Section III. Proposed Mitigation.] Page 3-145. The BA briefly mentions fencing, but the DEIS only mentions staking to protect the population of Plantago hawaiiensis found within a few meters of the corridor in Section III. This information should be clarified in the Final BA and the Draft EIS. The Service recommends that 9-213 fencing measures identified for populations of Silene hawaiiensis also be implemented to protect the population of Plantago hawaiiensis. t. Section 3.18.3 - Mitigation Measures. Section III. [Cross-reference Draft Biological Assessment Page 45. Section IIIA. Page 3-145 - 3-146. The BA states that plans will be modified to avoid "... all kipuka which still harbor native species along this segment" rather than all kipuka along the route. The BA and Draft EIS should clarify whether all kipuka or only some kipuka will be avoided. We recommend that all kipuka be avoided and that additional measures to minimize indirect impacts to kipuka (beyond the use of temporary orange plastic fencing during construction) be identified in the Final BA (discuss measures specific to the kipuka containing the endangered plant C'yanea platyphylla and other endangered species and SOCs) and the Draft EIS. Indirect effects include increased traffic along the road that may foster recreational or scenic interest in the kipuka. Measures to be considered to reduce these impacts include alien species monitoring and control and permanent fencing of the kipuka along the proposed road alignment. Fencing details (location, size, maintenance, etc.) for kipuka should be specified in the Final BA and Draft EIS. u. Preliminary DEIS. Chapter 4- Relationship Between Local Short -Term Uses of Man's Environment and Maintenance And Enhancement Of Long-term Productivity. Page 4.1. The statement in this section of the Preliminary Draft EIS that "The improvement of Saddle Road is not expected to foster new development along Saddle Road" conflicts with other statements in the document that increased development along the road is anticipated as a result of the road improvements. Information concerning any anticipated change in development or development rates along the road as a result of the proposed improvements is critical to the evaluation of project -related indirect and cumulative effects. This information should be supported with references and reported consistently in the DEIS. Page 4-2. This section states that "No plant or wildlife species are expected to become extinct as a direct result of project activities." This statement is premature and should be deleted from the Draft EIS until the Service's biological opinion addressing impacts to endangered and threatened species is rendered. v. Preliminary DEIS. Page 6-1. Chapter 6 - Cumulative Impacts. Page 6.1. The cumulative impacts analysis in the Preliminary DEIS is too general. A more thorough evaluation of cumulative impacts in relation to future development along Saddle Road as a result of the road improvement project should be included. At a minimum, the "Related Projects" identified on page 3-21- 3-22 should be evaluated and cumulative impacts determined. For example, one of the related projects identified in the Preliminary DEIS in Section 3.1.4 and currently in the conceptual planning or development phase is a proposed across -island water transmission line. The presence of a water line along the entire length of Saddle Road could affect native habitats and 12 9-214 wildlife resources beyond any discussed in the Preliminary DEIS. In particular, water leaks within Section II could induce changes in native dry grassland, shrubland, and forest communities (including palila critical habitat), making these habitats more susceptible to alien species invasions. SUMMARY COMMENTS In summary, the Service feels that the Preliminary DEIS and the Draft BA are deficient in providing detailed information on trust resources that are known to occur along the proposed corridors and on the mitigation planned for these resources, particularly for wetlands and threatened and endangered species. The Service will require detailed survey information and detailed mitigation plans in the DEIS and the Final BA in order to complete our evaluation of the project in accordance with our responsibilities under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act and the Endangered Species Act . We appreciate the opportunity to provide comments on the Draft BA and the Preliminary DEIS. If you have questions regarding these comments, please contact me or Karen Rosa, Assistant Field Supervisor/Endangered Species Division, at 808-541-3441. Sincerely, Brooks Harper Field Supervisor Ecological Services cc: William Moore, Okahara and Associates, Inc. Reginald David, Rana Productions, Inc. Colonel Mues, Commander PTA 13 9-215 a U.S.Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Central Federal Lands 555 Zang Street Highway Division P.O. Box 25246 Denver, Colorado 80225-0246 MAY 0 6 11.197 In Reply Refer To: HPD -16E Mr. Michael Wilson, Director Department of Land and Natural Resources P.O. Box 621 Honolulu, HI 96809 Dear Mr. Wilson: As you know, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), through the Central Federal Lands Highway Division (CFLHD) and the Hawaii Department of Transportation (HDOT), in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Defense are proposing to improve Hawaii State Route (SR) 200, Saddle Road, on and adjacent to the Pohakuloa Training Area (PTA). The proposed improvement begins in Hilo, at approximately milepost 6 (the intersection with the proposed Puainako street extension) and extends approximately 77 -kilometers (48 -miles) westward to a junction with the Mamalahoa Highway, Hawaii State Route (SR) 190. In reviewing the proposed alignment from the Mauna Kea Access Road eastward toward Hilo which essentially follows the existing roadway, it appears that the taking of a small strip of additional right-of-way on the south side of the roadway within the `Ainahou State Nene Sanctuary (see enclosed map) may be unavoidable. At this time in the development of the project, preliminary design indicates that this 7.6 -kilometer (4.7 -mile) strip will range from about 5 meters to 19 meters in width with a total area of approximately 9.85 hectares (24.34 acres). Further design and/or alignment refinements may possibly reduce this area to a very minimal taking. Our ability to shift the alignment through this area is somewhat restricted by the presence of numerous biologically sensitive kipuka on the north side of the existing roadway. United States Department of Transportation regulations require that the FHWA take all prudent steps to avoid this taking or minimize the impact of the taking on the Nene Sanctuary, if the sanctuary is deemed by the officials having jurisdiction over the sanctuary to be "significant ". Paraphrased, Section 4(f) of 49 U.S.C., Section 303, mandates that the Secretary of Transportation "may approve a transportation project requiring the use of publicly owned land of a wildlife refuge of significance (as determined by the Federal, State, or local officials having jurisdiction over the refuge) only if; 1) there is no prudent and feasible alternative to using that land; and, 2) the program or project includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the wildlife refuge resulting from the use." 9-216 The term "significant" in this context means that in comparing the availability and tinction of this refuge area with the refuge objectives of the state, this refuge plays an important role in meeting those objectives. As stated previously, this determination must be made by the ollicials having jurisdiction over the refuge. In order to advance this project in a timely manner, we need to determine as soon as possible if this potential encroachment on the Nene Sanctuary will require the preparatic n of a 4(Q Evaluation report for inclusion in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Accordingly, would you please furnish us with your written determination as to the importance of the 'Amahou Nene Sanctuary in your statewide recovery elrort for Nene so that we may make a 4(f) applicability decision in this instance. If your determination of significance is positive, the level of detail required by our 4(0 evaluation is dependent on additional factors regarding the use of the refuge and the impact of the taking. If this is the case, would you please furnish us with information regarding other uses that are permitted within tine boundaries of the 'Ainahou Nene Sanctuary, such as hunting, camping, hiking, etc.. Also in this instance, it would be very helpful if you could provide a statement as to whether the right-of-way taking described previously would adversely elrect the operation of the Sanctuary for its intended function or, conversely, would not adversely effect its functional operation. If you have questions or need additional information in order to provide these determinations, please call Messrs. Bert McCauley, Environmental Project Manager at (303) 969-5924, Bill Moore at (808) 961-5527, or Reggie David at (808) 329-9141. Allow me to thank you in advance for your assistance. Sincerely yours, i I Larry C. Smith, P.E. Division Engineer Enclosure cc: Maj. Gen. Alexis Lum, Executive Assistant, Senator Daniel K. Inouye Mr. Abe Wong, Division Administrator, FHWA Division -HI Mr. Donald Okahara, Principal, Okahara & Associates Mr. Reggie David, Principal, RANA Productions bcc: L. Smith D. Gedeon B. McCauley L.NenvlroNnAsadl oatMel e—Im.ltr 13/mc 9-217 Stephen K. Yamashiro Mayor May 7, 1997 Tounty of gaftraii DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS 25 Aupum Street, Room 202 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720-4252 (808) 961-8321 . Fax (808)961-8630 MR LARRY C SMITH PE DIVISION ENGINEER CENTRAL FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISON FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION US DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PO BOX 25246 DENVER CO 80225-0246 SUBJECT: HPD -16E —Preliminary Draft Environmental Impact Statement (PDEIS) for Saddle Road Project, Island of Hawaii We have reviewed the referenced PDEIS and offer the following comments: Donna Fay K. Kiyosaki Chief Engutrer Jiro A. Sumada Deputy Chief Engineer • Alignment W-6 appears to be most closely aligned with the western terminus of the Saddle Road realignment as identified in the Hawaii County General Plan. Therefore, we feel that the Draft HIS needs to address, in greater detail, the concerns regarding potential impacts on hunting and cultural resource area, open space, critical plant and animal habitats, and the increased fire danger which make this alternative infeasible. Additional discussion needs to occur in the EIS to document the decision to eliminate alternate W-6 from further study. • We concur with Hawaii DOT that a design speed of 100 kph would be appropriate. Refer to their letter dated December 26, 1995. • We concur with the concepts of an 8% maximum grade and separated bike lanes. If you have any questions, please contact Thomas Pack of my Engineering Division staff at 327-3530- n t t DONNA PAY K. KIYOSAKY,iP.E. Chief Engineer cc: ENG-HILO ENG-KONA (T, Pack) 9-219 Q US Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Lt. Col. Ralph H. Gra,cs, Commander U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Building 230 Fort Shafter, HI 96858-5440 Attention: Kathleen A. Dadey, PhD Environmental Engineer Dear Col, Graves: Central Federal Lands 555 Zang Street Highway Division P.O. Box 25246 Denver, Colorado 80225-0246 MAY 16 1997 In Reply Refer To: HPD -16E / HI A -AD -6(1) In recent conversations with Dr. Dadey and Ms. Pat Billington, Assistant Division Counsel, we believe that we have tentatively reached agreement on a process for advancing the Saddle Road Project in accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for integration of the NEPA/404 process in the State of Hawaii as well as a method of delineation of Waters of the United States in order to confirm Individual or Nationwide 404 Permit status. This letter is to confirm these procedures with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Pacific Ocean Division (USACE/POD) for advancement of this project through the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) stage. Regarding the MOU and permitting process, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) plans to submit a 404 Permit concurrent with the DEIS. The permit form, in some instances, would refer to the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for information and would be held as incomplete until transect field work could be completed and a delineation report submitted to you. The USACE would then use this information to make the determination as to whether the permit would be Individual or a grouping of Nationwide permits, or a combination of both along selected segments of the 50 mile project. This information would then be documented in the EIS, and subsequent permits, submitted during the design of those segments requiring permits, would reflect this decision. As you know, the alternatives currently presented in the DEIS have been developed, with USACE/POD participation, by the Social, Economic, and Environmental Team (SEE Team) assembled for project guidance. As a result, the alternative alignments eventually selected for further analysis in the DEIS presently reflect minimized wetland impacts based on gross areal identification of biologically common terrain likely to contain wetland conditions. In reference to the method of delineation of Waters of the United States, the determination of impacts thereto, and the development of mitigation measures within these biologically common terrain areas, it is our understanding that the establishment of two or three transects across the selected alternative alignments would be adequate to statistically define the percentage of these 9-220 2 areas actually containing wetlands. This percentage, when reduced further by the percentage of actual wetlands from a typical kipuka transect, would be applied to the proposed alternatives' rights-of-way as located through these biologically common terrain areas in order to estimate the potential impact to actual wetlands in each of the various alignments. We understand that the transect method has been satisfactorily used by the USACE for jurisdictional delineation in the absence of a formally designated delineation program in Hawaii. It is also our understanding that delineation methods designated for use in typical mainland situations do not apply in Hawaii and that this method is preferable because disturbance to sensitive biological areas is minimized. As you know, we began consultation with USACE/POD early in the DEIS process in order to meet our project development schedule for the publication of a document in the spring of this year. We want to maintain this schedule as closely as possible. However, it is the FHWA's intent to proceed with this project only in a manner that the USACE, as a regulatory agency, believes is adequate technically, within the intent of the NEPA/404 MOU, and meets the expectations of the other signatory parties to the MOU. In our conversations to date, it is apparent that the USACE/POD consults with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) at the staff level on matters of wetland impacts prior to rendering decisions on 404 Permit applications. In this light, would you please consult with the USFWS and the EPA through your usual channels in providing us with your confirmation that the aforementioned EIS process and delineation method is adequate for this project's advancement at this time. This would assist us in feeling relative assured that the primary 404/NEPA signatory parties are comfortable with these procedures. In providing this confirmation, it would also be helpful if you would clarify any misunderstandings of procedure, methodology, or terminology in our descriptions so that we might lucidly present this information in the DEIS. If you have any questions or require further information in considering your response, please call Mr. Bert McCauley, Environmental Project Manager, at (303) 969-5924. Thank you for your assistance and unwavering cooperation in the development of this project. Sincerely yours, Larry C. Smith, P.E. Division Engineer 9-221 BEMJAINN J. CAYETANO CUVFRNOµ OF HAWAII STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES P O BOX 621 HONOLULU, HAWAII 96809 June 9, 1997 Mr. Larry C. Smith, P.E. Division Engineer U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highways Administration P.O. Boz 25246 Denver Colorado 80225-0246 Dear Mr. Smith: MICHAEL D. WILSON '.IIA.H VERSJN BOARD OF LAND AND NA I UHAI RESOURCI. DFPUIT GILBERT S. COLOMA-AGARAN AOUAE. ULTORE IFVLLo�'DATNE PROGRAM ALUNIIG REfOUVCES GOATO AND OCEAN HL, HE-�I JN 1INBERVAT ON AND ENvIAOwnDNTAI AFFAnm CONSERVATION AND RESOURCE S LNFOR,F Mt NI conowneCFS TC REST- V AN(, W 1LDI IFF „ I,'RIG PRFSFRT JAIN AND HANAGiMLNT ,1611 PAINI WATE- AND, ANI NI '/LL-TFAI N l ATER RFSL,UHE L ,1ANA1,I M. N This letter responds to your request (reference HPD -16E) for a determination by the Department of Land and Natural Resources on the issue of taking a small portion of the "Kipuka Ainahou Nene Sanctuary" as part of the Saddle Road Realignment project. Your letter of May 6, 1997 and accompanying map indicate that the Saddle Road project will essentially follow the existing roadway, but as a result of widening, take a small strip of additional right of way on the south side of the road within the Nene Sanctuary. The size of the strip will range from 5 m to 19 meters in width with a total area of approximately 9.85 hectares (24.34 acres). Further design and or alignment refinements may possibly reduce this area to a very minimal size. The northern boundary of the 38,400 acre Kipuka Ainahou Nene Sanctuary follows the existing Saddle Road and is the area of the Sanctuary that will be affected by the project. Nene were first released in this general area in the early 1970s with a total of 320 birds released during 1973- 1975. The area was designated a Nene Sanctuary in 1974 but birds have not been released in the Sanctuary for the past 20 years because of poor survival due to inadequate habitat and predation. The number of nene using this general area is thought to be about 16 birds with 3 or 4 birds occasionally observed in the Sanctuary. The nene use that does occurs in the area is infrequent and concentrated in the vicinity of Puu 6677 and Puu OO Ranch, which are not in the Sanctuary. The limited use that does occur in the Sanctuary is predominantly for foraging during the day time. No successful production has been recorded in the Sanctuary within at least the last seven years. Because of these conditions, the Mpuka Ainahou Nene Sanctuary plays only a minor role in the overall recovery objectives for the Nene. The area of the Sanctuary that the project will affect is a dry subalpine shrubland or volcanic flows along the northern edge of the Sanctuary. This is also a part of the Sanctuary that is leased from the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands (DHHL Lease Agreement No. 312). The presence of the Saddle Road along the northern boundary of the Sanctuary has not presented management 9-222 problems in the past. Consequently, because of the small reduction in the overall size of the Sanctuary (0.006%) and the avoidance of those areas that are used by Nene, the proposed realignment of the Saddle Road is not expected to adversely affect the function or overall value of the Sanctuary. If you have questions or require additional information about the Kipuka Ainahou Nene Sanctuary, please contact Mr. Paul Conry, Wildlife Program Manager (587-0166) or Mr. Jon Giffin, Hawaii Branch Manager (974-4221) with the Division of Forestry and Wildlife. Aloha, cc: Dean Uchida, Administrator, Lands Division Michael Buck, Administrator, Division of Forestry and Wildlife Jon Giffin, Hawaii Branch Manager, Division of Forestry and Wildlife Paul Conry. Wildlife Program Manager, Division of Forestry and Wildlife 9-223 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PACIFIC OCEAN DIVISION, CORPS OF ENGINEERS FORT SHAFTER, HAWAII 96958-5440 REPLY TO ATTENTION OF June 23, 1997 Operations Branch Mr. Larry C. Smith Division Engineer U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration 555 Zang Street P.O. Box 25246 Denver, Colorado 80255-0246 Dear Mr. Smith: This is to provide concurrence regarding procedures outlined in your letter, dated May 16, 1997, for integrating National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Department of the Army (DA) permit processes for the Saddle Road project. we agree that concurrent submittal of the DA permit application and Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) is consistent with the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) integrating the NEPA/404 process in the State of Hawaii. We also understand that your current schedule requires these documents to be submitted as quickly as possible. Workload constraints have delayed the Corps' field jurisdictional determination. However, based on general knowledge of the project area, the alternative alignments evaluated in the DEIS are not expected to have vastly different impacts to waters of the U.S. It is our understanding that the field delineation/determination is scheduled for July 2-3, 1997. Your DA permit application will not be accepted as complete for processing until we have received the results of the field visit. The Corps also concurs with the proposed method of estimating the acreage of waters of the U.S., including wetlands described in your letter (i.e., extrapolation of wetland acreages delineated along representative transects) for the eastern portion (Sections III and IV) of the road. This methodology has been used appropriately in Hawaii and American Samoa. The Corps will determine the presence of waters of the U.S. in the western alignments (Sections I and II) through identification of an ordinary high water mark (defined at 33CFR 328.3(e)). Each gulch crossing along each proposed alignment will be examined. 9-224 -2 - File Number 960010042 is assigned to this project. Please refer to this number in any correspondence with u,. Please feel free to contact Ms. Kathleen Dadey of my Planning and Operations staff at (808) 438-9258, extension 15, if you have any questions. Sincerely, -z.� 7 -; - �(II IcL J J Ray H. Jyo, P.E. �..- Director of Engineering and Technical Services Copies Furnished: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Honolulu, HI U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, San Francisco, CA Federal Highways Administration, Region 9, San Francisco, CA Federal Highways Administration, Hawaii Division, Honolulu, HI Office of U.S. Senator Daniel K. Inouye, Honolulu, HI State Department of Transportation, Honolulu, HI Okahara and Associates, Hilo, HI 9-225 BENJAMIN J. CAYETANO GOVERNOR STATE OF HAWAII IN REPLY REFER TO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 869 PUNCHBOWL STREET HWY-PA HONOLULU, HAWAII 96813-5097 2.5141 Mr. Larry C. Smith, P.E., Division Engineer Central Federal Lands Highway Division U. S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration P. O. Box 25246 Denver, CO 80225-0246 Dear Mr. Smith: Subject: Saddle Road Improvements, Pohakuloa Training Area Thank you for your letter, HPD -16E dated March 11, 1997, which also transmitted, for our comments, the "Preliminary Draft Environmental Statement" (PDEIS) and "Draft Biological Assessment" for this project. In regards to the PDEIS, we have compiled the following: We believe that the following "mitigation measures" should be described or evaluated in greater detail. a. The environmental document cites in numerous places that the proposed alignment will be shifted/modified during the final design to avoid impacts to kipuka. Since kipuka occurs in numerous areas where the State is responsible for construction of the roadway, we must have assurances that alignment shifts or modifications are possible. Please furnish us this documentation. On page 3-145, the third item under Section III states, "During final design, the alignment of EX -3 will be modified to avoid impacts to a population of Cyanea platyphlla." Again, we believe that an approximate alignment for the highway should be developed to determine potential environmental effects and/or assurances of avoidance. 9-226 KAZLI HAYASHIOA DIRECTOR t DEPUTE DIRECTORS {! 1 JERRY M MATSLJDA � `r GLENN M OKIMOTO OKIMOT Se m+ STATE OF HAWAII IN REPLY REFER TO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 869 PUNCHBOWL STREET HWY-PA HONOLULU, HAWAII 96813-5097 2.5141 Mr. Larry C. Smith, P.E., Division Engineer Central Federal Lands Highway Division U. S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration P. O. Box 25246 Denver, CO 80225-0246 Dear Mr. Smith: Subject: Saddle Road Improvements, Pohakuloa Training Area Thank you for your letter, HPD -16E dated March 11, 1997, which also transmitted, for our comments, the "Preliminary Draft Environmental Statement" (PDEIS) and "Draft Biological Assessment" for this project. In regards to the PDEIS, we have compiled the following: We believe that the following "mitigation measures" should be described or evaluated in greater detail. a. The environmental document cites in numerous places that the proposed alignment will be shifted/modified during the final design to avoid impacts to kipuka. Since kipuka occurs in numerous areas where the State is responsible for construction of the roadway, we must have assurances that alignment shifts or modifications are possible. Please furnish us this documentation. On page 3-145, the third item under Section III states, "During final design, the alignment of EX -3 will be modified to avoid impacts to a population of Cyanea platyphlla." Again, we believe that an approximate alignment for the highway should be developed to determine potential environmental effects and/or assurances of avoidance. 9-226 Mr. Larry C. Smith, P.E. HWY-PA 2.5141 Page 2 2. In Section 3. 11, Waters of the U.S./Wetlands, the specific location of water resources/wetlands is not indicated, and hence, planning in accordance with our Memorandum of Understanding is not evident. Based on earlier comments by FHWA, it should be determined whether a nationwide or individual permit is required, and concurrences by various agencies on the project need and alternatives should also be included. 3. For the highway sections to be constructed by the State, we prefer a design speed of 60 MPH. It should also be noted, that based on the "Hawaii Statewide Uniform Design Manual for Streets and Highways" and a design speed of 50 MPH, the maximum allowable grade for the proposed highway will be exceeded (refer to Table 2.2.1). 4. Truck climbing lanes and runaway truck escape ramps are briefly mentioned on page 2-8. These are significant features of interest to motorists, trucking companies and military convoys. We recommend that a separate paragraph be added to page 2-2, under common design parameters, stating that truck climbing lanes and truck escape ramps shall be provided. 5. On page 3-43, the report suggests that a scenic pullout be constructed near the junction of W-2 and the existing Saddle Road. However, this area has only a moderate scenic value according to page 3-176. Locations in Sections II and III with higher scenic value are discussed on pages 3-178 through 3-180. The scenic pullout should be relocated accordingly. There is no mention of possible impacts to astronomy facilities or research due to street lighting. Figures 2.2.5 to 2.2.9 are difficult to understand at first glance. We recommend showing match lines on each figure or showing dividing lines between Sections I, II, III and IV. Section labels may be easier for the general public to understand. Figure 2.2.5 shows Alternatives W -2A and W-213, options which are not discussed in this document. Alternative W-3 is discussed in the report, but not labeled on the figure. 9. The alignment of Alternative W-2 in Figure 2.2.6, between Stations 114+500 and 116+000, does not correspond with the same alic;nment in Figure 2.2.5. 9-227 Mr. Larry C. Smith, P.E. Page 3 1997 HWY-PA 2.5141 10. Table 2.2.1 has the following discrepancies (Table 2.2.1 values are in parentheses). a. Page 2-6 shows that Alternative EX -2 costs $38 million ($41 million). b. Page 2-7 shows Alternative EX -4A has a maximum grade of 5.7 percent (10.9 percent) and a length of 2.0 kilometers (4.0 kilometers). C. Page 2-7 shows Alternative E-3 has a length of 5.3 kilometers (5.5 kilometers). 11. On page 3-69, mitigation measures for pedestrians and bicyclists should include a statement that 2.4 meter paved shoulders shall be provided on both sides of the proposed highway. Also, a fenced bicycle facility for the highway section within the Pohakuloa Training Area will be constructed. 12. On page 3-136, mitigation measures for drainage should include a statement that the Saddle Road will be designed as an all-weather facility with new drainage structures to handle the minimum 50 -year design storm. We have no comments regarding the "Draft Biological Assessment". Very truly yours, Director of "transportation 9-228 SUUAAI W LCA YLTANO OOVUVN ROF HAWAII . ole*, ♦� t • �� �0 STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION DIVISION ]7 SOUTH KING STREET. 8TH FLOOR HONOLULU, HAWAII 08817 REF:HP-AMK JUL 18 Im Mr. Larry C. Smith. Division Engineer U.S Department of Transportation Federal Hiehwav Administration 555 Zang Street/P O Box 25246 Denver, Colorado 80225-0246 Dear Mr Smith MICIURL D. WIIAON, QIAIRTEAAON SOARD OF U O AND NATURAL RESOURCES DEI s Gilbert Coloma-Agaran AWACULTUE DEVELOPMENT PROGMM A W RTIC IEEUURCE S CONSERVATION AND EN NMEMAL AFFAIRS CONSERVATION AND RESOUCES ENFORCEMENT CONVEYANCES fORESTRY AND WILOUFE HISTORIC RESERVATION p1"I LAND MANAGEMENT STATE PARKS WATER AND FANO DEVELOPMENT V LOG NO: 19805 DOC NO: 9707HMO2 SUBJECT: Section 106 Compliance (NHPA) for Mitigation Actions, Hawai i Defense Access Road A -AD -6(l) and Saddle Road (SR 200) Project" --South Kohala, Hamakua, North Hilo and South Hilo Districts, Hawaii Island We were recently told that the Federal Highway Administration is discussing proposals with the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service to mitigate the impact of the Saddle Road Project on palia habitat. Some proposals apparently include attempts to rehabilitate appropriate vegetation communities in the region and would entail some modification of the landscape (e.g., fencing, road work, ground clearance) We wish to remind you that such activities are subject to Section 106 review and compliance because they constitute a Federal undertaking. These actions are the result of a Federally funded highway and, if we understand correctly, Federal funds will be spent on these Mitigation measures. We suggest that you consult our office in the near future regarding the areas under consideration and the kinds of landscape modifications planned. If we can comment on the project early, the planning process is more likely to proceed smoothly. While the number of historic properties on the upper mountain slopes can be low, there are some areas that should be avoided or used with caution. 9-229 If you have any questions, please call Pat McCoy (587-0006), our Hawaii Island archaeologist, or Holly McEldowney (587-0008) of our History and Culture Branch. Aloha, Michael D_ Wilson, Chairp rson and State Historic Preservati Ecer HM:amk 9-230 I, U.S Department of Transportohon Federal Highway Administration Mr. Michael D. Wilson State Historic Preservation Officer Department of Land and Natural Resources 33 South King Street, 6th Floor Honolulu, HI 96813 Dear Mr. Wilson: Central Federal Lands 555 Zang Street Highway Division P.O. Box 25248 Denver, Colorado 80225-0248 JUL 3 1 1997 In Reply Refer To: HPD-16E/Saddle Road We are in receipt of your July 18 letter concerning the applicability of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act to certain possible Palila mitigation efforts on proposed replacement lands resulting from the proposed Saddle Road Project. We apologize for not keeping you informed of these discussions. Our lack of communication with you has apparently led to some confusion and inaccurate conclusions. In order to clear this matter up, I would like to give you a brief history of these discussions. In April of this year, upon submitting a draft Biological Assessment (BA) to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) discussing possible Palila mitigation strategies in relation to the proposed Saddle Road Project, we were informed by USFWS that all details of the management of replacement lands would have to be worked through and tentatively agreed upon by all participating agencies prior to submission of the final BA. Discussions to date have been centered around possibilities only, with no agreements being reached. As soon as we have at least preliminary agreement on the general nature of the management strategies among the various agencies, we will include a discussion of these management strategies in the BA and the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, as possibilities only. Early in our discussions with the USFWS about mitigation measures (June, 1996), Ms. Karen Rosa and Mr. Brooks Harper of the USFWS indicated that any activities designed to enhance the replacement lands or effect management strategies thereon would be considered part of a Federal action under implementation of their Palila Recovery Pian. This position was also reiterated at the April 1997 interagency meeting. Once the USFWS Palila Recovery Plan is advanced for consideration through appropriate environmental documentation, we would agree with you that proposals to implement specific management strategies on these replacement lands would then become a Federal undertaking, as defined by Section 106. We believe that this reflects what will actually happen with the replacement lands which are proposed to be put in place only with project funds, i.e., monies for implementation of management strategies, physical improvements, or maintenance activities on these lands will be furnished through other sources and not Saddle Road project funds. Further, prior to the 9-231 approval of a Record of Decision for the Saddle Road Project, we intend to have a Memorandum of Agreement in place committing all agencies to implementation strategies and participation roles in the management of these lands under the Palila Recovery Plan of the USFWS. How these strategies and roles evolve into specific land management proposals will be manifested during development of the Palila Recovery Plan by the USFWS, most likely with input from participating agencies. Of course, the Federal Highway Administration will have no role in ensuring that actual implementation of management strategies proposed in the USFWS Palila Recovery Plan will occur. I hope this responds adequately to your concerns regarding Section 106 applicability to proposed Palila recovery efforts resulting from the Saddle Road Project. If you have questions or need further information, please contact Mr. Bert McCauley, Environmental Project Manager at (303)-969-5924. Sincerely yours, -J , -0 . 112� Larry C. Smith, P.E. Division Engineer cc: Mr. Abraham Y. Wong, Division Administrator, FHWA, PO Box 50206, Honolulu, HI 96850 Maj. Gen. Alexis T. Lum, Executive Assistant, Office of Senator Daniel K. Inouye, 7325 Federal Building, Honolulu, HI 96850 Mr. Robert P. Smith, Manager, US Fish & Wildlife Service, PO Box 50088, Honolulu, HI 96850 bc: L. Henry R. Cushing D. Gedeon B. McCauley yc: reading file Central file - HI Defense Access Road A -AD 6(1) BMcCauley:jm:7/29/97: L\env\sadroad\palila.106 9-232 SrJ &M[11 CAYHTAHO GOVERNOR OE HAWAII REF: HP-AMK 4 STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION DIVISION 33 SOUTH KINO STREET, 8TH FLOOR HONOLULU, HAWAII 08813 JUL 3 1 1997 Mr. Larry C. Smith, Division Engineer U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration 555 Zang Street/P.O. Box 25246 Denver, Colorado 80225-0246 Dear Mr. Smith: MICIIAYL D. M'11AOH. CIIA10.1L RFON 50. 01 LANG AND NAT UML RESOURCES DEE S Gilbert Coloma-Agaran AWACULY%, E DEVELOPMENT PPOCJIAAI A W ATIC RTEOURCE $ CONSERVATION AND ENVVLONMENTAL AFFAIRS CONSERVAMN AND RESP (S ENFORCEMENT CONVEYANCES iORESTRY AND WILDUFE HISTORIC MSEAVATION DIVISION LAND MANAGEMENT RATE'AD OEVELOPMFM LOG NO: 19597 DOC NO. 9706PM05 SUBJECT: (HPD 16E). Review of Draft Report: "Archaeological Inventory Survey and Historic and Traditional Cultural Assessment for the Hawaii Defense Access Road A -AD -6(1) and Saddle Road (SR 200) Project" (Langlas, Wolforth, Head and Jensen 1997) South Kohala, Hamakua, North Hilo and South Hilo Districts, Hawaii Island Thank you for your letter of April 10, 1997 and the opportunity to review and comment on the subject report. Your cover letter requests that, pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we review the inventory survey report and concur with the eligibility determinations proposed for the historic properties identified in the report. You also ask us to comment on the criteria of effect applied to each property given the mitigation treatments proposed. Two of our staff have reviewed the report; one reviewing the archaeological component and, the other, the ethnographic and historical sections of the inventory survey- Our comments on the identification of historic properties, their significance and the potential effects of the project on these properties are outlined in the following letter. Please refer to Attachment I for general and specific comments on particular sections of the inventory survey report. These detailed comments are numbered to facilitate your consultant's response. Identification of Historic Properties- We believe that the inventory survey of the project area was adequate, finding a total of 16 properties within the defined Area of Potential Effect (APE). The archaeological survey methods used were adequate to identify and locate all historic properties within the defined APE. The ethnographic study constituted a reasonable and good faith effort to identify and contact individuals who could have knowledue of historic 9-233 32u.- 2 properties and traditional cultural properties in or near the APE. The methods and approaches used to interview these individuals were sufficient to document and evaluate the information provided. The compilation and presentation of historical background information was adequate to predict which kinds of historic properties might be found in the project area and to provide the historical context within which to evaluate identified properties. In Attachment 1 we ask for some clarification and revision of the archaeological background summary. We disagree, however, with the number of historic properties under consideration. Two previously identified properties (Site Nos. 5003 and 14638), located just outside of the APE, should be included in the project area because of their proximity to the road and, thus, the chance of their being damaged during construction or use of the new road. Also, if mitigation measures are being proposed for -n identified burial site (page 136), we feel it should be described as an historic property and given a site number. This can be done without disclosing the site's location. Thus we feel that 19, instead of 16, properties should be under consideration. 2. Eligibility Determinations and Significance Evaluations. We do not agree with all the eligibility determinations proposed in the report. First, we do not understand why eight of the 16 identified properties are evaluated as not significant and thus not eligible for listing on the NRNP. It seems to us that all of these properties are, at least, significant under Criterion D in that they have already yielded information about the history of the area. The rationale for concluding that these eight sites are not significant should be clearly argued before we can consider this determination. Second, we think that six of the eight properties determined eligible are significant under more criteria than those argued in the report. We believe that the Saddle Road (Site 20864) is significant under Criterion A as well as D because of its direct association with W.W.II, a event which is clearly significant in the broad patterns of history. Construction of the Old Waimea -Kona Belt Road (20855) is also associated with major changes in the economic and social history of the region and should be considered significant under Criterion A. Sections of the "Kaohe Wall" (5002) appear to be excellent examples of a type, period or method of construction and should therefore be significant under Criterion C. Similarly, elements of the Pu'u Oo Trail (10309), the Old Waimea-Humu'ula Wagon Road (21150) and the Humu'ula Sheep Station and Perimeter Wall (7119) would also be eligible under Criterion C. In fact, portions of the wagon road may be the only remaining example of its type. 3. Determination of Effect. You asked that we comment on the criteria of effect applied to each eligible property in the report. We can not comment officially on these determinations until differences are resolved over significance evaluations and the number of sites being evaluated, but we can provide a preliminary assessments. We disagree with the approach taken in applying the criteria of effect to the eight properties the authors find eligible. They argue that the project will have "no adverse effect" on seven of the eight eligible properties and on a part of the eighth property because they can be considered as exceptions from the criteria of adverse effect as defined in the regulations (36 CFR 8000.9 (c)). The authors believe that, under these regulations, the otherwise "adverse effect" of the project on the identified properties, or portions of these properties, can be considered "not adverse" because 9-234 3 appropriate data collection and documentation has taken place or will take place. We see two problems with this interpretation of the regulations. First, according to the regulations, the exception cited applies when a property is only of value for its potential contribution to research and when such value can be preserved through appropriate research. We believe this means that the exception applies when a property is significant only for its information content (i.e., Criterion D). Thus this exception should not be considered for properties that are significant under multiple criteria. As we feel that all eight properties, instead of six, are significant under multiple criteria, none of these properties should be considered as exceptions from the criteria of adverse effect. Second, we see nothing in the regulations suggesting that the criteria of effect can be applied to a single segment of a property instead of the entire property. For example, the criteria of effect needs to be applied to an entire trail, road or wall. In these cases, we will probably agree that the adverse effects can be mitigated because they only impact a relatively small segment of the historic property, but this does not preclude applying the criteria of effect to the entire property. Based on available information it appears that the effect determination for the undertaking will be one of "adverse effect." The eight properties assessed by the authors as not being eligible for the NRNP (Site Nos. 20854, 20862, 20865, 20877, 20856, 20869, 20872, and 20873) may, we believe, qualify as exceptions from the criteria of adverse effect (i.e., "no adverse effect" applies). We agree that they are probably only significant under criterion D. They have been sufficiently well documented and further study would not contribute any new information. 4. Consultation with Native Hawaiian Organizations. The report adequately documents a good faith effort to contact the two native Hawaiian organizations mentioned in NHPA and other native Hawaiian organizations that are appropriate because of their association with the region within which the project is located. Please note that individuals contacted in the initial round of notification and consultation should be given the opportunity to comment on the results of the inventory survey, proposed mitigation measures and stipulation in the Memorandum of Agreement. If they wish to participate, individuals interviewed by Pua Kanahele should also be consulted. 5. Hawaiian Cultural Impact Assessment. At a recent meeting, representatives of Federal Highways and the Hawaii Department of Transportation asked us to review a cultural impact assessment prepared for this project (Kanahele and Kanahele, A Hawaiian Cultural Impact Assessment of the Proposed Saddle Road Alignments) in case information contained in the report has a bearing on compliance with the Section 106 process. The assessment addresses several broadly defined concerns of the native Hawaiian community about the impact of the proposed highway. These discussions are drawn from a literature search, interviews with native Hawaiians, and a discussion of Hawaiian place names, terminology, chants and melt. We will address the material presented in the report under separate cover, after staff has had an opportunity to discuss this report with the Kanaheles. 9-235 To proceed with the archaeological review process, agreement needs to be reached on the number of sites in the project area and the eligibility determinations for each identified property. We also need to resolve differences over the application of the criteria of effect for the identified properties. Based on present information, we believe that a Memorandum of Agreement will be needed to stipulate which actions will be taken to mitigate the adverse effects of the undertaking on significant historic properties. Overall, we think some parts of the report are well done and it is a pleasure to have detailed historical information integrated with the individual property descriptions. Some of the historical background summaries will be very useful for others working in the region in the future. If you have any questions, please call Pat McCoy (587-0006), the Hawaii Island archaeologist, or Holly McEldowney (587-0008) of the History and Culture Branch. Aloha, d .cca)+—r MICHAEL D. WILSO C irperson and State Historic Preservation fficer PM: amk c. Glen Yasui, FHWA Paul Rosendahl 9-236 August 11, 1997 Letter No. 46579 Reference No. 97024 Okahara & Associates, Inc. ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS Department of Land and Natural Resources Land Division 75 Aupuni Street, Ste. 204 Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Attention: Harry Yada, Land Agent Project: ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES ON HI A -AD -6, SADDLE ROAD Contract No. DTFH68-97-D-0001 I Task Order No. DTF1168-97-T-00002 Subject: Right -of -Entry to Various Government Lands Federal Highways Administration and Okahara & Associates, Inc. Saddle Road Project Dear Mr. Yada, This is to follow up with respect to your phone conversation of August 7, 1997 with William Moore regarding the Department of Land and Natural Resource's right -of -entry for the Saddle Road project. This right -of -entry allowed necessary field work for the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in compliance with both State and Federal law as well as preparation of a Conservation District Use Permit Application (CDUA) for the proposed Saddle Road improvements. The right -of -entry was granted on March 24, 1995 to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and RUST Environmental and Infrastructure (RUST) with an expiration date of June 30, 1996. While the initial field work and scientific studies for the Saddle Road EIS were completed prior to June 30, 1996, we had found that additional field work is required to finalize the draft EIS and as well as to address issues that may be raised prior to the completion of the final EIS. Accordingly, on behalf of the FIIWA, Okahara & Associates, Inc. (O/A) is seeking an extension to the right-of-way to various Government Lands as identified in the DLNR staff report dated March 24, 1995. 9-237 Donald K. Okoharo, P.E. • Masahiro Nishlda, P.E. • Terrance Nago, P.E. • Glenn Suzuki, P.E. • Nancy E. Burns, P.E. 200 KOHOLA Sl. • HILO. HI 96720 • (808) 961-5527 • FAX (808) 961-5529 470 NORTH NIMITZ HWY., SIE. 212 • HONOLULU. 11196817 • (8081 524-1224 • FAX (808) 521-3151 73-5574 MAIlUI STREET, BAY 6B • KAILUA-KONA, HI 96740 • 18081329-1221 • FAX (808) 329 1006 EMAIL • HILO oksham(Meloha net • OAHU oaoahu@aloha. net • KAILUA-KONA oakona@aloha net Page 2 Letter No. 46579 Reference No. 97024 The Scope of Work to be conducted on the right of entry would be as follows: To perform horizontal and vertical surveys and to conduct a topographic survey which determines the positions of natural and artificial features within and adjacent to the proposed project. The information obtained from these surveys is needed for the design phase of the project development process. To replace centerline and right-of-way stakes for the proposed project as required. To conduct and update environmental surveys which include, but are not limited to, cultural resource survey, survey and removal of unexploded ordinance, and biological, wildlife, botanical, invertebrate, wetlands and other survey work necessary for the completion of the EIS. The existing terms and conditions of the right -of -entry, with the exception of the effective date of June 30, 1996, are acceptable. We are requesting that the expiration date be amended to December 31, 1998 or completion of the EIS process, which ever occurs sooner. This will ensure that should any further environmental work be required during the EIS process, such work can be conducted under this right -of -entry. Furthermore, reference to RUST should be replaced by Okahara & Associates, Inc. FHWA has retained O/A as the prime consultant of this project. According, O/A will be responsible for compliance with any conditions placed on the right -of -entry extension. Your assistance and cooperation on this matter is greatly appreciated. Please call me at 961-5527 or Nancy Bums, P.E., project engineer at 329-1221 if you have any questions on this matter. Sincerely, OKAHARA & ASSOCIATES, INC. Donald K. Okahara, P.E. President WLM-DKO:tm cc: Glenn Yasui, FIIWA-Hawaii District Bert McCauley, FIIWA-Denver 9-238 Q30 US.Deportment of TranspWatlon Federal Highway Administration Ray H.Jyo, P.E. Director of Engineering U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Building 230 Ft. Shafter, HI 96858-5440 Attention: Kathleen A. Dadey, Ph.D. Environmental Engineer Dear Mr. Jyo: Central Federal Lands 555 Zang Street Highway Division P.O. Box 25246 Denver, Colorado 80225-0246 AUG 1 R 1997 In Reply Refer To: HPD -16E / HI A -AD -6(1) Ref: File # 960010042 Thank you for your letter of June 23 responding to our request for concurrence with procedures for processing 404 permits and methods for jurisdictional determination of waters of the U.S. for the Saddle Road project. You indicated that concurrent submittal of the U.S. Department of the Army permit application and Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) would be considered consistent with the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) integrating the NEPA/404 process in the State of Hawaii. As you know, there are two alternative alignments under consideration within Sections III and IV of the proposed project. One is a combination of alignment segments EX -3 and EX -4A, and the other is a combination of EX -3 and E-3. At this point in the NEPA process, we do not have a preferred alternative in this section of the proposed project. We will be relying on the DEIS comments received from the USACE and others to assist in determining which segments should be proposed for selection in the Final EIS and, subsequently, the Record of Decision. We are presently proposing to include in the DEIS a DA Permit Form 4345 for each alternative alignment and all information required for each permit. This will allow you to comment on the format and completeness of the permit forms as well as the adequacy of the information given so that, when an alternative alignment is selected, we can submit the required permit for your formal consideration. In order to do this and meet our schedule for publication of the DEIS, we need your jurisdictional determination on permit type (individual or nationwide) for those wetlands within the above alternative alignment sections before September 1. It is our understanding it has been determined that there are no waters of the U.S. within the PTA or the western alternatives under consideration. 9-239 As you know, a jurisdictional determination field trip was held July 2 and 3. Asa result of that trip and further investigations by Mr. Grant Gerrish, our wetlands consultant, we have determined that the total impact to wetlands along alignment segments EX -3 and EX -4A is estimated to be approximately 21.0 acres and along segments EX -3 and E-3, approximately 28.1 acres. It is our understanding that the methodology and rationale for these determinations have been conveyed to Dr. Dadey under separate cover from Mr. Gerrish. If you require additional information or have questions concerning proposed permit procedures or our request, please contact Mr. Bert McCauley, Environmental Project Manager, at (303 969- 5924. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation in the development of this project. Sincerely yours, LARRY D. HENr", Larry C. Smith, P.E. Division Engineer cc: Mr. Kazu Hayashida Director, Hawaii Department of Transportation 869 Punchbowl Street Honolulu, Hawaii 96813-5097 Mr. David Farrel Chief, Office of Federal Activities (E-3) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105 Mr. Robert P. Smith Manager, Pacific EcoRegion U.S. DOI, Fish & Wildlife Service P.O. Box 50088 Honolulu, HI 96850 Maj. Gen. Alexis T. Lum (Ret.) Executive Assistant Office of U.S. Senator Daniel K. Inouye 7325 Federal Building Honolulu, HI 96850 9-240 Ms. Nancy Bums Senior Engineer Okahara & Associates 73-5574 Maiau Street, Bay 6B Kailua-Kona, HI 96740 Ms. Julie A. Cirillo Regional Administrator Federal Highway Administration 201 Mission Street, Suite 2100 San Francisco, CA 94105 Mr. Abraham Y. Wong Division Administrator (HDA -HI) Federal Highway Administration Box 50206 Honolulu, Hawaii 96850 3 bcc: L. Henry R. Cushing D. Gedeon B. McCauley Central File HI A -AD -6(1) BMcCauley:bm:jg:8-15-97 L:\enviromn\sadroad\corpwet2jg OM 9-241 �> US Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Mr. Dave Carlson Environmental Protection Agency 75 Hawthorne Street, Code CMD -2 San Francisco, CA 94105 Dear Mr. Carlson: Central Federal Lands 555 Zang Street Highway Division P O. Box 25246 Denver. Colorado 80225-0245 SEP 0 4 1997 In Reply Refer To. HPD- 16E As you have recently become aware of the proposed Saddle Road Project on the island of Hawaii, I would like to transmit additional background information to you for your use in familiarizing you with the project. As you know, this is a Federal Action and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Federal Lands Highway Division is the action agency for this proposal. Since this project has quite a lengthy history, I am enclosing a project history outline that will be presented in the Draft EIS (DEIS). It is my understanding that Ms. Leslie McGaughey of EcoPlan, our consultant assembling the document, has transmitted separately to you a copy of Chapters 1, 2, and 3 from the DEIS. Please be aware that this document is in the process of being revised and may not appear exactly as the copies you now have. In addition to these materials, I am enclosing . copy of the Social, Economic, and Environmental (SEE) Team membership list. The SEE Team is assembled in the initial scoping phases of a project according to our Action Plan to guide the development of project purpose and need, select criteria for evaluation of alternatives, and decide the actual selection of alternatives to be carried forward for further analysis. I am also enclosing a copy of all correspondence, including our invitation for Cooperating Agency status, transmitted to Mr. David Farrel in Region 9 of the EPA. I would also encourage you to discuss this project with Dr. Kathleen Dadey of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Pacific Ocean Division (USACE/POD) as it is my understanding that she has discussed this proposed project with wetland scientists in Region 9 of the EPA. We would request that you transmit any comments to this office concerning the materials that the FHWA has furnished by October 8, so that we may incorporate them into the DEIS scheduled for publication in late October 1997. We will transmit a copy of the Wetlands Determination Study completed by Dr. Grant Gerrish of the University of Hawaii in cooperation with the USACE, Pacific Ocean Division, when we have a chance to review the draft and make required revisions. 9-242 If you have any questions or need further information, please contact Mr Bert McCauley, Environmental Project Manager at (303) 969-5924. Sincerely yours, Larry D. Henry, P E. Project Development Engineer Enclosures cc (w/o enclosures): Mr. Abraham Y. Wong, Division Administrator, FHWA, HAD -HI, Box 50206, Honolulu, HI 96850 Maj. Gen. Alexis T. Lum (Ret.), Executive Assistant, Office of U. S. Senator Daniel Inouye, 300 Ala Moana Blvd., Suite 7325, Honolulu, HI 96850 Mr. David Farrel, Chief, Office of Federal Activities, U.S. EPA, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901 Dr. Kathleen Dadey, Environmental Engineer, USACE/POD, Building 230, Ft. Shafter, HI 96858-5440 Mr. Merrill Deskins, Environmental Specialist, FHWA, Region 9, 201 Mission Street, Suite 2100, San Francisco, CA 94105 Ms. Nancy Burns, Senior Project Engineer, Okahara & Associates, Inc., 73-5574 Maiau Street, Bay 613, Kailua-Kona, HI 96740 Ms, Leslie McGaughey, Project Manager, EcoPlan Associates, Inc., 1845 S. Dobson Road, Suite 111, Mesa, AZ 85202 9-243 a US. Deponmern of Transportation Federal Highway 4dmlrsishatbn Mr. Ray H. Jyo, P.E. Director of Engineering U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Building 230 Ft. Shafter, HI 96858-5440 Attention: Kathleen A- Dadey, PhD Environmental Engineer Dear Mr. Jyo: Central r.d.rar Lends 555 zany strast Highway Division P.O. Box 25246 Denver, Colorado 002250246 In Reply Refer To: HPD -16E / HI A -AD -6(1) Ref File # 960010042 Thank you for your letter of June 23 responding to our request for concurrence with procedures for processing 404 permits and methods for jurisdictional determination of waters of the U.S. for the Saddle Road Project. You indicated that concurrent submittal of the Department of the Army permit application and Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) would be considered consistent with the Memorandum of Understanding (MOM integrating the NEPA/404 process in the State of Hawaii. As you know, there are two alternative alignments under consideration within Sections III and IV of the proposed project. One is a combination of alignment segments EX -3 and EX -4A and the other is a combination of EX -3 and E-3. At this point in the NEPA process, we do not have a preferred alternative in this section of the proposed project. We will be relying on DEIS comments received from the USACE and others to assist in determining which segments should be proposed for selection in the Final EIS and subsequently the Record of Decision. Presently, we are proposing to include in the DEIS, a DA Permit Form 4345 for each alternative alignment and all information required for each permit. This will allow you to comment on the format and completeness of the permit forms as well as the adequacy of the information given so that when an alternative alignment is selected, we can submit the required permit for your formal consideration. In order to do this and meet our schedule for publication of the DEIS, we need your jurisdictional determination on permit type (Individual or Nationwide) for those wetlands within the above alternative alignment sections before September 1. It is our understanding it has been determined that there are no waters of the U. S. within the PTA or the western alternatives under consideration. As you know, a jurisdictional determination field trip was held July 2 and 3. As a result of this trip and further investigations by Mr. Grant Gerrish, our wetlands consultant, we have determined that the total impact to wetlands along alignment segments EX -3 and EX -4A is estirnated to be approximately 21.0 acres and along segments EX -3 and E3, approximately 28 acres. It is our understanding that the methodology and rationale for these determinations has been conveyed to Dr. Dadey under separate cover from Mr. Gerrish. 9-244 If you require additional information or have questions concerning proposed permit procedures or our request, please contact Mr. Bert McCauley, Environmental Project Manager, at (303) 969- 5924. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation in the development of this project. Sincerely yours, Larry C. Smith, P. E. Division Engineer cc: Mr. Robert P. Smith, Manager, U.S. F & WS, Pacific EcoRegion Mr. Kazu Hayashida, Director, Hawaii DOT Mr. David Farrel, Chief, Office of Federal Activities, U.S. EPA Ms. Julie Anna Cirillo, Regional Administrator, FHWA, Region 9 Mr. Abraham Y. Wong, Division Administrator, FHWA, HI Division Maj. Gen. Alexis T. Lum Executive Assistant, Senator Daniel K. Inouye Ms. Nancy Burns, Senior Engineer, Okahara & Associates bcc L. Henry R. Cushing D. Godeon B. McCauley L:\environm\sadroad\corpwet2.ltr 9-245 Q3� U.S Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Lt. Col. Ralph H. Graves, Commander U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Building 230 Fort Shafter, HI 96858-5440 Attention: CEPOD-ET-PO (K. Dadey) Dear Colonel Graves: Central Federal Lands 555 Zang Street Highway Division P.O. Box 25246 Denver, Colorado 80225-0246 SEP 17 1997 In Reply Refer To: HPD -16E As agreed upon in previous correspondence with your office, we are herewith submitting an Application for Department of the Army Permit, Engineering Form 4345 (404 Permit) for Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) project A -AD -6(1), Saddle Road, Mamalahoa Highway to Milepost 6, Hawaii County, Hawaii. A detailed report of wetlands determinations as well as the Draft Environmental Impact Statement will be forthcoming in October. The FHWA's Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Corps of Engineers for integrating the NEPA and 404 process requires that we submit a 404 Permit for concurrent review with the Environmental Impact Statement. In some instances, as in this case, the procedures outlined in the MOU do not quite fit the development of a project. We anticipate that addendums or supplemental information to this application will need to be submitted when an alignment has been selected and design proceeds. If you have any questions or need additional information, you may contact Mr. Bert McCauley, Environmental Project Manager at (303) 969-5924 or Ms. Nancy Burns, Senior Project Engineer, Okahara & Associates at (808) 329-1221. Thank you for your assistance in the development of this project. Sincerely yours, faLV/ Larry D. Henry, P.E. Vi Project Development Engineer Enclosure cc (w/enclosure): Mr. Abraham Wong, Division Administrator, FHWA, HI Division Ms. Nancy Burns, Senior Project Engineer, Okahara & Associates, Kona, HI Dr. Grant Gerrish, Okahara & Associates, Hilo, HI Mr. Merrill Deskins, Environmental Specialist, FHWA, Region 09, San Francisco, CA Ms. Leslie McGaughey, Project Manager, EcoPlan & Associates, Mesa, AZ Mr. David Farrel, Chief, Office of Federal Activities, Environmental Protection Agency, San Francisco, CA Attn: Mr. Dave Carlson 9-246 APPLICATION FOR DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMITI OMB APPROVAL NO. 0710-003 (33 CFR 325) Expires October 1996 Public reporting burden for this collection of information Is estimated to average 5 hours par response, Including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send r, rnments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of Information, Including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Service Directorate of InformetionOperations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arrington, VA 22202-4302; and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0710-0003). Washington, DC 20503. Please DO NO RETURN your form to either of those addresses. Completed applications must be submitted to the District Engineer having jurisdiction over the location of the proposed activity. PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT Authority: 33 USC 401, Section 10; 1413, Section 404. Principal Purpose: These laws require permits authorizing activities in, or effecting, navigable waters of the United States, the discharge of dredged or fig material into waters of the United States, and the transportation of dredged material for the purpose of dumping It Into ocean waters. Routine Uses: Information provided on this form will be used in evaluating the applicatio^ for a permit. Disclosure: Disclosure of requested information Is voluntary. If information is not provided, however, the permit application cannot I processed nor can a permit be Issued. One set of original drawings or good reproducible copies which show the location and character of the proposed activity must be attached to this application (see sample drawings and instructions) and be submitted to the District Engineer having jurisdiction over the location of the proposed activity. An application that is not completed in fug will be returned. 1. APPLICATION NO 2. FIELD OFFICE CODE 13. DATE RECEIVED 14. DATE APPLICATION COMPLE 5. APPLICANT'S NAME (FHWA) S. AUTHORIZED AGENT'S NAME AND TITLE r�..para norrquYwl U.S. Department of Transportati I Okahara & Associates. Tnr 6. APPLICANT'S ADDRESS 555 Zang Street P.O. Box 25246 Denver. ('nlnrarl a. Residence b. Business( 303 ) 969-5924 9. AGENT'S ADDRESS 73-5574 Maiau St., Bay 6B Kailua-Kona, HI 96740 a. Residence b. Business 11. STATEMENT OF AUTHORIZATION I hereby authorize, D� r S �N� A�P < to act in my behalf as my agent in the processing of this application and t furnish, upon request, supolementa: inlo anon in support of this permit application. SIGNATURE NAME, LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT OR ACTIVITY 12. PROJECT NAME OR TITLE b.. weucowul A -AD -6(1) State Route 200 - Saddle Road Mamalahoa Highway to Milepost 6 13. NAME OF WATERBODY, IF KNOWN rr.oya.a.r 14. PROJECT STREET ADDRESS at.pwk.or r N/A N/A 15. LOCATION OF PROJECT Hawaii Hawaii COUNTY STATE 16. OTHER LOCATION DESCRIPTIONS, IF KNOWN, Ise. i.:rrvcnasl Waters ot the . U . S . wet dnd5) pC cur at Lat. 19°-52'-48" to Lat. 19°-41'-10"various low oins a ween Long, 1550-43'-28" Long. 1550-091-001- 17. 55°-09'-00"17. DIRECTIONS TO THE SITE Saddle Road, State Highway 200(H200), is a two-lane road approximately 85 kilometers(km) in length extending westerly from Hilo to the ruction with Stat Highway 190(H190), the Mamalahoa Highway, approximately 10 km south of Waimea, on the Island of Hawaii. Waters of the U.S. (wetlands) occur at various locations 9.247 between Hilo and Milepost 14. (S�' 18. Nature of Activity lo.:urpmn or pra/ecr, /ncA.w rr..nw.:! See attached. 19. Project Purpose rpettnar I" rwson or wpow at rhe proyect rw iunvcrbna! See attached. USE BLOCKS 20-22 IF DREDGED AND/OR FILL MATERIAL IS TO BE DISCHARGED 20. Reason(s) for Discharge See attached. 21. Type(s) of Material Being Discharged and the Amount of Each Type in Cubic Yards See attached. 22. Surface Area in Acres of Wetlands or Other Waters Filled Ir«Manucrionrl See attached. 23. Is Any Portion of the Work Already Complete? Yes _ No A IF YES, DESCRIBE THE COMPLETED WORK 24. Addresses of Adjoining Property Owners, Lessees, Etc., Whose Property Adjoins the Waterbody (If more than can be entered here, please attach a supplemental list). see attached. 25. List of Other Certifications or Approvals/Denials Received from other Federal, State or Local Agencies for Work Described in This Application. AGENCY TYPE APPROVAL* IDENTIFICATION NUMBER • Would include but is not restricted to zoning, building and flood plain permits DATE APPLIED DATE APPROVED DATE DENIED 26. Application is hereby made fof a permit or permits to authorize the work described in this application. I certify that the information in this application is complete and accurate. I further certify that I possess the authority to undertake the work described herein or am acting as the duly a th ed agent of the p licant. 211 hl� SIGNATURE APPLICANT ATE SIGNATURE OF AGENT DATE The application must be signed by the person who desires to undertake the proposed activity (applicant) or it may be signed by a duly authorized agent if the statement in block 11 has been filled out and signed. 18 U.S.C. Section 1001 provides that: Whoever, In any manner within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals, or covers up any trick, scheme, or disguises a material fact or makes any false, or fraudulent statements or representations or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing same to contain any false; hefffleus or fraudulent statements or entry, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years or both. 'U.s.GP 19921 /82018 18 The proposed improvements would upgrade Saddle Road to acceptable American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Standards. Uphill passing lanes, truck escape ramps, scenic pullouts, military crossings, bike lanes and drainage structures will be constructed. Based on preliminary roadway plans, earthwork for the proposed -oadway construction may involve excavation depths up to 15 meters and embankment heights up to 9 meters. The majority of cut depths range between 1 and 8 meters with the majority of fill depths range between 1 and 4 meters The areas where cuts an': fills are within the wetlands occur at various locations betwe-- milepost 7 and 14. There are two alternative alignments that are proposed within these boundaries. One alignment consists of segments EX -3 and EX -4a. The other consists of segments EX -3 and E-3 (See Wetlands Determination Report & DEIS) 19 The proposed project would improve Saddle Road to a two-lane highway with enough capacity to safely handle both current and projected traffic volumes up to the year 2014. A combination of realigning the existing alignment and construction of new proposed alignments would be used to improve Saddle Road. 20. Construction activities within the wetland areas include cut and fill embankments for the roadway structure, installation of culverts within the ephemeral drainages, and implementing the best management practices for erosion control. 21 The types of material to be used would range from volcanic ash soils and cinder sands and gravels to weak cobbiy basalt rock and hard basalt rock formation. The amount of cut and fill quantities varies for each alternative. The estimated earthwork quantities for segments EX -3 and EX -4a are 100,153 cy M of cut and 80,604 cy M of fill. The estimated earthwork quantities for segments EX -3 and E-3 are 239,112 cy M of cut and 214,024 cy M of fill. 22. The total wetland areas impacted by the Saddle Road project are as follows'. Segment EX -3 = 5 91 ac EX -4a = 0.99 ac E-3 = 8.00 ac 24. TMK Owner Owner City St. Zipcode Lessee Address 2-5-01:01 Hawaii Conference P.O. Box 18 Foundation 2-5-01:02 State of Hawaii none 2-5-01:03 Mauna Kea Sugar P.O Box 18 2-5-01:06 State of Hawaii none 2-5-01:08 State of Hawaii none Pepeekeo HI 96783 IDWS DOFAW Forest Pepeekeo HI 96873_ _none DOFAW Forest Reserve IBA Kling Shim/HELCO_. 9-249 2-5-01_:08 State of Hawaii none 2-5-01:11 Hawaii Conference 15 Craigside 96817 Foundation Ave. TMK Owner Owner Hilo HI Address none County of Hawaii 25 Aupuni St. 2-5-01:14 Water Commission Unencumbered 2-5-02:12 _ _ State of Hawaii none 2-5-02:17 Young, Wallace P.O. Box 1513 Hook Kwock 20%, Wong, Lily Trust 20%, Young, Henry S H 10%, Chun, Gladys Y 10%, Young, Alan S C 6.67%, Young, Michael S H 6.67%, Young, Robert S Y 6.67%, Young, Kenneth H K Estate 20% 2-5-38:80 Costales, Michael 25-05 Ua Nahale St. 2-5-38:82 Belcher, Karen 25-3571 Opalipali St. 2-5-38:83 DeCosta, Reynold '984 Ainalako I. & Marilyn M. Rd. 2-5-38:84 De Lima, Herbert 2463 Kilauea E. Ave. 2-5-38:85 Weir, Donald G. & P.O. Box '.;217 Carol P. 2-5-38:86 Miyasato, Carl Y. & 1455 Diane S. Akeakamai St. 2-5-38:87 Kunimura, Sharon 1465 T. Akeakamai St. 2-5-38:88 Louaillier, Ernest 25-3535 Noa & Midge H. Opalipali St. 2-5-41:108 Ha, Richard Jr. & 421 Lama St. June 2-5-41:109 Hannum, Charles 120 Roosevelt R. & Una E. St. 2-5-41:111 Torres, Benjamin P.O. Box 11329 D. & Laina A. (undeliverable address, no listing in ph. bk.) 2-5-41:112 Mattos, Kevin J, 184 Kualua Abel Jr. & Maile L. Place 2-5-41:113 Dolan, William R. & 16-A Railroad Glynnis T. Ave. Hilo HI 96720 TBA Kling Shim/HELCO Honolulu HI 96817 none City St. Zipcode Lessee Hilo HI 96720 none inone HI 96720 none Unencumbered Hilo HI 96720 ,none Hilo HI 96720 none Hilo HI 96720 ,none Hilo HI 96720 inone Hilo HI 96720 none Hilo HI 96721 none Honolulu HI 96816 none Honolulu HI 96816 none Hilo HI 96720 none Hilo HI 96720 none Chula CA 92010 none Vista _ Hilo HI 96720 none Hilo HI 96720 none Hilo HI 96720 none 9-250 2-5-41:46 Dolan, William R. & 16-A Railroad Hilo HI 96720 none Glynnis T. 66.66% Ave. & Umeda, Kean & Patti 33.33% TMK Owner Owner City St.'Zipcode' Lessee Address 2-5-62:06 Hanapepe 210 Ward Ave., Honolulu HI 96814 IOno, Kenneth M. & Enterprises, Inc., 1#336 !Feliciano, Joya E etal HI. Corp 2_-6-18:04 State of Hawaii none DOFAW Forest Reserve 9 -R -1R 1r) lzt.tc of Hnwnii nnno nC)FAW Fnrp.5t RASRfVP 25. a) State of Hawaii Department of Health, Section 401 Water Quality Certification (WQC) Application, has been submitted. b) County of Hawaii Grading Permit, has not been submitted. c) FEMA Floodplain Amendment (possibly), has not been submitted. 9-251 L+53N > `1i)✓ f _ G vl Zo Mai jD, Iouilo F Kowolhae "- •,/bia `�� V �� n ff uawa Keo Beach Hotel Q• V Napuns Beach Part♦ S KAMMEL AIRPaftT.� Mand', ``'� La.'pbhoehoe Paakb _ p a Mauna Lonl Rewri e Waikoloo Hium Woikaoo a S E Woiko� T 1 0 ,I-1 S E C,i' I O flJ-7— -----`S'Ele'T 1 0 N I �L S E C T 1 0 N I V eo kola , \ Hakaou Honomu l�l 1 r1 Pepe'ekeo T, K uku ave RL stuMP J r I Pduanah ulu i" I `MP 2 �N �- �.\�` MQUNA�KL ' AL RwELLLAAA xE -1 J Pmaakol r - ��-2A` r� j J} PbPoi'kou _ '�. NM.. NA11�OR NAL ,----._.--v_._3:i.;-- ('601 a � Cly--�- � - •:ay:._ :�'>. _,ate;, / rHILO P A K U L 0 A••T•R•M N -R G AR E A _. MP MP 1G` Kg UM P 6 HILO o _ •. PJK '::........ -' _` - X� ) O l 1 AA • ,CITY 4 AIRPORT .. AREA _-'.'- :'E - PTA -3 Kea ou E f ":::�%>;: • ....l.�••'. r \ Ku town °i'Eo[uiA'ncn:a �`ew .. i \ r anert, . w h , ams°. ___-- 1� Kulmni wvxe. caEoe.00 OVERVIEW OF SEGMENTS UNDER CONSIDERATION FIGURE 2.2.1 Q US Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Mr. Denis R. Lau, P.E., Chief Department of Health Clean Water Branch 919 Ala Moana Boulevard, Room 301 Honolulu, HI 96814 Dear Mr. Lau: Central Federal Lands 555 Zang Street Highway Division P.O. Box 25246 Denver, Colorado 80225-0246 SEP 1 7 1997 In Reply Refer To: HPD -16E Enclosed is an application for a Section 401 Water Quality Certification for Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Project A -AD -6(I), Saddle Road, Mamalahoa Highway to Milepost 6, Hawaii County, Hawaii. As you will note, portions of the application are incomplete and will be submitted when a contract is let for the first project in 1998. We are submitting this application now because it is triggered by the submission of the 404 Permit for this project. The FHWA's Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Corps of Engineers for integrating the NEPA and 404 process requires that we submit a 404 Permit for concurrent review with the Environmental Impact Statement. In some instances, as in this case, the procedures outlined in the MOU do not quite fit the development of a project. We anticipate that addendums or supplemental information to this application will need to be submitted when an alignment has been selected and design proceeds. If you have any questions or need additional information, you may contact Mr. Bert McCauley, Environmental Project Manager at (303) 969-5924 or Ms. Nancy Burns, Senior Project Engineer, Okahara & Associates at (808) 329-1221. Thank you for your assistance in the development of this project. Sincerely yours, Larry D. Henry, P.E. Project Development Engineer Enclosure cc (w/enclosure): Mr. Abraham Wong, Division Administrator, FHWA, HI Division Ms. Nancy Burns, Senior Project Engineer, Okahara & Associates, Kona, HI Mr. David Farrel, Chief, Office of Federal Activities, US Environmental Protection Agency, San Francisco, CA Attn: Mr. Dave Carlson cc (w/o enclosure): Dr. Kathleen Dadey, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Pacific Ocean Division, Ft. Shafter, HI Ms. Leslie McGaughey, Project Manager, EcoPlan Associates, Inc., Mesa, AZ, Mesa, AZ 9-253 U.S Department OI Transportation Federal Highway Administration Mr. Michael D. Wilson State Historic Preservation Officer Department of Land and Natural Resources State Historic Preservation Division 33 South King Street, 6th Floor Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 Attention: Mr. Patrick C. McCoy Dear Mr. Wilson: Central Federal Lands 555 Zang Street Highway Division P O Box 25246 Denver, Colorado 80225-0246 SEP 2 3 1997 In Reply Refer To: HPD -16E We are in receipt of your letter of July 31, 1997, which responds to our letter of April 10 requesting concurrence with eligibility determinations for the historic properties identified in our study for Federal Highway Administration (FI-IWA) project A -AD -6(1), Saddle Road, Mamalahoa Highway to Milepost 6, Hawaii County, Hawaii. This letter is to initiate discussions regarding your suggested eligibility of sites, effect determinations for eligible sites, and proposed mitigation for impacted sites. In the interest of brevity, we have prepared our response in tabular format for ease of reference and further discussion. Please refer to the enclosed Attachment 1: Historic Site Eligibility, Criteria, Effect, and Proposed Mitigation, Saddle Road Improvement Project. In general, we are in agreement with the suggested number of sites to be included in the project Area of Potential Effect, as well as the criteria of eligibility for those sites. Similarly, we believe that your interpretation of the regulations regarding exceptions to the criteria of adverse effect are correct and we are prepared to mitigate resulting adverse effects for the small segment of the linear historic sites which may be impacted. At this time, we can only estimate the order of magnitude of these impacts. Further design studies will be required to delineate exact impacts and specific avoidance or mitigation design plans at each site. In acknowledging your suggestion that adverse effects on these properties can probably be mitigated because they only impact a relatively small segment of the historic property, we are assuming that you are indicating that the small segment of the linear feature impacted is not required to be preserved in place to maintain the integrity of the site. Further, we are assuming from this response that removal and documentation of that small segment will not significantly impair, alter, or diminish the site's attributes which make it eligible for the National Register_ 9-254 In addressing the comments contained in Attachment I of your letter of July 3 1, we are authorizing our consultant, Mr_ Tom Wolforth, Projects Manager, Hawaii, of PHRI, Inc. to work directly with you and your staff. We are interested in producing a revised report that meets your needs and serves as a valuable future reference. This work will, out of funding necessity, need to be completed at a later date prior to finalization of the Final Environmental Impact Statement Regardingthe draft social impact assessment report on Native Hawaiian cultural values delivered to your staff in April, in an effort to initiate informal discussions on this topic, we are currently in the process of revising and printing this report in its final form. We will be transmitting this report to you at a later date for your information and use. The FHWA and the author of this report do not consider this study to have any Section 106 applicability. In closing, we are looking forward to working with you and other native Hawaiian organizations and individuals in developing stipulations for inclusion in a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) which will ensure that this undertaking can proceed in a responsible manner. Further project development efforts will include site-specific design investigations of avoidance or mitigation plans and specifications to assist in the consummation of the MOA. If you have questions or require further information, please contact Mr. Bert McCauley, Environmental Project Manager at (303) 969-5924. Sincerely yours, �7 Lar mith, P.E. Division Engineer Enclosures cc (w/enclosure): Mr. Abraham Wong, Division Administrator, FHWA, HI Division, Honolulu, HI Ms. Nancy Burns, Senior Project Engineer, Okaltara & Associates, Kailua-Kona, HI Mr. Bill Moore, Senior Planner, Okahara & Associates, Hilo, HI Mr. Tom Wolforth, Projects Manager, PH -RI Inc., Hilo, HI Mr. Ron Terry, Principal, Geometrician, Keaau, HI Ms. Leslie McGaughey, Project Manager, EcoPlan & Assoc., Mesa, AZ cc (w/enclosure and correspondence): Ms. Carol Gleichman, Historic Preservation Specialist, ACHP Western Region, Lakewood, CO Mr. Merrill Deskins, Environmental Specialist, FHWA, Region 9, San Francisco, CA 9-255 \ 9-256 21 72 si - /=-�- 77 \ \\ \) : _- ) E f - - - _ 4�\- / zi ) f # : \ . ) / \ � _ : _ _ \ % \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ - , - k- J 9-256 < \ \ \k /C 4ƒ *!g - \ 2\ \ \\ - i - \ } } - \ F- \ 13 \\\ \ \\\\ \ \\\\ \ \\ \ \ { \ _ \ - \ \ } \ \ CL § le *!g - \ 2\ \ \\ - i \ } } \ \ 13 \ \ { \ _ \ - \ \ } \ \ § *!g 9.5 SADDLE ROAD NEWSLETTERS .1'11 ��•� ISSUE 1 November 1994 INTRODUCTION Planning for long awaited improvements to Hawaii State Route (SR) 200, Saddle Road, is now under way. The Federal Highway Ad- ministration (FHWA), Central Federal Lands Highway Division, and the U.S. Department of the Army, in cooperation with the Hawaii Department of Transportation and the County of Hawaii, are proposing to improve Saddle Road. We would like to take this opportunity to inform the public about the status of current developments and future plans for the pro- posed improvements. We are always available to listen to comments, ideas, and concerns and to work with the Big Island community to make the Saddle Road a safe and enjoyable highway facility and to ensure its compatibil- ity with the surrounding environment. The proposed improvement will consist of a two-lane highway with enough capacity to safely handle both current and projected traffic volumes up to and beyond the year 2014. Prior to any construction, however, the project must be cleared environmentally. The fust phase will include preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS) cover- ing the proposed action. Although the original project scope was to address the roadway improvements on the Pohakuloa Training Area (PTA), Federal requirements for logical termini as defining limits for an EIS dictated the expansion of the study to include virtually all of the Saddle Road. The portion of Saddle Road covered by the EIS begins at the west edge of Hilo at approximately milepost 5 (the intersection with the proposed Puainako Street extension) and extends some 49 mil— west- ward to a junction with Hawaii SR 190, the Mamalahoa Highway. The Military Traffic Management Command (MTMC) has authorized Defense Access Road (DAR) funds to prepare an EIS for the entire Saddle Road. In addition, because of the im- pact of the military operations at PTA on Saddle Road, the MTMC has agreed to design and construct, through the FHWA, the portion of the Saddle Road improvements within the approximate limits of the PTA as its contribu- tion to improving this State highway. The Hawaii Department of Transportation has agreed to improve the remaining portion of the road. Funding for the entire EIS and the final engineering design work for the section within the approximate limits of the PTA has been provided by the MTMC through its DAR program. The DAR program is jointly admin- istered by the MTMC for the Department of Defense and the FHWA for the Department of Transportation. HISTORY Saddle Road was initially constructed in 1942 by the U.S. Department of the Army to pro- vide access to the Pohakuloa Army Base on the Island of Hawaii. In 1945 the road was re- leased by cite U.S. and turned over to the Territory of Hawaii. The Territory maintained the road until 1957 when the lack of Territorial funds necessitated transfer of road maintenance to the County of Hawaii. In 1965 the State of 9-258 Hawaii authorized the establishment of a State highway system. Saddle Road was included in the State highway system, and an exchange of road jurisdiction with the County of Hawaii was agreed upon in 1968. This agreement, however, was never implemented due to the lack of State funds; thus, the County has continued to maintain Saddle Road. Saddle Road is the only paved arterial serving the U.S. Department of the Army's PTA and the astronomy complexes located atop_ Mauna Kea. Over the years, Saddle Road has also become an important cross -island link between Hilo (center of Island government) on the east side of the Island, Waimea to the north, and Kailua-Kona and developing resort areas on the west side of the Island. Until recent recon- struction efforts by the County, the route has received only minimal upgrading since it was first built. Between 1988 and 1992, the County widened and repaved 14 miles of the existing alignment from Hilo westerly. How- ever, geometric deficiencies (i.e., substandard horizontal and vertical curvature) still exist. Today, it remains inadequate in terms of acceptable roadway design standards. CURRENT DEVELOPMENTS Federal regulations require the involvement of appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies as well as the public in the environmental clearance process. The FHWA, as lead agency, has formed a SEE (Social, Economic and Environmental) Study Team to guide the project through the developmental process. Representatives from the FHWA, the U.S. Department of the Army, the Hawaii Department of Transportation, and the County of Hawaii serve on the SEE Team. The FHWA has primary responsibility for developing the Saddle Road project and will be performing the necessary engineering and environmental studies to accomplish this. To assist in this effort, the FHWA is utilizing 2 RUST Environment & Infrastructure (RUST), a consulting firm that it presently has under contract. The firm of Okahara & Associates (O&A) of Hilo and Kailua-Kona is a subcon- sultant to RUST and serves as the local representative for the project development team. U.S. Senator Daniel K. Inouye of Hawaii has been a driving force behind the efforts to improve the entire Saddle Road for the benefit of Big Island residents. In May 1993 the Senator formed the Saddle Road Community Task Force (SRTF) to "assist and advise" those agencies responsible for the development of the improvement project. Mr. Melvin Hewett of Kamuela and Mr. Reggie Okamura of Hilo co-chair the SRTF. Other SRTF members include: Mr. Bob Bethea, Hilo; Ms. Shirley Freeman, Kailua-Kona; Ms. Marni Herkes, Kadua-Kona; Mr. Robert Kim, Kailua-Kona; Mr. Walter Kunitake, Holualoa; Mr. George Martin, Hilo; Mr. Dwayne Mukai, Hilo; Ms. Liliuokalani Ross, Kamuela; and Mr. Charles Young, Captain Cook. The SRTF forms the nucleus for community input and consensus for the proposed improvements to Saddle Road. It acts in an advisory capacity to the project development team regarding such issues as alternate corridors and route alignment, environmental protection, Native Hawaiian concerns, and accommodations for the military. In accordance with Federal regulations, on March 21, 1994, the FHWA issued a letter of intent advising that efforts would commence for the preparation of an EIS covering the proposed improvements to Saddle Road and solicited comments from interested agencies, organizations, and citizens. On May 10, 1994, an interagency scoping meeting was held in Hilo to gather information from those agencies concerned with the 9-259 proposed improvement of Saddle Road and to help define issues, concerns, and opportunities that should be examined. Also in May, three public scoping meetings were held to explain the proposed project to the public and to obtain public participation in identifying issues, concerns, and alternatives that need to be addressed in the EIS pre- paration process. These meetings were held in Hilo, Kailua-Kona, and Waimea on May 10, 11, and 12, 1994, respectively. A comment sheet inviting written responses to questions on key issues was distributed to the attendees. Responses were solicited regarding (1) frequency of use of Saddle Road; (2) destination; (3) alignment changes; (4) primary improvement needs; (5) major benefits/objections; and (6) potential environ- mental, social, or economic impacts. Sub- stantial input from the public was generated. During the meetings, many spoke about issues and concerns and expressed their thoughts and ideas regarding the proposed improvements. Written responses were received as well. Public comments varied from spending the money on the coastal Hamakua route rather than improving Saddle Road, to abandoning the road in favor of constructing a monorail. Most of those speaking stressed safety and the need to upgrade the twisting, narrow road by straightening, widening, and repaving. Others expressed concern for potential impacts on endangered bird and plant habitats. Most were in favor of improving Saddle Road as soon as possible. Two project information centers, one in Hilo and one in Kona, were opened to the public two days a week from June 28 to July 14, 1994. These centers provided further op- portunities to exchange ideas and information with the public. All comments received have been reviewed and taken into consideration as part of the scoping process. 3 The primary initiative prompting the preparation of an EIS for the entire Saddle Road was the military's proposed relocation of Saddle Road to the northern boundary of the PTA to avoid the ever increasing conflict and potential danger between the traveling public and military maneuvers. Previous studies had established five different alternative alignments to accomplish this. Upon broadening the study to encompass the entire Saddle Road, additional alignment variations on the east and west ends were introduced during the scoping process. (See the accompanying illustration.) On the east end of the route, three alternatives were proposed in the vicinity of Kaumana City on the west edge of Hilo. One followed closely along the north edge of the present road. Two other alternatives, one on either side of the present road corridor, were proposed to circumvent housing developments and move the alignment of Saddle Road out of a congested area. On the west end, a total of six alternatives were proposed. One generally followed the present road from the Kilohana Girl Scout Camp to its present junction with Hawaii SR 190 about 6 miles south of Waimea. Another extended northwesterly from a point on the present road approximately 2 miles southeast of the Kilohana Girl Scout Camp to a connection with Hawaii SR 190 at the Waikola Junction. Two other proposed alignments swung a little further south from the same point along the Ke'amuka lava flow, one on either side of the South Kohala-North Kona district boundary. A fifth alignment extended westerly from approximately the same point as noted on Saddle Road to a connection with Hawaii SR 190 near Puuanahulu. The sixth alternative swung south from the fifth alternative to intersect Hawaii SR 190 approximately 6 miles north of Palani Junction. 9-260 To perform detailed engineering and environmental studies on all the proposed alternatives would be very time consuming and costly. Thus, in the scoping process one of the primary goals is to narrow the possibilities to those reasonable alternatives that best meet the intended purpose and need. The selected alternatives are then evaluated in detail for engineering feasibility and for social, economic, and environmental effects. After considering all issues, concerns, and alternatives, the SRTF recommended elimin- ating some of the proposed alignments. The northern alignment (E-1) on the Hilo end was eliminated because it extends through a potential wetlands area and impacts an ongoing flower/foliage farm and a proposed golf course. Proposed alignments PTA -2 and PTA -4 were eliminated. PTA -2 was eliminated because of its impact on the military maneuver area and Hawaiian Home Lands and its similarity to PTA -3. PTA -4 creates substantial impact on the military operations. On the western end, proposed alignments W-5 and W-6 were eliminated. Both alignments created major concerns with respect to potential impacts on hunting and archeological areas, open space, critical plant and animal habitats, and increased fire danger. The SEE Team, after further deliberations, essentially agreed with the SRTF's recom- mendations, reinstating only one alternative (E-1) on the Hilo end. Although the proposed alignment has the potential for critical impacts, it is still a viable alternative and should be given further consideration. The SEE Team thus concluded the alternatives to be evaluated would be E-1, E-2, and E-3 on the Hilo end; alternatives PTA -1, PTA -3 and PTA -5 through the PTA area, staying as far south of the mountain as pqssible behind the cantonment area and Bradshaw airfield; and alternatives W-1 through W-4 on the west end. 4 FUTURE PL-LVS The next step is to map the alternatives to be studied. The proposed alignments will be engineered so that corridor width can be minimized and roadway grades, (i.e., steepness) can be realistically determined. After the proposed corridors have been mapped, the environmental studies can commence. Included will be such studies as archeological, historic, and cultural preservation; biological and botanical impacts; noise and air quality impacts; social and economic impacts; and such other studies necessary to cover all potential impacts of the proposed road improvement. The aggregate mileage involved in the selected alternatives amounts to some 102 miles, all of which will require detailed study. Our current projections indicate the mapping and engineering studies will require approximately 8 months to complete. After the mapping is completed, much of the environmental evaluation work can be performed concurrently with the engineering studies. We estimate the environmental work will take approximately 14 months to complete. The numerous studies will then be evaluated and the draft EIS prepared. We anticipate the draft EIS will be ready for distribution approximately November or December 1996. We hope that this information has been helpful. Additional newsletters will be issued from time to time to keep you abreast of further developments. If you have any questions, concerns, ideas, or comments, please write or contact the Federal Highway Administration, c/o Okahara & Associates, Attn: Mr. Bill Moore, 200 Kohola Street, Hilo, HI 96720, (808) 961-5527, or you may contact any of the SRTF members. RU5�9'IYlLW�el. � � 9-261 N N � Nonola L LEGEND: �•••• •� ••' �( WAIMEA'1 �.. `\. _ uuscA7nwoa ua wms +.. w ... � T H w�u� � I �� �� —•--•— w uo ♦ r..0 • rwo ALA J _C HILO'� a� T, W -A HAMAA 3.79� 7 / PuuanonNu % r��� • ' 0- K � W. Y / Fr'"ii PTA -A SOUTH HILO 0 y K L OSA 1 N ! N N G A R E A 0 umana i _ +B. 71 \ \ �� PIAS::`.:`.":: J::, r ► _ Huololai ` YMR"PAC Ff NORTH - PTA -B T.,�� KONA _ - - �E-B 1 KAILUA "` � int i I i 1 „AWA„ DEFENSE ACCESS R°"° SADDLE ROAD PROJECT �' "ate"a...SCALE A -AD -6(1) .� 10 N w 92808 OO'aawacl 1S EareZ 999 VMKJ p!9 mM Mapping and engineering programs began in February 1995. These programs included the ground survey, mapping, drainage and geotech reports, alternative alignments and grade, cost estimates, agency review and a final report. Also in February 1995 a limited start was given to the required environmental studies; the full go- ahead was given eight months later. Between February 1995 and November of this year, public and agency project meetings continued, enflommental inventories and studies have been ongoing and alternative routes have been modified as a result. All of this information will be combined in the EIS and released for public review. Tentative Schedule Current plans call for the completion of the draft EIS in March of 1997 and final EIS next Deccmher. Defense IF is still pending for the final design and c�ruction efforts for the PTA section, roughljx'Ane-third of the entire route. I o dH r ate, 55 men ,, Army DAR funds have been securalifid aujhn ored for the EIS ando - t&4, 1leffnrn-Another$1.5 million shoulJ be available in the tical Icw numiha. OZL96 IIVMVH -OIIH EOIa 3nN3Ay VnH3730NV)IOOZ O6V08 1N3AdOI3A3O DIAON003 ONVISI I.IVMVH 3D2,103 MSVI GVOH 3I00VS Only if one of the "build" options defined in the EIS is selected as the preferred alternate, and all remaining DAR funds are authorized and appropriated in fiscal year 1998 could reconstruction of this 13+ mile section (roughly from milepost 42 to the Mauna Kea Access Road) begin as early as mid -'98. Construction funds are being sought for the balance of the project. Upcoming Issues and Information We hope this information has been informative. We plan to distribute three additional newsletters to keep you up to date on Saddle Road. Our December issue will focus on the alternative routes under consideration and will provide a detailed map. February's issue is planned around the environmental issues the project faces, and April will discuss environmental mitigation measures. Should you wish to schedule an informational presentation to vour group or organization, plea ria Big Island Project Cuordmator BIII Moore do On ,1 d Associates, 200 Kohola St., Hilo, HI 96720, (808) 961- 5527. I NOVEMBER 1996 History of the Cross -Island Link What began in t942 as an access road to the Pohakuloa Army Base on the Island of Hawaii has since become an important cross -island link between East and West Hawaii. Saddle Road, built by the Federal Government, was turned over to the Territory of Hawaii in 19 5. When territorial funds ran low, road maintenance duties were transferred to the County of Hawaii in 1957. The State of Hawaii adopted a State highway system in 1965, and Saddle Road was included in this State highway system. An agreement was reached in 1968 between the County and State to exchange the road jurisdiction. But, the State lacked necessary funding so the County cl 'rd m maintain the road. Until recent reconstruction efforts by the County, Saddle Road received only minimal upgrading since it was first built. Fourteen miles have been widened and repaved just above Hilo, yet substandard conditions, steep grades, poor sight distances, and one -lane bridges still exist between Hilo and the Mamalahoa Highway. Today, Saddle Road remains inadequate in terms of acceptable roadway design standards. Description The Saddle Road, along with a portion of Kaumana Road, provides the only road access (some 53 miles) to Pohakuloa Training Area, Mauna Kea Science Reserve International Astronomical Observatory Complex, residential areas of Waikii Ranch, Mauna Kea State Recreation Area, Parker Ranch, Kilohana Girl Scout Camp, Kaumana City and Kaumena Caves I��^ t Irani Kua Mar,"a :h� \ w�rdaf Mrrounwm ndgn e Fm"e �rapx.er7, or,r smelt, xoa., Teat Force ne,nlnrcr. The nemrmov Farre rhe —do/rxei b, o"d Nnake age The ph,,, J.,r.es du�gnM br sig ]tie<ofPel&u Graphic County Park Access to public lands and forest areas for hunting, gathering, ranching and recreation are also provided by Saddle Road. This rwo-lane Saddle Road connects Hilo from about milepost 7.8 to the Mamalahoa Hiehwav aooroximately 6 miles south of Waimea. Saddle Road is the shortest route between the east and west side of the island, and as a result is widely used by island residents and a limited number of sight -seers, despite its poor condition. Saddle Road has become an important cross -island link between the county seat of Hilo, the northern town of Waimea, the district of Kona, and the resort areas of the Kohala Coast. Proposed Improvement For more than two decades various government agencies have o-. _ussed the feasibility of upgrading the Saddle Road corridor as a vital link between East and West Hawaii. In 1992, Senator Daniei K. Inouye initiated formal discussions through the Department of the Armv and the Federal Highwav Administration (FHWA). The Federal Highway ,Administration (FHWA) and the U.S. Department of the Army, in cooperation with the Hawaii Department of Transportation and the County of Hawaii, are now propo ing to improve Saddle Road. FH'Ar A is the lead federal agency. Proposed improvements would upgrade Saddle Road to a two-lane highwav with shoulders to provide adequate capacity to handle projected traffic volume for 20 years into the future. and bring the niadw.ry of, ol appropriate deign standards. Even without proposed ini pro,emems, future traffic volumes are expected to increase m levels beyond the existing road's ability to handle. As all present rondwav users know, ninuary training operations occur along Saddle Road no the Pohakuloa Training Area (PTA), creating potential conflicts and safety hazards for motorists on Saddle Road. To separate Saddle Road traffic from ongoing miLtary operations to improve safety and reduce conflicts, the Military Traffic Management Command (MTMC) has approved the use of Defense Access Road funds (DAR) to design and construct Saddle Road improvements within the boundaries of PTA. This substantial contribution is the "Defense' fair share for State highway improvements. Funding for the rest of Saddle Road improvements will have to be provided by other sources. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the entire Saddle Road (from milepost 6 on Kaumana Drive to the Mamalahoa Highway) is being prepared with DAR funds authorized by the MTMC. Also, MTMC is authorizing Army DAR funds for final design work within the PTA boundaries as those funds become available. Need For The Project Although paved for its entire length, Saddle Road is a narrow, winding, barely two-lane road with steep grades, sharp curves, poor pavement and substandard drainage. Even with the limited County reconstruction efforts, geometric deficiencies still exist. Today, the alignment, grade, sight distances, drainage and other features remain substandard for arterial highways. Of utmost concern are what is termed as horizontal and vertical alignment deficiencies, conflicts with military training exercises, poor pavement conditions, narrow road width, roadside hazards, inadequate signing and pavement markings, and the lack of shoulders. Saddle Road a used as two-wav access, vet traffic lanes with poor pavement, and inadequate shoulders encourage motorists to drive in the center of the road. This, of course, cranes a very hazardous snug tion that increases the potential for head-on collision.- [it one stretch of Saddle Road alone, b,hy q PTA and �cnm.dahou Highway, there are six one -lane bit Not surprisingly, Saddle Road has a higher accident rate when compared with the overall average accident rate on other rural, nvo-lane hignways on the Big Island. A recent seven-vear traffic smdv put the accident rate for Saddle Road at 4.7 accidents per million vehicle miles versus the average of 3.0 traffic accidents. The types of traffic accidents reported included 4 fatal accidents, 258 injury accidents and 260 property -damage -only accidents. The primary purpose for the proposed improvement is to reduce the conflicts between military operations and other Saddle Road traffic, and provide a safe highway through improved design for future traffic volumes. Safety First Conflicts do arise between military vehicles traveling Saddle Road at 25 m.p.h., soldiers and tanks crossing this road at strategic locations, and civilian cars driving this very same roadtwy with dric-o speeds often exceeding safe limn¢. Mr )s may e. )ter soldiers or military equipment anss„rg Saddle Rs .o,at anv time, not to mention the frustration of driving behind a slow moving convoy which can cause motorists to attempt unsafe passing maneuvers. Even with strict military regulations for vehicular traffic and ordnance movement, authorities have continuing concerns for the potentially dangerous combinations of civilian and military traffic. The civilian purpose of the EIS in preparation is to identify and evaluate alternatives for improvements to Saddle Road to provide a safe and efficient link between East and West Hawaii. Alternatives were developed by a professional interagency team and through numerous public meetings, and are being evaluated according to: 1 environmental impacts 2 minimize conflicts between motorists and military training operations 3 eliminate substandard roadway design elements and geometric deficiencies Improve' operation function and travel time impmvet ccapadty 6 accommodate present and future traffic levels 7 cost of construction Project Update In Mup ! 993, U_S, Senator Damn) K; Inouye fbnn.J do SaJJh' Road Con. mount, Task Force with secretariat -.ppov Irmo the Hawaii Island Economic Development Board as a dn.nmel for community input and consensus -building. Alternaose corridors and route alignment, environmental protecnou. Native Hawminn concerns. and ac ommodauons (or the military wen ,time of the issues discussed at various task force meetings. Members of the Saddle Road Communin Task Force include co-chairs Mel Hewett and Reggie Okamura, Bob Bethea, Shirlev Freeman, Mardi Herkes, Robert Kim, Walter Kumake.. George Martin, Dwayne Mukai, Liliuokalani Ross and Charles Young. Secretariat Hawaii Island Economic Detelopment Board Paula Helfrich, Executive Director 200 Kanoelehua As, Box 103-281 Hilo, HI 96720 (808) 966-5416 • Fax (808) 966-6792 FH WA organized a Social, Economic and Environmental Stud, Team (SEE Team) to guide the Saddle Road prosect through the development process. Members of the SEE Team include representatives from a FHWA, U.S. Department :� a of the Army, Hawaii Department of Transportation, County of Hawaii and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. It is this professional team's job to guide the project development through the EIS process. Both of the above mentioned "teanes •• were instrumental to developing the alternatives. Palila Tin — r wFvd.,I^,^vinm^ny A, nr(ort nrin Lylrrr Jos 1 d Mnmm Fm Thr pnLlnfn lrrA. orh[ dole 1I rFe rnnmur„ Project scoping, surveying, mapping, engineering studies and envndnmental work have been undertaken. In October 1994. possible route improvements evolved into those alternatives selected for stud, under the forthcoming Ell 10 N SZE09 00'AIMOO is Buez SSS VMHA NB wM No Action Alternative The No Action Alternative is Aso under consideration. This alternative would maintain Saddle Road as it is todav and would include the completion of short-term. or minor, maintenance and restoration. It would not upgrade Saddle Road to minimum design standards nor would it enhance safety, improve level of service or operational function, accommodate future traffic levels, or reduce or eliminate conflicts between the traveling public and PTA military training maneuvers. Traffic volumes would continue to grow with this No Action Alternative, but at a slower rate than with the laction alternatives. J—UpcOn Ing Issues and Information We hope this information has been informative. Current plans call for [he completion of the draft EIS in April of 1997 and final EIS nen December. Our next OZL96 I IVMVH '01IH EO1p 3nN3AVVnH373ONVN OOZ 06VO91N3Nd=A3t] OINONO73 ONV7SI I.IVMVH 30003 NSVT OV08 33OOVS newsletter issue will also be sent to you in March an.. will keep you informed of the environmental issues the project faces. Should you wish to schedule an informational presentation to vour group or organization, please contact Big Island Project Coordinator Bill Moore do Okaham & Associates, 200 Kohola St., Hilo, HI 96720, (808)961-5527. JANUARY 1997 Alternatives For the past two years, alternatives for the improvement of Saddle Road have been developed and refined with the input and involvement of the SEE Team (organized by Federal Highway Administration), Saddle Road Task Force, key governmental agencies, local residents, neighboring landowners, and citizens at large. This input and evaluation process allowed for early consideration of public needs, engineering criteria, and environmental issues of concern, and resulted in numerous changes to and refinements of the original alternatives. As a result of this process. 12 possible alternative routes remain under study, 10 alternative segments were lered and eliminated, and a "no action" alternative another possible outcome of this process. This issue briefly describes these alternatives for the proposed project designed to improve Saddle Road to a two-lane highwav with enough capacity to safely handle projected traffic volumes up to the year 2014. Uphill passing lanes, truck escape ramps, scenic pullouts, and military crossings are being examined as pan of preliminary roadway design to enhance safetv along Saddle Road. All proposed improvements to Saddle Road fall between Mamalahoa Highway on the west side and mile post 6 near Hilo on the eastern end. These were logical termination points as Saddle Road connects to another established transportation route at &Mamalgluia Highwav, and milest6 near Hiloisthe futurent of connection off" existing road to the Proposed Puamako Street Extension. Kan, K—Mau....: rjorwiii y"", unmet ndga tw—fintmg wj ovphmu for oar Saddle Rued T Force neanlertv. Themewma fromA rhan' is, Peleand Hiiake nga A,'ama'u f layou.w dmgnedb Sig Ione of Paldu Gaphi Typical Roadway Designs Three typical roadway design cross-sections were developed for the proposed Saddle Road. The roadwav will be designed throughout the entire project length wit! two 12 -foot travel lanes, and includes 8 -foot paved shoulders. For added fire safety, project segments under consideration through Pohakuloa Training Area (PTA -I and PTA -3) feature additional 8 -foot paved shoulders that may be used as a bikeway. The additional 8 -foot paved shoulder is located predominately on the mauka side of the highway, and includes a four -strand smooth wire fence with metal par between the shoulder and the bikeway along with an extruded asphalt curb on the bikeway's outside edge. In the vicinity of Mauna Kea State Park, additional 8 -foo paved shoulders on both the north and south sides of the highway are envisioned to provide fire protection for the Mamane forest and to serve as bikeways. These will also be set apart with wire fencing and edged with asphalt curbing. Under Consideration For ease of discussion in the Environmental Impact Statement the Saddle Road project area has been divided into these four sections: Section I—Begins at the function of Mamalahoa Highwa (H 190) and extends east to Saddle Road mile post 42. N (n Section lI—Mile post 42 to 28. Section III—Mile post 28 to 10. Section N—Mile post t0 to the eastern project terminus, mile post 6. The formulation of alternatives for Saddle Road in Sections I, II and N considered use of the existing road alignment as well as potential new alignments. Within Section III, improvement along the existing alignment was considered the only practicable alternative after much discussion and investigation of other potential routes. Within each of these four sections are alternative road alignments called segments. This project initially considered 20 segments. Of these, 10 were feasible, warranting more derailed analysis: the other 10 were eliminated from further consideration. Subsequently, the l0 feasible segments were evaluated in full detail by the project team of specialists, including biologists, botanists, archeologists, sociologists, economists, land use specialists, water quality specialists, visual resource specialists, and engineers. Technical reports were prepared by each specialist, and based upon analysis of these reports the SEE Team climinated another two segments from consideration (EX -1 and EXA). As you refer to the enclosed map of segments under consideration, the "EX" represents the existing Saddle Road i alignment, "W" refers to the west end of the project, "PTA" refers to Pohakuloa Training Area, and "E" refers to the east r end. Segments within the PTA section (Section II) would be the first projects to be constructed begi nting in 1998 through the year 2000 because the project is authorized under a Defense Access Road Program funding for design within these limits now. Projects outside of the PTA would be phased over a s number of years as funding becomes available. Implementing the proposed project within any one section or any combination of sections of Saddle Road will improve overall travel conditions. \ Since the segments identified within each section begin and end at a common point on Saddle Road, selection of a particular segment within any one section will not influence the selection within any of the other sections. As r-Ifrted in 17.x issue, the MTMC (Military Management Traffic Command) has agreed to fund the design and construction of that portion of Saddle Road improvements within the approximate limits of PTA State of Hawaii Department of Transportation will improve the remaining portion of the road over time, as funds became available. Section 1 Two segments are under consideration within this section— Segment W-2 New construction will be required for most of this segment, except for the east end where W-2 follows the existing Saddle Road for about 1,000 meters requiring the existing road to be reconstructed with major grade and alignment improvements. W-2 extends from Mamalahoa Highway at the Waikoloa function to mile post 42. W-2 connects Saddle Road directly to Waikoloa Road and will reduce the travel distance between Hilo and Kona. Total estimated construction cost for W-2 is just over $37.2 million. S4 t W-3 Segmeut W-3 offefsafmther new construction alternate through Section 1, intersecting the Mamalahoa Highway about two miles south of Waikoloa junction. W-3 offers a shorter travel distance between Hilo and Kona than either the existing road or Segment W-2. Estimated construction cost is $39.1 million. Section II In Section II, three segments are under consideration— Segment EX -2 This segment follows the existing Saddle Road alignment through Section II and includes the rebuild of Saddle Road with major grade and alignment improvements to bring it up to standards. Estimated construction cost is $38 million. Segment PTA -I Newly the entire length of PTA -I that runs from mile post 42 to mile post 28 will constitute new construction at an estimated cost of $42.7 million. This Segment PTA -I will reloc^• itis section -f Saddle Road to the northern boundary A uloa Trai -Area thus completely avoiding conflicts ber%,eerf the traveih.?�ublic and military maneuvers. Segment PTA -3 PTA -3 is an alternate alignment modification to PTA -I that was formulated to avoid placing new roadway on Hawaiian Homelands. As with PTA -1, PTA -3 will constitute new construction for nearly its entire length at an estimated cost of $45.7 million. Section 111 just one segment is under consideration through this s arm— Segment EX -3 No feasible or practicable alternatives to the existing road corridor were identified within Section III. So from mile post 29 to mile post 10, this segment urns along the existing alignment Previous lava dows are located on both sides of the Saddle Road through this section. EX -3 requires the rebuild of Saddle Road with major grade and alignment improvements to bring it up to standards. Estimated construction cost is $60.3 million. Section IV Two segments remain under consideration here— Segment EX -4A EX -4A, an alternate alignment to the eliminated EX -4, follows the existing road on the west and east ends of Section N. In the middle, it splits from the existing road and follows an existing transmission line corridor. This alignment was identified in an effort to relocate a portion of Section N away from existing development. Construction estimates are $9.9 million. Segment E-3 This segment, from mile post 10 to mile post 6, was included in an attempt to bypass existing development, prevent congestion and avoid residential locations. Estimated construction cost is $ 17 million. Possible Routes These eight segments identified above have been combined into 12 possible routes, or alternatives. Implementation of any of the 12 action alternatives would result in a wider, less undulating roadway designed for 50 mph with shoulders for increased safety for stopped vehicles, Track escape ramps, scenic pullouts, uphill passing lanes and proper signage. The new roadway would provide for greatly improved response times for emergency vehicles, reduced accident rates, increased traffic capacity, and reduced travel time and fuel consumption for cross -island travel. INDEX INDEX 'Ainahou ......... I .. I ...... S-8, S-14, 1-2, 3-44, 3-45, 3-144, 3-149-3-151, 3-169, 3-172 AASHTO...................................... ABBR-1, 1-8, 2-6, 2-7, 3-78, BIB -1 ACC/MVM.......................................... ABBR-1, S-3, 1-6,3-77-3-79 ADT ...... ABBR-I-S-3, S-26, 1-4, 1-6,2-2,2-13,3-37,3-38,3-75-3-78,3-91,3-220,3-221 ALISH.................................................... ABBR- 1, 3-26, 3-28 Bradshaw Army Airfield ..... 5-23, 1-4, 3-1, 3-2, 3-54, 3-127, 3-200, 3-205, 3-209, 3-211, 6-1 CAA............................................................... ABBR-1 CDP ...................................................... ABBR-1,3-16,3-17 census ......... 3-28, 3-30, 3-31, 3-35-3-37, 3-45, 3-46, 3-56, 3-68-3-70, 3-72, BIB-], BIB -2 CFR .................... ABBR-1, 3-87, 3-88, 3-93-3-95, 3-164, 3-183, 3-192-3-198, 6-1 County ofHawai'i .... 1, 2, S-25, 1-3, 3-8, 3-12, 3-17, 3-21-3-23, 3-30, 3-31, 3-68-3-70, 3-84, 3-110,3-163-3-166,3-204, 3-220, 8-5, 8-7 CZM...................................... ABBR-1, S-11, S-19, 3-22, 3-167-3-169 DHHL ....... ABBR-1, 2-16, 3-1, 3-5, 3-7, 3-24, 3-25, 3-58, 3-59, 3-65, 3-130, 3-138, 3-140 DLNR ..... ABBR-1, 5-26, 5-27, 1-11, 3-4, 3-22, 3-43, 3-45, 3-46, 3-48, 3-111, 3-145, 3-150, 3-151, 3-180, 3-197, 3-198, BIB -I DOA .... ABBR-1, S-1, S-26, 5-27, 1-1, 1-3, 3-2, 3-24, 3-54, 3-82, 3-84, 3-200, 3-202, 3-203, 3-205-3-207 DOFAW.................................................. ABBR-1, 3-45, 3-181 DOH .................................. ABBR-1, 1-11, 3-35, 3-88-3-91, 3-110, BIB-] environmental justice ................................................. 3-56, 3-57 EO-PTA............................................................ ABBR-1 EPA ABBR-1, 3-87-3-91, 3-107, 3-109, 3-143, 3-176, 3-203, 3-204, BIB -1 Farmland Conversion Impact Rating .................................... x, 3-26-3-28 Federal Farmland Protection Policy Act ........................................ 3-27 FEMA .................................... ABBR-1, 3-163, 3-165, 3-166, 8-3, BIB -1 fire hazard ....... 3, 5-20, 2-2, 2-15, 3-48, 3-52, 3-86, 3-103, 3-104, 3-143, 3-151, 3-174, 5-1 Forest Reserve ..... 1-2, 3-4, 3-7, 3-14, 3-20, 3-21, 3-44-3-46, 3-48, 3-50, 3-98, 3-100, 3-179, 3-184,3-191 General Plan ........................ 3-12-3-15, 3-17, 3-21, 3-22, 3-30, 3-31, 3-84, 3-85 GTEHawaiian Tel ........................................................ 3-23 Hale Pohaku Visitor Center ................................................. 3-43 HAR...................................................... ABBR-1, 3-17,3-19 Hawai'iCounty Code ..................................................... 3-19 Hawaii County Fire Department ........................................ 3-51, 3-53 Hawaii County Zoning Code .......................................... 3-19,3-21 Hawaii Police Department ............................................ 3-51, 3-53 Hawaii State Data Book ................................................... 3-29 Hawaii State Functional Plans ............................................... - 11 HDLIR........................................................ ABBR-2,3-32 1-1 HDOT .... ABBR-2, S-1, S-7, 5-24, 5-25, S-27, S-28, 1-1, 1-2, 1-6, 1-I1, 2-4, 3-6, 3-23, 3-24, 3-32, 3-37, 3-50-3-52, 3-77, 3-84, 3-94, 3-143, 3-144, 3-163 3-176, 3-177, 3-219, BIB-] HELCO ......................... ABBR-2, 3-8, 3-23, 3-89-3-91, 3-138, 6-1, 840, BIB-1 HHL ABBR-2, 2-16, 3-39, 3-57, 3-65 Highway 190 to Queen Ka' ahumanu Project .................................... 3-24 Hilo Watershed.......................................... ..... 3-44, 3-45, 3-50 HRS...................................... ABBR-2, 1-1, 3-10, 3-17, 3-167, 3-202 hunting units .. ......................... S-7, 5-23, 3-3, 3-7, 3-44, 3-45, 3-47, 3-50, 6-1 Kilohana Girl Scout Camp ............... ....... S-1, S-8, 1-2, 3-4, 3-132, 3-204, 3-207 Land Transportation Masterplan for the County of Hawai' i ......................... 3-30 Long Range Master plan............................................. ..... '-=� LOS ......... ABBR-2, S-2, S-3, 1-5, 1-6, 1-8, 2-2, 2-8, 2-13, 3-56, 3-76, 3-79, 3-87, 3-220 LUPAG............................................... ABBR-2, 3-13-3-15, 3-22 Mauna Kea Access Road ............ .. 3-4, 3-84, 3-85, 3-106, 3-129, 3-163, 3-164, 3-212 Mauna Kea Science Reserve S-23, 1-2,3-4,3-222,6-1 Mauna Kea State Park .. S-8, S-12, 1-7, 3-43, 3-47, 3-48, 3-51, 3-53, 3-96, 3-97, 3-138, 3-139, 3-149, 3-153, 3-156, 3-160, 3-161, 3-164, 3-170, 3-185, 3-200, 3-204, 3-207, 3-209,3-211 NAAQSABBR-2, 3-87-3-89 ............. NAC ........ ABBR-2, 2-17, 3-94, 3-96-3-98, 3-100 NEPA ................................. ABBR-2, 1-1, 3-24, 3-90, 7-1-7-4, 8-3, BIB-1 Northeast Hawaii Community Development Plan................................ 3-17 ABBR-2, 3-26, 3-27 OHA.......................................... ABBR-2, 3-135, 3-181, 3-199, B-2 Palila Critical Habitat ..... S-20, 5-22, S-27, 2-16, 3-3, 3-66, 3-103-3-105, 3-144, 3-148-3-150, 3-169, 3-170,3-173,3-176, 3-178-3-18v Parker Ranch .. 2-15, 3-1, 3-6, 3-7, 3-24, 3-25, 3-39, 3-137, 3-138, 3-180, 3-183-3-185, 3-187- 3-189,3-200,3-207, BIB-1 Prime Agricultural Lands........................................... S-8, 3-26, 3-27 PTA .. 3, ABBR-1, ABBR-2, S-1, S-2, S-5-S-8, S-10, 5-12, 5-14, 5-16-5-22, 5-24, 5-26-5-28, 1-1, 1-2, 1-4, 1-5, 1-7, 1-8, 1-10, 2-2-2-14, 2-16, 3-1-3-3, 3-5-3-8, 3-15, 3-17, 3-18, 3-20, 3-24-3-27, 3-33, 3-42-3-55, 3-65, 3-66, 3-70, 3-80, 3-81, 3-83-3-86, 3-93, 3-96, 3-97, 3-100, 3-101, 3-104, 3-105, 3-108, 3-116, 3-118, 3-120, 3-124, 3-127-3-129,3-131-3-133,3-138-3-141,3-144,3-145, 3-149, 3-150, 3-153- 3-158,3-160,3-161,3-163-3-165,3-170,3-171,3-173, 3-174,3-176-3-180, 3-185, 3-186, 3-188, 3-189, 3-192, 3-194, 3-195, 3-197, 3-198, 3-200, 3-201, 3-203-3-207,3-209-3-212,3-215-3-218,3-220, 6-1, 8-2, BIB-1, BIB-2 PTA. ... S-2, S-8, S-16, 5-17, S-24, S-27, S-28, 1-1, 1-2, 1-4, 3-1, 3-7, 3-17, 3-18, 3-43, 3-45, 3-49, 3-51, 3-54, 3-81, 3-83, 3-96, 3-131, 3-139, 3-144, 3-170, 3-171, 3-174, 3-185, 3-186, 3-200, 3-203-3-205, 3-209, BIB-1, BIB-2 Puainako ................. 5-23, 1-2, 1-3, 2-1, 3-13, 3-23, 3-24, 3-51, 3-54, 3-55, 3-86, 6-1 residential relocations................................... 2-17, 3-8, 3-42, 3-80, 3-114 I-2 SLU............................................. ABBR-3, 1-11, 3-14, 3-17-3-19 State Land Use Law ...................................................... 3-21 State of Hawai' i Input/Output Model .......................................... 3-76 State Plan ..................................................... 3-10,3-11,3-21 threatened and endangered species ... 5-22, 3-3, 3-4, 3-115, 3-143, 3-151, 3-162, 3-169, 3-196, 6-2 Transportatior Function Plan ........................................... 3-11, 3-21 Unique Agricultural Lands .............................................. S-8, 3-26 University ofHawai'i .. S-8, 1-2, 1-7, 3-4, 3-8, 3-34, 3-40, 3-41, 3-67, 3-222, 7-1, 7-3-7-6, 8-2, 8-4, 8-8, 8-9 URARPAPA................................................ ABBR-3, 3-82, 3-83 USACE ..................... .. ABBR-3, 5-27, 5-28, 1-11, 3-110, 3-115, 3-182, BIB -2 USARG-HI........................................... ABBR-3, 3-1, 3-105, 3-204 USARPAC................................................... ABBR-3, 5-1-3-2 Waiki'i Ranch .. S-1, S-7, S-29, 1-2, 1-4, 1-7, 2-15, 3-1, 3-3, 3-6, 3-24, 3-30, 3-40, 3-54, 3-56, 3-96, 3-106, 3-130, 3-137, 3-163, 3-164, 3-204, 3-207 Water Resource Development and Across Island Transmission Line ............. 3-22, 3-23 I-3 BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY AASHTO. Roadside Design Guide. 1996. Code of Federal Regulations. Title 40. Part 50. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40. Part 50. C.W. Associates, Inc. Preliminary GeoteehnicaUMaterials Report, Proposed Saddle Road Project. 24 July 1996. DLNR. Water Resource and Development and Across Island Transmission, Island of Hawai i. Final EIS. Division of Water and Land Development, Honolulu. 1995. DOH. Hawaii Air Quality Data: 1991-1993. 1997, EPA-OAQPS. Guideline for Modeling Carbon Monoxide from Roadway Intersections. 1992. EPA -600/4-77-027a. Quality Assurance Handbook, for Air. May 1977. Falk, D.A., and K. E. Hollister. "Sampling Guidelines for Conservation of Endangered Plants." Genetics and Conservation of Rare Plants. 1991. Federal Register, December 13, 1996. Vol. 61, No. 241, p 65 63 8, p 65710, p 65780. Federal Register; July 18, 1997. Vol. 62, No. 138, pp 38651-38700, pp 38855-38896. Pollution Measurement .Systems, Volume H - Ambient Air Specific Methods. Federal Register, November 30, 1993. Vol. 58, No. 228. p 63214. FEMA. Flood Insurance Study, Hawaii County, Hawaii, Volume I of 4. n.d. FHWA. Air Quality Analysis, for NEPA Documents - A Discussion Paper. 1993. FHWA. Draft EIS: Kealakehe Parkway. 1995. FHWA. Management Practices for Mitigation of Highway Stormwater Runoff Pollution. June 1987, FHWA. Specifications for Construction of Roads and Bridges on Federal Highway Projects. 1996. First Hawaiian Bank. Economic Profile. Sept./Oct. 1996. Gerrish, G. Botanical Assessment for the Proposed Waiakea to Parker Ranch Water Transmission System. In DLNR 1995. Giffin, J. Ecology of the Feral Sheep of Mauna Kea. Honolulu: Hawai' i Department of Land and Natural Resources [DLNR]. 1976. Giffin, J., and R. Walker. Life History of the Moufon on the Island of Hawaii. Honolulu: Hawai' i Department of Land and Natural Resources [DLNR]. 1981. Halliday. Saddle Road Hawaii Speleological Survey of the National Speleological Society. Jan. 1997. Hawai' i County, Department of Research and Development [R&D]. Hawaii County Data Book, 1993. Hilo. 1994. Hawai' i DBEDT. The Impact of 7 purism on the Hawaiian Economy: An Input -Output Analysis. 1975, and update 1989. HDOT. Noise Analysis and Abatement Policy. 1996. HELCO. Air Quality Data: 1992-1993. July 1997. Katahira, L., and H. Hoshide. Ungulate Census, Pohakuloa Training Area, Island of Hawaii. Unpub. rept. Environmental Office of the Directorate of Public Works, U.S. Army Garrison at PTA. 1996. (:1110 Lum, T.M. and T.J.Ohashi. Hawai 'i Hunter Survey, 1985-1986. Hawai' i State Dept. of Land and Natural Resources, Div. of Forestry and Wildlife and Hawaii Chapter, The Wildlife Society. Honolulu. 1989. Mueller-Dombois, D., et. al. Ohia Rain Forest Study: Ecological Investigations of the Ohia Dieback Problem in Hawaii. 1977, NOAA. Climate of the States, volume H - Western States. 1974. Okahara & Associates, Inc. Saddle Road Assessment of Farm Land Impacts. 5 Dec. 1996. Okahara & Associates, Inc. Saddle Road Assessment of Land Use Impacts. 26 Dec. 1996. Okahara & Associates, Inc. Saddle Road Assessment of Pedestrian and Bicyclist Activities. 26 Dec. 1996. Okahara & Associates, Inc. Saddle Road Assessment of Right -of -Way and Relocation Impacts. 3 Jan. 1997. Okahara & Associates, Inc. Saddle Road Hydraulics - Floodplain. Sept. 1996. Okahara & Associates, Inc. Saddle Road Permit Requirements. 5 Dec. 1996. Okahara & Associates, Inc. Saddle Road Stormwater Runoff Quality. 4 Sept. 1996. Parson, Brinkerhoff, Quade, and Douglas, Inc. User's Guide for CAL3QHC: A Modeling Methodologyfor Predicting Pollutant Concentrations Near Roadway Intersections. 1990. Rust Environment and Infrastructure. Preliminary Design Report, Saddle Road. July 1996. Rust Environment and Infrastructure. Preliminary GeotechnicabMaterials Report, Proposed Saddle Road Project, Mamalahoa Highway to Hilo, Island of Hawaii. 24 July 1996. Rust Environment and Infrastructure. Traffic Study, Saddle Road, Hawaii. May 1994. Transportation Research Board (TRB), National Research Council (NRC). HCM Special Report 209, Third Edition. Washington D.C. 1994 USACE. Wetland Delineation Manual, Technical Report. 1987. USARG-Hl, HQ, (DPTMSEC). Draft EcoSystem Management Plan for PTA. n.d. USDA. Soil Survey of the Island of Hawaii, State of Hawaii. 1973. U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1990 Census. 1990. USFWS. Endangered & Threatened Wildlife and Plants. 1992. WRCC. Wind Distribution: Hilo, Hawaii. 1997. Y. K. Hahn and Associates. Hawat'i Defense Access Road Improvement Project: Island of Hawaii Economic Impact Report. Aug. 1996. APPENDICES APPENDIX A FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING U.S. Department of Agriculture FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING PART I (To be completed by Federal Agency) [Date Of Land Evaluation Request Auciust 2. 1996 Name Of Protect _ _ Site _ Federal Agency Involved ADMINISTRATION Proposed Land Use HIGHWAY fixallf SMUNTY, HAWAII PART II (To be completed by SCS) 469.9 Date Request Received By SCS O /'6 9 /gar(—/ted Does the site contain prime, unique, statewide or local important farmland? Yes No Acres lr Average Farm Size (If no, the FPPA does not apply — do not complete additional parts of this form). N ❑ /1, g`% S 8 Major Crop s Formable Land In Govt. Jurisdiction Am unt Of Farmland As Defined m FPPA MaZr l COQ P e� Acres: 7Z� 70p % Z � Acres: S6 OO % Z L Name Of Lan Evaluation Systfm Used 6-& o , l " _LSSA1 Name Of Local Site Assessment System 1 No4e, Date Land Evalfiation Returned By SCS 00/910 PART III (To be completed b Federal Agency) P YSite _--"- Site Site _ Site — z A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly 431 .0 527.3 469.9 563.1 B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly C. Total Acres In Site 431 .0 527.3 469.9 563.1 PART IV (To be completed by SCS) Land Evaluation Information A. Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmland - Q O 1-7 Zb B. Total Acres Statewide And Local Important Farmland, '7 4 6, S 7ir, C. Percentage Of Farmland In County Or Local Govt. Unit To Be Converted Q, 0 / Z. 0,0 0,;0/46 0. b D. Percentage Of Farmland In Govt. Jurisdiction With Same Or Higher Relative Value 20, 4 PART V (To be completed by SCS) Land Evaluation Criterion Relative Value Of Farmland To Be Converted (Scaleof0tol0OPoints) o 7p ?/ -00 PARTVI (To be completed by Federal Agency) Si to Assessment Criteria (These criteria are explained in 7 CFR 658.5(6) Maximum Points 1. Area In Nonurban Use 1 15 1 5 1 5 1 S 2. Perimeter In Nonurban Use _ Q 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 3. Percent Of Site Being Farmed 20 4. Protection Provided By State And Local Government 20 5. Distance From Urban Builtup Area — — — — — 6. Distance To Urban Support Services — I — — — 7. Size Of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average 1 0 8. Creation Of Nonfarmable Farmland 9. Availability Of Farm Support Services 5 5 5 5 10. On -Farm Investments 20 In 2 n n 20 11. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services 25 12. Compatibility With Existing Agricultural Use 10 0 E 1 1 TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS 160 60 60 65 65 PART VII (To be completed by Federal Agency) Relative Value Of Farmland (From Part V) 100 78 71 80 74 Total Site Assessment (From Part Vl above or a local 160 60 6 0 65 65 site asses esstnentl TOTAL POINTS (Total of above 2 lines) 260 1 3 3 1 31 1 4 5 1 39 Was A Local Site Assessment Used? Site Selected: Date Of Selection Yes ❑ No ❑ fteason For Selection A-1 (See Instmc tions on reverse side) Form AD -1006 (1083' Z Ur J U.S. Department of Agriculture FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING PART I (To be completed by Federal Agency) Date Of Land Evaluation Request AUGUST 2F 1996 Name Of Pr A–D–c6 1 S 66 `PL'b AAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATIOr Proposed Land Use HIGHWAY County And State HAWAII COUNTY..HAWAII PART II (To be completed by SCS) Date Request Received Sy SCS O/16//,6 Does the site contain prime; unique, statewide or local important farmland? Yes (If no, the FPPA does not apply – do not complete additional parts of this form). No ❑ Acres Irrigated j9off Average Farm Size 1 3,5--e Me or Crops{ �fii Co Fee eeF Farmable Land In Govt. Jurisdiction Acres:' 7 lop % Zt� A unt Of Farmland As Defined in FPPA Acres: O00 °�° 22 Name f Land Ev Walt System Us l>< ES -2=4 Name Of Loral Si Assessment System /1lo e- pate La Evalu ion Returned o By SCS PART I II (To be completed by Federal Agency) Altertive to RatinSite site site Site R_ A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly C. Total Acres In Site q PART IV (Tobe completed by SCS) Land Evaluation Information A. Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmland O O 2/, 2-1.,7 B. Total Acres Statewide And Local Important Farmland O 12-2,1 . O C. Percentage Of Farmland In County Or Local Govt. Unit To Be Converted O e Z O 2 40,0 2.--5- O 2 D. Percentage Of Farmland In Govt. Jurisdiction With Same Or Higher Relative Value 0 PART V (To be completed by SCS) Land Evaluation Criterion . Relative Value Of Farmland To Be Converted (Scaleof 0 to 10OPoints) PART VI (To be completed by Federal Agency) Maximum Site Assessment Criteria (These criteria are explained in 7 CFR 658.5(6 Points 1, Area In Nonurban Use 1 c 1 Z. 2. Perimeter In Nonurban Use 10 10 1 0 1 0 1 0 3. Percent Of Site Being Farmed 21 1 1 4. Protection Provided By State And Local Government 5. Distance From Urban Builtup Area – – – – – 6. Distance To Urban Support Services – – – – – 7. Size Of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average 8. Creation Of Nonfarmable Farmland 25 0 4 4 9. Availability Of Farm Support Services 5 5 5 5 _ 5 10. On -Farm Investments 20 20 20 20 _ 20 11. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services 25 m 0 0 i7 12. Compatibility With Existing A ricultural Use 1 0 0 0 1 _ 1 TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS 160 60 61 66 _ 66 PART VII (To be completed by Federal Agency) Relative Value Of Farmland (From Part V) 100 Total Site Assessment (From Part VI above ora local 160 site assessment) 60 58 64 61 60 61 66 66 TOTAL POINTS (Total of above 21ines) 260 120 1 19 1 30 _ 127 Site Selected: Date Of Selection Was A Local Site Assessment Used? Yes ❑ No ❑ Reason For Selection. FW Instmctions on reverse side) Farm AD•1006 (10 "3 3 OF 3 U.S. Department of Agriculture FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING PART I (To be completed by Federal Agency) Date Of Land Evaluation Request Name Of Project A—AD-6 1 SADDLE ROAD F n Uff6elvY/"tYAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATIOP Proposed land Use "WhAtTdj3tTOUNTY, HAWAII HIGHWAY m,4WF D. Percentage Of Farmland In Govt. Jurisdiction With Same Or Higher Relative Value PART II (To be completed by SCS) Q Date Request Received By SCS 6/124 Does the site contain prime, unique, statewide or local important farmland? Yes No Acres IrriiSted Average Farm Size Of no, the FPPA does not apply — do not complete additional parts of this form). ❑ /Z J S"8 Major Crop(s) / '/. Farmable Land In Govt. Jurisdiction Am6unt Of Farmland As Defined in FPPA _ �" OPS{ Acres: 7%% % p0 °k Z $ Acres: S OOp % ZZ Name Of Land EvaIdation System Used Name Of Local life Assessment System Date Landalu Yon Returned By SCS " 56k ovZ = l�St9 - 410 If3019/6 PART 111 (To b�ompleted by Federal Agency) Altarnatrve SIR Fiabn Site Site Site Site—TC--4 A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly 443 B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly C. Total Acres In Site 443.5 536.8 479.3 572.6 PART IV (To be completed by SCS) Land Evaluation Information A. Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmland - - O 2 24 B. Total Acres Statewide And Local Important Farmland Af, JF C. Percentage Of Farmland In County Or Local Govt. Unit To Be Converted , qp m,4WF D. Percentage Of Farmland In Govt. Jurisdiction With Same Or Higher Relative Value /, ,J Q Z , b PART V (To be completed by SCS) Land Evaluation Criterion :" Relative Value Of Farmland To Be Converted (Scale o(Oto)OOPoints/ J 7 - z. / p ,3 PART V I (To be completed by Federal Agency) Site Assessment Criteria !These criteria arc explained in 7 CFR 658.5(b) Maximum Points 1. Area In Nonurban Use _ 1 5 1 5 2. Perimeter In Nonurban Use 10 1 0 10 1 0 1 0 3. Percent Of Site Being Farmed 20 00 0 0 4. Protection Provided By State And Local Government 20 0 0 0 0 5. Distance From Urban Builtup Area — — — — — 6. Distance To Urban Support Services — — — — — 7. Size Of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average 1 1 0 1 0 10 1 0 1 0 8. Creation Of Nonfarmable Farmland 25 1 0 0 4 4 9. Availability Of Farm Su ort Services 5 5 5 5 5 10. On -Farm Investments 20 20 20 20 20. 11. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services 25 12. Compatibility With Existin2 Agricultural Use 10 _ 1 1 TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS 160 60 60 65 65 PART VII (To be completed by Federal Agency) Relative Value Of Farmland (From Part V) 100 57 48 72 63 Total Site Asse@sment (From Pan VI above ora local site assessment/ 160 60 60 65 65 TOTAL POI NTS (Total of above 2 lines) 260 1 17 1 0 8 1 37 1 28 Site Selected: Date Of Selection Was A Local Site Assessment Yes ❑ Used? No ❑ Reason For Selection A-3 Instructions on reverse side) Form AD -1006 110-83) U.S. Department of Agriculture FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING PART I (To be completed by Federal Agency) site _ Date Of Land Evaluation Request Octaher 15, 1996 Site Name of Project A—AD-6 (1) SADDLE ROAD U� Fe era 3qenc'�'e Involved )�V'P era! Highway Administratio Proposed Land Use HIGHWAY 55-3.2 te Counwali ty And S6ounty, Hawaii k a 0 PART 11 (To be completed bV'SCS) - 0 _ .. Date Request Received By SCS zo Does the site contain prime, unique, statewide or local important farmland? Yes No Acres Irrigat - AtArage Farm Size - Of no, the FPPA does no[ apply —do not complete additional parts of this form). - ❑ /z - _ '.e �•'' ; ': Major Crops) Farmable Land In Govt. Jurisdiction Amo nt Of Farmland As Defined in FPPA rr eOJ i�G ." ems. Acres: ,2 7 ' %PZ7 % Z c� Acres: D00,,, %- ZZ .. Name of L—and aluation Syste Used - Name Of Local Si Asseument System Date Land Evaluat n Returned By SCS C:--- Percentage Of Farmfa6d In County Or Local Govt. Unit To Be Converted O. — — PART III (To be completed by Federal Agency) site _ Site _ Site —g Site A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly 576.7 457.4 550.7 55-3.2 B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly 0 2. Perimeter In Nonurban Use 0 0 C. Total Acres In Site 576.7 457.4 3. Percent Of Site Being Farmed 20 PART IV (To becompletedby'$CS) Land Evaluation Information - 1 - _ '.e �•'' ; ': '"``% ,.,A:. Total Acres Prima -And Unique Farmland B. Total Acres Statewide And Local Important Farmland - E /'ZZ , -/7* 6 '15Y,' C:--- Percentage Of Farmfa6d In County Or Local Govt. Unit To Be Converted O. — — — iD. Percentage Of Farmland In Govt. Jurisdiction With Same Or Higher Relative Value - 7. Size Of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average PART V (To be completed bi SCS) Land Evaluation Criterion. ••-RelativeValueOfFarmlandToBeConverted (Scale of0to)OOPoints) S9 �� °'SS 25 W PART VI (To be completed by Federal Agency) Site Assessment Criteria (These crireria are explained in 7 CFR 658.51b) Maximum Points 1. Area In Nonurban Use 15 15 15 15 15 2. Perimeter In Nonurban Use 10 10 10 10 10 3. Percent Of Site Being Farmed 20 1 1 4. Protection Provided By State And Local Government 2 0 5, Distance From Urban Builtup Area — — — — — 6. Distance To Urban Support Services — — — — 7. Size Of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average 8. Creation Of Nonfarmable Farmland 25 4 0 9. Availability Of Farm Support Services 10. - n-FArm Investmerits 20 20 20 20 20 11. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services 2 12. Compatibility With Existing Agricultural Use TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS 160 66 61 61 60 PART VII (To be completed by Federal Agency) Relative Value Of Farmland (From Part V) 100 59 60 55 56 Total Site Assessment (From Part V1 above or a local site assessment! 760 66 61 61 6_0 TOTAL POINTS (Total of above 2lines) 260 125 121 1 1 6 1 1 6 Site Selected: Date Of Selection Was A Local Site Assessment Used? Yes ❑ No ❑ Reason For Selection: "WE \ .See lnstruc tions on reverse side) Form AD -1006 110-611 U.S. Department of Agriculture FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING PART I (To be completed by Federal Agency) Protection Provided By State And Local Government Date Of Land Evaluation Request - Name Of Project A -AD -6(1) SADDLE ROAD Federal A ency Invol ed US DaOT Feleral Highway Administrati Proposed Land Use HIGHWAY - 0 I d-` - County And State Hawaii County, Hawaii PART I I (To be completed by SCS) - Date Request Received By SCS 1,012-31974 O 2-3 Does the site contain prime, unique, statewide or local important farmland? Yes No Acres Irrigated Aver6ge Farm Size (if no, the FPPA does not apply - do not complete additional parts of this form). ❑ 17- $ 99 J3 - - - . Major Crop(s) - Farmable Land In Govt. Jurisdiction Amount Of Farmland As Defined in FPPA �," a� Acres: Yo 2 8 Acres: 6 0 % 2 Z Name Of Land Eva anon System Use - - Name Of Local Si Assessment System Date Land Evalua n Returned By SCS . sox& 6V !fl" 1-iff3A Alch a /9(6 PART III (To be completed by Federal Agency) Site Sue siva _ site A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly 570.2 450 B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly C. Total Acres In Site 570.2 450.9 544.2 546.7 PART IV (Tobe completedby.,SCS) Land Evaluation InformationA- Protection Provided By State And Local Government 20 'Total Acres Prime And. Unique Farmland ' - Distance From Urban Builtup'Area - - 0 I d-` - - B. -Total Acres Statewide And Local Important Farmland Distance To Urban Support Services - Q, C. Percentage Of Farmland In County Or Local Govt. Unit To Be Converted 0, 0/,9L ocn dl9. O(A2,olo - D.a Percentage Of Farmland In Govt. Jurisdiction With Same Or Higher Relative Value Creation Of Nonfarmable Farmland 25 1O - PART V (To be completed by SCS) Land Evaluation Criterion ." Relative Value Of Farmland To Be Converted (Scale of0to100Po%ntS) 6 % ,S'% - *6`16 PART VI (To be completed by Federal Agency) Maximum, Site Assessment Criteria (These criteria are explained in 7 CFR 658.5(6 Paints On -Farm Investments 20 20 20 220 1. Area In Nonurban Use 15 15 15 1 5 1 2. Perimeter In Nonurban Use 10 10 10 1 0 1 3. Percent Of Site Being Farmed 20 Date Of Selection 4. Protection Provided By State And Local Government 20 5. Distance From Urban Builtup'Area - - - - - 6. Distance To Urban Support Services - - - - - 7. Size Of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average 10 1 0 1 0- 1 0 1 0 8. Creation Of Nonfarmable Farmland 25 4 9. Availability Of Farm Support Services 5 5 5 10. On -Farm Investments 20 20 20 220 12. Compatibility With Existing Agricultural use TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS 160 65 60 60 60 PART VII (To be completed by Federal Agency) Relative Value Of Farmland (From Part V) 100 57 57 46 46 Total Site Assessment (From Part Vl above or a local site assessment/ 160 65 60 60 60 TOTAL POINTS (Total of above 2lines) 260 122 1 1 17 1 0 6 1 0 6 Site Selected: Date Of Selection Was A Local Site Assessment Used? I Yes ❑ No ❑ Reason For Selection A-5 Instructions on reverse side) Form AD -1006 (10-83) APPENDIX B PLANT AND ARTHROPOD SPECIES LISTS Vascular Plants Detected or Expected to Occur Within the Vicinity of the Project Area Common Name Scientific Name d ah' i, d ah' i ku makani Dodonaea viscosa ae Polvpodium pellucidum aheahea Chenopodium murale, Chenopodium oahuense ' ahu' awa Mariscus phleoides ' wakanene Coprosma ernodeoides ' akala Rubus hawaiensis, Rubus macraei . skis Wikstroemia phillyreifolia, f0ks[roemia sandwicensis, Wikstroemta uva-ursi ' akoko, koko, ' ekoko, kokomalei Chamaesyce olowaluana ' akolea Athyrium microphyllum ' akolea Pleopeltis thunbergiana ' aku Cyanea tritomantha ' aku' aku Cyanea platyphylla ' ala' ala wai nui Peperomia cookiana, Peperomia leptostachya, Peperomia hypoleuca, Peperomia, macraeana, Peperomia tetraphylla ' alapapa Medicago sativa ' ams' u Sadleria eyatheoides, .Sadleria pallida, Sadleria ,solevetiano ' amd umd u Sadleria cyatheoides ' anunu Sicyos anunu awapuhi Zingiber zen+mbet 'aweoweo Chenopodium oahuense 'ekaha Pleopeltis thunbergiana ' ens' ena Gnaphalium sandwicensium ' eukalikia Eucalyptus spp. To nui Dryopteris wallichiana 'ie ie Freycinetia arborea ihi Portulaca scleroscarpa, Portulaca oleracea ihi,'ihi 'ai Oxalis cormiculata iliahi Santah+m paniculatum 'ilihia Cyrtandra platyphylla ' ilima Sida fallaz ' iniko Indigofera suffruticosa 'iwa' iwa a kane Asplentum rhipidoneuron 'iwa'iwa, iwaiwi Asplenium spp. ' iwa' iwa Asplenium adiantum-nigmm iwa' iwa Adianium raddianum iwa' iwa Doryopteris decipiens Bali, 'owali Pteris cretiea 'oali i,'owah i Asplenium trichomanes FIN Vascular Plants Detected or Expected to Occur Within the Vicinity of the Project Area Common Name Scientific Name oha wai Clermontia mantis-loa, Clermontia parviflora, Clermontia peleana oha kepau Clermontia hawanensis ' ohe Isachne distichophvlla 'ohelo Vaccinium reticulautm, Vaccinium dentatum ' ohelo 1a' au Vaccinium calyscinum ' ohelo ' ai 6 actinium reticulatum ohi' a, ' ohi a lehua Metrosideros polymotpha oka kilika Grevillea robusta bkole bi'oi Tagetes minuta oliwa Olea europaea olopa Cheirodendron trhomum ' uhaloa Waltheria indica 'uki Macherina angustifolia, hlacherina rnariscoides ulei, u' ulei Osteomeles anthvllidifolia abutilon, hairy abutilon, sweet hairy abutilon Abutdon grandifolium adenophorus Adenophorussarmentosus African tulip Spathodea eampanulata African dropseed Sporobolus africanus akulikuli kula Portulaca oleracea alani Pelea clusiifolia, Pelea voleanica albizia Paraserianthes falcateria alexandra palm Archontophoenix alexandrae alfalfa Medicago sativa alfiliaria Erodium cicutanum allseed Polyearpon tetraphyllum amaranth, spiny amaranth Amaranthus spinosus amaranth, slender amaranth Aniaranthus viridis American carrot Daucus pusillus angiopteris Angiopteris evecta anini Eurya sandwicensis apple of Peru Nicandra physalodes apple of Sodom Solanum linnaeanum apple Malus sylvestris aristea Aristea gerrardii, Aristida adscen.sionis arthrostema Arihrostema ciliamm Austrailian toon Toona ciliolata Australian maidenhair Adiantum hispidulum Australian saltbush Atri lex semibaceata M Vascular Plants Detected or Expected to Occur Within the Vicinity of the Project Area Common Name Scientific Name Australian bluestem Dichanthium sericeum autograph tree Clusia rosea avocado Pei -sea americana bamboo orchid Arundina graminifolia banyan Ficus microcarpa barbwire grass Cymhopogon refractus barley Hordeum leporinum beakrush Rhynchospora caduca beardgrass Schizachyrium condentatum bedstraw Galium divaricatum beggar's tick Glycine wightii Bermuda grass Cynodon dacrylon bidens Bidens alba bitter herb Centaurium erythraea black mustard Brassica nigra black medick Medicago lupulin blackberry Rubus argutus blechnum Blechnum occidentale blue flax Linum bienne blue vervain Stachytarpheta urticifolia bluegrass, annual bluegrass Poo annua boerhavia Boerhavia coccinea brome, bromegrass Bromus spp. brome Bromus tectorum brome fescue Vulpia bromoides broomsedge Andropogon virginicus buffel grass Cenchms ciliaris bull thistle Cirsium vulgare bur clover Medicago polymorpha buttonweed Spermacoce assurgens, Richardia brariliensis California grass Brachiaria mutica California Christmas berry Heteromeles arbutfolia Canadian bluegrass Poo compressa Cape goosebery Physalis peruviana carex Carex inversa, Carex wahuensis castor bean Ricinus communis chamaesyce Chamaesvee hyssopifolia cheese weed Malva parvi lora chenopodium Cheno odium carinatum, Cheno odium '—Jnum rM Vascular Plants Detected or Expected to Occur Within the Vicinity of the Project Area Common Name Scientific Name Childing pink Petrorhagia vehrtina Christmas berry Sehinus terebinthifolius clover, Alsike clover Trifolium spp. cocklebur Xanthium strumarium cock's foot, cocksfoot Dactylis glomerata coffeeberry Rhamnus californica Colombian cuphea Cuphea carthagenensis comb hyptis Hyptis pectinate common check -weed Stellaria media common mouse -ear chickweed Cerastium fontanum common horehound, white horehound Mamtbium vulgare common vetch, spring vetch Vicia sativa cork oak Quercus rubra corn speedwell Veronica arvensis Coulter pine Pinus couheri cow pea Macroptilium latyroides cranesbill Geranium homeanum crassocephalum Crassocephalum crepidioide.s erassula Crossula sieberiana creeping modiola Modiola carolimana Cretan brake Pteris cretica Cuba jute Sida rhombifolia cudweed, purple cudweed Gnaphalium purpureum cypress, Arizona cypress Cupressus arizontca cypress, Monterey cypress Cupressus macrocarpa Dallis grass Paspalum dilatation dandelion, common dandelion Taraxacum officinale date palm Phoenix sp. Deptford pink Dianthus armeria deschampsia Deschampsia nubigena desmodium Desmodium intortum dissotis Dissotis routndifolia dog tail Buddleia astatica dubautia Dubautia linearis dwarf nettle, burning nettle, dog nettle Urtica urens dwarf filmy fern Gonocormus minutus ekaha Elaphoglossum hirtum, Elaphoglossum reticulation, Elaphoglossum wawrae ekoa Leucaenaleucoce holo ME Vascular Plants Detected or Expected to Occur Within the Vicinity of the Project Area Common Name Scientific Name elephant's foot Elephantopus mollis emex Emex spinosa eragrostis Eragrostis af. pilosa, Eragrostis leptophylla European strawberry Fragaria vesca European centaury Centaurium erythracea evening primrose Oenothera stricia everlasting Gnaphaltum japonicum false heather Cuphea hyssopifolia false ' ilima Sida rhombifolia false mallow Malvastrum coromandelianum fennel Foeniculum vulgare field madder Sherardia arvensis field mustard Brassica raga filmy fern Sphaeroconium obtusum filmy fern Mecodium recumum firebush Tibochina herbacea firethom Pyracantha angustifolia flat rush Juncus planifolius Florida beggarweed Desmodium tortuosum foetid chamomile Awhemis torula fountain grass Pennisetum seraceum ftirLe Ulex europaeus fuzzy top Bothriochloa barbinodis gahnia Gahma gahniformis galinsoga Galinsoga parviora geranium Geranium dissectum, Geranium homeamtm, Geranium retrorsum German ivy, Italian ivy Senecio mikanioides Glenwood grass Sacciolepis indica globe beakrush Rhynchospora globularis glorybush Melastoma candidum glossy nightshade Solanum americanum goat head Tribulus terrestris gold fern Pityrogramma chrysophylla golden crown -beard Verbesina encelioides goose grass Eleucine indica goosefoot Chenopodium album gorse Ulex europaeus gosmore Hypochoeris radicata eat mullein Ferbascum tha sus RM Vascular Plants Detected or Expected to Occur Within the Vicinity of the Project Area Common Name Scientific Name green paniegrass Panicum maximum groundsel .Senicio vulgaris guava Psidium guayava Guinea grass Panicum maximum gum Vee Eucalyptus spp. gunpowder Vee Trema orientalis ha' iwale Cyrtandra hawaiensis ha'uoi Verbena litoralis haha Cyanea degneriana, Cvanea pilosa hahala Cyrtandra paludosa hairy cat's ear Hypochoeris radicata hairy oatgrass Danthonia pilosa hairy horseweed Conyza bonariensis hairy vetch Vicia villosa hairy spurge, garden spurge Chamaesyce hirta hapu' u ' i' i Cibotium chamissoi hapu' u Cibotium glaucum hard -stemmed lovegrass Eragrostis atropioides hawkweed Picris hieracioides hawk's beard Crepis capillaris hawk's beard Poungia japonica, Crepis capilharts he' upueo Trisetum glomeratum he'upueo Agrostis avenacea hedge mustard Sisymbrium officinale Henry's crabgrass Digitaria ciliaris hesperocnide Hesperoenide sandwicensis hi' aloa Waltheria indica hilahila Alimosa pudica Hilo grass Paspalum conjugation Hilo holly Ardisia crenata Himalayan raspberry Rubus ellipticus hinahina Geranium euneatum ho' awa Pitiosporum confertii locum, Pittosporum hawaiiense hti i' o Athyrium sandwichianum hot kuahiwi Smilax melastomifolia honohono Commelina diffusa honohono Oplismenus hirtellus horseweed Conyza canadensis hulumoa Korthalsella latissima L.M. Vascular Plants Detected or Expected to Occur Within the Vicinity of the Project Area Common Name Scientific Name hybrid na' ena' a Duhautia ciliolata X Dubautia scabra ihoha Conyza bonariensis impatiens Impatiens wallerana Indian paintbrush Castilleja arvensis indigo Indigofera suffruticosa ironwood Casuarina equisetifolia itchy crabgrass Digitaria setigera Japanese mat -rush Juncus effusus Japanese anemone Anemone hupehensis Jerusalem cherry Solanum psudocapsicum Jimson weed Datura stramonium Job's tears Coix lachryma jobi juncus Juncus tennis ka' ape' ape Cvrtomium falcatum ka' apeha Ricinus communis ka' imi Desmodium incanum kahili ginger Hedychium gardnerianum kalamoho, kalamoho lau h' i Pellaea temifolia kaliko Euphorbia heterophylla kamakahala Labordia hedyosmifolia kamole Ludwigia octovalis kamole Polygonum capitatum, Polygonum glabnan kanakaloa K auiieria indica kanawao Broussasia arguta kawa' u Ilex anomala Kentucky bluegrass Poa pratensis ki nehe, ki Bidens pilosa kikania Xanthium strumarium kikawaio Cyclosorus cyatheoides kikuyu grass Pennisetum elandestinum kilau, kilau pueo Pteridium aquilinum kili'o'opu Kyllinga brevifolia, Kyllinga nemoralis kio' ele Hedywis centranthoides kiponapona Phyllostegia racemosa knotweed Polygonum glabrum, Polygonum capitatum ko' oko' olau Bidens menziesit ssp. filifonnis koa Acacia koa koa haole Leucaena leucocephala koah, koali ' awa, koah ' awahia Ipomoea indica M. Vascular Plants Detected or Expected to Occur Within the Vicinity of the Project Area Common Name Scientific Name koko kahiki Chamaesvee hirta kolea lau li' i Mvrsine sandwicensis kolea Myrsine lanaiensis, Myrsine lessertiana koli„ Ricinus communis koh' i Trematolobelia grandifolia kopiko P.sychotria hawaiiensis Koster's curse Clidemia hirta kukae none, kukaenene Coprosma ernodioides kukaepua ' a Digitaria ciliaris kukapua' a Digitaria setigera kumuniu Doryoptens decipiens kuolohia Rhynchospora chinensis la' au hano Datura stramonium lani wela Conyza candensis lantana, lakana Lantana Camara lau-kaki Pellaea ternifolia laua'e haole Phlebodium aureum lana' a Microsorium scolopendria laukahi Dryopteris wallichiana laukahi kuahiwi Plantago hawaiensis lauki Chamaecrista nictitans laulele Taraxum officinale lepelepe a moa Selaginella arbuscula lepidium Lepidium densis lorum, Lepidium africanum, Lepidium bonariense leponene Coprosma ernodeoides lililehua .Salvia coccinea 10, Ulu Coniogramme pilosa London rocket Sisymbrium irio loulu Pritchardia beccariana lovegrass Eragrostis tenella lucerne Medicago sativa luzula Luzula hawaiiensis Lyon's grass Themeda villosa ma o Abuttlon grandifolhan ma' ohi' ohi Slenogyne mierophylla mahinalua Grammitis tenella maidenhair fern Adiantum raddiamtm maiele .*phelia lameiamelae maile hohono Ageratum houstonianum �3 Vascular Plants Detected or Expected to Occur Within the Vicinity of the Project Area Common Name Scientific Name maile Alyxta oliviformis makeke Brassica nigra makole Nertera granadensis mamaki Piptums albidus mamane Sophora chtysophylla mango Mangifera indica manienie Cynodon dacrylon manienie ali' i Eleusine indica manono Hedyotis terminalis mariscus Mariscus hillebrandii marsh purslane ludwigia palustris mauu lei Chloris barbata mau' u laiki Pmpalum scrobiculatum mau' u la' ili Sisyrinchium acre mau' u' aki' aki Fimbristylis dichotoma mau' u pu' uka Pvcreus polystacyos Mayweed Anthemis cotula mehamehame Antidesma plaryphyllum melilows Melilotus indica melochia Melochia umbellate meu Cibotium hawaiense Mexican tea Chenopodium ambrosioides Mexican elder Sambucus mexicana milfoil Achillea millifolium milkwort Polygala paniculaw moa, moa nahele Psilotum nudum modiola Modiola carolinianum mohihi Stenogyne calaminthoides mokihana kukae moa Pelea hawaiensis molasses grass Melinus minutifolia Monterey pine Pinus radiata mountain pili Panicum tenutfolium mountain pili Trisetum glomeratum mugwort Artemisia vulgaris na'ena'e Dubautia scabra, Dubantia ciholata, Dubaulia linearis naio Myopomm sandwicense Napa thistle Centaurea melitensis narrow -leaved carpetgass Axonopus fissifolius Natal redto , Natal grass Rh nehel tram re ens M Vascular Plants Detected or Expected to Occur Within the Vicinity of the Project Area Common Name Scientific Name naule Argemone glauca naupaka kuahiwi Scaevola chamissoniana needlegrass .Stipa cernua neneleau Rhus sandwicensis ni'ani au Nephrolepis exaltata ninika Lythrum maritimum nohoanu Geranium cuneatum nonesuch Medicago lupulina Norfolk Island pine Araucaria heterophylla nun's -hood Phaius tankarvilleae nutgrass Bulbostylis capillaris, Cypems halpan oak fern Dryopteris dentata octopus tree Schefflera actinophylla ohe mauka Tetraplasandra oahuensis Ola' a beauty Torenia asiatica olive Olea europaea olomea Perrottetia sandwicensis olona Touchardia latifolia orange ginger Hedychium greenei oreobolis Oreohohrs fureatus oxyspora Qryspora paniculata pa' aila Ricinus communis pa' ihi Nasturtium sarmentosum pa' iniu Astelia menziesiona Paco fem Athyrium esculentum pay a Pteridium aquilinum pai' f iha Christella dentata paina Casuarina equisetifolia pakahakaha Pleopeltis thunbergiana pakai kuku Amaranthus spinosus pakai Amaranthus viridis pala Mmnttia douglasn pals' a Sphenomeris ehusana palapalai Microlepia strigosa palapalai a kamapud a Amauropelta globullfera palm grass Setaria palmifolia pamakani, Hamakua pamakani Ageratma riparia panicum Panicum pellimm anini, papipi O uncia mus -indica [an Vascular Plants Detected or Expected to Occur Within the Vicinity of the Project Area Common Name Scientific Name paperback Melaleuca quinquenervia partridge pea Chamaecrista nictitans paspalum Paspalum notatum pawale Rumex skortsbergii, Rumex giganteus pennywort Hydrocotyle bowlesioides pepperwort, peppergrass Lepidium virginicum perennial veldtgrass F_hrharta calvcina perennial ryegrass Lolium perenne petty spurge Euphorbia peplus Philippine ground orchid Spathoglottis plicates photinia Heteromeles arbutifolia pi'ipi'i lau manamana Asplenium lobulatum pigweed Pormlaca oleracea pigweed Chenopodium album pikakani Crotalaria pallida pilau maile Paederia seandens pili, pili grass Heteropogon contortus pili uka 1'risetum glomeratum pili ' uka Deschampsia nubigena Pilo Coprosma montana, Coprosma ochracea pin clover Erodium cicutarium pipi Psilotum complanatum pipili Drymaria cordata pipiwai Eleochans obtusa pitted beardgrass Bothriochloa pertusa plantain Plantago lanceolate, Plantago major plantain, narrow -leaved plantain, English plantain Plantago lanceolate pluchea Pluchea carohnensis plushgrass Chloris radials poha, poha berry Physalis pemviana pohe kula Centella asialica polycarpon Polyearpon tetraphyllum polygonum Polygonum capitatum popolo Solanum americanum, Solanum nigreseens popolo kikania Solanum linnaeanum portulaca Portulaca pilosa prickly sida Sida spinosa prickly lettuce Lactuca serriola B-11 Vascular Plants Detected or Expected to Occur Within the Vicinity of the Project Area Common Name Scientific Name pteris Pteris vitiata Ina tele Crassocephalum crepidioides Ina pilipili Desmodium uncinatum pua kala Cirsium vulgare pua pake Chrysanthemum leucanthemum pua kala, kala Argemone glauca pua lele Erectites valerianifolia pua hoku Hippobroma longiora pua pilipili Desmodium sandwicense pualele Emilia fosbergii pualele Sonchus oleraceus puapua moa Ophioderma falcatum pukamole Lythrum maritimum pukiawe Styphelia tameiametae puncture vine Tribulus terrestris rabbit -foot clover Trifolium arvense radiate fingergrass Chloris radiata ragweed, false ragweed Parthenium hysterophonts rat tail fescue Vulpia myuros rattail grass Sporobolus africanus rattail Sporobolus indicu.s rattlepod, fuzzy rattlepod, smooth rattlepod Crotalaria spp. red fescue Festuca rubra red clover Trifolium pratense reichardia Reichardia tingitana rescue grass Bromus willdenown ricegrass Paspalum scrobiculatum ripgut grass Bromus rigidus rose apple Syzygium jambos rue Ruta graveolens Russian thistle Salsola kali Safford's fern Polypodium saffordit saltbush Atriplex suberecta sambucus Sambucus spp. sandalwood Santalum paniculatum Santa Maria Parthenium hysterophoms scarlet sage, Texas sage Salvia coccinea scarlet pimpernel Anagallis arvensis scarlet pimpernel Arenarla ser 111 oda B-12 Vascular Plants Detected or Expected to Occur Within the Vicinity of the Project Area Common Name Scientific Name sedge, bog sedge Carex alligata Senecio Senecio madagascariensis sheepgrass Eragrostis brownei shepard's purse Capsella bursa pastoris sicyos Sicyos spp. Silene Silene hawaiiensis silk oak, silver oak Grevillea robusta silver fern Pityrogramma calomelanoa small -flowered catchfly Silene gallica small bur clover Medicago minima smooth rattlepod Crotalaria pallida smooth cat's ear Hypochoeris glabra smutgrass Sporobolus africanus, Sporobolus indicus soap grass Cymbopogon refractus solanum Solanum nigrescens sorrel, sheep sorrell Rumex acetosella sourbush Pluchea carolinensis, Pluchea symphytifolia sowthistle Sonchus oleraceus Spanish needle Bidens pilosa Spanish clover, chili clover Desmodium sandwicense speedwell Veronica spp. spiny sowthistle Sonchus asper spleenwort Asplenium contiguum, Asplenium monanihes, Asplenium trichomanes spurge, garden spurge, prostrate spurge Chamaesyce spp. spurwort Sherardia arvensis St. John's wort Hypericum mutilum slenogyne Stenogyne microphylla stinkgrass Eragrostis cilianensis stinking everlasting Helichrysum foetidum stinkweed Tagetes minuta stitchwort Stellaria media sugarcane Saccharum officinarum swamp mahogmy Eucalyptus robusta swinecress Coronopus didymus swollen 6ngergrass Chloris barbata sword fem Nephrolepis cordtfolia, Nephrolepis hirsutula Sydney blue gum Eucalyptus saligna tarweed Cuphea carthagenensis telegraph plant, telegraph weed Heterotheca grandiflora B-13 Vascular Plants Detected or Expected to Occur Within the Vicinity of the Project Area Common Name Scientific Name tetramolopium Tetranzolopium humile thimbleberry Rubus rosifolius thyme -leaved speedwell. thyme speedwell 1 eronica serpyllifolia thyme -leaved sandwori Arenaria serpyllifoila it Cordyline fruncosa tick clover Desmodium tris forum trefoil Lotus subbii loins tritonia Crocosmia x crocosmimiifoha tsugi, Sugi pine Cryptomeria japonica tumble mustard Sisvmbrium altissimum tumbleweed Salsola kali uhauhako Rumex giganteus uluhe Sticheris owhyhensis uluhe Dieranopteris ltnearis uluhe lau loa Hicriopterts pinnata uncinia Uncinia uncinata vasey grass Paspalum urvillei velvet grass Holcus lanatus Venus's looking glass Triodanis bii lora vernalgrass, sweet vernalgrass Anthoxanthum odoratum violet crabgrass Digitaria violescens virgate mullein, wand mullein Verbascum virgatum wahini nobo mauka Adenophoms tamariscinu.s wahlenbergia Wahlenbergia gracilis waiawi Psidium cattleianum Wainaku grass Panicum repens wawae'iole Lycopodium cernuum, Lycopoditan phyllanthym, Lycopodium venustulum weed verbena Verbena litorolis West Indian dropseed Sporobolus indicus whin Ulex europaeus white sweet clover Mehlotus alba white ginger Hedychium coronarium white clover Trifolium repens wild bean Maeroptilium latyroides wild radish Raphanus sativus wild rose iris Sisyrinchium rosulatum wild oats Avena fatua wilelaiki Schinus terebinthi oliur C Vascular Plants Detected or Expected to Occur Within the Vicinity of the Project Area Common Name Scientific Name willow herb Epilobium billardierianum, epilobium ciliatum wiregrass F.leusine indica wood groudsel Senecio sylvaticus wood rush Luzula hawanensts wood -fern Christella parasitica, Christella dentata woolly mullein, common mullein Verbascum thapsus wormseed Chenopodium ambrosioides yarrow, common _yarrow Achillea millifolium yellow bluestem Andropogon virginicus yellow star thistle Centaurea melitensis yellow ginger Hedychium flavescens yellow -eyed grass h-yris platylepis yellow foxtail Setaria gracilis yellow wood sorrel Oxalis comiculata Insects and Related Arthropods Collected Within the Vicinity of the Project Area B-15 Taxon Status ACARI Mites Ctenacants sp- unknown Damaeus sp. unknown Eustigmaeus segnis group unknown Foveacheles sp. unknown Neophyllobius sp. unknown Raphignathus n. sp. unknown Spinibdella thori unknown Tydeus sp. unknown ARANEAE (Spiders) Araneidae Gasteracaniha mammosa adventive Linyphiidae Erigone cf stygius endemic Lycosidae Lycosa sp. endemic Theridiidae Achaearanea tepidariornm adventive CHILOPODA (Centipedes) Lithobiidae Lithobius sp. endemic DIPLOPODA (Millipedes) Cambalidae Natmolene sp. endemic Paradoxosomatidae Oxidus gracifis adventive INSECTA Insects COLLEMBOLA: S rin ails B-15 Insects and Related Arthropods Collected Within the Vicinity of the Project Area C Taxon Status ACARI Mites Ctenocams sp. unknown Damaeus sp. unknown Eustigmaeus segnis group unknown Foveaeheles sp. unknown Neophyllobiu.s sp. unknown Raphignathus n. sp. unknown Spinibdella thori unknown Tydeus s . unknown ARANEAE (Spiders) Araneidae Gasteracantha mammosa adventive Linyphiidae Engone cf stygius endemic Lycosidae Lycosa sp. endemic Theridiidae Achaearanea to idariontm adventive CHILOPODA (Centipedes) Lithobiidae Lithobius s - endemic DIPLOPODA (Millipedes) Cambalidae Vannolene sp. endemic Paradoxosomatidae Oxidus gracifis adventive INSECTA Insects COLLEMBOLA: S rin tails Entomobryidae unknown unknown Hypogastrundae :Veanura hawaiiensis endemic Isotornidae unknown unknown ODONATA: Dragonflies & Damselflies Coena onidae (Damselflies) Me ala rion amaurod tum peles endemic ORTHOPTERA: Grasshoppers, Katydids & Crickets Acrididae (Grasshoppers) Oedaleus abru tus adventive Gryllidae (Crickets) Leptogryllus sp. endemic Tri onidomorpha sjostedti adventive Tetti oniidae (Katydids) Conoce halus saltator adventive I>ETEROPTERA: True Bugs Lygaeidae (Seed Bugs) Geoeoris punctipes adventive Nysius coenosulus endemic :Nysius sp. 1 endemic :Mysius sp. 2 endemic Nysius sp. 3 endemic Nysius sp. 4 endemic Nysius sp. 5 endemic Nysius sp. 6 endemic Nysius sp. 7 endemic Nvsius sp. 8 endemic C Insects and Related Arthropods Collected Within the Vicinity of the Project Area B-17 Taxon Status Miridae (Plant Bugs) OrthoNlus sp. 1 endemic Orthotvlus sp. 2 endemic Opuna .sharpiamts endemic Rhinacloa forlicomis adventive Nabidae Alabis ca siformis adventive Pentatomidae Coleotichus blackburniae endemic Nezara viridula adventive Th ansa custator accerra adventive HOMOPTERA: Leafhoppers and Planthoppers A hididae Rho alosi honinus lalysiphon adventive Cicadellidae (Leafhoppers) Balcluiha incisa hospes adventive Balchaha sp. endemic? Carneocephala sagittifera adventive Deltocephalus sonoms adventive Neso hrosyne pluvialis endemic Flatidae (Flatid lantho ers) Si Nanta acuta adventive COLEOPTERA: Beetles A I c deridae Proterhinus sp. endemic Anobiidae Holcobius sp. endemic Ozo nathus sp. adventive A ionidae Pera ion anti uum imported Bruchidae Al arobius bottimeri adventive Carabidae Gnathaphanu.s sp. adventive? Aleayclothorax sp. endemic Priston chus com lanatus adventive Cerambycidae (Long -homed beetles) Plagithmvsus blackburni endemic Plagithmysus filipes sophorae endemic Plagithmvsus looki endemic Chrvsomefidac Diachus auratus adventive Coccinellidae (Lady -bird beetles) Cryptolaemus montrouzieri imported Diomus notescens imported Hippodamia convergens imported Hyperaspis fimbriolata imported Nephus bilucernarius imported Rhyzobius forestieri imported Rhyzobiuslophanthae imported Scymnus loewii imported Curculionidae (Weevils) Asynonyehus godmanni adventive Hypera postica adventive Otiorhynchus eribricollis adventive Sva rius fulvitarsus adventive Dvtiscidae Rhanius binotatus? adventive' Elateridae (Click beetles) Conodems exsul adventive Staphylinidae (Rove beetles) Liophaena graciu es endemic B-17 Insects and Related Arthropods Collected Within the Vicinity of the Project Area MM Taxon Status Tenebrionidae (Darkling beetles) Blapstinus dilatatus adventive Gonocephalum bilineantm? adventive Lobometo on direm tus adventive LEPIDOPTERA: Butterflies and Moths Cosmo teri idae Hyposmocoma spp. endemic Crambidae Hellula undalis adventive Hestolobes or. minuscule endemic Orthomecyna ?n. sp. endemic Tamsica cf hyacinthina endemic Noctuidae Schrankia sp. l endemic Schrankia sp. 2 endemic Oecophoridae Stoeberhinustestaceus adventive Thvroco a sp. endemic Pieridae Pteris res ae adventive Tortticidae Cryptophlebta illepida adventive DIPTERA: Flies Agromyzidae Calycomyza humerahs adventive Liriomyza sativae adventive Helanagromyza? sp. adventive O hiom is lantanae imported Anthom iidae Delia platura adventive Asteiidae Asteia mons omervi? endemic Calliphoridae Calliphora vomitoria adventive Chrysomya rufrfacies adventive Dyscritomyia sp. endemic Pollenia rudis adventive Cecidomviidae Anarete johnsont adventive unknown 1 unknown unknown 2 unknown Ceratopogonidae Forcipomvia prob. hardyi endemic Forci om is pholetor endemic Chamaemyiidae Leuco is obscures imported Chironomidae unknown unknown Chloropidae unknown unknown Honochaetoscinella anonyma adventive Dolichopodidae Campsicnemus n. sp. nr. loxothrix endemic Campsicnemus scolimerus endemic Eurvno aster sp endemic MM Insects and Related Arthropods Collected Within the Vicinity of the Project Area Taxon Status Drosophilidae Drosophila crass femur endemic Drosophila immigrans adventive Drosophila melanogastersimulans adventive Drosophila paracracens endemic Drosophila sp. 1 (cave species) endemic Drosophila sp. 2 (surface species) unknown Drosophila suzukii adventive Scaptomyza apiciguttula endemic Sca tom za nr. articulam endemic Lonchaeidae Lonchaea polita adventive Loncho teridae Loncho Cera urcata adventive Muscidae Brontaea quadri.stigma adventive Lispe metatorsalis endemic Lis oce hala sp. endemic Neriidae Telostylinus lineolatus adventive Phoridae Diplonevra peregrine adventive Megaselia sp. unknown unknown unknown Sarcophagidae Helicobia morionella adventive Ravinia lherminien adventive Scatopsidae Coboldia fuscipes adventive Scenopinidae Scenopinuslucidus adventive Toxomems mar inatus adventive Sciaridae unknown unknown Sepsidae Sepsis thoracica adventive Sphaeroceridae Leptocera sp. adventive' Poecilosomella punctipennis adventive Syrphidae Allograpta exotica adventive Allograpia obliques adventive Simosyrphus grandicornis adventive Toxomerus mar inatus adventive Tachinidae Eucelatoria armigera adventive Gonia longipulvilli adventive Lespesia archippivora imported Tricho oda pilipes adventive Tephritidae Trupanea arboreae endemic Tmpanea neoapicalis endemic Tmpanea n. sp. 1 endemic Tmpanea sp. endemic Tipulidae Limonia nigropolita endemic Limonia sp.nr.jacoha endemic Limonia sp. 1 endemic HYMENOPTERA: Wasps, Bees and Ants A helinidae unknown unknown Inepetc and Related Arthropods Collected Within the Vicinity of the Project Area -------- ----- - Taxon Status A idae A is mellifera imported Bethylidae Epyris sp. not extraneus unknown Parasterola sp. unknown Sierola sp. endemic Braconidae Chelonus blackburni endemic? Cotesia marginiventris imported Cotesia sp. unknown unknown unknown Habrobracon hebetor adventive Meteorus laphygmae imported Chalcidae Dirhinus anthracina imported Colletidae Hylaeus (Nesoprosopi.$) sp. 1 endemic H laeus(Neso rasp is)sp. 2 endemic Diapriidae Stylaclista sp. adventive Tricho ria soror? endemic Eneyrtidae Aenasius? advena unknown Copidosoma sp. unknown Epidinocarsis caltfornicus adventive unknown unknown Ooencyrtus sp. unknown Eucoilidae Ganaspidium utilis imported unknown unknown Pseudeucoila cf oreias unknown Eulophidae Diglyphus sp. unknown Tetrastichus sp. unknown unknown unknown Formicidae Cardiocondyla sp adventive Line ithema humile adventive Halictidae Halictus Rn adventive? Ichneumonidae Anomalon californicum adventive Casinaria infesta adventive Diadegma blackburni adventive Diadegma sp. unknown Diplazon loetatornis adventive unknown unknown Pimpla punicipes adventive Pristomerus hawanensis endemic? Pristomerus spinator imported S ilichneumon su erbus imported Maridae PnI nema s unknown p7gasLeridae unknown unknown Insects and Related Arthropods Collected Within the Vicinity of the Project Area B-21 Taxon Status Pteromalidae Cyrtogaster sp unknown unknown 1 unknown unknown 2 unknown Norbanus sp. adventive? Pachvneuron sp- adventive? Pteromalus pupamm imported Scelionidae Baeus sp. unknown unknown 1 unknown unknown 2 unknown Trissolcus basalis imported Trissolcus sp. unknown Sphecidae Dryudella immigrans adventive 8ctemnius sp. 1 endemic Ectemnius sp. 2 endemic Trichogrammatidae unknown unknown Vespidae Odynems sp. endemic bes ula pensylvanica adventive ISOPODA (sowbu s) Porcellionidae Porcellio sp. adventive B-21 APPENDIX C SAND QUARRY PARCEL MAP O OK/1897 09:I8 P9] 1 NOH 329 IDON 'Oh s e,A�J ®nn6 GoVenme"+ 0 .O yri v� roo° \w� y 'AH ve wO POATJON OF THE GOYERNMENTLAND OF )-lAONE Haohe JZ H4mahua,15Jand of'Hawaii,Hawa i Scale: I inch ° 900 feet ow M-aso (ee) RK X12 MAP: 4-4-15 SURVEY DIVISION V ErnRTMCNT O/ /•. VUO TING A. W OCNU"^L SERVICES STATE OF HAWAII MT -N �ulyeawe�